RealGM Top 100 List #3

[Owly]

http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/chamberlain-theory-the-real-price-of-anarchy-in-basketball/

So for those not familiar with criticisms of Wilt, one thing I'd request you reed is my post above. I'd post the whole thing here but this is easier for me where I am.

Is this a criticism of Wilt though or of how he was used?

Philly grew more efficient regardless of his usage (i.e. "Even if Chamberlain’s TS% had remained the same, the overall team efficiency would have gone from 49.0% to 51.4%"), but the explanations offered don't seem to indicate much more than Dolph Shayes wasn't a professional basketball coach. If players atrophied (and I'll note that there are other possibilities/factors in play in the improvement noted below and that players being misused doesn't necessarily mean the skills are withering), isn't that on the coach, not Wilt Chamberlain.

Other notes:
- The league fg% and ft% went up (albeit the Free Throw rate went down) so I'm guessing that the league TS% went up. Unless this was just from the bump up by the 76ers this should be factored in to measurements of team offensive improvements.

- We should also factor in personel changes. Philly got Larry Costello out of retirement, who shot .902 from the stripe. That will improve your ts% directly, and your floor spacing from that of Al Bianchi (.673 on free throws), there's also a large direct improvement from the field right there.

-Wali Jones improve 9.3% from the free throw line, Luke Jackson 2.1%, Chet Walker 5%, Cunningham 5.2% (Cunningham, and to a slightly lesser extent Jackson, was a foul drawer so this isn't insubstantial). Only Greer of the (non-Chamberlain) core drops (1.6%). MAybe you could argue increased usage made them more confident, but I'd note that in the case of Walker, Cunningham and Jones I'd note it is part of a general upward trend over their careers; and more generally I'd be very reluctant to other players free throw percentage against a player.

[lorak]

You raise some interesting points. I'm not sure how I feel about the passing (though the faceup vs back to the basket point is interesting),

Maybe I will have to correct myself, because I'm watching another game now (G4 vs Royals) and so far when he got the ball at FT (or above) he plays face up. Anyway, his passing (or general play making) still doesn't look similar to Gasol's.

1) I've seen one or two clips of Russell driving to the basket. Was this a legitimate weapon for him from what you've seen? Or we're these just rare plays? How do we feel about Russell's ball handling in general?

Rare plays. I've also seen them on highlight clips, but not so much during games available. His ball handling was definitely very good (for example he had no problems with leading fast break as ball handler), should have used it more often.

(BTW, I've tried to measure his time with the ball from one FT line to another and compare it with DRob - both have exactly the same speed according to my measurements, but that's of course might be quite inaccurate. But if it's accurate, then it says a lot about Robinson's athleticism, who was bigger player, so theoretically should be slower.)

2) Do you think Russell's offense was consistent, or do you think it changed over the years?

I think it changed, but not so much as for example APG might suggests.

3) What sort of big men do you think Russell is comparable to offensively in the RAPM era?

I also wonder about it and can't find good comparison. Maybe Marcus Camby without midrange shot.

Somebody recently made the claim that bigs have a greater range of value on defense when compared to perimeter players (i.e. a bad defensive big will hurt you a lot more than a bad defensive perimeter player). Do you agree with this, and if so, do you think the opposite holds for offense (that is to say, perimeter players have a greater range of value on offense than do bigs, and a bad offensive perimeter player hurts you more than a bad offensive big)?

Of course I agree with that

[drza]

Official Vote: Bill Russell

[andrewww]

Wilt is really the only big you could argue over Russell at the 3rd spot imho even though I'm admittedly an advocate of Olajuwon's skillset, but beyond the numbers Wilt had a very LeBron-esq impact and as a modern day comparison, let's just look at LeBron's Finals this year vs. Duncan. Most people consider LeBron the best player in the world, but the impact that Duncan had on drives by Wade or LeBron into the paint were incredible..more often than not they either had their shot blcoked or inflenced by Duncan's fundamentals.

In other words, this relates to Russell/Wilt in the fact that Wilt may have been the better individual talent alone, but his style of play wasnt as impactful as Russell's, thus this had a direct correlation with their team success.

