Peaks project #9

[lorak]

Russell woould be listed as 6ft 11.

You don't know that. Even in the link you provided below there is SI source that claims Russell was 6-9.63 (but is it clear it was w/o shoes?), so currently he would be listed as 6-10 or 6-11 with shoes, because that's what usually happens with players who have such height w/o shoes. But there's no rule, so you can't say for sure. Anyway, no matter how he would be listed, his height was significantly below 7 foot (6-11.63 - that's for example near 7 foot, not 6-9.63), so calling him "near 7 footer" to present his athleticism in better light is simple manipulation.

And BTW, I used b-r as source in previous post, but we as well can use draftexpress and we would see that players with height similar to Russell (assuming 6-9.63 is barefoot) are for example: McDyess, Cousins, Rasheed, DeAndre Jordan or Drummond. So once again - what proof exactly do you have Bill was more athletic than these players? (especially Jordan and Drumm.)

I mean, did you not see what DZRA posted? he was probably athletically superior to Howard as well.

No, he wasn't. And if you claim he was, then burden of the proof is on you.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597 skip to the gif.

Nothing impressive, his head is way below rim level and flight distance is short - most 6-10 guys in the NBA is capable of doing it.

ranked 7th in the world in 1956 in high jumping.

Source?

[MyUniBroDavis]

Bill Russell was bar none the greatest defensive player and center ever to play in the NBA. Sure you can say that era which had less outside shooting was more conducive to greater big man impact on defense but other contemporaries who were great defenders in their own right like Wilt, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, and Kareem never approached his impact on defense.

1956 Olympics: (from RealGM)





Sheer Defensive Impact (my post, data from B-Ref)




And the defensive breakdown Russell vs. Wilt (my post)




The great Wilt Chamberlain when defended by Russell:




Celtics with and without Russell:

Good posts. However, I have 1 or 2 critiques.
1, for what you said were you posts, do you mean you posted them somewhere else? because I've seen that data on realgm before
2, Looking at the ppg for that last sample isnt really perfect. they went 10-18 with an SRS of 2.02, so in a rough estimate they probably were closer to a 33 win pace.
HOWEVER, the same person that made that compiled a estimate of the defensive ratings from that chart.

career wise, it ranged from 7 to 11.5 in terms of net rating.
Factoring all data in, peak russell was probably approaching 15-20, which is comfortably best of all time defensively

Something else, does that mean they played with a higher pace without Russell? that would definately lower the net rating a bit.

That being said, Russell is obviously the best defensive player of all time.

After the first post about the 1956 Olympics which was made by another user on RealGM (unfortunately I don't remember who), the rest of the analysis is my own and it was taken/generated from data on B-Ref and nbastats.net. Maybe someone else took my post from Hoops-Nation and posted bits of it here. Sorry for the confusion.

I made that last Celtics ppg post is my own and I got it from nbastats.net. The Russell spreadsheet clearly indicates the games he missed and I just took opponent team ppg in games he did play vs. games he didn't play. The DRtg estimates I compiled are from B-Ref.

I just edited my previous post to reference properly.

Okay. But what I meant was someone made an estimate of the defensive rating during the games he missed as well vs games he didn't miss. Sure enough, his impact far exceeded anyone else's.

[thizznation]

And that's not where conversation ended, because my response back then was:

And if you would like to continue, your stance isn't reasonable. (Edit: deleted my rant on my track credentials, and ceding the point after Mischievous' last point. I've always been taught that the Flop was clearly better. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Either way, though, the point stands. Russell would clearly, conservatively be a 7-foot-plus jumper today, and whatever his actual number is, the overall point is that he'd be absurdly athletic for a big man, even today).

Plus, modern day athletes have technology advantages that are just as huge and fundamental as the technique approaches. The modern-day track is WAY faster than the track materials of the 50s. The shoes are way different. The training regiments are way different. If Russell was jumping 6-10 in the 50s, he would absolutely be expected to be well into the mid-7s, conservatively, now.

