Peak Bill Russell vs Peak Bill Walton

[HeartBreakKid]

Who peaked higher between the two, and who was better at doing what?

Who would you rather have for one season, let's assume they can play the majority of the RS with playoffs included.

[HeartBreakKid]

Bump.

[colts18]

Id take Russell in 1963. Id take Walton in 2013.

[GSP]

Did Walton do anything better than Russell?

[colts18]

Did Walton do anything better than Russell?

Passing, scoring. They were probably equal as rebounders.

[DirtyDez]

Walton at his peak. Russell had a great run back in the day when there were a few teams in the league.

[ceiling raiser]

Did Walton do anything better than Russell?

Passing, scoring. They were probably equal as rebounders.

Hmmm I'm one of Walton's biggest fans, but I can't quite get behind that.

[JordansBulls]

Did Walton do anything better than Russell?

Scoring is a no brainer. The only other thing is probably passing since he was a better scorer and needed to pass more often as an offensive player to avoid doubles.

[Gideon]

I'm a huge Walton supporter, but I can't pick him over Russell.

Also, I actually have a problem with the "peak" concept in general, to some extent. Russell played well enough to win 11 titles in 13 years. Really 11 in 12 years with him on the court at the key moments, since he was injured in the 58 PS.

We can go over stats (including "advanced" stats) until the cows come home -- and I'm not saying that sort of evaluation isn't worthwhile; I think it's worthwhile and interesting even if doesn't tell the whole story -- but Russell did what he needed to do. He knew what the objective of the game was.

If there had been a season between 57-66 or so when the Celtics had key players injured and were totally depleted, I think Russell would have done much more statistically than in other years, and then everybody would point to that season as his "peak" and he would suddenly have a GOAT-level peak in the eyes of posters on this board.

Instead, he was just really steady, and did what was needed to help his team win season after season after season after season.

Walton was an awesome player... total team guy and impactful in a zillion ways (many of which people often miss when evaluating him imo). I think that in a basketball sense his injuries are a NBA tragedy. I truly think a Walton healthy enough to play 70+ games for 10 seasons is a top 8 all-time player.

But Russell is Russell. And judging "peak" can be pretty deceiving imo.

[KyletheDingbat]

I'm a huge Walton supporter, but I can't pick him over Russell.

Also, I actually have a problem with the "peak" concept in general, to some extent. Russell played well enough to win 11 titles in 13 years. Really 11 in 12 years with him on the court at the key moments, since he was injured in the 58 PS.

We can go over stats (including "advanced" stats) until the cows come home -- and I'm not saying that sort of evaluation isn't worthwhile; I think it's worthwhile and interesting even if doesn't tell the whole story -- but Russell did what he needed to do. He knew what the objective of the game was.

If there had been a season between 57-66 or so when the Celtics had key players injured and were totally depleted, I think Russell would have done much more statistically than in other years, and then everybody would point to that season as his "peak" and he would suddenly have a GOAT-level peak in the eyes of posters on this board.

Instead, he was just really steady, and did what was needed to help his team win season after season after season after season.

Walton was an awesome player... total team guy and impactful in a zillion ways (many of which people often miss when evaluating him imo). I think that in a basketball sense his injuries are a NBA tragedy. I truly think a Walton healthy enough to play 70+ games for 10 seasons is a top 8 all-time player.

But Russell is Russell. And judging "peak" can be pretty deceiving imo.

One of the best posts I've read on here.

[acrossthecourt]

Walton is the greatest defensive rebounder ever by percentage, and I think his numbers beat Russell's translated stats. Walton didn't grab a lot of offensive boards because he played in the high post.

[Johnlac1]

Interesting thread because their games were very similar. Both were more interested in winning than personal stats. Walton was easily a better scoring threat with better moves and better touch inside fifteen feet. Better passer as well. But I'll give Russell the slight defensive edge although Walton was pretty good in that category as well. People have to remember Russell was exceptionally long, had a great vertical leap, and was a very quick jumper. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd pick Walton for his superior offensive game. Walton could have easily averaged more points if his team needed it. Russell's jump shot actually looked technically better than Walton's, but he never took time in the off-season to improve it. Which is one reason his career fg pct is so low.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm a huge Walton supporter, but I can't pick him over Russell.

Also, I actually have a problem with the "peak" concept in general, to some extent. Russell played well enough to win 11 titles in 13 years. Really 11 in 12 years with him on the court at the key moments, since he was injured in the 58 PS.

