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

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

[turk3d]

Actually a strong argument can be made for the past NBA (with only 8-10 teams in the Association) being stronger than today's Association with 30 teams due to the thinned out talent with so many teams now in the league.

[payton2kemp]

Completely agree with the last poster on the pro time-machine position.

At best people who say you can't compare players from the different eras have to say there is no way to come up with a GOAT list. Otherwise we have the benefit of hindsight and more easily say that MJ could go back in time, but it doesn't work the other way around.

In addition, when people bring up the argument, "he was an innovator for his time", it ignores the fact that innovation is relative: when people in the 1960s took a bunch of bad shots to tire out the other team it's not rocket science to address that strategy, while someone trying to compete with the 2014 Spurs team would have a much bigger challenge in trying to stop a team that plays that well together.

The fact that teams couldn't adjust to Russell's relatively basic strategies was more indicative of the fact that those players and teams weren't very good. This is why these types of simple strategies work in high school, but not in the pros today, http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/1 ... ss-theory/.

If people like Kobe and Lebron can study the game and learn complicated plays and systems it seems absurd that they wouldn't figure out the basic things that Russell did intuitively. I think it's much easier to assume that people who can pick up complex systems would be able to handle simple ones using instinct, but it's not clear that you can make the opposite assumption. This is like saying that someone who is phenomenal at arithmetic would be great at higher-order math because someone who is great at higher-order math is great at arithmetic.

We know that today's players went through much more intense competition to get to where they are then someone would have in 1965: the game is relatively more popular by a large margin; this means more people play it and gaining and edge is more difficult; by extension it's not a leap to assume these players would excel if we went back in time.

We know that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter of all time. Perhaps Jesse Owens could beat him today with the same level of conditioning--the fact is we don't know. Given the fact that Bolt is the world's fastest man and everyone today has access to the same information it's more likely that Jessie Owens wouldn't beat him in a race, even with the same conditioning. The anti-time machine crowd is assuming that the conditioning, additional knowledge, etc. would have the same effect on Russell as it has on his contemporaries, which very well may not be the case.

Instead of looking at the what-ifs, which require assumptions we can never verify, the GOAT discussion should look at the final product. If players evolve and there is a 7' guy with Lebron-like skills in 2050 then he gets that advantage in the GOAT discussion just as anyone today does relative to people in the past.

As to the argument that the league was more concentrated back then. even if there are 3x the number of roster spots, the game is a lot more popular: this is entirely offset by the fact that the pool of potential players today is much more than 3x what is was in the 1960s when you consider the massive increase in racial integration and international expansion. Basketball wasn't popular in the 1960s and didn't have the same kind of feeder systems that exist today.

[SkyHookFTW]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

What foolish things are being said in this thread. To "objectively" compare people from different eras, one must put players back AND bring them forward while thinking of every aspect of an athlete's life. I come at this from three perspectives. First, as a fan who started watching in the 1960's. Second, as a fairly good athlete who went to a D1 school on a football scholarship but also rode the bench on the basketball team, giving me a chance to see some future players actually play the game during the 70's. Finally, as a history teacher who understands what it means to look at the past through the lens of the present--with all the bias inherent with the point of view.

Who was Bill Russell? Bill Russell was a man with strength, endurance, court vision, and a high BB IQ. He was a competitor who never backed down from anyone. He was a track star in college (high jumper). What does that mean? It means that his core strength was very high, as it usually is with track athletes competing in field events. Base core strength is the building block of the athlete. Russell had that. Russell was also constrained by the rules and coaching methods of his day. He was lucky enough to have Red Auerbach as his coach, a man who trusted Russell's abilities on the court and thus, gave him some free reign.

Given Russell's basic core strength, it is silly to assume that given modern methods of training and nutrition that Russell would not have been bigger and stronger to some degree. Measured by today's standards, 1960's Russell would be 6"10" and 220 pounds. Bill Russell, at 6"10" and 240 pounds would probably be the player you would see in the league today. He would be just as fast/quick, with excellent endurance.

How would that Bill Russell play with today's rules and coaching? We don't know. Physically he would match up with any center today easily. Russell would have to adapt to today's more perimeter-oriented style of play. Given his speed, jumping ability, and willingness to play hard-nosed defense, and defer to the coaches to do what it took to win, only a person who disrespects 1960-era players could say that Russell could not make the adjustment and play today. Also, Russell might be (might, I say) be more of a force on the offensive end because the rules on fouls would give him more leeway under the basket. Back in his day players didn't go to the foul line because someone touched them.

