RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James)

[Dr Positivity]

1) If no attempts at adjustments for era are made, Russell is by far the GOAT, and there is zero argument against it.

I disagree with this. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Russell was more valuable for his era than Lebron, Jordan or Kareem. If you went by MVP performance for example it's close to a wash.

[DQuinn1575]

Coming back to basketball debates, I think that era weakness is important to some degree but here is my counter argument - when I watch Bill Russell, I don't see outdated player. I don't think "he could be great if he played today, but he's too oldschool". Bill Russell was a modern type of defender inside extremely athletic body. He also had very high BBIQ, which is also visible on the tape. You can watch the game from 1966 and see someone who could start playing in the league tomorrow. This is why I don't think saying that Russell gets unfair advantage is completely true. Some may disagree, but I still see Russell as MVP level player today.


By the way, in GOAT scoring debate Kareem has been always underrated and I don't know why. After 1973, Jabbar literally didn't have a bad scoring series until he became old. He dominated some of the best defenses and defenders of all-time. He has stats, prime, longevity and peak. I know that he's not a sexy choice, but why not even consider him.

But then again I also see a 6-10, 235 center, very athletic but not like a giannis or ben simmons (I don't care too much about the high jump, most of these guys could match those numbers), who could slide his feet and move with the best of em (as far as bigs) but also didn't have a jumper and didn't really have an offensive skillset. Take an adebayo. He's slightly less long (1 inch in height and 2 in wingspan) and can't move vertically like that, also slides his feet a bit worse, but he's a lot stronger (more muscular, 255), more explosive, has a short mid range shot etc.

I still have russell about 4th or 5th, and I'm not saying I don't see what you see, but I also see what I see. You don't think that nowadays there are a lot of 6-9/6-10 guys who have a track athlete type of body and athleticism? I think there's plenty of them in high school and in college, they just never sniff the league because they don't have an nba game. A shorter, 235 pounds center with basically no jumper or defined offensive game? Does he make the nba just because he's an elite track and field type of athlete (for his size)?

Honestly no, if I watch a 1966 game I don't think oh, this guy could play in the nba right now. I think oh well, with modern day training etc this guy would be bigger and would develop a jumper, which would make him a pretty decent offensive player (not great, he would still be undersized and he lacked that type of talent/touch) with his athleticism, bbiq, passing etc, and he would eventually be an anthony davis type of defender

Most of the guys in the NBA could be an Olympic medalist contender in the high jump? Then why hasn’t there been even one NBA player in the last 60 years be a world class high jumper?

[Gibson22]

Coming back to basketball debates, I think that era weakness is important to some degree but here is my counter argument - when I watch Bill Russell, I don't see outdated player. I don't think "he could be great if he played today, but he's too oldschool". Bill Russell was a modern type of defender inside extremely athletic body. He also had very high BBIQ, which is also visible on the tape. You can watch the game from 1966 and see someone who could start playing in the league tomorrow. This is why I don't think saying that Russell gets unfair advantage is completely true. Some may disagree, but I still see Russell as MVP level player today.


By the way, in GOAT scoring debate Kareem has been always underrated and I don't know why. After 1973, Jabbar literally didn't have a bad scoring series until he became old. He dominated some of the best defenses and defenders of all-time. He has stats, prime, longevity and peak. I know that he's not a sexy choice, but why not even consider him.

But then again I also see a 6-10, 235 center, very athletic but not like a giannis or ben simmons (I don't care too much about the high jump, most of these guys could match those numbers), who could slide his feet and move with the best of em (as far as bigs) but also didn't have a jumper and didn't really have an offensive skillset. Take an adebayo. He's slightly less long (1 inch in height and 2 in wingspan) and can't move vertically like that, also slides his feet a bit worse, but he's a lot stronger (more muscular, 255), more explosive, has a short mid range shot etc.

I still have russell about 4th or 5th, and I'm not saying I don't see what you see, but I also see what I see. You don't think that nowadays there are a lot of 6-9/6-10 guys who have a track athlete type of body and athleticism? I think there's plenty of them in high school and in college, they just never sniff the league because they don't have an nba game. A shorter, 235 pounds center with basically no jumper or defined offensive game? Does he make the nba just because he's an elite track and field type of athlete (for his size)?

