Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy after

[Doctor MJ]

He also clearly suffered during his career when they changed to the 24 second rule

He was injured that ONE year and after full year without basketball. At the time (no trainings like today) it was lethal for basketball ability, especially when you were so big.

This is a good point.

I think it's necessary to say that the ability level of the early NBA was far below what it would be in the '60s, so player in that early era aren't so much clearly less talented as they are unproven.

Clearly though Mikan's agility levels were not up there with Wilt & Russell.

Besides we don't know how Russell, or any other stars from different eras, would perform vs equivalent of globetrotters (so the best black players of that player's era), so it's not fair to use it, because we don't have point of reference (or benchmark? which word would be proper in this context?) to make that kind of comparison.

Sidetracked: Can we really hold the Globetrotters up like that? Legit asking here - maybe we can, but that's not how I think of them.

Here are the results of the World Professional Basketball Tournament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Prof ... Tournament

This started in '39, and you can see the first winner was the all-black Harlem Renaissance which had been the dominant team of the '30s. Then in '40 you see the Globetrotters winning it which shows them really coming of age as a team...but then they never won it again and it's my impression that they kept playing in it. So, two black teams win the first two of these tourneys, and then afterward they don't.

The Globetrotters were clearly a good team, but to look at them as essentially "the team that had all the best black players" from a modern perspective where the sport is dominated by blacks seems a bit much. Had the Globetrotters been clearly the best in the biz, they'd have continued winning that tourney, and they'd have eventually been offered a chance to be part of the leagues that would become the NBA like the Rens were. (Granted, they might have gotten that offer and rejected. The Rens accepted it, but by that time they were a shell of their former self.)

[Texas Chuck]

Let's say we can freeze Russell's skills for each era starting from the 70's thru the 90's. What type of player would he have been in each era ? His skill level would fit 2 of them fine, the 90's is the one that concerns me. The game had gotten much rougher. I don't doubt he could have played and did well, but in that eastern conference was no joke in the 90's. Teams like the Pistons and Knicks could have neutralized him quite well.

Why do people always forget that if Russell played in the 90s he would almost certainly add weight and strength while maintaining elite athleticism just like modern players did? He would have all hte modern benefits. He'd probably even wear leather shoes.

More importantly he gets to bring his exceptional basketball brain with him in to the 90s.

[Johnlac1]

Yes, Russell>Jordan; his GOAT level defense and rebounding are superior to MJ's GOAT level scoring.

Mikan was very good but not as dominant or for as long despite having the best team around him in his day (All-Stars Slater Martin, Vern Mikkelson, and Jim Pollard . . . of whom Martin and Mikkelson reportedly played quite well after Mikan's retirement). He also clearly suffered during his career when they changed to the 24 second rule while Russell adapted from the 50's era basketball of his first couple of years to the late 60s without a hitch. Mikan also didn't dominate the Globetrotters to the same degree which also lessens his domination of his era. He has a real case for being a top 20 player of all time, possibly top 15, probably not top 10.

OT: Kurland (who dominated with the Phillips 66ers to a comparable extent as Mikan did to the NBL/BAA/NBA) opting for the AAU probably robbed the pro cage scene of what could've been an amazing early rivalry.

EDIT: I can't hold it against him though, with the state of the league(s) back then, he opted for financial security and seemingly was set for life. A recent article paints him as having no regrets.

I've watched and rewatched clips and film of Mikan as much as possible to try to get a read on him. Obviously, he's not in Russell's athletic category, but he's not the lumbering stiff many people made him out to be. By the time the 24 clock was introduced in 1954, Mikan was suffering from a number of physical ailments. But before he retired, he was still a better player than a number of centers who had respectable careers post the intro of the clock...like Clyde Lovellette who was drafted by the Lakers and was Mikan's backup for a season or two. Mikan didn't dominate the Lakers, but Reese Tatum admitted the Globies had to beat the hell out of Mikan to win. Tatum said Mikan was a lot quicker than he looked from the stands. And I used to laugh at a flat-footed set shot I saw Mikan take in several clips. Then this season I saw Brook Lopez shoot pretty much the same kind of flat-footed set shots in several games. Undoubetedly, Mikan would have a tough adjusting to the faster pace of modern ball as played by Russell, Chamberlain, and other athletic centers of the late fifties and sixties. But it would have been interesting to see him try to adapt to a more modern game.

