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

[Jordan Syndrome]

Brandon?

Starbury? Admittedly Garnett was very young and Marbury was pretty immature himself but his talent level was All-Star level.

Wally Z made a couple all-star teams. Googs was all-star caliber and made an all-star team. Dirk played with 2* all-stars his entire career--Nash and Finley and we never ever go down this road. It's why I push back. It's a KG only narrative and its not even accurate.

*yes I am aware Josh Howard was an injury replacement during the 67 win team because they were kinda forced to and Kidd another injury replacement when the game was in Dallas and they were trying to honor his career.

You are all correct in different ways, I should have worded "All-star talent" differently to convey the point I was atrempting to make.

"Terrell Brandon"

Definitely close in 2000 with 4.3 BPM and 20 PER. Brandon made the all-star team in 96 and 97 where he was clearly better than he was in 2000 with Garnett.

"Starbury"

Never close to an all-star with Garnett. 0.0 and -0.1 BPM in his 2 years with Garnett and his ego prevented him from ever playing with a player "better than himself".

"Wally"

Sure, yet clearly superior players like Kevin Martin never sniffed an all-star.

"Googs"

Made all-star in 1997 right before Garnetts "prime" and didn't play in 1998 with Garnett.

What I should have said was "Garnett showed an ability to instantly mesh with "title contending perimeter talent" in every instance he had in his career with Cassell, Allen, and Pierce.

Not sure why Dirk is being brought up here? I didn't make my original comment to prop up Garnett by dismissing his teammates which, as Texas Chuck points out about Dirk, appears to be how he interpreted my post. Chuck, please read my entire post before taking a comment out of context.

edit: I didn't realize Garnett was so polarizing on this board.

[mailmp]

Like, people seem to grasp this concept when it comes to Karl Malone or Charles Barkley versus a Chris Bosh... I don't think anyone here will argue Chris Bosh being higher on an all-time list than Charles Barkley, even if we focus just on prime years... So basically people understand the concept that you can be a Top 3-5 player in the league for several years and only get to the Finals once in your career and lose, but that doesn't make you a worse player than Chris Bosh... So why do they find it so difficult to accept a concept that two players who are pretty evenly matched by most metrics, could potentially have wildly different TEAM results? The clue is in the emphasis.

Yes, very honest comparison to measure Malone and Barkley up with Bosh. That certainly is what Garnett detractors are saying, good analogy.

[Texas Chuck]

Not sure why Dirk is being brought up here? I didn't make my original comment to prop up Garnett by dismissing his teammates which, as Texas Chuck points out about Dirk, appears to be how he interpreted my post. Chuck, please read my entire post before taking a comment out of context.

I've been clear about this. I have Dirk and KG as peers. So when KG gets brought up I let everyone know from the jump I was going to bring up Dirk because I see them as being the same level player. And when we talk about poor KG never getting to play with good players, I'm going to point out Dirk didn't play with much high level talent either. Now he did have a far better organization, eventually better coaching with Carlisle, his owner paid a ton of tax to have depth while his career started after KG's making his own salary considerably less than KG's further creating a gap in the level of depth the Mavs had versus the Wolves and an ability to spend their way out of mistakes in ways the Wolves couldn't.

So I'm not suggesting that Dirk had a worse situation than KG did in Minnesota. He didn't. He had a better one. But what he never had was top end talent. Best player he played with was 03 Nash. A very good player mind you, but really similar to 04 Cassell who this thread has spent time minimizing. Never anything like Truth and Ray Allen. So if the KG story is going to be no top end talent I'm going to point out Dirk had even less top end talent, but it won't be a major discussion point when others are ready to get to Dirk.



I've been really pro-KG in this thread. But I find this line of reasoning not very compelling. David Robinson faced the same challenges, had even better team results with even a worse supporting cast, also has mind-blowing advanced stats where we have them. KG had it rougher than most all-time greats, but he is not alone despite the storyline created. He is not alone in his ability to provide great lift. He is not alone in not getting to spend much of his career with another star.