Now you can make the argument that Russell had a superior supporting cast, but more often that not I got the feeling that Wilt was able to play incredible offense or defense if he put his mind to it. In the latter stages of his career with the Lakers, Wilt was known primarily as a defensive stopper and rebounder (he's very much in the same league as Russell as a GOAT rebounder although the increased pace in the 60s helps inflate some of those numbers), but was he ever able to put the offense and defense together simultaneously? When he did in 1967 or 1972 to a lesser degree, those championship teams he was on were among the all time great championship teams by in large.

The overall impression thus has some similarities to the MJ/Kobe dynamic. Kobe may have been the greater offensive player ONLY when he was on fire from 3point land, but the consistency of MJ (much like Russell's over Wilt's) trumps Kobe, hence Russell trumps Wilt in career rankings imho.

[Dr Positivity]

My official vote is for Hakeem Olajuwon, I'm high on the value of building a title team around a elite two way big and therefore I'm voting Hakeem, Duncan, KG before Russell, Magic and Bird. Duncan has slightly better longevity than Hakeem but I prefer Hakeem's peak.

I suggest we end this thread ASAP though because we all know who won

[trex_8063]

My official vote is for Hakeem Olajuwon, I'm high on the value of building a title team around a elite two way big and therefore I'm voting Hakeem, Duncan, KG before Russell, Magic and Bird. Duncan has slightly better longevity than Hakeem but I prefer Hakeem's peak.

I suggest we end this thread ASAP though because we all know who won

And1, And1, so much And1. When the voting for a slot is so clearly lop-sided, I must again propose that we quickly move on to the next slot (as long as it's been open for a reasonable period of time....say 24 hours). It's not like it's going to kill good discussion: the debate about Wilt and Duncan, etc will still continue into the next few slots. But if we take 2-3 days for each and every slot.......well, we can all do that math.

[Basketballefan]

Yeah, Russell is winning this going away as i expected. We should move onto #4 where there will be no clear favorite for that slot. Magic Wilt Shaq and Duncan will be the top 4 candidates.

[batmana]

Shaq's just as bad. Here's a guy who came into every new situation with all the goodwill in the World. The Magic were thrilled to have him, the Lakers loved him, the Heat gave him the key to the city before he played a game with them, etc, etc. Yet in every case Shaq burnt all his bridges and left the teams on bad terms, usually after falling out with the team. A lot of this spilled out into on the court stuff too, and while he didn't cause half as many problems as Kobe, it's hard to understate how many he caused. Like Kobe, Shaq tried to force his way to the Lakers before he played a single game in the NBA. I won't hold that against him, but his constant talk of going to LA after he was on the Magic? I'll hold that against him for sure. Heck, it was only after 1 year on the Magic that his first book came out (Shaq Attack), in which he basically threw Orlando under a bus and said he yearned to play for the Lakers. It was pretty incredible stuff. He demanded trades multiple times, took games off, missed time, lazed about on D and stopped boxing out or running up and down the court as much, chewed out team mates, cheated his physicals, etc, etc. There was a lot of underachievement with Shaq.

Shaq leaving Orlando was on them, not on him. They were low-balling him, initially offering him less money than they paid Penny Hardaway. If they really thought Penny was more valuable than Shaq, well they got to keep him and lose Shaq. Then, when Shaq's grandmother passed away, the Orlando organization said something in the line of "We don't know where Shaq is" even though he had contacted them about it. This alone is reason enough to leave such a s****y organization.

Leaving LA was very complex but eventually it boiled down to them wanting to keep Kobe because he was much younger and promised to be the star of the future (even though I've always been on Shaq's side, the Lakers were probably right in that evaluation). But there was no way Shaq was staying in LA.

It just always bugs me when people call him out on those two when he basically couldn't do anything else in either situation.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #3 - Magic

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sma02.html

12x all star
10x all NBA (9 1st, 1 2nd)
3x reg season MVP (6 other top 3 finishes)
3x Finals MVP
5 championships
Career leader in APG

Not many players started their career off with a bang the way magic did. He led the lakers to 60 wins and a famous finals clinching performance against the sixers with 42 pts, 15 rebounds, and 7 assists. This came against a sixers team who ranked 1st in DRTG that season. To have that kind of impact out the gate as a rookie is almost unfathomable (yes, i'm aware russell had a similar impact).

His marked consistency throughout his career from a statistical as well as team standpoint (lakers made the finals 9 times from 80-91) was remarkable. For a guy who never really developed a 3 pt shot and did play guard regardless of size, posting a TS% of 60+ for the majority of his career was more than impressive.