Another thing to add here is his competition. Russell had to go up against Wilt at least eight times a year. Did this elevate his game to any extent? According to Russell it did. Russell admits to sometimes not sleeping at night before a game against Wilt because he knew what he was in for. If this elevated his game in any way (we can't measure that), that must be accounted for because there is no Wilt in today's game.

Now imagine everything I just said about rules, coaching, and nutrition and apply that to Wilt. Put that Wilt on today's 76ers and they probably win the East.

Conversely, putting today's athlete back in the 1960's must take into account the fact that today's athlete would only have access to 1960's training, coaching, and nutrition theory, as well as different rules. This doesn't mean that today's athletes would not play well or excel. The rule changes would help some players and hurt some until adjustments were made. No more traveling, palming, carrying, and no more going to the foul live because someone brushed them. But today's players would have grown up with 1960's rules, so the players would probably be playing the game like you see in the films from that era.

The time machine works both ways. Bill Russell deserves to be in the GOAT conversation. He earned it.

[JeepCSC]

I don't think there is a true anti-time machine crowd. There are just some who don't wish to apply it to Russell. They'll apply it to before him however.

[trex_8063]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

No, this is not true.
The time-machine method simply ignores context: 100% ignores it. That's what the anti-TM crowd is against.

We're not against making the comparisons at all. That is just a blatantly false statement. In fact, if you've read a significant amount from the top 100 project you'd see that era portability speculation is a BIG part of a lot of peoples' (read: people who are NOT in the pro-TM crowd) criteria. For examples, read a lot of the discussion in the early 40's section of the project regarding Dolph Schayes.

All the anti-TM crowd is saying is let's at least level the playing field (i.e. consider context) before comparing. Let's look at the given physical/athletic attributes, the generalized tendencies and game strengths of a player, and consider what they may have been if availed that which was available within a given era.

Really, this premise isn't very "out there".

[turk3d]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

What foolish things are being said in this thread. To "objectively" compare people from different eras, one must put players back AND bring them forward while thinking of every aspect of an athlete's life. I come at this from three perspectives. First, as a fan who started watching in the 1960's. Second, as a fairly good athlete who went to a D1 school on a football scholarship but also rode the bench on the basketball team, giving me a chance to see some future players actually play the game during the 70's. Finally, as a history teacher who understands what it means to look at the past through the lens of the present--with all the bias inherent with the point of view.

Who was Bill Russell? Bill Russell was a man with strength, endurance, court vision, and a high BB IQ. He was a competitor who never backed down from anyone. He was a track star in college (high jumper). What does that mean? It means that his core strength was very high, as it usually is with track athletes competing in field events. Base core strength is the building block of the athlete. Russell had that. Russell was also constrained by the rules and coaching methods of his day. He was lucky enough to have Red Auerbach as his coach, a man who trusted Russell's abilities on the court and thus, gave him some free reign.

Given Russell's basic core strength, it is silly to assume that given modern methods of training and nutrition that Russell would not have been bigger and stronger to some degree. Measured by today's standards, 1960's Russell would be 6"10" and 220 pounds. Bill Russell, at 6"10" and 240 pounds would probably be the player you would see in the league today. He would be just as fast/quick, with excellent endurance.

How would that Bill Russell play with today's rules and coaching? We don't know. Physically he would match up with any center today easily. Russell would have to adapt to today's more perimeter-oriented style of play. Given his speed, jumping ability, and willingness to play hard-nosed defense, and defer to the coaches to do what it took to win, only a person who disrespects 1960-era players could say that Russell could not make the adjustment and play today. Also, Russell might be (might, I say) be more of a force on the offensive end because the rules on fouls would give him more leeway under the basket. Back in his day players didn't go to the foul line because someone touched them.

Another thing to add here is his competition. Russell had to go up against Wilt at least eight times a year. Did this elevate his game to any extent? According to Russell it did. Russell admits to sometimes not sleeping at night before a game against Wilt because he knew what he was in for. If this elevated his game in any way (we can't measure that), that must be accounted for because there is no Wilt in today's game.

Now imagine everything I just said about rules, coaching, and nutrition and apply that to Wilt. Put that Wilt on today's 76ers and they probably win the East.

Conversely, putting today's athlete back in the 1960's must take into account the fact that today's athlete would only have access to 1960's training, coaching, and nutrition theory, as well as different rules. This doesn't mean that today's athletes would not play well or excel. The rule changes would help some players and hurt some until adjustments were made. No more traveling, palming, carrying, and no more going to the foul live because someone brushed them. But today's players would have grown up with 1960's rules, so the players would probably be playing the game like you see in the films from that era.

The time machine works both ways. Bill Russell deserves to be in the GOAT conversation. He earned it.

Great post! Thanks.