[penbeast0]

Like, people seem to grasp this concept when it comes to Karl Malone or Charles Barkley versus a Chris Bosh... I don't think anyone here will argue Chris Bosh being higher on an all-time list than Charles Barkley, even if we focus just on prime years... So basically people understand the concept that you can be a Top 3-5 player in the league for several years and only get to the Finals once in your career and lose, but that doesn't make you a worse player than Chris Bosh... So why do they find it so difficult to accept a concept that two players who are pretty evenly matched by most metrics, could potentially have wildly different TEAM results? The clue is in the emphasis.

Yes, very honest comparison to measure Malone and Barkley up with Bosh. That certainly is what Garnett detractors are saying, good analogy.

I don't think it is. I think it's more Karl Malone or Charles Barkley v. Dirk Nowitzki. Three guys roughly in the same tier talentwise but one of them led a title winner and two didn't. There are other differences too (and I have Karl Malone above Chucky and Dirk) but it's only a factor when the players are close enough to be a reasonable comparison. Unless you don't feel that Tim Duncan is in or close to the same tier talent wise as Kevin Garnett which I don't think even the strongest Garnett proponents are saying.

(edited to fix an obvious bad choice of words, thank you for pointing it out).

[Dutchball97]

I'm a bit confused about the argument about potential. If KG had a better supporting cast he would've done a lot better. So would everyone though.

He would've done a lot better in the 'winning' (key word) department, which is the main argument for the anti-Garnett crowd, but NOT the pro-Garnett crowd... The pro-Garnett crowd is just responding to the claim why he hasn't won more, not making their claims based on winning.

Isn't this about what they've actually shown us and not what they might've been able to do in more favorable environments.

Yes, and Garnett has shown us his impact was on par with Duncan's for most of their prime. With Duncan having an advantage from 1998 to about 2002, then being close from 2003-2006 (outside 2004 where KG had clear edge) and Garnett having the advantage from 2008 to possibly 2013...

And this is with Garnett's impact being more 'flexible'. What i mean by this, is that Garnett was able to produce/replicate a comparable or better level of impact through a wider variety of different team contexts/dynamics than Duncan. Duncan was always coached by Popovich, his teams were more talented on aggregate, the teammate turnover on his teams was less emphatic and affected by injuries, and finally Popovich put him on minutes restriction sooner in his career during the regular season.

Garnett reproduced league-leading levels of impact with different coaches, more radical system changes and less talented teams with more turnover.

And even then I'm not that confident that KG would've been able to take the Rockets to 2 championships in Hakeems place for example. Would he have won more championships than Wilt in the same situation? Maybe, but would he have done so with the knowledge about the game available at the time? Once again, very much doubt that. Would he have been as succesful with the Spurs if he and Duncan switched places? Maybe, but is it actually likely? Should it matter here?

There are plenty of ATG players in NBA history that you could insert into various situations in NBA history and they would've done better or worse, because it depends on the team context that's around them, as well as the strength of the competiton.

There's several ways of looking at the GOAT debate. You might look at it from a purely vacuum-centric standpoint of ''this is what happened in real time in this period, these are the teams that won, player X was the best player on this team, so that's why player X is the GOAT''...

Personally, i realize that there are a lot more variables outside a singular players control that affect their chances of having a largely winning career... I won't waste time outlining what they are, but i'm pretty sure that if you gave some thought to it, you can figure them out pretty easily.

So basically, these factors then inevitable create scenarios, where two players might be close in terms of basketball goodness/value/impact, but because of circumstances largely beyond said players control, one player ends up winning 5 titles, and the other only 1...

So then people come to me and tell me why does it matter to me what the context/circumstances are? Why not just make it simple on myself and pick the guy with 5 titles over the guy with 1 title... The world is black and white after all, left or right, strong or weak, pretty or ugly. There's little to debate in between. People like binary answers because it makes life simple.

Anyway, my personal investment in this project isn't to come here and point out which players won the most... I already know that. I'm here to figure out who the best players in NBA history were in terms of individual value/impact/goodness. Once i figure that out, i ask myself why these players weren't able to produced the desired team results. And if i believe this was due to context/circumstances largely beyond their control, i won't punish them for it.

