Updating my top 50

[70sFan]

Thanks, this is a great thread, I really do value your opinions, and your willingness to get input from others, even someone as dense as me sometimes.


Any chance you can list out all your player seasons for at least the top 2 or 3 levels? Like all your GOAT and all-time (and if not a big pain MVP) in one post? It would be a great reference point.


Either way, thanks

GOAT-level seasons:

LeBron James: 4 (2009, 2012, 2013, 2016)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 4 (1971, 1972, 1974, 1977)
Bill Russell: 4 (1962-65)
Michael Jordan: 3 (1989-91)
Tim Duncan: 2 (2002, 2003)
Wilt Chamberlain: 2 (1964, 1967)
Hakeem Olajuwon: 2 (1993, 1994)
Shaquille O'Neal: 1 (2000)
Nikola Jokic: 1 (2023)
George Mikan: 1 (1950)

Total: 24 seasons

All-time seasons:

LeBron James: 5 (2010, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2020)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 2 (1979, 1980)
Bill Russell: 3 (1960, 1961, 1966)
Michael Jordan: 4 (1988, 1992, 1993, 1996)
Tim Duncan: 2 (2004, 2007)
Wilt Chamberlain: 2 (1962, 1968)
Hakeem Olajuwon: 2 (1989, 1990, 1995)
Shaquille O'Neal: 2 (2001, 2002)
Magic Johnson: 3 (1987, 1988, 1990)
Kevin Garnett: 2 (2003, 2004)
Oscar Robertson: 2 (1963, 1964)
Larry Bird: 3 (1984, 1986, 1987)
Jerry West: 2 (1965, 1966)
Stephen Curry: 3 (2015-17)
Julius Erving: 1 (1976)
David Robinson: 2 (1995, 1996)
Giannis Antetokumpo: 2 (2021, 2022)
Nikola Jokic: 1 (2022)
George Mikan: 3 (1951, 1953, 1954)
Bill Walton: 1 (1977)

Total: 47 seasons

Would you think it makes sense to separate playoffs each year with a lower weight, taking into account performance and depth? Curry's 06 would be GOAT regular and discounted playoffs. Garnett's 2005 is arguably better than 2003 from all advanced stats, so maybe another all time season with no playoffs.

Also curious how did you rate Luka's, as he gets on your list already. Did not expect that.

Separating RS and PS would be very time consuming and I don't know how to weigh incomplete postseason runs. It's probably doable, but I won't do that in the near future.

Luka absolutely doesn't make my top 90 list, but someone asked me to rate his career so I did. I mentioned it a few times - this isn't my top 90 list, guys at the end of the list probably wouldn't make it, but at this point this method is accurate enough to differentiate top 100 player and top 120. With that being said:

Luka Doncic:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time level: 0
MVP level: 0
Weak MVP level: 3 (2021, 2022, 2023)
All-nba level: 1 (2020)
All-star level: 0
Sub all-star level: 1 (2019)
Roleplayer : 0

[WestGOAT]

That's fair, so what about higher level players like Ray Alleen and Vince Carter? I think you got Ray Allen pretty high in your extended list, how far off would Vince be?

Carter is at 71st spot with two all-nba seasons and 5 all-star seasons.

So no seasons for Carter below all-star level? Or does the 78,5 score for him include those as well? Just curious to see how you used the CORPS to get to that number. Do you just add them up for every season? Does it make sense to simply add probabilities though?

The CORPS you used below are odds provided as probabilities (actual odds provided between parentheses), right?

GOAT-level - 33% ~ (2-1)
All-time - 27% ~ (3-1)
MVP level - 20% ~ (4-1)
Weak MVP level - (6-1)
All-nba level - 10% ~ (9-1)
All-star level - 7% ~ (6-1)
Sub all-star - 4% ~ (24-1)
Role player - 2% ~(49-1)

I think this is the original topic establishing these numbers?
viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767

Edit:
Actually if you divide your cumulative CORP values by 100, you should get the total number of expected championships (I think assuming if the player were to play on a league-average / "true theoretical 0 SRS team"), so in the case of LeBron that would be 3.8 championships in total.

[70sFan]

So no seasons for Carter below all-star level? Or does the 78,5 score for him include those as well?

