If Bill Russell was asked to carry the scoring load on a team

[ArbitraryWater]

Could he do it?

Say 20+ ppg on 50+%... Not trolling or anything, genuinely want to hear some takes on it.

I'm not gonna ask how much he could score, anyone can score 25 given the right amount of shots, but keep it acceptable and non chucking, so 20 fga at best..

What would be the best point/fg% combination?

Could he give you 18 on 48% ? 17 on 47% ?

We all know there are only a certain amount of dunks & layups available each game, so Russell would have to take more shots than that, which for me would logically mean his efficiency would fall even more, and he just, in no situation, could be a helpful scorer, given that he averaged 15 ppg on 44% with 13.4 fga for his career, and 16 ppg on 43% with 14.2 fga in the playoffs...

I just want to know, given a different era, team, etc. any circumstance, could he deliver, and how much...


I find it hard to argue someone as 'GOAT' when he couldn't effectively do the most important thing in basketball... Again, I'm open to changing my stance given the right arguments.

[Kvnzhangyay]

He could, but don't ask that team to be contenders

[Jasper]

He could, but don't ask that team to be contenders
I never saw him play , I missed him by about two years ... but I did see Wilt.

In modern day he would be a PF at best...

In his generation , I think he would of scored , but no where near a prolific scorer, and in doing so Aubach'ss team concept would of been out the window.

9 titles would not of happened.
Saying he is on par with Horry ???? I don't know :)

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bill Russell was not a great scorer, so no. Maybe if he focused on becoming a great scorer he would have become one but we can't just asume he develops a low-post arsenal.
I find it hard to argue someone as 'GOAT' when he couldn't effectively do the most important thing in basketball... Again, I'm open to changing my stance given the right arguments.I don't think he's the greatest player ever but it's just as important to stop the other team from scoring as it is to score yourself. If he's the greatest defensive player ever he has to at least be rated amongst the overall all-time greats. It's not like he was Ben Wallace, he had a 15 ppg career and 4 MVP awards have to be respected.

[G.O.A.T]

Bill Russell was a very good offensive player, he was just a much better defensive player and thus he reputation is such. He was however his teams top scorer in College, lead the 1956 Olympic team in scoring as I'll show here, had plenty of good scoring stretches in his pro career.

I don't think he could have been one of the great scorers of all-time because that was not his nature, but because he approach was to do whatever helped his team win in every situation I do believe he would have been one of the best scorers in the league. There are several series you could look at as examples of Russell's scoring ability when it was necessary to win. Here's a few of those series and some other brief examples.

1962 NBA Finals - Russell averages 23 points and 6 assists on 54/74 shooting and has 30 points and 40 rebounds (including 8 or 10 in OT) of game seven as the Celtics beat Lakers for the second time.

Two more Lakers Finals - 1963 he posts 20 & 5 on 49% shooting as Celtics win in six. An of course the famous 1965 Finals where Russell shot 70% from the field and scored 18 a game. That series including a game two tripe double on 10-11 shooting.

There was a stretch of 16 games during the 1964 season (the first without Cousy) where Russell turned on the offense and averaged 24 ppg shooting an estimated (because of incomplete box scores) 55%. However most of Russell's scoring prowess was on display in the postseason.

Here's a look at his game seven production between 1957-1966.

Scoring stats in game sevens
1957 - 19 pts 7/15 - 5/10
1959 - 28 pts (no shooting numbers)
1960 - 22 pts 7/15 - 8/10
1962 - 19 pts 7/13 - 5/9
1962 - 30 pts 8/15 - 14/18
1963 - 20 pts 10/15 - 0/2
1966 - 25 pts 10/22 - 5/5
1967 - 15 pts 7/11 - 1/2


The best example however probably comes from the 1966 Finals where the aging Celtics were down to Hondo and Sam Jones as scoring options and Russell needed to step up and tilt the scales the Celtics way.