We can go over stats (including "advanced" stats) until the cows come home -- and I'm not saying that sort of evaluation isn't worthwhile; I think it's worthwhile and interesting even if doesn't tell the whole story -- but Russell did what he needed to do. He knew what the objective of the game was.

If there had been a season between 57-66 or so when the Celtics had key players injured and were totally depleted, I think Russell would have done much more statistically than in other years, and then everybody would point to that season as his "peak" and he would suddenly have a GOAT-level peak in the eyes of posters on this board.

Instead, he was just really steady, and did what was needed to help his team win season after season after season after season.

Walton was an awesome player... total team guy and impactful in a zillion ways (many of which people often miss when evaluating him imo). I think that in a basketball sense his injuries are a NBA tragedy. I truly think a Walton healthy enough to play 70+ games for 10 seasons is a top 8 all-time player.

But Russell is Russell. And judging "peak" can be pretty deceiving imo.

Bill Russell does have a GOAT level peak in the eyes of a lot of posters on the board. Hence the comparison.

[Gideon]

I'm a huge Walton supporter, but I can't pick him over Russell.

Also, I actually have a problem with the "peak" concept in general, to some extent. Russell played well enough to win 11 titles in 13 years. Really 11 in 12 years with him on the court at the key moments, since he was injured in the 58 PS.

We can go over stats (including "advanced" stats) until the cows come home -- and I'm not saying that sort of evaluation isn't worthwhile; I think it's worthwhile and interesting even if doesn't tell the whole story -- but Russell did what he needed to do. He knew what the objective of the game was.

If there had been a season between 57-66 or so when the Celtics had key players injured and were totally depleted, I think Russell would have done much more statistically than in other years, and then everybody would point to that season as his "peak" and he would suddenly have a GOAT-level peak in the eyes of posters on this board.

Instead, he was just really steady, and did what was needed to help his team win season after season after season after season.

Walton was an awesome player... total team guy and impactful in a zillion ways (many of which people often miss when evaluating him imo). I think that in a basketball sense his injuries are a NBA tragedy. I truly think a Walton healthy enough to play 70+ games for 10 seasons is a top 8 all-time player.

But Russell is Russell. And judging "peak" can be pretty deceiving imo.

Bill Russell does have a GOAT level peak in the eyes of a lot of posters on the board. Hence the comparison.

I mean literal greatest-of-all-time peak... not top 10 or 15. If many posters on this board feel that way about Russell, I haven't come across it. I usually see 91 Jordan, 00 Shaq, 94 Hakeem, and 67 Wilt brought up as the GOAT peaks (I may be off by a year with somebody there).

I also totally get why that's the case... those are transcendent seasons from those guys that really stand out. They all managed to have killer individual years on a championship team, and Jordan's Bulls (usually from a couple of years later, but essentially the same squad) and Wilt's 76ers are often in GOAT team discussions. Russell never really had one particular year you could point to as him blowing up and just crushing it... he did what he needed to do, year-in and year-out and there was just never a season where he had a jump in certain stats/changed his role (like Wilt in 67) or suddenly put up way more impressive stats than he ever had before the same year his team won the title (like Shaq, and to a lesser extent Hakeem). In Jordan's case, his stats were most impressive in his early years, so his first year winning a title is chosen as his peak since it includes his most impressive stat line in the same year his team a championship.

And that's the problem I have with peak rankings and the whole concept of "peaks." I think it's just too dependent on circumstances, and often sort of brushes aside the real goal of helping one's team to win as much as possible. I have very little doubt that if a couple of key Celtics had been injured in, let's say 1963, and Auerbach had told Russell to do much more offensively, Russell would have stepped up and had a season that would stand out clearly as his statistical peak. And if the Celtics still won a title in that season, then 63 Russell would be talked about alongside the GOAT peaks. And Russell wouldn't give a you-know-what about any of that... it would be no more or less valuable to him than the other 10 titles at the end of the day.

Despite Russell not having a clear "peak" season, I would take peak Russell over any other peak player ever. The fact that Russell never had a season that looks like Wilt's 67 or Jordan's 91 or Shaq's 00 or Hakeem's 94 doesn't mean Russell wasn't helping his team just as much. Russell did what he needed to do to help his team win -- and something about judging peaks feels to me like it tends to obscure that basic concept.

