The truth about Bill Russell.

[Richesly]

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

[Collie]

So he would be better than a guy who put up 15 rpg and 4 bpg?

So something like 11-17-5 would not be unreasonable? I'd take that any time.

[Rnbizzle]

I'd say around 10-15-4 or something? I'm not even hating, the game these days just doesn't really revolve around centers.

[WillC]

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

It works both ways: Ben Wallace would be a puny, offensively vulnerable, free throw brick artist if he played in the 1960s.

Remember, weight training just didn't really happen back then (Wilt was one of the first to bother with it), and their diet/nutrition was a lot worse than it is today. Also, could Wallace have coped with the nightly racism? What about adapting to a fast-paced team-ball style of play?

The fact is, all a player can do is beat the competition put in front of him during his respective era. Bill Russell absolutely did that better than anyone in NBA history.

Ben Wallace was approximately the 10-15th best player of the 2000s.

Who's to say he wouldn't have been the 10-15th best player in the 1960s, while Russell was the very best?

[asdf1990]

Poor mans kawme brown at best.

[WillC]

Poor mans kawme brown at best.

I wonder if, in 50 years' time, people will say that some scrub shooting guard in 2061 is as good as Michael Jordan was in the 1990s.

[JohnnySic]

Russell was 3 inches taller with a tremendous wing span. Different player.

[Harison]

Would be a bit better than Prime Ben Wallace if played in this Era.
True, and Shaq in '60 would be a towel boy :rolleyes:

[millwad]

Russell was 3 inches taller with a tremendous wing span. Different player.

They are both listed at 6-9..

[asdf1990]

I wonder if, in 50 years' time, people will say that some scrub shooting guard in 2061 is as good as Michael Jordan was in the 1990s.

We say that now a days. Poor manS tony Allan.

[G.O.A.T]

The truth about Russell and every other great player is that while they were typically world class athletes, it's their mental abilities that made them great and that translates to any era.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Russell ran track at USF. Was one of the best high jumpers in the country and ran the 440 in 49.6. He would have still been a great athlete if he played today and would have been a decent offensive player with a good pg to set him up for lay-ups and dunks. The Ben Wallace comparisons are uninformed. He scored 14,000 points and had 18+ ppg seasons. Russell was not the offensive player you expect an elite big to be but that doesn't mean he was a bad offensive player.

It is impossible to know what the exact effect of changing eras would be but a man with Russell's competitive drive, size, intelligence and athletic ability is going to succeed.

[JohnnySic]

They are both listed at 6-9..
Creative listings.

Ben Wallace isn't even 6'7 without shoes. Danny Ainge (who is a legit 6'5") stood next to him and said Ben was 6'6 1/2".

Russell was a legit 6'9.5" and would be 6'11" in today's sneaker height NBA. Even in his 70's he's almost as tall as KG:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1105/bill.russell.rare.photos/images/russell-new-bigthree.jpg

[D-Wade316]

Russell would be 16ppg/16rpg/5apg/4bpg player today. The stats however doesn't do justice to his defense, since there is no accurate way to measure a player's true defensive impact.

IMHO, he is KG on steroids.

[MichaelCheazley]

God, considering how KG acts I dont want to see what KG on roid's Roid Rage episodes would be like.

[creepingdeath]

The truth about Russell and every other great player is that while they were typically world class athletes, it's their mental abilities that made them great and that translates to any era.
Pretty much.

So, to the OP... 13 rings. Finals MVP trophy named after him. U mad?

http://www.comedytime.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/rYIr0.gif

[millwad]

Creative listings.

Ben Wallace isn't even 6'7 without shoes. Danny Ainge (who is a legit 6'5") stood next to him and said Ben was 6'6 1/2".

Russell was a legit 6'9.5" and would be 6'11" in today's sneaker height NBA. Even in his 70's he's almost as tall as KG:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1105/bill.russell.rare.photos/images/russell-new-bigthree.jpg


So you mean that the difference in listing heights today compared to Russell's era equals in a difference of 4 inches?:facepalm

Wilt Chamberlain must have around 7'3 in that case..