He averaged almost 27 a game and shot over 50% in 5 of 7 games, 54% for the series from the floor and 74% from the line. He was best when they lost scoring 25, 28 and 32 in their three defeats. But as usual, they won four times and won their eight straight title sending Red out a winner.

When looking at Russell's offensive numbers you have to consider a few things:

1) They ran no plays for him to score as the first option.

2) He did not work on his shooting or offensive game at any point of his career aside from basic practice.

3) He was a great passer who they ran the half court offense through from 1964 on and the key to their fast break which is why the Celtics had such a high scoring offense.

4) He never tried to be a scorer, where as Wilt and Kareem (the greatest scoring centers) had four other guys who changed their games to feed them the ball. Russell changed his game to fit his teammates, that's why he has more titles than both combined.

[G.O.A.T]

It's not like he was Ben Wallace, he had a 15 ppg career and 4 MVP awards have to be respected.

5 need to be respected even more.

As do the eight Bill Russell trophies he'd have if they gave the award named after him out while he played.

[jlip]

Could he do it?

Say 20+ ppg on 50+%... Not trolling or anything, genuinely want to hear some takes on it.

I'm not gonna ask how much he could score, anyone can score 25 given the right amount of shots, but keep it acceptable and non chucking, so 20 fga at best..

What would be the best point/fg% combination?

Could he give you 18 on 48% ? 17 on 47% ?

We all know there are only a certain amount of dunks & layups available each game, so Russell would have to take more shots than that, which for me would logically mean his efficiency would fall even more, and he just, in no situation, could be a helpful scorer, given that he averaged 15 ppg on 44% with 13.4 fga for his career, and 16 ppg on 43% with 14.2 fga in the playoffs...

I just want to know, given a different era, team, etc. any circumstance, could he deliver, and how much...


I find it hard to argue someone as 'GOAT' when he couldn't effectively do the most important thing in basketball... Again, I'm open to changing my stance given the right arguments.

He had two seasons of
18.2 ppg on 46.7fg%...league avg. fg% 41.0%
18.9 ppg on 45.7fg%- 2nd on the team in scoring...league avg. fg% 42.6%

He led the team in scoring for the 1962 playoff run. And... individual scoring is not the most important thing in team basketball. There have been several players who have led the league in scoring on losing teams.

[Marchesk]

I find it hard to argue someone as 'GOAT' when he couldn't effectively do the most important thing in basketball....

The most important thing is to win. If you think otherwise, would you rather have Adrian Dantley or Bill Russell? Or hell, Wilt scoring 50 a game?

[ArbitraryWater]

The most important thing is to win. If you think otherwise, would you rather have Adrian Dantley or Bill Russell? Or hell, Wilt scoring 50 a game?

Sure it is, team-sport... But there is nothing to show for "This guy helps you WIN the most" No, tell me what he does/doesn't do...

You don't contribute winning, you contribute scoring, defense, etc.

Russell contributed defense and incredible leadership/intangibles.


So he scored well for College teams and in the Olympics?


I know about the big playoff/finals game's he had... selective imo.


And of course we need to adjust for the like 20 extra possessions in the 1960's.

[GimmeThat]

from my vague memory of what I read about Russell on the offensive end. He would just set the picks, direct the players as to where they should/need to be and then help them to score.

I don't think this guy averaged 20+ rebounds without helping his team greatly on the offensive end, since I'm sure he helped disrupting the opposing teams spacing in order for him to help grab those rebounds.

I don't know if he was like Rodman, someone who just relied on his team to score and he would grab the rebound himself, but then the guy averaged 12+ fga.


He probably held the standard that he would be the worst player on the offensive end of his team. And by help raising the standards of his teammates, he won rings.

That's just my guess from reading about the guy and playing basketball myself.

