People were interested in these podcasts
Play Episode
60min
RealGM Radio
Wild Pacers Comeback & Timberwolves Game 2 Adjustments (with Dane Moore)
Wes Goldberg reacts to a wild Indiana Pacers comeback in Game 1 vs the New York Knicks, Tyrese Haliburton's almost-game winner, and what went wrong for the Knicks down the stretch (0:44). Then he's joined by Dane Moore (The Dane Moore NBA Podcast) to discuss some adjustments the Minnesota Timberwolves can make ahead of Game 2 against the Oklahoma City Thunder (12:28). RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Why the Knicks Made the Right Move to Fire Tom Thibodeau
The New York Knicks fired Tom Thibodeau as head coach this week. Wes Goldberg explains why Thibodeau didn't deserve to get fired, but why it will ultimately be the right move for the Knicks. ____________________________________________ RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
NBA Contender Tiers with Matt Moore
Wes Goldberg and Matt Moore rank every NBA team in terms of whether or not they are a contender after the first wave of free agency. #nba 0:00 Intro 7:00 Thunder 9:51 Rockets 16:34 Nuggets 18:43 Cavs and Knicks 29:27 Spurs 32:00 Timberwolves 37:48 Magic 41:22 Pistons 49:02 Bucks 52:13 Lakers & LeBron trade ideas 1:00:47 Mavericks 1:03:59 Pacers 1:09:27 Heat 1:13:43 Pelicans 1:17:07 Bulls 1:20:54 Wizards and Hornets RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
RealGM Radio
Pacers Go Up 2-1 in NBA Finals
Wes Goldberg shares his takeaways and observations from the Indiana Pacers' win over the Oklahoma City Thunder in Game 3 of the NBA Finals, including Tyrese Haliburton's aggressiveness, the Pacers' defensive adjustments and where Shai Gilgeous-Alexander fell short. RealGM Radio is powered in part by North Station Media (CLNS). For advertising or media inquiries, contact info@clnsmedia.com 🔔 Like, comment, and subscribe for more NBA insights and analysis! Follow RealGM Twitter: https://x.com/RealGM Follow Wes Goldberg Twitter: https://x.com/wcgoldberg PrizePicks: PrizePicks is the best place to get real money sports action. With over 10 million members and billions of dollars in awarded winnings, PrizePicks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. You just pick MORE or LESS on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1000x your cash! Run Your Game all season long on PrizePicks. Download the app today and use code CLNS to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup! Gametime: Take the guesswork out of buying tickets with Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code CLNS for $20 off your first purchase. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 (Bill Russell)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,234
And1: 97,923
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#101 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:28 pm

70sFan wrote:What is your take on 2001 and 2003 Dallas teams through "modern lenses"?


Nellie a much more "modern" coach than Avery for starters. 01 is tricky because this was year 1 of Dirk as a star and to ensure a playoff berth Dallas traded a bunch of flim and flam mid-season for Juwan and by the playoffs were playing a tiny rotation of Dirk, Fin, and Juwan effectively playing the entire game, Nash a bit less, and then running out some Bradley/Eisley/Booth to fill that 5th slot.

So pretty modern in that Dirk played quite a bit of center and they just went with a core of 4 offensive-minded guys.

2003 to me is the team that really shows a path towards today's game. Juwan has been traded for Raef and Van Exel. Raef is really the modern big teams want. He could provide some rim protection and take centers out beyond the 3-pt line. Van Exel and Nash played together a ton having two creators on the court. Finley is starting his transition to being more of jump shooter and 3-pt specialist that he becomes soon after this and Dirk is taking the most 3's of his prime life--and the last year he does this btw. Team as a whole is 2nd in 3PGA and 3rd in percentage though with paltry attempts compared to today.

I always wonder if Raef's knees don't force the trade and if they keep Raja Bell what that team could have done the following year. Keeping Raja as the missing 3&D element along with adding Howard and Daniels really would have set them on a great course.

To me 2003 is the 2nd best team in Mavericks history--better even than the 67 win 07 team and the 06 team within 2 games of the Finals. The only thing that gives me pause is clearly Dirk is better in 06 and 07, but the talent around him in 03 is just so much better and Nellie while flawed a better coach than Avery--as we painfully see in 07.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,937
And1: 21,856
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#102 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:38 pm

Blackmill wrote:
70sFan wrote:Since we've got some outstanding posts about KG, I wouldn't be myself if I didn't try to make Duncan case here ;)

A lot of people think that Duncan was less than ideal defender for pace and space era. I want to counter that with his performance in 2007 against Phoenix Suns - a team that played modern style of basketball over 10 years ago.

Spoiler:


One of the first possessions in the game - Stoudemire goes to the other side of the floor, but Oberto stays and collides with Duncan. Nash quickly realized that there is a breakdown on defense and tries to take advantage of it. Duncan reads this situation well though - he pushes Oberto to put him in front of Nash and he reads Nash pass to Stoudemire quick enough that he's already in position to contest Amar'e shot (he blocked it).



Notice Spurs P&R defense - Oberto stays on Nash, while Duncan helps on Amar'e. Nash finds Thomas, but Duncan is already there. Suns have to reset the action now.



Nash tries to take Duncan on P&R, but Duncan shows excellent way to defend in drop coverage - he's always in position to help on Nash and he quickly recovers on Thomas (which led to traveling violation). Notice how Duncan's length made Nash not even trying to shoot inside.



Another try from Nash, Duncan stays well on his feet against him but Bowen stays on powerful screen and Nash makes a nice pass that led to Oberto foul.

I won't show every P&R action Duncan defends well, but Nash trying to exploit Duncan didn't work in that game.



Nash tries to take advantage of unset Spurs defense, but Duncan blocks his shot with ease. Focus on how Duncan tried to keep blocked ball inbouds.



Look how during the drive Duncan forced Nash pass with his reaction - normally it'd be pass to Stoudemire, but Duncan made subtle move toward him, so Nash passed to "open" Thomas, but Duncan quickly came back and blocked his shot. These kind of plays are the kind of defensive manipulation Russell talked so much about.



This is the kind of inside pressence that very few players could touch. Amar'e got a great position on Duncan, but Duncan almost blocked his shot anyway while not leaving the floor (he was soooo long). Then he contests Marion putback very well.




Another examples when Duncan's pressence alone made him successful inside. Even magishian like Nash and monster like Amar'e felt uncomfortable inside.



This time he defends drives from both Nash and Amar'e in the same action.

