Top 10 perimeter defenders ever?

[FPL]

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...

Guys 6'10" barefoot and taller are and will always be outliers. The expanded talent pool hasn't impacted them as much.

Consider this - say we replace Amare on the Nash Suns with Russell. Is there any doubt they'd be the favorite every year, and win at least 3/6?

[vcsgrizzfan]

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.

We've touched on this before but I think it bears repeating. Pretending players would essentially be the same players if we had a magic time machine is silly to me. There is no way Jordan born 50 years earlier resembles the Jordan we watched. His handles wouldn't be nearly as good, he probably would have virtually no left handed game etc.. He'd still have been incredibly dominating but different.

Similarly, Russell born 40 years ago doesn't do track and field, doesn't spend a big chunk of his life on other sports, is streamed into specialized training for hoops and winds up a very different looking player than what he was in the 60s. Still primarily impacting the game more on defense obviously, but likely far more accomplished in other facets of the game. It's a bit like I think, though I can't prove it, that MJ would have been a much better 3 point shooter if he'd been born 20 years later.

It's more difficult in Russell's case to project because the pace of evolution in the game, both in skills and in rules has been enormous since the game was way farther away from being a finished product and evolving at a much faster pace. I also believe he was a considerably better athlete than even Drob or Hakeem based on his accomplishments in other sports relative to his era including qualifying for the Olympics in high jump and from the very limited film footage available of him.

[FPL]

We've touched on this before but I think it bears repeating. Pretending players would essentially be the same players if we had a magic time machine is silly to me. There is no way Jordan born 50 years earlier resembles the Jordan we watched. His handles wouldn't be nearly as good, he probably would have virtually no left handed game etc.. He'd still have been incredibly dominating but different.

Similarly, Russell born 40 years ago doesn't do track and field, doesn't spend a big chunk of his life on other sports, is streamed into specialized training for hoops and winds up a very different looking player than what he was in the 60s. Still primarily impacting the game more on defense obviously, but likely far more accomplished in other facets of the game. It's a bit like I think, though I can't prove it, that MJ would have been a much better 3 point shooter if he'd been born 20 years later.

It's more difficult in Russell's case to project because the pace of evolution in the game, both in skills and in rules has been enormous since the game was way farther away from being a finished product and evolving at a much faster pace. I also believe he was a considerably better athlete than even Drob or Hakeem based on his accomplishments in other sports relative to his era including qualifying for the Olympics in high jump and from the very limited film footage available of him.

Don't get me wrong - I didn't mean to post those stats pejoratively. I think Russell is one of the GOAT talents (in terms of athleticism+BBIQ, and has a winning/clutch gene - which does exist, though it is sometimes projected onto "lucky" players). Those stats + perennial DPOY favorite would be in the conversation for best in the game in any 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

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

I don't think the disparity between the physical talent of the guys you mentioned is nearly as huge as with Russell and his peers. I'm viewing it from the perspective of all the players physical talent level at every position if that makes sense.

[Bartman]

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.

We've touched on this before but I think it bears repeating. Pretending players would essentially be the same players if we had a magic time machine is silly to me. There is no way Jordan born 50 years earlier resembles the Jordan we watched. His handles wouldn't be nearly as good, he probably would have virtually no left handed game etc.. He'd still have been incredibly dominating but different.

Similarly, Russell born 40 years ago doesn't do track and field, doesn't spend a big chunk of his life on other sports, is streamed into specialized training for hoops and winds up a very different looking player than what he was in the 60s. Still primarily impacting the game more on defense obviously, but likely far more accomplished in other facets of the game. It's a bit like I think, though I can't prove it, that MJ would have been a much better 3 point shooter if he'd been born 20 years later.

It's more difficult in Russell's case to project because the pace of evolution in the game, both in skills and in rules has been enormous since the game was way farther away from being a finished product and evolving at a much faster pace. I also believe he was a considerably better athlete than even Drob or Hakeem based on his accomplishments in other sports relative to his era including qualifying for the Olympics in high jump and from the very limited film footage available of him.

Russell "passable" offense would be horrid in the modern game. If he had trouble scoring over physically inferior players how would he do when he had better, centers, fowards and guards surrounding him and defending him. He would be deandre jordan 2.0 at best.

