Garnett vs Russell

[70sFan]

You could make an argument Russell was better on D than Kareem. I'd be partial to that argument myself. Russell would be a heck of a rim roller today.

You can't make an argument for vice versa, which is my point. If you think Kareem would be smart enough to play modern defense, then Russell would have even easier time to do that.

That doesn't logically follow at all. Kareem and Russell both played the same basic style of D in 69/70, Russell was just better at it. Russell would continue to be better at executing that basic style of D today, but that doesn't tell us how either would adapt to today's more complex defensive requirements. Unfortunately that's a problem for Russell, because he's relying on being good on D much more than Kareem to succeed today. Kareem's strength is his offense.

I feel comfortable saying Russell would be a good defender today, but saying he'd have elite bball IQ is going too far given the simplistic league he played in. Russell's skillset is just less valuable as well. He'd be a rimroller today.

You can say exactly the same things about Kareem's offense, why don't you do that?

[One_and_Done]

I don't see it that way. Feel free to debate Kareem in the Kareem thread.

[McBubbles]

The benefit of the doubt you have to give Bill Russell to improve his offence to the point this becomes a valid comparison in my opinion (in 2025) is extreme.

Bill was an underrated ball handler, he's not an underrated passer. The Celtics offences were literally amongst the worst in the league when he was being utilised as a high post hub, which I don't think is just bad luck. Cannot think of a single all star level offensive player that had such poor teammates they couldn't elevate themselves beyond dead last, and he'd have to be an all star defensively to make this a worthy comparison.

[lessthanjake]

I think a few things can all be simultaneously true:

1. Bill Russell was an incredible defender in his era, and given that he was a pretty mobile big who could defend people on the perimeter, there’s really no good reason to think he wouldn’t translate into an incredible defender in this era too.

2. Bill Russell showed he had very high basketball IQ in his own era. The fact that peoples’ understanding of the game is a lot more complex nowadays means that we can’t be *certain* that his basketball IQ would translate to today. What we do know, however, is that in a simpler era he was ahead of his time in terms of his ways of thinking about the game. That should give us a baseline assumption that he’d probably be ahead of the curve in basketball IQ today too. Human beings haven’t gotten meaningfully smarter in the meantime—they just have built on earlier generations’ knowledge and innovations. Someone who was smarter about basketball than his peers in an earlier era would probably be smarter about basketball than his peers in a later era, though we can’t be 100% certain about that.

3. While Russell would very likely be an incredible defender in this era, the impact of individual defense is almost certainly lower in this era than it was in Russell’s era—in large part because, in Russell’s era, the lack of a three, less developed skill amongst players, and some different rules made players really need to get to the rim to score at all efficiently, and also because half-court offense was very post-centric. This means that, even if Russell would be an absolutely elite defender in this era and even if he would have an elite basketball IQ in this era, his impact on defense would probably be noticeably lower than it was in his own era.

4. We have little reason to believe that Russell would be a good offensive player in this era. His offensive game was very limited in his own era. He probably would develop a little bit more skill in this era, but given his FT shooting we can assume he could not have developed a decent shot. We also don’t have any real reason to believe he could’ve developed really good handles to become a slasher (though that one strikes me as more possible). Those things would tend to make him a real offensive liability. But he does have some positives offensively. He was athletic enough to be a major lob threat. He was a very good passer, and he was a great rebounder. So, on offense, he’d likely be a rim-running big with a knack for making good passes.

How does all that fit together? Well, I think Rudy Gobert is a good place to start, but isn’t exactly the end point. I think if you take Rudy Gobert and give him more ability to defend in space and make him a good passer and a more passable ball-handler, but make his picks a bit less effective (since he’s not quite as big a body) and make him a marginally worse FT shooter, then you’d probably end up with something similar to the impact Russell would have today. On balance, I’d say that that would end up with someone who is a decent bit more impactful than Gobert in the regular season, and who is definitely less exploitable in the playoffs (because of the better defense in space). I think we then have to layer onto that Russell likely having elite leadership and other intangibles. I think the result is probably a guy who would be perennially a top 10 player in the league in impact, and would get the most out of his and his team’s talent in the playoffs. Would that make him as successful as he was in his own era? No. But he’d be really good IMO. As for the topic of the thread, I think Garnett would be more like a top 5 player in the league today, so I have him higher.

