Retro Player of the Year Project

[semi-sentient]

Which begs the question, what would the Wolves have looked like defensively with Russell instead of Garnett?

Can you imagine how awful that team would have been on offense?

[mopper8]

-everything you wrote-

Totally fair. I see your points, especially re: passing.

Part of it is that Bird's game is so much prettier you can see his basketball genius on the court by the way he plays while Duncan plays perfectly but not in a way you think "damn this guy is amazing has anyone else ever played at this level?"

Not to mention Bird has all the stories and clutch moments while with Duncan it's "he had 25/15/7/6 in game 6 of the finals" and when you actually watch the game it's just hook shots and passing out of the double to obviously open shooters. Not to downplay Duncan's passing ability he has good vision and will find cutters and shooters but Bird is one of those players that makes passes that aren't there. No look bounce pass between two defenders to Mchale who's wide open under the basket. Even when you see it you don't believe it happened and it actually takes time to sink in holy **** he actually did that.

It's more an aesthetic observation but I don't its totally devoid of on-court impact

I think this also comes back to watching recently vs remembering (and possibly glorifying) the past. Not saying that Bird wasn't a genius and didn't make a number of "holy s**t!" plays, cause he did. But those things stick out in the mind more, whereas like you said Duncan's style leads you to sometimes be surprised by his actual production. You watch the first half of a Spurs game in the early 00s, and Duncan seems like he's playing well and then you look at the box score and he has 20/12/3 in the half or whatever and you're shocked. I think you couple the fact that we tend to glorify the past some with the very stark contrast in aesthetics between the two and the two effects compound one another. Which goes back to this:

Also, compare the way Duncan steps up his game in the playoffs and had some of the most dominating games in recent memory on some of the biggest stages (the near quadruple-double in the Finals most obvious) vs Bird's very un-even playoff history.

This is worth repeating, and it's a big deal.

I agree. Which makes me think there might be something to the "glorification" thing.

23, 12, 3.5 and elite defense in 170 playoff games is pretty awesome.

Much easier to remember Bird's "holy s**t" moments than it is to remember some of the post-season struggles he had.

[Jimmy76]

Which begs the question, what would the Wolves have looked like defensively with Russell instead of Garnett?

Can you imagine how awful that team would have been on offense?

Even with this era's efficiency that 63 Celtics 92 team ortg might be reachable

[Doctor MJ]

I'm really enjoying this conversation. The type of thing I was hoping this project would bring out.

I've yet to take my experience in this project and formalize it by updating my GOAT rankings. With that said, analyzing Wilt so closely has been an eye-opening experience. The fact that Wilt's not going to really challenge Jordan & Kareem in POY shares is actually only a minor point compared to the point that Wilt really pretty obviously didn't live up to his potential for a variety of reasons, only some of which can be linked to anything that could be called a psychological "flaw". If someone in their GOAT rankings adjusts for the reasons that are "unfair" to Wilt, I can still see him being #1 on their list - but the fact that Wilt still pretty clearly had the 2nd best career of his era despite these problems, doesn't exactly say great things about the era.

Take Oscar. His team led the league in ORtg almost every year, so it's pretty natural to say "big stats + best team offense = all-time great level individual offense". However, in this era, offenses were horrendous by modern standards and having Oscar only lifted you a little bit above the pack. I tend to be very impressed by players who break molds, refusing to adhere to paradigms that later prove sub-optimal. Bill Russell is clearly one such player - was Oscar? Really not sure about that. Of course, I do tend to cut players slack based on their era, trying to understand how they would fit into today's game - but still, when the big improvement has come on offense, I'd really like to see signs of offensive players in the past dramatically shifting paradigms.

To the question of Russell's VORP if placed alongside modern big men, that's a good question and one that again brings up the paradigm-shifting. In Russell you had one of the high BBIQ guys ever, refusing to play like coaches wanted, and as a result setting the world on fire. Most big men wouldn't and couldn't do that. Russell's impact in modern times, I still think he'd stand out a great deal, but would be reduced both by changes in rules, and the fact it's now "obvious" to play more like he did. And now given that: How do I GOAT rank him? There's no one answer.

