I figured I'd try and share as much information as I could possibly find about a player from a period of time where it's difficult to find the sort of information we're able to access now. Thanks to people like Wilt Chamberlain Archive (u/dantheman9758 or CavsFTW on various sites) and databases such as NBAstats.net, we're able to get a more accurate picture of what Russell's tendencies were and who he was as a basketball player beyond the usual counting statistics and peer testimony that's common with analyzing other players of that time period. Beyond I suppose the very best of that era (Chamberlain, Baylor, West, Robertson, Havlicek), how much will you find about, say, Jerry Lucas, outside of BKRef, his bio on NBA.com, and bits of YouTube footage? Probably not enough to give you confidence in comparing him to players from the past 25 years or so. So I guess you could say that the goal here is to provide as accurate an assessment as possible on a player that we can't possibly know everything about, the way we do with LeBron James or Anthony Davis. Tedious, maybe, but I think well worth it, as it sheds light on an important time in league history and it keeps me from having to face my homework.
Off the top of your head, you probably recognize Russell for his rebounding, his reputation as an unmatched defender and competitor, and his nearly uninterrupted title-winning streak from high school to his last year as a pro. Through Wikipedia and various dedicated message board users, you may find that Russell was an abnormally good athlete nearly on par with Wilt Chamberlain, as he too flirted with Olympic-level track endeavors. Unheard of for somebody about 6'10" barefoot. You might know Russell as a subpar scorer, poor shooter, overrated rebounder, and simply inferior to other all-time great centers in the big picture. I think I will break some categories down into things that we do know and can quantify, and things that we don't know and therefore can't really quantify. I'll also try to put as many graphics and clips as I can into this so as to try to keep this from becoming the GoT-sized post it will inevitably become anyways. Let's dig in.
Russell on offense
What we know:
Russell was not a great free throw shooter. Free throw shooting is often used as one of the pre-3PT line indicators of whether or not a certain player was a good perimeter shooter. Sometimes, it's quite accurate; players like Bill Sharman, Jerry West, Jerry Lucas, Gail Goodrich, and Oscar Robertson were regarded as strong outside shooters (outside being defined as mid-range out to what we know to be three-point range), and their free throw percentages reflect that. Someone such as Oscar Robertson was much more likely to take 10-18 footers, and the mid-range shot was the shot to have in your repertoire if you weren't driving to the basket (similar to how being able to hit threes and shoot threes off the dribble is emphasized now). Other times, it's not the best indicator, and without substantial film footage, player testimony, and other media accounts, no claim can nor should be made with free throw numbers alone. Wilt Chamberlain, who was a notoriously bad free throw shooter, was actually a great turnaround jump shooter and had touch well beyond the paint, though if you ask Alex Hannum, turnaround jump shots were a tremendous waste of being Wilt Chamberlain's stature. Bob Cousy was out here using a set shot; good free throw shooter, but I'm not trusting him in the same way I trust Jerry West. Nate Thurmond also had a tendency to step out and shoot jump shots and was streaky if not decent, even though he was never a great free throw shooter. Now in regards to Russell, there is very little footage of him taking mid-range jumpers. And it's fair to say that Russell was not a volume scorer in general, but more on this later. But there is something worth noting in many clips: Russell hovers around the free throw line, opting not to post up very often. Given that zone defense was illegal at the time, it was to the benefit of the Celtics that Russell did this, even though he wasn't a shooter. From 10-15 feet out, with his man having to come up a little higher than he should, he could pass or hand off from the high post and make the occasional drive to the basket. With the lane and sidelines a bit more open for Jones, Havlicek, and Cousy to drive, the Celtics were playing something of a different game in comparison to the rest of the league, at least in halfcourt offense. In particular, they contrasted to teams with high-scoring big men like Chamberlain and Bellamy. (It's noted in this article that Chamberlain's teams didn't really start contending until they stopped pounding the ball into the post all the time and started using more advanced ball and player movement. Go figure.) Russell's apparent weakness (post-up scoring, high-volume scoring) could still be utilized for the good of the team.