[Dragonyeuw]

Who's to say Russell would even have the kind of game to play center, if he played today? For all we know, he may be an Kevin Durant type perimeter player. Durant, afterall, is 6-10; had he played back in the 60's, he'd be playing center and wouldn't have the game he has now. Whenever you guys talk about 'player x' from the 60's balling today, you need to take into account that their game would be influenced by a number of factors which would make them completely different players today. I'm inclined to think, as the game becomes more perimeter-oriented, that Russell in today's game may have developed a perimeter-game.

[MichaelCheazley]

Who's to say Russell would even have the kind of game to play center, if he played today? For all we know, he may be an Kevin Durant type perimeter player. Durant, afterall, is 6-10; had he played back in the 60's, he'd be playing center and wouldn't have the game he has now. Whenever you guys talk about 'player x' from the 60's balling today, you need to take into account that their game would be influenced by a number of factors which would make them completely different players today. I'm inclined to think, as the game becomes more perimeter-oriented, that Russell in today's game may have developed a perimeter-game.

Great point and nice to see some logic around here. Repped.

[Psileas]

Ben Wallace ending his team's fast-break, leaving his opponents in his dust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLBXoFJ05ew#t=6m41s

[cuad]

their diet/nutrition was a lot worse than it is today.

I'd just like to know how this can be true when obesity did not become a global epidemic until after Nixon got elected.

[rodman91]

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.

[rodman91]

Ben Wallace ending his team's fast-break, leaving his opponents in his dust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLBXoFJ05ew#t=6m41s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXVylfVraBM

[nayte]

Who's to say Russell would even have the kind of game to play center, if he played today? For all we know, he may be an Kevin Durant type perimeter player. Durant, afterall, is 6-10; had he played back in the 60's, he'd be playing center and wouldn't have the game he has now. Whenever you guys talk about 'player x' from the 60's balling today, you need to take into account that their game would be influenced by a number of factors which would make them completely different players today. I'm inclined to think, as the game becomes more perimeter-oriented, that Russell in today's game may have developed a perimeter-game.

Great post mate..

[rodman91]

Who's to say Russell would even have the kind of game to play center, if he played today? For all we know, he may be an Kevin Durant type perimeter player. Durant, afterall, is 6-10; had he played back in the 60's, he'd be playing center and wouldn't have the game he has now. Whenever you guys talk about 'player x' from the 60's balling today, you need to take into account that their game would be influenced by a number of factors which would make them completely different players today. I'm inclined to think, as the game becomes more perimeter-oriented, that Russell in today's game may have developed a perimeter-game.

Right but then we might think about if he would have same character as well. Million dollar deals,brands. He might even give up from basketball and try to be a rapper. I doubt he would had same drive for winning on court.

This "what if" questions should taken as teleportation from his era. Even then there might be trouble in space-time continuum and it might cause a paradox.
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/6970461/images/1259798003768.jpg

[Bigsmoke]

15-15-4 sounds about right.

I would pick him over Dwight Howard but not Shaq or Hakeem.

[Dragonyeuw]

Right but then we might think about if he would have same character as well. Million dollar deals,brands. He might even give up from basketball and try to be a rapper. I doubt he would had same drive for winning on court.

This "what if" questions should taken as teleportation from his era. Even then there might be trouble in space-time continuum and it might cause a paradox.
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/6970461/images/1259798003768.jpg

In which case, it makes for an unfair argument. Teleport George Mikan into this era. Would he even MAKE the NBA today?

I hate era arguments...

[catch24]

Ben wasn't the scorer, playmaker or leader Russell was. You goofs need to learn your history.

[millwad]

15-15-4 sounds about right.



To be honest, Russell didn't have any true go to move and he wasn't a skilled scorer and his career FG average is 44%. And no, it wasn't just because the era he had low FG%, even 6-2 guard Jerry West had a 47 FG% average.

