Garnett vs Russell

[70sFan]

The league was half black in 1969, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Was this NBA only? I remember looking at NBA/ABA numbers and I had thought it was a fair amount higher than 50% (60 something).

The NBA became 50% black in 1964/65 season from what I remember. By 1969 it definitely reached 60s, but haven't checked the numbers.

[70sFan]

It's just more vibes based posting from you.

Good summary of this discussion

[iggymcfrack]

One thing to remember about Garnett is that he'd actually be much better today. He played for a very poor coaching staff in Minnesota that did not come remotely close to maximizing his talents. If he trained to shoot the 3 instead of long midrange jumpers, he would have been much more effective as a scorer and if he was played at center from the jump, he would have been much more effective as a defender.

You basically have an all-time 2-way weapon and they were basically like "well you're too tall to shoot 3-pointers so we'll have you take the most difficult ineffective shots on the floor instead. And you're too good of a shooter to play center so we won't let you be the primary rim defender either." It was asinine nonsense that was the worst of both worlds. KG in the modern game would be like a stronger, tougher, Wemby. I think he would have legit GOAT potential.

[One_and_Done]

One thing to remember about Garnett is that he'd actually be much better today. He played for a very poor coaching staff in Minnesota that did not come remotely close to maximizing his talents. If he trained to shoot the 3 instead of long midrange jumpers, he would have been much more effective as a scorer and if he was played at center from the jump, he would have been much more effective as a defender.

You basically have an all-time 2-way weapon and they were basically like "well you're too tall to shoot 3-pointers so we'll have you take the most difficult ineffective shots on the floor instead. And you're too good of a shooter to play center so we won't let you be the primary rim defender either." It was asinine nonsense that was the worst of both worlds. KG in the modern game would be like a stronger, tougher, Wemby. I think he would have legit GOAT potential.

We can't grant KG a skillset he never had, no more than we can give Sheed a better attitude or Ewing a 3pt shot, or Shaq better FT shooting.

KG wins this without a 3pt shot anyway.

[Ol Roy]

One thing to remember about Garnett is that he'd actually be much better today. He played for a very poor coaching staff in Minnesota that did not come remotely close to maximizing his talents. If he trained to shoot the 3 instead of long midrange jumpers, he would have been much more effective as a scorer and if he was played at center from the jump, he would have been much more effective as a defender.

You basically have an all-time 2-way weapon and they were basically like "well you're too tall to shoot 3-pointers so we'll have you take the most difficult ineffective shots on the floor instead. And you're too good of a shooter to play center so we won't let you be the primary rim defender either." It was asinine nonsense that was the worst of both worlds. KG in the modern game would be like a stronger, tougher, Wemby. I think he would have legit GOAT potential.

I agree with you on the three-pointers. A 45% shooter on long twos would easily translate to a plus shooter from behind the arc. Given that Garnett wasn't big on contact, I'd actually prefer he go the opposite direction on the positional spectrum. Since his best skills were shooting and passing, and with his motor, he'd have been better if used more like Larry Bird, spacing the floor and finding cutters. He did demonstrate his ability to do so, but I'd like to have seen more of that rather than post-ups.

The caveat is, and I know this is why you suggested he play center, it was hard to find offensively talented big men at the time. But just from the standpoint of optimizing KG and not necessarily the team, putting him at SF would have been wild. KD would be another analogue of a 6'11 guy playing the perimeter role, minus the savant passing.

[Outside]

It's too bad that the discussion devolved into era bias, because this could've been a really interesting comparison.

[One_and_Done]

It's too bad that the discussion devolved into era bias, because this could've been a really interesting comparison.

It's impossible to discuss Russell vs a modern player without also considering the era each was from.

[theonlyclutch]

Though, this brings us to another question, which is how much do you believe the talent pool increase since then would obfuscate their apparent lead.

I generally go with approximately a 200% increase (3x) since the early/mid 60s for star level players (a bit slower for lower level players due to owners integrating more slowly at that level).

Rough reasoning - US population has approximately doubled since then, and approximately 1/3 of the top 30-40 guys in the league have been international players recently.

This assumes the impact/talent distribution of the early league was reasonably similar to the modern league (which I haven't thought too much on, but don't see an immediate reason to doubt).

200% increase seems to be just something based on raw population side and doesn't take into account how said talent may or may not be inclined or able to play basketball - especially in their developmental years.

Early/mid-60s NBA is largely composed of players born in the mid/late-30s, or in other words, The Great Depression. Huge amounts of children (20+%) were documented to suffer from malnutrition back then and those who didn't most likely didn't get the consistent macros to fully fulfill their genetic potential (food rationing in WWII likely didn't help either) . So that's a lot of potential basketball talents filtered out off the bat.

Then we get to the fact that information velocity is obviously way slower in the 40s/50s - TV was very rare in US households and radio is not exactly a great substitute. Even if Kids may have heard of a game called basketball thru radio it's hard to know whether it'd be of interest without visuals, again, uncountably many potential basketball talents getting filtered out. And this is before the effect of rising player salaries, kids born in 1930s (I. E Bill Russell's time) would see Basketball at the top level played by part-timers (40s-50s NBA) while kids born in the 90s see Basketball at the top and not-so-top levels played by multi-millionaires (10s NBA+Euroleague).

[Outside]

It's too bad that the discussion devolved into era bias, because this could've been a really interesting comparison.

It's impossible to discuss Russell vs a modern player without also considering the era each was from.

Yeah, that's your opinion. You've made that painfully clear. But for some of us who don't reflexively disqualify a player comparison across certain eras, Russell v KG would be an interesting exercise.

[One_and_Done]

It's too bad that the discussion devolved into era bias, because this could've been a really interesting comparison.

It's impossible to discuss Russell vs a modern player without also considering the era each was from.

Yeah, that's your opinion. You've made that painfully clear. But for some of us who don't reflexively disqualify a player comparison across certain eras, Russell v KG would be an interesting exercise.

I mean, no era disqualifies you, but it provides context to what you did. Russell's grossly inferior ability is what disqualifies him from a serious comparison with KG.

[70sFan]

It's impossible to discuss Russell vs a modern player without also considering the era each was from.

Yeah, that's your opinion. You've made that painfully clear. But for some of us who don't reflexively disqualify a player comparison across certain eras, Russell v KG would be an interesting exercise.

I mean, no era disqualifies you, but it provides context to what you did. Russell's grossly inferior ability is what disqualifies him from a serious comparison with KG.

Your baseless opinion about Russell's ability can't disqualify GOAT candidate from any comparison.

[One_and_Done]

Yeah, that's your opinion. You've made that painfully clear. But for some of us who don't reflexively disqualify a player comparison across certain eras, Russell v KG would be an interesting exercise.

I mean, no era disqualifies you, but it provides context to what you did. Russell's grossly inferior ability is what disqualifies him from a serious comparison with KG.

Your baseless opinion about Russell's ability can't disqualify GOAT candidate from any comparison.

He was the GOAT of the 60s. Unfortunately that doesn't even get him into the top 20 all-time today. Alot changed in the 56 years after he retired.

[70sFan]

I mean, no era disqualifies you, but it provides context to what you did. Russell's grossly inferior ability is what disqualifies him from a serious comparison with KG.

Your baseless opinion about Russell's ability can't disqualify GOAT candidate from any comparison.

He was the GOAT of the 60s. Unfortunately that doesn't even get him into the top 20 all-time today. Alot changed in the 56 years after he retired.

That's your opinion, you can't state it like a fact. Especially when you are so inconsistent that you have someone who was almost his contemporary inside your top 3.

[One_and_Done]

Your baseless opinion about Russell's ability can't disqualify GOAT candidate from any comparison.

He was the GOAT of the 60s. Unfortunately that doesn't even get him into the top 20 all-time today. Alot changed in the 56 years after he retired.

That's your opinion, you can't state it like a fact. Especially when you are so inconsistent that you have someone who was almost his contemporary inside your top 3.

It's not a fact that a cat would kill a mouse in a fight, but I don't think there's much of an argument on the mouse's side. You're entitled to your opinion of course. I've explained mine at length.

[70sFan]

He was the GOAT of the 60s. Unfortunately that doesn't even get him into the top 20 all-time today. Alot changed in the 56 years after he retired.

That's your opinion, you can't state it like a fact. Especially when you are so inconsistent that you have someone who was almost his contemporary inside your top 3.

It's not a fact that a cat would kill a mouse in a fight, but I don't think there's much of an argument on the mouse's side. You're entitled to your opinion of course. I've explained mine at length.