And ALL OF THIS is besides the point. The point is that Russell was a near 7-footer that could high-jump 7+feet and sprint at the rate of the best sprinters. Whether he would actively compete in the current Olympics or not doesn't matter...the fact that no CURRENT near 7-footer in the NBA has that kind of athletic ability IS the point.

So the point is wrong, because here's actually no proof Russell was as athletic as for example Amare (pre injuries) or Kemp or Griffin (all also 6-10 who are "near 7 footers"...). I guess Russell goes the same "tall tales" road as Wilt. Kind of sad, because he doesn't need such exaggerations, especially as athlete, because his greatness comes from different aspects of basketball.

I think his high jump numbers are substantial proof. Does anyone have the clip of Bill Russell where he jumps over the guy from the free throw line and lays it in? Bill Russell was a track star athlete.

[70sFan]

Do not compare Griffin or Kemp to Russell. Russell is clearly taller, he's in the same class physicaly and athleticaly as Hakeem. I think Hakeem was stronger (but Russell wasn't weak, just not as strong - Hakeem in his prime was one of the strongest player in the league, stronger than Robinson or even Ewing, his strengh is underrated) while Russell was quicker.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Russell woould be listed as 6ft 11.

You don't know that. Even in the link you provided below there is SI source that claims Russell was 6-9.63 (but is it clear it was w/o shoes?), so currently he would be listed as 6-10 or 6-11 with shoes, because that's what usually happens with players who have such height w/o shoes. But there's no rule, so you can't say for sure. Anyway, no matter how he would be listed, his height was significantly below 7 foot (6-11.63 - that's for example near 7 foot, not 6-9.63), so calling him "near 7 footer" to present his athleticism in better light is simple manipulation.

And BTW, I used b-r as source in previous post, but we as well can use draftexpress and we would see that players with height similar to Russell (assuming 6-9.63 is barefoot) are for example: McDyess, Cousins, Rasheed, DeAndre Jordan or Drummond. So once again - what proof exactly do you have Bill was more athletic than these players? (especially Jordan and Drumm.)

I mean, did you not see what DZRA posted? he was probably athletically superior to Howard as well.

No, he wasn't. And if you claim he was, then burden of the proof is on you.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597 skip to the gif.

Nothing impressive, his head is way below rim level and flight distance is short - most 6-10 guys in the NBA is capable of doing it.

ranked 7th in the world in 1956 in high jumping.

Source?

Uhh... He had to duck.

Google it. Lol.

There really is no way to argue against this. We saw him jump over someone with the ball. I mean, come on.

So... He is about the same height as Drummond, deandre, wallace, taller than cousins, and mcdyess (who had the same barefoot height as listed height)

All 6ft11 to 7ft listed, and he would be 6ft 10?
.
It takes a quick google search to show he was an Olympic level high jumper, was defensively as mobile as anyone (actually more, but still) etc. he said he could easily touch the top of the backboard, and honestly, it wouldn't be a shocker.
More accurately, an article pegs his vert reach at 12ft 7

It takes a simple google search dude. According to cavsftw, he had a better broad jump than wilt, and ran a 49.6 440, which was comparable to wilts time.

I'm sorry, but Russell was an amazing athlete. There might be an srguement that pre injury Dwight had an arguement, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make


If you are saying he wasn't a modern day level athlete, then, no offense, but that's not even worth debating.

Take out strength (which should be the arguement in this case, his ffmi looks lacking) and he was a wilt level athlete.



I mean, come on. This isn't something one can dispute. If you are trying to argue that his athletic ability was

[thizznation]

I wanted to give a few thoughts on Erving.

I saw some people criticizing his outside shot. On the contrary when I watched him play he seemed to have KG range on his jumper even though he didn't go to it a lot since he had better options in his repertoire. Even when he shot from that range on the wing he looked very comfortable. I believe Dr J was around a 82 or 83 percent free throw shooter and .350 3 point shooter on limited attempts. When I look at these numbers I see a player that has a good shooting touch.