[Jimmy76]

The Duncan over Bird arguments are definitely compelling

but if I put Duncan over Bird im putting Shaq over Bird and giving serious consideration to Hakeem over Bird

Bird 9th on the all time list would definitely be something new

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

I'm not unwilling to take an unconventional view but taking a stop to look around before you get too far into the jungle is generally a good idea

[mopper8]

Also, Sedale, if I came off as insulting when using the term "fetishizing" in response to your posts, I apologize. None meant; your opinion is one I respect highly.

[drza]

Another dynamic I've observed in this project is that the further back we go, the fewer elite-caliber players we seemed to think there were. Now, that could be because of what Mopper was talking about with a smaller talent pool and less sophisticated game, or it could just be because most of us weren't watching directly so don't know enough about things. But I do notice that on the rankings site, there was more diversity of winners and also players receiving voting consideration in the 2000s than there was in any other decade. And the top-5s were changing en-masse on a year-to-year basis, as opposed to the past. Heck, we just finished a long run in which Russell, Wilt, Oscar and West were top-5 on everyone's ballot every year.

Whichever of the two hypotheses you think it supports, in the end I think that it goes into why we might glorify past players over present-day players. Either there was a bigger deficit between them and their contemporaries, or we've forgotten their contemporaries so it seems that there was a bigger gap.

That all goes into why I have a very hard time with all-time rankings, because I don't think there's a really good way to rank between eras. I'm comfortable saying that Russell and Wilt may have been the best of their era, Kareem the best of his, Magic and Bird the best of theirs, Mike and Hakeem the best of theirs, etc. But I just don't see any kind of valid way to compare Hakeem and Russell, for example, in a quantified way. We can have sports-bar conversations and describe their styles and who we think would have done better...or we can compare them to their contemporaries and stack accolades...but even that isn't really a control, for the very reasons that the league and the talent and the style-of-play are so fluid, the ways we measure the game so imperfect, the accolades so subjective and situation oriented, etc.

:Shrugs: I don't know if I really added anything to the conversation, but I tend to side more with the line of thought that led Mopper to post. I'm much more likely to pool the best-of-the-best by era and compare them than agree with the kinds of codified belief that there is a correct hierarchy of player ranking and that being higher on that all-time hierarchy means that one player would always have been more successful than another.

I certainly agree that Duncan, for example, could put his game and resume up and look anyone that's ever played in the eyes. Yeah Kareem has 6 MVPs to Duncan's 2...but if we reverse them, am I positive that this ratio would stay the same? No, for many and obvious reasons. And since I can't say that for sure, for the sake of comparing the two, does MVP or ring count really give me that much pertinent info across all of basketball history? I just don't think so, at least not enough for any kind of meaningful absolute rankings.

[penbeast0]

The difference in dRtg is blown way out of proportion. The Celtics had better defensive players than Wilt had as teammates, and their focus on defense was unprecidented, which Red has a hell of a lot to do with. Russell was no doubt the largest reason for that, but even great defensive anchors can have piss poor defensive teams if they don't have the right personnel and schemes implemented (see Garnett).

Saying he's not top 10 is taking it way too far. He still led a couple of title teams and dominated statistically (although some of his offensive numbers are inflated and in some cases quite empty), and he didn't consistently have the great coaching and/or supporting cast that Russell had. He definitely lacked the intangibles, but how far are you willing to drop him for that? Out of the top 10? That's being way too harsh.

Trouble is, you are just plain wrong according to everything I've ever read. Russell's early Celtic teammates were Cousy (weak), Sharman (solid), Sanders/Sam Jones (good/average), and Heinsohn (weak) plus super sixth man Frank Ramsey (average). Wilt's teammates in this period were Rodgers (similar rep to Cousy), Gola (very good), Arizin (solid), and whoever was playing PF that year (usually average) then Attles came in as their sixth man (good).

Late 60s Celtics had a lot more defensive talent around Russell but the Sixers had a lot more around Wilt too. KC Jones (outstanding), Sam Jones (average), Havlicek (outstanding), and Howell (weak) v. Wali Jones (good), Greer (above average), Walker (good), Cunningham (very good), and Luke Jackson (good).

It's not the teammates.

