Top 10 perimeter defenders ever?

[Bush4Ever.]

It’s ol’ Bush and his Backpicks...

Sorry, I know numbers are scary Barbie.

Don't worry, there are tons of scouting reports and videos/qualitative descriptions as well (which is actually what I was referencing).

[vcsgrizzfan]

I think Russell was approximately Hakeem 1.0 in terms of the interplay between interior and perimeter defense (probably not quite as quick as Hakeem outright, but probably more impactful relative to era).

I don't think he would be close to being the most impactful strictly on the perimeter, however.

The backpicks report is worth posting:

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/04/02/bac ... l-russell/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is a really good write up.

[Bartman]

From Backpicks describing Russell.

Mediocre scorer but vision and rebounding made his offense passable

And some people still have this guy as the GOAT...lol

[vcsgrizzfan]

From Backpicks describing Russell.

Mediocre scorer but vision and rebounding made his offense passable

And some people still have this guy as the GOAT...lol

Present!!!!

[Bartman]

Here it is again

There’s a lack of granular data on Russell, which makes it hard to ballpark his defensive impact. Was it worth 5 points a game (MVP-worthy) or something unheard of like 7 points (GOAT-season worthy)? It was clearly immense, and combined with his passable offense, left a considerable impact footprint.

"Passable offense" ...Now that's the stuff of legends......

[americaninfidel]

(Including specialists.)

I think Jordan, Pippen, Kawhi, Artest, Tony Allen are locks.

Bowen? Moncrief? Both seem like good mentions

LeBron is tricky. I think at his best he was a very good hybrid defender (perimeter and paint; kinda like Garnett or Draymond, both were obviously better defensively, but were also more paint focussed).
First threepeat Kobe is up there. Was great on defense thereafter but not transcendent. Though maybe in terms of body of work that is enough. Some guys here had short peaks.

Rodman kind of has the same issues as both LeBron and Kobe (at his peak he was better obviously). He was best as a perimeter defender until the end of his spell in Detroit, but otherwise became a hybrid defender (more of a post shutdown specialist the later you go). Some of it was starting in an era when every team had two bigs and finishing his career when it was rarer. Bobby Jones might've had a similar arc if he came into the league a decade later.

You guys feel comfortable with any point guards up there? Payton. Kidd. CP3. Frazier. Stockton. Size is an issue I guess, but Tony Allen wasn't huge.

No Michael Cooper or Joe Dumars?

Coop was the first one I thought of, aside from the few mentioned in the initial sentence. Dunars is a great one too.

[Bartman]

From Backpicks describing Russell.

Mediocre scorer but vision and rebounding made his offense passable

And some people still have this guy as the GOAT...lol

Present!!!!

How can he beat GOAT with passable offense? Should we bump Rodman up the all time list for having an offense game that wasn't complete crap.

[vcsgrizzfan]

From Backpicks describing Russell.





And some people still have this guy as the GOAT...lol

Present!!!!

How can he beat GOAT with passable offense? Should we bump Rodman up the all time list for having an offense game that wasn't complete crap.

Does it matter where your impact comes from, as long as it leads to wins? To be completely ridiculous to make the point, a player who scored 5 points but averaged 25 blocks a game would have greater impact on wins and losses than a guy who scored 40 points a game shooting 50%, 37%, 85% (overall, deep and FT). As the write up states, the Celtics dynasty was mediocre offensively but ridiculously dominant defensively.

Russell won two NCAA titles at USF which was a complete non factor in college basketball before and after him. They won 11 rings in his 13 seasons and likely would have been 12 if he hadn't gotten injured in the 58 finals. Before him, I think they won a total of a handful of playoff games in a half decade with Cousy and Sharman and fell from beating the Lakers in the finals in 1969 to missing the playoffs.

I've said my piece and have rehashed this too many times. I won't convince anyone and no one will convince me otherwise so I'll leave it at that.

Have a nice evening.

[Da Stars.]

Present!!!!

How can he beat GOAT with passable offense? Should we bump Rodman up the all time list for having an offense game that wasn't complete crap.