It's all from the first half, but you can see that (past physical prime) Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.



I like the film evidence! Hopefully there's most posts like this.

I watched some of those Spurs vs Suns games trying to decide when to vote for Duncan. One thing I walked away with was, although the Suns are credited for pioneering the space-and-pace offense, they still played very differently. One major difference is that Nash didn't take the open three against drop coverage defense as much as modern shooters do. The Suns also played a starting lineup with only one knockdown three-point shooter for Nash to pass to. I think the 2006 Mavericks have closer resemblance to modern teams and did more to challenge the Spurs' defense than the 2007 Suns.

So I tend to agree with your conclusion

Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.


But I also think Duncan having this type of impact would be much more difficult if the 2007 Suns actually played like a modern team rather than like a precursor to a modern team.


Just thought I'd note that in each of D'Antoni's NBA coaching stints (Den, Phx, NY, LA, Hou), the team showed a leap in 3PA of about 10 per game compared to the previous year. I find this pretty telling in terms of player mentality inertia as I seriously doubt that D'Antoni at any time was tacking his players backward ("No, you can't take that kind of awful 3! Stop it!") only to explicitly change his mind on the next team.

I think that what happens with D'Antoni is that players who are receptive to his philosophy tend get to have their compass shifted some quantum amount along the lines of "Y'know, I had thought about taking this shot before but thought it was crazy, maybe I should try it?" as opposed to a more fervent "Must take THREEEZZZZZZ!" level.

I think Nash was trying to take "more 3's" at the time but still very clearly had a sense of not wanting to be a chucker. He earned his leadership cred with the way he feeds his guys and so he was always trying to be careful not to strike them as selfish.

I wonder what would have happened if D'Antoni had actually gone in their with numbers and said "Last year we shot 15 3's per game. This year we're shooting 25 and our offense is way better. You might think we're pushing the brink of what's possible but I'm here to tell you we don't know what's possible. Remember that you only have to hit 1 in 3 3's to match a 50 FG%. It may well be possible to take 40 3's a game and still be better than that! So I want you to take even more 3's and let's just see what we're capable of."

Tangent, when Nash acknowledges that he should have shot more 3's people tend to extrapolate that more broadly he should have looked to score more, but I actually think his sense of shooting-passing balance was close to perfectly precise. Knowing what we know now about how guys can hit 3's, he should have taken more 3's and this would have led to greater scoring to a degree, but then defenses would adjust and he'd end up at a new equilibrium with a similar balance based on his newfound gravitational pull.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#103 » by ardee » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:38 pm

1. Bill Russell

I remember when I joined RealGM and didn't have much of an opinion of him. It was actually Doctor MJ's posts that completely changed my view. The issue with evaluating Russell is a lot of casual fans believe that defensive impact has an artificial ceiling on it and there was NO WAY that Russell was good enough on defense to make up for his offense in comparisons with the Jordans, Kareems and Wilts of the world.

It is quite simply not true, and the evidence is in the Celtics' results despite the circumstances. Contrary to popular belief, most of Russell's teammates were NOT anything but subpar on offense. Cousy was extremely inefficient despite having some nice moves for his time, Sam Jones was probably a mid level All-Star at best, and Hondo didn't come into his prime until the very end of Russell's career. The rest of the team was just not very good, and the team STILL won 11 of 13 rings largely on defense, and that was all Russell.

To put it simply, it's hard to imagine someone could be so good on defense that he just made the offensive side of the ball irrelevant, but that is pretty much what Russ did. This is really what he should have his reputation for, and not just winning.

I used to have him no.1 but I rethought my criteria and realize if I wanted to use career value as a consistent criteria it's difficult for me to justify him being that high. I think his average season is certainly comparable to the other 4 guys in contention (LeBron, Jordan, Kareem and Wilt) but certainly does not provide enough value to put his career value higher than the first 3 due to his shorter career.

2. Wilt Chamberlain

3. Shaquille O'Neal
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,937
And1: 21,856
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#104 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:45 pm

Ambrose wrote:Why do you think Russell is a better passer/creator for others than Duncan?


I'll just point out that Russell was operating as more of a passer/creator for others than Duncan. It begins with the fast breaks he'd ignore with his blocks/rebounds leading to kick outs. Then later in his career he played something of a point center role working further away from the basket.

You can argue that perhaps Duncan could have done this too, but facilitation was part of what Russell was known for.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,132
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#105 » by Owly » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:55 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
LA Bird wrote:The Celtics were an elite playoffs offense with trash defense until Russell came along and then they became a poor playoffs offense with elite defense. There is a clear offense-defense tradeoff and while they certainly won that exchange, the offensive decline is not insignificant. If Russell was really mostly responsible for all that defensive improvement and not much of the blame for the offensive decline, he should be rating out with GOAT impact by far immediately upon his arrival but as we have seen from his rookie season WOWY (+1.5 MOV difference), this was not the case.


I do want to point out that the Celtics traded away Ed Macauley to get Russell.

Macauley can be argued to have been the Celtics best offensive player, and was certainly an essential part of the Celtics' offensive dynasty.

Worth noting also Macauley played center for the Celtics. So when you think of Russell "hurting the offense", make sure to put the caveat "hurting the offense in comparison to one of the great offensive 5's of the era". The fact that people would even say that rookie Russell matched Macauley overall would by itself be kind of an amazing success. The fact that everyone thinks the team got considerably better with Russell is of course a much bigger deal still.

Edit to add a bkref link:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1956_adj_shooting.html

That's the leader board for TS Add in '55-56. You'll see that Macauley ranks 6th in the league just behind teammate Sharman. Go back to previous years and Macauley is even stronger - which granted you could argue he was on the back half of his career, but just saying Macauley was a big deal.

The counterweight to this point (arguably supported by Boston's start in '57 with Heinsohn, without Macauley [and no arrival yet of Russell or Ramsey, nor fwiw Hagan, who was set to arrive but packaged in the Russell deal] and with hodgepodge of centers/bigs - without digging deep into the offense defense splits) is that Macauley might have been giving it all back (and more) on D. He's listed as 6-8, 185 on basketball-reference, I've seen 190 in Sachare's HoF affiliated 100 Greatest Basketball Players of All Time.

An imperfect source but Robert Kalich's Basketball Rating Handbook (from 1969, but encompassing some retired legends) rated his D as a 3 out of 10. And I guess those ratings are something like at peak (Oscar scores 147 out of 150 total - i.e. across 15 categories).

