drza wrote:William Felton Russell !!!OK seriously, as some have been pointing out, we don't have enough Bill Russell in this project. The default for many seems to be that he was great in his day, but it might not translate to the 3-point era so we're not necessarily convinced of his modern-day impact. I've found a sequence of my posts from the Top-100 project on Russell that pushes back against these thoughts. I'm going to combine parts of several of those posts, along with some new thoughts to make a case here.
David Robinson was electric...but there's a very real possibility that Russell's athleticism could have dwarfed Robinson's...which would make his modern-day physical defensive potential higher than Robinson's but with an (IMO) much finer basketball mind attached. At the very least, some food for thought that I'd love if someone would push back against because it could lead to some (much needed, probably tardy) analytic Russell conversation:
I. Russell's impact in his dayI've seen convincing data that Russell was personally having a GOAT-level impact on games, that his success drove his team success (and not the other way around), and that his approach and ability would have likely translated his impact a lot more than people credit.
So, first off, I'd like to post ElGee's initial blog on Russell's defensive impact. This article shows the estimated team defensive ratings of the Celtics from 1958 (the year before Russell's arrival) through 1970 (the year after Russell retired), demonstrating that the historic Celtics' defense arrived with Russell, directly followed Russell's career arc, peaked with Russell, declined as Russell declined, and then went away when Russell retired. The article is found here:
http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/bill-russells-defensive-impact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; There are few, at this point, that dispute that Russell was the engine behind the Celtics' defense. But I wanted anyone unfamiliar with this work to see the numbers, as it helps to cement the concept that the Celtics' weren't just some over-talented team that happened to win when Russell was around. They were a team that won with defense far above-and-beyond all else, and that the defense was thoroughly captained by Russell.
Per the article, in 1964 the Celtics' defense was 11.4 pts/100 possession better than league average (!), 5.6 points better than first place. In 1965, the year I argue was Russell's peak, the defense was "only" 9.9 points/100 possessions better than league average and was a full 8.0 points better than second place (!!!).
II. For those that don't think that Russell's impact could translate to the more modern game. From what I read, the main arguments used against him are some combo of a) the league is more athletic now than it was in the 60s, b) the arrival of the 3-point line reduces the impact of protecting the rim because the game is more spread out, and c) Russell wasn't much of a scorer by either volume or percentage. In response, I would point out a few things:
1)
Russell was taller than you think. He was listed at 6-9 at a time period when players were usually listed by heights without shoes. These days, players are listed at heights with shoes which normally adds 1 - 2 inches. And anecdotally, when Russell stands next to players known to be 7-feet he often appears to be similar in height. In today's game, Russell would probably be listed at 6-10 or 6-11.
2)
Russell was an insane athlete. He considered going to the 1956 Olympics as a high jumper. Track and Field News ranked him as the #7 high jumper in the world, and he was ranked #2 in the United States at the time when he would have had to make the decision (he instead decided to go lead the basketball team to Olympic gold). He also apparently already enjoyed psyching out his opponents the way he later would Wilt:
http://www.worldsstrangest.com/mental-floss/5-things-you-didn%E2%80%99t-know-about-bill-russell/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Russell also told Plimpton that he reveled in psyching out other jumpers. “I recall we had one big meet with 34 jumpers. They wanted to start the bar at five-eight. I said, ‘Let’s start it at six-four—let’s get rid of all this garbage.’ I wore a silk scarf, basketball shoes, a track suit and black glasses. I took off the glasses to jump.”
3)
Russell was a scorer in college. One of the big arguments used against Russell is that he couldn't score enough to play in today's game. I've seen folks say that in today's game, Russell would be similar to players like Joakim Noah or Ben Wallace. But Russell has stated before that he consciously chose the way that he played, to focus more on defense than on offense, in order to maximize his team's success (I can't find the quote, but if anyone has it please post it). But prior to that decision, Russell actually COULD score. In college, Russell averaged 20.7 ppg on 51.6% shooting from the field. He may never have projected into a monster scorer, but were scoring more of his focus (as it likely would be in today's game) there's no reason to believe he couldn't have done so.
4)
Russell was a master of both "horizontal and "vertical" defense", key to the modern game. On Doc MJ's blog "A Substitute for War", he had a really good article breaking down the difference between "vertical defense" (e.g. protecting the rim by waiting there to block shots) and "horizontal defense" (e.g. mobile help defense over a larger area). In the post (found here:
https://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/howard-is-the-dpoy-but-hes-no-garnett/#more-1569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) there is a quote from Bill Russell: a Biography, that speaks to Russell's defensive style:
"Bill understood that Wilt’s game was more vertical, that is, from the floor to the basket. Wilt’s game was one of strength and power…Bill’s game was built on finesse and speed, what he called a horizontal game, as he moved back and forth across the court blocking shots, running the floor, and playing team defense."Now, take a moment and think about what that might mean for the 3-point era. In this era, the best defensive anchors are able to move around the court. Pick-and-roll help defense (on- and off-ball) are incredibly vital. It's still good to be able to block shots, but the data indicates that it's also key to be able to blow up plays defensively before the shot can even go up. In the generation just prior to the +/- data, the generally agreed upon two best defensive players were Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson...both of whom were mobile bigs that were excellent at both horizontal defense and shot-blocking. In the +/- era (now from 1997-98 through 2014), the two most impressive defenders are the best shot-blocker (Dikembe Mutombo) and the most horizontal defender (Kevin Garnett). Mutombo and Garnett, in fact, have defensive seasons where their impacts on defense alone rival the very best individual offensive seasons in that stretch (including peak Shaq, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, LeBron and Dirk) according to DocMJ's normalization method of RAPM across years.