[trex_8063]

I don't think there is a true anti-time machine crowd. There are just some who don't wish to apply it to Russell. They'll apply it to before him however.

Spoiler:

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

Short answer:
Because he is.

Longer answer:
Because even if you chose to discount his career accomplishments by a significant amount (due to strength of era), he still rates out pretty high.
Also, don't buy into the hot tub time machine method for comparing eras (Scalabrine? Seriously?). Consider context: era-specific training, coaching, game strategy/theory/stylistics, medical care, game rules, game popularity, greats one may have had to model their game after, etc. How would someone like Scalabrine look if he had simply been born circa 1930 with all of those circumstances? Worst case: he never even plays basketball, because the popularity, media-exposure, and financial up-shot of the game at the time doesn't succeed in drawing him to it. Best case: maybe he has a career similar to a Clyde Lovellette or Rudy LaRusso (even LaRusso was more athletic than Scal, though); which is to say, "good", but hardly "dominating".


Longer answer (assuming we're not all being trolled by this thread):
Once you stop using the time machine method of considering past eras, and instead consider context and circumstances of the time, I should think you'd begin to think of the 1950's as merely a significantly weaker (but decidedly NOT irrelevant) era. And anyway, the majority of Russell's career took place in the 60's, during which the game was becoming more integrated and quite competitive. Other players present to some degree within that decade: Wilt, Baylor, West, Robertson, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Wilkens, Frazier/Hayes/Unseld/Monroe all entered league during his last two seasons.

Russell was limited offensively, no doubt. I think the nearest modern context comparison is probably Joakim Noah, though even Noah can hit his FT's and maybe nail an open 17-footer (which Russell couldn't do). otoh, Russell's athleticism would likely make him better in transition (+/- cleaning up on offensive glass). Wes Unseld might be an even closer offensive comparison. Basically good high-post passing big man, good screen setter, can clean up some easy buckets. Otherwise limited offensively, but at least plays within his capabilities.

Defensively, however, perhaps try to think of Russell as a Garnett/Olajuwon hybrid. Russell was 6'10" (likely be listed as 6'11" today) with long arms, and fantastic speed, quickness, and leaping ability. Don't believe that? Check out this video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWelUNrJUMM[/youtube]
Note that the time elapsed from when he takes off from one end of the court to where he is finishing at the other end is a mere 4 seconds (this while dribbling and leaping OVER a defender).

His length, athleticism, and lateral quickness is very analogous to Kevin Garnett. Given his defensive IQ, in modern context I think he could be elite at hedging the high pick-and-roll and recovering (similar to Garnett), he doesn't leave you screwed if he gets caught on a switch guarding a perimeter player (similar to Garnett), he's an elite positional low-post defender who gives constant intensity (similar to Garnett). In other words, he could be very analogous to Kevin Garnett.....except a better shot-blocker.

There's little question that Russell was the---era-specific, at least---biggest impact defender ever. And while I'd agree Russell probably can't elicit that same level of impact in ALL eras (I don't think anyone could elicit that level of defensive impact in the modern day), the picture I've painted above certainly has the potential of being a GOAT-level defender in any era.

And then there are intangibles to consider (and more and more I'm beginning to think these things are of pretty substantial importance). Wilt was the most statistically dominant player in NBA history; but he was often outright poisonous as a teammate. It's that aspect that has kept the Wilt vs. Russell debate alive for decades. I'd recommend The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor as a good read on the topic (as well as other aspects of late 50's/60's pro basketball). It's a really a pretty good historical read.
Russell was a guy who provided constant energy, intensity, poise, and a team-first philosophy. That's a valuable presence both on and off the court.

In a nut-shell, I think all of the above is indicative he certainly belongs among the GOATs.

Whoopsy-daisy: comparison to modern players and speculation on how his game translates (from within this very thread, no less).

[turk3d]

I don't think there is a true anti-time machine crowd. There are just some who don't wish to apply it to Russell. They'll apply it to before him however.

Spoiler:

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

Short answer:
Because he is.

Longer answer:
Because even if you chose to discount his career accomplishments by a significant amount (due to strength of era), he still rates out pretty high.
Also, don't buy into the hot tub time machine method for comparing eras (Scalabrine? Seriously?). Consider context: era-specific training, coaching, game strategy/theory/stylistics, medical care, game rules, game popularity, greats one may have had to model their game after, etc. How would someone like Scalabrine look if he had simply been born circa 1930 with all of those circumstances? Worst case: he never even plays basketball, because the popularity, media-exposure, and financial up-shot of the game at the time doesn't succeed in drawing him to it. Best case: maybe he has a career similar to a Clyde Lovellette or Rudy LaRusso (even LaRusso was more athletic than Scal, though); which is to say, "good", but hardly "dominating".