He arrival doesn't seem to directly hurt the Hawks D at least in the rankings.

Net (can't always get O-D splists) upon arrival in the league his team gets worse despite his efficient scoring from day 1 (and league expansion). They had retained their three most productive WS players from the previous season. Celtics do get better with his arrival, but not massively so (-1.74 SRS to -0.41 SRS), from a low baseline and they add Cousy and Auerbach at the same time.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,132
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#106 » by Owly » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:00 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Ambrose wrote:Why do you think Russell is a better passer/creator for others than Duncan?


I'll just point out that Russell was operating as more of a passer/creator for others than Duncan. It begins with the fast breaks he'd ignore with his blocks/rebounds leading to kick outs. Then later in his career he played something of a point center role working further away from the basket.

You can argue that perhaps Duncan could have done this too, but facilitation was part of what Russell was known for.

Hmm. "Known for".

I don't know.

The pro-Russell stance is typically along the lines of: Boston is all D. Russell is the D. Cast is overrated, whatever their reputations. [Their] Offense is overrated. Maybe it's just me but it's a but hard to then pivot to "Russell was known for" being the facilitator of this .... (not so great?) .... offense.
Blackmill
Senior
Posts: 666
And1: 720
Joined: May 03, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#107 » by Blackmill » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:12 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Blackmill wrote: I think the 2006 Mavericks have closer resemblance to modern teams


Would love for you to expand on that. Dallas surrounded Dirk that year with 2 very traditional big bodied centers in Damp/Diop. Teams today rarely play one of these types of centers much less two. Neither was a rim runner and neither spaced the floor. Now they did play some with Van Horn and Dirk together which is modern, but they didn't go to that a lot. Beyond that Howard was in some ways a modern wing with his ability to play both forward spots, but he lived in the mid-range and took 1 3 a game. Beyond that Griffin, Harris, Daniels and Stackhouse played nothing like modern wings or perimeter players.

And finally of course Avery Johnson ran really basic stuff that only worked because Dirk is at the peak of his physical powers making all that somehow work. I have that very much an old school team playing old school basketball with a freak in Dirk who let them get away with that.

This is also an example of a Dirk roster that gets called "stacked" but when you really look at its remarkable this core won over 60 games in b2b years and went to the Finals. To me it shows just how underrated Dirk gets as a guy who who we all know sets a very high floor, but also can take a team to the highest of ceilings with relatively underwhelming talent. Dallas didn't have so much as a real all-star next to him in this time frame.


Maybe I needed to word that more clearly. I'm not saying they were modern. I'm saying how the Mavs pressed on weak spots in the Spurs defense was more modern. They did a better job at exploiting mismatches, getting the Spurs defense moving, and limiting Duncan's role as a free safety defender.

Here's a play that shows off some of this. The Mavericks use two screens to get Dirk a mismatch, which forces to Duncan to help outside the paint, then Harris cuts from the weak side to the basket. Duncan needs to defend this with his momentum going the wrong way and it's a layup.



Reading your response, I feel like you think I've diminished or attacked Dirk. I'm not sure why. I wrote one sentence about the Mavs and didn't even touch on Dirk's importance to the Mavs or the quality of his supporting cast. I just want to clarify that I think Dirk was phenomenal and a big part of why the Mavs did better than the Suns against the Spurs was because Dirk was a better player than Nash.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,132
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#108 » by Owly » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:14 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:To me 2003 is the 2nd best team in Mavericks history--better even than the 67 win 07 team and the 06 team within 2 games of the Finals. The only thing that gives me pause is clearly Dirk is better in 06 and 07, but the talent around him in 03 is just so much better and Nellie while flawed a better coach than Avery--as we painfully see in 07.

Counterpoint (and I don't think Avery is a great coach) Avery coaching the '05 Mavs has one of the top WoWY scores on the old ElGee spreadsheet, for some context he's immediately below '11 Nowitzki and '78 Walton and tied with '05 Duncan. I'd argue they both (especially later Nellie) have some glaring weaknesses (as well as some significant strengths). Johnson did massively better with the same roster (I don't know about health, "Avery in" is a small sample, maybe Avery is better as the "rah rah" leader guy running someone else's schemes or some such).
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 21,271
And1: 19,800
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#109 » by Hal14 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:26 pm

Ambrose wrote:
Hal14 wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:Duncan has a clear edge with comfortable separation from Russell as an offensive player.

Not sure about Duncan being a better offensive player. Sure, Duncan might be a better SCORER, but a) Russell didn't look to score all of the time by design. He was more focused on winning than scoring. Russell knew that it didn't matter what benefited HIM more - what mattered was what benefitted the TEAM more. That's why he focused less on scoring and more on getting the ball to his teammates, maximizing his teammates abilities and helping them to be in positions where THEY could score. As Russell was quoted as saying, "Wilt's teammates fed him the ball...I fed my teammates" and b) When Russell had to score, he could. If you watch film of him, you'll see him effortlessly make tough running hook shots across the lane - with either hand. You'll see him hit turnaround jumpers from 15-18 feet away, you'll see him finish on the break. Sprinting like a deer up court on the break to beat his man down the court so he could finish in transition is one facet of offense where Russell was clearly better than Duncan. Russell finishing on the break and starting the break (with his blocks, steals or rebounds and lightning quick and accurate outlet passes) is what usually started the Celtics fast break which is also part of being an offensive player. Again, Russell can score when the team needed him to, like in game 7 of the 1962 NBA finals where he scored 30 points - and had 40 rebounds!

Even if after all of that you still think Duncan was a better offensive player, the gap can't be very large. And I'd argue that Russell has the edge in passing, rebounding and defense. Those are 3 pretty darn important facets of the game if we're talking about big men.

And most important is their impact on winning. Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games. He won back to back titles in his last 2 high school seasons, he won back to back titles in his last 2 college seasons, he won an Olympic gold medal and:

Russell
11 titles in 13 seasons (85%)
5 MVPs in 13 seasons (38%)
9 Finals MVPs in 13 seasons (69%) I am saying that 1957 Cousy would have barely edged out Russell for Finals MVP, of course West won it in 1969 but I am saying that Russell would have likely been finals MVP during each of the other 9 seasons he won a title which is a safe bet.

Duncan
5 titles in 19 seasons (26%)
2 MVPs in 19 seasons (11%)
3 Finals MVPs in 19 seasons (16%)

So Russell was more than 3x more likely to win the title, he was more than 3x more likely to win MVP and he was more than 4x more likely to win finals MVP. It's not even close!