[BoutPractice]

He had two seasons of
18.2 ppg on 46.7fg%...league avg. fg% 41.0%
18.9 ppg on 45.7fg%- 2nd on the team in scoring...league avg. fg% 42.6%

He led the team in scoring for the 1962 playoff run. And... individual scoring is not the most important thing in team basketball. There have been several players who have led the league in scoring on losing teams.
This :facepalm Could Bill Russell do what he already did? Yes he could.

[ArbitraryWater]

This :facepalm Could Bill Russell do what he already did? Yes he could.

Yea, I'm not asking for 2 seasons... Unless you want to pass me a 2-season career here... :facepalm


I do like G.O.A.T's post... brings up some good points.

[ArbitraryWater]

Again, how can scoring not be the most important part of basketball, or any sport for that matter?

The team scoring more wins, period.

[BoutPractice]

So you think it was a fluke? You think he would not be physically able to keep that up for more than 2 seasons?

Or do you think it was the product of a slightly different situation for a player who's not known as a statpadder and wasn't particularly trying to score himself as much as possible?

[ArbitraryWater]

So you think it was a fluke? You think he would not be physically able to keep that up for more than 2 seasons?

Or do you think it was the product of a slightly different situation for a player who's not known as a statpadder and wasn't particularly trying to score himself as much as possible?


:biggums:

Why should it be a "fluke" ?

You think LeBron's 30/9 season was a fluke because it only happened once?

Nobody would say he could average that for his career, or would they / you?

Don't play the dumbass.

[Ne 1]

People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

[Ne 1]

Also its true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%.

Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.


Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.

Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.


Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.

[GimmeThat]

Again, how can scoring not be the most important part of basketball, or any sport for that matter?

The team scoring more wins, period.

it is, that is also why they have different heights of basketball posts

[ArbitraryWater]

People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Someone who has Kobe top 5


I agree though nothing special about inefficient scoring that can be replaced by the collective unit instead of one sole individual doing it

[riseagainst]

nothing special about efficient scoring either.

look at lebron in the past finals.

[BoutPractice]

Well, first of all, nowhere in the first post did it mention "for his career". I just went into the thread and pointed out that he'd already proven he was able to do what the OP seemed to suggest was a bit of a stretch for him.

But, ok, let's talk different circumstances then.

Bill Russell today, the same basic attributes, focusing his (tremendous) efforts on scoring from an early age? I think he could do it. He looks very fluid, talented, and generally "aware" on offense for someone who's all about defense.

I see him developing a midrange J similar to KG and Anthony Davis. He'd also get all the lobs, putbacks, and other easy buckets, which would raise his overall efficiency - the Tyson Chandler baskets. Add the hookshot he already had, feed him the ball enough, and that should do it on decent enough percentages.

I also think you could get similar results if you did the same experiment with Joakim Noah, who's basically the poor man's Russell.

[ArbitraryWater]

Well, first of all, nowhere in the first post did it mention "for his career". I just went into the thread and pointed out that he'd already proven he was able to do what the OP seemed to suggest was a bit of a stretch for him.

But, ok, let's talk different circumstances then.

Bill Russell today, the same basic attributes, focusing his (tremendous) efforts on scoring from an early age? I think he could do it. He looks very fluid, talented, and generally "aware" on offense for someone who's all about defense.

I see him developing a midrange J similar to KG and Anthony Davis. He'd also get all the lobs, putbacks, and other easy buckets, which would raise his overall efficiency - the Tyson Chandler baskets. Add the hookshot he already had, feed him the ball enough, and that should do it on decent enough percentages.

I also think you could get similar results if you did the same experiment with Joakim Noah, who's basically the poor man's Russell.


Why would I ask him to do it for a season?

Now I like this explained response but could you still answer my earlier question?

Was LeBron's 30/9 a fluke or he could have done it for his career?

[ArbitraryWater]

nothing special about efficient scoring either.

look at lebron in the past finals.

:rolleyes:

Nobody says once an individual scores efficiently they will win the title.. it merely means hes contributing. Look at Shaq's 2004 finals, same thing.


Also its completely retarded anyway.... He makes more points whole taking less shots, yet thats supposed to be a bad thing or equally bad.