[Bush4Ever.]

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...

Guys 6'10" barefoot and taller are and will always be outliers. The expanded talent pool hasn't impacted them as much.

Consider this - say we replace Amare on the Nash Suns with Russell. Is there any doubt they'd be the favorite every year, and win at least 3/6?

But why would the ratio of 7-footers vs. total population be any different in 1963 than 2019, especially when the NBA is drawing from some populations with taller than average males (like parts of Europe)?

I don't think there is much question the field is both deeper and better on average for those types of guys today vs. his time.

And I think that matters to some degree for a player that lean on his athleticism for a chunk of his production.

I think his athletic abilities would become somewhat less rarefied relative to average performance, and pull down on his performance, all else equal.

[vcsgrizzfan]

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.

We've touched on this before but I think it bears repeating. Pretending players would essentially be the same players if we had a magic time machine is silly to me. There is no way Jordan born 50 years earlier resembles the Jordan we watched. His handles wouldn't be nearly as good, he probably would have virtually no left handed game etc.. He'd still have been incredibly dominating but different.

Similarly, Russell born 40 years ago doesn't do track and field, doesn't spend a big chunk of his life on other sports, is streamed into specialized training for hoops and winds up a very different looking player than what he was in the 60s. Still primarily impacting the game more on defense obviously, but likely far more accomplished in other facets of the game. It's a bit like I think, though I can't prove it, that MJ would have been a much better 3 point shooter if he'd been born 20 years later.

It's more difficult in Russell's case to project because the pace of evolution in the game, both in skills and in rules has been enormous since the game was way farther away from being a finished product and evolving at a much faster pace. I also believe he was a considerably better athlete than even Drob or Hakeem based on his accomplishments in other sports relative to his era including qualifying for the Olympics in high jump and from the very limited film footage available of him.

Russell "passable" offense would be horrid in the modern game. If he had trouble scoring over physically inferior players how would he do when he had better, centers, fowards and guards surrounding him and defending him. He would be deandre jordan 2.0 at best.

You obviously don't understand my point or are trolling. In either case, like I said initially, discussing it with you is pointless for both of us. Goodnight.

[FPL]

I don't think the disparity between the physical talent of the guys you mentioned is nearly as huge as with Russell and his peers. I'm viewing it from the perspective of all the players physical talent level at every position if that makes sense.

Fair, agree to disagree. I think that's moreso the case with Wilt anyhow (who I think was more of a stiff and less coordinated, also very turnover prone; great end-to-end and vertical athlete, not so quick/great at change of direction or lateral quickness).

[Da Stars.]

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.

We've touched on this before but I think it bears repeating. Pretending players would essentially be the same players if we had a magic time machine is silly to me. There is no way Jordan born 50 years earlier resembles the Jordan we watched. His handles wouldn't be nearly as good, he probably would have virtually no left handed game etc.. He'd still have been incredibly dominating but different.

Similarly, Russell born 40 years ago doesn't do track and field, doesn't spend a big chunk of his life on other sports, is streamed into specialized training for hoops and winds up a very different looking player than what he was in the 60s. Still primarily impacting the game more on defense obviously, but likely far more accomplished in other facets of the game. It's a bit like I think, though I can't prove it, that MJ would have been a much better 3 point shooter if he'd been born 20 years later.

It's more difficult in Russell's case to project because the pace of evolution in the game, both in skills and in rules has been enormous since the game was way farther away from being a finished product and evolving at a much faster pace. I also believe he was a considerably better athlete than even Drob or Hakeem based on his accomplishments in other sports relative to his era including qualifying for the Olympics in high jump and from the very limited film footage available of him.

I can just imagine Russell's game if he was born 40 years later. The shooting and the ball handling.

[FPL]

But why would the ratio of 7-footers vs. total population be any different in 1963 than 2019, especially when the NBA is drawing from some populations with taller than average males (like parts of Europe)?

I don't think there is much question the field is both deeper and better on average for those types of guys today vs. his time.

And I think that matters to some degree for a player that lean on his athleticism for a chunk of his production.