Does it matter where your impact comes from, as long as it leads to wins? To be completely ridiculous to make the point, a player who scored 5 points but averaged 25 blocks a game would have greater impact on wins and losses than a guy who scored 40 points a game shooting 50%, 37%, 85% (overall, deep and FT). As the write up states, the Celtics dynasty was mediocre offensively but ridiculously dominant defensively.

Russell won two NCAA titles at USF which was a complete non factor in college basketball before and after him. They won 11 rings in his 13 seasons and likely would have been 12 if he hadn't gotten injured in the 58 finals. Before him, I think they won a total of a handful of playoff games in a half decade with Cousy and Sharman and fell from beating the Lakers in the finals in 1969 to missing the playoffs.

I've said my piece and have rehashed this too many times. I won't convince anyone and no one will convince me otherwise so I'll leave it at that.

Have a nice evening.

Hockey season starts soon. Then you can convince us why B.O. is greater than WG.

[Bush4Ever.]

How can he beat GOAT with passable offense? Should we bump Rodman up the all time list for having an offense game that wasn't complete crap.

I use to believe that at the individual-level, offense and defense should given seriously different weighting (towards offense obviously), since players can more easily single-handidly direct offense vs. defense.

At the risk of causing LNS to reeeeeeee all over the place:

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/04/13/goa ... longevity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Adjusted plus-minus (APM) data suggests that the best defenders might carry 5 points of impact per game and the best offensive players can top 6 points per game in a given season. Before diving into historical data, my impression was that offensive players were way more valuable than top defenders. Even with a clear offense-defense asymmetry (shown below), that’s a claim I cannot reasonably defend anymore. Defense matters. A lot.

To that end, is Russell's offense/defense asymmetry really that different than Magic/Bird's in the opposite direction?

Or even Lebron's on a single-season level in the more recent seasons where he has been average defensively?

Edit: Before reading/studying this, I would have guessed closer to a 1:2 weight defense to offense for top-tier players rather than 5:6.

[vcsgrizzfan]

How can he beat GOAT with passable offense? Should we bump Rodman up the all time list for having an offense game that wasn't complete crap.

Does it matter where your impact comes from, as long as it leads to wins? To be completely ridiculous to make the point, a player who scored 5 points but averaged 25 blocks a game would have greater impact on wins and losses than a guy who scored 40 points a game shooting 50%, 37%, 85% (overall, deep and FT). As the write up states, the Celtics dynasty was mediocre offensively but ridiculously dominant defensively.

Russell won two NCAA titles at USF which was a complete non factor in college basketball before and after him. They won 11 rings in his 13 seasons and likely would have been 12 if he hadn't gotten injured in the 58 finals. Before him, I think they won a total of a handful of playoff games in a half decade with Cousy and Sharman and fell from beating the Lakers in the finals in 1969 to missing the playoffs.

I've said my piece and have rehashed this too many times. I won't convince anyone and no one will convince me otherwise so I'll leave it at that.

Have a nice evening.

Hockey season starts soon. Then you can convince us why B.O. is greater than WG.

I'm pretty sure I have you wondering about that one already

[Da Stars.]

Does it matter where your impact comes from, as long as it leads to wins? To be completely ridiculous to make the point, a player who scored 5 points but averaged 25 blocks a game would have greater impact on wins and losses than a guy who scored 40 points a game shooting 50%, 37%, 85% (overall, deep and FT). As the write up states, the Celtics dynasty was mediocre offensively but ridiculously dominant defensively.

Russell won two NCAA titles at USF which was a complete non factor in college basketball before and after him. They won 11 rings in his 13 seasons and likely would have been 12 if he hadn't gotten injured in the 58 finals. Before him, I think they won a total of a handful of playoff games in a half decade with Cousy and Sharman and fell from beating the Lakers in the finals in 1969 to missing the playoffs.

I've said my piece and have rehashed this too many times. I won't convince anyone and no one will convince me otherwise so I'll leave it at that.

Have a nice evening.

