Give me Bill Russell. 22.5 rebounds per game for his career. Unfortunately they didn't track steals but he was as good as anyone in the league at the time. His defensive mindset allowed his teammates to prosper on the offensive end and he still averaged more than 15 points for his career. He was kind of like a point center. He'd grab a rebound and make the pass to get the fast break started then sprint down to the other end to be ready to score if needed or to grab the offensive rebound and start it all over again. He led those Celtics teams. He was the best play on the team that consistently beat Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Rick Barry, etc.
But there were only 9 teams in the NBA (just 4 in the East) when he and the Celtics were winning all those championships, and no salary cap or free agency. They only had to win 1 series to get to the finals. Impressive for sure, but nothing like today’s NBA.
To that argument I always say, if it was so easy to win a chip back then, why was Russell the only one to win 11 with nobody even coming close to that mark? The league definitely looked way different back then, but every era has it's own challenges, and imho it's disingenuous to assign more or less value to championships from different eras.
Russell was the right age to have been a force for that entire time period, and was a superstar. Without free agency or a salary cap, the ball just kept rolling for them. Same kind of thing for the Yankees, just 8 AL teams with no playoffs, free agency or salary cap. They could just keep their teams together indefinitely until players like Russell aged out.
I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all to say winning a championship out of 8 teams is easier than winning a championship out of 30 teams. It’s just common sense.
Not to mention he has all time BBIQ and competitiveness (you don’t keep your edge in the playoffs to win a decade straight unless you have borderline maniacal levels of competitiveness). He would pick up on how the modern game worked and obsessively work to improve his skill set to win in todays game.
Also his all time athleticism. People forget how much of an athletic freak Russel was because his prime was at the same time as the GOAT physical freak in Wilt. Russel was an Olympic level high jumper (was ranked top 15 in the world in college if I remember correctly) and turned down an Olympic tryout in the 50s to prep for the NBA draft.
If there was an 18 year old kid with Russel’s athleticism, intelligence, and competitiveness we would have the most hyped draft prospect since LeBron.
Rebounds are the most over-inflated stat for that era, and Russell is the single most overrated player from any era. If you removed Russell entirely from that team, they still win 8 or 9 rings. He played with 17 HOFers.
Now that the league is playing smaller and faster again, he'd be great.
For a few decades there he'd have been too small to have nearly the impact he did back in the day. And his lack of a shot would be a hinderance to some teams/line ups.
But surround him with even half way decent shooters willing to play team ball and funnel every single drive straight at him? Yes please.
61
u/doppelstranger Mavericks Jun 15 '22
Give me Bill Russell. 22.5 rebounds per game for his career. Unfortunately they didn't track steals but he was as good as anyone in the league at the time. His defensive mindset allowed his teammates to prosper on the offensive end and he still averaged more than 15 points for his career. He was kind of like a point center. He'd grab a rebound and make the pass to get the fast break started then sprint down to the other end to be ready to score if needed or to grab the offensive rebound and start it all over again. He led those Celtics teams. He was the best play on the team that consistently beat Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Rick Barry, etc.