Russell was a good passer. Whether throwing outlet passes or turning a blocked shot into an outlet pass, one of Russell's most valuable skills on the basketball court was his ability to create transition offense through his passing. This is partially reflected in Boston's pace numbers:
1956-57: 1st of 8 teams
1957-58: 1st of 8 teams
1958-59: 1st of 8 teams
1959-60: 1st of 8 teams
1960-61: 1st of 8 teams
1961-62: 2nd of 9 teams
1962-63: 1st of 9 teams
1963-64: 1st of 9 teams
1964-65: 1st of 9 teams
1965-66: 5th of 9 teams
1966-67: 7th of 10 teams
1967-68: 7th of 12 teams
1968-69: 5th of 14 teams
As well as their assist numbers:
1956-57: 2nd of 8 teams
1957-58: 3rd of 8 teams
1958-59: 1st of 8 teams
1959-60: 2nd of 8 teams
1960-61: 4th of 8 teams
1961-62: 3rd of 9 teams
1962-63: 1st of 9 teams
1963-64: 4th of 9 teams
1964-65: 2nd of 9 teams
1965-66: 7th of 9 teams
1966-67: 2nd of 10 teams
1967-68: 9th of 12 teams
1968-69: 5th of 14 teams
From his rookie season to his final season, the Celtics ranked first in pace eight times, second once, fifth twice, and seventh twice, slowing down in correlation with the league itself steadily slowing down and Russell and the Celtics getting older. While their assist numbers aren't as gaudy, they hang in the top three or four teams for almost the entirety of Russell's career. The point being: Russell was instrumental in making the Celtics the fastest, most modern team in the league at their best. I've read that Boston before Russell was an offense without a defense, and there's truth in that, but I'd argue that Russell brought a healthy offensive output of his own to the team, especially as he developed after Cousy retiring. It's true that high pace doesn't correlate to being any good; there are numerous examples of fast-paced teams that were pretenders (1980s Nuggets) or simply rebuilding (Trust the Process before Embiid and Simmons were drafted). But generally speaking, championship winning teams are three things - efficient, greater than the sum of their parts, but still talented, and controlling. Funnily enough, the '60s Celtics weren't a very efficient shooting team, usually near the bottom of the league in FG%. They were, however, able to control the pace through defense and fast breaks, areas that played to Russell's strengths. Cousy, Havlicek, and Sam Jones all benefited the most from Russell's strengths (with Havlicek saying he made a living off of Cousy and Russell at the beginning of his career), just as Russell benefited from having multiple scorers alongside him. And in a group of great players symbiotically playing off of and for each other, you have a winning core. That's not the extent of Russell's passing ability, though. After Cousy's retirement in 1963, the Celtics needed a clear-cut facilitator. John Havlicek, having just finished his rookie year, was not ready yet, and K.C. Jones wasn't about to become the key offensive component in the Boston machine. Russell took the lead, and finished top-10 in assists three times (top-five twice) post-Cousy. More importantly, their offense didn't suffer quite like it should have after losing the game's all-time leading assist man and greatest point guard in NBA history at that time. This is in large part due to Russell (and later Havlicek), who challenged Chamberlain as the league's best passing big man (and was a more willing passer first). Like I mentioned earlier, Russell hovered around the mid-range and top of the key pretty often (example that I should have linked a long time ago), making him the fulcrum of the league's fastest offense.
What we don't know:
The extent of Bill Russell's post game. From what I understand and have found, Russell had a good running hook shot he could go to, had a penchant for dunking on fools, could outmaneuver slower defenders, and was a solid finisher at the rim, but I couldn't tell you much else beyond that. It wasn't a primary focus of his game, but it would be nice to know more about him in post-up situations. So much for thorough. But if anybody has any footage of Russell working in the post, this thread would be a great place for it.
