In thread one, the goal of my voting post was to discuss my general approach and then to explain why I had Lebron at the top of the ballot. In thread two, my focus pivoted to Kareem, who was not on my ballot but by the time I voted had already won, meaning it would be my only opportunity to talk about him. In thread three, I was burnt out on the Jordan debate and wanted to move on.
And in the last thread, my voting post was all about Hakeem, with mild commentary on the comparison with Duncan and Shaq.
For this thread, my two priorities are justifying Duncan at the top of my ballot and picking a third name. As I wrote in the prior thread, Duncan compares well with Hakeem (for more dedicated comparisons on both sides, I encourage people to read through the
#6 thread of the 2022 Peaks Project). He maintains effectiveness across two positions, and his only real matchup “weakness” in the postseason is that extremely strong and physical post defenders could give him more trouble than we see with other first option bigs at this level (which I find far less concerning than Shaq’s defence or free throw shooting). And for as much is made of Shaq having an “outlier” peak, it is
Duncan’s 2002/03 which tends to look farther removed from his (still elite) average prime level of play in both the regular season and postseason. I also am more impressed by Duncan’s postseason head-to-head with Shaq, with the acknowledgment that Shaq got the better of him in 2001 and that there was no opportunity in 2000.
For the third name, I am looking at Russell, Magic, Garnett, and Wilt. I think Garnett is the “best” player there, but any vote for him would be more heavily based around his (near-GOAT) regular season play, and I would rather save that profile for a bit later (for reasons expressed last thread). I am still wrestling with Magic versus Russell, in that I similarly think Magic is “better” but Russell’s defence stands out more than Magic’s offence.
But what about Russell’s direct rival? Even if Russell was advantaged prime for prime, Wilt’s seasonal quality was much more variable, so Wilt could have the better peak year. This is especially plausible if we focus on schematic value, with Russell being relatively stable but Wilt seeing immense variation across three teams and a variety of coaches. So I do see the argument that specifically in 1967 Wilt might have reached a level that Russell never did… but I also do not think it is by enough that I could give it the confidence usually afforded to that stance:
1962-65 Celtics with Russell: .761 win percentage (62.4-win-pace), +8.6 differential
1967/68 76ers with Wilt: .798 win percentage (65.4-win-pace), +9 differential
Is it plausible the 76ers had less than a three-win advantage in supporting cast? Absolutely. Is there any reason to be confident about it? No. And I would not say the 1967 76ers were an appreciably better postseason team than the 1964 Celtics either, nor would I say they were appreciably more dependent on Wilt for their postseason success than the Celtics were on Russell. So if Wilt is not clearly ahead of Russell at his absolute peak, then I personally would rather go with the guy who was
much more proven in the postseason. I said this all in the first thread, but Russell:
- literally never lost a single-elimination NBA game (11-0);
- never lost a series when he had a lead;
- never lost a 1-2 or 2-3 series where he played five games;
- maintained a winning series record on the road (4-1), as an SRS underdog (3-1), and as a road SRS underdog (2-1).
I do not want to penalise Wilt relative to someone like Walton, because Wilt had plenty of reasonably impressive performances outside of 1967. Relative to Russell, though, yeah, I personally think I would need to see more than just the one year to ignore Russell’s unprecedented near-infallibility.
1. Tim Duncan (2003 > 2002)
2. Shaquille O’Neal (2000)
3. Bill Russell (1964 > 1962)
