Russell's defensive impact

[Statlanta]

How far in the future do you believe Bill Russell
or a player of his type keeps his outlier defensive impact, basically keep Russell at his peak and predict when his defensive impact would start nearing today's defensive players.

[penbeast0]

Assuming you are talking about having the same advantages in weight work, shoes, medical, etc. as other players of other eras, Russell's ability to play both vertical and horizontal defense and then recover to his man is unmatched. The closest we have seen are Hakeem and DRob and neither match Russell's defensive rebounding or on court intelligence though both were strong rebounders and intelligent players. So, I'd have to say that his defensive impact would be clearly above any player in any era we have seen so far.

[70sFan]

I think it depends on what you are asking specifically:

a) When will Russell stop being the best defender in the league?

or

b) When Russell's impact wouldn't be a huge outlier compared to the other top defenders in the league?

[Statlanta]

I think it depends on what you are asking specifically:

a) When will Russell stop being the best defender in the league?

or

b) When Russell's impact wouldn't be a huge outlier compared to the other top defenders in the league?

B, your conversation in the other thread had.me thinking about this.

[tsherkin]

I think that once the 3 started to get going to any meaningful extent, his impact would have dropped off. Not relative to his peers, I mean I think he'd have remained probably the best defensive anchor in the league, but just having the 3 would change the way his style of play would have impacted the game and lessened his impact.

[70sFan]

I think it depends on what you are asking specifically:

a) When will Russell stop being the best defender in the league?

or

b) When Russell's impact wouldn't be a huge outlier compared to the other top defenders in the league?

B, your conversation in the other thread had.me thinking about this.

I think he'd definitely remain most of his impact on defensive end through 1970s and 1980s. I don't think 1990s offenses relied enough on shooting to negate his impact, though illegal defense would make it a bit trickier for him.

He might lose some of impact after 2005, but I still think he'd be clearly the best defender of the last decade.

[Dooley]

TBH I don't really see Russell as a significantly better defender compared to other all-time-great multiple-DPOY defensive big men - I don't see him as substantially better than eg Hakeem or David Robinson or Garnett. I think he would be at the very least in the conversation for the best defender in the league, and very likely the actual best defender in the league, in any given year. But I don't really see the argument that he would be substantially, clearly, head-and-shoulders above other inner-circle defenders. And I generally don't see the defensive outcomes of Russell's teams as inconsistent with him being on the same level as other inner-circle defenders, given the context of era and the level of defensive depth and talent on his best defensive teams.

But I'd be really interested in hearing the case to the contrary!

[kcktiny]

A good comp for Bill Russell would be Ben Wallace.

Neither player was even an average scorer (per minute) for a C, but were dominant rebounders/shot blockers and overall shot defenders.

From 2000-01 to 2006-07 Wallace lead the league in blocked shots and was second in rebounds, was named all-defensive 1st team 5 times and DPOY 4 times. I think Russell would have been similar.

[Cavsfansince84]

I voted 77 but then maybe it drifts back into possible in the 98-10 period. Just as we saw with Ben Wallace's teams as mentioned above.

[OhayoKD]

I think it depends on what you are asking specifically:

a) When will Russell stop being the best defender in the league?

or

b) When Russell's impact wouldn't be a huge outlier compared to the other top defenders in the league?

or
c) when is russel's impact no longer an outlier relative to mordern atg's

[tsherkin]

I think it depends on what you are asking specifically:

a) When will Russell stop being the best defender in the league?

or

b) When Russell's impact wouldn't be a huge outlier compared to the other top defenders in the league?

or
c) when is russel's impact no longer an outlier relative to mordern atg's

How is C materially different from B?

[OhayoKD]

I think it depends on what you are asking specifically:

a) When will Russell stop being the best defender in the league?

or

b) When Russell's impact wouldn't be a huge outlier compared to the other top defenders in the league?

or
c) when is russel's impact no longer an outlier relative to mordern atg's

How is C materially different from B?

Being an outlier relative to other defenders doens't necceasrily get you to "outlier relative to everyone"

[tsherkin]

or
c) when is russel's impact no longer an outlier relative to mordern atg's

How is C materially different from B?

Being an outlier relative to other defenders doens't necceasrily get you to "outlier relative to everyone"

He didn't say "relative to everyone," he said rather specifically "other top defenders in the league."

[OhayoKD]

How is C materially different from B?

Being an outlier relative to other defenders doens't necceasrily get you to "outlier relative to everyone"

He didn't say "relative to everyone," he said rather specifically "other top defenders in the league."

missed that

[70sFan]

TBH I don't really see Russell as a significantly better defender compared to other all-time-great multiple-DPOY defensive big men - I don't see him as substantially better than eg Hakeem or David Robinson or Garnett.

Well, he did play next to all-time great multiple-DPOY level defensive big men in his own era and he was significantly better than them. Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

[kcktiny]

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

What makes you say this?

Russell was 6-9, Thurmond 6-11, Chamberlain 7-1. What in your opinion did Russell do that these other two did not? Or what did he do much better?

I ask as Chamberlain was a similar rebounder, and all three played 40+ min/g during their primes.

Are you of the opinion Russell was a much better shot blocker than either of these two? Or much better at some aspect of defense?

[Texas Chuck]

as always we can't possibly know. Remember how much of big man defense was pioneered by Russell over the initial objections of his coaches. So big man defense almost certainly doesn't progress at the rate it did in the actual world if Russell wasn't in it.

So I think his relative impact would be more likely to be higher than most of you believe. But again this is pure conjecture on my part, but my basis is Russell himself. All these other great defenders play defense the way they did because Russell came first and showed them how. I'll assume eventually it gets figured out even without Russell, but not as quickly obviously.

That can't be ignored here.

[Dutchball97]

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

What makes you say this?

Russell was 6-9, Thurmond 6-11, Chamberlain 7-1. What in your opinion did Russell do that these other two did not? Or what did he do much better?

I ask as Chamberlain was a similar rebounder, and all three played 40+ min/g during their primes.

Are you of the opinion Russell was a much better shot blocker than either of these two? Or much better at some aspect of defense?

I'm not as knowledgable on the 60s as 70sfan but from the 60s games I've watched I thought Russell had amazing positioning skills. He was great at defending entry passes and switching, while still being in position to defend the rim.

[70sFan]

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

What makes you say this?

Russell was 6-9, Thurmond 6-11, Chamberlain 7-1. What in your opinion did Russell do that these other two did not? Or what did he do much better?

I ask as Chamberlain was a similar rebounder, and all three played 40+ min/g during their primes.

Are you of the opinion Russell was a much better shot blocker than either of these two? Or much better at some aspect of defense?

Not about shotblocking, more about the other aspect of defense.

[kcktiny]

Not about shotblocking, more about the other aspect of defense.

Like what? You said neither was on his level - but both were all-defensive 1st/2nd team during the 5 seasons after Russell retired (Thurmond his last season too).

What was Russell better at?