Has anyone ever applied some of the more advanced (modern metrics) to historical players like Wilt and Russell? It would be interesting to see what their PER, Real +/-, etc are compared to new players and each other. Wilt always struck me as a player who filled up the points and rebound stats but team wasn't necessarily better for it.
I rank Russell highly but I can see a good argument for Kareem, but not Wilt over Russell.
The difficulty with applying most 'advanced stats' is that they require metrics that simply were not recorded back in the 60s.
We can calculate some numbers off of the limited box-score data of the time. For example, Russell posted PER just of around 20-22 for his first several seasons and then just under 20 for most of the latter half of his career. However, keep in mind that PER is a minute-normalized efficiency stat. And if there is one stat that Bill tended to dominate, it was the denominator in that equation: minutes played.
Russell averaged 42.3 minutes per game for his career. He lead the association in minutes twice. He played complete games routinely. His endurance was phenomenal along with his other elite athletic capabilities (he was a world-class track & field athlete in college).
The large minute accruals would, on one hand tend to inflate some of his counting stats (he frequently lead the league in rebounding) but would also tend to strike against him in some efficiency stats. If we somehow did try to go back and apply +/- analysis to it, it would have a huge collinearity effect because he was on the floor all the time, with both fellow starters and bench units.
Wilt also tended to play gigantic minutes, leading the league in total minutes 8 times and averaging a sick 45.8 minutes per game for his career.
Comparing the stats of such players to modern players becomes an almost ridiculous exercise. Modern players just don't carry such a heavy load. It's like the difference between pitching back then and now in the modern bullpen age.
However, it's notable that even at the tail end of their careers, which flowed into the early 70s for Wilt in his age 33-36 seasons, these two guys STILL tended to be dominant over the next generation of big men who started the modern era.
In Russell's last season, age 34 (1969), he still was grabbing 16.2 rebounds and dealing 4.1 assists per 36 (while still playing 42.7 mpg!). He ranked 3rd in rebounding (behind Wilt and Unseld) and first in Defensive Win Shares.
In Wilt's final season, age 36, he lead the league in rebounds per game at 18.6 per game, a per-36 rate of 15.5. He was still 2nd in total Win Shares and Win Shares/48. That's 1973, with great players like Kareem, Cowens, Havlicek, Wes Unseld, Pete Maravich, Nate Thurmond, Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier, etc., in the league.
Think about it - even as ancient old farts, these two guys were still elite players against the best youngsters the NBA had as it emerged into the 70s, an era of so many legends.
That tells me that when they were in their prime, they probably would have dominated even the best players of any era.
Both Russell and Wilt were elite, world-class track & field athletes. If Russell had not been allowed to play in the '56 Olympics for basketball (his status was in question due to his having signed with -- thought not yet played for -- the Celtics) he would have competed in the high jump. He was allowed to play for the basketball team (he was the captain) and of course won Olympic gold. He later jumped
over a player in an NBA game.
Wilt could dunk a basketball from outside the free throw line. And he did so. In order to make free throws. In games, before it was made illegal.
IMHO, these were the two most important, most talented and most impactful basketball players in the history of the NBA.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that those two in their primes could have dominated ANY era of the NBA.
1. Russell
2. Wilt
....
3. The Field