Like, people seem to grasp this concept when it comes to Karl Malone or Charles Barkley versus a Chris Bosh... I don't think anyone here will argue Chris Bosh being higher on an all-time list than Charles Barkley, even if we focus just on prime years... So basically people understand the concept that you can be a Top 3-5 player in the league for several years and only get to the Finals once in your career and lose, but that doesn't make you a worse player than Chris Bosh... So why do they find it so difficult to accept a concept that two players who are pretty evenly matched by most metrics, could potentially have wildly different TEAM results? The clue is in the emphasis.

I think Charles Barkley and Karl Malone are good examples because I see KG more on their level instead of nearly identical to Duncan.

I mean those Timberwolves teams were atrocious but they straight up missed the play-offs 3 years in a row with KG. In 2007 when they missed the post-season for the third year in a row, LeBron led an equally terrible team to the Finals. Sure the east was a lot weaker but is that enough to account for the difference between making the Finals and missing the play-offs? I don't see it. You could say comparing KG to LeBron is unfair but if KG has a GOAT argument I don't see why he can't be compared to young LeBron.

Tim Duncan, for his incredible longevity and all his titles, has the 2003 season. The second best player on that Spurs team was between a 37 year old pretty much washed D-Rob, 20 year old Parker and rookie Manu who was playing 20 minutes a game. Duncan led that team past the dominant Shaq/Kobe Lakers on the way to a ring. Even if the stats say Duncan and KG had similar impact, the results are pretty far apart and I don't see KG performing similar feats based on what we actually saw from them.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think it is. I think it's more Karl Malone or Charles Barkley v. Dirk Nowitzki. Three guys roughly in the same tier talentwise but one of them led a title contender and two didn't. .

Wait which 2 of these guys never led a title contender? Because all three of them clearly did imo. Did you mean won a title?

[Owly]

Brandon?

Starbury? Admittedly Garnett was very young and Marbury was pretty immature himself but his talent level was All-Star level.

Wally Z made a couple all-star teams. Googs was all-star caliber and made an all-star team. Dirk played with 2* all-stars his entire career--Nash and Finley and we never ever go down this road. It's why I push back. It's a KG only narrative and its not even accurate.

*yes I am aware Josh Howard was an injury replacement during the 67 win team because they were kinda forced to and Kidd another injury replacement when the game was in Dallas and they were trying to honor his career.

I considered mentioning Marbury, Gugliotta (after all, as Naughty by Nature asked "Who's hotter than Tom "The Bomb" Gugliotta?") Laettner. But impact wise Marbury only has the start of '99 as a good season with Garnett, otherwise his defense tended to do him in. The other two aren't or are perhaps very barely in his prime and are typically thought of as fringe guys as all stars.

Wally Z ... I lean cynical on. Especially versus the actual competition for that all star spot.


But more pertinently re Dallas:
Dallas, in the more pertinent comparison, often went deep with players of some quality even if they were overpaid. Garnett's Minny rosters well most minutes after him 97-07 goes
Szczerbiak
Peeler
Hassell
Miller
Nesterovic
Brandon
Smith
Hudson
Marbury
Gugliotta
Davis
Cassell
Garrett
Billups
Blount
Jaric
Trent
Porter
Sealy
Hoiberg
Madsen
Griffin
Olowokandi
Parks
West

Of the first five only one, Wally, is above average by any box composite (and even he looks more like an average starter than any great boon). A handful of decent players at the very start of his run, (aforementioned, Porter in his role,) then Brandon and Wally, then occasional rough diamonds (in their different ways and at those points in their career Billups, Hoiberg) and a bunch of "that shouldn't be in a good teams rotation, never mind starting".

Do I need to argue that the Mavs casts were considerably better?

[Texas Chuck]

Do I need to argue that the Mavs casts were considerably better?

Read my most recent response to Jordan Syndrome on the topic. We don't disagree on that at all.

[Owly]

Do I need to argue that the Mavs casts were considerably better?

Read my most recent response to Jordan Syndrome on the topic. We don't disagree on that at all.

Just seen since posting. Was about to edit in that I didn't think I did. So long as there's an acceptance of that it's fine. It's just going at a "few all-stars" angle for Dirk as though that was or could be your rating system ... it's a risky angle (because it doesn't acknowledge the significant difference noted above). (IMO) It's clearer when it's something like "Cassell (and others you want to throw in, I might add TB) shouldn't get thrown in with the poor aggregate cast, tarred with the same brush." than "Dirk only played with ...".

