Bill Russell's incredible defensive impact. Why he is easily the GOAT Defender.

[1987_Lakers]

Lets see how dominant the Celtics defense was relative to their league and compare that to other great defensive teams...

'57 Celtics DRTG - 84.0 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 88.9 (+4.9 net)
'58 Celtics DRTG - 83.6 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 88.8 (+5.2 net)
'59 Celtics DRTG - 84.5 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 90.2 (+5.7 net)
'60 Celtics DRTG - 84.9 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 91.1 (+6.2 net)
'61 Celtics DRTG - 84.5 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 92.1 (+7.6 net)
'62 Celtics DRTG - 85.1 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 93.6 (+8.5 net)
'63 Celtics DRTG - 87.4 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 95.9 (+8.5 net)
'64 Celtics DRTG - 83.8 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 94.6 (+10.8 net, NBA record)
'65 Celtics DRTG - 84.2 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 93.6 (+9.4 net)
'66 Celtics DRTG - 88.3 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 94.9 (+6.6 net)
'67 Celtics DRTG - 91.0 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 96.1 (+5.0 net)
'68 Celtics DRTG - 92.4 (#2 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 96.8 (+4.4 net)
'69 Celtics DRTG - 89.9 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 95.5 (+5.6 net)

Celtics had a below average defense in '56 before Russell joined and a below average defense in 1970 when Russell retired.

In his 13 seasons with the Celtics, 12 times he led his team to the #1 defense. In a 4 season span from '62-'65, he led Boston's defense to at least +8.5 rating, for comparison sake the '08 Celtics had a +8.6 net in defense and that core never replicated that number again. The '04 Pistons defense which many consider the best defense of the modern era only had a +7.5 net in DRTG.

Even Duncan's Spurs who are often regarded as the best defensive team of the entire 00's only had one season where they had a defensive rating above +8.0(2004). Russell at his peak did it 4 straight years.

[Kawhi_Why_Not]

The offense absolutely sucked back then though. Peaked at 96 wow

[Full Court]

I agree with this. This is a topic that shouldn't be controversial. Russell is indeed the GOAT defender.

[1987_Lakers]

Other great defensive teams that are often discussed...

'96 Bulls: 101.8 DRTG (+5.8 compared to league average)
'93 Knicks: 99.7 DRTG (+8.3) ('94 Knicks were at +8.1)

Those mid 90's Knicks teams were the only team that I found besides the 60's Celtics that had a +8 net rating on the defensive side in back to back years.

[jlip]

Other great defensive teams that are often discussed...

'96 Bulls: 101.8 DRTG (+5.8 compared to league average)
'93 Knicks: 99.7 DRTG (+8.3) ('94 Knicks were at +8.1)

Those mid 90's Knicks teams were the only team that I found besides the 60's Celtics that had a +8 net rating on the defensive side in back to back years.


I remember reading some time ago that the '71-'74 Bucks had a very dominant league leading defense, but I don't remember any specific numbers.

[kawhileonard2]

He had a guy who averaged 28 ppg and 28 rpg on him for his career. No one would do that to Joakim Noah for instance.

[La Frescobaldi]

I remember reading some time ago that the '71-'74 Bucks had a very dominant league leading defense, but I don't remember any specific numbers.

In the scope of the thread those bucks were getting 90+ ratings, #1 in the league.
Jabbar was fierce defense in those days regardless of people on here slagging on him truth is they only ever saw an old old man at the end of his career who couldn’t jump six inches.
They didn’t call Dandridge Bobby D for nuthin.

I believe Jasper here on Ish sat bleachers for those early ‘70s Bucks teams

[1987_Lakers]

I remember reading some time ago that the '71-'74 Bucks had a very dominant league leading defense, but I don't remember any specific numbers.

'73 Bucks: 91.1 DRTG (+5.7 compared to league average)

That was their best defensive team from '71-'74, similar to the '96 Bulls. They usually ranked #1 or #2 in defense around that time. Legit defense for sure.

[iamgine]

If we're comparing DRTG with league average, those Celtics don't seem that special.

For example, Bulls in 10-11, had a DRTG of 100.3 while league average were 107.3. That's a +7.0 net, which is better than most of Bill's Celtics season. Can we then say Joakim Noah in 2011 was better than Bill Russell most of the time?

[1987_Lakers]

If we're comparing DRTG with league average, those Celtics don't seem that special.

For example, Bulls in 10-11, had a DRTG of 100.3 while league average were 107.3. That's a +7.0 net, which is better than most of Bill's Celtics season. Can we then say Joakim Noah in 2011 was better than Bill Russell most of the time?

In the Bulls case, was it Noah or the addition of Tom Thibodeau that transformed their defense?

In 2010, the Bulls didn't even have a top 10 defense even with Noah putting up similar production.

In the Celtics case, they were the 3rd worst defense in '56 without Russell, jumped to #1 with the addition of Russell in '57.

[iamgine]

In the Bulls case, was it Noah or the addition of Tom Thibodeau that transformed their defense?

In 2010, the Bulls didn't even have a top 10 defense even with Noah putting up similar production.