[Doctor MJ]

I think a few things can all be simultaneously true:

1. Bill Russell was an incredible defender in his era, and given that he was a pretty mobile big who could defend people on the perimeter, there’s really no good reason to think he wouldn’t translate into an incredible defender in this era too.

2. Bill Russell showed he had very high basketball IQ in his own era. The fact that peoples’ understanding of the game is a lot more complex nowadays means that we can’t be *certain* that his basketball IQ would translate to today. What we do know, however, is that in a simpler era he was ahead of his time in terms of his ways of thinking about the game. That should give us a baseline assumption that he’d probably be ahead of the curve in basketball IQ today too. Human beings haven’t gotten meaningfully smarter in the meantime—they just have built on earlier generations’ knowledge and innovations. Someone who was smarter about basketball than his peers in an earlier era would probably be smarter about basketball than his peers in a later era, though we can’t be 100% certain about that.

3. While Russell would very likely be an incredible defender in this era, the impact of individual defense is almost certainly lower in this era than it was in Russell’s era—in large part because, in Russell’s era, the lack of a three, less developed skill amongst players, and some different rules made players really need to get to the rim to score at all efficiently, and also because half-court offense was very post-centric. This means that, even if Russell would be an absolutely elite defender in this era and even if he would have an elite basketball IQ in this era, his impact on defense would probably be noticeably lower than it was in his own era.

4. We have little reason to believe that Russell would be a good offensive player in this era. His offensive game was very limited in his own era. He probably would develop a little bit more skill in this era, but given his FT shooting we can assume he could not have developed a decent shot. We also don’t have any real reason to believe he could’ve developed really good handles to become a slasher (though that one strikes me as more possible). Those things would tend to make him a real offensive liability. But he does have some positives offensively. He was athletic enough to be a major lob threat. He was a very good passer, and he was a great rebounder. So, on offense, he’d likely be a rim-running big with a knack for making good passes.

How does all that fit together? Well, I think Rudy Gobert is a good place to start, but isn’t exactly the end point. I think if you take Rudy Gobert and give him more ability to defend in space and make him a good passer and a more passable ball-handler, but make his picks a bit less effective (since he’s not quite as big a body) and make him a marginally worse FT shooter, and you’d probably end up with something similar to the impact Russell would have today. On balance, I’d say that that would end up with someone who is a decent bit more impactful than Gobert in the regular season, and who is definitely less exploitable in the playoffs (because of the better defense in space). I think we then have to layer onto that Russell likely having elite leadership and other intangibles. I think the result is probably a guy who would be perennially a top 10 player in the league in impact, and would get the most out of his and his team’s talent in the playoffs. Would that make him as successful as he was in his own era? No. But he’d be really good IMO. As for the topic of the thread, I think Garnett would be more like a top 5 player in the league today, so I have him higher.

Love your focus, and I think it gives a great starting point for further discussion.

I just want to emphasize:

This is the stuff that actually matters more so than who wins or loses a comparison.

It's understandable why those of us who end up on a board called "Player Comparisons" gravitate toward comparison and ranking, and it can serve as outstanding scaffolding for understanding the game better and better, but the comparison isn't the thing.

Basketball is.

[lessthanjake]

It occurs to me that another starting point for thinking about Bill Russell in today’s era might be Draymond, since both are great defenders who have the quickness on the perimeter to not be easily exploited and who are weak offensively outside of being good passers.