We shouldn't forget that Russell also averaged crazy minutes, he averaged 42 minutes per game and that's just not possibility today. No way the guy would average 15 points per game today..

[Pushxx]

Russell would be a complete beast on both ends. Firstly, he basically invented modern defensive footwork. His athleticism was top notch without the informed practices of today.

Also, Russell would flourish in the half court: great pick setting, superior rebounding, clutch to the max, unbeatable team and man-to-man defense.

[millwad]

Ben wasn't the scorer, playmaker or leader Russell was. You goofs need to learn your history.

This.
The only valid comparison between the two of them is their defense.

[AlphaWolf24]

Yes and the Truth about Michael Jordan is...he would be a 42 - 44%FG averaging 20 - 26PPG.....in the modern era.....Not making the playoff's with Kwame brown , Jerry stackhouse or Rip Hamilton....


not a what if...it really happened...:roll:



next

[EricForman]

I'd say around 10-15-4 or something? I'm not even hating, the game these days just doesn't really revolve around centers.


IF the defense/paint patrol is A level, 10-15-4 is good enough numbers to be considered superstar/franchise/MVP level player.

[EricForman]

I think the old timer fans are a bit defensive here, acting like it's a big diss to say he'd be a better Ben Wallace. Ben Wallace was a four time DPOY and the anchor of a championship team.

what do you guys think Russ would be, a 19/21/5.5 blocks 60% shooting clear-cut best player in the league kinda guy?

If you're a "Better Prime Ben Wallace" and you do it for a decade straight...even with ZERO titles you'd be a top 25 player all time with 7-8 all star teams and 5-6 DPOY and 8-9 rebounding titles

[WillC]

Obviously it's impossible to know for sure but, if we put Bill Russell in a time machine and brought him into today's NBA, I think he would average the following numbers:

13ppg, 18rpg, 4apg and 4bpg and the best team record in the League.

Let's break it down...

Offensive comparison: Emeka Okafor
Okafor is 6'10" and a bit mechanical offensively. Russell is half an inch shorter but has twice as much heart so would at least equal Okafor's career average of 13ppg.

Rebound comparison: Kevin Love
Not meaning to knock Kevin Love but, if he can get 15rpg in 35mpg, then Russell would certainly get 18rpg in 40mpg (Russell had excellent endurance and would never quit).

Passing comparison: Blake Griffin
Not only could Russell throw the outlet pass, but he played in an era when centers played a pivotal role in half-court offense ball movement. This would help him surpass Griffin's 3.8apg.

Defensive comparison: No comparison
There is no one in the NBA today on Russell's level defensively. Darko Milicic averages 2bpg in just 24mpg. Russell's defensive awareness and timing were legendary. In 40mpg in today's game, he'd be able to average a league-leading 4bpg.

Intangibles comparison: Kevin Garnett
KG is one of the few players who could match Russell's legendary intensity. But Russell is more composed, more classy, more inspirational.

Needless to say, I genuinely believe Bill Russell would be a top 5 player in the NBA today and certainly the best big man in the league. He might lack Dwight Howard's athleticism, but Howard lacks Russell's intangibles such as hustle and heart.

Russell would be like a combination of Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace and Kevin Garnett all rolled into one.

[EricForman]

Yes and the Truth about Michael Jordan is...he would be a 42 - 44%FG averaging 20 - 26PPG.....in the modern era.....Not making the playoff's with Kwame brown , Jerry stackhouse or Rip Hamilton....


not a what if...it really happened...:roll:



next


you are the worst poster on ISH. even elite and jacks3 are sometimes reasonable.

[RRR3]

you are the worst poster on ISH. even elite and jacks3 are sometimes reasonable.
Worse than legend24 pegasus and phong?

