Bill Russell in the modern game

[Im Still Ballin]

I know, these sort of hypotheticals are incredibly hard to do. But I'm going to do a projection anyway. I'm going to try to be as realistic as possible without overthinking it. No timeline bull or "what team would he play on" stuff. Just pure player evaulation based on what he showed.

I'll break down the assessment into four parts: Size/Anthropometry, Athleticism, Skill, and then an impact analysis.

Size/Anthropometry:

Height: 6'9⅝" barefoot; 6'11" in shoes
Weight: 215-240 pounds without weight training
Wingspan: 7'4"
Standing Reach: Estimated 9'4" to 9'6"

Bill was roughly the same height as Tim Duncan, Patrick Ewing, and Hakeem Olajuwon. Some might look at the wingspan and think the standing reach estimation is off but let me explain. Bill had narrower shoulders, meaning more of his 7'4" reported arm span was coming from his arms. Combine that with a very short neck/high-set shoulders and a standing reach in the 9'4" to 9'6" seems accurate.

Also, consider that we have three interesting anecdotes about Bill's standing reach:

1) A 1955 article pointed out that Bill Russell had a higher standing reach than 7'3" barefoot Swede Halbrook.
2) There was a story about how Bill Russell had a higher standing reach than 7'2" barefoot Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
3) There was a story about how Bill Russell had a higher standing reach than Ralph Sampson, who wasn't 7'4" but around Kareem's height. The anecdotal story came from a Sacramento Kings announcer back when Bill Russell was coach. I believe it was Jerry Reynolds.

Here are some official NBA combine measurements of players who are in the same ballpark as Bill Russell regarding height, span, and reach:

Dwight Howard: 6'9" barefoot height; 7'4.5" wingspan; 9'3.5" standing reach
DeMarcus Cousins: 6'9.5" barefoot height; 7'5.75" wingspan; 9'5" standing reach
Myles Turner: 6'9.75" barefoot height; 7'4" wingspan; 9'4" standing reach
DeAndre Jordan: 6'9.75" barefoot height; 7'6" wingspan; 9'5.5" standing reach
Tony Bradley: 6'9.25" barefoot height; 7'5" wingspan; 9'4.5" standing reach
Thomas Bryant: 6'9.5" barefoot height; 7'6" wingspan; 9'4.5" standing reach
John Henson: 6'9" barefoot height; 7'5" wingspan; 9'4" standing reach
Larry Sanders: 6'9.25" barefoot height; 7'5.75" wingspan; 9'4" standing reach
Martin Iti: 6'8.5" barefoot height; 7'5" wingspan; 9'3.5" standing reach
Uche Okafor: 6'9" barefoot height; 7'5.5" wingspan; 9'4" standing reach
DeSagana Diop: 6'10" barefoot height; 7'6.5" wingspan; 9'5" standing reach

To finish, here are a couple of useful photos displaying Bill's height and build. Notice his narrower shoulders and how much longer his arms are compared to Kareem, who had a 7'5" wingspan.

https://media.gettyimages.com/id/85562707/it/foto/nba-legend-bill-russell-speaks-with-tim-duncan-of-the-san-antonio-spurs-at-the-spurs-practice.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=iBNTtbKiyLw_NgG5chOpLd59Z4Zt-DVCBlmszbkeZWY=

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsgd5hjIs5h4CuPbK1hu7pslqvlmWOs J-XCNfdiOQDgdP7bZ_tjett-9zjfRGchrbGh0o&usqp=CAU

[Im Still Ballin]

Athleticism:

Perhaps the GOAT athlete in NBA history. Was a decorated track athlete who could run and jump with anyone. He had it all: speed, strength, power, flexibility, agility, endurance, balance, and coordination.

I can't be bothered breaking it down further than this. Bill had everything athletically. With modern strength and conditioning, he'd be 250-260 like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc.

Here are some clips displaying his insane athleticism:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVR7rU6CkmI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

[Im Still Ballin]

Skill:

The GOAT defender. No need to break this down; he can do everything: any scheme, any coverage, any matchup, anywhere on the court - he's got it all.