No doubt he had plenty of talent around him over the years, but he was the key to navigating that team to their success throughout the 80s (queue the "tragic johnson" stories...) He had a truly unique impact on the court due to decision making that was only rivaled by a select few in the history of the league.

Haven't been able to find any RAPM data from the 80s, but this chart from the 90s indicates that even late in his career, magic was at the top of the list:

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/90s.html

We need to consider the fact that magic was forced to retire at 31 due to illness, and not a basketball related injury. It makes me wonder how productive and successful he would've been up to say age 35. I know it's discussed, but not nearly as much as I would expect. In his last season he played in 79 games, averaging the following:

19 PPG, 7 RPG, 12.5 APG, 1 SPG

~47% FG, 38% 3PT, 86% FT, 62% TS

117/107 OFF/DEF rating, .18 WS/48

His playoff production taking the lakers to the finals that year didn't drop off much at all, scoring more PPG on only a slightly lower TS%. Considering he still put up respectable #s at 36 after being out of the league for 5 years, I could see his production only dipping slightly each season from 31 to 35.

I can't help but think about how Walton's short prime is valued so highly when the majority of his career was derailed by injuries. I'm not saying he isn't deserving, but a guy like ralph sampson (who yes, wasn't as good as walton) for example doesn't really get the same treatment.

*EDIT* - Long story short, it's just something to think about. My ranking magic #3 is still based on his NBA career as a whole only.

[SactoKingsFan]

We need to consider the fact that magic was forced to retire at 31 due to illness, and not a basketball related injury. It makes me wonder how productive and successful he would've been up to say age 35. I know it's discussed, but not nearly as much as I would expect....

Long story short, I think we should take the hypothetical of magic playing a few more seasons at a high level into account in addition to his career accomplishments.

I don't take Magic retiring due to illness into account when ranking his career. Although the circumstances differ from a player retiring or losing prime years due to injury, they both have a similar impact on a player's ability to perform. Like T-Mac and Walton with their injury issues, we have no way of knowing how long a healthy Magic would have remained a high impact player.

[DQuinn1575]

["]

Long story short, I think we should take the hypothetical of magic playing a few more seasons at a high level into account in addition to his career accomplishments.

If we start taking hypotheticals I would change a lot of my votes and would probably have Bill Walton as #3.

[penbeast0]

How about Connie Hawkins, Lenny Bias, Alex Groza, Sabonis . . . just as we don't use playground rep, Euroleague, Olympics, etc. . . . I don't think we can use hypothetical seasons that were never played. Magic made choices that had consequences and had to live with them. I think his career as is speaks pretty eloquently without adding in any extras.

[penbeast0]

How about Connie Hawkins, Lenny Bias, Alex Groza, Sabonis . . . just as we don't use playground rep, Euroleague, Olympics, etc. . . . I don't think we can use hypothetical seasons that were never played. Magic made choices that had consequences and had to live with them. I think his career as is speaks pretty eloquently without adding in any extras.

[Clyde Frazier]

I should've rephrased: I'm not taking the hypothetical into account as far as ranking him #3. It was more just a point of discussion. I've edited my post to reflect that.

[Jaivl]

["]

Long story short, I think we should take the hypothetical of magic playing a few more seasons at a high level into account in addition to his career accomplishments.

If we start taking hypotheticals I would change a lot of my votes and would probably have Bill Walton as #3.

That's overreacting lol. But Sabonis...

I would vote for Russell here, but I don't have the time to make a decent argument, so not gonna vote this time, I guess.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote #3: Bill Russell

Don't have much time to go in depth due to the holidays, I feel Russell is the right pick out of the moshpit of ATGs from #3-12. The margins are slim in impact, so I lean towards Russell's GOAT level leadership, and the remarkable consistency he had from start to finish. Even with all my misgivings about he strength of his era, he my choice.

First I revisited my thoughts on the best centers of all-time left. keep in mind that on my impact scale, ATG is 10, and average is 4. Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Moses, (Mikan's not in the project). I estimate Shaq's 00/01 two year run at around a 10 offensively and 7-8 defensively, which is even better than any 2-year run from MJ. But....for most of his career, Shaq's defense lagged in mediocrity, especially his rotations which were pretty bad. So most of his prime I have him at 10/5.