The extent of Bill Russell's ball-handling abilities. This comes at a time when ball-handling and assist rules were as strict as they ever were. Footage of players like Jerry West and Bob Cousy's dribbling look rudimentary compared to even amateur players today, but a factor in that is how the rules have slackened over several decades. It had come to my attention some time ago that Bill Russell could actually run the break a little:
You see him doing a lot of things someone like Anthony Davis does now: two-plus dribble drives to the basket, handling the ball on fast breaks, and using his own movement with the ball to free up other players on offense. How often he was doing this, I can't be sure, but these snippets are pretty interesting. Not many centers were doing this stuff until decades later.
An aside: Let's talk about rebounding. Rebounds were significantly more abundant in the 1960s than in any decade afterwards due to both higher pace and lower FG%. All things considered, Dennis Rodman, not Russell nor Chamberlain, is the greatest rebounder of all-time. A fantastic set of articles and statistical analyses done by SkepticalSports.com posits that Rodman not only is the best rebounder, but that he dominated rebounding more than any other player dominated any other major statistic. I can barely understand many of the graphs myself, but I figure it'd be intriguing for fans of thorough research and advanced stats alike. A particularly relevant section entitled Rodman v. Ancient History has a set of graphs comparing Rodman's rebounding numbers to Russell and Chamberlain's estimated (but very accurate) numbers. The first chart delves into team rebounding shares. Over the courses of their careers, Rodman grabbed anywhere from 34% to about 42% of his team's total rebounds. Chamberlain grabbed between about 35-38%, and Russell hovered between 30-35%. Another graph showing each of Rodman's, Chamberlain's, and Russell's seven best rebounding seasons in terms of total rebound percentage places Rodman well ahead of the other two, as in each of his seven best seasons he was grabbing between 24% and 30% of all available rebounds. Russell and Chamberlain's seven best seasons have them getting anywhere from 18% to just over 20%. What it means is, raw rebounding numbers aside, Chamberlain, Russell, and by extension, Pettit, Thurmond, and Lucas (all 20+ RPG single season club members) were more or less in the same tier as (or even a smidge below if you want to get crazy) Moses Malone, Andre Drummond, and DeAndre Jordan as rebounders, and not in a league of their own (you'll find that Rodman was the one in a league of his own). That's still damn good company to be in, and though his numbers are a bit inflated, Bill Russell should still be recognized as one of the top ten rebounders of all-time if not top-five. Considering he also led the league in total rebounds in the playoffs ten times, is the all-time leading rebounder in both the playoffs and Finals, and averaged 24.5 RPG across 70 Finals games, his status as one of the game's greatest rebounders stands up very well alongside more modern board-grabbers.
Russell on defense
What we do know:
Here is where it becomes very interesting. Russell is known as arguably the greatest defensive player in the history of the NBA. He is universally revered by everyone that played with and against him (especially those against him - words from Bob Pettit and Wilt Chamberlain). Outside of not having extensive block and steal numbers to pore over, we are far removed from having modern measurements like defensive FG%, rim protection stats, and pick-and-roll defensive stats. The only data I can find of Russell's block numbers is this spreadsheet, which gives Russell an 8.1 BPG average over 135 games. However accurate this may be, 8.1 blocks per game just looks alien compared to what we know to be normal block numbers (Chamberlain has an equally absurd spreadsheet that puts him at 8.8 per game over 112 games). Even accounting for the pace at which those games were played (well over 100 possessions per game), Russell is blocking a ton of shots. What we know from Russell himself is that he played a very different game on the defensive end than just about anyone.