BTW when I write about having a problem with the concept of "peak" in a general sense, I'm not trying to criticize you or this post. I actually think you're one of the most insightful posters here... the thing is, to answer this question and give some explanation, it felt like it made sense to delve into my thoughts about "peak" itself to some extent. I didn't want to just write something relatively meaningless like "Walton was great, but I would still pick Russell," and then going into more detail led into my thoughts about this whole concept.

[penbeast0]

Walton is the greatest defensive rebounder ever by percentage, and I think his numbers beat Russell's translated stats. Walton didn't grab a lot of offensive boards because he played in the high post.

For most of his career, so did Russell. Walton didn't have Russell's quickness (the whole Kevin Garnett advanced defensive stats thing that gets brought up here so often) but his superior offense may (or may not) balance out his lesser defense and rebounding numbers.

Shame we never saw it for more than one season; Walton was a fun player to watch. He may be overrated -- there are other guys who have had 1 peak season like that but slipped as the personnel around them became less compatible or couldn't sustain their competitive fire -- or he may have been able to be that good over a reasonable career without the foot issues. We will never know.

[Gideon]

Walton is the greatest defensive rebounder ever by percentage, and I think his numbers beat Russell's translated stats. Walton didn't grab a lot of offensive boards because he played in the high post.

For most of his career, so did Russell. Walton didn't have Russell's quickness (the whole Kevin Garnett advanced defensive stats thing that gets brought up here so often) but his superior offense may (or may not) balance out his lesser defense and rebounding numbers.

Shame we never saw it for more than one season; Walton was a fun player to watch. He may be overrated -- there are other guys who have had 1 peak season like that but slipped as the personnel around them became less compatible or couldn't sustain their competitive fire -- or he may have been able to be that good over a reasonable career without the foot issues. We will never know.

It's true in a strictly literal sense that we will never actually know how good Walton would have been...

However, he was one of the greatest college players of all-time (top 5 on pretty much any list and 2nd after KAJ on most lists, I believe), which I feel points towards Walton being legitimately exceptional...

And even without looking at college play, I don't really agree (or at least I'm not aware of it if it's the case) that there are other guys who had one peak season like Walton did and then fell off.

The Blazers from the 76-77 PS through Walton's injury 60 games into 77-78 were one of the best teams ever. They started off the 77-78 season 50-10 (68-14 pace) and then went 8-14 and lost in the 1st round of the PS after Walton was injured. I can't imagine there's some other random player who doesn't get a lot of credit who had that sort of impact over a season (leads team to a title and then to near-GOAT-level RS pace through 3/4 of the season despite relatively mediocre teammates... then has team fall apart completely when he is hurt).

I really feel like the evidence points to Walton being truly elite during his unfortunately short prime.

[penbeast0]

mmm, Connie Hawkins in Pittsburgh . . . . of course his career arc is also drastically affected by injury.

I am not saying a healthy Walton wouldn't be a top 10 center of all time, that's practically a given based on his college career and his season and a half as a pro. Probably top 5 ahead of Hakeem and behind only Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and maybe Shaq. I am saying that to even be considered with Russell, he has to be 76-77 good for 10 years and there are few players that have maintained that high a peak for that long (ok, none, but few that have maintained nearly that high a peak).

[Gideon]

mmm, Connie Hawkins in Pittsburgh . . . . of course his career arc is also drastically affected by injury.

I am not saying a healthy Walton wouldn't be a top 10 center of all time, that's practically a given based on his college career and his season and a half as a pro. Probably top 5 ahead of Hakeem and behind only Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and maybe Shaq. I am saying that to even be considered with Russell, he has to be 76-77 good for 10 years and there are few players that have maintained that high a peak for that long (ok, none, but few that have maintained nearly that high a peak).

Okay... seems like I just misunderstood you... I agree with that assessment of where a healthy Walton would rank... and I would actually really like to watch more footage of prime Hawkins. I'll make it a point to do that soon.

[ThaRegul8r]

Bill Russell does have a GOAT level peak in the eyes of a lot of posters on the board. Hence the comparison.

There are 95,351 registered members of this board. I highly doubt that "a lot of them" believe this. It's a minority opinion held by a fraction of RealGM posters.

[HeartBreakKid]

Bill Russell does have a GOAT level peak in the eyes of a lot of posters on the board. Hence the comparison.

There are 95,351 registered members of this board. I highly doubt that "a lot of them" believe this. It's a minority opinion held by a fraction of RealGM posters.

I was referring to this section if it makes you more happy. Pretty decent number of people here think highly of Russell, at least enough to the point where you sassing me would be unnecessary.