He's a very good passer who would've been credited for way more assists if judged on modern standards for what's considered an assist. Exceptional screener. One of the best rebounders ever. A very good ball handler who'd lead the fastbreak after securing a defensive rebound. Great finisher at the rim. Wasn't suited toward post-up play. Had a jump shot but nothing special.

Impact Analysis:

The changes to the rules and style of play would take some defensive value away from Bill, even though he'd still be the best defender ever. However, I think his offense would get a huge boost. His athletic package and set of skills he showed are perfectly suited to the modern game.

At worst, I think he's something like a hyper-athletic rim-running DHO/high-low passing hub but with GOAT-level defense, leadership, and intangibles. Elite PnR finisher and an elbow passer who can secure a defensive rebound and lead the fastbreak and be a playmaker off-the-dribble like Draymond or prime Noah.

At best, his ball handling and athleticism allow him to be Giannis-like on offense. I'm sure some will laugh at this but understand these two points. One: the dribbling/carrying and traveling rules were incredibly strict back then. And two: Bill showed exceptional handles in that restrictive environment.

What allows Giannis to dominate as a slasher with no perimeter shot? When you boil it down, it simply comes down to his size, athleticism, and his ball handling. Would Bill not be as good of a ball handler as Giannis with today's lax rules? And is he not a better overall athlete? He's not a little shorter but the length and standing reach measurements are comparable.

Low-end Bill Russell gets you 18-22 ppg, 12-15 rpg, 5-6 apg, 1-2 spg, 2-3 bpg, shooting 55-60% FG. Gets his points in transition and from rolling, cutting, lobs, dump-offs, put-backs, and post mismatches. Maybe some baskets from the occasional fake hand-off or elbow jumper when popping in the PnR.

Impact-wise, he's the best and most impactful defender ever while also being the ultimate connective tissue player on offense. Extremely efficient and easy to fit with on offense and incredibly disruptive and reliable on defense.

High-end Bill Russell adds the half-court Giannis-like penetration ability. 25-30+ ppg, 12-15 rpg, 6-8 apg, 1-2 spg, 2-3 bpg, shooting 55-60% FG. The added on-ball scoring/creation ability adds the extra scoring volume that separates "role players" from "superstars" on offense.

His offensive impact is boosted by the added creation ability. Takes on a larger offensive load and creates more shots for teammates.

The only glaring weakness that the era wouldn't change is his free-throw shooting. And I don't think he's going to be a reliable perimeter shooter. Maybe Duncan-like at best from the mid-range. Or become a quality go-to post-up option, because he wasn't back then and it was never in his bag so to speak.

[Im Still Ballin]

This season highlight video gives you a good overview of his skillset. Notice the great ball handling and passing toward the end. Imagine modern dribbling/carrying and traveling rules, as well as the spaced-out paint. Bill may very well be attacking the rim like Giannis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJZpOW3ZbpQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jtOOQ43yw4

[FKAri]

Sounds like you're time traveling him in his prime. That would not go well for him. He's probably coming off the bench. His skill base is way too archaic and his instincts are all off because he hasn't seen half the shit guys are doing today whereas everyone already knows whatever he pulls out of his bag. This might have a terrible impact on his defense. He'll be getting bamboozled for a long time in the post and on the perimeter. He's never seen a McHale up and under. He's going to be biting on all kind of pump fakes all day. However, the NBA is still at a stage where a guy of his physical profile will have a spot. In a few more decades that might no longer be true.

Now if Bill Russell is coming up in this era? It's a totally different conversation. With his tools the sky's the limit. Size, athleticism, fluid, smarts, level headed. Total package. Not great touch tho. He's never developing a KD jumper.

[iamgine]

Now if Bill Russell is coming up in this era? It's a totally different conversation. With his tools the sky's the limit. Size, athleticism, fluid, smarts, level headed. Total package. Not great touch tho. He's never developing a KD jumper.