It is a fact, because we've seen a cat killing mouse many times (at least I have)... so even your comparison doesn't touch the problem. It's also funny that you somehow forget your lengthy opinion in the very next thread when you see a case for Julius over Wade, even though Julius peaked 50 years ago in inferior league than Russell.

[One_and_Done]

That's your opinion, you can't state it like a fact. Especially when you are so inconsistent that you have someone who was almost his contemporary inside your top 3.

It's not a fact that a cat would kill a mouse in a fight, but I don't think there's much of an argument on the mouse's side. You're entitled to your opinion of course. I've explained mine at length.

It is a fact, because we've seen a cat killing mouse many times (at least I have)... so even your comparison doesn't touch the problem. It's also funny that you somehow forget your lengthy opinion in the very next thread when you see a case for Julius over Wade, even though Julius peaked 50 years ago in inferior league than Russell.

It's not 'a fact' that a cat always kills a mouse, it's an opinion. I just wouldn't think much of the person whose opinion was the mouse could win. It's hypothetically possible in theory, but it would never happen. In that respect, It's exactly like the idea that Russell would be seen as a top 20 player of all-time if he was teleported to today's league.

Julius was a better player than Russell, with a more modern skillset, so of course he's going to have a better chance. Also he's being compared to Wade, who lacks a 3pt shot, which in today's game would reduce his effectiveness significantly.

[Jaivl]

House cat is playing on a Mickey Mouse era (pun intented), well rested and surrounded by GOAT-species teammates.

Put it one-on-one against a Josephoartigasia monesi in the middle of the jungle, it ain't got a chance.

[eminence]

Though, this brings us to another question, which is how much do you believe the talent pool increase since then would obfuscate their apparent lead.

I generally go with approximately a 200% increase (3x) since the early/mid 60s for star level players (a bit slower for lower level players due to owners integrating more slowly at that level).

Rough reasoning - US population has approximately doubled since then, and approximately 1/3 of the top 30-40 guys in the league have been international players recently.

This assumes the impact/talent distribution of the early league was reasonably similar to the modern league (which I haven't thought too much on, but don't see an immediate reason to doubt).

200% increase seems to be just something based on raw population side and doesn't take into account how said talent may or may not be inclined or able to play basketball - especially in their developmental years.

Early/mid-60s NBA is largely composed of players born in the mid/late-30s, or in other words, The Great Depression. Huge amounts of children (20+%) were documented to suffer from malnutrition back then and those who didn't most likely didn't get the consistent macros to fully fulfill their genetic potential (food rationing in WWII likely didn't help either) . So that's a lot of potential basketball talents filtered out off the bat.

Then we get to the fact that information velocity is obviously way slower in the 40s/50s - TV was very rare in US households and radio is not exactly a great substitute. Even if Kids may have heard of a game called basketball thru radio it's hard to know whether it'd be of interest without visuals, again, uncountably many potential basketball talents getting filtered out. And this is before the effect of rising player salaries, kids born in 1930s (I. E Bill Russell's time) would see Basketball at the top level played by part-timers (40s-50s NBA) while kids born in the 90s see Basketball at the top and not-so-top levels played by multi-millionaires (10s NBA+Euroleague).

Yes, I went population based to get a rough estimate because there are a million factors to consider if one wants to balance perfectly (we're now fat and out of shape with our own variant of garbage nutrition, various electronics lead to lower sports participation not more, etc). I'd expect you'd get a *lower* number if you took an all factors analysis. Basketball participation rates at the high school level would suggest this (much higher then to the point there may have been outright more high school basketball players in the 50s than today despite the population increase). I took a more generous to the current day approach that the population for NBA players had still doubled because I generally believe outlier talents are attracted to a field at much higher rates than average talents.

[eminence]

Having said that, 300% is my personal guess, there’s certainly a larger range possible. I’m perfectly fine with Pens 400%. 200-500 seems pretty reasonable.

But the NBA talentpool has absolutely not more than 10xed since the 60s as One n Done supports.

[lessthanjake]

It seems like this talent pool question comes down to two factors:

1. The size of the overall population that the talent pool is drawing from

2. The chance that a talented person in that talent pool would actually decide to play professional basketball.

I think we can conceptualize this separately in terms of the U.S. and internationally, and then try to put it all together.

