RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #2

[THKNKG]

I've been doing some research on Duncan/Russell/Kareem.

A few points of conversation:





1) Bucks Kareem led excellent teams, but they only became contenders when Oscar joined, and ceased being contenders the moment he left.

The year before Oscar: .683 RS Win%, 4.25 SRS, 3.1 RelORTG, -0.9 RelDRTG
The year Oscar joined: .805 RS Win%, 11.92 SRS, 6.7 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG

The year before Oscar left: .720 RS Win%, 7.61 SRS, 3.5 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG
The year after Oscar left: .463 RS Win%, 0.25 SRS, 0.3 RelORTG, 0.1 RelDRTG

This was all with pretty minimal roster turnover otherwise. I didn't do it with the Lakers, because they were trash before Magic actually gave Kareem some help, but the early 70's Bucks weren't trash.





2) Russell's Celtics only had 2 seasons with better RelDRTG than Duncan's Spurs did at their peak. None of Kareem's seasons cracked Duncan's top 5 (even in his days with Oscar as an elite team).

Their top 5 (difference from 0)

Russell: 10.8, 9.4, 8.5, 8.5, 7.6
Duncan: 8.8, 7.4, 7.3, 7.2, 6.6
Kareem: 5.7, 5.3, 4.1, 4.1, 1.8

Here's a full top 12 (I'm not doing 13 since Russell was only on the Celtics for part of his rookie season).

Russell: 10.8, 9.4, 8.5, 8.5, 7.6, 6.6, 6.4, 6.2, 5.7, 5.2, 5.1, 4.4
Duncan: 8.8, 7.4, 7.3, 7.2, 6.6, 6.6, 5.7, 5.6, 5.5, 5.0, 4.8, 4.3


Duncan was much closer to Russell than Kareem was to Duncan defensively (note - only one of the 5 comes from when Duncan played with DRob). If you want to be impressed, start at the lower end of the list, and work your way back until the outlier Russell years, comparing Russell/Duncan. Look how similar they were. Of course, Duncan never touched Kareem's offensive teams either, but elite defensive teams are more closely linked to winning than elite offensive teams (as I wrote in thread 1). Kareem's top 2 seasons are tied for 7th and 10th on Duncan's list, respectively.





3) Team defense is much more indicative of a big man defender's impact than team offense is for a big man offensive player's impact.

There's much more correlation between PG's and team offense, which is why I didn't decide to include it.





4) Excluding the outlier years, Duncan matched Russell's defensive production, and added many meaningful defensive years.



5) Many of Duncan's best seasons were on his poorest teams, and much of the defensive credit can be traced to him.




6) Duncan was equally, if not more, productive at winning than Kareem, with an inferior cast the majority of the time.

Now, I know Duncan likely never had a team as bad as the late 70's Lakers, but Kareem had many more highs (early 70s w/ Oscar, 80s w/ Magic). Yet, Duncan is the one who maintained stability in the midst of roster turnstiles at times (a la Russell).





7) If Duncan and Kareem both showed they were capable of leading a championship team as the primary scorer, and defense is more highly correlated with winning, why does Kareem's superlative offense bump him higher when Duncan's defense doesn't?





I welcome discussion/correction on this even after the thread ends, but for these reasons and those previously mentioned, I vote:

1) Tim Duncan
2) Bill Russell

[THKNKG]

Another Kareem vs. Duncan point of discussion.

It could be argued that the reason Kareem didn't lead elite teams until Magic/Oscar came is because he didn't have enough help. However, Duncan literally never had the help Kareem did at his peak, yet he led elite teams as well. Could this mean that an ATG defensive big is more valuable than an ATG offensive big man, because it takes much less surrounding them to be elite? Especially since Duncan was really good on offense too. Sure, his teams seldom reached the heights (SRS wise) of Kareem's, but his teams NEVER hit the depths either, and for 19 years, with the roster shifting around him, he put them in contention the majority of those years.

[THKNKG]

On the topic of Kareem vs Duncan, and people saying that if Kareem is being considered, so should Duncan, because they have similar longevity, I agree that maybe 12-15 Duncan is roughly equal to mid 80s Kareem, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1970-1981 Duncan is well superior to 1998-2009 Duncan.

To the Duncan supporters, answer me this. In the top 10 seasons between the two, how many would Duncan have.

As a matter of fact, I have two more guys above Kareem, who are LeBron James and Wilt Chamberlain. With those two as well, how many of the top 10 combined years would TD have?

