1960-61
Offensive Rating: 88.6 (8th/8 – last)
Defensive Rating: 84.4 (1st)
Net Rating: +4.2 (1st)
1962-63
Offensive Rating: 93.0 (9th/9 – last)
Defensive Rating: 87.4 (1st)
Net Rating: +5.6 (1st)
1963-64
Offensive Rating: 90.1 (9th/9 – last)
Defensive Rating: 83.8 (1st)
Net Rating: +6.3 (1st)

I think many people fail to properly appreciate Bill Russell’s dominance because the way he dominated basketball can not be understood through the modern lens of the NBA.

The impact a generational rim protector could have in the 1960s simply isn’t replicable in the modern game, where spacing and outside shooting have dramatically reduced the influence of any single defender. As a result many people see Russell’s meager offensive numbers in comparison to other ATG’s and overlook the fact that his defense was the greatest individual advantage any player has ever provided.

I don’t think anything sums that up better than Russell leading his teams to 3 titles in 3 years they were the worst offensive teams in the NBA.

JJ-Bittenbinder | Heat

28 | 3 hours ago

Bill Russel’s defensive dominance should be talked about the same way we talk about countless players offensive dominance. One of the most dominant players of all time but didn’t average enough PPG for some people

Much-Thing644 | Hornets

6 | 3 hours ago

K.C. Jones was also basically like having peak Glove on the perimeter

goddoc

3 | 3 hours ago

Sam Jones, too. Even more so, I think.

Much-Thing644 | Hornets

5 | 2 hours ago

and Satch Sanders, and Hondo, they were just loaded defensively in general

goddoc

3 | 2 hours ago

Yep. And they all locked in on West in the finals and broke his heart for 8 years.

Delanorix | Knicks

3 | 3 hours ago

He was routinely a top 50 player when it came to FG%.

In the early/mid 60s, the highest in the league was 51%. Wilt hit 68% in 1970(?) but #2 was 52%.

Russell was basically average scoring the ball.

nowhathappenedwas | NBA

1 | an hour ago

His FG% was above average, but his TS% was a bit below average because he was a terrible FT shooter (56% for his career).

Delanorix | Knicks

2 | an hour ago

Most big guys, even today, struggle with that

Current_Cut_2667

-1 | an hour ago

That’s not taking into account the fact that centers have better FG% on average.

And “top 50” means far less in an 8 team league. In terms of percentile, it’d be like saying someone is top 200 in a stat today.

Delanorix | Knicks

3 | an hour ago

EVERY center in that league scored at the same rate.

Its not 7 centers were averaging 70%.

(Also most years were right around #25, but i didnt want the Reddit Pedant Army to kill me)

Stardust-Unbreaking

2 | 3 hours ago

Why in the world would I talk about defense for a player I’ve never seen play and who’s stats weren’t properly counted?

JJ-Bittenbinder | Heat

9 | 3 hours ago

Because people talk about Wilt’s offense in the same way

Stardust-Unbreaking

-5 | 3 hours ago

They talk about him because we have his records and stats. There were not defensive stats being measured in that era. We don’t know shots blocked or steals or anything like that and we can’t even watch a good chunk of it because of it either.

Delanorix | Knicks

7 | 3 hours ago

Russell won 11 rings. As OP pointed out, the Celtics were usually ass on offense.

Thats a perfect situation to say Russell was a GOAT level defender.

Much-Thing644 | Hornets

4 | 3 hours ago

They talk about him because we know he’s one of the best players to ever live lol

shawhtk | Celtics

1 | an hour ago

The defensive stats the team put up in defensive rating rank among the highest ever. And he was the captain and acknowledged best player on the team for large chunks of his career.

And blocks and steals aren’t the only thing that tell you someone is good on defense. Can in fact be the opposite.

SportyNewsBear

1 | an hour ago

You don’t have to talk about anything as far as I’m concerned

Soupkitchn89 | Trail Blazers

13 | 3 hours ago

Being last in something doesn’t mean as much when there is 9 teams instead of thirty.

Like it’s not as crazy if you say the top net rating team has number 1 defense and number 9 offense. You’d expect them to be really good.

This would basically be impossible with 30 teams unless we had unprecedented parity such that the gap from 1 to 30 on offense wasn’t really that big.

CodymartinSimp [OP]

2 | 3 hours ago

This is true but they did have some legitimately bad offenses, 1964 is the worst relative offense in Celtics history

jackster608608

2 | 2 hours ago

I would agree if this wasn’t a 3 year pattern. Being the best defensive team and the worst offensive team for three straight years is definitely note-worthy

SportyNewsBear

2 | an hour ago

When was the last time a team won multiple championships with the 9th best offense? The Spurs maybe?

ColdFiet

8 | 3 hours ago

I didn’t realize stats like offensive and defensive rating could be calculated for seasons that long ago, when we weren’t even counting all 5 primary stats at the time.

kihraxz_king | Spurs

6 | 3 hours ago

It’s likely just ppg scored and allowed. Unless somebody was tracking posession counts back then.

CodymartinSimp [OP]

3 | 2 hours ago

Its not just ppg, Celtics were routinely top of the league in PPG because they played at a ridiculously high pace during their dynasty

The_prawn_king | Wizards

1 | 3 hours ago

Probably cant

donniedarko4141 | Knicks

7 | 3 hours ago

Offensive and defensive rating is points per 100 possessions. If you can get the number of possessions you can get rating

ColdFiet

2 | 3 hours ago

Can you get the number of possessions?

RCM88x | Cavaliers

3 | 2 hours ago

Bbref probably has information about how they get possessions prior to the late 70s when more stats were tracked.

I assume it’s a bit of an estimate.

LiteraIPenguin

5 | 3 hours ago

Bill Russell was a monster back then

sanjit8103 | Nuggets

6 | 3 hours ago

Maybe defense does win championships

nowhathappenedwas | NBA

4 | 3 hours ago

ORTG and DRTG are guesswork for that era. They didn’t record play-by-play data, so we don’t have actual number of possessions.

We can’t even get a good estimate of possessions from box scores because they didn’t record offensive rebounds or turnovers.

SluggoRuns | Lakers

2 | 3 hours ago

I mean if you’re gonna compare him to modern day basketball, you should mention that the league was only like 8-9 teams and you could win the championship in two rounds.

RealCanadianDragon

3 | 2 hours ago

Free agency also didn’t exist. So once you were good, you stayed good. And if you were bad, you stayed bad

SportyNewsBear

1 | an hour ago

If Michael Jordan played in the same era, you’d discount his achievements for the same reasons

SportyNewsBear

2 | an hour ago

I appreciate the love Bill Russell has been getting in the last 24 hours

MiopTop | Lakers

1 | an hour ago

Someone’s been watching Nerd Sesh

rocket_beer | Celtics

1 | 33 minutes ago

2 words

Bill Russell

In 1961, 1963 and 1964 the Boston Celtics had the NBA’s worst offenses, despite this they would lead the NBA in net rating all 3 seasons and won the championship each year