As for Dr J's handles, even though he wasn't doing between the legs or behind the back I thought he had effective handles. He is able to cross it over from a triple threat position and take it to the rim. That is as good as handles as one would need if not operating point guard responsibilities.

Dr J's passing. Passing wasn't a large part of his game but he was a talented passer. He is able to take the ball at the top of the key and initiate penetrating passes, he usually does this with out a live dribble and uses his height and length to get crafty angles.

As for rebounding I can't think of a small forward off the top of my head that is a better rebounder, especially offensively. I believe Ervings special offensive rebounding gives him another dangerous aspect to an already very potent offense. When a small forward is scoring that much, that efficiently and cleaning up the offensive boards that well. That is domination.

Defensively I think he was doing as good as you could ask a wing that is scoring on that sort of volume. He was an elite athlete, high character and bbiq guy, looking from his blocks and steals it's obvious he was a ball hawk that knew when and where to be. You aren't going to be getting that many steals and blocks by accident. Erving was a larger SF so defensively you couldn't rely on him to take a speedy SG or point but Erving is a great matchup against Small Forwards and Power Forwards. I don't really see an argument where you can say that Dr J was a net even on defense or even a slight positive. He was a high impact player defensively. (Quotations had some good data indicating how he actually anchored the defense for his team that year if I remember correctly.)

Voting
Erving
Russell
Bird

[MyUniBroDavis]

I wanted to give a few thoughts on Erving.

I saw some people criticizing his outside shot. On the contrary when I watched him play he seemed to have KG range on his jumper even though he didn't go to it a lot since he had better options in his repertoire. Even when he shot from that range on the wing he looked very comfortable. I believe Dr J was around a 82 or 83 percent free throw shooter and .350 3 point shooter on limited attempts. When I look at these numbers I see a player that has a good shooting touch.

As for Dr J's handles, even though he wasn't doing between the legs or behind the back I thought he had effective handles. He is able to cross it over from a triple threat position and take it to the rim. That is as good as handles as one would need if not operating point guard responsibilities.

Dr J's passing. Passing wasn't a large part of his game but he was a talented passer. He is able to take the ball at the top of the key and initiate penetrating passes, he usually does this with out a live dribble and uses his height and length to get crafty angles.

He shot 0.298% from 3 for his career, but had one good shooting season in the ABA. He is a 78% ft shooter.

[thizznation]

I wanted to give a few thoughts on Erving.

I saw some people criticizing his outside shot. On the contrary when I watched him play he seemed to have KG range on his jumper even though he didn't go to it a lot since he had better options in his repertoire. Even when he shot from that range on the wing he looked very comfortable. I believe Dr J was around a 82 or 83 percent free throw shooter and .350 3 point shooter on limited attempts. When I look at these numbers I see a player that has a good shooting touch.

As for Dr J's handles, even though he wasn't doing between the legs or behind the back I thought he had effective handles. He is able to cross it over from a triple threat position and take it to the rim. That is as good as handles as one would need if not operating point guard responsibilities.

Dr J's passing. Passing wasn't a large part of his game but he was a talented passer. He is able to take the ball at the top of the key and initiate penetrating passes, he usually does this with out a live dribble and uses his height and length to get crafty angles.

He shot 0.298% from 3 for his career, but had one good shooting season in the ABA. He is a 78% ft shooter.

Just looked it up, in 76 he shot 52/33/80 from FG/3point/free throw. That is very respectable in my opinion, not a poor shooter.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #68:

Magic - 17
Bird - 13
Russell - 12
Robinson - 5
Erving - 5
Wade - 2

Am going to leave this open for at least a couple more hours in hopes of getting some more ballots. Quote a few people here to get their attention:

.

.

You've been active in the discussion, but I don't think you've actually cast any ballots yet in this one.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

You got about two hours to be heard in this thread. Please do so.

[trex_8063]

Russell woould be listed as 6ft 11.

