RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[Texas Chuck]

Vote: Mr. William Russell

Some great arguments already made for him itt. I won't rehash it.

I'll concede the point that if you are talking solely about individual skill as a basketball player Mike takes him. As does KAJ. Wilt. Shaq. etc... Russell can't come close to competing with those guys as offensive players. And we know for many people offensive ability(scoring really) = skill But. But. But.

Basketball is not an individual game. It's a team game. And no one did more to impact his team to the good than Russ did.

We don't have all the advanced statistical info on Russell like we do on guys today and I think that naturally makes guys skeptical that his impact could really be what it actually was. Its why we get some of the Noah etc comparisons. But this is a guy who played in an era with another top 10 guy in Wilt(some have him much higher) and 2 other guys in the top 15(Oscar and West) and essentially every player, coach, FO guy, all agreed that Russell was hands down the best player in the league. There was never any debate despite the absurd numbers the other 3 were putting up, especially Wilt.

So not only did he dominate his era more than anyone else every has(or likely will), he also did so not in some weak era as is frequently argued, but in reality the most top-heavy era of all-time when it comes to great players.

[ceiling raiser]

Yes I understand that, but ROY is ROY. League MVP winner is league mvp winner. First team all nba is first team all nba. That is what he came into the league having from the get go.

But what do those mean? If they're primarily offensive players, and the team isn't producing on that end (and is winning defensively), how are the accolades relevant?

Not trying to single you out JB, just curious about your logic here.

Not following what you mean here. Heinsohn for instance put up 24 and 13 in the finals a rookie and 37 and 23 in game 7. I'm not saying they all produced as a star at all times, just saying what was had from the get go as far as talent.

I'm just saying that those teams didn't win on the basis of offense/scoring for the most part.

Give me a few minutes, let me get some team playoff numbers for you.

[JordansBulls]

But what do those mean? If they're primarily offensive players, and the team isn't producing on that end (and is winning defensively), how are the accolades relevant?

Not trying to single you out JB, just curious about your logic here.

Not following what you mean here. Heinsohn for instance put up 24 and 13 in the finals a rookie and 37 and 23 in game 7. I'm not saying they all produced as a star at all times, just saying what was had from the get go as far as talent.

I'm just saying that those teams didn't win on the basis of offense/scoring for the most part.

Give me a few minutes, let me get some team playoff numbers for you.

Well you have to score more than the opponent so you definitely have to have the offense and scoring to win. Sure it wasn't there dominant trait it was there defense, but it still doesn't change the fact they needed the offense and scoring to win nor does it change the fact that the ROY was Heinsohn, MVP in Cousy when Russ was just coming into the league. Imagine MJ or Kareem or Wilt coming into the league playing with the ROY and league mvp.

[E-Balla]

I'm going with Jordan for a few reasons (fyi this is a 2 man battle between Jordan and Russell for me):

1. He's the perfect player. So yes we can agree that Russell was a more impactful player in his time but he had weaknesses. Bill wasn't a good scorer by any stretch of the imagination and he was maybe average at best. A low scoring center with barely above average efficiency is not getting any second looks from teams when they're gameplanning. Jordan's only weakness was the three point shot and there's a solid 6 year period where it was butter so that's 6 seasons of Jordan having no weaknesses.

2. He never underperformed. There's no performance from Jordan that you can say is not big time. Sure Bill Russell only lose twice but both times he was well below average offensively (shot 36% both seasons). Jordan's worst series might be his series against Orlando (a short while after coming from retirement) and he still managed to net 31/7/4 with a decent TS and ORTG (both slightly below average iirc).

3. Different league. Does anyone think the Celtics would win that much in the era of turnover and free agency? He might be the most impactful player ever but that impact is almost all defensive and defense on an individual level and a team level is less important/impactful overall than offense in the modern game.

4. He technically didn't even win more than Jordan. Both of them have the same amount of series wins. Sure Russell has less losses but he also got drafted to a good team that was consistently good due to hall of famer Bob Cousy while Jordan went to a trash team that had to build and find a great coach.

5. Can't stress this enough: He played most of his career in a different era. The pre 64 NBA and post 65 NBA are different. Around the time the ABA started the modern NBA began to take fold and Russell's prime started over a decade before the ABA. I can trust his impact and I respect it over everything but perfection. Jordan just happens to be perfection (though he can be surpassed and hopefully it'll happen).

[E-Balla]

Not following what you mean here. Heinsohn for instance put up 24 and 13 in the finals a rookie and 37 and 23 in game 7. I'm not saying they all produced as a star at all times, just saying what was had from the get go as far as talent.

I'm just saying that those teams didn't win on the basis of offense/scoring for the most part.

Give me a few minutes, let me get some team playoff numbers for you.

Well you have to score more than the opponent so you definitely have to have the offense and scoring to win. Sure it wasn't there dominant trait it was there defense, but it still doesn't change the fact they needed the offense and scoring to win nor does it change the fact that the ROY was Heinsohn, MVP in Cousy when Russ was just coming into the league. Imagine MJ or Kareem or Wilt coming into the league playing with the ROY and league mvp.

It was a different era JB. A black man was not winning those awards and we all know it.

[mopper8]

Just something to think about, since team accomplishment plays such a big role in evaluating Russell, for the entirety of his career, he was a remarkable 27-2 in playoff series.

But then, Jordan was 27-2 in playoff series from 1990-98. At some point in time I hope to go through the major dynasties and compare runs by looking at playoff series like this, calculate average opponent SRS, game win%, MOV and playoff SRS, etc., to really compare teams across eras. But sometimes I think 6 in 8 years in the era of 4-round playoffs and some salary controls and what not might be more impressive is than Russell's obscene numbers, when winning a title often meant only winning 2 series, 1 of which might very well be against an average team.

[JordansBulls]

I'm just saying that those teams didn't win on the basis of offense/scoring for the most part.

Give me a few minutes, let me get some team playoff numbers for you.

Well you have to score more than the opponent so you definitely have to have the offense and scoring to win. Sure it wasn't there dominant trait it was there defense, but it still doesn't change the fact they needed the offense and scoring to win nor does it change the fact that the ROY was Heinsohn, MVP in Cousy when Russ was just coming into the league. