Rank these 7 players All time?

[70sFan]

Unless you're dismissing or penalizing the 60s era for its antiquity then it is not reasonable to ignore a players entire resume in favor of someone "being a better offensive player".

Russell played in an 8-14 team league with an average TS% of .471 during his career.

Duncan played in a thirty team league with an average TS% of .529 during his career.

The quality of competition against which a resumé is assembled matters & there's no doubt Duncan assembled his resumé against a larger/more talented pool of competition.

For some people, that (plus the massive offensive edge) is enough to put Duncan ahead of Russell. For others, Russell's resumé is clearly more impressive (without contextual consideration) so they have him ahead.

I have a feeling the internet might be talking about this one for awhile.

If you eliminate three point line from Duncan's era, their efficiency wouldn't be that much better, if at all. It's not always about skill development.

[Dooley]

Its true. Every individual can determine their own criteria. However, some criteria is more reasonable, logical, objective, and better formulated than others.

OK. Why is looking at resumes (or however you want to characterize your approach) more reasonable, more logical, more objective, and better formulated?

Unless you're dismissing or penalizing the 60s era for its antiquity then it is not reasonable to ignore a players entire resume in favor of someone "being a better offensive player".

I don't think "ignoring a player's entire resume" is an accurate characterization of what's happening. We're looking at two players who both have great resumes, great stats and great talent, and trying to figure out how we weigh those things against each other. Having Duncan over Russell does not entail thinking that Russell never accomplished anything. I believe that you can respect Russell's resume and still have Duncan ahead of him, even before getting into era comparisons.

[SickMother]

If you eliminate three point line from Duncan's era, their efficiency wouldn't be that much better, if at all. It's not always about skill development.

Avg FG%/FT% during Russell's career were .421/.731.

Avg 2P%/FT% during Duncan's career were .475/.752.

Three pointers no doubt had an effect on league wide TS% rising over 50 points in the fifty years between Russell and Duncan's respective careers, but the league got a lot better at making two pointers and one pointers too.

[70sFan]

If you eliminate three point line from Duncan's era, their efficiency wouldn't be that much better, if at all. It's not always about skill development.

Avg FG%/FT% during Russell's career were .421/.731.

Avg 2P%/FT% during Duncan's career were .475/.752.

Three pointers no doubt had an effect on league wide TS% rising over 50 points in the fifty years between Russell and Duncan's respective careers, but the league got a lot better at making two pointers and one pointers too.

You can't compare 2P% to FG% that way, much bigger portion of 2P shots were taken at the rim in the 2000s than in the 1960s, if you exclude three point line. The actual FG% comparison shows that the difference is noticeable, but very small.

[Dooley]

If you eliminate three point line from Duncan's era, their efficiency wouldn't be that much better, if at all. It's not always about skill development.

Avg FG%/FT% during Russell's career were .421/.731.

Avg 2P%/FT% during Duncan's career were .475/.752.

Three pointers no doubt had an effect on league wide TS% rising over 50 points in the fifty years between Russell and Duncan's respective careers, but the league got a lot better at making two pointers and one pointers too.

Also FG% pretty consistently rose YOY even before the introduction of the 3pt line.

Even just within the course of Russell's career, there's a jump from 1958-60 (AKA the years where Russell was a fairly efficient scorer relative to league environment) where FG% was around 39-41%, to 1967-69 where FG% is around 44%.