Vince Carter

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 0
All-nba: 2 (2001, 2002)
All-star: 5 (2000, 2003, 2005-07)
Sub all-star: 4 (2004, 2008-10)
Role player: 5 (1999, 2011-14)

Just curious to see how you used the CORPS to get to that number. Do you just add them up for every season? Does it make sense to simply add probabilities though?

It's just an estimation of career value, yeah I just add them. It's far from perfect and it's not my final list, but it does give me a solid starting point.

The CORPS you used below are odds provided as probabilities (actual odds provided between parentheses), right?

GOAT-level - 33% ~ (2-1)
All-time - 27% ~ (3-1)
MVP level - 20% ~ (4-1)
Weak MVP level - (6-1)
All-nba level - 10% ~ (9-1)
All-star level - 7% ~ (6-1)
Sub all-star - 4% ~ (24-1)
Role player - 2% ~(49-1)

I think this is the original topic establishing these numbers?
viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1197767

Yeah, I took it from Ben. There are various ways to estimate the values, but I just decided to use his work instead of creating my model because I have my own scientific studies (not related to basketball) that take enough time for me to work on.

Edit:
Actually if you divide your cumulative CORP values by 100, you should get the total number of expected championships (I think assuming if the player were to play on a league-average / "true theoretical 0 SRS team"), so in the case of LeBron that would be 3.8 championships in total.

Yes, exactly - this methodology gives us an esitmation of expected numbers of titles on an average team. The best players ever are close to 4 titles in their careers, but as you can see most top tier players exceeded the value because they played on better teams.

[WestGOAT]

So no seasons for Carter below all-star level? Or does the 78,5 score for him include those as well?

Vince Carter

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 0
All-nba: 2 (2001, 2002)
All-star: 5 (2000, 2003, 2005-07)
Sub all-star: 4 (2004, 2008-10)
Role player: 5 (1999, 2011-14)

Cool thanks, would be very interesting to see this for Ray Allen as well for a complete comparison if you ever got spare time!

Edit:
Actually if you divide your cumulative CORP values by 100, you should get the total number of expected championships (I think assuming if the player were to play on a league-average / "true theoretical 0 SRS team"), so in the case of LeBron that would be 3.8 championships in total.

Yes, exactly - this methodology gives us an esitmation of expected numbers of titles on an average team. The best players ever are close to 4 titles in their careers, but as you can see most top tier players exceeded the value because they played on better teams.

This begs, for me at least, the loaded question if you don't think Bill Russel is underrated using this methodology? His expected championships in this case is 3.1, a far cry from the actual 11 he won. If the expected number of championships actually reflects his impact, this implies his supporting cast was loaded and/or opposition was consistently weaker. What do you think?

[70sFan]

Cool thanks, would be very interesting to see this for Ray Allen as well for a complete comparison if you ever got spare time!

Ray Allen

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 0
All-nba: 6 (2000-03, 2005, 2006)
All-star: 6 (1999, 2004, 2008-11)
Sub all-star: 3 (1998, 2007, 2012)
Role player: 3 (1997, 2013, 2014)

This begs, for me at least, the loaded question if you don't think Bill Russel is underrated using this methodology? His expected championships in this case is 3.1, a far cry from the actual 11 he won. If the expected number of championships actually reflects his impact, this implies his supporting cast was loaded and/or opposition was consistently weaker. What do you think?

Well, by this methodology even if I give Russell the highest rank for all of his seasons, that would still put his expected titles around 4.3, so not close to the actual number. So in a way, maybe it does underrate him, but keep in mind that Russell rarely played with average supporting cast (though he did in some years, like 1969). It doesn't mean that he had to have stacked teams all the time, but in some seasons they were a clear favorites based on roster talent and construction.

By the same criteria, Jordan also doesn't come close to 6 rings and I wouldn't say he always played with loaded teams.

[WestGOAT]

This begs, for me at least, the loaded question if you don't think Bill Russel is underrated using this methodology? His expected championships in this case is 3.1, a far cry from the actual 11 he won. If the expected number of championships actually reflects his impact, this implies his supporting cast was loaded and/or opposition was consistently weaker. What do you think?

Well, by this methodology even if I give Russell the highest rank for all of his seasons, that would still put his expected titles around 4.3, so not close to the actual number. So in a way, maybe it does underrate him, but keep in mind that Russell rarely played with average supporting cast (though he did in some years, like 1969). It doesn't mean that he had to have stacked teams all the time, but in some seasons they were a clear favorites based on roster talent and construction.