1) Russell: 5 off(due to passing/offensive boards), 9-10 def(tough to gauge due to unique era circumstances). GOAT level Leadership/Consistency

2) Shaq: 10 off(most dominant paint presence ever, underrated passer), 7-8 def(00/01), 5-6 def(prime). Its a shame he didn't focus on defense outside of that 2 year window, could have been the runaway GOAT.

3) Wilt: 10 off(points, off rebs, passing), 4-8 def(pretty wide margin here throughout career). If only Wilt had played his late career level defensive earlier. Easily the hardest player to rate

4) Hakeem: 7 off(prime), 8-9 def(prime). Had two dominant playoff runs in 94/95, but I think people elevate that window a bit too much in the context of his whole career.

5) Moses: 7-8 off(GOAT off rebounder?), 4-5 def. Legend, but you can see the flaws when you compare him to a Shaq.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At PF it's Duncan for me.

1) Duncan: 6 off, 8-9 def. Again, like Shaq & Hakeem, had an exceptional two year run(02/03), where I put him around 6/9. that's still on the low end of my ATGs, but Duncan makes up for a lot of that due to his consistency from 98-07. He's also one of the best post-prime contributors impactwise, at around 4-5/7-8.

(in no order)

Barkley: 10 off, 3-4 def. Fascinating offensive anomaly. A 6'4 PF who could score at high volume/efficiency, control the offensive boards, and drop 4+ apg. unfortunately he was undersized on defense(when he actually tried), and only reaches a 4 some years because of the defensive rebounding.

Dirk: 9 off,4 def(pre-2005). 10 off, 5 def(prime). Nash's leaving forced him to elevate his overall offensive game, and truly become a walking mismatch. Defensively Avery also got him to play at an above average level.

KG: 6 off, 7-8 def(03-08' prime). Perhaps the most versatile defender ever. Biggest issue is that he falls below the other ATG defensive bigs as an anchor. Offensively his lack of ability as a consistent 1st option drops KG to around a 5 in the playoffs.

Mailman: 10 off, 5-6 def(regular season). 8 off, 4 def(playoffs). Mr. Jekyll & Hyde. His regs season impact/longevity, should put him in the Top 10, but it playoff failings were pretty epic.

Petitt: have to look at him more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm flipflopping between Bird/Lebron

Bird: 10 off, 5 def. Tremendous Leadership, and right near the top in support utilization.

Lebron: 9-10 off, 6 def. Would be a solid 10 in offensive impact, but his style of play has historically taken away from the supporting cast's utilization. Style-wise, the opposite of Bird.

Doctor J: 8 off, 5 def(6-7 ABA days)

---------------------------------------------------------

Kobe's the clear pick for SG

Kobe: 10 off, 5-6 def(prime). I have Kobe at around 8 off, 6 def in 00'. 9-10 off, 5-6 def(01-09). 9/4-5(post prime). Much like Duncan, a tremendous post-prime player. Remarkable consistency/longevity as a high volume scorer putting up 55% nearly his whole career. Also a consistent 5-6 apg facilitator who got the most out of his support.

West: 10 off, 4-5 def. one has to wonder what West would have done with a 3pt line. benefited from a weak era for overall perimeter talent, but still, far exceed everyone not named Oscar outside the paint.

Wade: 9 off, 5 def(prime). Was 10 off in the playoffs. Short prime due to injuries

Drexler: 8 off, 4-5 def. Much like Wade, got overshadowed by another SG in his era.

Manu: 7 off, 4-5 def. Low MPG limits his impact. Would have been interesting to see how he would have done at 37+ mpg.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magic is a no brainer at PG. And I'm gonna cheat here, because i think his offense was off the scales.

Magic 10-11 off, 4 def. Magic's offensive impact was on another level. High efficiency, GOAT passing, GOAT utilization of support, once he got a jumper its was a wrap. Longevity hurts him a bit though. And his defensive impact was average at best and save due to his size on postups.

Oscar: 10 off, 5 def. Biggest knock is era liek with all the 60's guys. Especially on the perimeter. But still a Top 15 player for sure.

Stockton: 9 off, 5-6 def. underrated defender. The GOAT ball stripper, and unlike many other high spg guys, his steals had real impact. offensively one of the GOAT passers, the only knock is his low scoring output, and the lack of 1st option ability.