[DEEP3CL]

Let's say we can freeze Russell's skills for each era starting from the 70's thru the 90's. What type of player would he have been in each era ? His skill level would fit 2 of them fine, the 90's is the one that concerns me. The game had gotten much rougher. I don't doubt he could have played and did well, but in that eastern conference was no joke in the 90's. Teams like the Pistons and Knicks could have neutralized him quite well.

Why do people always forget that if Russell played in the 90s he would almost certainly add weight and strength while maintaining elite athleticism just like modern players did? He would have all hte modern benefits. He'd probably even wear leather shoes.

More importantly he gets to bring his exceptional basketball brain with him in to the 90s.

And why would we just assume he would be just as effective ? Russell was a very agile and incredibly athletic player for his era. I would assume that added weight would affect him in some ways. Still very intriguing though.

[Doctor MJ]

Let's say we can freeze Russell's skills for each era starting from the 70's thru the 90's. What type of player would he have been in each era ? His skill level would fit 2 of them fine, the 90's is the one that concerns me. The game had gotten much rougher. I don't doubt he could have played and did well, but in that eastern conference was no joke in the 90's. Teams like the Pistons and Knicks could have neutralized him quite well.

Why do people always forget that if Russell played in the 90s he would almost certainly add weight and strength while maintaining elite athleticism just like modern players did? He would have all hte modern benefits. He'd probably even wear leather shoes.

More importantly he gets to bring his exceptional basketball brain with him in to the 90s.

And why would we just assume he would be just as effective ? Russell was a very agile and incredibly athletic player for his era. I would assume that added weight would affect him in some ways. Still very intriguing though.

Given the agility of someone like Hakeem being successful in the '90s, I don't see any reason why Russell couldn't.

However, a major question comes into play: Just how much better of a defender, if any, would Russell be than Hakeem in the '90s. If the answer isn't "quite a bit", then you start having to seriously consider whether Hakeem > Russell at least with more modern rules & strategy.

[rrravenred]

I might tip Russell as a global all-court defender a bit better than Hakeem (though Hakeem was obviously a wicked defender in his own right). The early 90s still saw somewhat limited use of the 3 and a lot of post-scorers, which inflates the value of solid interior defenders (though based on what I've seen, I might take Hakeem as a one-on-one man defender).

Offensively, if we assume that Russell doesn't suddenly develop refined post skills or a jump shot, we're left with his athleticism on the break and his garbage-cleaning game for scoring, and his absolutely excellent high post-passing. What kind of offensive team can you build with him as the hub (especially given that they could play him closer in the modern game without the threat of sticking Brad Miller-eseque jumpers)?

[penbeast0]

You are also getting appreciably more rebounding from Russell even relative to his era . . . even if defense is equal . . . again, something that no one seems to mention. Yes, his defense was GOAT level but so was his rebounding and that's an extremely important factor in winning even if not as pretty as a Dreamshake.

[Johnlac1]

I guess you'd have to look at Russell as similar to Tyson Chandler...although Russell could hit a 10-12 ft jump shot...and probably could have improved it if he worked at it. Chandler is listed at about 7'0 three inches more than Russell, but Russell's wingspan was enormous. That wingspan combined with tremendous spring and timing made him much longer than his height would indicate. And I'd say Russell was smarter than Chandler even though I don't think Chandler's some sort of dope. But Russell had the great combination of tremendous athletic ability, skill where it was needed, killer desire, and intelligence. That's why he'd be great today.

[richboy]

I used to have Russell in my top 15, but I honestly think he is top ten material after thinking about it objectively. But there is another problem.

I think a lot of Russell's defensive strengths, and I have a hard time separating it from Kevin Garnett. To those who have Russell over KG (which I'm sure most do), what makes Bill a better defender in KG? Numbers are welcome, but I'd also like to see reasoning for those numbers. What does Russell truly do better? I suppose rebounding would be one, though KG is probably the best defensive rebounder of his era.