I think his athletic abilities would become somewhat less rarefied relative to average performance, and pull down on his performance, all else equal.

It wouldn't necessarily - but it's a lot easier to identify tall players. There wasn't always an AAU circuit (and back then, a lot of guys were funneled into the semipros). Now, with the Olympics, higher salaries, etc, I think the pool is saturated. Players also compete positionally.

If your contention was that Russell's success RE:defending perimeter players was due to a shallow talent pool, then I guess I can't contest that. My point was just that, I think say 60s-early 80s bigs would translate better to the modern game than 60s-early 80s wings. It's possible neither group would translate well, I suppose.

[FPL]

Russell "passable" offense would be horrid in the modern game. If he had trouble scoring over physically inferior players how would he do when he had better, centers, fowards and guards surrounding him and defending him. He would be deandre jordan 2.0 at best.

(1) Well, to be fair, DeAndre Jordan's scoring, plus elite passing (even if it's not at the level of Jokic, say at the level of Marc Gasol, which the tape seems to reflect), and his defense (even if it's not the same as in his era, say the same level as Hakeem/Robinson/Wallace) is pretty good, don't you think?
(2) Some of the trouble scoring (he wasn't an elite scorer, but he was efficient in college, and in his first few years in the league) is conflated with the Celtics strategy. I'll quote an old post I had from RealGM:

The Celtics' offense was pretty much an equal opportunity system, they never had a league leading scorer, and their efficiencies (meaning, for both individual players, and the team as a whole), by design, weren't great...



Columns 1 and 2 correspond to Russell, columns 3 and 4 correspond to his teammates, season by season. From the numbers, it seems like this was an equal opportunity offense for the most part, Russell doesn't seem too far removed from his teammates in terms of relative FG%.

A couple of quotes from his teammates adding validity to the claim that the offensive gameplan was quantity over quality:

Tom Heinsohn: We had a very simple objective at the start of every game: We were going to take more shots than the other team, as many more as we could. So the less time we wasted bringing the ball upcourt, the more shots we’d get, and the easier those shots would probably be because the defense would be caught unprepared.

We were trained to play at a pace other teams didn’t like, to extend ourselves 100 percent every minute we were out there. Other coaches preferred to slow the pace so that their players would still be strong at the end of the game if they had to go the full forty-eight minutes. Red’s approach was just the opposite: Turn the contest into a physical test of wills!

Even if other teams were able to match us shot for shot, they weren’t getting as many good shots as the game wore on because they were being forced to think quicker, shoot quicker, and make decisions quicker, invariably leading to more turnovers than they were accustomed to committing.

We didn’t waste a lot of time looking for the perfect shots, the way other teams did. Our idea was to overwhelm the opposition by the number of shots we took; the emphasis was clearly on quantity.

The mathematics of that approach were obvious. If we took 100 shots and made only 40 percent, we’d still have as many points as a team that took 80 shots and made 50 percent. The meant if the other team was trying to limit its number of shots by playing a slower game, it was going to have to shoot a much higher percentage than we did in order to beat us.

We weren’t worried about percentages. People look back at those Celtics today and say, “Hey, Cousy shot only 38 percent,” but that’s a misunderstanding of the way we played.

The constant battle was to find ways to upbeat the tempo and to never allow the other team to slow us down; more important, to never allow them time to catch their breath or to think. […] With Cousy and Russell perfecting what they knew at opposite ends of the floor, allowing us to become more and more assertive all the time, we were simply too much for most teams to withstand. We were the marines, baby! Charge! That was us: the leathernecks of the NBA, charging up Pork Chop Hill every night.
— Tommy Heinsohn and Joe Fitzgerald, Give ’em the Hook (Prentice Hall, 1988), pp. 81-82

John Havlicek: The Celtics have never won by field goal percentage. On at least one occasion they had the worst team shooting percentage in the league. But they took the most shots and they also accomplished their main objective, which was to win the championship. The Celtics have been blessed with a succession of great rebounders, from Bill Russell to Dave Cowens and Paul Silas, who have enabled them to have possession of the ball more than other teams. The rule of thumb for me, and for every other Celtic, has been, ‘If you’ve got the shot, take it. Otherwise you’re no good to us.’ This is not to say that your better shooters shouldn’t get the ball in key situations. It means that, as Red says, you can’t let them insult you. There is nothing wrong with a so-so shooter taking an open shot when there are good offensive rebounders positioned underneath the basket.
— John Havlicek and Bob Ryan, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion (Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 91

I don't know if Russell would be a plus offensive contributor today, but it's pretty silly IMO to just look at his raw FG%, devoid of context, and cast judgments on him as a player.