Can I counter this question with how many Russell seasons you would have in the top 10 in those comparisons?

5ish with each I think. For example with Wilt, I think Russell was better in 1960, 61, 63, 65 and 69. Then his early years are better than Wilt's late years.

With Duncan it's maybe 2-3.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

So, for Kareem/Duncan, I could see it going 7/3 or 3/7 either way, or anywhere in between. I think if you value defense even close to equally, it can be a pretty close comparison.

Lebron/Duncan, Lebron probably has 3-4 seasons above Duncan's peak (09-10, 12-14, 16-17 are all years I could be persuaded for or against). So, eventually, Lebron will dominate a top 10 comparison between the two. Duncan still played at an ATG level for a much longer time, so he still has an edge for me. Lebron is on a crash course for #1 for me though.

Duncan/Wilt, same as Kareem/Duncan, but with a likely score of 6/4 Duncan (just spitballing).

[eminence]

Hmm, no order on seasons, but my top 10 from among the 4:

LeBron: '12, '13, '16, '17
Duncan: '02, '03
Wilt: '67
KAJ: '71, '74, '77

Bolded the seasons I think of as their peaks. Each of them have an additional 2-3 more seasons I really considered for the list as well.

[LA Bird]

My votes are the same as last round:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Both Jordan and LeBron have multiple seasons better than Kareem's best but Kareem's ability to churn out star quality seasons into his late 30s puts him ahead of both on my all time list. He dominated the 70s more than any other player did for a decade and if we were to ignore level of competition, Kareem should be far and away the #1 GOAT in my opinion. The most complete offensive center in the history of the game and improved his scoring resiliency against tougher defenders after his first few seasons to such a degree that he still remained a potent half court offensive player even when much older. His defense as a Lakers was somewhat disappointing given his potential to be an all time great defensive anchor as displayed in Milwaukee but he still accumulated a near top 10 defensive career just being a solid defender for so many seasons. There is a larger gap in Kareem's favor on defense than in Jordan/LeBron's favor on offense and his advantage in longevity is enough to offset the weaker peak and prime.

2. LeBron James
I previously had Jordan ranked second on my list but after updating with 2017 playoffs data, LeBron has passed Jordan 1 year earlier than expected. Jordan has the better peak and comes out ahead by very small margins in a pairwise comparison of the two's top seasons but lack of longevity is starting to hurt him. Only 11 full seasons as a Bull is a short career compared to James who at this point has a 27/7/7 year as his 13th best season. Jordan's edge in better prime is not enough to overcome LeBron's longevity.

Russell is getting plenty of support already but I won't be voting for him any time soon due to concerns about his dominance in the late 50s and 60s. Nash's Suns are criticized for sacrificing defense for more offense by going small but when it comes to Russell, the fact that the Celtics sacrificed offensive efficiency by running a ridiculously fast pace to maximize their defense seems to be overlooked. One cannot credit Russell for Boston's dominant defense and then absolve him of blame for their poor offense.

[colts18]

I've been doing some research on Duncan/Russell/Kareem.

A few points of conversation:





1) Bucks Kareem led excellent teams, but they only became contenders when Oscar joined, and ceased being contenders the moment he left.

The year before Oscar: .683 RS Win%, 4.25 SRS, 3.1 RelORTG, -0.9 RelDRTG
The year Oscar joined: .805 RS Win%, 11.92 SRS, 6.7 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG

The year before Oscar left: .720 RS Win%, 7.61 SRS, 3.5 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG
The year after Oscar left: .463 RS Win%, 0.25 SRS, 0.3 RelORTG, 0.1 RelDRTG

This was all with pretty minimal roster turnover otherwise. I didn't do it with the Lakers, because they were trash before Magic actually gave Kareem some help, but the early 70's Bucks weren't trash.

How good were the Spurs this season without Duncan? How good were they the last healthy season they had before Duncan?

[THKNKG]

I've been doing some research on Duncan/Russell/Kareem.

A few points of conversation:





1) Bucks Kareem led excellent teams, but they only became contenders when Oscar joined, and ceased being contenders the moment he left.

The year before Oscar: .683 RS Win%, 4.25 SRS, 3.1 RelORTG, -0.9 RelDRTG
The year Oscar joined: .805 RS Win%, 11.92 SRS, 6.7 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG

The year before Oscar left: .720 RS Win%, 7.61 SRS, 3.5 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG
The year after Oscar left: .463 RS Win%, 0.25 SRS, 0.3 RelORTG, 0.1 RelDRTG

This was all with pretty minimal roster turnover otherwise. I didn't do it with the Lakers, because they were trash before Magic actually gave Kareem some help, but the early 70's Bucks weren't trash.