Also, if you look at how much better the Celtics got once they added Russell vs how much better the Spurs got once they added Duncan, that also favors Russell. Let's of course through out the 96-97 season for the Spurs, which is of course an anomaly since Robinson missed virtually the whole season to injury.

So we're now considering 95-96 to be the last season for the Spurs before Duncan. They went 59-23 that year, falling in 6 games to the Jazz in the western conference semi-finals. In Duncan's rookie year in 97-98, the Spurs actually got worse - they went 56-26 and lost in only 5 games to the Jazz in the western conference semi-finals.

Meanwhile, the Celtics in the last season before Russell only went 39-33, losing in the eastern division semi-finals. Then in Russell's rookie year, they went 44-28 (so they went from 6 games over .500 to 16 games over .500) and won the NBA title. So clearly Russell made a huge difference.

Ainosterhaspie wrote:Duncan also has a longevity edge. It's not real large, but it's there.


When looking at longevity, either:

a) it should only factor in when comparing players from the same era. There's so many factors (advances in equipment, proper footwear, proper padding, taping of the ankles, strength and conditioning, weight training, nutrition, facilities, rule changes which eliminated hard fouls / hand checking, etc), all of which make it easier for a 60s player to have a longer career than a 50s player, a 70s player to have a longer career than a 60s player, etc.

Or

b) You factor in longevity, even when comparing players of different eras, but you must for the difference in eras by strictly looking at the strength of each player's longevity in relation to other players of their same era.

So for example, Duncan played from 97 to 2016. 19 seasons, which is really good, but not as difficult to play 19 seasons in his era. Also consider that he hung around a few extra seasons well past his prime, when he kept playing despite being a glorified role player at that point. Still, gotta give him credit because even in year 17 he was a pretty good reason why they won the title over the Heat.

Now, you compare that with Russell. Literally ever season of his career he was a highly effective player. By his 13th season, Duncan was down to only 31 minutes a game. In his 13th (and final) season, Russell was still going strong, averaging 43 minutes per game to go along with 19 rebounds, nearly doubling Duncan's total of 10 rebounds per game.



Why do you think Russell is a better passer/creator for others than Duncan?


Russell's assist numbers are higher, in terms of both career average for APG and career best season for APG....for both regular season and playoffs.

Plus he simply looked to pass more and get the ball to his teammates more. He was a pass first, shoot second player. When Duncan had the ball, he looked to shoot first, pass second.

Plus, while both players were good passing in the half court, Russell really had an edge in terms of being arguably the best ever (Unseld is the only other guy in the conversation) in terms of making great outlet passes to start the offense. Russell though, not only made great outlet passes to ignite the break, he was much better than Unseld at getting steals and blocks which led to him getting more opportunities to create those fast breaks with his outlet passes. So Russell's defense fueled his TEAM's offense, but specifically, his great defense fueled his great passing.
1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,937
And1: 21,856
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#110 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:36 pm

Owly wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Ambrose wrote:Why do you think Russell is a better passer/creator for others than Duncan?


I'll just point out that Russell was operating as more of a passer/creator for others than Duncan. It begins with the fast breaks he'd ignore with his blocks/rebounds leading to kick outs. Then later in his career he played something of a point center role working further away from the basket.

You can argue that perhaps Duncan could have done this too, but facilitation was part of what Russell was known for.

Hmm. "Known for".

I don't know.

The pro-Russell stance is typically along the lines of: Boston is all D. Russell is the D. Cast is overrated, whatever their reputations. [Their] Offense is overrated. Maybe it's just me but it's a but hard to then pivot to "Russell was known for" being the facilitator of this .... (not so great?) .... offense.


I mean, you can be unimpressed by his performance if you so evaluate, but he was a center who would eventually lead his team in assists. That speaks to what he was doing out there at least.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,593
And1: 3,328
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#111 » by LA Bird » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:38 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
Luck aside the rings argument have already been covered in the first part of the post you quoted already. They were statistically expected to win several more titles simply from the playoffs format alone. It's like if an eating contest changed the format from six inch subways to footlongs. Eating 10 six inch subways is impressive but it's the same as eating 5 foolongs. Just because both are sandwichs does not mean they are the same difficulty and 10>5. The same goes for titles won over 2 series vs 4 series. I don't see Russell's ring count as being any more impressive than Duncan's. They are both massive winners at the end of the day.



So, a few things about the playoff series that Boston played:

1. In every single playoff series except for 1, Russell faced a Top 100 player from the last list. The one series he faced DeBusschere, who received the most honorable mentions. Every series he faced a great player.

2. You play with the rules of the day. If you win in a league with no 3 pointers, you can't fault Russell for not shooting 3 pointers. If you play in a league that allows what would have been carrying the ball in the 60s, you can't fault Steph Curry. The Celtics won the championships under the rules at the time.

3. Russell lost twice; once hurt, once to the best team other than his in those 13 years. 27-2 in Series if I counted correctly. So if he would have played more series against worse teams, you think they would have lost how many more? He's beating 2 or 3 teams with Top 100 player each year. Any added opponents would not have a Top 100 player on it. So even if he played 4 rounds he still would have won.

4. So if you assume Russell has to play 4 rounds, do you then assume he doesn't retire, plays 5 more years, and wins oh, say 2 titles? Or maybe give him 2 years to high jump for the 72 Olympics (baseball has already been done) and he comes back in 72 and wins 5 titles more in a row? World is full of what-ifs, and I cant evaluate someone on what might have happened.

1. The number of top 100 players faced doesn't say much about the quality of a team. The 03 Wizards have Jordan and the 04 Cavs have LeBron but you can easily build a better team than both without a single player on the top 100 list. Russell played a lot of great players but in terms of top level teams, the Celtics didn't really have a legitimate challenger until the late 60s. (To be fair, you can argue they didn't have a championship threat precisely because they were too good, just like the 90s Bulls).

2. An award is not the same as the player examples you gave. If from next year the NBA decides to shorten each season to a monthly bubble tournament so that a "title" is awarded once every month, it is obviously going to be much easier for a player to win multiple titles then than it is now. You don't need to "fault" anyone in that situation to judge a title based on the circumstances it was won in. A title is an award that only has meaning through the contributions a player made for his team to win it and it loses all value when you remove the player element and boil it down to just the total ring count.

