[Pacers_Fan33Participant]

Me and my brother just got into an arguement about the similarities between the two. I believe that if Ben Wallace and Bill Russell switched places, that Wallace wouldn’t be as good as Russell but would have had a similar career. I also think that Russell wouldn’t have had the same impact in today’s game than in the 50’s and 60’s.

What’s your take on this arguement?

[HaleParticipant]

I mean I never saw Bill Russell but I think he is overrated as fuck. Today he would give tremendous defense at the power forward spot, but his offense would make him maybe a 4th option tops. Honestly don’t know how Bill Simmons can say he is the 2nd best player of all time. He would win some DPOY’s maybe but never be a huge factor on offense. Would be a great guy to have for a championship run if you can find scorers to put around him. Still way overrated imo.

[Pacers_Fan33Participant]

I believe that he deserves at least a top 4 spot all time, 11 titles doesn’t lie but i think he was a beneficiary of his era

[ilike.panochasParticipant]

2 completely different era, the game is much different back then. The prototypical height for centers back then was 6’10, now a days we have 6’10 small forwards now.

[ItsVictorOladipoParticipant]

Hard to call the greatest winner of all time and widely considered the greatest defender ever “overrated”.

I mean sure I never saw him play but his peers and those that saw him play in his era credited him with 5 MVP trophies and 12 all-star games and I see no reason to dispute that.

And people put far too much emphasis on his lack of offensive production. In his six year prime from 1957-58 to 1962-63 he averaged at least 16.6 PPG every season with a career high of 18.9 in 1962. No those aren’t Wilt Chamberlain or Shaq like numbers but they’re certainly not bad, and would put him in company with Andrew Bogut and Dwight Howard this year. His passing numbers dwarf the centers in the game today, in his last 8 seasons he averaged at least 4.5 APG every year.

So he wasn’t the invisible man on offence that many people seem to think today. He was a good, not great offensive center, but he also was one of the greatest defenders and rebounders ever.

And no Russell wouldn’t have the same impact today as he did in the 60’s, nobody really would. We’ve come along way in terms of training, and strategy and frankly a 6-9 215 lb center would have a hell of a time containing todays bigmen. But one could say the same about anyone from Oscar Robertson to Wilt Chamberlain to Babe Ruth in baseball. All we can say in terms of player comparisons is judge them based on what they accomplished within their own era.

[sheltwon3Participant]

I think it would be more accurate to compare him to Dwight Howard.

[the I in winParticipant]

Wallace would have done better than Russell. It’s simple Wallace is stronger and quicker than Russell and when Wallace was the 4 time defensive player of the year he did it against much better talent. I don’t care if Russell played against Wilt, he only did it about 10 times a year including playoffs. What about all the other games when he was going against players that haven’t thought to jump and shoot at the same time yet.

Today Russell would get pushed around. He was 6’9″ when he played, I’m not sure on the weight but he was/is skinny as hell and would simply get bullied in today’s nba.

[BasterdInABasketParticipant]

Bill Russell is considered the best team player in history not the best player. The man has 11 championship rings and played in a completely different era and is one of the best.
You could have that argument about past and present players in just about any sport.
Put wilt chamberlain in todays game and he doesnt get 30 ppg in his career.
Put lebron or kobe back in the 60s and they might score 40 a game.

[cumoneileen8Participant]

I can’t say much more on the comparison than has already been said, but…

When I originally read the title of the post i thought of the idea of putting the two side by side as a PF-C combo. That would be a ridiculous backline. They would greatly reduce the production of opposing bigs, cut down on the other teams rebounds, and create a very lopsided number of possessions for their team no matter what the surrounding talent. There wouldnt be a lot of offense out of them, but having shooters on the floor the two of them would get a lot of put-back points with their combined rebounding talent.

[KathleenTurnerOverdriveParticipant]

i’ve seen lots of film of russell and to be honest, he would destroy most of todays bigs. the man was an absolute animal on defensive. just the way he would block shots was amazing. when he would block a shot, he would swat the ball towards an open teamate rather than smack the ball into the stands, (like most of todays players). he was an extremely smart player and despite his size, he was very strong. he battled chamberlin on the regular basis and came out the winner most of the time and chamberlin would be the greatest center in any era. people say all the time players from the old days weren’t as athletic and wouldn’t be able to keep up with todays players. while that is true for most players from that era, there are exceptions like Russell & Chamberlin

[NYK2010Participant]

Playing with multiple HOF teammates helps you win rings.
He is overrated definately and Ben Wallace give me a break he couldn’t stop Shaq or Duncan at all so he’s not an all time elite defender, rebounder yes. His offensive game was a joke at times too.

[ItsVictorOladipoParticipant]

NYK2010
———————————————————————————-
Playing with multiple HOF teammates helps you win rings.
———————————————————————————–

Yeah but between 1957 and 1969 when the Celtics won 11 championships the 76ers could only take home one ring with three hall of famers (Wilt, Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham), the Lakers couldn’t win any despite having three HOFers of their own in Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich, the Hawks could win only one with four HOFers (Bob Petit, Slater Martin, Cliff Hagan, Ed Macauley and when Macauley retired Lenny Wilkens), the Warriors could not win any with three HOFers (Wilt, Tom Gola and Paul Arizin and when Gola and Arizin left Nate Thurmond).