By the same criteria, Jordan also doesn't come close to 6 rings and I wouldn't say he always played with loaded teams.

Sure, but in Jordan's case it's a difference of 3, whereas Russel it's 8(!), the difference is much bigger. I'm not that familiar with 60's bball (surely the NBA is building some streaming platform to release historic footage), but unless the Celtics supporting cast was demonstrably that good/opposing teams much worse, I think your CORP might be underrating Russell. Also I think it's not uncommon for the late 90's to be considered a bit watered down-talent wise due to NBA expansions, and the Bulls were also considered pretty loaded (55 wins in '94 without Jordan, even though they were a bit over .500 when Jordan joined in the '95).

[70sFan]

Well, by this methodology even if I give Russell the highest rank for all of his seasons, that would still put his expected titles around 4.3, so not close to the actual number. So in a way, maybe it does underrate him, but keep in mind that Russell rarely played with average supporting cast (though he did in some years, like 1969). It doesn't mean that he had to have stacked teams all the time, but in some seasons they were a clear favorites based on roster talent and construction.

By the same criteria, Jordan also doesn't come close to 6 rings and I wouldn't say he always played with loaded teams.

Sure, but in Jordan's case it's a difference of 3, whereas Russel it's 8(!), the difference is much bigger. I'm not that familiar with 60's bball (surely the NBA is building some streaming platform to release historic footage), but unless the Celtics supporting cast was demonstrably that good/opposing teams much worse, I think your CORP might be underrating Russell. Also I think it's not uncommon for the late 90's to be considered a bit watered down-talent wise due to NBA expansions, and the Bulls were also considered pretty loaded (55 wins in '94 without Jordan, even though they were a bit over .500 when Jordan joined in the '95).

I think it probably does underrate his career value, but at the same time I think that what Russell and the Celtics accomplished was almost impossible to replicate in the NBA.

I wish the league created such platform by the way, but I have less and less hope it will ever happen...

[OhayoKD]

Well, by this methodology even if I give Russell the highest rank for all of his seasons, that would still put his expected titles around 4.3, so not close to the actual number. So in a way, maybe it does underrate him, but keep in mind that Russell rarely played with average supporting cast (though he did in some years, like 1969). It doesn't mean that he had to have stacked teams all the time, but in some seasons they were a clear favorites based on roster talent and construction.

By the same criteria, Jordan also doesn't come close to 6 rings and I wouldn't say he always played with loaded teams.

Sure, but in Jordan's case it's a difference of 3, whereas Russel it's 8(!), the difference is much bigger. I'm not that familiar with 60's bball (surely the NBA is building some streaming platform to release historic footage), but unless the Celtics supporting cast was demonstrably that good/opposing teams much worse, I think your CORP might be underrating Russell. Also I think it's not uncommon for the late 90's to be considered a bit watered down-talent wise due to NBA expansions, and the Bulls were also considered pretty loaded (55 wins in '94 without Jordan, even though they were a bit over .500 when Jordan joined in the '95).

You're going by record here, but by SRS, the 95 Bulls had a 52-win pace without Jordan and Grant and at full-strength(with Pippen filing a trade request), the 94 Bulls played like a 58-win team when you factor in the +8.9 postseason(55-win pace in the rs). If you just took rolling srs between the asb and the playoffs(keep in mind that's a pretty conservative way to do things since you're counting all the previous games still) the Bulls are 45ish wins by the postseason iirc.

From the first half of the season to the second half of the season, the triangle and Pippen becoming the primary ball-handler/co-creator sees a 3-point offensive jump. The Bulls defense goes from neutral to +3 overall and +5 vs the Pistons/Knicks( was below average in 89 and the start of 90 with Oakley's departure) despite Jordan's defensive activity going down and his defensive breakdowns going up.

For the first 2-rounds the 90 Bulls actually put up the same playoff-ratings as they would in 91, but they run into a much more formidable Pistons team.

People point to his turnover economy and raw box as proof Jordan jumped significantly as a player, but what actually happened is that because Pippen was the primary ball-handler and teams were bound by illegal d, Jordan went from being doubled a bunch to almost never being doubled.