For the US, there’s a pretty big difference between now and then on the first factor. The US has around twice as many people now as it did in Russell’s era. It’s a bit more or less than half depending on what year of Russell’s career we are looking at. The relevant population is really the population that is of an age that could plausibly play professional basketball, though, and that is probably a little less than twice what it was at any point in Russell’s era.

As to the second factor in the US, I think there’s a lot of things to think about here. The NBA was a pretty nascent league, and did not pay the huge amounts it does now, so there definitely wasn’t the same incentive to try to play professional basketball that there is now. At the same time, though, we need to recognize that that’s also the same for other sports. The NFL was also a pretty nascent league at the time, and also was nowhere near as lucrative. Professional baseball was well-established but also didn’t pay anything like what it pays now. So, when it comes to the NBA, we shouldn’t think about this as the NBA paying way less in a vacuum and therefore losing athletes to other professional sports. Rather, it’s really about professional sports as a whole not being able to sweep up as much talent as they do now, because professional sports weren’t as lucrative. Is there an effect here? I think it would be naive to think there isn’t. Of course, we can’t just look at NBA salaries back then in inflation-adjusted terms, because the country is a lot richer than it was then, so everything paid less, even in inflation-adjusted terms. But there’s no adjustment that can make the incentives to play basketball back then look anything like the incentives to play it now. That said, it paid enough that it was still likely easily the best financial option for anyone who was good enough to be someone that might be near the top of the league. Overall, it’s hard to say how this factor weighs, but it’s not clear to me that it has a huge effect.

There’s some other issues on the second factor besides financial ones, though. Did racial discrimination end up resulting in some people not developing basketball skills earlier in their lives? As a basic level, I don’t think discrimination was preventing people from playing basketball. But it could gatekeep people away from the stepping stones to professional basketball. I’m no expert on this precise subject, but as I understand it, colleges mostly weren’t playing with black players until sometime in the 1950s. And if you weren’t playing college basketball, you were likely not bothering to go pro. I think this is a pretty significant factor for the overall talent level of the league. However, it’s not clear to me that this is a huge factor when talking about the very top talent (which is what this discussion is inherently about). The very top talents were going to find their way to the schools that would actually take them (and probably could’ve easily gone pro without playing college ball). So I think this is a big issue for the talent level of role-player-level guys, especially early in Bill Russell’s career. But I’m not sure it’s a huge issue when it comes to top-level guys. It’s not a non-factor though.

Then we get to international talent. In Russell’s era, this was essentially non-existent. The talent pool didn’t exist because they simply didn’t play basketball, and weren’t going to the NBA. These days, most of the world does play basketball. So the population pool is very high. However, I think basketball loses a lot of its talent to other sports, because kids don’t really grow up playing basketball as a primary sport in those countries. It is secondary to soccer virtually everywhere. Theoretically, this wouldn’t have much of an effect on big men, because you don’t really see many people of that size play soccer. But big men aren’t always enormous when they’re younger, and so they’ll often have simply not played basketball as a kid. Some people can learn it quick (Hakeem and Giannis being the best examples), but this factor greatly diminishes the chances that a talented person will end up playing professional basketball. And it does it even more for smaller players, who are of a size that definitely could play soccer. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the very best international players have disproportionately been guys who are very big. I think great athletes with bodies that could be good in soccer almost always end up playing that instead. So basically, the international talent pool is big, but I think is still relatively un-mined, due to the primacy of soccer in most of the world. This may be changing to some degree, but I don’t think it has changed yet. In general, though, roughly half the best players in the NBA are international, so that gives us a good sense of the scale of this overall when it comes to top-level talent.

So where does that leave us? Well, the US had only about half the population in Russell’s era, so we’d generally expect that the US produced only half the talent it does now. There’s also some factors like incentives to play professional sports and some discrimination-based issues that would depress this number even further, though I think it’s less for the very top players than for the rest. If we layer those effects on, I think we’re looking at the top US talent probably being about one-third of what it was. We could maybe say it’s more like 40%, if we consider the fact that the relevant-age population in the US was probably a bit more than half what it is today. Meanwhile, the top international talent makes up about half the top-level talent pool now. So we can roughly double that US-based discrepancy. That leaves me with a rough conclusion that there’s probably about 5x or 6x more top-level talent in the NBA than there was in Russell’s era..