Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[turk3d]

Mikan's era was weak. There was 0 Center competition (he was the first big man to really succeed in the NBA).

In Russell's case, there were a number of outstanding Centers in the NBA which he had to go up against:

Of course Wilt in addition to Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellomy, Willis Reed, Wayne Embry and Wes Unseld. I'd go as far as to say that the Center competition was better then than it is now which is pretty weak imo.

+ 5 MVP Awards (tied with Kareem) throughout his illustrious career.

As for the comparison to Dwight (and even Ibaka) the difference is that Bill Russell was a basketball genius and had an extremely high BBIQ in addition to most likely a pretty high regular IQ.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2316 ... ssell-pt-2

[Texas Chuck]

I still don't understand the time machine crowd.

Take Ibaka or Howard or whomever you want to name. Have them be born the same year as Russell. Now do you honestly think they are going to completely revolutionize how defense was played like Russell did? And if so, what can you possibly base that on?

That is what keeps getting missed. He was doing things bigs were always told specifically NOT to do. But he knew he was right and luckily Red was smart enough to let him. That's what Red deserves credit for. Red didn't create Russell. He just gave him freedom to be Bill Russell.

All these super athletes today would almost certainly play the game the way those "lumbering white stiffs" (green font) played because that's how the great basketball minds of the day were coaching them to play.

Russell was a freaking basketball genius. He was Bird or Magic just on defense. That is part of why he belongs in the GOAT discussion. If players get the time machine and the benefit of everything that was built on his shoulders then sure they could have considerable impact when he did. But if they were born when he was, well that seems really really unlikely.

[JeepCSC]

I can't argue with whether or not he was in Mensa. That sounds the way of conjecture, about him and the mentality of other players. But point guards and small forwards aren't held hostage to the fact they followed in the foot steps of Magic and Bird. Lebron is compared to Bird straight-up. Perhaps we should be discounting what he has done since he is standing on 50 years of basketball advancing, I don't know.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I still don't understand the time machine crowd.

Take Ibaka or Howard or whomever you want to name. Have them be born the same year as Russell. Now do you honestly think they are going to completely revolutionize how defense was played like Russell did? And if so, what can you possibly base that on?

That is what keeps getting missed. He was doing things bigs were always told specifically NOT to do. But he knew he was right and luckily Red was smart enough to let him. That's what Red deserves credit for. Red didn't create Russell. He just gave him freedom to be Bill Russell.

All these super athletes today would almost certainly play the game the way those "lumbering white stiffs" (green font) played because that's how the great basketball minds of the day were coaching them to play.

Russell was a freaking basketball genius. He was Bird or Magic just on defense. That is part of why he belongs in the GOAT discussion. If players get the time machine and the benefit of everything that was built on his shoulders then sure they could have considerable impact when he did. But if they were born when he was, well that seems really really unlikely.

You don't understand the time machine. You must not have watched enough science fiction.

You don't have them born whenever. You pluck the player straight out of his current time and insert them into the other time. My only concession to the bizarreness of the time machine is to give the player one year to adjust to the rules and style of play.

Russell was doing things bigs were always told specifically NOT to do. But he knew he was right and luckily Red was smart enough to let him.

What did Russell do that bigs were told not to do?
I did notice that Russell's era was largely an era with no help defense from anybody except from big men near the rim. Are you saying that Russell invented help defense?

Suppose Russell did invent help defense. That would make Russel the greatest innovator in basketball not the greatest player in Basketball.

What is basketball? The game they play now or the game they played in 1960.

My GOAT should be the greatest player in any era after a one year adjustment period to the new era. Time travel would be worse than jet lag so I need to give the player that year to change his habits as needed to optimize his game to play this other related game.

Leonardo da Vinci may deserve respect for changing the style of painting but that does not mean that da Vinci should receive any consideration as GOAT painter.

Greatest Of All Time and Greatest Innovator of all time are 2 different categories.