From everything that we know, it is certainly fair to project that Russell in the current day might combine the best of the primary defensive strengths of Garnett (mobility, intelligence) and Mutombo (shot-blocking, timing). As such, Russell very likely would still have a defensive impact at least on the order of the very best offensive players of our time, even in the modern era with the 3-point line.
III. No, seriously, Russell's athleticism/comparison to modern day Russell-like defensive descendantsDr Positivity wrote:I agree to an extent therealbig3 but I think Russell still had the most perfect defensive body and most perfect defensive mind in history of C position, so to me it would probably translate to other eras, even if not at the impact he had in the 60s. I think there's a valid argument to be made Hakeem, Garnett, Robinson, Duncan are possibly as good as defensive players as Russell if playing in another era, and thus above him at their peaks when taking into account offense
therealbig3 wrote:But haven't we seen guys with a combination of the best of Garnett (mobility and intelligence) and the best of Mutombo (shot blocking and timing) in more recent times: Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson? I'd throw Duncan in that group, even if his mobility might have been the weakest between him, Garnett, Hakeem, and Robinson, and it's not like he was a sloth in his prime. Even Garnett himself was a bit of a shot blocker during his prime...he averaged over 1 bpg, peaking at 2.2 bpg, every year for the first 14 years of his career. Since then, he's still averaged 0.9 bpg, despite a noticeable reduction in mpg.
Even so, let's look at Hakeem and Robinson, who are the two most obvious comparisons to Russell defensively, when you look at their combination of mobility, athleticism, rim protection, and ability to force TOs. As far as their intelligence, both of those guys were considered two of the most intelligent defensive players of their era as well, Hakeem especially.
So Hakeem and Robinson seemed to have mastered the horizontal and vertical aspects of defense as well, and were as good at that as anyone ever. And I can guarantee that they still would not have been considered best in the game caliber players (and neither would have Duncan or Garnett) if they weren't also high-caliber offensive big men as well.
These were both interesting posts, from posters I really respect, so I certainly understand your argument. And I'm not even going to push back (too hard) against your logic and the conclusions you come to, except in this way:
On the continuum of those 4 players, I think that Garnett is pretty clearly the most mobile (granting that all are more mobile than the vast, vast majority of 7-footers) and that either Hakeem or Robinson likely the best leapers. All of them, plus Duncan, constitute some of the best combos of size, athleticism and intelligence that we've seen in the "Russell mold" of a defensive big man in the modern NBA.
The thing that I was trying to get across in my last post, though, is that Russell quite arguably blows them out of the water as athletes. The arguments that both of you make rely on these four being approximate to Russell on defense in the modern game. And maybe they are. But the other possibility is...
I mentioned that Russell was an Olympic caliber high-jumper. I came across another quote (from Havlicek, I believe) speaking on Russell also being an unbelievable sprinter (on the order of 13s seconds in the sprint hurdles). It's hard to quantify just exactly how fast Russell was, but I'm open to the possibility that his mobility and quickness might not have been "just" excellent for a big man...he very well may have had LeBron-type speed. And when you factor in the world class high jumping, he very well may have had LeBron leaping ability as well.I guess my point is, Garnett/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan kind of define our upper limit as far as the mobile, athletic, defensive monster big man of the modern era. But we've seen really big guys with absurd hops in recent years (Kemp, early Amare, Howard, Griffin) and now we're seeing just how absurd that kind of athleticism is in a Karl Malone-like body type with LeBron. Physically, if Russell's body was essentially similar to KG/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan but his athleticism was on the order of LeBron, that opens the possibility that his defensive impact might translate much more faithfully to this era than we think. That, defensively, he might be as far beyond the best of this era as he was beyond the best of his era.
lorak wrote:drza wrote:
I mentioned that Russell was an Olympic caliber high-jumper.
That "sounds" better than really is, but in reality doesn't say much about his athleticism, because Olympic caliber high jumper in 1957 = high school caliber high jumper now.
Not really.
Russell high-jumped 6-10 before the invention of the Fosbury Flop, which revolutionized the whole event. Fosbury himself went from a career-best jump of 5-4 to a then-world record of 7-4 using the technique. I won't intimate that Russell would have also gained 2 feet with the technique, but it would clearly have put him well, well outside the bounds of a high school caliber high-jumper. In fact, with the new technique and modern equipment Russell would still likely be at least borderline world class as a high jumper...which puts him far outside of the norms for an NBA center. Yes, likely even more athletic than David Robinson (possibly to a significant degree).
Leaves a bad taste in my mouth seeing the 6th best LeBron season second here I was gonna try to change some votes to our Lord and savior 09 Bron Bron.
). 