Well there's an obvious difference. I won't say that the correct interpretation is obvious - it's very debatable - but to me it's THE thing to consider:

Bill Russell was the greatest shot blocker in history.
Kevn Garnett has never stood out on that front much at all.

Is this solely because the smart play in the modern age is to not actually try to block many shots or did Russell have something Garnett didn't?

My best estimate is that it's because Russell has a talent Garnett doesn't, but I could have my mind changed in the future. Two exemplars to consider:

1) Hakeem as an explosive defender is clearly the closest thing we've seen to Russell, and on the whole people consider his defense to be quite cerebral as well. If what Hakeem was doing was the smart thing...then we don't have to look back to Russell to see what a superior defensive talent looks like, we can just look back to Hakeem. If we start seeing evidence though that Hakeem wasn't actually very effective on defense, then that makes the case for Garnett more bullet proof.

2) Seeing Anthony Davis emerge in college made me very excited because it was really clear that Davis' college impact was about the closest we'd seen to Russell in a very long time. If Davis blooms in the NBA, the specifics of his bloom may tell us a lot about the limits of what a defender of the long, smart & agile mode can do (and note all the guys I've mentioned are part of this mold).

Anthony Davis isn't even the best defensive player in his draft class.

If those numbers are correct. You see why Russell was winning MVPs. That would make them the greatest defense in league history. Likely say Russell has more impact on 1 part of the floor than any player in history by a large amount.

[Doctor MJ]

Anthony Davis isn't even the best defensive player in his draft class.

I take it you think it's Drummond? We'll see.

[richboy]

Anthony Davis isn't even the best defensive player in his draft class.

I take it you think it's Drummond? We'll see.

That not something I'm worried about. Especially if your waiting for Davis to become Bill Russell. Right now he isn't even good defensively. He is pretty much the poster boy of physically dominate in college but is tossed around in the pros. He looks like Javale Mcgee in college but really just a thin version of Joakim Noah in the pros.

If your hoping Davis is going to bring some of what Bill Russell had then fine. I just imagine Bill Russell being a lot more impressive than Anthony Davis even early in his career. But perhaps he going to develop to a GOAT candidate.

[Doctor MJ]

Anthony Davis isn't even the best defensive player in his draft class.

I take it you think it's Drummond? We'll see.

That not something I'm worried about. Especially if your waiting for Davis to become Bill Russell. Right now he isn't even good defensively. He is pretty much the poster boy of physically dominate in college but is tossed around in the pros. He looks like Javale Mcgee in college but really just a thin version of Joakim Noah in the pros.

If your hoping Davis is going to bring some of what Bill Russell had then fine. I just imagine Bill Russell being a lot more impressive than Anthony Davis even early in his career. But perhaps he going to develop to a GOAT candidate.

Right now Marc Gasol is DPOY and Kevin Garnett in his 18th year in the league remains incredibly effective. They aren't doing this because they currently have some physical talent far beyond Davis. They are doing this because of how well they see the game.

For a college freshman, Davis saw the floor incredibly well. He was not so preternaturally gifted that this resulted in him becoming a dominant defensive anchor in the pros overnight, but I don't know if that's even possible any more. If Davis has the mental talent he appeared to have in college - which by the Drummond and Nerlens Noel couldn't hold a candle to, and I don't even know what to do with the McGee comparison given his glaring stupidity - he's going to be an excellent defender in the pros. Will his actual physical dominance be enough to remind us at all of Russell? I don't know. It won't be easy...but I can't think of any other prospect that's come up recently who gave us really any hope along these lines, bot I'm grabbing on to what I can.

[aol4532]

If you judge him against his contemporaries, then the numbers speak for themselves. Please don't say if you put them in today's league with today's training methods, he would be the best player today, because I could just as well say, if Oscar Robertson had today's training methods, he would be the best player. If Dr J had today's training methods, he would be the best player, and so on.

I think if you put McGee back then, he would get those blocks just as easily as Russell did. Russell's athleticism was well ahead of the players of his time, and that's about it.