[FPL]

Anyhow sorry, didn't mean to wall of text the thread. I am high on Russell, but I'm also very high on Olajuwon, Garnett, Robinson, Wallace, Green (probably have all of them rated higher than most on this board; so tbf I may overvalue defense).

I do want to close it with some quotes on his defensive versatility - anecdotes yes, but a good read:

Spoiler:

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /index.htm)


“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell


“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr


“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services


“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West


“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake


“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials


“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142


On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

On topic - Thinking about it again, Payton and Kidd should be locks on my original list.

[Odogg]

KKKobe

He was more sporadic on D after 2003 though.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Anyhow sorry, didn't mean to wall of text the thread. I am high on Russell, but I'm also very high on Olajuwon, Garnett, Robinson, Wallace, Green (probably have all of them rated higher than most on this board; so tbf I may overvalue defense).

I do want to close it with some quotes on his defensive versatility - anecdotes yes, but a good read:

Spoiler:

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /index.htm)


“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell


“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr


“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services


“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West


“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake


“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials


“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142


On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

On topic - Thinking about it again, Payton and Kidd should be locks on my original list.

Should not have put the quotes in as spoilers. They are great quotes that put his quickness and mobility in perspective.

[elmerjfudd]

Russell's defense always seemed like it was the equivalent impact of the greatest scorer for his time. Don't know how it would translate this era but I think if more people looked at it from that point of view they'd understand just how great he was.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Bartman]

Russell "passable" offense would be horrid in the modern game. If he had trouble scoring over physically inferior players how would he do when he had better, centers, fowards and guards surrounding him and defending him. He would be deandre jordan 2.0 at best.

(1) Well, to be fair, DeAndre Jordan's scoring, plus elite passing (even if it's not at the level of Jokic, say at the level of Marc Gasol, which the tape seems to reflect), and his defense (even if it's not the same as in his era, say the same level as Hakeem/Robinson/Wallace) is pretty good, don't you think?
(2) Some of the trouble scoring (he wasn't an elite scorer, but he was efficient in college, and in his first few years in the league) is conflated with the Celtics strategy. I'll quote an old post I had from RealGM:

The Celtics' offense was pretty much an equal opportunity system, they never had a league leading scorer, and their efficiencies (meaning, for both individual players, and the team as a whole), by design, weren't great...



Columns 1 and 2 correspond to Russell, columns 3 and 4 correspond to his teammates, season by season. From the numbers, it seems like this was an equal opportunity offense for the most part, Russell doesn't seem too far removed from his teammates in terms of relative FG%.

A couple of quotes from his teammates adding validity to the claim that the offensive gameplan was quantity over quality:

Tom Heinsohn: We had a very simple objective at the start of every game: We were going to take more shots than the other team, as many more as we could. So the less time we wasted bringing the ball upcourt, the more shots we’d get, and the easier those shots would probably be because the defense would be caught unprepared.

We were trained to play at a pace other teams didn’t like, to extend ourselves 100 percent every minute we were out there. Other coaches preferred to slow the pace so that their players would still be strong at the end of the game if they had to go the full forty-eight minutes. Red’s approach was just the opposite: Turn the contest into a physical test of wills!

Even if other teams were able to match us shot for shot, they weren’t getting as many good shots as the game wore on because they were being forced to think quicker, shoot quicker, and make decisions quicker, invariably leading to more turnovers than they were accustomed to committing.

We didn’t waste a lot of time looking for the perfect shots, the way other teams did. Our idea was to overwhelm the opposition by the number of shots we took; the emphasis was clearly on quantity.