What made Bill Russell special was his mentality. That was a product of his era. If he grew up in this era? He'd grew up in much more comfort and could be a softie.

Also, he apparently was quite a bad basketball player in his his early years and was cut from his team. So it's likely he'd not even play basketball today due to no one giving him a chance. Maybe he'd be a track star instead.

[Xiao Yao You]

What made Bill Russell special was his mentality. That was a product of his era. If he grew up in this era? He'd grew up in much more comfort and could be a softie.

Also, he apparently was quite a bad basketball player in his his early years and was cut from his team. So it's likely he'd not even play basketball today due to no one giving him a chance. Maybe he'd be a track star instead.

He was tall and athletic so he'd have been pushed towards basketball and given every opportunity

[iamgine]

He was tall and athletic so he'd have been pushed towards basketball and given every opportunity

Maybe, maybe not.

[Xiao Yao You]

Maybe, maybe not.

not much doubt about it

[dankok8]

To the first reply above... Any arguments should be if he grew up in the modern era. Time machine arguments are irrelevant and unfair to older players who don't have the same benefits that modern athletes do so it's fair to compare on even ground.

Russell wouldn't have the same impact today simply because more shots are taken outside of the paint. In the 60's being a monstrous rim protector was enough for GOAT level impact and today it wouldn't be. Defense just doesn't move the needle to quite the same extent. As OP said, he would be a much better offensive player though so his peak is probably around KG's level. It's a sensible comparison to me because they have a similar height and build. No jumper but way more athletic so a bigger roll/lob threat and as scary it is to say an even better defender than KG.

[iamgine]

not much doubt about it

for you

[elementally morale]

To the first reply above... Any arguments should be if he grew up in the modern era. Time machine arguments are irrelevant and unfair to older players who don't have the same benefits that modern athletes do so it's fair to compare on even ground.

Russell wouldn't have the same impact today simply because more shots are taken outside of the paint. In the 60's being a monstrous rim protector was enough for GOAT level impact and today it wouldn't be. Defense just doesn't move the needle to quite the same extent. As OP said, he would be a much better offensive player though so his peak is probably around KG's level. It's a sensible comparison to me because they have a similar height and build. No jumper but way more athletic so a bigger roll/lob threat and as scary it is to say an even better defender than KG.

The problem with this let's imagine this or that guy growing up today is that we simply just have no information. You can't tell how good a shooter a player would've been based on physique. We also don't know what a difference 30 teams vs. 8 teams means in terms of defensive impact. All we know is that a tall athletic player is likely to be 'not bad'. So I'm not imagining Isaac Newton or Galilei in the 21st century. I know they were the greatest in their era. It doesn't make any sense to imagine them with computers and nanotechnology. In much the same way I'm happy with the old footage and that's it.

[Im Still Ballin]

The problem with this let's imagine this or that guy growing up today is that we simply just have no information. You can't tell how good a shooter a player would've been based on physique. We also don't know what a difference 30 teams vs. 8 teams means in terms of defensive impact. All we know is that a tall athletic player is likely to be 'not bad'. So I'm not imagining Isaac Newton or Galilei in the 21st century. I know they were the greatest in their era. It doesn't make any sense to imagine them with computers and nanotechnology. In much the same way I'm happy with the old footage and that's it.

You and the other guys are overthinking this. We're making an analysis based on the skills that he did show. Playing the hypothetical "he would've practiced this growing up" is pointless.

We're giving Bill modern strength and conditioning and adjusting his displayed skill set to modern rules and playstyles. That's it.

He was the best defender we've ever seen. He was arguably the greatest athlete in NBA history. He was a great screener and roller. He was one of the best rebounders ever. He was a great passer. He was a very good ball handler. He was a poor free-throw shooter.

These things don't change.

[elementally morale]

You and the other guys are overthinking this. We're making an analysis based on the skills that he did show. Playing the hypothetical "he would've practiced this growing up" is pointless.

We're giving Bill modern strength and conditioning and adjusting his displayed skill set to modern rules and playstyles. That's it.