People saying 91 MJ was better than 90 because he won putting up marginally better box vs much weaker defense(Pistons were much worse in 1st 2 rounds of 91 than 90 or 89) while playing less defense than ever seems like narrativization. As is, if the Pistons don't intentionally foul a bunch at the end of game 2, he was on pace to have a 26 ppg(on much lower effiency) as opposed to a 30 point one in the CF. The whole "perfect season" bit probably doesn't work as well.

[ZeppelinPage]

Sure, but in Jordan's case it's a difference of 3, whereas Russel it's 8(!), the difference is much bigger. I'm not that familiar with 60's bball (surely the NBA is building some streaming platform to release historic footage), but unless the Celtics supporting cast was demonstrably that good/opposing teams much worse, I think your CORP might be underrating Russell. Also I think it's not uncommon for the late 90's to be considered a bit watered down-talent wise due to NBA expansions, and the Bulls were also considered pretty loaded (55 wins in '94 without Jordan, even though they were a bit over .500 when Jordan joined in the '95).

I think it probably does underrate his career value, but at the same time I think that what Russell and the Celtics accomplished was almost impossible to replicate in the NBA.

I wish the league created such platform by the way, but I have less and less hope it will ever happen...

The teams were amazing and I think many really underrate that aspect. It's a thing I see on the internet consistently, there isn't much of a knowledge base around some of these older guys and it's a shame the NBA doesn't care to help change that. You simply cannot win 11 championships without an incredible team and coach.

Heinsohn, for instance, really shines on film. Star player that probably would have had an increase in efficiency and assists on a different team. He was a really talented passer that looks good defensively.

Frank Ramsey certainly could have won multiple national championships in college, he was highly touted and probably would have been a regular All-Star if he didn't play off the bench.

I mean, even their role players were loaded. Arnie Risen would have been Finals MVP in 1951 and had been one of the better centers in the league. Andy Phillip had been a 5x All-Star and was an elite defender. As the years go on they have Sam and K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Larry Siegfried, Willie Naulls, Don Nelson--all really good pieces that fit around the roster.

Of course, you know all of this. But I think the fact that it hasn't been done again should exemplify just how talented the players are and how difficult it is to assemble a team like that. There is a tendency to downplay the rest of the team when guys like John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bob Cousy won multiple championships as major pieces to these teams. It would have been significantly more difficult to win without those players.

[OhayoKD]

Sure, but in Jordan's case it's a difference of 3, whereas Russel it's 8(!), the difference is much bigger. I'm not that familiar with 60's bball (surely the NBA is building some streaming platform to release historic footage), but unless the Celtics supporting cast was demonstrably that good/opposing teams much worse, I think your CORP might be underrating Russell. Also I think it's not uncommon for the late 90's to be considered a bit watered down-talent wise due to NBA expansions, and the Bulls were also considered pretty loaded (55 wins in '94 without Jordan, even though they were a bit over .500 when Jordan joined in the '95).

I think it probably does underrate his career value, but at the same time I think that what Russell and the Celtics accomplished was almost impossible to replicate in the NBA.

I wish the league created such platform by the way, but I have less and less hope it will ever happen...

The teams were amazing and I think many really underrate that aspect. It's a thing I see on the internet consistently, there isn't much of a knowledge base around some of these older guys and it's a shame the NBA doesn't care to help change that. You simply cannot win 11 championships without an incredible team and coach.

Do we? I think you overrate that aspect when you only analyze what happened for 6 of 11 rings and then act like it's unfair to point out that the team was obviously weaker for the next 5...

[ZeppelinPage]

Do we? I think you overrate that aspect when you only analyze what happened for 6 of 11 rings and then act like it's unfair to point out that the team was obviously weaker for the next 5...

A team that wins 5 championships in 6 years is still among the greatest runs in NBA history. They might be weaker in comparison to previous iterations but certainly not on an all-time scale.

[OhayoKD]

Do we? I think you overrate that aspect when you only analyze what happened for 6 of 11 rings and then act like it's unfair to point out that the team was obviously weaker for the next 5...

A team that wins 5 championships in 6 years is still among the greatest runs in NBA history. They might be weaker in comparison to previous iterations but certainly not on an all-time scale.

Yeah, but being a great team says nothing to how that "greatness" was distributed. "You cant win 11 rings without amazing help" is no different in principle then "you cant win a ring without great help". If you're going to just go off that, then there's no real point trying to distinguish between different years players win individually since now we're just going to assume "Help" based on the end-result. When the end result is better, the help was better and when it was worse, the help was worse seems like a convenient assumption, but it basically reduces player-comparisons to a comparison of Wikipedia pages.