Honestly no, if I watch a 1966 game I don't think oh, this guy could play in the nba right now. I think oh well, with modern day training etc this guy would be bigger and would develop a jumper, which would make him a pretty decent offensive player (not great, he would still be undersized and he lacked that type of talent/touch) with his athleticism, bbiq, passing etc, and he would eventually be an anthony davis type of defender

Most of the guys in the NBA could be an Olympic medalist contender in the high jump? Then why hasn’t there been even one NBA player in the last 60 years be a world class high jumper?

I meant the superstar athletes, like lebron, ben simmons, giannis. American sports are full of potential olympic athletes (see the nfl) being a professional in the major leagues is just a lot better. Then again I meant bill russell numbers (6-9 is his record), not nowadays medalist contender. You think guys like gordon, lavine, lebron, simmons, giannis, westbrook etc couldn't do that?

[freethedevil]

Anyway

I don't want to derail this thread into Newton/Physics territory. I just needed to think of an analogy for Russell/proto-basketball and how to weight that against what is possible in modern times for the best people in their field, and that's the best i could come up with.

At the end of the day it's really a matter of perspective more than a 'right' or 'wrong' type of thing.

Frankly this era argument isn't even neccesary with russell.

I'm seeing several posts here asserting rather baselessly russell was by far the most impactful player in history at his apex. Given the players who kills russell in longetivty also was worth 40 wins at 24(not to mention several of these pro russell posters think jordan was as or slightl ymore valuable), corwning russell as "an outlier on induvidual impact" using tema defensive rating is highly dubious practice. Even the most favorable interpretation of team data will not get you to russell=40 wins. This is quite frankly entirely winning bias and I'm just blown away that people are just taking "Russell's induvidual imapct far outweighed everyone else in history as gospel" despite none of the posters parroting this presenting anything close to compelling evidence. Russell was far and away the best defensive player in history and the celtics are far away the goat defensive team, this odes not mean you can suddenly assume that all +11 of the celtics defense comes from russell anymore than you would assume all of the sun's offense cam from nash.

...

I dont mean to call you out, but seriously?

You cannot just equate team defensive data for the celtics and equate that with russell. Even the weakest celtics supporitng cast did not go 0-5 when russell was hurt, they went 3-5. Russell's teams were taken to multiple game 7's at his apex, and for alll the hype you're giving the celtics defense, on the whole, the celtics at their most dominant do not even come close to the 01 lakers, or the 91 bulls, or the 71 or 72 bucks in relative dominance.

As someone who has repeatedly defended Garnett, its woefully inconsistent for you to literally just look at team level data and be like oh yeah, Bill Russell was BY FAR THE VALUABLE PLAYER WHO EVER LIVED. Garnett was worth 30 wins in 04, Lebron was worth 40 wins in 09 and 10, Jordan was worth 27 wins before he hit his peak. Curry took a team that played 45 basketball without him to 70 win play.

For Russell to be this outlier upon outliers induvidually, you'd need to think Russell was worth something like 50-60 wins by hmself, which is rather dubious when even in the rs, the could never crack 70, never mind the multiple series they had decided by one or two possessions against the decidedly not all time dominant team often called WIlt's warriors.

The cletics at their weakest went 3-5 without russell. Are you seriously trying to tell me that in the history of a sport where 20 win teams have been carried to 66 win basketball a man whose best teams were +7-8 overall and who was taken the distance by +4-+5 teams?

Yeah, the celtics sucked offensibely. Incidentally virtually all of their team was better at defense than offense. A team of good defenders sucking offensively but being good or below average overlall doesn't remotely jsutify treating russel's celtics like they were th emid 2000 timberwolves or teams that were straight up awful when looking at both offense and defense. Just like it is not fair to crap on russell for his offense, similar logic must be applied to his teamamtes who up until 1969 were at least good. Russell did carry the 69 celtics, but it is not some unprecedented never seen carry job. The 09 cavs\ and the 04 Timberwolves were both far worse withou their star and were able to contend anyway. The 03 spurs were comparable and went ahead and won a title.

Given the line of argument you're using, not russell's resume or his team success, but his value, one doesn't need to give a second thought for era to strongly argue against russell here.

All the evidence avilable suggests that Lebron, KG, Duncan, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Bird, Magic Hakeem and Curry had comparable or more raw value at their apexes than russell in the regular season. Of the players I listed, Lebron, Jordan, Hakeem, and Duncan got even better in their playoff peaks, and Lebron and Kareem both massacre Russell in terms og longetivty.