Hockey season starts soon. Then you can convince us why B.O. is greater than WG.

I'm pretty sure I have you wondering about that one already

Right now I might have to be re edicated on how you come to dis opinion.

[Bartman]

How can he beat GOAT with passable offense? Should we bump Rodman up the all time list for having an offense game that wasn't complete crap.

I use to believe that at the individual-level, offense and defense should given seriously different weighting (towards offense obviously), since players can more easily single-handidly direct offense vs. defense.

At the risk of causing LNS to reeeeeeee all over the place:

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/04/13/goa ... longevity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Adjusted plus-minus (APM) data suggests that the best defenders might carry 5 points of impact per game and the best offensive players can top 6 points per game in a given season. Before diving into historical data, my impression was that offensive players were way more valuable than top defenders. Even with a clear offense-defense asymmetry (shown below), that’s a claim I cannot reasonably defend anymore. Defense matters. A lot.

To that end, is Russell's offense/defense asymmetry really that different than Magic/Bird's in the opposite direction?

Or even Lebron's on a single-season level in the more recent seasons where he has been average defensively?

Edit: Before reading/studying this, I would have guessed closer to a 1:2 weight defense to offense for top-tier players rather than 5:6.

The whole problem I have with Russell being considered the GOAT is you have to ignore that he was vastly superior athletically to other players at the time. Of course, his numbers and impact are going to be inflated. Honestly, it's sad he couldn't dominate offensively with such physical superiority. Russell wouldn't have this advantage if he played in the 80's and beyond, it's just common sense and you need to apply some common sense when you're are ranking players.

[Bush4Ever.]

The whole problem I have with Russell being considered the GOAT is you have to ignore that he was vastly superior athletically to other players at the time. Of course, his numbers and impact are going to be inflated. Honestly, it's sad he couldn't dominate offensively with such physical superiority. Russell wouldn't have this advantage if he played in the 80's and beyond, it's just common sense and you need to apply some common sense when you're are ranking players.

I don't think anyone believes he would put up the same numbers/level of dominance if he were transported to the modern game.

But if you use the "against peers" standard like most people do when evaluating historical greatness, Russell ranks very highly, with the understanding there was a much shallower talent pool in the 1960s compared to almost any other era.

[Bartman]

The whole problem I have with Russell being considered the GOAT is you have to ignore that he was vastly superior athletically to other players at the time. Of course, his numbers and impact are going to be inflated. Honestly, it's sad he couldn't dominate offensively with such physical superiority. Russell wouldn't have this advantage if he played in the 80's and beyond, it's just common sense and you need to apply some common sense when you're are ranking players.

I don't think anyone believes he would put up the same numbers/level of dominance if he were transported to the modern game.

But if you use the "against peers" standard like most people do when evaluating historical greatness, Russell ranks very highly, with the understanding there was a much shallower talent pool in the 1960s compared to almost any other era.

Well said. I think the difference between me and grizz is how much we factor in the shallow talent pool into the ranking. He obviously doesn't factor it in at all while I weigh it heavily into my ranking.

[FPL]

I don't think anyone believes he would put up the same numbers/level of dominance if he were transported to the modern game.

But if you use the "against peers" standard like most people do when evaluating historical greatness, Russell ranks very highly, with the understanding there was a much shallower talent pool in the 1960s compared to almost any other era.

I think he'd be a 12/15/5/4/2 guy. Say as good as Hakeem/Robinson/Wallace on defense, an elite bigman passer (not Jokic level though), and could fill the DeAndre Jordan role scoring. The efficiency stuff is hard to go by. Remember - part of the Celtics strategy was to get off the first shot in transition, no matter how good/bad it was, and to run the other teams off the floor. He had some pretty efficient series in the ECF and Finals.

I don't know how many people would consider that GOAT, but 13 seasons at that level is pretty good. Though I'm higher on those types of players in general.

If someone is big on scoring then I can see Russell a bit lower. I think all-aroundedness is kind of overrated though. I've recently put Magic back in my GOAT discussion, and while he wasn't a sieve on defense, he was mostly a one-way player.