Most dominant in his own era is a 3rd category. That brings me to Wilt vs Russel. Most winningest of all time is not the same as Greatest of all time. Wilt looked more dominant than Russell unless you claim the supporting teams are equal and therefore while Wilt looked more dominant than Russell in some less obvious way Russell was actually better than Wilt.

In the top 100 of all time project I don't understand why inferior players who were dominant in their time get so much consideration and I don't understand why career longevity gets so much consideration.

To me GOAT is about player's peaks that after a one year adjustment period to the different rules and styles would be applicable in any era. This is why I see Bernard King as a top 20 player of all time. Though Bernard King could not stay healthy and was never on a team that won 3 consecutive playoff series, inserting peak Bernard King onto another team in any era produces great results if I ignore the fact that Peak Bernard King only existed for one year and I am saying that it takes one year to adjust to new teammates and a different era.

I still don't understand the time machine crowd.

All these super athletes today would almost certainly play the game the way those "lumbering white stiffs" (green font) played because that's how the great basketball minds of the day were coaching them to play.

Why would the super athletes of today turn into lumbering white stiffs? These super athletes are super athletes. Sure the modern athlete has benefited from generations of strategic tactical adjustments and counter adjustments in how basketball is played and these super athletes are allowed to travel. But insert them into 1960 and they are still super athletes that just need to learn that they are not allowed to take 3 or 4 steps without dribbling.

Kevin Durant would blow the minds of 1960s fans. Jerry Lucas was a big man who could shoot but Kevin Durant is something else entirely.

The idea that Kevin Durant can't happen without Jerry Lucas happening first just does not impress me enough to make me want to abandon the time machine test for GOAT rankings.

I watched that fascinating 1949 BAA game from our game footage thread and the "lumbering white stiffs" that I expected where not there. These white guys were running around (not lumbering) throwing up what looked like wild running hook shots only these wild running hook shots were dropping for baskets at a rate that our modern super athletes could not match without a year of practice. These were bad low percentage shots being shot at a low percentage but it was impressive that they could hit these shots at all.

Russell was a freaking basketball genius. He was Bird or Magic just on defense. That is part of why he belongs in the GOAT discussion. If players get the time machine and the benefit of everything that was built on his shoulders then sure they could have considerable impact when he did.

Is Marcus Camby then also Bird or Magic on defense? I don't put Bird or Magic into GOAT discussions because they did things on offense that no 6' 9" man had ever done before them. I put Bird and Magic in GOAT discussions because they clearly pass the time machine test.

You can argue Rembrandt vs Van Gogh as GOAT because they painted in such different styles but da Vinci and George Mikan probably should not get consideration as GOAT.

If Mikan is not going to be considered as GOAT due to innovation and domination of his era then why should Russel get consideration?

To me Russel inserted via time machine into the era of Marcus Camby must clearly be better than significantly better than Marcus Camby in order to be considered a candidate for GOAT because Marcus Camby is not being considered as a candidate for GOAT.

[Texas Chuck]

You don't understand the time machine. You must not have watched enough science fiction.

You don't have them born whenever. You pluck the player straight out of his current time and insert them into the other time. My only concession to the bizarreness of the time machine is to give the player one year to adjust to the rules and style of play.

No I understand how a time machine works. What I don't understand is what you expect to learn by doing that? Why would a player who played in the 60's have a game built to work under rules he doesn't play by? Or why would a guy today style his game to rules 50 years ago? It literally makes no sense. Why work to master shooting from the corners before the 3-pt line? But now guys build entire careers on making that one shot. Why learn to dribble with your hand on top of the ball now if the rules allow you to palm the ball on every dribble?

One year is a joke of a short time to completely unlearn and re-learn an entirely different way of playing basketball, adjusting to having/not having specialized coaches, trainers, nutritionists etc. How do guys who smoked break the smoking habit in a year? How do guys who have played basketball full time since they were kids adjust to having to get a job in the off-season, deal with issues of racism they never had to deal with before?