Using Draymond as a starting point, I think we improve the rim protection to an elite level, make the rebounding elite, dial down the passing just a little bit, take away even the semblance of an outside shot, make the FT shooting worse, and probably make him a bit more of a lob threat due to his greater height. Which would basically leave you with noticeably more defensive impact but probably a little worse offensive impact than Draymond had even in his worse-shooting years (though, when it comes to offense, we should keep in mind that the “make the rebounding elite” part would include offensive rebounding). I’m inclined to think Russell’s advantages compared to Draymond would outweigh his disadvantages, or perhaps that his overall impact would be similar to the very best of Draymond (i.e. 2016—a year where Draymond was enough better than Russell on offense IMO that it’d counteract the defensive superiority). Meanwhile, in terms of intangibles, obviously Draymond and Russell have very different styles, and while Draymond’s intangibles and leadership can be good, they can also be pretty disastrous, so I would think Russell would generally be preferable in that regard.

Thinking about it this way reflects pretty well on Russell’s potential impact, because Draymond has been very impactful and very successful in the last decade. I think Russell would have the potential to be a major piece in a very successful team, but obviously, like Draymond, he’d need a star alongside him that would be really impactful offensively.

Also, I think this perhaps highlights an important point, which is that, similar to Draymond, Russell would probably be most successful in today’s game if he was put in an offensive scheme that allowed him to make use of his passing and decision-making. If he were in a heliocentric system alongside a ball-dominant star, he would probably be largely relegated to being a lob threat on offense. He could do that better than Draymond, but I think you’d optimally want Russell in an offensive system where he could operate in something akin to the Draymond role on offense so that he could utilize the area of offense that he actually excelled at.

[One_and_Done]

Draymond had point guard passing skills, having actually played point guard in school. He could also hit open 3s in his prime. Pretty different player to Russell. As discussed, Russell never demonstrated anything like the defensive bball IQ that Draymond did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Draymond proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

[70sFan]

Draymond had point guard passing skills, having actually played point guard in school. He could also hit open 3s in his prime. Pretty different player to Russell. As discussed, Russell never demonstrated anything like the defensive bball IQ that Draymond did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Draymond proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

Kareem never demonstrated anything like the offensive bball IQ that Jokic did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Jokic proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

Yet you pick Kareem over Jokic comfortably, even when you assumed that you are not sure about Kareem's defensive translation.

[One_and_Done]

Draymond had point guard passing skills, having actually played point guard in school. He could also hit open 3s in his prime. Pretty different player to Russell. As discussed, Russell never demonstrated anything like the defensive bball IQ that Draymond did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Draymond proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

Kareem never demonstrated anything like the offensive bball IQ that Jokic did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Jokic proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

Yet you pick Kareem over Jokic comfortably, even when you assumed that you are not sure about Kareem's defensive translation.

I'm not sure about his translation in the sense I'm not sure just how good he'd be. I am sure he'd be much better on that end than Jokic though. I also didn't say it was comfortable, I said 'probably' Kareem.

[70sFan]

Draymond had point guard passing skills, having actually played point guard in school. He could also hit open 3s in his prime. Pretty different player to Russell. As discussed, Russell never demonstrated anything like the defensive bball IQ that Draymond did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Draymond proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

Kareem never demonstrated anything like the offensive bball IQ that Jokic did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Jokic proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

Yet you pick Kareem over Jokic comfortably, even when you assumed that you are not sure about Kareem's defensive translation.

I'm not sure about his translation in the sense I'm not sure just how good he'd be. I am sure he'd be much better on that end than Jokic though. I also didn't say it was comfortable, I said 'probably' Kareem.

Are you sure based on what he did against cavemen league?

How can you know he'd be good offensive player when he played in such a primitive era?

[Jaivl]

Beating a dead horse at this point...

Talking about a guy who's on the shortlist of both the greatest defensive instincts and athletic potential of all time (won't give him KG's motor, but Russell's even more athletic on short bursts, horizontally and vertically). and comparing him to freaking JaVale McGee is a very strange (to put it mildly) opinion to die on.

[One_and_Done]

Except that wasn't the comparison at all.