Russell's approach and defensive IQ were, simply put, never before seen. He was really the first big man that could and would hound the perimeter and chase you down on the fast break as well as more than hold his own in the post. His style of defense had previously dominated the college game; KU coach Phog Allen, who had wanted to raise the height of the basket to 12 feet for some reason, quipped "Make that 20 feet" after seeing Russ. (Wouldn't the higher baskets just hurt Russell's opponents further? Anyways...) There was nothing that he couldn't get his fingertips on. More beautiful footage:
The dichotomy of Russell and Chamberlain continues. While both were the most intimidating defensive presences the game had ever known up to that point, it was Russell who guys seemed to most affected by between the two. Where Chamberlain, especially younger Chamberlain, would go after damn near everything (provided it was near the paint), and tended to throw your shot into the crowd, Russell could consistently turn your shot into two points for the Celtics (along with Chamberlain, together essentially originating the four point swing). The psychology of shot-blocking is also an interesting thing. Chamberlain, noted as ever conscious of his record of zero fouled out games, would effectively become a different player once he picked up four or five fouls. He was also a two-footed leaper when going up for blocks, especially from the midway point in his career onward. In the majority of footage of Chamberlain's shot-blocking exploits, there's a split second where he gathers himself before jumping. He does it often; so often, in fact, that opposing players learned to time their shots in an attempt to put up shots out of Chamberlain's reach, with varying levels of success (most successful: Sam Jones. Least successful: Just about everyone else). There was no such hope of out-timing Russell. Aside from being a predominantly one-footed leaper, Russell was exceptionally quick, and gave the offensive player no hint in his body language as to what he would do next. In that "Block Art" video, much of that footage shows him appearing just in time to tip the shot. There is just simply not much one could do about avoiding Russell's defensive omnipresence. There's an excerpt of a book called "100 Years of Hoops: A Fond Look Back at The Sport of Basketball" by Alex Wolff that I particularly like when looking at Russell's defense:
Russell blocked shots hitherto thought impossible to block: Bob Pettit's twisting jumpers, Neil Johnston's hooks, even Chamberlain's fallaways. Basketball, he had decided, was a game of habits, and as a defender his goal was to induce an offensive player, of his own volition, to deviate from those habits. "If he is thinking instead of doing," Russell said, "he is yours."
In that same book, Auerbach states that Russell introduced a new sound in basketball - his footsteps. Though he was physically able to turn away nearly any shot, he was selective. Russell would go up to an opponent and say, "Three tonight. Guess which three." I don't know about you, but if Russell had said something like that to me and had effectively set the tone by blocking my first couple shots, I would be hesitant for the remainder of the game. And that's the beauty of Russell's mind games. He didn't have to block every shot to render lane goers distracted and thus less effective. (More on Bill Russell's mental makeup later.)
Russell was unquestionably the anchor upon arriving in Boston; the season before, they had the worst defense in the league and outside of draft picks and backup wing Frank Ramsay, who had missed the year due to military service, they had no roster turnover. It really makes me appreciate free agency thing we have now. Check out Boston's defensive rating numbers with Russell. I'm gonna throw some years in pre-Russell and post-Russell for perspective.
1954-55: 8th of 8 teams
1955-56: 6th of 8 teams
1956-57: 1st of 8 teams
1957-58: 1st of 8 teams
1958-59: 1st of 8 teams
1959-60: 1st of 8 teams
1960-61: 1st of 8 teams
1961-62: 1st of 9 teams
1962-63: 1st of 9 teams
1963-64: 1st of 9 teams
1964-65: 1st of 9 teams
1965-66: 1st of 9 teams
1966-67: 1st of 10 teams
1967-68: 2nd of 12 teams
1968-69: 1st of 14 teams
1969-70: 8th of 14 teams
1970-71: 3rd of 17 teams
Opposing point per game, though it should be noted that pace affects this statistic nearly as much as good defense does, which is why I think Drtg is the better metric here. The Celtics certainly weren't slouches in terms of points allowed, but pace is simply a natural factor in OPPG.