Nash: 9 off(10 in MDA system), 2-3 def. Was a dominant offensive force for the PHX years. Short prime hurts him though, as does his defense.

Frazier; 5-6 off, 6-7 def. Tremendous defender. Short prime though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4 is gonna be tough. Last time I think i picked Magic, but I'm of the opinion the 00's trio may be ahead on reflection now. Leaning Duncan/Kobe there who were my #5 & #6 picks last time.


DISCLAIMER: The thoughts and opinions expressed here are those of An Unbiased Fan alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of RealGM, its members, funding agencies, or staff. If these ratings are rustling your jimmies, then too bad, they're just ratings.

[Basketballefan]

Vote for #3 - Magic

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sma02.html

12x all star
10x all NBA (9 1st, 1 2nd)
3x reg season MVP (6 other top 3 finishes)
3x Finals MVP
5 championships
Career leader in APG

Not many players started their career off with a bang the way magic did. He led the lakers to 60 wins and a famous finals clinching performance against the sixers with 42 pts, 15 rebounds, and 7 assists. This came against a sixers team who ranked 1st in DRTG that season. To have that kind of impact out the gate as a rookie is almost unfathomable (yes, i'm aware russell had a similar impact).

His marked consistency throughout his career from a statistical as well as team standpoint (lakers made the finals 9 times from 80-91) was remarkable. For a guy who never really developed a 3 pt shot and did play guard regardless of size, posting a TS% of 60+ for the majority of his career was more than impressive.

No doubt he had plenty of talent around him over the years, but he was the key to navigating that team to their success throughout the 80s (queue the "tragic johnson" stories...) He had a truly unique impact on the court due to decision making that was only rivaled by a select few in the history of the league.

Haven't been able to find any RAPM data from the 80s, but this chart from the 90s indicates that even late in his career, magic was at the top of the list:

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/90s.html

We need to consider the fact that magic was forced to retire at 31 due to illness, and not a basketball related injury. It makes me wonder how productive and successful he would've been up to say age 35. I know it's discussed, but not nearly as much as I would expect. In his last season he played in 79 games, averaging the following:

19 PPG, 7 RPG, 12.5 APG, 1 SPG

~47% FG, 38% 3PT, 86% FT, 62% TS

117/107 OFF/DEF rating, .18 WS/48

His playoff production taking the lakers to the finals that year didn't drop off much at all, scoring more PPG on only a slightly lower TS%. Considering he still put up respectable #s at 36 after being out of the league for 5 years, I could see his production only dipping slightly each season from 31 to 35.

I can't help but think about how Walton's short prime is valued so highly when the majority of his career was derailed by injuries. I'm not saying he isn't deserving, but a guy like ralph sampson (who yes, wasn't as good as walton) for example doesn't really get the same treatment.

*EDIT* - Long story short, it's just something to think about. My ranking magic #3 is still based on his NBA career as a whole only.

You summed this vote up better than i could've, i didn't make that good of an argument for Magic due to lack of time and the fact that Russell was going to win anyway. I'll present a similar argument for Magic in the next slot.

[O_6]

I vote for Bill Russell

To me, these were the candidates for the 3rd position...

Russell
Duncan
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem
LeBron
Magic
Bird

Now all of those guys have an argument that you could make in their favor. These are the best of the best and I could understand why a voter would choose any of these guys. But to me, what sets Russell apart is his combination of physical and mental abilities.

Shaq/Wilt/Hakeem/LeBron/Russell: these are all A+ historic physical specimens
Duncan/Magic/Bird/Russell: these are guys whose leadership and intangibles are unquestioned

Russell is the only player I fully trust to put in both categories. And it's the main reason I chose him.

Shaq and Wilt are the two most physically dominant forces in NBA history. This is a game that has always been decided by size, and Wilt and Shaq are the two largest legends in the history of the game. Both guys combined 99th percentile human strength with absurd agility for men of their size (Shaq with a little more power, Wilt with a little more agility). But both guys also seemed to lack something mentally. Shaq's effort level was always inconsistent and his power-based game tended to take a toll on his massive body. He exhibited mediocre leadership over his career, often placing himself above the team and generally being too lazy. I don't think laziness was the issue with Wilt. His issue was simply that he cared more about how his individual performance was perceived than how his team performed. He didn't want to win at all costs, he only wanted to win if he looked good doing it. Wilt was a guy who missed the forest for the trees and it's why he could never be considered as a player who exhibited great leadership.