Longer answer (assuming we're not all being trolled by this thread):
Once you stop using the time machine method of considering past eras, and instead consider context and circumstances of the time, I should think you'd begin to think of the 1950's as merely a significantly weaker (but decidedly NOT irrelevant) era. And anyway, the majority of Russell's career took place in the 60's, during which the game was becoming more integrated and quite competitive. Other players present to some degree within that decade: Wilt, Baylor, West, Robertson, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Wilkens, Frazier/Hayes/Unseld/Monroe all entered league during his last two seasons.

Russell was limited offensively, no doubt. I think the nearest modern context comparison is probably Joakim Noah, though even Noah can hit his FT's and maybe nail an open 17-footer (which Russell couldn't do). otoh, Russell's athleticism would likely make him better in transition (+/- cleaning up on offensive glass). Wes Unseld might be an even closer offensive comparison. Basically good high-post passing big man, good screen setter, can clean up some easy buckets. Otherwise limited offensively, but at least plays within his capabilities.

Defensively, however, perhaps try to think of Russell as a Garnett/Olajuwon hybrid. Russell was 6'10" (likely be listed as 6'11" today) with long arms, and fantastic speed, quickness, and leaping ability. Don't believe that? Check out this video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWelUNrJUMM[/youtube]
Note that the time elapsed from when he takes off from one end of the court to where he is finishing at the other end is a mere 4 seconds (this while dribbling and leaping OVER a defender).

His length, athleticism, and lateral quickness is very analogous to Kevin Garnett. Given his defensive IQ, in modern context I think he could be elite at hedging the high pick-and-roll and recovering (similar to Garnett), he doesn't leave you screwed if he gets caught on a switch guarding a perimeter player (similar to Garnett), he's an elite positional low-post defender who gives constant intensity (similar to Garnett). In other words, he could be very analogous to Kevin Garnett.....except a better shot-blocker.

There's little question that Russell was the---era-specific, at least---biggest impact defender ever. And while I'd agree Russell probably can't elicit that same level of impact in ALL eras (I don't think anyone could elicit that level of defensive impact in the modern day), the picture I've painted above certainly has the potential of being a GOAT-level defender in any era.

And then there are intangibles to consider (and more and more I'm beginning to think these things are of pretty substantial importance). Wilt was the most statistically dominant player in NBA history; but he was often outright poisonous as a teammate. It's that aspect that has kept the Wilt vs. Russell debate alive for decades. I'd recommend The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor as a good read on the topic (as well as other aspects of late 50's/60's pro basketball). It's a really a pretty good historical read.
Russell was a guy who provided constant energy, intensity, poise, and a team-first philosophy. That's a valuable presence both on and off the court.

In a nut-shell, I think all of the above is indicative he certainly belongs among the GOATs.

Whoopsy-daisy: comparison to modern players and speculation on how his game translates (from within this very thread, no less).

Just looked at your spoiler, good stuff.

And BTW, although I agree that Russell didn't seem to be that good offensively (certainly his offense was overwhelmed by his defensive excellenc), although he did average 15 ppg over his career) I believe that was in part due to his decided focus on defense.

I'm pretty sure that with his superior intelligence, he could have and would have become more of a scorer if he felt it necessary however with those great Celtic teams, he wasn't really needed to score much. They had plenty of guys to do that. All those championships proved that to be pretty much the case.

[Owly]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

A few questions

1) Where does "rationality" come into the preferred methodology for how we compare basketball players from different eras?

2) How do you objectively, using time machine methodology, compare players from different eras? Under which rules are they playing? At what age are players placed in time machines etc

3) I haven't followed every post, and it may lumping people into camps doesn't really help but has anyone said "players from different eras can't be compared"? Or merely pointed out the limitations of doing so in "time-machine" manner, as opposed dominance within era, dominance within era with era strength adjustement, some combination of dominance, era strength and estimates of era portablity etc rather than being "pro time machine" which implies the best method of comparison is to ignore context and just place all players in one specific era's league (or hypothetical league or whatever variation thereof).

Bluntly I believe this is a strawman argument.

4) Who has been ignoring levels of competition? And if anyone has, have they mislead anyone? If someone is/was open in talking about the most dominant players of all-time how is that a problem?

Completely agree with the last poster on the pro time-machine position.

At best people who say you can't compare players from the different eras have to say there is no way to come up with a GOAT list. Otherwise we have the benefit of hindsight and more easily say that MJ could go back in time, but it doesn't work the other way around.