Even if you just go by peak impact, russell's case isn't strong, and his case as the most valuable over his career is utterly non existent. Russell was the greatest winner and has he greatest resume, but you're using the guise of data not being great for the 60's to make a completely baseless, and largely contradicted assumption when you say that Bill Russell's impact was an outlier that no one else even came close to. All available induvidual evidence suggests multiple players outright exceeded it and it wasn't even close.

[freethedevil]

1) If no attempts at adjustments for era are made, Russell is by far the GOAT, and there is zero argument against it.

I disagree with this. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Russell was more valuable for his era than Lebron, Jordan or Kareem. If you went by MVP performance for example it's close to a wash.

Yes its a forgone conclusion that someone whose best team played 65 win basketball is more valuable than guys who've lifted teams by 40, 27, and 20 wins respectively. Come the **** on.

[DQuinn1575]

But then again I also see a 6-10, 235 center, very athletic but not like a giannis or ben simmons (I don't care too much about the high jump, most of these guys could match those numbers), who could slide his feet and move with the best of em (as far as bigs) but also didn't have a jumper and didn't really have an offensive skillset. Take an adebayo. He's slightly less long (1 inch in height and 2 in wingspan) and can't move vertically like that, also slides his feet a bit worse, but he's a lot stronger (more muscular, 255), more explosive, has a short mid range shot etc.

I still have russell about 4th or 5th, and I'm not saying I don't see what you see, but I also see what I see. You don't think that nowadays there are a lot of 6-9/6-10 guys who have a track athlete type of body and athleticism? I think there's plenty of them in high school and in college, they just never sniff the league because they don't have an nba game. A shorter, 235 pounds center with basically no jumper or defined offensive game? Does he make the nba just because he's an elite track and field type of athlete (for his size)?

Honestly no, if I watch a 1966 game I don't think oh, this guy could play in the nba right now. I think oh well, with modern day training etc this guy would be bigger and would develop a jumper, which would make him a pretty decent offensive player (not great, he would still be undersized and he lacked that type of talent/touch) with his athleticism, bbiq, passing etc, and he would eventually be an anthony davis type of defender

Most of the guys in the NBA could be an Olympic medalist contender in the high jump? Then why hasn’t there been even one NBA player in the last 60 years be a world class high jumper?

I meant the superstar athletes, like lebron, ben simmons, giannis. American sports are full of potential olympic athletes (see the nfl) being a professional in the major leagues is just a lot better. Then again I meant bill russell numbers (6-9 is his record), not nowadays medalist contender. You think guys like gordon, lavine, lebron, simmons, giannis, westbrook etc couldn't do that?

You made my point on the NFL comment, we know it is true because there have been a lot of NFL players who were world class track athlete. Btw, Russell wouldn’t be world class today, but equipment and different techniques would make him better than 6-9; or put today’s jumpers in old equipment and straddle jump. And could somebody in the NBA do that with proper training? Yes, but you’re still putting Russell in the elite athlete category by contending that these guys could probably match him.

[kayess]

1) If no attempts at adjustments for era are made, Russell is by far the GOAT, and there is zero argument against it.

I disagree with this. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Russell was more valuable for his era than Lebron, Jordan or Kareem. If you went by MVP performance for example it's close to a wash.

Yes its a forgone conclusion that someone whose best team played 65 win basketball is more valuable than guys who've lifted teams by 40, 27, and 20 wins respectively. Come the **** on.

Both of you are missing the "no attempts at adjustments" piece. The gap between what Russell vs. the next guy did for his era, in absolute terms, is unmatched. Of course when you start piling on the context the others look better, that's exactly what I was ruminating about - how to best do this. (Also note that again I'm using dominance here as some placeholder - not "value", not "goodness", not "greatness")

Also, lol @ criticizing Russell's best team for playing 65 win basketball when LeBron's best team played 66 win basketball?? Also, Russell's WOWY and lift were also GOAT tier (I mean obviously LeBron is the GOAT floor raiser, but don't act like Russell isn't in the conversation).