[ZeppelinPage]

Do we? I think you overrate that aspect when you only analyze what happened for 6 of 11 rings and then act like it's unfair to point out that the team was obviously weaker for the next 5...

A team that wins 5 championships in 6 years is still among the greatest runs in NBA history. They might be weaker in comparison to previous iterations but certainly not on an all-time scale.

Yeah, but being a great team says nothing to how that "greatness" was distributed. "You cant win 11 rings without amazing help" is no different in principle then "you cant win a ring without great help". If you're going to just go off that, then there's no real point trying to distinguish between different years players win individually since now we're just going to assume "Help" based on the end-result. When the end result is better, the help was better and when it was worse, the help was worse seems like a convenient assumption, but it basically reduces player-comparisons to a comparison of Wikipedia pages.

I hear what you're saying and understand your belief in oversimplification based on the end-result, but that really isn't the basis of my argument, it was simply a part of it. I made that statement because my research of this era has informed my opinion and led me to believing that the Celtics supporting cast was definitely that good, which is why I touched upon certain players I think are underrated in my initial post. I think the degree to which they won and the fact that it has never been done again just speaks volumes to the level the supporting cast played at, because in my opinion it takes an entire team to win that consistently.

If someone wants to say that their last 5 were weaker than the previous 6, then they can go ahead and do that. I'm just saying that I believe the Celtics supporting cast can be heavily underrated at times, especially in relation to the league.

[penbeast0]

The teams were amazing and I think many really underrate that aspect. It's a thing I see on the internet consistently, there isn't much of a knowledge base around some of these older guys and it's a shame the NBA doesn't care to help change that. You simply cannot win 11 championships without an incredible team and coach.

Heinsohn, for instance, really shines on film. Star player that probably would have had an increase in efficiency and assists on a different team. He was a really talented passer that looks good defensively.

Frank Ramsey certainly could have won multiple national championships in college, he was highly touted and probably would have been a regular All-Star if he didn't play off the bench.

I mean, even their role players were loaded. Arnie Risen would have been Finals MVP in 1951 and had been one of the better centers in the league. Andy Phillip had been a 5x All-Star and was an elite defender. As the years go on they have Sam and K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Larry Siegfried, Willie Naulls, Don Nelson--all really good pieces that fit around the roster.

Of course, you know all of this. But I think the fact that it hasn't been done again should exemplify just how talented the players are and how difficult it is to assemble a team like that. There is a tendency to downplay the rest of the team when guys like John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bob Cousy won multiple championships as major pieces to these teams. It would have been significantly more difficult to win without those players.

Red's an incredible coach, and a lot of their defenders were outstanding around Russell: Sharman, Sanders, Havlicek, KC. Offensively, Sam Jones was an underrated and outstanding scorer. Cousy was still the best playmaker in the league early on, he just shot too much and too poorly, particularly in the playoffs, to have the impact he had pre-Russell. Sharman could still shoot until Sam Jones took over. Heinsohn doesn't shine on film to me in the RS footage I've seen nor is Ramsey that impressive, but he and Ramsey (particularly Ramsey) had some outstanding postseasons. Havlicek was a strong playmaker as well as defender, but his shooting wasn't impressive for most of the run (he is one of the few non-bigs that improved after age 30). Bailey Howell was a very good scorer, strengthening the team when Heinsohn left to compete with those loaded Sixer and Lakers teams. And that bench was always one of the deepest in the league while the starters were among the healthiest for over a decade, a very underrated factor!

But, were they a super team of great talent around Russell the way the Showtime Lakers, the Bird Celtics, or the Curry/Durant Warriors were? Not really. A good team, with strong defenders and one or two decent scorers plus some guys who stepped up come playoff time to make up for Cousy laying serious playoff shooting eggs.

[trex_8063]

Cool thanks, would be very interesting to see this for Ray Allen as well for a complete comparison if you ever got spare time!