3. I see winning as more of a game of probabilities on a team level. If the win margin is small enough such that factors outside of his control can determine the outcome of the series, should a player be penalized for losing or rewarded for winning? You will probably say yes and I will say no so we will just agree to disagree.

4. I don't assume Russell have to play 4 rounds because that is not possible with the amount of teams in the league at the time. Instead, I am putting his ring count in context because a title then is not the same as a title now. Just as a title now would not mean the same thing if the NBA starts giving them out like candies in my previous monthly tournament example. If someone in the future plays under those rules and racks up 20 of these monthly "titles", it wouldn't make any sense to compare that number to LeBron's 4 as though the titles mean the same thing.
User avatar
Ainosterhaspie
Veteran
Posts: 2,681
And1: 2,778
Joined: Dec 13, 2017

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#112 » by Ainosterhaspie » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:10 pm

Hal14 wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:Duncan has a clear edge with comfortable separation from Russell as an offensive player.

Not sure about Duncan being a better offensive player. Sure, Duncan might be a better SCORER, but a) Russell didn't look to score all of the time by design. He was more focused on winning than scoring. Russell knew that it didn't matter what benefited HIM more - what mattered was what benefitted the TEAM more. That's why he focused less on scoring and more on getting the ball to his teammates, maximizing his teammates abilities and helping them to be in positions where THEY could score. As Russell was quoted as saying, "Wilt's teammates fed him the ball...I fed my teammates" and b) When Russell had to score, he could. If you watch film of him, you'll see him effortlessly make tough running hook shots across the lane - with either hand. You'll see him hit turnaround jumpers from 15-18 feet away, you'll see him finish on the break. Sprinting like a deer up court on the break to beat his man down the court so he could finish in transition is one facet of offense where Russell was clearly better than Duncan. Russell finishing on the break and starting the break (with his blocks, steals or rebounds and lightning quick and accurate outlet passes) is what usually started the Celtics fast break which is also part of being an offensive player. Again, Russell can score when the team needed him to, like in game 7 of the 1962 NBA finals where he scored 30 points - and had 40 rebounds!

Others here have looked at the offense of both including the effect in the team which is what I'm looking at more than individual stats and it seems to me there is clear separation between the two. Russell's offenses were not good and its not just because he had inadequate teammates. His deficiencies on that end seem to contribute. I'm fine with deferring to the team for the betterment of the team. Duncan exemplified that in 2014 with a team that torched the Heat in the finals on the offensive end. I'm not calling Duncan the main or even second most important piece of that offense. There may be good arguments for Leonard/Parker/Ginobli and even Green ahead of him, but he certainly played his role well with screens, passing and his own scoring. Even well past his offensive prime he could be a cog in a great offense. Is there an example like that for Russell. Duncan also has carry the offense out of necessity years. I don't think Russell has those.

That Russell at various times showed enough different moves to put together an offensive highlight reel means nothing to me. You can do that with just about any pro. It means nothing for what sort of consistent contributor they were.

Others here have given me doubts about Russell's passing. Much of it being simple and within a system rather, basic average at best, repeatable by many. Im not saying Dincan is a savant there, but I have no reason to have Russell ahead of him there. Others have also pointed out turnover issues for Russell. Maybe the problem is the Russell faction hasn't put enough effort into highlighting his offensive contributions, but what I've seen so far in these threads is a guy was an average offensive player at best, and one who may well have been a negative on that end. Duncan is better than that.

Ainosterhaspie wrote:Duncan also has a longevity edge. It's not real large, but it's there.


When looking at longevity, either:

a) it should only factor in when comparing players from the same era. There's so many factors (advances in equipment, proper footwear, proper padding, taping of the ankles, strength and conditioning, weight training, nutrition, facilities, rule changes which eliminated hard fouls / hand checking, etc), all of which make it easier for a 60s player to have a longer career than a 50s player, a 70s player to have a longer career than a 60s player, etc.

Or

b) You factor in longevity, even when comparing players of different eras, but you must for the difference in eras by strictly looking at the strength of each player's longevity in relation to other players of their same era.

So for example, Duncan played from 97 to 2016. 19 seasons, which is really good, but not as difficult to play 19 seasons in his era. Also consider that he hung around a few extra seasons well past his prime, when he kept playing despite being a glorified role player at that point. Still, gotta give him credit because even in year 17 he was a pretty good reason why they won the title over the Heat.

Now, you compare that with Russell. Literally ever season of his career he was a highly effective player. By his 13th season, Duncan was down to only 31 minutes a game. In his 13th (and final) season, Russell was still going strong, averaging 43 minutes per game to go along with 19 rebounds, nearly doubling Duncan's total of 10 rebounds per game.

Looking just at their longevity relative to others in their era, what other players back in Russell's era were playing for 13 seasons and averaging over 42 minutes a game for their career AND playing in as many playoff games as he did? Relative to others in his era, Russell's longevity was EXTREMELY high. One could argue he had better longevity relative to his era than Duncan. After all, one could rather easily rattle off a few names of dudes who can have an argument for better longevity than Duncan from his era (LeBron, Melo, Vince Carter, maybe even Kobe, etc.) of course there's also many more teams/players in Duncan's era so more dudes who have the chance to play a long time.

I did make an effort to consider longevity relative to era though didn't go real in depth with it. Looking at Russell's longevity, it doesn't stand out as an outlier for his era with guys like West, Wilt and Oscar in the same ballpark. Of the names you mention, only LeBron is worthy to be named with Duncan in this era for longevity. Melo and Carter managed to hang around the league well past their ability to make significant contributions to winning. That's not what I'm talking about with longevity. Kobe I'll credit more than those two, but still falls short of Duncan's meaningful longevity.

Kareem managed the current gold standard for longevity beginning just as Russell left the league. Malone and Stockon took up that torch, then Duncan and Now LeBron. I dont see Russell as his era's torch bearer in that regard.

Kareem's longevity which hasn't really been surpassed despite 30 years since his retirement gives me pause for the idea that we shouldn't compare accross eras. How do I separate out lack of longevity due to era versus lack simply due to an outlier not cropping up given that the legue was smaller at the time, or lack of a diverse enough game to withstand age and injury related decline. If Russell was more gifted offensively perhaps he plays longer and sets the longevity gold standard for his era. I think greater versatiluty contributed to the length of Duncan, LeBron and Kareem's careers.