[EricForman]

Worse than legend24 pegasus and phong?


i haven't dealt with Pegasus enough. but alphawolf really uses Jordan's Wizard years, when he was 38-40, AND PRETEND LIKE THAT WAS PRIME JORDAN. Like, he really thinks he could pull a fast one and have normal, non-delusional trolls buy into what he's saying.

[Dragonyeuw]

you are the worst poster on ISH. even elite and jacks3 are sometimes reasonable.

Why even bother to reply? You guys fall for it hook, line and sinker

[RRR3]

i haven't dealt with Pegasus enough. but alphawolf really uses Jordan's Wizard years, when he was 38-40, AND PRETEND LIKE THAT WAS PRIME JORDAN. Like, he really thinks he could pull a fast one and have normal, non-delusional trolls buy into what he's saying.
What about swagger/rg? Worst ever?

[millwad]

Russell would be a complete beast on both ends. Firstly, he basically invented modern defensive footwork. His athleticism was top notch without the informed practices of today.

Also, Russell would flourish in the half court: great pick setting, superior rebounding, clutch to the max, unbeatable team and man-to-man defense.

Nonsense about beast on both ends, defensively, no doubt..

Beast on offense? Not really. Great passer, yes, picks, yes..
Great scoring skills? Not at all..

[Crown&Coke]

Russell was 3 inches taller with a tremendous wing span. Different player.

that and the fact that Russell was a tremendous passer and once Boston realized then can use Russell as the trigger man in their offense he became dangerous on offense. Dude averaged a good number of assists throughout his career.

Not only that, dude averaged like 17 points with zero shooting ability or low post scoring ability.

Ben Wallace only equals Russell in their ability to love defense. Different player is saying it politely. Big Ben is awesome and will be remembers as such, but nothing compared to an all time great

[LJJ]

So he would be kind of like Ben Wallace except taller, more athletic, a better rebounder, a better shot blocker, a much higher basketball IQ and better on offense by a huge margin?


And Ben Wallace was already the centerpiece of a championship team?

I don't see were the controversy is. So you are saying he would be a dynasty player in this league too.

[WillC]

So he would be kind of like Ben Wallace except taller, more athletic, a better rebounder, a better shot blocker, a much higher basketball IQ and better on offense by a huge margin?

Pretty much. Except Russell wasn't quite as athletic as Wallace.

[LJJ]

Pretty much. Except Russell wasn't quite as athletic as Wallace.

Bill Russell was a top 10 high jumper in the world in his day.

Being one of the best in the world in an athletics discipline pretty much rules out Wallace being in the same stratosphere as Russell in terms of their athletic ability.

The training methods of the 50s and those of the new millenium aren't the same, but Russell's athletic potency is way higher.

[WillC]

True, good point. It's easy to forget how athletic Russell was. We shouldn't confuse a lack of alley-oops with a lack of athleticism.

[Bigsmoke]

To be honest, Russell didn't have any true go to move and he wasn't a skilled scorer and his career FG average is 44%. And no, it wasn't just because the era he had low FG%, even 6-2 guard Jerry West had a 47 FG% average.

We shouldn't forget that Russell also averaged crazy minutes, he averaged 42 minutes per game and that's just not possibility today. No way the guy would average 15 points per game today..

I think Russell would adapted perfectly with today's trainers that would provided him with a more dated post game. He passion of winning was his backbone.

[millwad]

Bill Russell was a top 10 high jumper in the world in his day.



Which doesn't really tell you all that much.
Russell who actually trained some and competed in the high jump event had a personal record of 6-9.

Sure, it's really impressive but alot of basketball players can jump really high if they just try it out.

Donald Thomas was a random basketball player at college in the US and he got challenged by some guy who was on the track team if he could jump over the 6-7 bar. Donald Thomas put on his basketball shoes and not only did he jump 6-7, he raised the bar to 7-0 and made that as well. This was the first time the guy tried out high jumping in his life..

I am pretty sure many players have the same jumping ability Russell had.