How good were the Spurs this season without Duncan? How good were they the last healthy season they had before Duncan?

There was a relatively small (~3ish SRS) drop, which is significant, but not nearly like other superstars. That's not because he had small impact (RAPM shows otherwise). As I said in the other thread, Duncan's selflessness enabled the Spurs to not experience a drop off (recruiting LMA, taking pay cuts, taking a backseat to Kawhi, etc.), which is contrary to every other superstar ever, basically.

[Joao Saraiva]

I've been doing some research on Duncan/Russell/Kareem.

A few points of conversation:





1) Bucks Kareem led excellent teams, but they only became contenders when Oscar joined, and ceased being contenders the moment he left.

The year before Oscar: .683 RS Win%, 4.25 SRS, 3.1 RelORTG, -0.9 RelDRTG
The year Oscar joined: .805 RS Win%, 11.92 SRS, 6.7 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG

The year before Oscar left: .720 RS Win%, 7.61 SRS, 3.5 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG
The year after Oscar left: .463 RS Win%, 0.25 SRS, 0.3 RelORTG, 0.1 RelDRTG

This was all with pretty minimal roster turnover otherwise. I didn't do it with the Lakers, because they were trash before Magic actually gave Kareem some help, but the early 70's Bucks weren't trash.

How good were the Spurs this season without Duncan? How good were they the last healthy season they had before Duncan?

There was a relatively small (~3ish SRS) drop, which is significant, but not nearly like other superstars. That's not because he had small impact (RAPM shows otherwise). As I said in the other thread, Duncan's selflessness enabled the Spurs to not experience a drop off (recruiting LMA, taking pay cuts, taking a backseat to Kawhi, etc.), which is contrary to every other superstar ever, basically.

So you use one argument with Oscar to diminuish Kareem's importance, then you see Duncan leaving a lot less happens but it's somehow Tim's greatness that allows the Spurs to continue being good...

I think you're looking trough the numbers and getting to conclusions you want to get to prop up Tim Duncan. The Spurs didn't do much worse without him because even tough he had his importance, he was not nearly as important as you're making him to be. And that's fine, he was already old so he filled the place he should on those teams in late years. That's definitely worth something, but not at the point you're making it look like.

[wojoaderge]

This was all with pretty minimal roster turnover otherwise. I didn't do it with the Lakers, because they were trash before Magic actually gave Kareem some help, but the early 70's Bucks weren't trash.

How do you figure?

[Blackmill]

Some rebuttal.

I've been doing some research on Duncan/Russell/Kareem.
1) Bucks Kareem led excellent teams, but they only became contenders when Oscar joined, and ceased being contenders the moment he left.

The year before Oscar: .683 RS Win%, 4.25 SRS, 3.1 RelORTG, -0.9 RelDRTG
The year Oscar joined: .805 RS Win%, 11.92 SRS, 6.7 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG

The year before Oscar left: .720 RS Win%, 7.61 SRS, 3.5 RelORTG, -4.1 RelDRTG
The year after Oscar left: .463 RS Win%, 0.25 SRS, 0.3 RelORTG, 0.1 RelDRTG

This was all with pretty minimal roster turnover otherwise. I didn't do it with the Lakers, because they were trash before Magic actually gave Kareem some help, but the early 70's Bucks weren't trash.

I don't think your bolded statement is accurate. Consider, the Bucks were a 4.25 SRS team with Kareem as a rookie, and half the roster under the age of 24. Kareem was bound to improve, and most likely, so were his teammates. Without Oscar, at worst they would have been one of the best teams in 1971, and very possibly the best team,

For that matter, the Bucks improved significantly in 1971 on defense, which we must assume Kareem is more responsible for than Oscar. Especially given that players that season compared Kareem to Bill Russell defensively.

In 1975, Kareem missed a lot of games, but with him the Bucks were a 4.25 SRS team, compared to the 7.6 SRS team the year previous with Oscar. That's a difference of about 3 SRS. In your own words:

There was a relatively small (~3ish SRS) drop, which is significant, but not nearly like other superstars.

Thus, I think Kareem was leading some very strong teams without Oscar or Magic.