1954-55: 8th of 8 teams
1955-56: 8th of 8 teams
1956-57: 5th of 8 teams
1957-58: 3rd of 8 teams
1958-59: 6th of 8 teams
1959-60: 5th of 8 teams
1960-61: 2nd of 8 teams
1961-62: 1st of 9 teams
1962-63: 2nd of 9 teams
1963-64: 2nd of 9 teams
1964-65: 1st of 9 teams
1965-66: 1st of 9 teams
1966-67: 1st of 10 teams
1967-68: 2nd of 12 teams
1968-69: 2nd of 14 teams
1969-70: 7th of 14 teams
1970-71: 13th of 17 teams
Now, seeing as how defense is very much an effort-oriented and team-oriented facet of basketball, it would be unfair to omit the contributions of Satch Sanders, K.C. Jones, and John Havlicek, all excellent defenders. But look at that: first in defensive rating every single year except for one measly second place rating. In the years before and after, they were anywhere from subpar to plain bad on that end (except for '71, when Dave Cowens was drafted and saved them from impending mediocrity). Through a statistic such as Defensive Win Shares, Russell is unquestionably the greatest defensive player of all-time. His 133.6 DWS is well ahead of anyone else in league history (Tim Duncan is in second place at 106.3) and his individual defensive rating, if we were to make an educated guess, likely hovered around the mid-to-low eighties (for context, Boston's defensive rating from 1957-1969 was anywhere from 83.6 to 92.1), which would also be far ahead of anyone in league history (current all-time leader Garfield Heard sits at 95.3, with Dave Cowens and Tim Duncan closely trailing). How legitimate that is in comparison to statistics of the past couple decades, I can't be sure. It probably has something to do with the number of possessions, and if anyone is able to figure out what the defensive rating of a given Boston team would be in 2018 and/or how different DWS numbers from the '60s would be scaled to 2018, that would be valuable OC in its own right.
Another aside: I'd like to, for once and for all, dead the "Wilt/Russell played against short white guys" thing, if I may be so bold. Training, travel, and nutrition 60 years ago were inferior, and the league was pretty damn white, but the league was also pretty damn similar in height to where it is now. From Russell's rookie season, 1956-57, the league average height was 6'5". In his final season, 1968-69, the average height was 6'6". The league average in height for the past 38 years has been 6'7". Strictly looking at big men, seeing as they were Russell's contemporaries, he had no shortage of competition:
Wilt Chamberlain (listed at 7'1" barefoot, anywhere from 250-320 lbs)
Nate Thurmond (6'11" barefoot, ~240 lbs)
Willis Reed (6'9.5" barefoot, 240 lbs)
Walt Bellamy (6'10.5" barefoot, ~245 lbs)
Bob Pettit (6'9" barefoot, anywhere from 215-245 lbs)
Wayne Embry (6'8" barefoot, anywhere from 240-280 lbs)
Zelmo Beaty (6'8" barefoot, 225 lbs)
Jerry Lucas (6'8.75" barefoot, 230-240 lbs)
Clyde Lovellette (6'9" barefoot, ~235 lbs)
Dolph Schayes (6'7" barefoot, anywhere from 195-220 lbs)
A good crop of bigs (all Hall of Famers, for what it's worth), and nobody who would be that out of place size-wise in today's league. Ability may or may not be another story, so here is WCA once again to help tell it:
Keep in mind that the majority of measurements taken in the 1950s and 1960s were barefoot measurements, with measurements in shoes becoming more common and eventually the norm from the '70s onward. Some white guys, yeah, but short, not necessarily. And logically, the relative lack in height differences just makes sense, considering humankind's average height has not increased by a full two inches in the past 70 or so years. Moving on.
What we don't know:
Extent of Russell's perimeter defense and steals numbers. I believe we actually know more about Chamberlain's ability to steal the ball away in post defense, a lot like Karl Malone in that respect (and wouldn't you know it, I can't find the exact evidence I was looking for to back up this claim. Please trust me). As far as I know, Russell wasn't nearly as physical a post defender as older Chamberlain or Nate Thurmond (if you want post defense, Thurmond's defense on Chamberlain and younger Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is Hall of Fame worthy on its own). Part of that can be attributed to size; being listed as 220 lbs, Russ had certain disadvantages against someone of both Chamberlain's size and skill. Given the footage we do have and the absence of statistical evidence, the most I can say is that Russell was the OG eraser, the rover type before such a type existed. Plenty of examples of Russell's ability to keep up with guards and switch on to players driving to the basket:
That mix of awareness and mobility on the defensive end that Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett, and David Robinson had, Russell was the first to have. There just isn't enough to compare Russell to the others outside of film and anecdotes. It's seemed to hold up pretty well over time anyway, though.