In that case he wouldn't do too well. His offense would be even more limited and his defense would be worth a lot less in today's game. Probably a bench player on a team that has a more polished modern big. I guess Russel would be competing with the Nic Claxton and Jarrett Allen types and be better than them. However, without some new skills he has no chance to be on the floor on a Bucks team that has Giannis and Lopez.

But hey, if you can't learn new things while being alive today, you are not getting near a university job as Charles Darwin.

[elementally morale]

He was the best defender we've ever seen. He was arguably the greatest athlete in NBA history. He was a great screener and roller. He was one of the best rebounders ever. He was a great passer. He was a very good ball handler. He was a poor free-throw shooter.

These things don't change.

Best defender in the 60s. For what it is worth. Best athlete? Not even back then because that was Wilt. He wouldn't play too much on a good team today with the limited skills he had. But who would? No soccer player from the 60s can make it to the soccer field if they don't learn new things. Pele would hardly play today with all the skills he had. The game has changed too much.

[Im Still Ballin]

Why are you acting like this is some technological evolution? It's basketball. There's a ball and there's a hoop you aim at. Bill Russell - or any player from any era for that matter - isn't going to be befuddled and not able to figure out modern basketball. It's not rocket science.

Most of the perceived differences between then and now are due to the rules, the equipment/playing conditions, and strength and conditioning.

They dribbled funny because the ball had less grip due to its texture and the rules were incredibly strict. And the arenas were often cold as shit. Couldn't yo-yo that shit and carry it like a football like today's players do.

Has nothing to do with "super dooper advanced skillz" modern players have learned.

[elementally morale]

Why are you acting like this is some technological revolution? It's basketball. There's a ball and there's a hoop you aim at. Bill Russell - or any player from any era for that matter - isn't going to be befuddled and not able to figure out modern basketball. It's not rocket science.

Most of the perceived differences between then and now are due to the rules, the equipment/playing conditions, and strength and conditioning.

Here is an example. I played at a decent level back in the 90s. Had a teammate that made it to the NBA so I've been around some 'not that bad' basketball. However, if I can't practice playing according to the new traveling and carrying rules (or lack thereof) I'm at a serious disadvantage. The same with floaters. When I was playng all floaters were considered a bad shot. Nobody practiced them. Today? You are dead in the water as a SG if you don't have a floater. Etc. And that's the 90s not the 60s. Three pointers? I could shoot them just fine but had I taken a 3 with 18 sec on the shotclock, especially on a 3-1 break I would've been benched for the rest of the month. You have to practice these things.

[Im Still Ballin]

Here is an example. I played at a decent level back in the 90s. Had a teammate that made it to the NBA so I've been around some 'not that bad' basketball. However, if I can't practice playing according to the new traveling and carrying rules (or lack thereof) I'm at a serious disadvantage. The same with floaters. When I was playng all floaters were considered a bad shot. Nobody practiced them. Today? You are dead in the water as a SG if you don't have a floater. Etc. And that's the 90s not the 60s. Three pointers? I could shoot them just fine but had I taken a 3 with 18 sec on the shotclock, especially on a 3-1 break I would've been benched for the rest of the month. You have to practice these things.

We're making realistic adjustments. Based on the skills he showed and the context of the rule changes. And equipment/playing conditions. And strength and conditioning.

If Bill showed great ball handling in the restrictive '50s and '60s environment, it's fair to say he'll have no issue taking advantage of today's lax interpretations. If Bill showed fantastic passing despite the cramped and packed paint, it's fair to say he'd be a great passer with all the space and generous interpretations of what's considered an assist in today's NBA.

[elementally morale]

We're making realistic adjustments. Based on the skills he showed and the context of the rule changes. And equipment/playing conditions. And strength and conditioning.

If Bill showed great ball handling in the restrictive '50s and '60s environment, it's fair to say he'll have no issue taking advantage of today's lax interpretations. If Bill showed fantastic passing despite the cramped and packed paint, it's fair to say he'd be a great passer with all the space and generous interpretations of what's considered an assist in today's NBA.