Ray Allen

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 0
All-nba: 6 (2000-03, 2005, 2006)
All-star: 6 (1999, 2004, 2008-11)
Sub all-star: 3 (1998, 2007, 2012)
Role player: 3 (1997, 2013, 2014)

I haven't got there yet, but I suspect I'll give Ray Ray at least half-credit for a "weak MVP" year in '01 (maybe even full credit). He was ballin' that year, and anchoring the #1 offense [admittedly in a defensive era] with Glenn Robinson as likely second-banana. Coming one game away from leading the Bucks to the NBA Finals, and outplaying the supposed MVP in the ECF (and going for 25.1/4.1/6.0 on absurd [for '01] shooting efficiency and only 2.4 topg in the entire playoff run).
Just talking about it, yeah, I think I will give that full credit for weak MVP.

I might do the same with '01 Vince Carter, actually.

Either one was a better MVP choice than Allen Iverson, imo.

[ZeppelinPage]

The teams were amazing and I think many really underrate that aspect. It's a thing I see on the internet consistently, there isn't much of a knowledge base around some of these older guys and it's a shame the NBA doesn't care to help change that. You simply cannot win 11 championships without an incredible team and coach.

Heinsohn, for instance, really shines on film. Star player that probably would have had an increase in efficiency and assists on a different team. He was a really talented passer that looks good defensively.

Frank Ramsey certainly could have won multiple national championships in college, he was highly touted and probably would have been a regular All-Star if he didn't play off the bench.

I mean, even their role players were loaded. Arnie Risen would have been Finals MVP in 1951 and had been one of the better centers in the league. Andy Phillip had been a 5x All-Star and was an elite defender. As the years go on they have Sam and K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Larry Siegfried, Willie Naulls, Don Nelson--all really good pieces that fit around the roster.

Of course, you know all of this. But I think the fact that it hasn't been done again should exemplify just how talented the players are and how difficult it is to assemble a team like that. There is a tendency to downplay the rest of the team when guys like John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bob Cousy won multiple championships as major pieces to these teams. It would have been significantly more difficult to win without those players.

Red's an incredible coach, and a lot of their defenders were outstanding around Russell: Sharman, Sanders, Havlicek, KC. Offensively, Sam Jones was an underrated and outstanding scorer. Cousy was still the best playmaker in the league early on, he just shot too much and too poorly, particularly in the playoffs, to have the impact he had pre-Russell. Sharman could still shoot until Sam Jones took over. Heinsohn doesn't shine on film to me in the RS footage I've seen nor is Ramsey that impressive, but he and Ramsey (particularly Ramsey) had some outstanding postseasons. Havlicek was a strong playmaker as well as defender, but his shooting wasn't impressive for most of the run (he is one of the few non-bigs that improved after age 30). Bailey Howell was a very good scorer, strengthening the team when Heinsohn left to compete with those loaded Sixer and Lakers teams. And that bench was always one of the deepest in the league while the starters were among the healthiest for over a decade, a very underrated factor!

But, were they a super team of great talent around Russell the way the Showtime Lakers, the Bird Celtics, or the Curry/Durant Warriors were? Not really. A good team, with strong defenders and one or two decent scorers plus some guys who stepped up come playoff time to make up for Cousy laying serious playoff shooting eggs.

We've gone over this previously but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Maybe at some point I'll go more in depth in terms of my findings on the Celtics in film and sources during the Top 100.

[OhayoKD]

The teams were amazing and I think many really underrate that aspect. It's a thing I see on the internet consistently, there isn't much of a knowledge base around some of these older guys and it's a shame the NBA doesn't care to help change that. You simply cannot win 11 championships without an incredible team and coach.

Heinsohn, for instance, really shines on film. Star player that probably would have had an increase in efficiency and assists on a different team. He was a really talented passer that looks good defensively.

Frank Ramsey certainly could have won multiple national championships in college, he was highly touted and probably would have been a regular All-Star if he didn't play off the bench.

I mean, even their role players were loaded. Arnie Risen would have been Finals MVP in 1951 and had been one of the better centers in the league. Andy Phillip had been a 5x All-Star and was an elite defender. As the years go on they have Sam and K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Larry Siegfried, Willie Naulls, Don Nelson--all really good pieces that fit around the roster.

Of course, you know all of this. But I think the fact that it hasn't been done again should exemplify just how talented the players are and how difficult it is to assemble a team like that. There is a tendency to downplay the rest of the team when guys like John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bob Cousy won multiple championships as major pieces to these teams. It would have been significantly more difficult to win without those players.