I am also sure no one could jump as high as Wilt, everyone "knows" that Wilt had a 50 inch vertical.. HAHA.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Rebound comparison: Kevin Love
Not meaning to knock Kevin Love but, if he can get 15rpg in 35mpg, then Russell would certainly get 18rpg in 40mpg (Russell had excellent endurance and would never quit).

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.

[DevilsAssassin]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229344

[knightfall88]

Why Ben Wallace? you know Ben Wallace has 60lb on Bill Russel in his prime. Bill Russel was around 200lb.

[rodman91]

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.

Exactly.Most of the people ignores difference between 60's and modern basketball. Wilt's highest rebounding season is similar to Love's last year even when we ignore the fact he was like a goliath and athletically superior to his opponents back in day. Same goes for Russell as well.

[Odinn]

The truth about Bill Russell;
He is the greatest champion in basketball history.

[millwad]

The truth about Bill Russell;
He is the greatest champion in basketball history.

What are you serious?!
Where did you get that info from?:facepalm

[D-Wade316]

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.
I don't think TRB% isn't accurate enough across eras. The 60s really played fast and this tires people a lot. IIRC, Wilt's 27rpg season only had a 17trb%. If we replace Wilt with 29trb% Rodman while playing the same amount of minutes, then Rodman would grab 40rpg. That's just not physically possible.

[LJJ]

Which doesn't really tell you all that much.
Russell who actually trained some and competed in the high jump event had a personal record of 6-9.

Sure, it's really impressive but alot of basketball players can jump really high if they just try it out.

Donald Thomas was a random basketball player at college in the US and he got challenged by some guy who was on the track team if he could jump over the 6-7 bar. Donald Thomas put on his basketball shoes and not only did he jump 6-7, he raised the bar to 7-0 and made that as well. This was the first time the guy tried out high jumping in his life..

I am pretty sure many players have the same jumping ability Russell had.

I am also sure no one could jump as high as Wilt, everyone "knows" that Wilt had a 50 inch vertical.. HAHA.

He had 6'9+ in the pre-fosbury flop era, and it wasn't even really his sport. That was about 4 inches under the WR at the time.

Do you think there are any basketball players who can jump 7'8+ now? Or close to it? You are out of your mind if you think that, but Russell did the equivalent of that in his day. He was a FREAK boy.

[bizil]

I see Russell today at the PF spot and puttin up 15-17 points, 13-15 boards- and 2-3 blocks per game. He might swing to some center because of the lack of true seven foot centers. But on D, he would be capable of defending SF-C, hell he might even check a SG at times. I see him as a guy capable of guarding 4 positions on the court.

[millwad]

He had 6'9+ in the pre-fosbury flop era, and it wasn't even really his sport. That was about 4 inches under the WR at the time.

Do you think there are any basketball players who can jump 7'8+ now? Or close to it? You are out of your mind if you think that, but Russell did the equivalent of that in his day. He was a FREAK boy.

You obviously didn't get it.
Thinking Bill Russell was one of a kind when it comes to jumping is stupidity, even pre-fosbury flop he got proper training when it came to high jumping. The college basketball player I talked about had never even tried high jumping before and god knows how bad his technique must have been and basically as a rookie he later won the WC in high jumping.

My point was, Russell was obviously a great jumper but I have no doubt in my mind that there are other nba players with the same type of jumping qualities as him.

[Psileas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXVylfVraBM

Is this supposed to be even comparable to what I posted? Russell actually outran players who cared to run with/against him, while Wallace took a zillion dribbles, with only one opponent (not even his personal one) running back (and practically catching up with him, despite having to cover more space). Russell was simply faster.

[Psileas]

It's funny, btw, how, in a couple of days, we can so easily create 2 vastly different categories of people when it comes to judging Russell (and not just him). Now he's maybe a Ben Wallace. A couple of days ago, he was the 3rd GOAT and greater than Wilt. So much for the "Official ISH xxxxx" thread titles of those "projects".