I just don't get what you think you prove by using that method. Its completely unfair to all the players. All they can do is be the best player they can be in the era they got the chance to play in.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I edited and added to the previous post you replied to.
I do think modern players could adjust rather quickly to 1960s rules. Players have to make a large adjustment for the size, speed, experience and skills of NBA players when they come out of college.
Maybe one year adjustment is too short. College players often need 3 years to adjust to the NBA game.

My bottom line is: How much do you want to figure innovation into GOAT calculation? How much do you want to figure domination of an era into GOAT calculation. How far apart are we on our assessment of just how inferior the 1960s talent level was compared to the current talent level?

Was Bill Russell definitely a better ball player than Marcus Camby or was Bill Russell just Marcus Camby playing in a weak league?

[JeepCSC]

I'm unsure how any one can question the time machine discussion since everyone uses it in some capacity. Mikan isn't kept out of the top 3-4 because of longevity issues.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm unsure how any one can question the time machine discussion since everyone uses it in some capacity. Mikan isn't kept out of the top 3-4 because of longevity issues.

Huh? Longevity is certainly part of it with Mikan. But I can assure you I don't spend any time trying to imagine what current players would play like if they were beamed back in time. Nor do I spend time trying to figure out if Bill Russell would be Ben Wallace or Marcus Camby or not even a starter. Its completely irrelevant.

The rules and conditions for playing are so starkly different if you go straight from one to the other that imo it's nearly pure conjecture. How would a guy like Jordan deal with all of a sudden being told he can't eat in the same restaurant as his white teammates? Or that his gambling would have to cease immediately? Would Dwayne Wade be able to keep his body healthy playing in Chuck Taylosr with more physical play being allowed against him? Could Nash keep his back healthy enough to play while also having a 2nd job in the off-season without the advanced medical care he got in Phoenix? Could Chris Paul handle the ball without being called for traveling every time down?

Nobody knows. But the "time machine" crowd only seems to think problems would exist for old guys coming forward. Believe me, it would be a major issue for current players moving backwards too.

I think its so speculative as to be of limited value at best and for guys to say their GOAT has to be able to dominate in any era--I think they might find there is no GOAT. Jabbar maybe since he played from the late 60's to the early 90's? What makes GOAT candidates great is how well they tailored their games to dominate under the rules they played under. I just can't buy the logic that we should judge them by a standard they had no way of adapting to.

[trex_8063]

I still don't understand the time machine crowd.

Take Ibaka or Howard or whomever you want to name. Have them be born the same year as Russell. Now do you honestly think they are going to completely revolutionize how defense was played like Russell did? And if so, what can you possibly base that on?

That is what keeps getting missed. He was doing things bigs were always told specifically NOT to do. But he knew he was right and luckily Red was smart enough to let him. That's what Red deserves credit for. Red didn't create Russell. He just gave him freedom to be Bill Russell.

All these super athletes today would almost certainly play the game the way those "lumbering white stiffs" (green font) played because that's how the great basketball minds of the day were coaching them to play.

Russell was a freaking basketball genius. He was Bird or Magic just on defense. That is part of why he belongs in the GOAT discussion. If players get the time machine and the benefit of everything that was built on his shoulders then sure they could have considerable impact when he did. But if they were born when he was, well that seems really really unlikely.

You don't understand the time machine. You must not have watched enough science fiction.

You don't have them born whenever. You pluck the player straight out of his current time and insert them into the other time. My only concession to the bizarreness of the time machine is to give the player one year to adjust to the rules and style of play.

The point he's making is that the time machine method automatically puts past players at a disadvantage. Modern players have had the advantage of modern coaching, facilities, nutrition, medicine, have been practicing/been coached in certain modern techniques for their entire lives (methods which didn't exist in some past eras), and have had those past players to watch on TV and model their play after, etc etc etc (etc etc etc).

You do the time machine pluck and drop, modern players have all of those advantages over the players they're being dropped among. Conversely, if you take the old-era player and do the pluck and drop (forward in time), they're at a disadvantage for the same multitude of reasons.

If the time machine crowd honestly doesn't see the bias and inequity in this method......idk what else to say. Seems pretty patent to me.