In addition, when people bring up the argument, "he was an innovator for his time", it ignores the fact that innovation is relative: when people in the 1960s took a bunch of bad shots to tire out the other team it's not rocket science to address that strategy, while someone trying to compete with the 2014 Spurs team would have a much bigger challenge in trying to stop a team that plays that well together.

The fact that teams couldn't adjust to Russell's relatively basic strategies was more indicative of the fact that those players and teams weren't very good. This is why these types of simple strategies work in high school, but not in the pros today, http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/1 ... ss-theory/.

If people like Kobe and Lebron can study the game and learn complicated plays and systems it seems absurd that they wouldn't figure out the basic things that Russell did intuitively. I think it's much easier to assume that people who can pick up complex systems would be able to handle simple ones using instinct, but it's not clear that you can make the opposite assumption. This is like saying that someone who is phenomenal at arithmetic would be great at higher-order math because someone who is great at higher-order math is great at arithmetic.

We know that today's players went through much more intense competition to get to where they are then someone would have in 1965: the game is relatively more popular by a large margin; this means more people play it and gaining and edge is more difficult; by extension it's not a leap to assume these players would excel if we went back in time.

We know that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter of all time. Perhaps Jesse Owens could beat him today with the same level of conditioning--the fact is we don't know. Given the fact that Bolt is the world's fastest man and everyone today has access to the same information it's more likely that Jessie Owens wouldn't beat him in a race, even with the same conditioning. The anti-time machine crowd is assuming that the conditioning, additional knowledge, etc. would have the same effect on Russell as it has on his contemporaries, which very well may not be the case.

Instead of looking at the what-ifs, which require assumptions we can never verify, the GOAT discussion should look at the final product. If players evolve and there is a 7' guy with Lebron-like skills in 2050 then he gets that advantage in the GOAT discussion just as anyone today does relative to people in the past.

As to the argument that the league was more concentrated back then. even if there are 3x the number of roster spots, the game is a lot more popular: this is entirely offset by the fact that the pool of potential players today is much more than 3x what is was in the 1960s when you consider the massive increase in racial integration and international expansion. Basketball wasn't popular in the 1960s and didn't have the same kind of feeder systems that exist today.

The usual go-to analogy for your anti-(dominant)innovator argument cites Newton or Socrates and I don't think I've seen it adequately rebutted. The flaw in the time-machine argument is ignoring context and saying this child/teen knows more about gravity than did Newton and so is a better scientist.

As far as Bolt versus Owens the analogy is flawed on multiple levels.

1) Owens didn't smash a world record like Bolt has (nor are many of those even remotely close to him tainted by drug use as Powell, Gay, Gatlin and Montgomery are with Bolt). Bolt wins this comparison with his within era dominance so the point is moot (now depending on what is meant by "of the GOATs" one could perhaps argue MJ smashes the competition in terms of in era dominance, so Russell shouldn't be considered on those grounds, but I don't think the implication was specific to 1st place all-time).
2) Sprinting hasn't changed fundamentally as basketball has.
3) As an individual, largely unchanged sport, in a relatively pure athletic competition rather than a relatively contrived team game, cross era comparisons or naturally much different.

Which leads to the main point that most "pro-Russell" (or Chamberlain or Robertson) aren't basing their arguments primarily on conjectures on hypothetical scenarios based on time machines.

The following paragraph in particular illustrates either that the point has been missed (or if not, that is being ignored in order to knock down a contrived straw man argument)

We know that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter of all time. Perhaps Jesse Owens could beat him today with the same level of conditioning--the fact is we don't know. Given the fact that Bolt is the world's fastest man and everyone today has access to the same information it's more likely that Jessie Owens wouldn't beat him in a race, even with the same conditioning. The anti-time machine crowd is assuming that the conditioning, additional knowledge, etc. would have the same effect on Russell as it has on his contemporaries, which very well may not be the case.

The suggestion by those who support Russell (typically) isn't that he would definitely be the greatest if playing today (though some may believe or even argue this), but that he was the best in his day, that they may believe his skill set translates well to a modern game is a secondary or tertiary factor and is typically not considered in crude time-machine terms (i.e. because they aren't arguing primarily based on this, they aren't saying "modern training, medicine etc will definitely make him much better" so much as debating the fairness of saying "look Russell only shot 44%, he's rubbish" without any attempt to look at context -- incidentally his fg% and ts%, used more sensibly, within the context of the players of his position, in his era, is a legitimate target for reasoned critique of Russell).