[Texas Chuck]

Do I need to argue that the Mavs casts were considerably better?

Read my most recent response to Jordan Syndrome on the topic. We don't disagree on that at all.

Just seen since posting. Was about to edit in that I didn't think I did. So long as there's an acceptance of that it's fine. It's just going at a "few all-stars" angle for Dirk as though that was or could be your rating system ... it's a risky angle (because it doesn't acknowledge the significant difference noted above). (IMO) It's clearer when it's something like "Cassell (and others you want to throw in, I might add TB) shouldn't get thrown in with the poor aggregate cast, tarred with the same brush." than "Dirk only played with ...".

I've been crystal clear on this board for nearly a decade that Dirk in Dallas had a much better situation than KG in Minnesota. There isn't any reasonable argument to the contrary.

But its also true that Dirk played with far less top end talent than KG did over their entire careers and even if we limit it just to Minnesota I'd argue KG has a slight edge if anything---Dirk certainly doesn't. I mean post Nash which was only 5 years into a 2 decade long career his best tenured teammate was Jason Terry. A very good player, but never even an all-star.

Why is this distinction important imo? Because we talk so much about portability with KG, but rarely with Dirk. Yet despite Dirk staying put in Dallas the team changed around him a lot. And 3 very different coaches. And despite playing largely with rotating role players, prime Dirk meant 50+ wins and Dallas had 4 legit contending teams, 3 of them post-Nash. That's portable AF.

Edit: And Dirk succeeded with offensive talent around him -- the Nash years, balanced talent--teh Avery years, and mostly defensive talent--the 11 team. He didn't need some magic formula. He meant winning. His record of consistent team RS success was going toe to toe with Duncan in the same division at the same time. Obviously Duncan and the Spurs were better so they got the best of Dallas most of the time, but still really impressive what Dirk and Dallas were able to do.

[limbo]

I think Charles Barkley and Karl Malone are good examples because I see KG more on their level instead of nearly identical to Duncan.

How? Garnett has multiple defensive metrics that are comparable to those of Duncan (which both line up with some of the best results ever), while Malone and especially Barkley were known far more for their offensive impact?

I mean those Timberwolves teams were atrocious but they straight up missed the play-offs 3 years in a row with KG.

I don't think KG is the greatest 'floor-raiser' of all-time, but i doubt even LeBron could've carried those teams to the Finals. Maybe in 2005, though KG got Minnesota to 44 wins himself, Jordan made the Playoffs with less wins in 1986 and 1987...

In 2007 when they missed the post-season for the third year in a row, LeBron led an equally terrible team to the Finals.

You know LeBron is my guy, but the Eastern conference was horrible in 2007 and the Cavs actually had some good defensive players surrounding LeBron that year. Better than what KG had any season he was in Minnesota.

I will say that i'd take KG's cast in 2004 over LeBron's in 2007, but KG's opponents in the Playoffs were much tougher than what LeBron faced... The Kings team KG eliminated in 2004 was better than post prime Pistons of 2007. Also Cassell got injured against the Lakers midway through the series, turning that roster into below average.

Sure the east was a lot weaker but is that enough to account for the difference between making the Finals and missing the play-offs? I don't see it. You could say comparing KG to LeBron is unfair but if KG has a GOAT argument I don't see why he can't be compared to young LeBron.

Cleveland was a much better team around LeBron in 2007 than what KG had... Cleveland finished Top 4 in defensive ranking that season, and while LeBron was certainly a big part of that, the rest of the cast was filled with some decent defenders and a coach who knew how to get the most out of them.

KG's cast was sad on both ends... Some of the worst players in the mid 00's somehow got themselves on that team. Ricky Davis, Craig Smith, Mark Blount, Marko Jaric, young Randy Foye...

I also don't think KG tried his hardest during that year, but i can't really blame him. When the situation is this grim the best thing to do is simply pull the plug and wait for the offseason where you can finally change your situation.