[lessthanjake]

Draymond had point guard passing skills, having actually played point guard in school. He could also hit open 3s in his prime. Pretty different player to Russell. As discussed, Russell never demonstrated anything like the defensive bball IQ that Draymond did, owing to the simplistic league he played in, whereas Draymond proved he might be one of the best ever at that.

I think you’ll find that my post said that we could use Draymond as a starting point but that we’d have to dial down the passing a bit and take away the semblance of an outside shot. Draymond would likely be superior in that regard. But Russell would also be a substantially superior rim protector, a far superior rebounder, and a better lob threat. The overall picture for Russell is probably better overall IMO—especially when we account for the fact that a lack of an outside shot is less of a problem for a center in this era than it is for a PF (though obviously a center is also expected to provide more rim protection and rebounding). And that’s before we get to superior leadership/intangibles.

As for “defensive bball IQ,” I’ve addressed that in a prior post too:

Spoiler:

Bill Russell showed he had very high basketball IQ in his own era. The fact that peoples’ understanding of the game is a lot more complex nowadays means that we can’t be *certain* that his basketball IQ would translate to today. What we do know, however, is that in a simpler era he was ahead of his time in terms of his ways of thinking about the game. That should give us a baseline assumption that he’d probably be ahead of the curve in basketball IQ today too. Human beings haven’t gotten meaningfully smarter in the meantime—they just have built on earlier generations’ knowledge and innovations. Someone who was smarter about basketball than his peers in an earlier era would probably be smarter about basketball than his peers in a later era, though we can’t be 100% certain about that.

Basically, while I think you’re right that we can’t know for sure if superior basketball IQ in an earlier era would translate to superior basketball IQ in a later era, I think it’s a good baseline assumption to make and that it definitely doesn’t make much sense to assume the opposite. At best, I think you might be able to argue that there’s at least a chance that Russell’s basketball IQ wouldn’t translate.

[Jaivl]

On a completely unrelated note, what do we think about Cooper Flagg? Amen Thompson? There's a non-zero chance that's Russell's role on the current era.

[f4p]

It may not say that, but I do think it says he was so offensively limited that after putting him 4th in the Top 100, I think I've convinced myself he has to be behind Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan because his skillset would not allow him to surpass them (barely, maybe) in basically any era other than his own and they would almost definitely surpass him in later eras.

So are you planning to convince yourself that the next peaks project top 5 should start with SGA, Jokic, Lebron, Steph, and Giannis?

if i ever have them with hakeem/shaq/duncan, then maybe. certainly lebron/jokic are way up the peaks list.

Or is this sudden disdain for era-relativity just something you're throwing in so you can get your favorites higher

it's not a disdain. just a reality that russell is probably somewhat unique in his value being tied to his era, not because the league was strong/weak, but because the style of play has essentially rendered all other defensive contenders incapable of replicating his value, especially his value without providing any real offensive value.

the real question is what to do with magic, because i have him over hakeem/shaq/duncan, but now i'd have to move him to 4th, which just "feels" too high but would be the reality of putting russell behind the other 3.

[One_and_Done]

I think none of these guys look much like Russell. We were on the mark with the Gobert comp, albeit having some serious trade offs (and perhaps a few advantages too).

[lessthanjake]

I think none of these guys look much like Russell. We were on the mark with the Gobert comp, albeit having some serious trade offs (and perhaps a few advantages too).

The thing with the Gobert comparison is that some of the biggest differences between Gobert and Russell are that Russell is a much better passer, is much better at defending in space, and is a much more competent ball-handler. And those are areas that veer things towards looking Draymond-like. I see Russell as being something of a cross between the two, to be honest (along with having better leadership/intangibles than either). And it’s a cross between the two that doesn’t quite have all the strengths of both, but is on balance better than either.

[f4p]

Nobody is saying Russell is stupid, no more than Duncan is stupid for not hitting 3s. It just isn't in his proven skillset. Similarly, for the reasons I explained in some detail, Russell never demonstrated high bball IQ by today's standards as being part of his skillset.