[kayess]

[quote="freethedevil"][/quote]

I honestly can't help but see his arguments in favor of Russell as indirectly helping his arguments for KG, especially since he likes to make that connection.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Jordan --- 45.2 PTS/36 ---- .580 TS% ---- +25.0 plus/minus (per 48) ---- 98 minutes
2. Kobe ------ 32.7 PTS/36 ---- .544 TS% ---- +18.5 plus/minus (per 48) --- 366 minutes
3. LeBron ---- 32.3 PTS/36 --- .545 TS% ---- +19.2 plus/minus (per 48) ---- 452 minutes

Career (Playoffs)
1. Jordan --- 1.27 Clutch Points per Minute (.625 TS%)
2. Kobe ----- 0.91 Clutch Points per Minute (.544 TS%)
3. LeBron -- 0.90 Clutch Points per Minute (.545 TS%)

Where do you get career averages for clutch?

[dontcalltimeout]

So, I'm not a voter. But I was intrigued by some of the discussion & numbers posted on scoring by MJ and LeBron against elite playoff defenses.

Thought these might be worth sharing:

The first two charts compare the player's playoff TS% relative to their regular season average by the strength of defenses face.

Spoiler:

The next two compare the player's TS% relative to the TS% allowed by that defense in the regular season.

Spoiler:

[eminence]

I disagree with this. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Russell was more valuable for his era than Lebron, Jordan or Kareem. If you went by MVP performance for example it's close to a wash.

Yes its a forgone conclusion that someone whose best team played 65 win basketball is more valuable than guys who've lifted teams by 40, 27, and 20 wins respectively. Come the **** on.

Both of you are missing the "no attempts at adjustments" piece. The gap between what Russell vs. the next guy did for his era, in absolute terms, is unmatched. Of course when you start piling on the context the others look better, that's exactly what I was ruminating about - how to best do this. (Also note that again I'm using dominance here as some placeholder - not "value", not "goodness", not "greatness")

Small disagree, I think Mikan's gap to #2 absolutely crushes Russell.

[Jim Naismith]

Code: Select all

Physics (pre-1950)

Figure               Index score
Isaac Newton         100
Albert Einstein      100
Ernest Rutherford    88
Michael Faraday      86
Galileo Galilei      83
Henry Cavendish      57
Niels Bohr           52
J. J. Thomson        50
James Clerk Maxwell  50

[Dr Positivity]

Both of you are missing the "no attempts at adjustments" piece. The gap between what Russell vs. the next guy did for his era, in absolute terms, is unmatched. Of course when you start piling on the context the others look better, that's exactly what I was ruminating about - how to best do this. (Also note that again I'm using dominance here as some placeholder - not "value", not "goodness", not "greatness")

Again, I can't agree with this. I think the gap between Lebron, Kareem and Jordan vs 2nd best players of their era is bigger than Russell vs Wilt, which is no fault of Russell's that he played against another true generational player in Wilt.

If you meant in terms of how he changed the game, I think some other players like Jordan and Curry have arguments, maybe Baylor and Cousy are in there

[kayess]

Yes its a forgone conclusion that someone whose best team played 65 win basketball is more valuable than guys who've lifted teams by 40, 27, and 20 wins respectively. Come the **** on.

Both of you are missing the "no attempts at adjustments" piece. The gap between what Russell vs. the next guy did for his era, in absolute terms, is unmatched. Of course when you start piling on the context the others look better, that's exactly what I was ruminating about - how to best do this. (Also note that again I'm using dominance here as some placeholder - not "value", not "goodness", not "greatness")

Small disagree, I think Mikan's gap to #2 absolutely crushes Russell.

True. I think limbo's post would've been better received if he went to that instead of the aztec stuff lmao

In my defense: when I said unmatched I really had vs. Jordan, Kareem, Bron in mind.

[kayess]

Both of you are missing the "no attempts at adjustments" piece. The gap between what Russell vs. the next guy did for his era, in absolute terms, is unmatched. Of course when you start piling on the context the others look better, that's exactly what I was ruminating about - how to best do this. (Also note that again I'm using dominance here as some placeholder - not "value", not "goodness", not "greatness")

Again, I can't agree with this. I think the gap between Lebron, Kareem and Jordan vs 2nd best players of their era is bigger than Russell vs Wilt, which is no fault of Russell's that he played against another true generational player in Wilt.

If you meant in terms of how he changed the game, I think some other players like Jordan and Curry have arguments, maybe Baylor and Cousy are in there

When you say gap - what are you describing? Goodness/greatness/etc.?

