Would Bill Russell be the best player in the league ...

[JordansBulls]

Would Bill Russell be the best player in the league if in the league today and in his PRIME?

[penbeast0]

Assuming the skills/talents translate to the weight training/steroids era and assuming an equal amount of good fortune/luck/destiny/clutchness which he benefitted from . . . . EASILY . . . he was the team GOAT (Wilt the individual, MJ second on team list, 3rd on individual to KAJ).

[Cammo101]

He would be much smaller and less athletic now (by comparison) than he was then. He would be very good, but not the best. This is why you should not compare eras.

[penbeast0]

Without shoes he was measured at 6'9; standing next to Hakeem Olujawon at the NBA 50 greatest celebration, Russell was taller; At 6'11 with quick leaping skills, he'd basically be Dennis Rodman with a Michael Jordan like attitude (he wasn't the most likeable guy but he forced wins).

Similar analogy, Wilt played a lot like Karl Malone (fallaway jumper despite great physical strength, end to end speed) only 5 inches taller and with a mental makeup I'd compare more to Kobe (has to do it his way, focused on being considered the best, something of a chip on his shoulder).

The only real size differences are due primarily to weight traning and possibly steroids. Measurement differences in height and weight are more due to the old way of measuring (in socks) and listing people at their college weights (Walt Bellamy didn't weigh 225 pounds . . . he looked like Shaq only 3 inches shorter, less fluid, and with a bigger butt).

[Point forward]

If guys like Garnett and Camby (LOL) get DPOY, Russ would be at least the best defensive player. He would be Dennis Rodman with the mindset of Larry Bird. I would perhaps take TD, KG and *very* maybe Kobe over him, but that's it.

About the athletic factor, that guy faced WILT several times per season and held him to a lifetime 28 ppg, a far cry from Wilt's usual lifetime 37 ppg until 1969.

EDIT: swap Shaq for Russ on the Phoenix Suns, and the Suns win the title. Imagine BILL RUSSELL on a fast break squad?!??

[mojomarc]

[Blazers homer]We'll find out when Greg Oden takes the court[/Blazers homer]

[TMU]

Actually Russell was closer to 6' 9 1/2'' without shoes. He'll be listed as 6'11'' today.

[LakerLegend]

If guys like Garnett and Camby (LOL) get DPOY,

KG's one of the best defensive players in league history, whats so funny about that?

[PimpORL]

Not even close.

[NO-KG-AI]

-= original quote snipped =-



KG's one of the best defensive players in league history, whats so funny about that?

I think the LOL was actually at Camby.

[TheRussBill]

Russells mental make up alone would make him a top 10 player in the NBA and easily a candidate for MVP year in year out because he would anchor the best defense in the league and rack up W after W en route to titles. His leadership was remarkable and although he was never friendly to the media his teammates understood what he was all about and had respect in his abilities and they followed his lead. I think Russell views himself as similar to KG in his defensive intensity and leadership approach but Russell was the king and KG is a poor mans version for the given era but with the scouting reports and weight training etc. Russell would have adapted just fine.

[Storm Surge]

The only player better than him would be Bynum.

[tsherkin]

I'm gonna go with "No."

He'd be among the best players because he would be an excellent passer, one of the best or maybe (likely) the best rebounder and easily the best defender...

But that wouldn't make him the best player in the league. He'd be a really nasty player, though, top 5 or so. Maybe top 3.

[kooldude]

haha, I made the exact same thread like 2 months ago.


I think if he was on right situation like the Suns pre-Shaq/Marion trade, he would "viewed" as the best. Mainly because he fits that fast pace and running style. His stats would be inflated which can only lead to higher status as the best. Also the Russell Suns would win like 65+ games per game.

[ronnymac2]

He'd make the suns better if he replaced shaq, even now without marion. (Though i still think shaq suits their halfcourt game better due to still being able to shoot 60 percent from the field and getting to the line a lot.) Prime Russell would make that team great on defense. He'd cover up for Nash being bad on defense. He'd guard the best post player on the other team. He'd start the break. They'd def improve with that.

Russell for Gasol or odom or whomever would make the lakers dominant. Bryant takes care of your scoring needs, and Russell shuts down the middle while being able to play against guys like KG.

However, if you replace duncan or garnett with prime russell right now, i think the spurs and celtics become not as good. It's not that I'd take kg or duncan over russell, but their low post scoring is very important to their respective teams. I think Russell could do as good a job, and likely a better job, than those 2 on defense. But those guys are good on defense, too, so he can't improve them THAT much to make up for what those teams would be missing on offense.

Overall, I think Russell would be a dominating player in today's league. Just like he was back in his day. I mean, not 11 titles dominant. But put the right team around him, he wins some titles.

Individually, I could see him being a top passing center, THE top rebounder, perenial DPOY (or AT LEAST always in contention), a dominant shotblocker, a center known for great defense and anchoring great defensive teams, and a solid finisher. He'd shoot about 50-55% from the field. I know his career fg% is low, but from what I've seen of him, he could throw it down and finish off passes, putbacks, and alleyoops. He'd have his hook shot improved a bit, wouldn't take as many low percentage shots as he did, and run the floor well. He'd be an MVP candidate.

[circushots]

I'm gonna go with "No."



He'd be among the best players because he would be an excellent passer, one of the best or maybe (likely) the best rebounder and easily the best defender...



But that wouldn't make him the best player in the league. He'd be a really nasty player, though, top 5 or so. Maybe top 3.

Tsherkin, by that logic are you then saying that you don't consider Russell a top 5 player of all time? Because I don't consider any current player to be top 5 right now...