[Dresta]

Obviously a Bron stan wouldn't understand Russell's greatness... what a moron :facepalm


And in no way is scoring 'the most important thing in basketball' - an elite defensive big man is far more valuable when it comes to team success than big offensive numbers guys like K-Love and Melo. If you can't protect the rim you won't win a chip, simples. OP demonstrating his overwhelming ignorance of basketball yet again.

[ArbitraryWater]

Obviously a Bron stan wouldn't understand Russell's greatness... what a moron :facepalm


And in no way is scoring 'the most important thing in basketball' - an elite defensive big man is far more valuable when it comes to team success than big offensive numbers guys like K-Love and Melo. If you can't protect the rim you won't win a chip, simples. OP demonstrating his overwhelming ignorance of basketball yet again.

There is no aspect of basketball called "elite defensive big man" you dumbass

NO SHIT, Russell >>>> Love or Melo... sherlock

[iamgine]

I find it hard to argue someone as 'GOAT' when he couldn't effectively do the most important thing in basketball... Again, I'm open to changing my stance given the right arguments.
Well that stance is incorrect. There is no 'most important thing' in basketball.

Lets say someone average 30 offensive rebound and 30 defensive rebound per game but nothing else. It doesn't matter if his other stats are empty, he would be GOAT and his team would win a lot of titles.

[Deuce Bigalow]

11/12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2/5

[SHAQisGOAT]

Also its true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%.

Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.


Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.

Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.


Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.


Well said.

[ArbitraryWater]

Well that stance is incorrect. There is no 'most important thing' in basketball.

Lets say someone average 30 offensive rebound and 30 defensive rebound per game but nothing else. It doesn't matter if his other stats are empty, he would be GOAT and his team would win a lot of titles.

So the team with more rebounds wins games?

Sure, that will be more impressive, but nobody will ever do that..

Yea we can play the: Player a 50 points Player b 50 blocks, 50 blocks will do better for your team, but its never gonna happen

[ArbitraryWater]

Well said.

Its a copy&paste, he never wrote it.

[cltcfn2924]

I never saw him play , I missed him by about two years ... but I did see Wilt.

In modern day he would be a PF at best...

In his generation , I think he would of scored , but no where near a prolific scorer, and in doing so Aubach'ss team concept would of been out the window.

9 titles would not of happened.
Saying he is on par with Horry ???? I don't know :)


Try 11. Where did you get that number from? Why post?

[deja vu]

That would be like asking DeAndre Jordan to carry the scoring load of the Clippers. He's capable of doing that, but not in the team's best interests.

[houston]

no he wasn't that why he only made 3 all-nba first teams

[rmt]

5 need to be respected even more.

As do the eight Bill Russell trophies he'd have if they gave the award named after him out while he played.

Wow, haven't seen you around in a LONG time. What'd you think about the Finals? Don't think you ever did post your top 10. Has it changed with Lebron's past couple years?

[julizaver]

Bill Russell was a very good offensive player, he was just a much better defensive player and thus he reputation is such. He was however his teams top scorer in College, lead the 1956 Olympic team in scoring as I'll show here, had plenty of good scoring stretches in his pro career.

I don't think he could have been one of the great scorers of all-time because that was not his nature, but because he approach was to do whatever helped his team win in every situation I do believe he would have been one of the best scorers in the league. There are several series you could look at as examples of Russell's scoring ability when it was necessary to win. Here's a few of those series and some other brief examples.

1962 NBA Finals - Russell averages 23 points and 6 assists on 54/74 shooting and has 30 points and 40 rebounds (including 8 or 10 in OT) of game seven as the Celtics beat Lakers for the second time.

Two more Lakers Finals - 1963 he posts 20 & 5 on 49% shooting as Celtics win in six. An of course the famous 1965 Finals where Russell shot 70% from the field and scored 18 a game. That series including a game two tripe double on 10-11 shooting.

