Duncan VS Russell

[Mamba Venom]

The Big Fundamental vs. The Finals MVP

People talk a lot about how Odens game resembles Russells. The closest person I can think of to compare Russell too is Duncan. Duncan just competes and gets it done.

Is this a good comparison or is Duncan more of the man on the Spurs than Russell was on the Celts with so many hall of fame team mates.

Please compare the 2 players.

[initiald]

Duncan is the better player, but Russel is a better leader.

[therealbig3]

It's impossible to say who the better individual player is...but Russell is definitely the greater player. I have Duncan 5th all time, I have Russell 2nd. If we try to look at their individual attributes, Duncan was a better scorer, but not by enough to compensate for the edge Russell has in defense, rebounding, and passing. If we go by their resumes, Duncan has 4 rings, 3 Finals MVPs, 2 MVPs. Russell has 11 rings, would probably have had 8+ Finals MVPs, and has 4 MVPs. Russell just has Duncan beat, and I honestly don't see anyone ever supplanting him, Kareem, or Jordan. But who knows, it could happen someday.

[initiald]

It's impossible to say who the better individual player is...but Russell is definitely the greater player. I have Duncan 5th all time, I have Russell 2nd. If we try to look at their individual attributes, Duncan was a better scorer, but not by enough to compensate for the edge Russell has in defense, rebounding, and passing. If we go by their resumes, Duncan has 4 rings, 3 Finals MVPs, 2 MVPs. Russell has 11 rings, would probably have had 8+ Finals MVPs, and has 4 MVPs. Russell just has Duncan beat, and I honestly don't see anyone ever supplanting him, Kareem, or Jordan. But who knows, it could happen someday.

Russel wouldn't be able to averaged 20+ in today game and he would be shooting Ben Wallace fg% at below 40% today. As for winning 11 rings, subtract that by half consider it takes only 2 series to win a ring back then.

He probably a Dwight Howard level today with a leadership level of Magic, and that's why he's in the top 10.

I take Duncan > Dwight Howard game + Magic leadership skill.

[Hobo4President]

Russell overrated, give me Duncan EVERY time.

[penbeast0]

It's impossible to say who the better individual player is...but Russell is definitely the greater player. I have Duncan 5th all time, I have Russell 2nd. If we try to look at their individual attributes, Duncan was a better scorer, but not by enough to compensate for the edge Russell has in defense, rebounding, and passing. If we go by their resumes, Duncan has 4 rings, 3 Finals MVPs, 2 MVPs. Russell has 11 rings, would probably have had 8+ Finals MVPs, and has 4 MVPs. Russell just has Duncan beat, and I honestly don't see anyone ever supplanting him, Kareem, or Jordan. But who knows, it could happen someday.

Russel wouldn't be able to averaged 20+ in today game and he would be shooting Ben Wallace fg% at below 40% today. As for winning 11 rings, subtract that by half consider it takes only 2 series to win a ring back then.

He probably a Dwight Howard level today with a leadership level of Magic, and that's why he's in the top 10.

I take Duncan > Dwight Howard game + Magic leadership skill.

I would agree that Russell's early offensive game resembled Howard's. His first 4 years in the league he was in the 15-18ppg range (despite having 3 20ppg scoring teammates) while ending up in the top 5 in the league in fg% every year -- just that the league as a whole was shooting .400 rather than .500 from the field. 100 points of efficiency difference is a pretty high relative difference. Then they moved Russell to the high post where he was shooting less around the basket and it's like moving Dwight out to the top of the key -- Russell's efficiency dropped a bit while league efficiency was skyrocketing but Rusell's passing and the more open driving lanes allowed slashers like Sam Jones and John Havlicek to operate more freely which helped the team.

Russell's defensive/leadership/luck index based on results, however, is appreciably higher than anyone else to ever play the game including Michael Jordan -- pretty easily. Again, you can only play in the era you were born in but compared to his era (and despite having teammates with mediocredefensive reps early on -- Cousy, Heinsohn, etc.) Russell's Cetics were always the best defensive team in the league usually by a significant margin. I added the phrase luck because the great winners (Russell, Jordan, etc.) always seemed to get the breaks in key moments even if they didn't create those breaks themselves. His teammates just weren't that great; they got their rep from playing with Russell though the Celtics tended to be very deep and they weren't dogs; but wihtout Russell and the rings, only Havlicek and maybe Cousy (As the first true PG) would be in the HOF. It's the 11 titles that got relatively unimpressive players like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey into the HOF.