Hakeem and LeBron are two other historically gifted athletes. I don't think they had the same mental intangibles question marks as Wilt/Shaq, but they both did have issues. Before there was Hakeem, there was Akeem. An angry young bull who played out of control a little too often. He got into fights and made comments to the media, he simply displayed inconsistent leadership skills during the early 90s. It wasn't until he matured after finding religion that he reached his true all-around peak as a player and as a leader.

LeBron's "mental/intangible" issues are a harder to explain. Do I think LeBron is a poor leader? No. Do I think LeBron lacks some BBIQ? No. Do I think LeBron's performance in clutch situations has been poor? No. And yet, there is something from an intangibles standpoint that LeBron seems to lack in comparison to the Duncan/Magic tier. His decision to go to Miami and other situations over his career seem to shed a slight lack of self awareness with him. I think it's because he was the Most Hyped Teenage athlete in the internet era, a player that was destined to be an NBA legend at the age of 15. Just as Shaq knew he was "Superman", LeBron knew he was the "Chosen One". To be fair to LeBron, he's clearly the player in the Shaq/Wilt/Hakeem/LeBron group that I have the least questions about mentally. Maybe it's just the fact that he's still in the middle of his prime. He still has time to prove to me that my concerns about his intangibles and leadership are dumb, but as of 2014 I still have a few questions that hold him back from the Magic/Duncan/Bird/Russell tier of impeccable intangibles.

Magic/Bird/Duncan are 3 legendary leaders whose intangibles have rarely been questioned. I think Magic may be the only one who even has a hint of an issue here. His "Tragic Johnson" saga and his trade request shouldn't be overlooked, but he bounced back strong from those issues and was the perfect personality to lead a team. Although Barkley and Jordan led the way for the Dream Team on the court, it was Magic who was clearly the most important player on that team from a team chemistry perspective. He was a true leader, charismatic and willing to set others up. Bird was also an excellent player in terms of BBIQ and intangibles. He was a cold blooded killer and his intensity and competitiveness were at the heart of those Celtics teams. Duncan is also a truly great leader, someone who always understood that the team came before himself. He was always an extremely smart player thanks to his college experience.

One of the ways I've been deciding my list is trying to envision all of these players simultaneously playing in an All-Time League consisting of the best players who ever lived. I think trying to figure out how these players would perform in your mind against the best competition possible is important.

Bird/Magic/Duncan were all tremendous leaders and had great intangibles, but none of them would be considered great athletes in an All-Time League. Bird and Magic would be major question marks on the defensive end in such a league. Magic would stand no chance against some of the quicker PGs, needing to have a great SG/SF defensive combo on his team to help cover for him. Bird is even tougher to cover for on D, needing to have a very versatile Forward defender and great rim protector at Center behind him. Unlike Wilt/Russell/Shaq/Hakeem, Duncan is the only BIG on my list who lacks "WOW!"-level athleticism. Duncan had great coordination skills and knew how to maximize his length, but his run/jump skills are simply lacking compared to the other BIGS in the mix for the #3 spot. In an all-time league against GOAT competition, I just can't see Duncan being the 3rd best player in the league due to his physical limitations compared to some of the other BIGS who'd be in such a league.

Bill Russell was an all-time great athlete. His natural basketball instincts and athleticism straight up redefined the game. He was to NBA Defense what Babe Ruth was to MLB Hitting, except Russell's contribution meant more in terms of Winning. Russell made Dominant Interior Defense mainstream, Ruth made Dominant Home Run hitting mainstream. Russell simply understood what it took to get the most out of his teams. Sure you can talk about how his impact was era-dependent, as I did when I chose Kareem and Jordan over him. But Kareem and Jordan simply had tremendous arguments on their own based on a lot of factors. I don't think any other player on my #3 contenders list have as complete of an argument as Jordan/Kareem did. Put Bill Russell in an All-Time League and I think his athleticism and intangibles immediately make him a uniquely valuable player. His combination of athleticism + BBIQ + intangibles are 2nd to none. I know his offensive skill is a big Question Mark and how he compares with Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan/KG is hard to put into perspective, but Bill Russell simply produced and that production stemmed from an athleticism + intangibles combination that I think would allow him to be a big-time impact player in any era.