6) Duncan was equally, if not more, productive at winning than Kareem, with an inferior cast the majority of the time.

Now, I know Duncan likely never had a team as bad as the late 70's Lakers, but Kareem had many more highs (early 70s w/ Oscar, 80s w/ Magic). Yet, Duncan is the one who maintained stability in the midst of roster turnstiles at times (a la Russell).

The line in bold is a strong statement and should really be argued.

Kareem's very best years were from 1970-80. In these ten years, 1971-74 and 1980 are the only seasons he had a clearly good supporting cast, though some investigation into those later Bucks teams may be needed. Otherwise, his teams varied from some of the worst I've seen, to having talent but terrible fit. The '76, and '77 Lakers are among the former. In 1979, the Lakers had some real offensive talent with Nixon, Wilkes, and Dantley, but the fit is terrible.

I don't think it's at all clear that Duncan played with an inferior cast the majority of the time. My initial reaction would to think the opposite. Especially when coaching and fit are considered.

[THKNKG]

How good were the Spurs this season without Duncan? How good were they the last healthy season they had before Duncan?

There was a relatively small (~3ish SRS) drop, which is significant, but not nearly like other superstars. That's not because he had small impact (RAPM shows otherwise). As I said in the other thread, Duncan's selflessness enabled the Spurs to not experience a drop off (recruiting LMA, taking pay cuts, taking a backseat to Kawhi, etc.), which is contrary to every other superstar ever, basically.

So you use one argument with Oscar to diminuish Kareem's importance, then you see Duncan leaving a lot less happens but it's somehow Tim's greatness that allows the Spurs to continue being good...

I think you're looking trough the numbers and getting to conclusions you want to get to prop up Tim Duncan. The Spurs didn't do much worse without him because even tough he had his importance, he was not nearly as important as you're making him to be. And that's fine, he was already old so he filled the place he should on those teams in late years. That's definitely worth something, but not at the point you're making it look like.

I'm not saying that he was still an MVP caliber player, but an argument could be had that at least up til 2014 he was their most valuable player. I really am not using numbers to reach a biased conclusion... Duncan is my favorite player so I admit to being biased. However, I've had Kareem over Duncan until very recently, and the same with MJ/Russell.

Yes, there was a decently significant drop off with Duncan, and yes Oscar's departure caused a much more massive drop off, but that's my point. Imagine a scenario where Duncan holds on to his "face of the franchise" mentality and takes the bulk of the offensive load those last few years, a la Kobe. Imagine he doesn't take those pay cuts and recruit Aldridge. Do you honestly think 1) Kawhi would have made this leap as quickly or 2) the Spurs would be playoff contenders without those they were able to sign *directly as a result of Duncan's pay cuts?*

[Gibson22]

Great discussion, but since there are not enough posts I propose to make my vote count

Why weren't you voting since the begining? This is a good question for you to understand if you should or not vote.

This is my last post about this since this is a great thread and I don't want to spam.
But seriously I'm not voting because I'm Italian and It would take a lot of time to partecipate as I would like to.
And for the same reason sometimes I write dumb stuff, but just because It would take some time to contribute appropriately, just for language reasons

[Jaivl]

Why weren't you voting since the begining? This is a good question for you to understand if you should or not vote.

This is my last post about this since this is a great thread and I don't want to spam.
But seriously I'm not voting because I'm Italian and It would take a lot of time to partecipate as I would like to.
And for the same reason sometimes I write dumb stuff, but just because It would take some time to contribute appropriately, just for language reasons

And I'm spaniard, João is portuguese, Lorak is from Germany iirc... C'mon, get on!

[THKNKG]

Some rebuttal.

I don't think your bolded statement is accurate. Consider, the Bucks were a 4.25 SRS team with Kareem as a rookie, and half the roster under the age of 24. Kareem was bound to improve, and most likely, so were his teammates. Without Oscar, at worst they would have been one of the best teams in 1971, and very possibly the best team,

For that matter, the Bucks improved significantly in 1971 on defense, which we must assume Kareem is more responsible for than Oscar. Especially given that players that season compared Kareem to Bill Russell defensively.

In 1975, Kareem missed a lot of games, but with him the Bucks were a 4.25 SRS team, compared to the 7.6 SRS team the year previous with Oscar. That's a difference of about 3 SRS. In your own words:

You're definitely spot on about 75; it was an oversight on my part, and I forgot he missed much of the season.

The line in bold is a strong statement and should really be argued.