[Laimbeer]

They actually have had similar career paths of playing for a top notch organization, consistently surrounded by excellent players. Difference being Russ ripped off 11 titles. He's better from the neck up, an inspirational leader and mind manipulator while Duncan is a solid citizen, quiet leader kind of guy.

Duncan probably has better offensive ability, Russ is very clearly a better defender. Duncan doesn't plug the middle and intimidate the opponent anything like Russell did.

[JordansBulls]

They actually have had similar career paths of playing for a top notch organization. consistently surrounded by excellent players. Difference being Russ ripped off 11 titles. He's better from the neck up, an inspirational leader and mind manipulator while Duncan is a solid citizen, quiet leader kind of guy.

Not going to discount Russell's titles at all, however you gotta remember up until 1966 Russell had 8 titles and thru that entire time only had to win 2 playoff series each year to be the champion.
I'm sure having to win 4 rounds every year would make things a lot more different IMO.

[Laimbeer]

They actually have had similar career paths of playing for a top notch organization. consistently surrounded by excellent players. Difference being Russ ripped off 11 titles. He's better from the neck up, an inspirational leader and mind manipulator while Duncan is a solid citizen, quiet leader kind of guy.

Not going to discount Russell's titles at all, however you gotta remember up until 1966 Russell had 8 titles and thru that entire time only had to win 2 playoff series each year to be the champion.
I'm sure having to win 4 rounds every year would make things a lot more different IMO.

Not to a great extent. It's rare for a team as highly seeded as the Celtics would have been to lose in the first round or two. Could have happened, but not very much at all.

[Quincy]

Duncan is a much better scorer. He's probably the better ballhandler obviously has superior foot work. Russell might equal him in playmaking, but other than that I'd say Russell is better in every other area.

[JordansBulls]

They actually have had similar career paths of playing for a top notch organization. consistently surrounded by excellent players. Difference being Russ ripped off 11 titles. He's better from the neck up, an inspirational leader and mind manipulator while Duncan is a solid citizen, quiet leader kind of guy.

Not going to discount Russell's titles at all, however you gotta remember up until 1966 Russell had 8 titles and thru that entire time only had to win 2 playoff series each year to be the champion.
I'm sure having to win 4 rounds every year would make things a lot more different IMO.

Not to a great extent. It's rare for a team as highly seeded as the Celtics would have been to lose in the first round or two. Could have happened, but not very much at all.

Not saying they were going to lose in round 1, but I'm sure having to play more series would have worn them down more so year by year. I think it is plausible to say that could have gotten upset a few times had they went thru 4 series instead of 2 series winning it all.

Afterall look at 1959 where the 33-39 Minneapolis Lakers knocked off the 49-23 St. Louis Hawks

Or in 1960 where you had the same Minneapolis Lakers but this time they were 25-50 and they took the 46-29 St. Louis Hawks 7 games.

You have 4 rounds like that you may be too complacent.

[ThaRegul8r]

They actually have had similar career paths of playing for a top notch organization. consistently surrounded by excellent players. Difference being Russ ripped off 11 titles. He's better from the neck up, an inspirational leader and mind manipulator while Duncan is a solid citizen, quiet leader kind of guy.

Not going to discount Russell's titles at all, however you gotta remember up until 1966 Russell had 8 titles and thru that entire time only had to win 2 playoff series each year to be the champion.
I'm sure having to win 4 rounds every year would make things a lot more different IMO.

I don't see what difference it would make, seeing how all the upsets that have taken place in NBA history have occurred in the first round (e.g., Nuggets over Sonics, Warriors over Mavs, Warriors over Bucks), the Conference Finals (e.g., Rockets over Lakers), or the Finals themselves (e.g., Warriors over Bullets).

[ThaRegul8r]

Not going to discount Russell's titles at all, however you gotta remember up until 1966 Russell had 8 titles and thru that entire time only had to win 2 playoff series each year to be the champion.
I'm sure having to win 4 rounds every year would make things a lot more different IMO.

Not to a great extent. It's rare for a team as highly seeded as the Celtics would have been to lose in the first round or two. Could have happened, but not very much at all.