Red's an incredible coach, and a lot of their defenders were outstanding around Russell: Sharman, Sanders, Havlicek, KC. Offensively, Sam Jones was an underrated and outstanding scorer. Cousy was still the best playmaker in the league early on, he just shot too much and too poorly, particularly in the playoffs, to have the impact he had pre-Russell. Sharman could still shoot until Sam Jones took over. Heinsohn doesn't shine on film to me in the RS footage I've seen nor is Ramsey that impressive, but he and Ramsey (particularly Ramsey) had some outstanding postseasons. Havlicek was a strong playmaker as well as defender, but his shooting wasn't impressive for most of the run (he is one of the few non-bigs that improved after age 30). Bailey Howell was a very good scorer, strengthening the team when Heinsohn left to compete with those loaded Sixer and Lakers teams. And that bench was always one of the deepest in the league while the starters were among the healthiest for over a decade, a very underrated factor!

But, were they a super team of great talent around Russell the way the Showtime Lakers, the Bird Celtics, or the Curry/Durant Warriors were? Not really. A good team, with strong defenders and one or two decent scorers plus some guys who stepped up come playoff time to make up for Cousy laying serious playoff shooting eggs.

We've gone over this previously but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Maybe at some point I'll go more in depth in terms of my findings on the Celtics in film and sources during the Top 100.

Do you disagree that the 69 Celtics were not a stacked superteam on par with those teams(would also add jordan's bulls, moses-erving sixers,)?

Unless you have sources and film showing the second half of that dynasty was also stacked, this doesn't really change anything for Russell relative to anyone else.

[ZeppelinPage]

Do you disagree that the 69 Celtics were not a stacked superteam on par with those teams(would also add jordan's bulls, moses-erving sixers,)?

Unless you have sources and film showing the second half of that dynasty was also stacked, this doesn't really change anything for Russell relative to anyone else.

Nowhere in my posts have I written about the '69 Celtics, nor would one season in Russell's final year demonstrate the quality of his teammates for an entire career. In fact, I haven't even brought up Bill Russell once. I'm specifically talking about his teammates and their abilities, which I find to be underrated.

[iggymcfrack]

So no seasons for Carter below all-star level? Or does the 78,5 score for him include those as well?

Vince Carter

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 0
All-nba: 2 (2001, 2002)
All-star: 5 (2000, 2003, 2005-07)
Sub all-star: 4 (2004, 2008-10)
Role player: 5 (1999, 2011-14)

Cool thanks, would be very interesting to see this for Ray Allen as well for a complete comparison if you ever got spare time!

Edit:
Actually if you divide your cumulative CORP values by 100, you should get the total number of expected championships (I think assuming if the player were to play on a league-average / "true theoretical 0 SRS team"), so in the case of LeBron that would be 3.8 championships in total.

Yes, exactly - this methodology gives us an esitmation of expected numbers of titles on an average team. The best players ever are close to 4 titles in their careers, but as you can see most top tier players exceeded the value because they played on better teams.

This begs, for me at least, the loaded question if you don't think Bill Russel is underrated using this methodology? His expected championships in this case is 3.1, a far cry from the actual 11 he won. If the expected number of championships actually reflects his impact, this implies his supporting cast was loaded and/or opposition was consistently weaker. What do you think?

This methodology just gives a generic number of expected championships for a given talent level regardless of the size of the league. Obviously it’s going to be easier to win a championship with 8-14 teams in the league than it is in a league with 30 teams. If an elite season gives you a 30% probability of winning a championship in the modern NBA, it could very well be true that the same season gives you a 70% probability of winning in a less populated league.

[trex_8063]

This begs, for me at least, the loaded question if you don't think Bill Russel is underrated using this methodology? His expected championships in this case is 3.1, a far cry from the actual 11 he won. If the expected number of championships actually reflects his impact, this implies his supporting cast was loaded and/or opposition was consistently weaker. What do you think?

This methodology just gives a generic number of expected championships for a given talent level regardless of the size of the league. Obviously it’s going to be easier to win a championship with 8-14 teams in the league than it is in a league with 30 teams. If an elite season gives you a 30% probability of winning a championship in the modern NBA, it could very well be true that the same season gives you a 70% probability of winning in a less populated league.

I'd also add it's the expectation "in a vacuum"; that is: across a net-neutral sea of possible team situations. As has been discussed ad nauseum, though (even some itt): Russell generally had pretty good [better than average or net-neutral] teammates.