The truth about Bill Russell.

[Papaya Petee]

13\16\3\3 on 50% shooting

[catch24]

http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_a...rt_One/1109315
http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_a...rt_Two/1109316
http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_a..._Three/1109317
http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_a...t_Four/1109318

Fantastic documentary of Auerbach and Russ' relationship. Check out the blocked shot on West in the first video (4:49). Unreal timing, speed and recovery. If you didn't already respect his game you will now.

[G.O.A.T]

Most of the same tings come up in this thread as the others like it, but here's something to consider.

Russell's play was determined by what his team needed to win. In today's NBA he wouldn't have 4-6 capable scorers around him like teams did in the 60's. He'd have to score more and thus his offense would develop and his defense and rebounding would come down to human levels. A prime Russell, in my opinion would be a smaller (listed 6'10 and 245 probably) but more athletic Tim Duncan with a less refined offensive game but better stamina. I see him statistically as...16-19 ppg, 12-15 rpg, 3-5 apg, 3-5 bpg 1-2 spg

He'd be as unique is this era as he was in his own, but he'd be elite, unless you change him mentally, he'd be elite. He has the physical tools, even if we don't add the improvements that'd come with better nutrition and training from age 17 on and the equipment etc, he's already an above average NBA athlete.

I get the argument against Mikan translating. Dominant in his era, but it was a much different game and the rule changes since have made it so you can't play the way Mikan's Lakers did. Not his fault, but it does indicate why he wouldn't be a star player from 1960 on. With Russell it's just foolish. The guy was the prototype for all great superstars to come. Great athlete, great mind, great drive.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Russell averaged 15 ppg with 44% in 42 minutes per game.And he had superior athletisicm over everymen.60's basketball.

So wilt would have 50 ppg and oscar robertson would have 30 10 10 season's today as well?

Prime Ben Wallace type to be generous.Not hating,Wallace was a great player in his prime.

There are plenty of players--the vast majority, in fact--that didn't have these kinds of extreme stats. There is a reason why their numbers stand out. So saying that Russell's 14-18 ppg years wouldn't be maintained in this era has no basis there. Why is it so unbelievable that a 6'9 great athlete couldn't score in the teens? And where is the basis for saying his offensive game would be Wallace's? It's an assumption based on nothing beyond Wallace being a great defender.

And FYI, the game was actually changed in response to Chamberlain's dominance. He's the reason why they widened the lane.

[jlip]

In order to understand Russell's greatness one's knowlege of him (and his era) has to go beyond his basketballreference.com profile and a few youtube clips. In order to appreciate his greatness one has to have a view of greatness that existed before the MJ era when greatness became inextricably linked to volume scoring.

"...because when I played, when I considered me playing my very best, there was room for all of my teammates to play their best. They didn't have to subjugate themselves to let me be on stage all the time".

--Bill Russell

[Pointguard]

I don't think you can base Russell's averages on Love's. Love's rpg were better than every player in the past 20 years other than Rodman and 2003 Ben Wallace, which includes many players far more talented physically who played more minutes per game than Love.

Russell was also extremely active defensively, while Love is the opposite, which also factors in to what kind of position you'll be in to rebound.

Russell's TRB% was about 18.9% on the '62 Celtics for example and on the 1968 Celtics, it was 19.8%.

If we're going to equate that to a modern pace in 40 mpg, why not look at some similar TRB% from players in more recent years who played around 40 mpg?

For the 2000's and 2010's

2000 Shaq- 18.3 TRB%, 40 mpg, 13.6 rpg
2001 Shaq- 18.1 TRB%, 39.5 mpg, 12.7 rpg
2002 Tim Duncan- 18 TRB%, 40.6 mpg, 12.7 rpg
2003 Tim Duncan- 19 TRB%, 39.3 mpg, 12.9 rpg
2003 Kevin Garnett- 18.8 TRB%, 40.5 mpg, 13.4 rpg
2004 Kevin Garnett- 20.1 TRB%, 39.4 mpg, 13.9 rpg
2007 Kevin Garnett- 19.5 TRB%, 39.4 mpg, 12.8 rpg

So, it's reasonable to assume that if Russell grabbed the same amount of available rebounds as he did during his playing days in 40 mpg at modern team's paces, he'd be at about 13-14 rpg. The numbers can vary slightly depending how many missed shots your team forces and how many shots your team misses as well as how good your teammates are at rebounding, but it's pretty obvious what ballpark Russell's TRB% would put him in during this era.

Now whether his rebounding rate would hold up in this era is something we don't know as these projections are speculation, but I'd say 13-14 rpg and I wouldn't argue with 4 bpg. Scoring and assists would depend heavily on teammates and the system. Low double figures in ppg is my best guess. 13 ppg is fair, though. I could see him fitting in well with Nash in Phoenix due to his ability to run the floor, his high IQ, rebounding ability and athleticism. As well as the fact that I've seen him score in old footage on pick and roll plays with Cousy quite a few times.

Just a guess(no idea what Russell would really be capable of if he was transported to 2011), but 10-13 ppg, 13-14 rpg and 3-4 bpg is what I'd guess.

Great Post. I would throw in his great knack to pull off a great play too.

[Pointguard]

I get the argument against Mikan translating. Dominant in his era, but it was a much different game and the rule changes since have made it so you can't play the way Mikan's Lakers did. Not his fault, but it does indicate why he wouldn't be a star player from 1960 on. With Russell it's just foolish. The guy was the prototype for all great superstars to come. Great athlete, great mind, great drive.

Those qualities would have him excel in todays game - no question about it. His focus and will to win would also be superior. He, like Duncan, has winner in his blood.

[PTB Fan]

In order to understand Russell's greatness one's knowlege of him (and his era) has to go beyond his basketballreference.com profile and a few youtube clips. In order to appreciate his greatness one has to have a view of greatness that existed before the MJ era when greatness became inextricably linked to volume scoring.

"...because when I played, when I considered me playing my very best, there was room for all of my teammates to play their best. They didn't have to subjugate themselves to let me be on stage all the time".

--Bill Russell

Bill Russell was the best team superstar. He played to win, and nobody did that better than him.

[Inception28]

Celtics were doing nothing before Russell and they did nothing after Russell. His teammates were the ones lucky to play with Russell not the other way around.

[Math2]

Would be a bit better than Prime Ben Wallace if played in this Era.

Probably more than just a little better. Russ is a much better jumper, and much smarter. He's better than Wallace in every way except hair.

[D.J.]

Ben Wallace isn't even 6'7 without shoes.

He said he's 6'7" during a game in '06.

Danny Ainge (who is a legit 6'5") stood next to him and said Ben was 6'6 1/2".

Ainge is listed at 6'4".

[Round Mound]

13\16\3\3 on 50% shooting

This but a on 45% FG