You don't know that. Even in the link you provided below there is SI source that claims Russell was 6-9.63 (but is it clear it was w/o shoes?),

If you want to play the semantics game, then you're right: we don't "know" that. But it's a perfectly reasonable estimate. And even if the SI source you're citing is accurate, it does support the notion that they list the in-shoes heights (perhaps even with a touch of rounding) today.

Let's just put it visually.....

Standing next to Wilt Chamberlain (who was listed at 7'1"):



The following are all of Russell at 70-75+ years old (if he's anything like basically every other senior citizen I know, he's probably shrunk by a half inch or so at this age).....

Next to Tim Duncan (listed at 6'11"):


Next to Ben Wallace:

The tops of their heads actually line up nearly perfect with that gray railing in the background, so we can pretty accurately assess the tops of their heads.....it appears geriatric Bill Russell is just barely (perhaps as much as 0.5") taller than the top of Ben Wallace's afro (and he's listed at 6'9").

Next to Dikembe Mutombo (who's listed at 7'2"!):


Next to Dwight Howard (who's listed at 6'11"):



I don't know the actual exact without shoes height of all these modern players. But based on all of the above evidence (and remember, it's entirely likely that Russell's shrunk by a quarter inch or so at this age), 6'11" seems like a VERY reasonable estimate for what his modern day height listing would be. Seriously, arguing otherwise (with all of this visual evidence) seems patently unreasonable. It's like arguing for the sake of arguing.

To be honest, I look at these photos and to me it's not a question as to whether he'd be listed at 6'10" or 6'11" today.....it's closer to a question of whether he'd be listed at 6'11" or 7'0".

[Dr Positivity]

Ballot 1 - Bill Walton 1977

Ballot 2 - Bill Russell 1965

Ballot 3 - David Robinson 1994

[Quotatious]

Okay, my votes:

#1 - Bill Russell '62
#2 - Julius Erving '76
#3 - Larry Bird '86

I admit that after the debate I had with Trex, I now see Erving and Bird as roughly equal, but I still give Dr J a slight edge, because his finals and overall playoffs were among the best of all-time, easily top 10, arguably top 5 (his finals are arguably the GOAT).

My reasoning for Russell being ahead of Erving and Bird is that Russell had an absolutely unprecedented (and still not matched, to this day) defensive impact, and in '62, he was a clear positive on offense when it mattered most (playoffs). He's also probably the smartest player and the best leader in NBA history. Erving and Bird had pretty fine intangibles themselves, but Russell is on another level. I've already written more in-depth posts about Russell, Erving and Bird, so I'll keep it brief here.

[eminence]

Running tight on time, mind if I come back to explain later?

1st Ballot: David Robinson 94-95

2nd Ballot: Bill Russell 64-65

3rd Ballot: Chris Paul 07-08 Just flipped from Magic to him for the PG peak, ridiculously close.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Im short on time, SO I cannot explain them right now.
1st ballot Bill Russell 65Russell 65
I already explained why. to sum it up, when Russell retired, the celtics defense, despite only losing 1 other player, plummetted from an all time level to league average. This was a 34 year old russell. When he was injured, the celtics went 10-18, an srs of -2.02, and their defensive rating went down by around 8 to 9 points. his pure defensive impact is an outlier in my opinion, and he would dominate the game like he did before. I recall that, aside from wilt, teams barely even took low post shots against him, according to Dipper's research.
And remember, most of that 10-18 wasnt even in his prime. and yes, i mean prime. imagine a peak Russell?
2nd Ballot David robinson 94robinson 94
- cant explain now, but well, I guess that Spaceman got this one covered lol
3rd Ballot Larry Bird 86bird 86
- cant explain this one in depth too, and its subject to change.

Ill explain them in depth later if I have time.

and a sidenote
: Russell so clutch that he makes a 10 point swing in the last 2 hours of the project.