Russell's intangibles/miscellaneous
You may have noticed that a major theme in Russell's style is that everything he did was team-oriented. Relative to anyone else in Russell's stratosphere - Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Bird, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain - he was the only one who wasn't consistently a first option on offense, nor did he want to be. It wasn't necessarily that he was incapable of being so; his Game 7 performances along with overall raised level of play in the playoffs offer valid proof. But it was rare that Russell's play on offense derailed the team; unlike the others save for possibly Magic, a Jordan-led team or a LeBron-led team needs those guys to have good scoring nights more often than not. While you wouldn't need or even expect Russell to score thirty (he'd give the team what it needed, but it's not like he was out here demanding the ball), the outcome of the game wasn't dependent on it anyhow. The other all-time greats can dominate a game without scoring, though just not to the degree that Russell could. That is the unique aspect of Russell's game: His defense, rebounding, passing, intensity, and leadership make him the most dominant "non-scorer" of all-time.
For all of his greatness, it is only fair to mention some low points and generally tricky points of discussion. Arguably Russell's biggest single-game playoff failure was his Game 5 performance in the 1967 EDF, in which he scored four points on five shots and was decidedly outplayed by Chamberlain and the rest of the Sixers. His biggest single-series playoff failure is likely also this 1967 EDF; Wilt and the Sixers bested Russell and co. all series long (Chamberlain put up a ridiculous 21-32-10 on 56% shooting compared to Russell's 11-23-6 on 36% shooting). It was his only season that didn't end in a Finals appearance, and the first real crack in the Celtic dynasty (though as we know, the crack wasn't enough to prevent two more championship wins). His one Finals loss is not entirely on him - he missed two games after landing awkwardly on his ankle in Game 3 - and came at the hands of an insanely motivated Bob Pettit, (I liken it to Dirk's 2011 Finals performance. He was just not leaving without a ring) so I'm not overly critical of it. But it goes to show that there are blemishes on even the most impossibly successful of careers. He had his detractors, those who said Russell had more help than anyone else, that Russell benefited more from the Celtics than they from him. The "help" argument presented either for or against every legend is a funny thing; there is such a relationship between star and role player that it can't be simply reduced to "Player X isn't this without Player Y," as it so often is. It's possible that players such as K.C. Jones, Satch Sanders, and Don Nelson don't make the Hall of Fame without Bill Russell, for Russell is arguably more responsible for the amount of rings on their resumes than they are. It is also equally possible that Bill Russell is not an 11-time champion without K.C. Jones, Satch Sanders, and Don Nelson, for each played roles of varying importance as members of the Boston dynasty. Look through the mythology of any title-winning team and this rings true. Now, have some superstars had the benefit of having deeper, better-fitting rosters than others? Absolutely, but the help/lack of help as a whole is overblown. Help is not something we can nor should hastily analyze in a vacuum. Let's just leave it at that. Now back to Russell.
(Also, check the missed bunny Russell takes at about the 19:35 mark of the Don Nelson clip. One of the most egregious crunch time misses I have ever seen. Russ has Nelson and Lakers coach/Wilt hater Butch van Breda Kolff to thank for history overlooking that.)