[trex_8063]

I'm unsure how any one can question the time machine discussion since everyone uses it in some capacity. Mikan isn't kept out of the top 3-4 because of longevity issues.

Huh? Longevity is certainly part of it with Mikan. But I can assure you I don't spend any time trying to imagine what current players would play like if they were beamed back in time. Nor do I spend time trying to figure out if Bill Russell would be Ben Wallace or Marcus Camby or not even a starter. Its completely irrelevant.

The rules and conditions for playing are so starkly different if you go straight from one to the other that imo it's nearly pure conjecture. How would a guy like Jordan deal with all of a sudden being told he can't eat in the same restaurant as his white teammates? Or that his gambling would have to cease immediately? Would Dwayne Wade be able to keep his body healthy playing in Chuck Taylosr with more physical play being allowed against him? Could Nash keep his back healthy enough to play while also having a 2nd job in the off-season without the advanced medical care he got in Phoenix? Could Chris Paul handle the ball without being called for traveling every time down? ......

I also suspect all modern perimeter players would likely spend a couple-three months getting called for 3-6 carries/palmings per game (because the officiating and rule-interpretation on ball-handling was different then). And of course they wouldn't be able to utilize some of their same moves once they did adjust their ball-handling to align with period rules.

[thizznation]

time machine wouldn't be too generous on modern day players either, they would barley be able to get the ball to half court with out being called for traveling...

[turk3d]

Help defense in the past was basically the Center with the rest of the team trying to funnel the player they were guarding to the Center who would block their shot (of which probably Russell was the greatest shotblocker ever to play the game). It was reported (although no statistical records were kept) that he'd block 8-12 a game on a normal basis.

You just didn't take the ball to the middle with him in the game and on some occasions, he would come out 10-15 to block shots. Very few players would have the smarts to do what Russell did at just 6'9. The closest I've seen to him (as far as Centers go) was Hakeem but that's about it.

Howard doesn't have the smarts for that. If you wanted to compare him to someone, you'd be better off comparing him to Wilt and Wilt was just bigger than he and Howard doesn't have the post game like Wilt did (really up to this point in him career doesn't even have one).

Time machine, smime machine. Maybe that's meaningful if you put them both in an NBA video game. Then maybe Howard (or even Ibaka) might come up as good or who knows, even better. It's also pretty hard even to measure that way when many of the statistics which are used to measure players today weren't being kept back in those days. Really unfair unless you saw those guys play.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Help defense in the past was basically the Center with the rest of the team trying to funnel the player they were guarding to the Center who would block their shot (of which probably Russell was the greatest shotblocker ever to play the game). It was reported (although no statistical records were kept) that he'd block 8-12 a game on a normal basis.

You just didn't take the ball to the middle with him in the game and on some occasions, he would come out 10-15 to block shots. Very few players would have the smarts to do what Russell did at just 6'9. The closest I've seen to him (as far as Centers go) was Hakeem but that's about it.

Howard doesn't have the smarts for that. If you wanted to compare him to someone, you'd be better off comparing him to Wilt

Based on film I can believe that Russel was blocking 10 shots a game but 6 of those would have been shots that David Lee would have also Blocked.

Marcus Camby might have also blocked 10 shots a game. Camby might be the guy most similar to Russel. Camby probably lacked Russel's court vision. Camby is a bit taller but the league was a bit shorter in Russell's day. Rodman and Ibaka also come to mind. Russell did not have the blatant muscles of Dwight Howard. Russell moved sort of smoothly where as Howard moves in a jarring sort of way.

Steph Curry shoots high floaters on his drives because Steph knows he is not getting much elevation on his drive and would get his shots blocked if he did not float them over the shot blocker.

Players in Russel's day were shooing shots that shot not even be attempted against David Lee if David Lee was the helping center. It was as if they had not adjusted to even mediocre quality shot blocking.

A high percentage of the shots in that era were taken close to the basket and without a high release point.