In the Celtics case, they were the 3rd worst defense in '56 without Russell, jumped to #1 with the addition of Russell in '57.
Maybe Thibs unleashed Noah's strength with his scheme? Or Noah improved his defense?

I mean, players kinda depends on their coach. If Auerbach decided to use Bill to score 40 points, clearly there's not much Bill could do.

They also added Heinshon iirc.

[Round Mound]

He is also probably the goat rebounder in the play-offs i think. Russell had a level of anticipating at defense that was 2nd to none.

[Kawhi_Why_Not]

'73 Bucks: 91.1 DRTG (+5.7 compared to league average)

That was their best defensive team from '71-'74, similar to the '96 Bulls. They usually ranked #1 or #2 in defense around that time. Legit defense for sure.

2016 spurs had a 99.0

You have to actually defend efficient offenses and the 3 point line, unlike russells era. That's much more impressive I think. Who was leading that spurs teams in minutes and won defensive player of the year? Did Duncan ever win that award??

Reg season goat defense team: 2016 spurs

Playoff goat defense team: 2019 raptors

[TheGoatest]

GOAT low post defender, either him or Hakeem.
As for GOAT perimeter defender, that title is shared by The Great Scott Pippen and LeBron James.

[3ba11]

Guys like Gobert aren't that valuable

Probably 20+ guys that would get picked before Gobert in a draft of current NBA players

Infact, probably 30+ guys because every GM would start their team with a 1st option

The only reason Russell was okay in his day is because there was no 3-point line (no spacing) - so offensive excellence was impossible and a defender like Russell could win... But the instant the 3-point line was instituted, all 40 league MVP's have been dominant offensive players, so Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber in the modern era

[coastalmarker99]

1956-57

Celtics played first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at Olympics.


In 24 first games w/o Russell the Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)

Best record in NBA (Syracuse 2nd at .528)

105.2 P/G

100.6 P/G opponents

Thus, in 1956-57, the Celtics were by far the best team in NBA without Russell




In last 48 games w/ Russ:

28-20, .58.3 % (48 W in 82 g pace)

7 W/82 worse with/ Russell than without!

But point differential did go up w/ Russell:

4.5-5.8

105.7 P/G (0.5 more than w/o Russell)

100.0 opponents (0.6 more)

Thus the facts show that the Celtics defence improved significantly before Russell joined the team!

[coastalmarker99]

I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired to boost his legacy.


The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center.

Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs.

Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember.

This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-1960s.

And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70.

But here again, Henry Finkel was their center.

They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record.

In '72 Boston surged to 56-26.

In '73 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14.

In '74 they won an NBA title.

And they would go on to win one more in '76.

So the loss of Russell was really only felt for one season.

And had Boston been better prepared, who knows.

In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.

[1987_Lakers]

1956-57

Celtics played first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at Olympics.


In 24 first games w/o Russell the Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)

Best record in NBA (Syracuse 2nd at .528)

105.2 P/G

100.6 P/G opponents

Thus, in 1956-57, the Celtics were by far the best team in NBA without Russell




In last 48 games w/ Russ:

28-20, .58.3 % (48 W in 82 g pace)

7 W/82 worse with/ Russell than without!

But point differential did go up w/ Russell:

4.5-5.8

105.7 P/G (0.5 more than w/o Russell)

100.0 opponents (0.6 more)

Thus the facts show that the Celtics defence improved significantly before Russell joined the team!

This is interesting data, but would you happen to have opponents fg% or the pace they played with and without Russell to have a better sense if they were better or about the same with Russell on the defensive end?

The Knicks for example gave up around the same points as the Celtics did in 1957 but had a below average defense, the reason for this is the Celtics played at a faster pace than the Knicks so naturally they gave up more points than league average that year. Having this data that I asked for makes a huge difference.

[Im Still Ballin]

He was a special talent. I'd probably rate him as GOAT defender as well.


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

[1987_Lakers]

I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired to boost his legacy.


The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center.

Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs.

Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember.


The fact that they went from 89.1 DRTG with Russell in '69 to a 98.9 DRTG without Russell in 1970 is very telling. That right there should tell you how valuable he was defensively. And as great as Sam Jones was, I'm sure the Celtics significant drop in defense wasn't because of his departure. :oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

He was a special talent. I'd probably rate him as GOAT defender as well.


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

"Wilt scored 40% of his team's points in 1962 when averaging 50 ppg while Kobe and MJ scored 43% of their teams points during their scoring peaks"

Good vid, this is why you have to take into account the pace teams played at and not just go by raw numbers.

[Xiao Yao You]

Guys like Gobert aren't that valuable

Probably 20+ guys that would get picked before Gobert in a draft of current NBA players

Infact, probably 30+ guys because every GM would start their team with a 1st option

The only reason Russell was okay in his day is because there was no 3-point line (no spacing) - so offensive excellence was impossible and a defender like Russell could win... But the instant the 3-point line was instituted, all 40 league MVP's have been dominant offensive players, so Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber in the modern era

Entering Monday's game, Gobert held opponents to 49.1% at the rim — the second lowest figure of his career. The Jazz are also 8.0 points better defensively when he's on the court.

not much value in that :facepalm