GreenHat wrote:I question whether Russell would stand so far above everyone else all time in terms of defensive impact if he faced efficient competition.
I concede that he very well could still be the best defender of all time in an absolute sense, but I don't think he would perform so far ahead of every other player from all eras if he wasn't defending teams that were just chucking up bad shots and making them at 40% even against bad defenses.
I think playing against more efficient offenses would bring his defensive impact back to the pack (he may very well still lead the pack, but he wouldn't be lapping the field against better offenses is my contention).
I don't disagree with that. I would take the opportunity to point you & others to +/- data we have on Kevin Garnett.
http://asubstituteforwar.com/2011/04/23 ... o-garnett/
Basically, we've seen it be possible to have someone really distance themselves from the field in this generation, and he's someone with similar build & mentality to Russell without GOAT level shot-blocking. Add in the blocked shots & all-time great BBIQ, and you truly may have someone lapping the field.
GreenHat wrote:I have at least a dozen times over multiple threads in the last week admitted that Russell had by far the biggest defensive impact compared to his peers of all time and am willing to concede that it fairly likely that even in an absolute sense he could have the biggest defensive impact. Is that not enough recognition from me?
That part about 10 blocks was hyperbole (but also true because people on this forum have made claims like that). Change it to 6 or even 5 if you want.
GreenHat, I'm sorry but I don't have any conception of your ideas at all. That's not an insult, just that you're relatively new here. You made a statement about Russell supporters' expectations as if we were all the same, I simply wrote back from my perspective.
Re: 5 or 6 block expectations. People've gone through this weird phase where they've convinced themselves that Dwight Howard is blocking shots as well as you can expect anyone to do in this era and it's absurd. In the last 5 years we've seen a 33 year old Marcus Camby block 3.6 shots per game. There really isn't any reason to think that shotblocking is far harder than it was back when Camby was young, blocking even more shots, and it still wasn't as high as Mutombo, or Zo, or Ratliff's peaks.
I certainly think Russell could block 4 shots per game now, and 5 isn't out of the question.
GreenHat wrote:I think its a huge factor. Its a numbers game, the less people you have to face the better your chances of winning (especially when you're the favorite). Just ask the top poker players how much harder it is to win the world series of poker.
That has everything to do with the amount of luck involved. Poker has far far FAR more luck involved than basketball. In fact the amount of luck involved in poker is a serious issue in terms of maintaining the audience imho. There is no playoff system that results in less luck than the NBA's simply in terms of HCA teams winning out, and quite often, even the "upsets" aren't even really upsets.
GreenHat wrote:You assume that I don't respect Russell as a player for whatever reason. Just because I consider some of the other all time great players better than him does not mean I don't respect him. Jordan is the only perimeter players I would take ahead of him, that's hardly an extreme position or shows any lack of respect.
Winning 3/4 with comparable teams, isn't some kind of amazing stat and certainly doesn't point to Russell having these magical winning intangibles that people anoint him with. And what about before '66?
GreenHat, this is really just a particular tone I'm taking because it seemed appropriate given what I was responding to. You used a rhetorical voice, so I'm using one too. Not out of spite - it's just fun. I'm not actually making assumptions about you personally.
Re: last paragraph. Let me backtrack here.
The reason I bring up the comparable teams in the last seasons is because it was argued that Russell was winning because of his superior supporting cast. I'm saying, well even when he didn't have the superior cast he won, but gives a counterexample to your point.
What about before '66? Well Russell had a better supporting cast on average than Wilt. He did not have a supporting cast so much better than explains 11 to 2 on titles though.