[The Infamous1]

To be considered at Top 5 player of all time for basically the last 50 years is highly impressive

[Johnlac1]

I haven't read all the posts, but this must be about the 100th Bill Russell post I've seen since I started frequenting this forum. I'm only slightly exaggerating.
At any rate, my feeling remains the same...Russell today transported from the early to mid sixties would still be an outstanding center with no changes to his game.
But young posters are always pointing out flaws in old player's games, and Russell had his, mostly on offense. He was, scoring-wise, only mediocre. A number of centers from that era were superior scorers. But that ignores the fact that Russell today would undoubtedly seek to improve his off. game. He didn't have a bad-looking jump shot. He just didn't see fit to practice it much.
Why should he? He won eleven titles in thirteen years with what he had.
Like many players from that era, Russell took summers off. He had a host of interests other than basketball.
Today there would much more pressure on him to improve the weak parts of his game.
Russell today would most likely still be a formidable def. center with a better off. game. Probably still not a great scorer, but a more reliable scorer and still a smart off. player with an extremely high bb IQ.

[JeepCSC]

I don't think there is a true anti-time machine crowd. There are just some who don't wish to apply it to Russell. They'll apply it to before him however.

Spoiler:

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

Short answer:
Because he is.

Longer answer:
Because even if you chose to discount his career accomplishments by a significant amount (due to strength of era), he still rates out pretty high.
Also, don't buy into the hot tub time machine method for comparing eras (Scalabrine? Seriously?). Consider context: era-specific training, coaching, game strategy/theory/stylistics, medical care, game rules, game popularity, greats one may have had to model their game after, etc. How would someone like Scalabrine look if he had simply been born circa 1930 with all of those circumstances? Worst case: he never even plays basketball, because the popularity, media-exposure, and financial up-shot of the game at the time doesn't succeed in drawing him to it. Best case: maybe he has a career similar to a Clyde Lovellette or Rudy LaRusso (even LaRusso was more athletic than Scal, though); which is to say, "good", but hardly "dominating".


Longer answer (assuming we're not all being trolled by this thread):
Once you stop using the time machine method of considering past eras, and instead consider context and circumstances of the time, I should think you'd begin to think of the 1950's as merely a significantly weaker (but decidedly NOT irrelevant) era. And anyway, the majority of Russell's career took place in the 60's, during which the game was becoming more integrated and quite competitive. Other players present to some degree within that decade: Wilt, Baylor, West, Robertson, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Wilkens, Frazier/Hayes/Unseld/Monroe all entered league during his last two seasons.

Russell was limited offensively, no doubt. I think the nearest modern context comparison is probably Joakim Noah, though even Noah can hit his FT's and maybe nail an open 17-footer (which Russell couldn't do). otoh, Russell's athleticism would likely make him better in transition (+/- cleaning up on offensive glass). Wes Unseld might be an even closer offensive comparison. Basically good high-post passing big man, good screen setter, can clean up some easy buckets. Otherwise limited offensively, but at least plays within his capabilities.

Defensively, however, perhaps try to think of Russell as a Garnett/Olajuwon hybrid. Russell was 6'10" (likely be listed as 6'11" today) with long arms, and fantastic speed, quickness, and leaping ability. Don't believe that? Check out this video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWelUNrJUMM[/youtube]
Note that the time elapsed from when he takes off from one end of the court to where he is finishing at the other end is a mere 4 seconds (this while dribbling and leaping OVER a defender).

His length, athleticism, and lateral quickness is very analogous to Kevin Garnett. Given his defensive IQ, in modern context I think he could be elite at hedging the high pick-and-roll and recovering (similar to Garnett), he doesn't leave you screwed if he gets caught on a switch guarding a perimeter player (similar to Garnett), he's an elite positional low-post defender who gives constant intensity (similar to Garnett). In other words, he could be very analogous to Kevin Garnett.....except a better shot-blocker.

There's little question that Russell was the---era-specific, at least---biggest impact defender ever. And while I'd agree Russell probably can't elicit that same level of impact in ALL eras (I don't think anyone could elicit that level of defensive impact in the modern day), the picture I've painted above certainly has the potential of being a GOAT-level defender in any era.

And then there are intangibles to consider (and more and more I'm beginning to think these things are of pretty substantial importance). Wilt was the most statistically dominant player in NBA history; but he was often outright poisonous as a teammate. It's that aspect that has kept the Wilt vs. Russell debate alive for decades. I'd recommend The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor as a good read on the topic (as well as other aspects of late 50's/60's pro basketball). It's a really a pretty good historical read.
Russell was a guy who provided constant energy, intensity, poise, and a team-first philosophy. That's a valuable presence both on and off the court.

In a nut-shell, I think all of the above is indicative he certainly belongs among the GOATs.

Whoopsy-daisy: comparison to modern players and speculation on how his game translates (from within this very thread, no less).