There was a stretch of 16 games during the 1964 season (the first without Cousy) where Russell turned on the offense and averaged 24 ppg shooting an estimated (because of incomplete box scores) 55%. However most of Russell's scoring prowess was on display in the postseason.

Here's a look at his game seven production between 1957-1966.

Scoring stats in game sevens
1957 - 19 pts 7/15 - 5/10
1959 - 28 pts (no shooting numbers)
1960 - 22 pts 7/15 - 8/10
1962 - 19 pts 7/13 - 5/9
1962 - 30 pts 8/15 - 14/18
1963 - 20 pts 10/15 - 0/2
1966 - 25 pts 10/22 - 5/5
1967 - 15 pts 7/11 - 1/2


The best example however probably comes from the 1966 Finals where the aging Celtics were down to Hondo and Sam Jones as scoring options and Russell needed to step up and tilt the scales the Celtics way.

He averaged almost 27 a game and shot over 50% in 5 of 7 games, 54% for the series from the floor and 74% from the line. He was best when they lost scoring 25, 28 and 32 in their three defeats. But as usual, they won four times and won their eight straight title sending Red out a winner.

When looking at Russell's offensive numbers you have to consider a few things:

1) They ran no plays for him to score as the first option.

2) He did not work on his shooting or offensive game at any point of his career aside from basic practice.

3) He was a great passer who they ran the half court offense through from 1964 on and the key to their fast break which is why the Celtics had such a high scoring offense.

4) He never tried to be a scorer, where as Wilt and Kareem (the greatest scoring centers) had four other guys who changed their games to feed them the ball. Russell changed his game to fit his teammates, that's why he has more titles than both combined.

Bill Russell was capable to be good offensive player (when you add his passing ability also) - but he could not match Wilt or Kareem scoring because he was just not capable of do it. He had strugles in schools team, was cut once and almost cut twice because "he did not understand the game and lack skills and fundamentals". While Kareem and Wilt were natural born scorers.
I have read an article about Russell trying to improve his offence and jump shot in pre-season, because of Wilt's matchup. But his strongest side was defense and team play and there he excels, taking full advantage of his athletism. Anyway when he faced weaker and less athletic oposition at center position (as Lakers during the 60s) he could dominate offensively.

[G.O.A.T]

Bill Russell was capable to be good offensive player (when you add his passing ability also) - but he could not match Wilt or Kareem scoring because he was just not capable of do it. He had strugles in schools team, was cut once and almost cut twice because "he did not understand the game and lack skills and fundamentals". While Kareem and Wilt were natural born scorers.
I have read an article about Russell trying to improve his offence and jump shot in pre-season, because of Wilt's matchup. But his strongest side was defense and team play and there he excels, taking full advantage of his athletism. Anyway when he faced weaker and less athletic oposition at center position (as Lakers during the 60s) he could dominate offensively.

Exactly, he feasted in the Lakers because while West, Baylor and LaRusso were all capable to very good defenders, the Lakers struggled to find a good center until trading for Wilt in 1968. LeRoy Ellis, Jim Krebs, Darrall Imhoff, Gene Wiley. Ray Felix etc.

Reminds me of the Barkley Suns and their parade of nobodies in the middle. Joe Kilne, Mark West,Oliver Miller, Danny Schayes etc.


Wow, haven't seen you around in a LONG time. What'd you think about the Finals? Don't think you ever did post your top 10. Has it changed with Lebron's past couple years?

LeBron is in my top 12 now, Duncan has moved up a little bit with the last three years being like a rebirth for him as a sporadically dominant two way player who remains without an exploitable weakness.

I loved the Finals, the last two NBA Finals have been great. I was really bummed that the Spurs didn't close out game six last season especially after the first half Duncan had, seemed like a lock for Finals MVP if they won. But the Greatness of LeBron and Ray Allen's amazing shooting (plus a rare Poppovich brain fart) had other ideas.

My top twelve in no order are: James, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Mikan