I'm also highly skeptical of the no handchecking, hard fouls etc is why there are longer careers now line of argument since the differences in physicality are almost always significantly exaggerated with modern counter points largely ignored. Overt handchecking along with more subtle variations that achieve the same effect is ubiquitous in today's league and there are plenty of hard fouls to point to in today's "soft" league.
Only 7 Players in NBA history have 21,000 points, 5,750 assists and 5,750 rebounds. LeBron has double those numbers.
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,946
And1: 711
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#113 » by DQuinn1575 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:46 pm

LA Bird wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
Luck aside the rings argument have already been covered in the first part of the post you quoted already. They were statistically expected to win several more titles simply from the playoffs format alone. It's like if an eating contest changed the format from six inch subways to footlongs. Eating 10 six inch subways is impressive but it's the same as eating 5 foolongs. Just because both are sandwichs does not mean they are the same difficulty and 10>5. The same goes for titles won over 2 series vs 4 series. I don't see Russell's ring count as being any more impressive than Duncan's. They are both massive winners at the end of the day.



So, a few things about the playoff series that Boston played:

1. In every single playoff series except for 1, Russell faced a Top 100 player from the last list. The one series he faced DeBusschere, who received the most honorable mentions. Every series he faced a great player.

2. You play with the rules of the day. If you win in a league with no 3 pointers, you can't fault Russell for not shooting 3 pointers. If you play in a league that allows what would have been carrying the ball in the 60s, you can't fault Steph Curry. The Celtics won the championships under the rules at the time.

3. Russell lost twice; once hurt, once to the best team other than his in those 13 years. 27-2 in Series if I counted correctly. So if he would have played more series against worse teams, you think they would have lost how many more? He's beating 2 or 3 teams with Top 100 player each year. Any added opponents would not have a Top 100 player on it. So even if he played 4 rounds he still would have won.

4. So if you assume Russell has to play 4 rounds, do you then assume he doesn't retire, plays 5 more years, and wins oh, say 2 titles? Or maybe give him 2 years to high jump for the 72 Olympics (baseball has already been done) and he comes back in 72 and wins 5 titles more in a row? World is full of what-ifs, and I cant evaluate someone on what might have happened.

1. The number of top 100 players faced doesn't say much about the quality of a team. The 03 Wizards have Jordan and the 04 Cavs have LeBron but you can easily build a better team than both without a single player on the top 100 list. Russell played a lot of great players but in terms of top level teams, the Celtics didn't really have a legitimate challenger until the late 60s. (To be fair, you can argue they didn't have a championship threat precisely because they were too good, just like the 90s Bulls).

2. An award is not the same as the player examples you gave. If from next year the NBA decides to shorten each season to a monthly bubble tournament so that a "title" is awarded once every month, it is obviously going to be much easier for a player to win multiple titles then than it is now. You don't need to "fault" anyone in that situation to judge a title based on the circumstances it was won in. A title is an award that only has meaning through the contributions a player made for his team to win it and it loses all value when you remove the player element and boil it down to just the total ring count.

3. I see winning as more of a game of probabilities on a team level. If the win margin is small enough such that factors outside of his control can determine the outcome of the series, should a player be penalized for losing or rewarded for winning? You will probably say yes and I will say no so we will just agree to disagree.

4. I don't assume Russell have to play 4 rounds because that is not possible with the amount of teams in the league at the time. Instead, I am putting his ring count in context because a title then is not the same as a title now. Just as a title now would not mean the same thing if the NBA starts giving them out like candies in my previous monthly tournament example. If someone in the future plays under those rules and racks up 20 of these monthly "titles", it wouldn't make any sense to compare that number to LeBron's 4 as though the titles mean the same thing.



So the years you picked LeBron and MJ didn’t make the playoffs. Obviously having a top 100 player on a playoff team mean they were all great; they weren’t. It does so a certain level of skill and ability.

Russell was the yearly champ in the best league in he world. They didn’t do it monthly. You can argue the talent pool was less, but they won.

I was using probabilities. If Boston won 90% plus of their series against the best teams, they probably would have won series against lesser opponents. A 1 seed beating an 8 seed doesn’t make the championship that much harder if the 1 seed wins 95% (guessing too lazy to look right now).

You say a player shouldn’t be penalized for winning or losing, but that is not really a wideheld view. The top x players here will all have won a championship, and that number will be more than 12.
You make some good points, but I don’t see who you voted for. Can you please share?
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,515
And1: 8,156
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#114 » by trex_8063 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:15 am

70sFan wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:As there's been some on-going discussion regarding the relative dominance of Russell teams vs Duncan teams, one poster cautioning against cherry-picking ONLY the defensive dominance; and 70sFan has cautioned against using raw SRS across eras.......I decided to make a scaled SRS model (based on year-to-year standard deviation); I can try to do the same with net rating soon, though it should read much the same, I would think.

Anyway, below are the top 20 [rs] scaled SRS seasons between Russell/Duncan, in order (scaled SRS value in parentheses); the difference is sometimes in the 3rd decimal place. I'll let you all decide how you feel about the era in which they occur....

1. '57 Celtics (+9.771)
2. '07 Spurs (+9.767)
3. '16 Spurs (+9.247)
4. '65 Celtics (+8.752)
5. '05 Spurs (+8.584)
6. '62 Celtics (+8.275)
7. '04 Spurs (+8.258)
8. '06 Spurs (+7.955)
9. '01 Spurs (+7.914)
10. '60 Celtics (+7.849)
11. '14 Spurs (+7.402)
12. '63 Celtics (+7.321)
13. '99 Spurs (+7.269)
14. '58 Celtics (+7.207)
15. '67 Celtics (+6.845)
16. '02 Spurs (+6.797)
17. '12 Spurs (+6.783)
18. '61 Celtics (+6.751)
19. '64 Celtics (+6.611)
20. '13 Spurs (+6.550)


So a Russell Celtics team holds the top spot, though barely (and it's from the 50's), but a Tim Duncan team holds 11 of the top 20 (and 6 of the top 9).
Given the "Cousy left, and the Celtics got better" rhetoric is something that is frequently tossed around here, imo it's an interesting finding that SIX of the nine Russell teams that appear in this top 20 [including the best one, and 5 of their top 6] were teams from when Cousy was still around ('59 is the ONLY Cousy year that does not appear here). That was an unexpected finding.

Thank you, this is something I wanted to see.

As for 6 of 10 Spurs teams inside top 10 - well, it includes 2016 Spurs and as much as I love Duncan - he wasn't a driving forcr behind this team (not even close actually, even though he was still impactful player).