Kareem's very best years were from 1970-80. In these ten years, 1971-74 and 1980 are the only seasons he had a clearly good supporting cast, though some investigation into those later Bucks teams may be needed. Otherwise, his teams varied from some of the worst I've seen, to having talent but terrible fit. The '76, and '77 Lakers are among the former. In 1979, the Lakers had some real offensive talent with Nixon, Wilkes, and Dantley, but the fit is terrible.

I don't think it's at all clear that Duncan played with inferior the majority of the time. My initial reaction would to think the opposite. Especially when coaching and fit are considered.

What I was meaning was not in terms of overall talent, because I think Kareem would be capable of regularly leading playoff teams with a reasonable supporting cast. What I mean is that Duncan's PS/Championship records are comparable to Kareem's, even though he had lower "heights" (completely agree that Kareem had lower "depths") ITO team makeup. Team ability scales, so the more talent w/ good fit you put on a roster, the more likely a championship is the outcome. So, what I meant was that Kareem had stronger viable championship opportunities due to being on teams with 2 top 10 players of all time (if you have Oscar top 10, that is), whereas Duncan never had that sort of supporting talent. Duncan's supporting cast was, on average, more consistently good, but Kareem had more team opportunities in which his cast was great (as well as having more where it was garbage). It comes close to averaging out to equal in my mind, but I find Duncan's winning resume more impressive. Also I think that talking about coaching and fit w/ regards to Duncan is a faulty perspective. Sure, fit and coaching have been phenomenal pluses, but he was the linchpin of all of it. Not the only factor, but the consensus of the team and those surrounding them was that Duncan was the main reason why it all worked. Dynasties in sports fall all the time, but his and Russell's didn't. I think that matters in a discussion as close as this one.

To be clear, I don't see fault in anything that you're arguing about in terms of Kareem. I think the top 7 or so is mega, mega close, and I'm also introducing a paradigm shift in the discussion with intangibles/leadership/etc., so I don't expect full agreement with me. I understand many don't value those portions of the game as much as I do. Thanks for the responses, I've really enjoyed your posts on Kareem thus far.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bill Russell

Alt: LeBron James

I don't like copying my arguments over and over again so let me know if there's something I don't mention here that you want to know.

There's been a lot of great conversation. Apparently not as many posts as last time but I'd say the quality of posts might be even stronger. I've been particularly glad to read great posts relating to Kareem-Walton by drza and others.

Real quick: drza mentioned that the arguments he was presented with didn't sway him at the time, but eventually they became the foundation for new conclusions. This is SO important for people to realize when they get frustrated over their inability to sway others. Influence isn't being able to bludgeon others into parroting you, it is seeping into their mind and enriching their perspective.

Alright now on Kareem, and admittedly quite influenced by my analysis involving him and Walton:

I think that the most effective players, much like the most effective people, have multiplicative impact because of their effects on others. Some combination of things about them cause those around him to play qualitatively superior than they would otherwise. It can happen because of the attention the player draws from the defense, the position he puts teammates in, the mood he puts teammates in, the habits he inspires others to make.

When I look at Kareem's Lakers and Walton's Blazers, only in the latter do I feel that multiplicative impact. Kareem is a cannon that periodically fires and causes damage, Walton is an accelerant.

Some of this is a difference in playing styles - motor vs mechanic - some of it was luck, but some of it is also personality.

Now, I expect to have Kareem at #4 on my list so don't let the direction of my emphasis fool you into thinking I kill Kareem in my rankings, but when I think about how good a player is without worrying about durability/longevity, I rank Walton ahead of him without hesitation at this point.

Would I rank Walton ahead of Russell? If I really, really ignore low minutes? I'm not sure.

[rebirthoftheM]

Spoiler:

have a whole writhing collection of thoughts bouncing around my head, and I don't have the time in this thread to organize and research them the way I'd like to before the deadline. So I'm just going to spill some of them out here in a somewhat rambling, hopefully not too incoherent way.....

On Kareem and Duncan (and others) and Impact
drza always presents some really intriguing and well-researched views, and once again he's nearly convinced me to make a wholesale change to the very foundation of my criteria, switching it to something that is almost entirely impact-based.

