Bill Russell's (Massive) Impact

[ahonui06]

Too bad he wouldn't have anywhere near that sort of impact today.

Where the offenses and players are far better.

That pretty much disqualifies him from any GOAT talk.

The GOAT should be the best in any era.

Didn't realize you had a crystal ball which could tell the future and time machine that allows transportation of players from one generation to the next. Seriously, it's impossible to know how players would play in different eras. You simply don't know.

[Johnlac1]

What I find amusing about young fans who look at perceived weaknesses in players of yore and make several erroneous assumptions. First they assume that the great athletes from the old days couldn't compete with today's athletes who I will admit are superior on average. But then how are players like Nash, Nowitzki, Love and some others excelling if you have to be a "freak" athlete to be a great player? Not only would Russell be an excellent athlete today, he would be a very long one. His reach was incredible. Combine that with a tremendous vertical leap and speed, and you have a great athlete. He got off the floor faster than Chamberlain. Russell also had one of the best combinations of bb intelligence and desire of any player ever. The second erroneous assumption young fans make is that if put in today's game, the old-time players wouldn't adjust or improve their games if a serious defect in their game was hurting them. Obviously, they would.

[GreenHat]

wasn't he always around top 5 in FG% in his era?
he would undoubtably be the best rebound/defender and possibly best passing big
don't see how he wouldn't be the best player on any team Dwight Webber is better then Lebron or Durant

Comparing Russell to Webber on offense would be as laughable as well comparing Webber to Russell on defense.

Webber wasn't very efficient (although still much better than Russell against much better defenses) but that is where the similarities to Russell end. Webber was much more skilled offensively. People are remembering an old, injured Webber and not realizing what he would be able to do on offense against defenses in the 50s and 60s.

[Doctor MJ]

Comparing Russell to Webber on offense would be as laughable as well comparing Webber to Russell on defense.

Webber wasn't very efficient (although still much better than Russell against much better defenses) but that is where the similarities to Russell end. Webber was much more skilled offensively. People are remembering an old, injured Webber and not realizing what he would be able to do on offense against defenses in the 50s and 60s.

Well to me the thing you're missing here is the importance of decision making. You're assuming all sorts of things based on skills, but Webber spent a lot of time taking a lot of shots and doing so inefficiently, while having other strong shooters available. This absolutely ties into why Sacramento played so dang well when he was injured.

Russell by contrast was able to play point center without fixating on his own scoring. Add in his offensive rebounding edge and yeah, there are certainly situations where I'd rather have Russell on offense than Webber.

[GreenHat]

Comparing Russell to Webber on offense would be as laughable as well comparing Webber to Russell on defense.

Webber wasn't very efficient (although still much better than Russell against much better defenses) but that is where the similarities to Russell end. Webber was much more skilled offensively. People are remembering an old, injured Webber and not realizing what he would be able to do on offense against defenses in the 50s and 60s.

Well to me the thing you're missing here is the importance of decision making. You're assuming all sorts of things based on skills, but Webber spent a lot of time taking a lot of shots and doing so inefficiently, while having other strong shooters available. This absolutely ties into why Sacramento played so dang well when he was injured.

Russell by contrast was able to play point center without fixating on his own scoring. Add in his offensive rebounding edge and yeah, there are certainly situations where I'd rather have Russell on offense than Webber.

Webber absolutely did take bad shots (he would be a much better offensive player if he didn't). But Russell took some absolutely horrible shots that Webber wouldn't even take in a pick up game with his children.

You're projecting a lot of improvement into Russell's shot selection. Russell could just as easily be one of those bigs who falls in love with the long jumper (like Webber, Garnett, Bosh) but not have the skill to make it as much as them.

And again its easy to make good decisions when you are playing against laughably bad defense. I would not be surprised if Russell was incredible turnover prone in today's game, especially if he tried to play "point center" against a real defense.

There are situation where I would rather have Russell on offense instead of Webber just like there are situations where I would rather have Rodman instead of Webber.

I can think of a great many more situations where I would rather have Webber instead of Russell on offense.

[Texas Chuck]

are people actually trying to compare Chris Webber with Russell? The modern bias on this forum has gotten beyond absurd. And when are people going to realize "more-skilled" doesnt mean you are a better player? Lots of other factors go into it.

[Rod700]

Could someone put something together that shows the team's point and rebound differentials and allowed FG% in the games with Russell and then for the games without Russell? Maybe showing the combined record of the teams they played while Russell was out might help too. Just a though.

[GrangerDanger]

Comparing Russell to Webber on offense would be as laughable as well comparing Webber to Russell on defense.

Webber wasn't very efficient (although still much better than Russell against much better defenses) but that is where the similarities to Russell end. Webber was much more skilled offensively. People are remembering an old, injured Webber and not realizing what he would be able to do on offense against defenses in the 50s and 60s.

Well to me the thing you're missing here is the importance of decision making. You're assuming all sorts of things based on skills, but Webber spent a lot of time taking a lot of shots and doing so inefficiently, while having other strong shooters available. This absolutely ties into why Sacramento played so dang well when he was injured.

Russell by contrast was able to play point center without fixating on his own scoring. Add in his offensive rebounding edge and yeah, there are certainly situations where I'd rather have Russell on offense than Webber.