[LJJ]

You obviously didn't get it.
Thinking Bill Russell was one of a kind when it comes to jumping is stupidity, even pre-fosbury flop he got proper training when it came to high jumping. The college basketball player I talked about had never even tried high jumping before and god knows how bad his technique must have been and basically as a rookie he later won the WC in high jumping.

My point was, Russell was obviously a great jumper but I have no doubt in my mind that there are other nba players with the same type of jumping qualities as him.

Just because some guy who wasn't even good at basketball happened to be an excellent high jumper doesn't mean everyone else who played basketball is.

I'm sure every single athlete in the NBA has at least tried out some track & field in school. Just like Donald Thomas. If they were that extraordinarily talented that they were top in the world in those disciplines we would know about it. They would exploit a feat like that, because it would be incredible.

But there aren't any. No one is that good, or even close.

You honestly think there is an NBA player who has never done any track & field? :facepalm

[millwad]

Just because some guy who wasn't even good at basketball happened to be an excellent high jumper doesn't mean everyone else who played basketball is.

I'm sure every single athlete in the NBA has at least tried out some track & field in school. Just like Donald Thomas. If they were that extraordinarily talented that they were top in the world in those disciplines we would know about it. They would exploit a feat like that, because it would be incredible.

But there aren't any. No one is that good, or even close.

You honestly think there is an NBA player who has never done any track & field? :facepalm

Donald Thomas had never tried it when he jumped 7-0 and the flop or the new era jumping doesn't really matter because the guy had zero technique, even when he won the WC he did it with horrible technique. And it's another thing today, the competition is crazy nowadays, when Russell jumped it was a small event and even the most effective technique wasn't used and the records were horrible compared to the new era.

I have no doubt in my mind that there are players in the league TODAY who can match Russell's record.

[LJJ]

Donald Thomas had never tried it when he jumped 7-0 and the flop or the new era jumping doesn't really matter because the guy had zero technique, even when he won the WC he did it with horrible technique. And it's another thing today, the competition is crazy nowadays, when Russell jumped it was a small event and even the most effective technique wasn't used and the records were horrible compared to the new era.

I have no doubt in my mind that there are players in the league TODAY who can match Russell's record.

You think there are NBA players who can jump the 7'8 that is today's equivalent of Russell's achievements? :roll:

Delusional.

[millwad]

You think there are NBA players who can jump the 7'8 that is today's equivalent of Russell's achievements? :roll:

Delusional.

You are not getting the point...
Of course no one in the NBA can jump 7'8, to jump heights like that you need proper training and extreme jumping abilities. The guy's of Russell's era both lacked in technique and proper training, the contestants didn't even use to most effective technique which says alot about high jumping in that era. We even have women today who jumped higher than Russell..

And I am talking about pure jumping ability, it's pure stupidity to point out that the players of today would have to jump 7'8 to equal Russell's achievements from that era. Sure, the high jumpers of today jump higher but they are also way more skilled as high jumpers a la their technique.

Based on jumping ability I think we definitely have guys today who can jump just as good as Russell..

[triangleoffense]

You think there are NBA players who can jump the 7'8 that is today's equivalent of Russell's achievements? :roll:

Delusional.
From what I've read Wilt was just as if not more than a spectular jumper than Russell. I believe Wilt was in the 72 Olympics as a bid for multiple track and field events.

[Cali Syndicate]

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

So he'd be one of the best interior and intimidating defenders in the league, dominate the glass, win multiple DPOY awards year after year and defensively anchor a championship team?

And by a bit better he'd chip in 10-15ppg and 3-5apg?

STILL a great player.

[millwad]

From what I've read Wilt was just as if not more than a spectular jumper than Russell. I believe Wilt was in the 72 Olympics as a bid for multiple track and field events.

Wilt Chamberlain in the Olympics a la track and field at the age of 35, seriously..:facepalm

[ballup]

Russell's mindset is what made him great. He might have a hard time adjusting to today's game at first, but he'd no doubt find a way to adjust and still be great.