But then I think on it and still have some reservations about throwing all my eggs into that basket:
1) That basket has a few holes. Even the best of impact metrics (RAPM, generally PI for a guy in the middle of his prime) still has noise and the occasional questionable result, though obviously still [clearly, imo] the best pure indicator of on-court impact. Problem is going back in time (to pre-databall era players), the means we have of evaluating this get smaller and smaller (and more and more flawed, too); so any conclusions we draw from them are more and more questionable.
Not saying we shouldn't use them; not at all. I use them myself; just cautious about taking them at face-value (especially with the tiny samples often involved in things like WOWY, and the significant line-up noise considerations inherent).

2) There are other baskets; why should elevate the importance of the "impact basket" so high as to make the others near-negligible? I know most people say that winning is the only thing that matters, and how much a player contributes to his team's winning potential should therefore be our sole consideration. But I'm gonna play devil's advocate (because tbh, I DO feel this way to a small degree), and suggest that maybe winning isn't the only thing that matters. There is something to be said for guys that "fill up the boxscore" (particularly scoring), because (for the most part) those are the guys that drive the popularity of the game (especially if they're flashing perimeter scorers). Those are the guys that sell tickets, that sell merchandise, that kids imitate on courts all over the world, etc. The vastly expanded global popularity (and thus, player pool), which has resulted in the high player quality we enjoy today is a direct result of these "marketable" players. The Cousy's, Jordan's, Kobe's, Iverson's, Melo's, Curry's, even Cousins's of the game push the popularity to new generations of fans much more than the Thurmond's, DeBusschere's, Mutombo's, Big Ben's, Gobert's, or [sadly] even the Duncan's of the game. Not saying it's fair or right.....but it's true. And if the game isn't serially popular, the game doesn't evolve to the degree that it has.
fwiw, These "box-stuffers" are also the first players burgeoning fans are going to learn about (because they're populating the top spots in all-time leaderboards).

3) Is this "impact basket" telling me what I think it is? I'm referring to how well "impact" correlates with "player goodness".
I'm going to use Ben Wallace as an example. Big Ben, most of would probably agree, is on the shortlist for worst offensive players EVER to get significant playing time. And yet if he's so terrible on offense, why is his ORAPM in his prime typically more or less neutral (rarely even a tiny positive) or a small negative?
It's because all that was asked of him on that end was to hit the offense glass a bit, maybe run the floor in transition if the opportunity arose, and otherwise just don't do anything stupid like turn the ball over or [generally] shoot it at all. And they had the cast to put on the court with him who could bear the burden of the offense more or less without him. In other words, they managed to pretty well neutralize his offensive deficiencies.
Now let's take a really exaggerated hypothetical scenario in which Wallace is asked to shoulder 30+% usage. They say "we're basically gonna run our offense thru you, and give you the ball in low-post isolation as often as we can, and we want you to try and make something happen"........What do we think would happen to his impact metrics in this scenario? I'm guessing his ORAPM would fall to a [perhaps never before seen] ridiculously negative figure. And the added rub is: his DRAPM is likely to fall, too--->he's likely to be distracted (and in his case, frustrated) by his offensive responsibilities leaving him significantly less focused on defense; he's likely to be more fatigued due to his offensive responsibilities, leaving him less fresh on the defensive end; his offensive mishaps may lead to increased transition opportunities for the opponent which will be reflected in lowering the on-court DRtg; he might occasionally be late in getting back on transition D (due to making camp in the low-post on offense). All of these things may result in a 25-50% decrease (perhaps substantially more???) in his DRAPM.
So we've taken a guy who consistently had good [sporadically elite] impact as measured by RAPM, and turned him into a player who is a significant negative in on-court impact.

It's the same exact player. We've only changed his role/circumstance.

Now obviously this is a hyperbolic example. Rarely, if ever, has an NBA player been so misused. But make no mistake, other players (I daresay most players) are being misused to some degree: utilized in such a way that is NOT maximizing their player attributes, and/or they do not have teammates who can neutralize their short-comings.......and those more micro misuses will leave smaller negative imprints on our perception of their impact.

That is, imo, a really under-recognized reality when reviewing and comparing individuals based on impact indicators.