Webber absolutely did take bad shots (he would be a much better offensive player if he didn't). But Russell took some absolutely horrible shots that Webber wouldn't even take in a pick up game with his children.

You're projecting a lot of improvement into Russell's shot selection. Russell could just as easily be one of those bigs who falls in love with the long jumper (like Webber, Garnett, Bosh) but not have the skill to make it as much as them.

And again its easy to make good decisions when you are playing against laughably bad defense. I would not be surprised if Russell was incredible turnover prone in today's game, especially if he tried to play "point center" against a real defense.

There are situation where I would rather have Russell on offense instead of Webber just like there are situations where I would rather have Rodman instead of Webber.

I can think of a great many more situations where I would rather have Webber instead of Russell on offense.

I have a hard time believing you've ever watched Russell play. He didn't fall in love with his jumper. I guess you assume low FG% = jumpers. But consider the era. On Celtics fastbreaks, Red wanted Bill to stay back and protect their basket. This is the fastest and most athletic C in the league (besides Wilt) not running fastbreaks because his defense was good enough to break up 4 on 1 fastbreaks. If he would have consistently been apart of their fastbreak offense (this is the 60s remember) we could chalk him up for another 8-10 easy points each game. FG% is tricky from that era. The goals were not built like today's. They would shake long after dunks, defenders would slap the backboard when shots went up to shake the rim, and it was near impossible to get lucky bounces/rolls. Considering those factors and how in the modern game they wouldn't affect Bill, and we can easily see how he would be a 16-20 ppg scorer on extremely good FG% in today's game (decent TS% too because free throws would be slightly higher from rims that allow the ball to roll).

His actual skill in the post is comparable to Luis Scola or Jefferson. There wasn't much HCO back then, but Russell was great in the PnR and had some decent counters (not much coaching/training back then so in today's game he would have a ton more moves available to learn.)

[Doctor MJ]

Comparing Russell to Webber on offense would be as laughable as well comparing Webber to Russell on defense.

Webber wasn't very efficient (although still much better than Russell against much better defenses) but that is where the similarities to Russell end. Webber was much more skilled offensively. People are remembering an old, injured Webber and not realizing what he would be able to do on offense against defenses in the 50s and 60s.

Well to me the thing you're missing here is the importance of decision making. You're assuming all sorts of things based on skills, but Webber spent a lot of time taking a lot of shots and doing so inefficiently, while having other strong shooters available. This absolutely ties into why Sacramento played so dang well when he was injured.

Russell by contrast was able to play point center without fixating on his own scoring. Add in his offensive rebounding edge and yeah, there are certainly situations where I'd rather have Russell on offense than Webber.

Webber absolutely did take bad shots (he would be a much better offensive player if he didn't). But Russell took some absolutely horrible shots that Webber wouldn't even take in a pick up game with his children.

You're projecting a lot of improvement into Russell's shot selection. Russell could just as easily be one of those bigs who falls in love with the long jumper (like Webber, Garnett, Bosh) but not have the skill to make it as much as them.

And again its easy to make good decisions when you are playing against laughably bad defense. I would not be surprised if Russell was incredible turnover prone in today's game, especially if he tried to play "point center" against a real defense.

There are situation where I would rather have Russell on offense instead of Webber just like there are situations where I would rather have Rodman instead of Webber.

I can think of a great many more situations where I would rather have Webber instead of Russell on offense.

Russell's shot selection is actually pretty easy to figure out, though I will say it's a bit tricky judging "good" and "bad" shot selection between eras because of the different strategy standards. When I talk about "good" and "bad", I'm talking about compared to the other options on the court, not hypothetically what strategy they should have been using to get better shot selections in general.

Early in Russell's career, Russell was efficient compared to to his teammates, and scoring in the same ballpark as the team leaders. in '60 for example, Russell shot significantly more efficiency than Cousy or Heinsohn or Ramsey. Only Sharman of the team's main scorers shot better than Russell, his lead was slight, and Sharman's a classic example of someone who it's impossible to believe wouldn't have been efficient in any era once he got used to their norms.

As his career progressed, they moved Russell to the high post to make use of him as a passing hub, and his efficiency decreased as now he wasn't getting the easy buckets.

Now, up to this point, you could easily say, "Sounds a lot like Webber!". And you're right, except that when Russell made this move, he started shooting way less, while Webber started shooting more. Russell recognized when he wasn't in a position to score as well as other players, Webber didn't. As good of a passer as Webber was, if he had a more accurate assessment of his abilities, he'd have passed more, and the team would have missed him more when he was out as a result.

[colts18]

So if Russell was "good" on offense, the Celtics would have had a "good offense"? This is not a reasonable assertion. By that reasoning, Oscar & West weren't good on offense. As good as they were, they couldn't do it by themselves.

Russell was not an offensive superstar, but yes he was certainly good on offense. The whole narrative otherwise is mistaking Russell's continued specialization as he aged as scoring weakness when in actuality it was just focus elsewhere.

Dr MJ, where is the evidence that Russell is a good offensive player? I don't see it all. If you compare his offensive numbers, they compare favorably to Michael Beasley.

Nothing suggests a good offensive player. Not stats, in/out, or team offensive results.