As for the Wilt v. Shaq issue; I haven't analyzed the team thing that well but individually, they were both dominant scorers with Wilt having the volume advantage pretty significantly (even with pace -- and maybe to the extent that his teammates all just stood around with the Warriors as Hannum said) and Shaq being more efficient (even relative to league though Wilt was leading or close to the top just about every year). Shaq was even the better passer despite Wilt having the big assist totals. But, Shaq was never a great rebounder despite his great size/strength advanage over just about everyone; Wilt was. Thus Wilt ranks higher in terms of individual dominance and individual skill sets.

[ronnymac2]

The Duncan over Bird arguments are definitely compelling

but if I put Duncan over Bird im putting Shaq over Bird and giving serious consideration to Hakeem over Bird

Bird 9th on the all time list would definitely be something new

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

Why is that new???!!!


Whoever said people prop up the past....Thank you very, very much. I'm a person who doesn't screw players over based on their era, but I definitely see people not giving certain present players a fair shake at cracking that bullcrap Immortal Six. That **** is finished. Depending on one's criteria, you can have a bunch of players right at the GOAT level. And it is not just the immortal six.

[mopper8]

Another dynamic I've observed in this project is that the further back we go, the fewer elite-caliber players we seemed to think there were. Now, that could be because of what Mopper was talking about with a smaller talent pool and less sophisticated game, or it could just be because most of us weren't watching directly so don't know enough about things. But I do notice that on the rankings site, there was more diversity of winners and also players receiving voting consideration in the 2000s than there was in any other decade. And the top-5s were changing en-masse on a year-to-year basis, as opposed to the past. Heck, we just finished a long run in which Russell, Wilt, Oscar and West were top-5 on everyone's ballot every year.

This is an important point that I wanted to quantify before I made, been meaning to count the names up. 6 different players have won a POY vote since Duncan entered the league, whereas some years in the 60s we didn't even have 6 players get votes (you had consensus top-5s). There is a valid question to that: is that a result of process, or a reflection of reality?

What would Duncan and Shaq's POY shares look like if they were only competing with 4-6 other guys in any given year for shares, rather than 8-10 or even 12. I mean, they might not change at all, because maybe those names are taking spots at the bottom and not really touching Shaq or TD's shares. I dunno.

[Sedale Threatt]

Also, Sedale, if I came off as insulting when using the term "fetishizing" in response to your posts, I apologize. None meant; your opinion is one I respect highly.

Oh no, not at all. I was quoting it because I got a kick out of it.

[Sedale Threatt]

Part of it is that Bird's game is so much prettier you can see his basketball genius on the court by the way he plays while Duncan plays perfectly but not in a way you think "damn this guy is amazing has anyone else ever played at this level?"

That's part of it too, which isn't fair to Duncan. But so it goes.

[Jimmy76]

The Duncan over Bird arguments are definitely compelling

but if I put Duncan over Bird im putting Shaq over Bird and giving serious consideration to Hakeem over Bird

Bird 9th on the all time list would definitely be something new

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

Why is that new???!!!


Whoever said people prop up the past....Thank you very, very much. I'm a person who doesn't screw players over based on their era, but I definitely see people not giving certain present players a fair shake at cracking that bullcrap Immortal Six. That **** is finished. Depending on one's criteria, you can have a bunch of players right at the GOAT level. And it is not just the immortal six.

I don't think anyone's suggesting the immortal six is untouchable

but just moving up the rankings a bit what about Duncan/Shaq over Magic?

[semi-sentient]

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

I don't know if I'd say there was much separation (as in big gap), but there is a clear separation. It's enough that I don't feel the need to rank them together like I did in the past.

Bird had a better 3-year peak, but I'd say that Magic had the best year with his 1986-87 season. As players they're hard to compare because they played different positions and had different roles, but Magic being a PG had a bigger impact on his teams offense, and the Showtime Lakers were probably the best offensive dynasty ever. Magic won 5 championships to Bird's 3, and won 2 out of 3 when the two went head-to-head (and could have easily been 3/3 had the '84 Lakers not choked). Both guys had 9 consecutive All-NBA 1st team selections, and Bird had a couple of All-Defense selections thrown in there. Bird won 3 consecutive MVP's, Magic won 3 in 4 years. Both guys were great leaders, incredibly smart, clutch, and had that "it" factor where you wanted them on the floor with the ball in the closing minutes.