[Doctor MJ]

If you judge him against his contemporaries, then the numbers speak for themselves. Please don't say if you put them in today's league with today's training methods, he would be the best player today, because I could just as well say, if Oscar Robertson had today's training methods, he would be the best player. If Dr J had today's training methods, he would be the best player, and so on.

I think if you put McGee back then, he would get those blocks just as easily as Russell did. Russell's athleticism was well ahead of the players of his time, and that's about it.

This is an odd set of statements.

Were it to be true that with Russell, Oscar, and Erving all of them they'd be the best today if they were on equal footing in terms of training that the current guys have that would shock a lot of people. It is by no means any kind of a given and shouldn't be taken as some kind of meaningless tautology.

McGee? What is with people and this tendency to have Russell come to mind when they see McGee? McGee has entire YouTube compilations devoted to him repeatedly failing to read the court at even an elementary school level. BBIQ-wise McGee is as low as it gets.

You think Russell's athleticism was ahead of his time "and that's about it"...so what this, and the McGee comment, mean is that you don't really understand Russell at all. Russell was as sharp as they come. If you wanted to say he was MENTALLY ahead of his time that would be reasonable as long as you understood that that meant he figured out everything on his own, which is very different from McGee who can't keep things straight in his head even when he's told repeatedly.

The very notion of McGee doing something like directing the other players on his team while keeping track of their minutes and fouls and evaluating their individual matchups to decide what switches to make and when to do substitutions is comical. We're all just lucky McGee hasn't bit his tongue off while running.

[ronnymac2]

The very notion of McGee doing something like directing the other players on his team while keeping track of their minutes and fouls and evaluating their individual matchups to decide what switches to make and when to do substitutions is comical.

That could probably be a movie.

[aol4532]

Let's say we can freeze Russell's skills for each era starting from the 70's thru the 90's. What type of player would he have been in each era ? His skill level would fit 2 of them fine, the 90's is the one that concerns me. The game had gotten much rougher. I don't doubt he could have played and did well, but in that eastern conference was no joke in the 90's. Teams like the Pistons and Knicks could have neutralized him quite well.

Why do people always forget that if Russell played in the 90s he would almost certainly add weight and strength while maintaining elite athleticism just like modern players did? He would have all hte modern benefits. He'd probably even wear leather shoes.

More importantly he gets to bring his exceptional basketball brain with him in to the 90s.

It seems to me that he ALREADY added muscles in those videos. He looks to me 240, not 220.

Also, if he adds strength, he will get more injured, and as someone pointed out, get slower. And, the 90's players don't hit the weight room as much as you think. Just look at guys like Hakeem, KG, they don't look like they spend much time in the weight room at all. Robinson, Ewing and Zo were already naturally cut when they're drafted. Jordan only added muscles later in his career. Guys like Dwight are an exception, not the rule(and you can argue that contributed to his back problem.)

Finally, adding muscles will affect your shot, so we cannot assume that he will develop a jumpshot or hit free throws above 60%, Dwight being the perfect example.

[aol4532]

If you judge him against his contemporaries, then the numbers speak for themselves. Please don't say if you put them in today's league with today's training methods, he would be the best player today, because I could just as well say, if Oscar Robertson had today's training methods, he would be the best player. If Dr J had today's training methods, he would be the best player, and so on.

I think if you put McGee back then, he would get those blocks just as easily as Russell did. Russell's athleticism was well ahead of the players of his time, and that's about it.

This is an odd set of statements.

Were it to be true that with Russell, Oscar, and Erving all of them they'd be the best today if they were on equal footing in terms of training that the current guys have that would shock a lot of people. It is by no means any kind of a given and shouldn't be taken as some kind of meaningless tautology.

McGee? What is with people and this tendency to have Russell come to mind when they see McGee? McGee has entire YouTube compilations devoted to him repeatedly failing to read the court at even an elementary school level. BBIQ-wise McGee is as low as it gets.

You think Russell's athleticism was ahead of his time "and that's about it"...so what this, and the McGee comment, mean is that you don't really understand Russell at all. Russell was as sharp as they come. If you wanted to say he was MENTALLY ahead of his time that would be reasonable as long as you understood that that meant he figured out everything on his own, which is very different from McGee who can't keep things straight in his head even when he's told repeatedly.