[SideshowBob]

Ballot

4. Bird 86 +7.25 (+6.75 O/+0.50 D)

Spoiler:

5. Hakeem 93 +7.25 (+4.25 O/+3.00 D)

6. Chamberlain 67 +7.25 (+4.25 O/+3.00 D)

7. Garnett 04 +7.00 (+3.75 O/+3.25 D)

8. Duncan 02 +7.00 (+3.00 O/+4.00 D)

9. Russell 64 +7.00 (+0.00 O/+7.00 D)

10.Walton 77 +7.25 (+2.75.00 O/+4.50 D)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already talked about Bird/Russell. Here's what I said about Walton earlier:

Walton's 77 I value pretty highly; I don't penalize for missed time much, but when we're talking about razor-thin divisions between players at the top like this, that's enough to push him from top 5 to lower top 10 for me (I might have considered him last thread if it weren't for that.

I definitely still see Walton's peak as higher than Kareem's though. With Kareem IMO his "super-peak" (best offensive year + best defensive year) would have probably have been top 5, but I don't think his two-way play ever peaked together, and as a result, I hold him in slightly lower regard than most others (probably 12 or 13), and might be considering Robinson over him as well. I think his offense peaked in his later years (late 70s - 80), while the defense peaked pretty high earlier in his Milwaukee years (overall I think his top years are pretty similar, but 77 is the standout). I think if his peak was really top 5ish, then he'd have to be considered the easy GOAT because those other top years aren't really that far below 77 and his longevity is exceptional, even amongst the other all-timers.

IMO, his offense is similar to the other high-post hubs, with weaker scoring skills (though he could scale up when the team needed). On defense, he stands out - I think his motor, shot-blocking, and overall lane presence makes him a better defensive player than those that we've discussed (outside of Russell of course).

Like I said earlier, health was the reason I had him this low to begin with, otherwise I would have pushed him at the 4-6 spots.

[Narigo]

1. Bill Russell 1962
This one is tough but Im going with 1962 Russell over 1965 Russell. Russell was a a bit better offensively while producing same amount of defensive impact. Outplayed Wilt head to head

2. 1995 David Robinson
Excellent regular season but wary of his offense translating to the postseason which is why i have him under Russell

3. 1990 Magic Johnson
Going with 1990 instead of 1987 because his game became much more developed. His mid range jumper was a bit more consistent and he had three point range.

[The-Power]

Not much time today, but enough to at least cast the ballots.

1st: David Robinson 1995
2nd: Magic Johnson 1987
3rd: Bill Russell (undecided on year)

I explained the first two votes already a few times, the third spot this time is more of a 'well, I do have to decide and take someone' and I'm not even sure about my choice myself. I could have also voted for Paul, Wade, Curry, Bird or even Walton but ultimately my self-proclaimed threshold for Russell (even though we're not there yet) drove me to pick him for now. But this could very well turn out to be not more than a placeholder eventually, after some more intense deliberation - it's really damn close and/or extremely tough to decide overall. I'm fine if he happens to be voted in at #9, though, because I don't feel like I can evaluate him properly and with conviction anyway due to the lack of data, footage and the general difficulties of era-assessment.

[SactoKingsFan]

1st ballot: 65 Bill Russell
Already explained my vote for Russell in previous threads.

2nd ballot: 86 Larry Bird
Near GOAT level offense, highly portable skill set and above average/solid defense. Bird also had arguably his best playoff run in 86.

3rd ballot: 87 Magic Johnson
Magic led the Lakers to 65 wins and orchestrated one of the best offenses in league history with a good but not great supporting cast. Capped off the season with one of the top playoff runs of his career and beating Celtics in the Finals.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #78:

Bill Russell - 31
Magic Johnson - 21
Larry Bird - 20
David Robinson - 16
Julius Erving - 7
Bill Walton - 4
Dwyane Wade - 2
Chris Paul - 1

OK, that's a better turn-out. Russell, with a sudden late surge comes from behind to take this one. Let's try to do it a touch more timely next time. Will have #10 up shortly.


EDIT: btw, we will need a vote on Russell's peak year, since there is definitely not a firm consensus. If you cast a ballot for Russell, I'll simply count the year you specified. If you didn't cast a ballot for him (or specify a year in your ballot, or wish to change the year selected), please state in the secondary thread which year you feel is Russell's peak.