True, and I didn't mean to imply that he was the driving force behind that one. He was, however, probably roughly the 3rd-most important player on that roster. And at a glance, that's probably the one and only season in which he wasn't the most important player.


70sFan wrote:I think this shows that there isn't big margin in either way in terms of RS dominance.


More or less agree.

I should try to get around to a comparison of playoff SRS, but that requires a lot more work. For rs at least, bbref does a lot of the "work" for me.

Interesting side-note: I didn't ONLY do the Russell Celtics and the Duncan Spurs (just mostly what I did [for now]). But I actually did the entire league from '47-'69, and '98-'16.
Would you believe the '57 Celtics are actually the highest rs scaled SRS out of ALL of that [and the '07 Spurs are the 2nd among all]?

Not to derail, but you wanna know who 3rd and 4th are among those years?
3rd is the '47 Washington Capitals (+9.563), who did NOT win the title.
4th is the '56 Warriors (+9.389).
5th and 6th are the '16 and '15 [respectively] Warriors (obv the '16 Warriors also did not win the title).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#115 » by ardee » Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:39 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Owly wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
I'll just point out that Russell was operating as more of a passer/creator for others than Duncan. It begins with the fast breaks he'd ignore with his blocks/rebounds leading to kick outs. Then later in his career he played something of a point center role working further away from the basket.

You can argue that perhaps Duncan could have done this too, but facilitation was part of what Russell was known for.

Hmm. "Known for".

I don't know.

The pro-Russell stance is typically along the lines of: Boston is all D. Russell is the D. Cast is overrated, whatever their reputations. [Their] Offense is overrated. Maybe it's just me but it's a but hard to then pivot to "Russell was known for" being the facilitator of this .... (not so great?) .... offense.


I mean, you can be unimpressed by his performance if you so evaluate, but he was a center who would eventually lead his team in assists. That speaks to what he was doing out there at least.


I am voting for Russell here but if we're being consistent, we really shouldn't be giving the guy too much credit for being the leading assister on a consistently bottom offense (if I remember correctly they were pretty much last through the 60s). Kind of like Rondo in the early 10s.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,471
And1: 16,299
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#116 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:10 am

LA Bird wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:Disagree that they can be framed as falling short of all time dominance in any way.

Well then, how do the Russell Celtics rank in regular season SRS, postseason adjusted ratings or ELO compared to the Duncan Spurs? The Celtics were the most dominant defensive dynasty of all time but not the all time most dominant dynasty period.


I don't believe the Spurs are a golden standard for dominance. I understand calling the Celtics less dominant than Jordan's Bulls. But the Spurs didn't have a 65 W+ or 9 SRS+ season until Duncan's last year, and in terms of playoff performance I'm more bothered by their letdowns than the Celtics being pushed to Game 7s. They lost to an 8th seed, they lost a 2-0 lead to flawed Thunder team (as all those Thunder teams are due to Westbrook) after being on a 20 game win streak and title favorites, they lost to Clippers who in that era are maybe the all time best example of "pretender". This may all seem unfair since it's late in Duncan's career but if using his prime to me I'm not a fan of the 06 loss at all, Spurs have clearly better team and coach than the Mavs in my opinion, that era of the Mavs was overrated by their regular season success. They didn't have to lose to the Lakers in 04, even if I'm not sure the Spurs would have beat the Pistons anyways, the Lakers were flawed and made to be had by elite defensive team. They were swept in 01 which Russell never was. The Spurs to me are what you are describing the Celtics as, always great but when they were the best team it wasn't by that dominant of a margin. Some of these letdowns are not their fault but rather because they were as built for the regular season as any team in history due to their professionalism and consistency every game, I blame seasons like 2011, 2016, 2017 on overperforming the regular season as much as underperforming the playoffs.

I also have issues with the Spurs competition level, I feel 03-07 was legitimate down period (and 99-07 as a whole I guess even with Shaq/Kobe) all things considered which from a picking hairs perspective makes me think they left a capital D Dynasty instead of a small d dynasty on the table by not wining one of those 04 or 06 titles which would've given them a 3peat/4 out of 5 run. 2007 is one of my lowest value titles, one of the easiest WCF/Finals combinations in history, the Suns would have been worthy competition but got suspended.

Luck aside the rings argument have already been covered in the first part of the post you quoted already. They were statistically expected to win several more titles simply from the playoffs format alone. It's like if an eating contest changed the format from six inch subways to footlongs. Eating 10 six inch subways is impressive but it's the same as eating 5 foolongs. Just because both are sandwichs does not mean they are the same difficulty and 10>5. The same goes for titles won over 2 series vs 4 series. I don't see Russell's ring count as being any more impressive than Duncan's. They are both massive winners at the end of the day.


I feel the Celtics were lucky to get 11 titles for sure. From 66-69 in particular their regular season results are not as dominant and they pull it out by a hair routinely in the playoffs. However the 9 years before that they were the best regular season team every year and often with major point differentials. You can also say the year that they lost to the Hawks maybe they got unlucky.

The Celtics also just had some legitimately clutch players like Russell and Jones (again I have very few players in history I call legitimately clutch, and they are two of them. Like they might be two of the five most clutch players in history or something, this is a real factor in their success) and as has been said part of their strategy was to wear out opponents which could have benefitted them at the end of games and series.

I think the over/under for the Celtics is still probably a solid 8 or 9 titles or so. On the whole I can't see how anyone other than Jordan's Bulls have a case for most dominant team in history compared to their era than them. Those are the strongest dynasties in my opinion.

I don't even really care that much about ring counting but the Celtics not being dominant enough isn't the argument I'd use against Russell
Liberate The Zoomers
Ambrose
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,322
And1: 5,121
Joined: Jul 05, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#117 » by Ambrose » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:25 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Owly wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
I'll just point out that Russell was operating as more of a passer/creator for others than Duncan. It begins with the fast breaks he'd ignore with his blocks/rebounds leading to kick outs. Then later in his career he played something of a point center role working further away from the basket.

You can argue that perhaps Duncan could have done this too, but facilitation was part of what Russell was known for.

Hmm. "Known for".

I don't know.

The pro-Russell stance is typically along the lines of: Boston is all D. Russell is the D. Cast is overrated, whatever their reputations. [Their] Offense is overrated. Maybe it's just me but it's a but hard to then pivot to "Russell was known for" being the facilitator of this .... (not so great?) .... offense.