Not saying they were going to lose in round 1, but I'm sure having to play more series would have worn them down more so year by year. I think it is plausible to say that could have gotten upset a few times had they went thru 4 series instead of 2 series winning it all.

Afterall look at 1959 where the 33-39 Minneapolis Lakers knocked off the 49-23 St. Louis Hawks

Or in 1960 where you had the same Minneapolis Lakers but this time they were 25-50 and they took the 46-29 St. Louis Hawks 7 games.

You have 4 rounds like that you may be too complacent.

Completely ignoring the fact, of course, that Russell didn't get complacent when it came to winning.

[mopper8]

I think Russell was undoubtedly the more impactful and successful player, but I don't think he was necessarily the better player. As penbeast said, you play in the era in which you're born, and Russell IMO benefitted from playing in an era where being a defensively dominant big would simply be more impactful than it would today IMO. We are talking about the anchors of what are IMO the two great defensive dynasties.

I think even if you grant that in today's game, Russell would still be the better defender and even the best defender in the league, I think in a league that has spent many more years training, nurturing, and honing helpside defense, his Value-over-Replacement would be smaller, and as such his impact smaller, and that difference between him and TD would shrink.

Meanwhile, the difference offensively is pretty large.

I have these two 4 and 5 on my GOAT list, and I go back and forth on who deserves 4. As I've said, I think Duncan is simply better, but Russell out-performed his peers more and had more success. Makes it somewhat of a toss-up in the "greatness" category.

edit: I'm going to disagree vehemently with those saying extra rounds wouldn't make a difference. Almost every title in NBA history has involved some level of good luck at some point along the way, and the longer the playoffs, the more opportunity you have to get hit with some bad luck. The Celts escaped a lot of series in 7 games, and a lot of those decided in the final minutes. Double the amount of playoff series they have to play, and your chance of someone getting injured will go way way up, and the likelihood increases that in one series Sam Jones' wild shot doesn't go down, or Hondo doesn't steal the ball, etc.

[USA]

Russell is overrated, give me Duncan EVERY time.

[NYK 455]

Duncan was easily better. He was a legit number 1 option on offense, was at least as good on D if not better. And although I believe Russell was the better rebounder, he's still outmatched by a ton.

[MSGBallerz]

Reputation wise, Russel. But in terms of who's actually better and who people would actually pick to have on their franchise, Duncan.

[JordansBulls]

Completely ignoring the fact, of course, that Russell didn't get complacent when it came to winning.

Playing 4 rounds vs 2 rounds would have made things more interesting. That would be double the time out there on the court yearly in the playoffs.

It's like saying you have to win 4 rounds to win the superbowl vs having to win 2 rounds to win it all.

[Chicago76]

His teammates just weren't that great; they got their rep from playing with Russell though the Celtics tended to be very deep and they weren't dogs; but wihtout Russell and the rings, only Havlicek and maybe Cousy (As the first true PG) would be in the HOF. It's the 11 titles that got relatively unimpressive players like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey into the HOF.

That's kind of underselling Russell's teammates, don't you think? I mean, if his teammates weren't that great, then who has had great teammates in the history of the game?

Like you said, Cousy and Havlicek are HOFers no matter what, but what about Bill Sharman? If Russell never showed up, he would have been in the Hall regardless. What about Sam Jones? His numbers don't look great in his first couple of years, but keep in mind that Sharman and Cousy had the backcourt spots locked down, so there weren't a lot of minutes to go around. His production after his first three years was excellent. Jones would have been a HOFer on another team where he didn't need to share minutes early on. Have him switch places with Hal Greer and both are still in the Hall. Heinsohn...probably not, but that's not a shabby piece to have in the lineup with all of those other guys. Howell was another probably not without the benefit of same late years with Boston, but again, not a bad piece. KC and Ramsey definitely not.

If Russell wasn't a Celtic, then a solid center most likely would have fallen into place for them through the draft at some point to give them a couple of championships given the players already in place and the number of teams in the league at the time...Reed, Thurmond, Kerr, Bellamy, Beaty, someone.

[J08]

the most over rated player bill russel, yeah he is the best winner but having only 12 teams in the nba and most of the good players on your team and to only play 2 rounds to the finals is not as impressive as what tim duncan did.