You can point out that isn't his fault, because coaches never tried to get him to play like that, just like Duncan's coaches never had him shoot 3s, but it amounts to the same thing. Neither player demonstrated said skill, which if you only judge guys on the skillset they had will have obvious implications for their ranking. I do judge players like that, and to some extent everyone era adjusts to a degree (otherwise Mikan would be top 5 for everyone), I'm just more consistent about it.

Time travel metaphors like a caveman inventing the wheel are wholly appropriate, because they illustrate what a comparison between Einstein and Newton does not. That at some point being 'the best' for your era is meaningless, because the era you were in was so simplistic that it's hard to reasonably picture you applying that skillset to modern times, without imagining you grow up as a completely different person who bears no resemblance to the person you originally were. That's an extreme example for a reason; it illustrates the point. As I explained, the bball IQ Russell showed, while impressive in his own era, has nothing in common with the skills and thought process of modern D. It would be like saying that the guy who was the best juggler would also be the best chess player; but chess and juggling have little in common, just as Russell's defensive game plan has little in common with today. The most inept defensive 5 in the modern game like J.McGee can execute the defense Russell was mostly using of run back in a straight line into the paint and stand in basically the same spot until you are challenged at the rim. I don't expect McGee would be as effective at it, but the execution is easy.

Unlike the caveman example, I feel confident Russell could play today, but I can't picture a guy with his skillset as a top 10 player in the league. Other people will have their own opinions/methodologies.

so i agree that we can't know that Isaac Newton could figure out general relativity just because he figured out gravity. and while basketball 60 years later is closer than physics 400 years later, we can't know that russell would have the same instincts today. certainly, i think he would know how to apply the coaching he received and still be considered "smart", but who knows if he would be just that slight tick slower to recognize something that maybe garnett would just "get", not because he listened to the coach but because his brain just perceives the modern game that much more intuitively. not because the modern game is even "better", just because it's different.

but that aside, while i would generally say "yes, russell would be able to do that", when people start saying he could ball handle and pass like draymond, i think that goes too far. draymond is like a 1 of 1 in terms of stuff like that for DPOY type guys, especially the way he can full speed sprint with the ball off a rebound and still make all the appropriate reads on the fastbreak. and even in the halfcourt, he's certainly in some very high percentile for his decision-making for defensively slanted bigs.

[lessthanjake]

but that aside, while i would generally say "yes, russell would be able to do that", when people start saying he could ball handle and pass like draymond, i think that goes too far. draymond is like a 1 of 1 in terms of stuff like that for DPOY type guys, especially the way he can full speed sprint with the ball off a rebound and still make all the appropriate reads on the fastbreak. and even in the halfcourt, he's certainly in some very high percentile for his decision-making for defensively slanted bigs.

I definitely wouldn’t characterize myself as an expert in Bill Russell, but I have actually seen footage of him doing the exact type of thing you’re referring to there. A video I just quickly found that is somewhat demonstrative of that is below. I think he could definitely sprint down the court with the ball and make reads on the break. I don’t think he quite had Draymond’s passing ability (which is why I said we’d need to dial down the passing), but I certainly think his passing and ball-handling is much closer to Draymond than it is to Gobert.

Watch on YouTube

[LukaTheGOAT]

On a completely unrelated note, what do we think about Cooper Flagg? Amen Thompson? There's a non-zero chance that's Russell's role on the current era.

Let's just say if both those guys peak offensively at the level suggested that Russell would be at in this thread, I think that would be considered a grave disappointment, especially Mr. Flagg.

I think Tatum is a decent offensive comp for Flagg. With Flagg being a #2 on O and #1 or #2 on D would satisfy me. With Russell, I see someone who is a clearly #1 on D, but not exactly sure you would even want him to be #3 offensive guy on your team with an optimistic lense. Flagg has shot pretty well this year and you would expect him to be able to space while also creating for himself efficiently off the bounce.

Read on Twitter