You are basically saying: a good rebounder then = a good rebounder today. A good shooter then = good shooter today. I think it is more complicated than that. If that's the only criteria we go by we can say that all the all time greats would be just as good today without directly practicing some things and changing their styles. We won't know the answer but IF it is as simple as you suggest then you are not really asking too much here. You are convinced Russell would do great today with the skillset he had back then. I think it is not true. If you give him time to learn some new things, sure. If you just condition him better in a 60s environment and that's it and then you drop him into a modern game... I think he would look like a fool out there.

[L.Kizzle]

A Draymond Green/Bam/Dwight hybrid.

[Im Still Ballin]

Here's a breakdown of where Giannis gets his 31 ppg from. The below accounts for 28.4 ppg. It's missing 2.6 ppg which comes from undefined plays. He's getting 20.3 ppg from transition, PnR, cuts, and putbacks. Without the PnR ball handling, it's 16.1 ppg.

Isolation: 1.2 points (3.7 possessions per game; 59.7% percentile/0.98 PPP)
Transition: 7.3 points (6.0 possessions per game; 68.6% percentile/1.23 PPP)
PnR ball handler: 4.2 points (3.5 possessions per game; 96.9% percentile/1.17 PPP)
PnR roll man: 2.5 points (2.0 possessions per game; 61.7% percentile/1.21 PPP)
Post-up: 3.0 points (3.1 possessions per game; 46.4% percentile/0.98 PPP)
Spot-up: 2.2 points (2.5 possessions per game; 20.0% percentile/0.88 PPP)
Handoff: 0.2 points (0.2 possessions per game; 18.0% percentile/0.70 PPP)
Cut: 4.0 points (2.6 possessions per game; 90.2% percentile/1.56 PPP)
Putbacks: 2.3 points (1.9 possessions per game; 61.0% percentile/1.19 PPP)
Miscellaneous: 1.5 points (1.7 possessions per game; 86.6% percentile/0.84 PPP)

[Im Still Ballin]

A Draymond Green/Bam/Dwight hybrid.

Nice. I like it.

[Xiao Yao You]

A Draymond Green/Bam/Dwight hybrid.

I watched Cousy's last game and he looked a lot like Gobert except for the crappy post game and not having to guard in space.

[Duffy Pratt]

Two things not fully mentioned here: his basketball IQ was off the charts, and his competitiveness is probably only matched by Jordan. On the right organization, he would be a force (top 3) player in any era. It’s hard to say what he would be like on a bad team because I don’t think he would be able to stand it.

[Xiao Yao You]

Two things not fully mentioned here: his basketball IQ was off the charts, and his competitiveness is probably only matched by Jordan. On the right organization, he would be a force (top 3) player in any era. It’s hard to say what he would be like on a bad team because I don’t think he would be able to stand it.

would he be on a bad team if he was a top 3 player? Great players can carry bad teams

[elementally morale]

would he be on a bad team if he was a top 3 player? Great players can carry bad teams

He would not carry anything with his very limited offense. If you allow him to learn new things that's a different situation. But if you put Russell as he was (just with modern nutrition and better conditioning and health facilities) into the modern game he simply couldn't do much. Anatomy and biology is of course the same but I think most of you seriously underestimate the skill and learning part here. Even rookies who were born into today's game have a tough time at first and need several years to learn new things to be successful. You guys really think that someone from 60 years ago dropped into the league with no new skills to be learned allowed and dominate? I actually think everyone would have a hard time even staying on the floor.

[warriorfan]

A Draymond Green/Bam/Dwight hybrid.

I would maybe go with a more athletic kevin garnett but without the jumper?

[dankok8]

Best defender in the 60s. For what it is worth. Best athlete? Not even back then because that was Wilt. He wouldn't play too much on a good team today with the limited skills he had. But who would? No soccer player from the 60s can make it to the soccer field if they don't learn new things. Pele would hardly play today with all the skills he had. The game has changed too much.