Now to Timmy's credit, I do believe he has a tremendous amount of portability (and I'd absolutely say it's superior to Kareem's); Walton's probably more portable, too.
But when we're comparing Kareem and Walton in terms of perceived impact, it's only fair to look at the circumstance.
Ramsay orchestrated a great team philosophy and offensive scheme. Walton's a very good scorer, but not necessarily a great one. But he's great at getting defensive stops and an excellent outlet passer, so Ramsay makes use of the fastest backcourt in the league that he has alongside him to ignite the transition game. This backcourt also includes some capable perimeter scorers in Hollins and Gross and fantastic [though low-volume] finishing and mid-range shooting guard in Twardzik, scoring depth in the backcourt with Steele, Gilliam, and Davis; so no one ever plays tired and they lose almost nothing in going to their bench. Also have a capable scorer at the PF in Lucas, who takes some criticism for shooting too many mid-range jumpers (same as later Blazer PF, LMA); but it's his willingness and ability to shoot out there if needed that opens up the paint for the quick cutting guards that Walton is hitting with passes from the pivot or elbow or low block. A lot of what they were doing in taking advantage of Walton's GOAT-level big man passing is actually dependent on Lucas having a bit more outside game.

This team is built almost perfect for a player like Walton. Maximizes his impact, imo (and on the flip-side, kinda sets them up to fail when he's NOT around).

How would you compare that to the '77 Lakers as constructed around Kareem? Cazzie Russell, Lucius Allen, and a streaky shooting rookie Earl Tatum are the only other even remotely capable scorers on that roster (none of them exactly "scaring" the other team), and Don Chaney was terrible on offense. They had no relevant play-maker, limited outside shooting (to give Kareem a bit more space to work on the block or have reliable shooters to kick to) except for Tatum, no stretch four to open up the paint, and a fairly unsophisticated offensive philosophy. Outside of Kermit Washington (who missed a third of the season) and Don Chaney, they weren't a good defensive supporting cast either.

An interesting question to ask is how do we feel they'd do if their roles were reversed? Personally, do I think Kareem could have done as well as Walton if playing in Walton's shoes in Portland that year? As far as on-court per minute impact, no, not quite. I don't see him as quite as good a defensive anchor, and marginally lesser passer, too (though obviously better scorer). otoh, Kareem isn't going to miss 17 rs games, and can provide provide more like 36+ mpg as opposed to the 32-34 mpg Walton was limited to (I speculate in part due to his sore knees).
So in terms of PER GAME impact?......maybe. Per SEASON impact?.......yes, possibly even more overall impact in the rs (I think they top 50 wins with Kareem). In the playoffs (where Walton was healthy and playing large minutes), I don't think Kareem can do quite as well as Walton did for them; but I still see them as potential favorites for the title.

Would Walton do as well with the '77 Lakers? Personally, I don't think so. He doesn't have the quickness, transition game, or scoring capability in the backcourt that he had at his disposal in Portland, he doesn't have a PF who can open up the paint either. He would have to become the classic back-to-the-basket big and just sort of do the best he could, and I don't think he can do that as well as Kareem (to sort of single-handedly carry them to a top 5 offense). And while I can't prove it ('cause Kareem didn't miss a game), I suspect this lackluster cast falls the hell apart in the 17 games Walton misses. Honestly, I could see this team missing the playoffs with Walton at the helm.

So anyway.....just so much context to impact, is what I'm saying.


'Dat Longevity!
Where impact is concerned in the Kareem vs Duncan debate......
Let's say Duncan is a roughly +6 per 100 possessions for his team over the course of his career, and we magically got some RAPM for Kareem which showed him to be an average of +4.8 per 100 over his career. Even going primarily by impact data, one could still perhaps side with Kareem by a hair. Due to the increased minutes, fewer missed games, and (since this is per possession) faster pace (resulting in more possessions per game), Kareem still comes out slightly on top in total career pt differential created: he played 21.3% MORE rs minutes than Duncan (which could amount to ~30+% more possessions played, due to faster pace).


Scarcity, Scaleability, and Additive-ness
I must admit these considerations are swaying me a bit on Duncan (and Russell). Don't think it's going to be enough to shift things for Russell on my ATL, but I am considering moving Duncan ahead of Lebron as my 2ndary pick here. Reconsidering all he's done as an off-court leader is playing a role in this, too.


There's a bunch more I wanted to discuss wrt Lebron and others, but I'm just out of time now.

Fantastic point by both you and DRZA...some other posters have produced some news clippings to explain the trajectory of Kareem's play and it doesn't appear to prove anything concretely about why his impact peaked/waned.

I did have a question... let's say hypothetically speaking, Bill Walton in that unicorn of his peak year actually advised/prodded his coach to run the offense/defense in the way that it was run? And what if Kareem never complained about the poor structure of his teams? Does that change your opinion on them?