[Pushxx]

Nonsense about beast on both ends, defensively, no doubt..

Beast on offense? Not really. Great passer, yes, picks, yes..
Great scoring skills? Not at all..

He doesn't have to be a 22+ ppg scorer to be a beast on the offensive end.

Settings picks, moving off the ball, making solid passes, running the floor...all of these things would make him a key cog in an elite offense even if he averages only 17 ppg or whatever.

[PTB Fan]

Bill Russell would be a 15/15/4/4 player in these days. He was a world class athlete, was fundamentally sound, skilled, intelligent and mentally tough. That translates in any era.

Stats are relative. And BR would be bigger, more athletic player and more advanced than before. Seriously, he was also an underrated leader and brought so much more to the game than stats.

So Ben is not a valid comparison.

[LJJ]

You are not getting the point...
Of course no one in the NBA can jump 7'8, to jump heights like that you need proper training and extreme jumping abilities. The guy's of Russell's era both lacked in technique and proper training, the contestants didn't even use to most effective technique which says alot about high jumping in that era. We even have women today who jumped higher than Russell..

And I am talking about pure jumping ability, it's pure stupidity to point out that the players of today would have to jump 7'8 to equal Russell's achievements from that era. Sure, the high jumpers of today jump higher but they are also way more skilled as high jumpers a la their technique.

Based on jumping ability I think we definitely have guys today who can jump just as good as Russell..

Back then you needed proper training and jumping technique to jump over 6'8. It's not like the current technique they use is harder to do properly than the old school technique, it just required some strong out-of-the-box thinking that no one had come up with at that point. You think people weren't training specialized for high jump back then? If it were easy there would be hundreds of guys doing it. But there were literally maybe 5 guys in the world at any given time who could do it. It hasn't become more specialized, it's high jump. It's just very rare to see anyone who has that type of top-in-the-world athletic ability, and in addition to that legendary basketball talent. That is why we've only seen it once in basketball history.

Russell was top 99,9999999% in the world in basketball talent, and top 99,9999999% in high jumping athletic ability. No one currently in the NBA is. No one in the history of the NBA other then Russell is.




Chamberlain was a great college athlete, but he wasn't elite globally like Russell.

[Fatal9]

He had 6'9+ in the pre-fosbury flop era, and it wasn't even really his sport. That was about 4 inches under the WR at the time.

Do you think there are any basketball players who can jump 7'8+ now? Or close to it? You are out of your mind if you think that, but Russell did the equivalent of that in his day. He was a FREAK boy.

James White can do 7'6 (with bad form...listed at 44 inch vertical):

http://i35.tinypic.com/2r6yvrq.jpg


and I don't think the "equivalent" of Russell jumping 6'9 is 7'8 now (seriously...another foot?)...there's a lot more specialization in the technique/training that top level high jumpers have now. you can train for years and still not optimize your jump the way the olympic level guys do. over time there is more and more specialization in sports (just like in any industry).

[Fatal9]

Also Russell doing 6'9 is really impressive given the technique he was using. Wilt only managed to do 6'6 and he was taller than him and apparently equipped with a 50 inch vertical (lol).

http://i30.tinypic.com/18g7f5.jpg

[LJJ]

James White can do 7'6 (with bad form...listed at 44 inch vertical):

http://i35.tinypic.com/2r6yvrq.jpg

This exemplifies the talent that Russell had.

White is a better jumper than anyone else in the NBA I have seen live. And Russell was still relatively better. And he was a CENTER! Jebus. If that is not one of the finest athletic specimens in NBA history I don't know who is.

[nycelt84]

13/15/5/5 locking the DPOY year after year. KG without the scoring ability x3 on defense with much better leadership abilities.

[Papaya Petee]

13\16\3\3 on 50% shooting

[catch24]

http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_and_Me_Part_One/1109315
http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_and_Me_Part_Two/1109316
http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_and_Me_Part_Three/1109317
http://sportshl.com/basketball/Red_and_Me_Part_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