Magic was without question the more consistent/better playoff performer, and to me that's what clearly separates them.

[ronnymac2]

The Duncan over Bird arguments are definitely compelling

but if I put Duncan over Bird im putting Shaq over Bird and giving serious consideration to Hakeem over Bird

Bird 9th on the all time list would definitely be something new

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

Why is that new???!!!


Whoever said people prop up the past....Thank you very, very much. I'm a person who doesn't screw players over based on their era, but I definitely see people not giving certain present players a fair shake at cracking that bullcrap Immortal Six. That **** is finished. Depending on one's criteria, you can have a bunch of players right at the GOAT level. And it is not just the immortal six.

I don't think anyone's suggesting the immortal six is untouchable

but just moving up the rankings a bit what about Duncan/Shaq over Magic?

I don't see why not.

I personally have Magic at four, with Shaq at five and Duncan at nine. That Shaq vs. Duncan disparity is VERY small though, because on any given day, I could have Shaq at eight, too. Hell, I'll put Magic at eight sometimes. Sometimes he's the GOAT.

The "competing in different eras" argument always made sense to me. That is why KAJ's MVP's mean little in comparison to Duncan's two or Bird's three or Shaq's one. I look at Wilt and Russell and can't help but notice that they have a stangle hold on their era. As do West and Oscar at their positions. It isn't like that in the more modern era. You have your normal constant threats like KG, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, etc. But sometimes, they get passed in favor of McGrady, Iverson, Dirk, Howard, Paul, Nash, etc, for any number of reasons.

Some of this has to do with how MVP voting went, as the media votes now. Some has to do with the media in general. Some has to do with the larger talent pool/more teams. I also think a factor is free agency. I understand that Red replaced pieces on Boston around Russ several times, but that gets much more difficult in times of free agency. If one year, Russell has a great supporting cast, but then his Hondo leaves, his Jones gets hurt, and his PF gets replaced by a talented team cancer, how is Russell doing the next year when the perception is that he was there for the two years, and his team went from 60 wins and a finals appearance to 39 wins in a weak conference? An extreme I know, but still....

[semi-sentient]

Trouble is, you are just plain wrong according to everything I've ever read. Russell's early Celtic teammates were Cousy (weak), Sharman (solid), Sanders/Sam Jones (good/average), and Heinsohn (weak) plus super sixth man Frank Ramsey (average). Wilt's teammates in this period were Rodgers (similar rep to Cousy), Gola (very good), Arizin (solid), and whoever was playing PF that year (usually average) then Attles came in as their sixth man (good).

Late 60s Celtics had a lot more defensive talent around Russell but the Sixers had a lot more around Wilt too. KC Jones (outstanding), Sam Jones (average), Havlicek (outstanding), and Howell (weak) v. Wali Jones (good), Greer (above average), Walker (good), Cunningham (very good), and Luke Jackson (good).

It's not the teammates.

If it's not teammates (and I didn't say it was just teammates, and I certainly wasn't implying that Wilt was better), then would you say that Garnett isn't in Duncan's league defensively? That's actually a more interesting comparison, seeing as how both of those guys had to carry their teams on both ends, whereas Russell didn't have to carry the Celtics offensively the way that Wilt had to carry his teams.

[Jimmy76]

I personally have Magic at four, with Shaq at five and Duncan at nine. That Shaq vs. Duncan disparity is VERY small though, because on any given day, I could have Shaq at eight, too. Hell, I'll put Magic at eight sometimes. Sometimes he's the GOAT.

Im like this with everything in my life

[mopper8]

Is there that much separation between Bird and Magic?

I don't know if I'd say there was much separation (as in big gap), but there is a clear separation. It's enough that I don't feel the need to rank them together like I did in the past.

-snip-

Magic was without question the more consistent/better playoff performer, and to me that's what clearly separates them.

Agreed. Also as I said before, I consider Magic the most unique player in history. Bird was in his own ways unique, but not nearly as mold-breaking as Magic, which matters to me (also a reason why sometimes I want to keep Russell above Duncan).