[penbeast0]

In addition to being the second best rebounder in history and the top defensive player of all time, Russell had one thing that can't be quantified. He always won . . . whether or not he had the better team, whether or not he even played better, he got the break/the key play/the clutch stop or shot/ the unknown teammate suddenly coming up big . . . every bloody time!

Like MJ in his 6 title run, every time it was close, it broke Russell's way.

Assuming that is still there and assuming he is on a good enough team to take advantage of it; he'd still be the best . . . bottle that and sell it and you put the steroid market out of business.

[Doctor MJ]

Trying to rate Russell like this illustrates how complex player rating truly is. Nobody should try to take away anything from Russell's accomplishments in Boston, they're amazing. At the same time his weakness as a scorer is undeniable. I'd say there's not a doubt in my mind that Russell could be the most valuable player in the game today, but if you need a volume scorer, he probably wouldn't be the #1 choice for your team.

Where does that leave us in the end? Well, my philosophy is that ever player's value is dependent on circumstance so I tend to focus on what players are capable of, rather than worst case scenarios. From that perspective, I think Russell would top this league.

[TMU]

I don't understand why people think he was an inept offensive player. If you consider the days when Russell started his basketball career which was in mid 50s, you realize that this era was marked with low percentages and teams emphasized on pace rather than set plays often yielding to low percentage shots.

However, if you look at Russell's FG% during his first 4 seasons, he was considered a good offensive player.

1956-57 NBA .427 (5th in the league)
1957-58 NBA .442 (3rd in the league)
1958-59 NBA .457 (2nd in the league)
1959-60 NBA .467 (4th in the league)

Entering the 60s, Russell's FG% didn't change much. However, he was no longer a Top 5 in that department; let alone Top 10. While the league evolved to a period where players began to shoot a much higher percentage, Russell's FG% didn't change because he was never considered a first scoring option on his team and he dedicated more to his non-scoring roles such as passing.

I think if Russell were playing today, he'd have a much more polished offensive game with high percentages. He started his career in an era where percentages had lack of significance, yet he was a leader in FG% in the 50s. Of course he had no reason to change his offensive schemes because he was winning championships almost every year.

[tsherkin]

Tsherkin, by that logic are you then saying that you don't consider Russell a top 5 player of all time? Because I don't consider any current player to be top 5 right now...

It's hard to tell. Russell is a player who's at absolute worst 6th-best all-time on the strength of accomplishments and accolades but rating his relative level in the modern NBA is difficult because it depends heavily on how much of his game would transfer to the modern era. Scaled to modern pace and to account for various differences in the game, he comes out as a stunningly-rich-man's Marcus Camby with a brain, or perhaps Hakeem Olajuwon with better passing and a lot less scoring. It's difficult, there isn't a good parallel to him because he was so much better than a Ben Wallace.

In this thread, I speak of him as top-5 or top-3 based on how I estimate his ability to impact a game in the contemporary context and I don't think that he'd be quite as much a winner these days because of the vast differences in how teams are constructed, what kind of mentalities prevail in the league, etc.

Russell was a consummate team player, a stunningly hard worker, gifted physically and had a great brain for the game but I don't think that a guy who was primarily defense-only would be able to exert the kind of impact necessary to be called the best player in the league.

It depends too on how he'd adapt his game; Russell sacrificed scoring to play the way he did in the 50s and 60s but he might not be asked to do that quite so comprehensively these days and he did show that he had some ability to score... though it was at poor efficiency and he was never really a banger. It's a really tough call.

Having said that, who would I rate as his superior?

Well, there are a couple of guys who have better all-around games and are more suited to being made the centerpiece of a team; if Russell landed in Detroit with Joe D as his GM, then this is a moot point because he built a title squad with Ben Wallace and obviously, Russell was way better than Big Ben, so he'd pretty much lock up the #1 slot if that happened. But elsewhere?

Based on the results of the 2007-2008 season, I'd be inclined to build around Garnett, Lebron, Kobe, Wade and Tim Duncan ahead of Russell.

Garnett, for obvious reasons; he's one of the best passing bigs in NBA history, a DPOY, a 20 ppg guy and a great rebounder. Yeah, he's not the guy you want taking the shot in the clutch but I can count the number of guys 6'9 and taller I want taking the last shot on one hand. They include: Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Lebron James, Hakeem Olajuwon and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. You might think about Dirk, too, I guess, but he doesn't immediately come to mind when we're talking playoffs.

The other guys? Lebron has already made the Finals as the centerpiece, as have Kobe and Wade. Wade won, Lebron got smoked, but there's something to be said for context. Duncan is a pretty obvious choice; given a decision to make, I'd take Duncan over Russell and only rate Bill higher because of his accolades and team achievements. I don't think I'd ever take Russell over Duncan for a team.

See what I mean?

I suppose you have to qualify "best player in the league" to really answer this. Wade, for example, wouldn't be a better rebounder or defender than Russell, but because he's an excellent passer and a particularly efficient high-volume scorer, he makes for a very good centerpiece to a team.

Kobe is a superior man-on defender to Russell, who wasn't particularly noteworthy in that regard in the fashion of, say, Dennis Rodman, but he was pretty much the originator of the heady shot-blocking center, perhaps the best help defender in NBA history.

It's an extremely tough call.

EDIT: As TMU notes, Russell did not have bad FG%s for his era but that's not even close to correlated with good offense. Russell had one shot (a lefty hook) and tip-ins; his offensive value came primarily from offensive boards and passing, he didn't have a significant scoring arsenal. That MIGHT change in the modern NBA, perhaps (and he might also be listed around 6'10 or 6'11), but it's a bit unreasonable to project him as anything more than the same kind of scorer he was then and just scale up his FG% to match his deviation from league-average.

So yeah, maybe he shoots 50-60% from the floor but does it matter? You don't go to him in an isolation scenario on a frequent basis, that inflates FG%.