[TrueLAfan]

http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/chamberlain-theory-the-real-price-of-anarchy-in-basketball/

So for those not familiar with criticisms of Wilt, one thing I'd request you reed is my post above. I'd post the whole thing here but this is easier for me where I am.

Nice writeup. I want to touch on something that I think Owly may be alluding to, but I think is a *major* factor in assessing Wilt--as the #3 player or at any other level.

When we are talking about adjustment that teammates make, or adjustments that players make--Wilt is on an island. He’s so on an island that it’s inconceivable for any other player to do what he did. Imagine Charles Barkley playing for a year or two, then his coach telling him to up his scoring by 20-30%. After a few years of that, another coach tells him to cut his scoring by 35-50%, and become his team’s playmaker and lead the league in assists. A few years after that, another coach tells Charles to cut his scoring by another 50%--so he’s 60-70% below where he started—and be the best defender in the league.

Now imagine if the first change resulted in a team record for wins, the second change resulted in an NBA record for victories and a title, and the third change resulted in an NBA record for victories and a title. I don’t see how any other player in history could have even thought about making such massive, sweeping, individual changes—and had such dramatic success.

So, essentially, even if teams catch on to what you are doing with Wilt—you can come up with a New Wilt and win a title playing that way. How valuable is that? And does that affect the choices to have him play differently?

[Notanoob]

Of course with Russell or maybe rather with Heinsohn, Russell and Ramsey (in that order) they played even faster, but it wasn't anything new for that team. And look how they played fast before Russell and how offense regressed when Bill joined team. And then how pace fall down after 1965, but offense was still bad, even worse than in late 50s. All that (+ Colts data I presented in previous thread) indicates that Russel's impact on offense was negative and we can't justify it by saying that "this was Celtics philosophy".

BTW, I'm in the process of rewatching all available Celtics games and Russell is nothing close to Marc Gasol as a passer. The main difference is that even late Russell played most of the time with his back back to the basket. I mean, typical Celtics set with Russell as passer looked that he got the ball at FT line and had basket behind his back. Gasol (or Walton for that matter, to whom Bill also was compared as passer) usually plays face up game, what is far more valuable, because he sees much more floor that Russell did. Marc is also a threat as midrange shooter and he quite often uses it to fakes defender and then he dribbles into the paint and defense collapses - that's really good creation wise, Russell didn't do it. And yet Gasol is negative offensive player according to RAPM.

Other way bigs can impact offense is offensive rebounding. But from data we have (Dippers "shot charts" thread) Russell averaged about 3.5 ORB per 100 possessions. That's not much, for example Tyson Chandler (to whom Bill also was compared) averages 5.8 in a career (and last several years is negative or slightly positive on offense according to RAPM). Russell obviously also wasn't a scorer, wasn't dangerous from outside of rim area and basically his biggest offensive weapon was transition and some sort of p&r game (but they didn't use it often back then). So from watching game tape I really don't see from where positive offensive Russell's impact was coming from. I don't see it when I watch games or when analyze available data. With defense it isn't the case, as it's seen in both: data and game tape.

While I won't contest that Russel's passing may be very overrated, isn't it unfair to penalize Russel for his offensive rebounding numbers when we know his roll in the offense? He was starting fast breaks and the team was getting up shots fast as they could. Given that he was starting behind everyone else, it's it reasonable to expect his offensive rebounding numbers to be deflated compared to what they'd be if he played more half-court possessions, and furthermore if his team wasn't so totally defensively minded? Given his excellent defensive rebounding, I think that it's reasonable to assume that he could be a better offensive rebounder than Chandler if he was in a different situation.

On a different note, I vote for Wilt Chamberlain. For me, greatness is synonymous with 'bestness', and I believe that Wilt had a GOAT caliber peak.

Very good passer from the post, willing distributor when asked too.
Essentially the only person to get as strong as Shaq, outlifed Arnold while both were on the set of Conan the Destroyer.
Still very mobile, not just for his size, great track athlete.
Nearly the GOAT rebounder, better than Russel, not better than Rodman.

Basically, when he was locked in and playing 'the right way', he was an incredible all-around force. I'm digging through the peaks project stuff to get concrete numbers to back this up, and I'll post them when I get a good amount of data.

BTW, that peaks project looks like it was a disaster. We'll have to try that one again, but maybe start out by just decided what was a player's actual peak.