I mean, you can be unimpressed by his performance if you so evaluate, but he was a center who would eventually lead his team in assists. That speaks to what he was doing out there at least.


Is there any evidence that he provided any lift with those assist numbers? Is leading a bad offense in assists proof of good playmaking? I tend to doubt it especially when based off the data posted in the last few threads he was really turnover prone.
hardenASG13 wrote:They are better than the teammates of SGA, Giannis, Luka, Brunson, Curry etc. so far.
~Regarding Denver Nuggets, May 2025
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,471
And1: 16,299
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#118 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:33 am

trex_8063 wrote:As there's been some on-going discussion regarding the relative dominance of Russell teams vs Duncan teams, one poster cautioning against cherry-picking ONLY the defensive dominance; and 70sFan has cautioned against using raw SRS across eras.......I decided to make a scaled SRS model (based on year-to-year standard deviation); I can try to do the same with net rating soon, though it should read much the same, I would think.

Anyway, below are the top 20 [rs] scaled SRS seasons between Russell/Duncan, in order (scaled SRS value in parentheses); the difference is sometimes in the 3rd decimal place. I'll let you all decide how you feel about the era in which they occur....

1. '57 Celtics (+9.771)
2. '07 Spurs (+9.767)
3. '16 Spurs (+9.247)
4. '65 Celtics (+8.752)
5. '05 Spurs (+8.584)
6. '62 Celtics (+8.275)
7. '04 Spurs (+8.258)
8. '06 Spurs (+7.955)
9. '01 Spurs (+7.914)
10. '60 Celtics (+7.849)
11. '14 Spurs (+7.402)
12. '63 Celtics (+7.321)
13. '99 Spurs (+7.269)
14. '58 Celtics (+7.207)
15. '67 Celtics (+6.845)
16. '02 Spurs (+6.797)
17. '12 Spurs (+6.783)
18. '61 Celtics (+6.751)
19. '64 Celtics (+6.611)
20. '13 Spurs (+6.550)


It depends how you're defining dominate. If you went by the gap between them and everyone else most of the Celtics seasons would be the top ones.

65 Celtics 7.46 SRS, 2nd place 2.68, 3rd 2.04
07 Spurs 8.35 SRS, 2nd place 7.28, 3rd place 7.28

It's hard for me to say the Spurs have the more dominant season there (and that's with discounting W margin which heavily leans Celtics in this particular comparison)
Liberate The Zoomers
User avatar
RSCD3_
RealGM
Posts: 13,932
And1: 7,342
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#119 » by RSCD3_ » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:57 am

Apologies for missing the last one, busy times.

1. Tim Duncan

2. Magic Johnson

3. Bill Russell


Duncan ahead of Russell for the reasons stated in Thread #2, mainly his offensive abilities allowed his to provide higher impact across a breath of teams while still providing DPOY level defense, and even if I called equal out the differences, I would still have Duncan slightly ahead because of longevity.

Magic is ahead of Russell because I slightly value his offense more than Russell's defense and I feel that only scales once you invove the three ball more and more. I think he may be less portable arguably because he's best used as a #1 or having only one other major focus for offense but the difference is too big to ignore.

Russell is 3rd because at his prime he has more impact offensively and defensively combined, and a very steady prime for a long time than the rest of the players combined with a caveat to KG perhaps. He also can be super productive on any team and even with more spacing I feel he would still at absolute worst be a DPOY candidate, with the possibility that his offense can scale higher tpoo based on his size and mobility, he had a huge role on D in boston but I feel his offense is underrated and even then was under utilized
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.

Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back

Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,515
And1: 8,156
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 

Post#120 » by trex_8063 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:02 am

Dr Positivity wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:As there's been some on-going discussion regarding the relative dominance of Russell teams vs Duncan teams, one poster cautioning against cherry-picking ONLY the defensive dominance; and 70sFan has cautioned against using raw SRS across eras.......I decided to make a scaled SRS model (based on year-to-year standard deviation); I can try to do the same with net rating soon, though it should read much the same, I would think.

Anyway, below are the top 20 [rs] scaled SRS seasons between Russell/Duncan, in order (scaled SRS value in parentheses); the difference is sometimes in the 3rd decimal place. I'll let you all decide how you feel about the era in which they occur....

1. '57 Celtics (+9.771)
2. '07 Spurs (+9.767)
3. '16 Spurs (+9.247)
4. '65 Celtics (+8.752)
5. '05 Spurs (+8.584)
6. '62 Celtics (+8.275)
7. '04 Spurs (+8.258)
8. '06 Spurs (+7.955)
9. '01 Spurs (+7.914)
10. '60 Celtics (+7.849)
11. '14 Spurs (+7.402)
12. '63 Celtics (+7.321)
13. '99 Spurs (+7.269)
14. '58 Celtics (+7.207)
15. '67 Celtics (+6.845)
16. '02 Spurs (+6.797)
17. '12 Spurs (+6.783)
18. '61 Celtics (+6.751)
19. '64 Celtics (+6.611)
20. '13 Spurs (+6.550)


It depends how you're defining dominate. If you went by the gap between them and everyone else most of the Celtics seasons would be the top ones.

65 Celtics 7.46 SRS, 2nd place 2.68, 3rd 2.04
07 Spurs 8.35 SRS, 2nd place 7.28, 3rd place 7.28

It's hard for me to say the Spurs have the more dominant season there (and that's with discounting W margin which heavily leans Celtics in this particular comparison)


I'm not necessarily trying to "define" anything; I just ran the numbers, and this is how they came out.

While there isn't near as big a gap from #1 to #2 SRS in '07, note that in '65 sample (only 9 teams in league) there are THREE teams with an SRS > +2. All things being equal, in a 30-team league there should be 10 such teams.......but in fact there are only EIGHT in '07.

Also note STD takes into account deviation from the mean in the other [negative] direction. In '65 there were THREE teams (again: of nine total) with an SRS worse than -3. If all things are equal, in a 30-team league there should be 10; but there are in fact only nine in '07.
Also, there's one team worse than -5.0 SRS in '65, while [despite there being so many more teams] there isn't a single team as poor as -5.0 in '07.


At any rate [since you mentioned wins], I can do a quick scaled wins comparison (by the same methodology) between the '65 Celtics and the '07 Spurs [pro-rating the '65 Celtics to an 82-game schedule]........the Celtics do indeed come out ahead, but not by a tremendous margin:
'65 Celtics: 60.73 scaled wins
'07 Spurs: 58.54 scaled wins
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Return to Player Comparisons