I thought it was obvious who I was talking about, but in case it wasn't, it was Chuck. We all use the time machine aspect in some context, some more stringently than others. Otherwise we'd simply list Most Awarded-Accomplished players when we make our Top 100 lists. But since I don't see anyone arguing Mikan top 5, I can only assume that isn't the case.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Conversely, putting today's athlete back in the 1960's must take into account the fact that today's athlete would only have access to 1960's training, coaching, and nutrition theory, as well as different rules. .......

.......The time machine works both ways. Bill Russell deserves to be in the GOAT conversation. He earned it.

I am not trying to compare hypothetical players. I do not give any consideration for what advantage or disadvantage a player would get for playing most of their career in a different era.

I am trying to compare the players that actually existed.

Mentally Bring Russel into whatever era and give him a year in that new era to adjust and then measure the second year. Bring whomever from whatever era back into Russell's era and give them a year to adjust and measure their second year.

If you think it would take LeBron more than a year to learn how to stop travelling in Russell's era then figure in a LeBron who gets often gets called for travellling.

Speaking of modern training I am not sure that the upper body muscle mass LeBron added has not hurt LeBron more than helps LeBron. LeBron is definitely slower than he would be without all that muscle and I don't know that the muscle has helped LeBron enough with his play near the rim to offset what it has cost him in speed.

I don't know that packing 20 pounds of extra muscle onto Russell would help Russel. The extra 20 pounds of Muscle would slow Russell a bit.

But Like I said, I don't really want to compare a hypothetical bulked up Russel, I want to compare the Russell wh actually existed.

Many off the NBA centers Russel faced were large. My problem with the league Ruscle played in was overall athleticism and overall skill level.

Russell might play center or power forward in the modern league. Ibaka is finding plenty of shot blocking opportunities while playing power forward despite the stretched out floor spacing and all the outside shooting.

[JeepCSC]

No, this is not true.
The time-machine method simply ignores context: 100% ignores it. That's what the anti-TM crowd is against.

We're not against making the comparisons at all. That is just a blatantly false statement. In fact, if you've read a significant amount from the top 100 project you'd see that era portability speculation is a BIG part of a lot of peoples' (read: people who are NOT in the pro-TM crowd) criteria. For examples, read a lot of the discussion in the early 40's section of the project regarding Dolph Schayes.

All the anti-TM crowd is saying is let's at least level the playing field (i.e. consider context) before comparing. Let's look at the given physical/athletic attributes, the generalized tendencies and game strengths of a player, and consider what they may have been if availed that which was available within a given era.

Really, this premise isn't very "out there".

As with most things, there is a median which we must go for. We can't merely use one or the other. The trick should be in how much weight we give to context in the era as well as the time travel conceit. When I hear someone say they don't understand the time travel conceit at all, that all that truly matters it what was accomplished in the particular era, I can't help but call shenanigans. Because no one does that. Even if they don't use a literal TARDIS, the actual conceit is just a short-hand way to express basic comparisons. Everyone does it to some extent.

[tsherkin]

There are interesting elements to each side of this argument.

In-era, Russell's career was as incredible as any we've seen; more titles than any other major star, more MVPs than anyone but MJ (just as many) and KAJ (6 to Russ' 5). The keystone piece for a revolutionary defense, one of the greatest rebounders in league history.

The time machine component isn't the whole of everything here: this isn't Mikan, Russell would still be a star-level player in the modern era. He had contemporary-style athleticism, his rebounding (even adjusted for pace and minutes) would still be awesome, his style of D is the modern standard for his position. While he wouldn't lap the field defensively as he did in his own era, you're talking about someone who has a baseline level of impact comparable to prime Ben Wallace, but with better height and mobility. He'd be guarding the 4/5 if need be, would be a perennial DPOY candidate, etc. Wouldn't be the 20/10 type of center who also acted as an offensive anchor, but he passed well enough, would kill the offensive boards, etc. He might not be a tier one player the way the game has gone a half-century since, but he'd still be quite good.

In response to the foamy OP, it becomes important to separate the difference between "would replicate his in-era accomplishments in all eras" from "would still be an incredible player in all eras," since they are not the same thing. The OP also ignores that Russell's performance didn't seem to suffer when he faced taller, athletic centers (like Wilt).

Russell is considered one of the GOATs because he has some of the most impressive achievements in the history of the league and one of the most incredible resumes in sports history. The fact that he has the template to remain successful ported forward in time, I don't think one can discard his candidacy for a top spot in the rankings to the same extent as can one with someone like Mikan... and even that is a subjective point of comparison.