It’s not like the other teams in the league weren’t loaded at this time, they were. But the Celtics were still better. And as good as Russell’s teammates were, almost all contemporary sports writers, coaches and players agreed that Russell (moreso than any other player in the league) made his teammates better.

[midwestbbscoutParticipant]

I always thought he was the 3rd best Celtic of his era…..I have seen game film and Sam Jones was the best player on tha team and I will stand by that til I die….Russell is a monster like no other on the glass…..

[thunderforthewinParticipant]

not an all time elite defender?

so do you need 5 minimum, not 4 defensive players of the year to be considered elite nowadays?

of course wallace was a mad man back in his prime and you ant win championships with D and thats what he was

[leppyParticipant]

chris paul would be way worse when you could hand check. he is too quick to keep your body in front but if you could hand check him he wouldnt have anywhere near the impact he has now. kobe and lebron cant get handchecked anymore. there are rules today to help the offensive player. bill russell wouldnt have as big as an impact cuz he wouldnt have the same team around him and able to win 11 rings but look at theo ratliffe. great skinny defender.
you cant punish people for the era they played in. would any of you say paul isnt that good because you cant hand check him anymore.

[trueone313detroitParticipant]

Bill Russell dominated in his time era. Quit jabbering about how he would have fair today. 1) in the 60’s their was no strength training ever. You may have had a hand full of people whom could lift 150 – 200 pounds at best. The average nba player does this on a daily. 2) The skill level at the time was not high must people could not do a reverse l6ay up and had problems dribbling with their off hand, or many other ball skills.

So think Ben is under skilled in today game, but he would have been, like a Wes Unseld, Charles Barkley, Larry Johnson, back then. In addition to that the would have had the prototypical height of a center. Must Center where from 6’8 – 6’10 placing him right in the middle.

The the statements about Wilt not dominating you are some Bull$hit. He averaged 40+ with teams playing zone, hand checking, and 3 teaming him for 20 years. The man was 7’1, 280+, 46 – 50″ vertical, dam near big as shack, whom had limited offensive post moves, good foot work better then D Howard now. Put him in today’s game.

Not hand Checking him insane. Dwight dunks on everyone because of that, so does shack old but. He would be right in the middle killing people. And dont forget he average about 30 a game when he was 40 years old, with jerry west, and eligin baylor. And guess who was the one man who stopped him from winning a championship every year but his last year. Bill Russell.

Call me crazy, Im only 29 but, I didnt see Ben stopping Shack for 10 Years, or with 10 rings, or even averaging 16 a game. Im a Big Ben Fan, But he aint in no class with Mr. Russell

[Ch13f23Participant]

Russell is way better than Big Ben, think of it this way first, do you think Wallace would play that well or would play that way if Russell haven’t played before him, his the one who I think pioneered Defense and team play, cause his a very good team player himself. Today’s game could be entirely different. And I’ve seen a few tapes of Russell and I think his athleticism is way advance during his time and yes putting him in today’s games could mean he would not be that great but he would be a very effective player especially on the defensive end due to his desire to play defense. Do you think all those Celtics great could be that great if Russell wasn’t playing. How do you think they would win against Wilt? if there’s no one willing to play D on him. And that’s not saying Wallace wasn’t a good player he was a BEAST during his prime. Especially with his height cause I think he could only stand 6’7″ and the only thing that makes him look taller is with his fro.

[JoeWolf1]

Russell was not a great offensive player, but since when did you have to be a great all around player to be considered great. For what he did he was amazing and he was no slouch on offense, especially compared to Ben Wallace. Wallace my be stronger, but you can’t say a career 41% free throw shooter would be more relevant on offense than Russell. Russell was extremely smart and not to take anything away from Ben’s Bball IQ, but it wasn’t on the same level and that is was part of Russell’s greatness.

[MrAnalyst]

You guys keep saying that Bill Russell was only 6’9 and 215, but you gotta think…that was his era. If he was born for today’s era he would probably be taller and bigger. The avg. center was like 6’9 210 than. Now it is like 6’11 250. So you would have to imagine he would probably be 6’11 250ish if he was born in today’s era. That being said, I think he would be like a smarter version of Dwight Howard. 20ppg, 15rpg, 4apg, 2spg, 5bpg. MVP numbers definetley.

[knicksfan7Participant]

If Bill Russell played in today’s era he would be bigger he wouldn’t be 6-9 215. In today’s a game he would be 6-9 240, and with his level of skill on defense he would stop almost anyone. He stopped Wilt who was an all-time great, so who is to say he wouldn’t have stopped Shaq, Garnett, Duncan, Lebron, etc.

[leppyParticipant]

did steroids. he was huge and once he went to the bulls he stopped doing them and did shit. people are ignorant to think nba players didnt take steroids

[Author]

Posts