Russell was just not a normal old school era center cont'd
When we think of what it means to be a great big man now, we look at guys like Anthony Davis, Karl-Anthony Towns, Nikola Jokic, Andre Drummond, and DeMarcus Cousins. All fairly different players in their own rights, but all uncommonly smart and coordinated big men. Good-to-great passers, good outside shooters (Drummond being the exception), capable defenders, and versatile enough to be able to star in a perimeter and speed-oriented league. The defining qualities in great big men of the 90s were dynamic athleticism, mean ass shot-blocking, and savvy post games. From the '70s and '80s you would've given anything to have consistently great all-around bigs like (healthy) Bill Walton or Robert Parish anchoring the middle, provided you didn't already have Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the gold standard for centers until he retired. In the '60s, what it meant to be a great big man was still being defined. The NBA's transcendent big man up to that point had been George Mikan, who, compared to Shaq or DeMarcus Cousins now, looks not so transcendent. But he was the guy who dominated the league, he was the guy you taught your unusually tall children how to play like back then. Your center normally always has some established duties: post up, set screens, rebound, block shots, make an outlet pass. And damn near all great centers do/did those things exceedingly well. What makes them great is what else they can do beyond normal center things. You can argue that Wilt Chamberlain was the guy that totally broke whatever mold George Mikan had established and redefined what great centers were supposed to look like going forward, and you'd be right. But no one had ever seen anything like Bill Russell before, either. The fusion of near Olympic-level athleticism, instincts, and psychological desire to win arguably made him the first precursor to Michael Jordan.
In closing
What we know about Bill Russell the basketball player is that a large portion of his game wasn't able to be nor could it be quantified by statistics. There was so much more that went into every block, board, and assist than can be explained by BKRef. If you've watched most of the videos on Russell up to this point, you've probably picked up on the consistent mention of his psychological prowess. Say what you will about something so hard to define, but for some reason, this uncanny ability to affect opposing players in a non-physical way was one of the most effective aspects of his game. Russ was not usually a big scorer, but he was going to give the team everything it needed. Equal parts circumstance, ability, and mindset have made Russell the most prolific winner in professional sports history.
I'd like to leave whoever read this far down with two things: You're a trooper with a lot of time on your hands, and I hope that by the time you have finished reading, you will have left this thread with more information than which you initially entered. Hopefully in reading some of the articles, watching some of the videos, and looking over some of this post, your opinion on Russell has developed or changed in some way. Mine certainly did as I continued to work on this. The game is vastly different than what it was when Russell was on top, but no amount of time will change the establishment of Bill Russell's place in the pantheon as well as the skills he used to get there.
Fun-ish facts that I couldn't put anywhere else in here
-The Auerbach-coached Celtics had a playbook consisting of seven set plays. Every team in the league knew what they were called and what they looked like. Didn't matter much, I guess.
-Bill Russell claims they never scouted the other team, saying, "We knew what we were going to do, so let them figure out how to counter us."
-This is a well-known one already, but Bill Russell used to throw up before every game. Later on in his career, he used to only throw up before playoff games, which is how he knew it was becoming time to hang it up.
-The Celtics won their three Game Sevens against the Lakers by a combined seven points. The Lakers were also another three points away from forcing a Game 7 in 1963.
-The intensity at which Russell played during the playoffs and Finals took its toll on him well after the games were over. In an interview mainly discussing the 2007 NBA Finals, Russell had this to say about his 30-point, 40-rebound performance in Game 7 of the '62 Finals: "After that game I had, it was about a month before I could walk straight. I was so tired. I don't know if you've ever been that tired where you feel like your bones are aching, but when he (LeBron) said he was really tired, I knew exactly what he was talking about."
-Bob Pettit, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor are the only players to drop 50+ on the Russell-led Celtics in a Finals game. Pettit scored 50 (including the game-winning tip in) in Game 7 of the 1958 Finals; Jerry West scored 53 in Game 1 of the 1969 Finals; Baylor scored 61 in Game 5 of the 1962 Finals.
-Of all the teams he's been on, Bill Russell said that his favorite was the 1963-64 Celtics because of how great their defense was that year.
The spreadsheets, most of the YouTube footage, and barefoot measurements have all been compiled by u/dantheman9758 over the years, so major credit is due to him. We're all pretty lucky to have access to it. He's probably responsible for like 2/3 of the substance in this post. The rest of the source links hopefully work and indicate who the rest of the credit should go to.