[ChokeFasncists]

How about some sorta combination of Ben Wallace, (mobile shot blocking) Deke, (rim protection) Anthony Mason (ball-handling and passing, he averaged almost 6 assists for a season!) and Amare (athletic, running the floor, dunking, maybe not as good offensively)?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

How about some sorta combination of Ben Wallace, (mobile shot blocking) Deke, (rim protection) Anthony Mason (ball-handling and passing, he averaged almost 6 assists for a season!) and Amare (athletic, running the floor, dunking, maybe not as good offensively)?

Both Mason and Ben Wallace were very mobile for their body types but they were both somewhat wide bodies and Mason was only 6' 7" but looked like a body builder.

Russell did not have that wider body type.

Russell was clearly quite strong but more like a Dennis Rodman type of wiry strength.

I would say Russel was more Mobile than Ben Wallace. Closer to Larry Nance but not quite that mobile. I don't think he was Mason's equal as a dribbler but I think his court vision was better than Anthony Mason's.

[ChokeFasncists]

How about some sorta combination of Ben Wallace, (mobile shot blocking) Deke, (rim protection) Anthony Mason (ball-handling and passing, he averaged almost 6 assists for a season!) and Amare (athletic, running the floor, dunking, maybe not as good offensively)?

Both Mason and Ben Wallace were very mobile for their body types but they were both somewhat wide bodies and Mason was only 6' 7" but looked like a body builder.

Russell did not have that wider body type.

Russell was clearly quite strong but more like a Dennis Rodman type of wiry strength.

I would say Russel was more Mobile than Ben Wallace. Closer to Larry Nance but not quite that mobile. I don't think he was Mason's equal as a dribbler but I think his cour vision was better than Anthony Mason's.

Sure, true, that's why I said some sorta combination, not necessarily the same or having the best of all them. His bodytype would probably be closer to Deke and Amare.

[JeepCSC]

I'd be interested to know where Mikan ranks in your all-time list Chuck. I can't properly decide if your time machine issues are self-serving or genuine.

[Texas Chuck]

I'd be interested to know where Mikan ranks in your all-time list Chuck. I can't properly decide if your time machine issues are self-serving or genuine.

I don't know how to rank Mikan properly. But nor do I know how to properly rank Bill Walton. Nor Sabonis. And frankly since I last made a top 50 list I'd probably change quite a bit of it.

Decide for yourself based on my posts if you think I'm being self-serving in any way. And my list is easy to find if your really want to find it--check the pre-lists for the top 100 project.

[JeepCSC]

Walton had like a 2-year prime and little else. I'm unsure how he compares. Mikan had a decade-long career as a professional, one in which he won 7 titles and had a fairly sustained prime period. In an era-blind ranking, he would have to be top 10 and I'd be surprised at anyone who had him outside top 5.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

“I have no problem saying this at all,” he says. “They're all 6-(feet)-9 and Jordan was 6-6 and a half. If they were all 6-1, it wouldn't even be a question. They wouldn't even f---ing rate. If they were all my size, s---, they wouldn't even be talked about.

“I beat the s--- out of them when they were that big. If we were all the same size, f---.” He stops to laugh good-naturedly. “Make them 6-1 and let's go on the court.”

Isiah is correct. Bird, Magic and probably Jordan would not be top 200 players if they were 6' 1"
Likewise Jordan and Isiah Thomas and Magic would not be top 200 players if they had Bird's foot speed.

Rondo won't be a top 100 player because he does not shoot well. Tough luck Rondo.
Football players won't top 100 basketball players because they play football instead of basketball.

Players from the 1960s have disadvantages at being top 100 players because they had inferior training and faced inferior competition. Tough luck 1960s players.

Some kid at the YMCA who scores 50 points a game and grabs 30 rebounds a game and has 15 blocks a game can't be the NBA GOAT because he is just a kid playing at the YMCA.

Players should not be considered for Basketball GOAT strictly based on their stats or their domination of their league if their was inferior. The players must pass the hypothetical time machine test.

If we can look at a college player and guess how they will do in the pros then we can look at a 1960s player and guess how they will do in the current NBA.