The very notion of McGee doing something like directing the other players on his team while keeping track of their minutes and fouls and evaluating their individual matchups to decide what switches to make and when to do substitutions is comical. We're all just lucky McGee hasn't bit his tongue off while running.

I think people often confuse IQ with skills. For example, people will automatically label Duncan as smart, but it seems to me that he's just very skilled. I mean, if you were to take away Duncan's jumpshot and post moves, would he be as smart as people think? Some might think his ability to keep the ball inbound on his blocks shows his IQ, but it could also just be the fact that he has a very long wingspan and very good lateral quickness, so he doesn't have to jump very high, which means it's easier for him to not lose control when he tries to block the shot.

IQ does exist, like for example, someone knowing when to leave his man to temporary rotate over to give the big some time to recover, or just simply not taking bad shots, but most of the time, it's just skills.

[ronnymac2]

When I think of Bill Russell, I think of the GOAT defender. Basically KG with slightly better man-to-man post defense, slightly better rebounding, and Hakeem's shot-blocking.

Offensively, think of Lamar Odom. Russell has Odom's full-court handles but average attack handles in the half court. Great passer. Didn't have Odom's shooting. Dominant offensive rebounder though. I like combining Dr. Positivity's Chandler/Nene comparison with a sprinkle of Odom. It's an interesting offensive player, though by no means even top 20 in an average year in the NBA. But a useful tool on offense.

I don't like the direct comparisons to Chandler on offense though. They seem way off to me and really disrespect Chandler. I always hear "Man, if only my team had a Tyson Chandler-type center, we'd be good to go." Does anybody know what Chandler brings to the table just on offense?

His spatial awareness and carefully timed acceleration into open crevices in the defense puts ridiculous pressure on defenses. Why? Because he's such a threat once he runs into those spaces because his vertical game (explosion off the ground plus vertical and reach) and his sure hands ensure high-percentage shots. He's got touch around the rim and gets fouled a ton (and makes his free throws).

He's a unique package. I love Bill Russell, but I do not think Russell would be rocking 70 percent true shooting with low turnovers and a ridiculous foul draw rate (with a good free throw percentage). He couldn't play the offensive role Tyson did on the 2011 Mavericks where he basically kept defenses honest with all the floor spacing around him. Chandler's unique ability meshed with Dirk's unique ability perfectly. Chandler kept defenses honest with an interior threat. Shooters shoot 3s, Dirk covers the mid-range and creates for everybody, Chandler gets the inside shots — perfect balance. (Obviously with Russell, Dallas' offense gets worse, but their defense gets insanely good, probably the best in the league.)

I'd say Russell's offensive numbers would look more like 11-12 points on 53-56 percent shooting (~8 FGA) and 4.5 FTA per game (~60 percent shooting from the line). 2-2.2 turnovers and 3.5-4 assists per game. 3.5 offensive rebounds per game. Higher Usage rate than Chandler. More ball-handling.

Defensively, he'd be a 3-3.3 blocks, 1.5-1.7 steals player. Defensive rebound rate at or above 30 percent. Global defensive impact: Perennial DPOY, clearly the best.

[richboy]

Right now Marc Gasol is DPOY and Kevin Garnett in his 18th year in the league remains incredibly effective. They aren't doing this because they currently have some physical talent far beyond Davis. They are doing this because of how well they see the game.

For a college freshman, Davis saw the floor incredibly well. He was not so preternaturally gifted that this resulted in him becoming a dominant defensive anchor in the pros overnight, but I don't know if that's even possible any more. If Davis has the mental talent he appeared to have in college - which by the Drummond and Nerlens Noel couldn't hold a candle to, and I don't even know what to do with the McGee comparison given his glaring stupidity - he's going to be an excellent defender in the pros. Will his actual physical dominance be enough to remind us at all of Russell? I don't know. It won't be easy...but I can't think of any other prospect that's come up recently who gave us really any hope along these lines, bot I'm grabbing on to what I can.