I'll admit dominance here is obviously more ethereal (and I used RINGZ as a barometer), but I used it because I thought that despite being less quantifiable than goodness or greatness, it's something folks can easily accept. And thus the conversation would be around the philosophy of adjusting around era, and not whether dominance is the right metric or not.

Wilt close to Russell as a player? I believe so, yes. Is he close in terms of how he dominated (i.e. ITO winning)? Not a chance.

[PistolPeteJR]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

[Blackmill]

Remember, I didn't just pick LeBron and Kobe because they were the most popular names. It just so happened that they were the two most prolific scorers in Clutch situations over the past 24 years, both in terms of overall Points scored and Points scored per minute played. Points per 36 of 32.7 and 32.3, for the two best clutch playoff scorers of a generation. 45.8 for MJ. I think the difference might be more meaningful if we just look at it per minute.

Career (Playoffs)
1. Jordan --- 1.27 Clutch Points per Minute (.625 TS%)
2. Kobe ----- 0.91 Clutch Points per Minute (.544 TS%)
3. LeBron -- 0.90 Clutch Points per Minute (.545 TS%)

I think this is missing so much context. We all know if there's a wide open shooter that LeBron will likely pass the ball unless he has a good look at the rim. For reference, a very good shooter like Duncan Robinson or Ray Allen shoots nearly 50% (75% TS) from the corners. I would expect LeBron to score less per minute because I expect him to pass more per minute. So I don't know if per minute scoring tells us much. And then there's the many problems associated with "clutch stats". With such small samples, the defense surely has a huge effect, so we need to somehow rescale the values accordingly. Maybe that would favor MJ, or perhaps it would favor LeBron, the point is I find it really hard to take these stats at face value.

[PistolPeteJR]

Remember, I didn't just pick LeBron and Kobe because they were the most popular names. It just so happened that they were the two most prolific scorers in Clutch situations over the past 24 years, both in terms of overall Points scored and Points scored per minute played. Points per 36 of 32.7 and 32.3, for the two best clutch playoff scorers of a generation. 45.8 for MJ. I think the difference might be more meaningful if we just look at it per minute.

Career (Playoffs)
1. Jordan --- 1.27 Clutch Points per Minute (.625 TS%)
2. Kobe ----- 0.91 Clutch Points per Minute (.544 TS%)
3. LeBron -- 0.90 Clutch Points per Minute (.545 TS%)

I think this is missing so much context. We all know if there's a wide open shooter that LeBron will likely pass the ball unless he has a good look at the rim. For reference, a very good shooter like Duncan Robinson or Ray Allen shoots nearly 50% (75% TS) from the corners. I would expect LeBron to score less per minute because I expect him to pass more per minute. So I don't know if per minute scoring tells us much. And then there's the many problems associated with "clutch stats". With such small samples, the defense surely has a huge effect, so we need to somehow rescale the values accordingly. Maybe that would favor MJ, or perhaps it would favor LeBron, the point is I find it really hard to take these stats at face value.

This is very important and I really hope doesn’t get overlooked. While I think most agree that Jordan is the better scorer than LeBron and that will never change at this point, I don’t believe that the difference between them as scorers is so significant that the leaps and bounds that LeBron has on Jordan as a passer and floor general doesn’t make up for that, or even, one could argue, overtake that.

[Dr Positivity]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

In 50s and early 60s yes but I would argue Wilt had better teammates from 66-69. But Celtics probably overperformed winning 3 titles in that range as well considering they were by thinnest of margins.

You could also convince me that even in late 50s and early 60s there were seasons where Baylor/West (whoever you think is better) and Pettit had as good supporting casts. Beating a team with 2 superstars in Baylor and West in 62 is not easy and after the HOF project I have gained respect for Rudy LaRusso as legit 3rd all star guy. Pettit's teammates when they had their rivalry with the Celtics looks pretty good to me. He has the 2nd star in Hagan, other HOF guys in Slater Martin and Ed Macauley wrapping it up but still being effective, and later Clyde Lovelette, also HOF. Not sure playing with Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn, etc. is much of a leg up there.

[penbeast0]

I think you guys are maybe taking limbo's post the wrong way.