The mathematics of that approach were obvious. If we took 100 shots and made only 40 percent, we’d still have as many points as a team that took 80 shots and made 50 percent. The meant if the other team was trying to limit its number of shots by playing a slower game, it was going to have to shoot a much higher percentage than we did in order to beat us.

We weren’t worried about percentages. People look back at those Celtics today and say, “Hey, Cousy shot only 38 percent,” but that’s a misunderstanding of the way we played.

The constant battle was to find ways to upbeat the tempo and to never allow the other team to slow us down; more important, to never allow them time to catch their breath or to think. […] With Cousy and Russell perfecting what they knew at opposite ends of the floor, allowing us to become more and more assertive all the time, we were simply too much for most teams to withstand. We were the marines, baby! Charge! That was us: the leathernecks of the NBA, charging up Pork Chop Hill every night.
— Tommy Heinsohn and Joe Fitzgerald, Give ’em the Hook (Prentice Hall, 1988), pp. 81-82

John Havlicek: The Celtics have never won by field goal percentage. On at least one occasion they had the worst team shooting percentage in the league. But they took the most shots and they also accomplished their main objective, which was to win the championship. The Celtics have been blessed with a succession of great rebounders, from Bill Russell to Dave Cowens and Paul Silas, who have enabled them to have possession of the ball more than other teams. The rule of thumb for me, and for every other Celtic, has been, ‘If you’ve got the shot, take it. Otherwise you’re no good to us.’ This is not to say that your better shooters shouldn’t get the ball in key situations. It means that, as Red says, you can’t let them insult you. There is nothing wrong with a so-so shooter taking an open shot when there are good offensive rebounders positioned underneath the basket.
— John Havlicek and Bob Ryan, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion (Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 91

I don't know if Russell would be a plus offensive contributor today, but it's pretty silly IMO to just look at his raw FG%, devoid of context, and cast judgments on him as a player.

The Celts philosophy of “quantity over quality” most likely arose from the fact that Russell wasn’t a dominant offensive force. If he had the offensive game of Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Wilt, or Robinson, then Red would have decided to give Russell the bulk of the offensive responsibility. Red knew Russell wasn’t skilled enough to carry the offensive load and went with an option he felt would work better. Honestly, it speaks volumes about Red’s real confidence in Russell to be the focus of the offense.

[Bartman]

Anyhow sorry, didn't mean to wall of text the thread. I am high on Russell, but I'm also very high on Olajuwon, Garnett, Robinson, Wallace, Green (probably have all of them rated higher than most on this board; so tbf I may overvalue defense).

I do want to close it with some quotes on his defensive versatility - anecdotes yes, but a good read:

Spoiler:

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /index.htm)


“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell


“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr


“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services


“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West


“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake


“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials


“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142


On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

On topic - Thinking about it again, Payton and Kidd should be locks on my original list.

Should not have put the quotes in as spoilers. They are great quotes that put his quickness and mobility in perspective.

I would look mobile and quick if I played against JR High School kids. Of course, Russell is going to look amazing when compared to athletically challenged players of the 60's. That huge difference in athletic ability gets erased if he plays in the modern era of basketball.

[Bartman]

Anyhow sorry, didn't mean to wall of text the thread. I am high on Russell, but I'm also very high on Olajuwon, Garnett, Robinson, Wallace, Green (probably have all of them rated higher than most on this board; so tbf I may overvalue defense).

I do want to close it with some quotes on his defensive versatility - anecdotes yes, but a good read:

Spoiler:

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /index.htm)


“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell


“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr


“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services


“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West


“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake


“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials


“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142


On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

On topic - Thinking about it again, Payton and Kidd should be locks on my original list.

Why are you so high on Russell? Just curious, not trolling. You and most of this board is too young to have ever seen him play even Grizz would have been a bit too young at the time to have a deep understanding of the game. There really isn't much footage of his games on youtube, and they aren't playing his old games on NBA tv or ESPN Classic from what I've seen. Just wondering where this passion for Russell came from.

[LNS]

Next up for Bartfag: “why is everyone so high on Babe Ruth?”

[elartman1973]

Stop mentioning Kobe...he was vastly overrated on defense and basically every where else. Who has he ever stopped?