Tim Duncan, for his incredible longevity and all his titles, has the 2003 season. The second best player on that Spurs team was between a 37 year old pretty much washed D-Rob, 20 year old Parker and rookie Manu who was playing 20 minutes a game. Duncan led that team past the dominant Shaq/Kobe Lakers on the way to a ring. Even if the stats say Duncan and KG had similar impact, the results are pretty far apart and I don't see KG performing similar feats based on what we actually saw from them.

Eh, KG's cast in 2003 wasn't really better than Duncan's. He had slightly more help offensively, but his defensive supporting cast was way worse than Duncan's and he had a worse coach.

Duncan played better in the Playoffs, i'm not trying to take that away from him, but he also got some lucky breaks with Dirk getting injured mid-series in the WCF, and the Nets generally being one of the worst Finals teams in the last 20 years.

Again, i think you're too fixated on team-results in a discussion about individual impact.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Not sure why Dirk is being brought up here? I didn't make my original comment to prop up Garnett by dismissing his teammates which, as Texas Chuck points out about Dirk, appears to be how he interpreted my post. Chuck, please read my entire post before taking a comment out of context.

I've been clear about this. I have Dirk and KG as peers. So when KG gets brought up I let everyone know from the jump I was going to bring up Dirk because I see them as being the same level player. And when we talk about poor KG never getting to play with good players, I'm going to point out Dirk didn't play with much high level talent either. Now he did have a far better organization, eventually better coaching with Carlisle, his owner paid a ton of tax to have depth while his career started after KG's making his own salary considerably less than KG's further creating a gap in the level of depth the Mavs had versus the Wolves and an ability to spend their way out of mistakes in ways the Wolves couldn't.

You are missing the point of my post and taking an out-of-context quote to enter into a "teammate discussion about Dirk vs Kg".

Here is my original post:

04 KG proved that he can fit seamlessly with on-ball talent (Cassell being the first true, All-star level talent he ever played with in his career) and was able to create a title contender with no previous experience next to the player.

I am quite literally making a point about KG being able to "instantly gel" with high impact players. I never implied KG had a weak supporting cast compared to other players and never brought that up. The topic of supporting cast isn't a topic worthy of discussion to me. I care about what players can control when assessing who and what the GOATs are.

[Texas Chuck]

You are missing the point of my post and taking an out-of-context quote to enter into a "teammate discussion about Dirk vs Kg".

.

I don't know how to be more clear--this isn't about just you or your post. You were quoted in a chain of posts but others were discussing how poor his teammate quality was as well.

I personally find Dirk relevant to KG so I'm going to compare them. Others don't have to agree with me including you.

I also find teammate comparisons a poor approach, but once we are there I feel its important to provide some context involving again just imo the two single most relevant players to KG -- Dirk and David Robinson. Dirk because I think he and KG's careers provide very similar value where I honestly don't know which I'd vote higher(won't matter because KG will be in before Dirk is even under any serious consideration) if forced to choose. And Admiral because his circumstances most mirror KG's and I would argue Admiral's performance in those circumstances was better. KG is only ahead of him for me because of the longevity edge, but if you ask me who the better player was its David Robinson for me.

If you don't like me talking about players who I acknowledge won't come in in this project for most for a long time yet, feel free to ignore me. I am not trying to paint you into any kind of position. If I were I promise it would just like I did with Doc and Sam Cassell--I would be explicitly clear it was directed at you.

[Jordan Syndrome]

You are missing the point of my post and taking an out-of-context quote to enter into a "teammate discussion about Dirk vs Kg".

.

I don't know how to be more clear--this isn't about just you or your post. You were quoted in a chain of posts but others were discussing how poor his teammate quality was as well.

I personally find Dirk relevant to KG so I'm going to compare them. Others don't have to agree with me including you.

I also find teammate comparisons a poor approach, but once we are there I feel its important to provide some context involving again just imo the two single most relevant players to KG -- Dirk and David Robinson. Dirk because I think he and KG's careers provide very similar value where I honestly don't know which I'd vote higher(won't matter because KG will be in before Dirk is even under any serious consideration) if forced to choose. And Admiral because his circumstances most mirror KG's and I would argue Admiral's performance in those circumstances was better. KG is only ahead of him for me because of the longevity edge, but if you ask me who the better player was its David Robinson for me.