It's pretty clear why Russell is discussed in this context, and the sort of soapbox manifesto rant we see in the OP is really indicative of not stopping to take into consideration anything but scree from some hack writer.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

No, this is not true.
The time-machine method simply ignores context: 100% ignores it. That's what the anti-TM crowd is against.

We're not against making the comparisons at all. That is just a blatantly false statement. In fact, if you've read a significant amount from the top 100 project you'd see that era portability speculation is a BIG part of a lot of peoples' (read: people who are NOT in the pro-TM crowd) criteria. For examples, read a lot of the discussion in the early 40's section of the project regarding Dolph Schayes.

All the anti-TM crowd is saying is let's at least level the playing field (i.e. consider context) before comparing. Let's look at the given physical/athletic attributes, the generalized tendencies and game strengths of a player, and consider what they may have been if availed that which was available within a given era.

Really, this premise isn't very "out there".

I am saying leveling the playing field is to compare players who did not exist. Look at what Isiah Thomas said when he wanted the height playing field to be leveled.

“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.”

If we are going to level the time playing field then let's level the height playing field.
But that is not fair to Larry bird who had slow feet. So let's level the speed playing field.

Now everybody has the advantage of modern training, everybody is seven feet tall and everybody is as quick as Iverson; so now who is the GOAT after we have leveled everything but skill level? Wait, to be fair we need to level faking ability and shooting touch and every other advantage players have. I need to bring everybody up to the good aspect of Rodman's emotional intensity while simultaneously removing from everybody the bad aspects of Rodman's emotional intensity.

Now that everybody is equal seven foot seven robots with equal speed and equal skills and equal attitudes who is the GOAT.

Why would you want to Level the playing field?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Actually a strong argument can be made for the past NBA (with only 8-10 teams in the Association) being stronger than today's Association with 30 teams due to the thinned out talent with so many teams now in the league.

But look at the film.

People had to work. Pro careers only paid well for the best players. America of the 1940s was not such an urban / suburban place. Baseball was king.

Even though the nations population to teams ratio was similar I don't think the basketball player pipeline from childhood through college was producing the same quality pool of prospects for the pro teams to pick from.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I haven't read all the posts, but this must be about the 100th Bill Russell post I've seen since I started frequenting this forum. I'm only slightly exaggerating.
At any rate, my feeling remains the same...Russell today transported from the early to mid sixties would still be an outstanding center with no changes to his game.
But young posters are always pointing out flaws in old player's games, and Russell had his, mostly on offense. He was, scoring-wise, only mediocre. A number of centers from that era were superior scorers. But that ignores the fact that Russell today would undoubtedly seek to improve his off. game. He didn't have a bad-looking jump shot. He just didn't see fit to practice it much.
Why should he? He won eleven titles in thirteen years with what he had.
Like many players from that era, Russell took summers off. He had a host of other interests other than basketball.
Today there would much more pressure on him to improve the weak parts of his game.
Russell today would most likely still be a formidable def. center with a better off. game. Probably still not a great scorer, but a more reliable scorer and still a smart off. player with an extremely high bb IQ.

I don't doubt that Russell would be a great player in today's league. How much better than Camby and Ibaka would Russell be?

Being a moderate upgrade on Camby and Ibaka is great and can get a player onto a top 50 of all time list but it won't get them called the GOAT even if they do get 6 rings like Robert Horry.

[Texas Chuck]

I thought it was obvious who I was talking about, but in case it wasn't, it was Chuck.

Yeah Im not sure why you didn't just come with that from the beginning. I'm assuming that since you are so concerned about my opinions on Mikan that you went back and read teh top 100 project threads where I was involved in discussing him. You will clearly be able to read my take and judge for yourself if I used Time Machine Analysis on him.

If you don't want to take the time to do that and are simply trying without basis to accuse me of a self-serving agenda re: Russell well I guess you can do that too, but don't expect me to continue to engage with you if that's the case.


I think Mikan is one of the most significant players in NBA history and in an all-time ranking of "greatness" I think he deserves to be pretty high. But understand that for me "greatness" and basketball talent are not one in the same. I don't think Mikan is one of the 25 most talented players ever. Heck he might not be in the 250 most talented players ever. But his greatness stands regardless.

To use the Usain Bolt example---he's obvious great. No one has ever sprinted faster and he's blown away competition that is also sprinting faster then guys from previous eras. In any conversation of elite track athetes he belongs. But so does Carl Lewis who dominated the 100,200, and long jump for a really long time. And so does Jessie Owens if for nothing else than what he did in Munich.

If your whole argument is that you think modern players are superior in general to those from the 60's, obviously I agree. I just disagree that they are "greater".