See IMO, someone like Nash who had no problems with the anti-defense philosophy of Mike D'antoni, and as a result was generally happy with his team structure, should be punished in these comparisons, because he elected for a style of game and team structure that maximised his own offensive footprint whilst never reaching the finals (I mean just look the 05 suns- The Suns make the 05 Spurs look like a GOAT offensive team).

Or consider the opposite- Magic's demand that Westhead be removed. I have read some people here speak about Magic's demands in a negative light, but I don't see the logical reason for this. Westhead was hurting the team via the offense he wanted to run, and Magic as the leader took it upon himself to get things in order (and only after telling Westhead in private that the ish he was running was not working). None of the other Laker players stood with him during this period, although they all knew he was right.



I guess I'm wondering under what grounds should we give players free passes, or blame them for their poor team structures. This is important in any comparison about the impact of a given player.

I feel like in any serious GOAT comparison, the general decisions of a player off-the court (but still basketball related) should be very important. I feel like MJ's acceptance of Phil's Triangle offense, which vauled the 90s Bulls to echelons it never reached, was just as important as his actual on-court play (of which he was undoubtedly the offensive lead). What we saw in the 90s would have never happened if MJ decided he wanted to continue with Doug Collin's pathetic MJ extreme centric offense. And if MJ doesn't push Pippen in the way he did off-court and in training, perhaps Pippen never develops into the all-star he was.

[Joao Saraiva]

Great discussion, but since there are not enough posts I propose to make my vote count

Why weren't you voting since the begining? This is a good question for you to understand if you should or not vote.

This is my last post about this since this is a great thread and I don't want to spam.
But seriously I'm not voting because I'm Italian and It would take a lot of time to partecipate as I would like to.
And for the same reason sometimes I write dumb stuff, but just because It would take some time to contribute appropriately, just for language reasons

Come on man. If that's the reason you should definitely participate.

I didn't do it for most of the last one, and when I entered it I didn't feel good about it so I only did it like from #50 to #55, because I felt uneducated about 60s and 70s players.

Being italian has nothing to with good judgement. If you say dumb stuff sometimes? Well I do it too, and most posters too. Come on man, we could definitely use some more voters!

[trex_8063]

I guess I'll get my votes in before I forget.

1st pick: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Still going with the big man. I know that dominant scoring big man doesn't have the same offensive potential (impact-wise) as an elite perimeter offensive player, but it's not enough to shake me off of this pick. Someone like Shaq has certainly proven that a dominant scoring big can have a monstrous effect on a team's offense, and really he's about the only guy who MAY have been as unstoppable as Kareem (except Kareem was like that for longer).
And as the more I read (quotes from professional peers and journalistic impressions of the time period) and watching some Bucks Kareem recently, I'm even MORE impressed with his defense (at least up thru 1980).
I'm REALLY looking forward to whatever regressions Blackmill is working on, fwiw. But for now, although I've been given a lot to think about and will be looking more into some of this, I'm sticking with this pick.

2nd pick: ?????
A few days ago, I was pretty sure it was Lebron James. Now I'm really waffling and giving serious consideration to giving it to Tim Duncan.
It's largely been the discussions and subsequent considerations about scarcity and additive-ness (the "anti-redundancy", if you will) nature of defensive contributions, as well as considerations of how scaleable impact is for certain players that have me considering this switch.
James is an absolute monster in both box-based production and efficiency AND impact. But I do wonder if his impact is more tailored toward raising the floor as opposed to the ceiling (this being the redundancy concern on talented teams). otoh, we've seen presumably talented [offensively] casts fall of a cliff without him in recent years. I don't know if this is because they've become accustomed to relying on him, and if so, how much [if any??] of that is his fault. I mean, guys like Love and Kyrie are good enough and veteran enough they should be able to at least have the team tread water when Lebron sits; but instead the team seems to sink without him.

So idk. I'm going to think on it a little longer, and will make a decision before the deadline.

EDIT: I've decided I'm still going to go with Lebron James for second pick.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #118:

Kareem - 12
Russell - 8
Lebron - 2
Duncan - 1

Deadline for this thread is tomorrow morning (about 12-14 hours from now).

@ Pocky Candy - Though I've included your pick in the tally above, I still need at least some cursory arguments to officially count your vote come the deadline.

@ drza and Texas Chuck - I need you to specify your 2nd pick.

There are a few of you who have been active itt, but not yet actually stated their picks that I have seen (eminence, kayess).

Everybody else please get in and be heard; you've got a little over 12 hours.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Jim Naismith]

Lorak is from Germany

falsch