[FPL]

Regarding shallow talent pool - most big men are not skilled, or athletic. Russell was both (moreso in ball-handling/passing at least; he wasn't an elite scorer by any means).

Great article, and why bigs in the past are more likely to hold up today than guards/wings - https://fansided.com/2017/05/12/nylon-c ... ationship/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bush4Ever.]

I don't think anyone believes he would put up the same numbers/level of dominance if he were transported to the modern game.

But if you use the "against peers" standard like most people do when evaluating historical greatness, Russell ranks very highly, with the understanding there was a much shallower talent pool in the 1960s compared to almost any other era.

I think he'd be a 12/15/5/4/2 guy. Say as good as Hakeem/Robinson/Wallace on defense, an elite bigman passer (not Jokic level though), and could fill the DeAndre Jordan role scoring. The efficiency stuff is hard to go by. Remember - part of the Celtics strategy was to get off the first shot in transition, no matter how good/bad it was, and to run the other teams off the floor. He had some pretty efficient series in the ECF and Finals.

I don't know how many people would consider that GOAT, but 13 seasons at that level is pretty good. Though I'm higher on those types of players in general.

If someone is big on scoring then I can see Russell a bit lower. I think all-aroundedness is kind of overrated though. I've recently put Magic back in my GOAT discussion, and while he wasn't a sieve on defense, he was mostly a one-way player.

I agree with pretty much all of that, and the point on well-roundedness is a very good one and an error that I see a lot of people make in basketball and even other sports for whatever reason.

Even in MMA, people have a weird fetish for "all-around fighters". I keep telling them some variant of "it doesn't matter if you are better in A, B, and C, if your opponent can immediately put and hold the fight in area D (usually through a wrestling/sub grappling advantage).

Regarding shallow talent pool - most big men are not skilled, or athletic. Russell was both (moreso in ball-handling/passing at least; he wasn't an elite scorer by any means).

Great article, and why bigs in the past are more likely to hold up today than guards/wings - https://fansided.com/2017/05/12/nylon-c ... ationship/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What does that have to do with the simple difference in population sizes and average baseline performance?

Moreover, on a team front he ain't winning 11/13 or 8/8 in the modern era with free agency, runaway trades, quasi-collusion, etc...

[FPL]

The whole problem I have with Russell being considered the GOAT is you have to ignore that he was vastly superior athletically to other players at the time

To play devil's advocate -

Aren't most of the 10 players from the 70s-on vastly superior athletically to their peers? Relative to size/position, these guys were all freaks:

Jordan
Shaq
LeBron
Magic
Kareem
Hakeem

These guys weren't:
Bird
Kobe
Duncan

Well I guess that's only nine

[thedangerouskitchen]

No doubt Russ was the best Defender of "his era"; however as noted previously, how difficult is it to dominate Defensively when the league is shooting 38%-42% and 99% of the players couldn't dribble with their off-hand.



Also, what's pretty funny too is the fact that Russell did NOT dominate his peers at the Center position. Here's the HOF Center competition Russell faced throughout his entire career, along with their career PPG average vs. what they averaged going up against Russell:

Embry: 12.5-PPG career / 13.5-PPG vs. Russell
Wilt: 30 / 30
Kerr: 14 / 12
Bellamy: 20 / 24
Lovellette: 17 / 18
Beaty: 16 / 17
Thurmond: 15 / 16
Reed: 19 / 17
Unseld: 11 / 11

Only Red Kerr and Willis Reed averaged "fewer" points against Russell than they did against the rest of the league... the rest of the guys scored just as much OR more when they faced Russell.

Also of note, we're not exactly talking about a who's-who list of Centers Russell was responsible for defending... nothing even remotely close to the level of Center talent in the 80's and 90's anyway.

Couple that with Russell's mediocre (at best) Offense, and the fact that he played alongside far more talent than any player in NBA history (relative to the competition of their respective era), and it's easy to see why Russell remains the most over-rated player in NBA history.