As I understand it, what he's saying is:

1) If no attempts at adjustments for era are made, Russell is by far the GOAT, and there is zero argument against it.
2) Discussing the #1 spot when it's a foregone conclusion because of the criteria [i.e., in-era dominance] is boring
3) If no attempts at adjustments for era are made, why stop at Russell? The aztec example I think is exaggerated for effect, I don't think he seriously meant that (and thus is not really reductionist)

I don't think anyone doesn't make era adjustments or Mikan would be in the conversation right now. I think there's a big difference between making reasonable era adjustments and saying that the 60s players shouldn't be in the conversation at all.

I think he's (at least in spirit) right. Not to say the guys voting for Bill aren't trying to do this - there's just disagreements on e.g. would he be an effective player on offense today.

Some thoughts regarding the central problems we are dealing with when it comes to era.

How do we compare extreme dominance of a less-advanced era vs. lesser dominance of a far more advanced era? Should we be looking at what extent it is possible to dominate an era instead (which is almost impossible to do a-priori, of course)? Note that this isn't a statement on how great they were, but just using "dominance" as a placeholder for "value" to test how get a balanced view across eras

In that case, wrt to the common "Mount Rushmore" picks we're seeing: I think Jordan comes off as the most impressive of these guys, dominating in a Russell-like fashion in a far more advanced league, with about the same "luck".

I think the best you can say for Jordan is that, once Phil Jackson came on board he dominated in a Russell fashion. Look at playoff series records for career and you will see the difference quickly. Jordan had to get to the point where he wasn't constantly shifting to hero ball before he was able to maximize the talent around him. Even with a talent like Wilt or MJ, the single player does all the scoring while his teammates stand around paradigm has never been a ticket to great team offense. That and he had to clear the cokeheads and selfish players from the Bulls if you believe what they said about his first team(s) in "The Last Dance."

I will also take issue with the idea that the 90s were a "far advanced era" compared to the 60s. More advanced, yes. But not radically changed the way the game has changed today. The Bad Boy Pistons would have been right at home in the 60s and the Russell Celtics played a very similar style (without the sheer thuggishness). The modern spamming of 3's has changed the game much more than it did in the era between Russell and MJ. The biggest change there probably wasn't even the 3 point line, it was allowing stars to carry the ball and travel consistently rather than dribbling by the written rules.

Russell dominated his era almost to the fullest extent possible (11 rings in 13 years). He had a SHITTON of luck (Chamberlain's insanely bad luck - as discussed by TLAF before - is not an insignificant contributor here), which I think shouldn't be overstated, but it's definitely there. That said, my impression is he optimized pretty much everything he could control - something you couldn't say about Wilt.

Kareem didn't (6 rings overall, but "only" 3 when he was an absolute top tier superstar), but he also had some pretty bad luck. Don't have a very good sense of whether he optimized what was under his control

Jordan did (6 in 8 years) - and like Russell, was the beneficiary of tremendous factors beyond his control: inflection point in the league - roster expansion and starting to go global diluting talent as it the total pool was being expanded, a truly ahead of his curve GM, great coach, etc.

LeBron didn't (4 in 17 years, 8 if you only count when he started winning) - and like Wilt, had some pretty bad luck (including what looked to be the modern day equivalent of the Russell Celtics when GSW took advantage of the cap spike). He didn't optimize everything under his control as he had some really bad micro decisions (e.g. forced some bad acquisitions) for his teams, but his macro decisions were great, and unprecedented at that time (i.e., not just switching teams, but making sure they made moves to contend ASAP)

Just as we shouldn't punish Russell for not being able to make the same impact in later eras due to how the game's evolved, I also don't think we should punish Kareem or LeBron for not being "as dominant", especially when it was fundamentally harder to do so for them (especially for LeBron), and because of their circumstances. At the same time - "Russell in today's game" arguments aren't quite as easy as looking at his physical tools and how he played and projecting them to today. Russell growing up to be an NBA player in today's game would have an entirely different paradigm - and while this shouldn't serve as an excuse to either diminish his weaknesses (i.e. his relative TS was average) or add to his strengths (no, he wouldn't have innovated defense to the same degree as before - that's simply not possible given the non-linear rate of improvement and difficulty with innovating), it does mean it's not as simple as "he would be Bam Adebayo with even more amazing defense".

And again, who cares about Russell in today's game. It's meaningless noise. I think you agree. It's like downgrading Curry because he would be far less effective in Russell's era without the 3 pointer. Adjusting for era strength is fine; this idea that players from other eras should all be judged on how they would play today is one of the least useful judgement tools I have seen here.