If you don't like me talking about players who I acknowledge won't come in in this project for most for a long time yet, feel free to ignore me. I am not trying to paint you into any kind of position. If I were I promise it would just like I did with Doc and Sam Cassell--I would be explicitly clear it was directed at you.

I would rather compare Dirk to Bird and KG to Duncan given the skill-sets of the players as I believe it is an easier bridge to cross for both.

Dirk and Bird, extremely resilient offensive anchors who were respectable defenders but their primary value is offense.

KG and Duncan, two of the greatest defenders ever, insanely long "prime" with notable high-impact years post-prime and pre-prime.

[Hal14]

Cassell being the first true, All-star level talent he ever played with in his career

Brandon?

Gugliotta? Marbury?

Also, if you're truly a top 5 player of all time and you're in your prime - then you make your teammates better. It's not just simply a case of "oh well, my supporting cast sucks so that's it, I'll just not make it out of the 1st round. No! If you're top 5 - and especially a top 4 player of all-time, you make your teammates better, your raise their level of play - you're not simply at the mercy of how good your GM is at surrounding you with talent - you're carrying that damn team and not making any excuses.

[Texas Chuck]

I would rather compare Dirk to Bird and KG to Duncan given the skill-sets of the players as I believe it is an easier bridge to cross for both.

Dirk and Bird, extremely resilient offensive anchors who were respectable defenders but their primary value is offense.

KG and Duncan, two of the greatest defenders ever, insanely long "prime" with notable high-impact years post-prime and pre-prime.

Hey all good.

I don't compare KG to Duncan because I just have Duncan at least tier above him. I do compare KG to Dirk because I think they are the same level of player. I'm personally less interested in comparing similar styles if one is just clearly superior to the other. I understand you disagree with my separation of Duncan from KG.

Dirk vs Bird is an interesting one and I expect when Bird starts popping up over the next few threads that discussion will happen. It used to be seen as blasphemy, but Dirk has real clear edges over Bird that people don't realize until they really take a look. Now I have Bird at his best far enough ahead of Dirk that the longevity can't close the gap but I do think the gap between Bird and Dirk is smaller than the gap between Duncan and KG.


But mostly I feel like all these side conversations are what make this project so great. I learn a lot and shape my views from these types of discussions more than just reading who voted for who. I'd still have Dirk clearly ahead of KG if not for some rousing arguments with Doc and drza over the years.

So I always appreciate you challenging me on anything I post. I get stuff wrong a lot and it helps to have smart posters like you checking my work.

[trex_8063]

Russell vs. Garnett
Abdul-Jabbar vs. Garnett
Chamberlain vs. Garnett
Duncan vs. Garnett
O'Neal vs. Garnett

Garnett vs Russell
04 Garnett
03 Garnett
65 Russell
64 Russell
02 Garnett
62 Russell
08 Garnett
66 Russell
01 Garnett
00 Garnett
60 Russell
61 Russell

Garnett vs Kareem
04 Garnett
03 Garnett
77 Kareem
02 Garnett
08 Garnett
72 Kareem
71 Kareem
01 Garnett
00 Garnett
74 Kareem
80 Kareem


Chamberlain vs Garnett
04 Garnett
03 Garnett
67 Chamberlain
02 Garnett
68 Chamberlain
08 Garnett
64 Chamberlain
66 Chamberlain
01 Garnett
00 Garnett

Horrible lists TBH. Flat out horrible.

This is unnecessarily caustic. I'm going to suggest the two of you just disengage on the topic, since I doubt you'll ever see eye-to-eye. But in the future, Odinn, I think you can find a way to disagree [even ardently] in a more respectful manner.
We're all here to exchange ideas and engage in discussions we enjoy. These kinds of statements just sour the experience, so please avoid them.

[Doctor MJ]

edit: I didn't realize Garnett was so polarizing on this board.

lol, yup, and understandably so. Several of us are already talking about Garnett when most basketball fans wouldn't be bringing him up this early on a GOAT list.

[trex_8063]

edit: I didn't realize Garnett was so polarizing on this board.

Oh my goodness, yes. Possibly THE most polarizing figure with the probably exception of Lebron.

[penbeast0]

Disagree, other than LeBron, it's Kobe still, and possibly Iverson. KG is really only highly polarizing on the top 100 lists.