They aren't all time great defensive players either. When we talk about all-time great defensive players we are talking about guys with physical tools far above Anthony Davis. I'm not here to argue if Marc Gasol is the best defensive player in the league. Which is a joke. But in no way is he an all-time great.

To me you been watching to many episodes of Shaqinafool or whatever he calls it. Javale Mcgee has his issues. But just like what most fan doing they take a theme and ignore all the good things someone is capable of doing. The theme for Javale is he is stupid. That is fine but the one thing he does have is un real physical talent. He does the things on the floor that other players just can't do. For you to be an all-time great you have to have the expectation that they will do things on the floor that nobody else can do.

You can spin it any way you want but almost all the great talents in ths league history have been dominate physical specimens. Anthony Davis look like Mcgee on the floor in college. Excpet he was smarter. He had the IQ that Mcgee lacked. He had the will to win and to be great that Mcgee doesn't have. But something went wrong from AD last college game and his first game in the pros. He didn't measure close to Javale Mcgee. The kid that look like the biggest kid on the court in college has games in the pros that he looks smaller than some of the SFs. Mcgee can nearly touch the rim without Jumping. He blocks shots that many players just can't dream of getting. You wanted Bill Russell you was going to have to get that kind of measurement from Davis.

Lets look what your hoping to get. Bill Russell on defense. Aparently KG isn't good enough. Prime David Robinson not good enough. Dwight Howard not enough. Hakeem. Not enough. There may be some who wonder if Bill Russell was really that much better defensively than them. Ben Wallace averaged 15 rebounds per game and blocked over 3 shots. Was an alltime great help defender. If you think Bill Russell is much better than these guys then AD who isn't even a good defender right now has little shot at surpassing them and reaching that level.

Let me ask one thing though. Defense has always been the most difficult thing to measure. Are we letting the legend of Bill Russell mask the reality. How can the best defensive player be so much better than the second best defensive player. Yet the best rebounder in league history isn't that much better than the second. The best passer in league history isn't that much better than the second. The best scorer isn't that much better than the second. With Russell were in essence saying Hakeem didn't matter. DR doesn't matter. Dwight doesn't matter. Ben Wallace either. For us to really be happy and get someone that were going to put above Russell. Are we going to need Alonzo Mourning combined with Dennis Rodman. Combined with Kevin Garnett. Sorry Anthony Davis has zero shot to be this.

This is what I'm thinking though. Bill Russell played in an era that he recognized the imporportance of defense. His impact was tremendous. But it was based on the fact that he was doing something that a lot of other players weren't doing. We don't talk about many other players in that era being all-time great defenders. Let me say Bill Russell was physically great. He moves like a guard. Has incredible length and a tremendous athlete. So I could be completely wrong and Russell was really that much better. I could say the same thing about Ben Wallace though. As of right now were suggesting that Russell is the Mariano Riveria of defensive players. That he is like Jerry Rice. That there such a gap between Russell and whoever is second best that defense alone makes him a GOAT candidate. Because the number 2 guy is an all-time great offensive player as well and most people have Russell in front of Hakeem.

[Dr Positivity]

I think people often confuse IQ with skills. For example, people will automatically label Duncan as smart, but it seems to me that he's just very skilled. I mean, if you were to take away Duncan's jumpshot and post moves, would he be as smart as people think? Some might think his ability to keep the ball inbound on his blocks shows his IQ, but it could also just be the fact that he has a very long wingspan and very good lateral quickness, so he doesn't have to jump very high, which means it's easier for him to not lose control when he tries to block the shot.

IQ does exist, like for example, someone knowing when to leave his man to temporary rotate over to give the big some time to recover, or just simply not taking bad shots, but most of the time, it's just skills.

What would you say about the players who are clear cut smart for their position but not all that skilled? Ben Wallace and Rodman as two relevant examples. Iguodala, Tony Allen, Bogut, Asik and among lesser players Brewer and Fields, are other examples off the top of my head of players with strong IQ but weak skill games for their position. Could also include a few like Noah and Chandler where even if the have skills, they're not dynamic in that area compared to their IQ. The opposite is also true, players who are clearly very skilled but lack IQ, such as Bargnani, Beasley, Barbosa, Kaman, etc.