It's arguable whether Wilt or Russell was the better athlete. As many players who played against them attested, Wilt had a higher maximum reach but Russell jumped quicker and also had faster recovery time and could jump multiple times in succession. Russell being smaller and lighter was also probably quicker when it came to horizontal game or court coverage.

[Duffy Pratt]

would he be on a bad team if he was a top 3 player? Great players can carry bad teams

That’s largely a myth. A certain kind of great player can make an otherwise bad team into a mediocre one. If that’s what you call carrying, I think Russell could probably do that. There are only a very small handful of examples of a great player immediately turning around the fortunes of an otherwise bad team. The one who immediately comes to mind is Larry Bird. Can’t think of any others, but I’m probably overlooking something.

[Xiao Yao You]

That’s largely a myth. A certain kind of great player can make an otherwise bad team into a mediocre one. If that’s what you call carrying, I think Russell could probably do that. There are only a very small handful of examples of a great player immediately turning around the fortunes of an otherwise bad team. The one who immediately comes to mind is Larry Bird. Can’t think of any others, but I’m probably overlooking something.

mediocre isn't the same as bad. Some might argue Russell carried a mediocre Celts team as it was. Are those guys HOFers without Russell?

[Full Court]

He'd be a better, more athletic Dennis Rodman who can also score.

[Im Still Ballin]

Just and updated version of this post:

Here's a breakdown of where Giannis gets his 31 ppg from. The below accounts for 28.4 ppg. It's missing 2.6 ppg which comes from undefined plays. He's getting 20.3 ppg from transition, PnR, cuts, and putbacks. Without the PnR ball handling, it's 16.1 ppg.

(transition, PnR ball handler, PnR roll man, cut, putbacks) 20.3 ppg on 16 possessions per game = 1.27 PPP. This is like shooting 63.5% FG on 2pt shots.
(transition, PnR roll man, cut, putbacks) 16.1 ppg on 12.5 possessions per game = 1.29 PPP. This is like shooting 64.5% FG on 2pt shots.

The other 8.1 ppg comes from low-quality sources. These are the vanity/ego possessions a superstar is permitted to get away with. Here's how much it's worth:

(isolation, post-up, spot-up, handoff, miscellaneous) 8.1 ppg on 11.2 possessions per game = 0.72 PPP. This is like shooting 36% FG on 2pt shots.

Bill wouldn't be like that, right? He'd be the hyper-efficient 18-22 ppg while playing the democratic team game. Not forcing up shots in places or play types he's not good at. Playing within himself; in his own words: "not distorting your offense."


Isolation: 1.2 points (3.7 possessions per game; 59.7% percentile/0.98 PPP)
Transition: 7.3 points (6.0 possessions per game; 68.6% percentile/1.23 PPP)
PnR ball handler: 4.2 points (3.5 possessions per game; 96.9% percentile/1.17 PPP)
PnR roll man: 2.5 points (2.0 possessions per game; 61.7% percentile/1.21 PPP)
Post-up: 3.0 points (3.1 possessions per game; 46.4% percentile/0.98 PPP)
Spot-up: 2.2 points (2.5 possessions per game; 20.0% percentile/0.88 PPP)
Handoff: 0.2 points (0.2 possessions per game; 18.0% percentile/0.70 PPP)
Cut: 4.0 points (2.6 possessions per game; 90.2% percentile/1.56 PPP)
Putbacks: 2.3 points (1.9 possessions per game; 61.0% percentile/1.19 PPP)
Miscellaneous: 1.5 points (1.7 possessions per game; 86.6% percentile/0.84 PPP)

[Im Still Ballin]

ALSO: Here's an epic picture of Russell blocking Jerry West's shot. See how high he is off the ground. Amazing athlete.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZBzTmnUIAApP02.jpg

[Baller234]

Two things not fully mentioned here: his basketball IQ was off the charts, and his competitiveness is probably only matched by Jordan. On the right organization, he would be a force (top 3) player in any era. It’s hard to say what he would be like on a bad team because I don’t think he would be able to stand it.