And that highlights another point: so lets say we assume that while the gap is small between the two, its still there. How does that end up as the difference between 3 and potentially 9 on an all-time list?

Well, because of my original points: there are a lot of players who were pretty damn good in their own right to play the game the last 20 years! I mean, if you have Magic 3rd and then Russell, Wilt, Duncan, Shaq in some order after him, and then Bird 8th, is that really that big a knock in Bird? That he's basically the 3rd best non big in history, but still behind the 5 best bigs in history?

Top-8 or top-10 doesn't sound nearly as prestigious as top-5 or The Immortal 6 or whatever, but we've had 20 years of all-NBA teams and MVPs and such since Bird left the league. Bird retired in 92 and since then, Hall of Famers have entered the league and played their entire career and then retired themselves, or are in Shaq's case, very near the end. Shaq could retire tomorrow and be a consensus top-10 player of all-time, and he's played his entire career after Bird retired.

I think part of it is that no matter how you order them, there really isn't a lot of breathing room between positions 4-9 (for me, at least).

[ronnymac2]

I personally have Magic at four, with Shaq at five and Duncan at nine. That Shaq vs. Duncan disparity is VERY small though, because on any given day, I could have Shaq at eight, too. Hell, I'll put Magic at eight sometimes. Sometimes he's the GOAT.

Im like this with everything in my life

Haha I do have my own GOAT list, but I like Mopper above me just said, these guys are so close to each other that learning something new about one of them or deciding one aspect of basketball is more important to you than another can and should change those rankings.

[drza]

IMO it's a ridiculous assumption that Garnett was worse defender in his physical prime playing over 40 MPG than as a 32-year old playing 30-35 MPG. personal preferences, I guess.

Of course that's a ridiculous assumption, but that was pretty much my point. No one is that impactful on defense where they can cover up for poor personnel to lead a good/great defensive team, yet a great offensive player can still elevate a team into being a good/great offensive teams without much support.

Which begs the question, what would the Wolves have looked like defensively with Russell instead of Garnett?

Can you imagine how awful that team would have been on offense?

I'm responding to these two together, because they touch on something else I've noted through this project: the assumption that because a certain player had certain circumstances over their career, their team results lead to universals truth about them. I don't buy it, especially in the modern game. For example, you compare Kobe's offense with KG's defense based on team ratings, but there are logical ways that comes up short. Especially when you acknowledge that KG in his 30s isn't a better defensive player than KG in his 20s, yet his team defensive ratings are clearly better.

Suppose, for example, that KG spent the entirety of his career on a team with an excellent defensive scheme. Suppose that he played with overall defensive talent pools over his career of similar caliber to what he has had in Boston. That even if the names changed, there were always solid-to-good defenders and a great defensive scheme. If that had happened, and we acknowledge that 20-something KG was the better defender, wouldn't his teams by-definition have run off a string of #1 defensive ratings over the past decade even if he weren't any better of a defender?

That's the logic fault at play. By team-results the KG in our example is a much, much better defender than the KG that was. But in reality, it's the same KG but in different circumstances. If the player can stay the same but his "value" and "impact" change based entirely upon his team and coach and front office, I'd argue that's a poor way to support an assertion.

As to the Russell question, as I alluded to in my last post there's no way to really make a great comparison across eras. But honestly, I seriously doubt that even Russell gets those Wolves teams to top-10 defenses. His perimeter defenders would still be a sieve, he would have a coach that actually designed defenses where his responsibility was to follow the ball and defend everyone then get the rebound, only team offenses are much more complex with different rules and even different styles of shooting down to even the arc. So Russell's no longer blocking 15 shots per game, more like 4, and since he can't defend everyone at once and teams are built to utilize the 3-point shot he gets overwhelmed just like anyone else would. Only now, since Russell in this world didn't anchor the greatest defensive dynasty we've ever seen, he's no longer considered the greatest defensive player ever. Now he's just a great defensive player, a regular on the All-Defense team, and APM suggests that his defense is off the charts. But his teams weren't dominant defensively, so he must not have been that ridiculous as a defender.

Again, I just don't agree with that line of logic.