Top 3 in any era? Yeah... no.

Russell is known for his defense. Offensively he was just another guy. Can't think of a single time I've ever been alive where a guy who was dominant only on the defensive end was ever considered top 3.

Maybe back in the 60's before the 3 point line and expanded perimeter play, but definitely not in ANY era. It's pretty much impossible for any one defensive player to have that kind of impact in today's game. He'd have to be an offensive stud too.

[Im Still Ballin]

Top 3 in any era? Yeah... no.

Russell is known for his defense. Offensively he was just another guy. Can't think of a single time I've ever been alive where a guy who was dominant only on the defensive end was ever considered top 3.

Maybe back in the 60's before the 3 point line and expanded perimeter play, but definitely not in ANY era. It's pretty much impossible for any one defensive player to have that kind of impact in today's game. He'd have to be an offensive stud too.

Would Giannis be any better than Bill on offense back in the '50s and '60s? The rule changes matter greatly.

[Baller234]

Would Giannis be any better than Bill on offense back in the '50s and '60s? The rule changes matter greatly.

Of course, but if we're talking about the greatest of ALL time, their greatness has to transcend time and rule changes. The real goat has to be great no matter the era and no matter the rules.

The game pre-merger and post-merger are literally two different games. 2 point basketball and 3 point basketball. Russell dominated in 2 ball but could never dominate that same way in 3 ball, let alone modern 3 ball. Which is why by that same token, I don't think Curry is in the convo either. Remove the 3 point line and he becomes a totally different player.

Russell would be an all-star reserve in today's game. Then again who knows how many great players today would have been reserves back in Russell's day. Maybe not even that.

[Im Still Ballin]

Of course, but if we're talking about the greatest of ALL time, their greatness has to transcend time and rule changes. The real goat has to be great no matter the era and no matter the rules.

The game pre-merger and post-merger are literally two different games. 2 point basketball and 3 point basketball. Russell dominated in 2 ball but could never dominate that same way in 3 ball, let alone modern 3 ball. Which is why by that same token, I don't think Curry is in the convo either. Remove the 3 point line and he becomes a totally different player.

Russell would be an all-star reserve in today's game. Then again who knows how many great players today would have been reserves back in Russell's day. Maybe not even that.

If you admit that, then why can't you be open to the possibility that Bill may be much better on offense in today's NBA?

He wasn't a low-post hub in the mold of Mikan or even Wilt. He was a diversion from that archetype; a center with tendencies of a forward and guard. His handles, his playmaking, his rolling, his slashing. Sure, he wasn't a great shooter. But neither is Giannis.

Bill was just unfortunately in an era where the dribbling/carrying and traveling rules were so strict. And the paint was as congested and packed as it ever was. His offensive strengths were mitigated by a style of play that was dictated by the rules and their interpretations.

The opposite is true for his defense. It's a give and take in today's NBA.

[Baller234]

If you admit that, then why can't you be open to the possibility that Bill may be much better on offense in today's NBA?

He wasn't a low-post hub in the mold of Mikan or even Wilt. He was a diversion from that archetype; a center with tendencies of a forward and guard. His handles, his playmaking, his rolling, his slashing. Sure, he wasn't a great shooter. But neither is Giannis.

Bill was just unfortunately in an era where the dribbling/carrying and traveling rules were so strict. And the paint was as congested and packed as it ever was. His offensive strengths were mitigated by a style of play that was dictated by the rules and their interpretations.

The opposite is true for his defense. It's a give and take in today's NBA.

I don't know, I'm just not convinced that Russell would have been this dominant scorer if only the rules had been different. It's not like the rules stopped Pettit and Chamberlain... or Elgin or Oscar. Russell just wasn't as concerned with dominating offensively I think. If he were, he would have found a way.

I don't think he'd be inadequate in today's game, but I don't see him dominating. He wouldn't have the skill.

[warriorfan]

I think the more athletic kg without a jumper is a pretty good comparison

[Im Still Ballin]

Imagine this guy today attacking the spaced-out paint today. When he's allowed to handle the ball like it's a football and take an extra step. That's a 6'11" in shoes guy with a standing reach and arm length to match Shaq, Wilt, etc.

https://i.ibb.co/GQ8VhSL/8e66ab.gif
https://i.ibb.co/Fgqmy0H/8e67kz.gif
https://i.ibb.co/Jr7gNLJ/8e67r0.gif

The obvious modern comparisons regarding that combination of size, athleticism, and ball handling that spring to mind are Kevin Garnett, David Robinson, and Giannis.

[Im Still Ballin]

Another one:

https://i.ibb.co/0hFrfF9/8e6mq0.gif

One dribble from half-court. Who does that remind you of?

[Im Still Ballin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvD3DlzusBI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vwRU03sSlQ

[Im Still Ballin]

The similarities between Bill Russell and David Robinson securing the defensive rebound and handling the ball in the open court.

ROBINSON

https://i.ibb.co/1LNMH6b/ezgif-1-8709f9f6ad.gif

RUSSELL

https://i.ibb.co/0hFrfF9/8e6mq0.gif

[FKAri]

Why are you acting like this is some technological evolution? It's basketball. There's a ball and there's a hoop you aim at. Bill Russell - or any player from any era for that matter - isn't going to be befuddled and not able to figure out modern basketball. It's not rocket science.

Most of the perceived differences between then and now are due to the rules, the equipment/playing conditions, and strength and conditioning.

They dribbled funny because the ball had less grip due to its texture and the rules were incredibly strict. And the arenas were often cold as shit. Couldn't yo-yo that shit and carry it like a football like today's players do.

Has nothing to do with "super dooper advanced skillz" modern players have learned.

Rules do allow for more skill, the playing conditions are better but the players are absolutely more skilled. All or nothing is a false dichotomy here.

Nothing changed to open up Hardaway's crossover or MJ's turnaround fade or McHale's up and under or any modern guard's layup repertoire. Cousy had an array of unorthodox shots close to the basket. Over time players and trainers dropped what didn't work and emphasized what worked best. Technique on floaters, jumpers, layups, hook shots, post moves all simply improved since Bill Russell's time. On average a player from the past is at a disadvantage when compared to the future and a player from the future is at an advantage but there are some exceptions. Bill Russell has the advantage of being a big man where skills matter less than for the guard but he's still at a disadvantage. You cannot fairly do an as-is comparison.

[999Guy]

This season highlight video gives you a good overview of his skillset. Notice the great ball handling and passing toward the end. Imagine modern dribbling/carrying and traveling rules, as well as the spaced-out paint. Bill may very well be attacking the rim like Giannis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJZpOW3ZbpQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jtOOQ43yw4

Just stop here. He was a great athlete with a great mind.


He’d largely a one way player though. No different than Nash or Magic. Extremely dominant on one side, leaving the other side to rot.


Russell was absolutely not the same style of athlete as Giannis. Giannis is ****ing freakishly long and nimble compared to even him. And way more fluid.

Russell would control games to MVP level with his defense alone, just like in his actual playing days.

[999Guy]

The similarities between Bill Russell and David Robinson securing the defensive rebound and handling the ball in the open court.

ROBINSON

https://i.ibb.co/1LNMH6b/ezgif-1-8709f9f6ad.gif

RUSSELL

https://i.ibb.co/0hFrfF9/8e6mq0.gif

The lack of logic here. Russell and his teams offenses sucked. Sucked compared to actual players before. Why would he be a bottom tier offensive guy then, but a top one now? If Russell would be Giannis or D-Rob now, wtf would Wilt be?

[Im Still Ballin]

Some footage from 70sFan's YouTube channel showcasing Bill Russell's insane standing reach. Look at how he is able to match Wilt despite not being as high off the ground. Chamberlain has an officially measured 9'6" standing reach.

https://i.ibb.co/N2qLRqR/billwilt.png
https://i.ibb.co/r4gWvJq/billwilt2.png

https://i.ibb.co/rMsLdy9/8edziv.gif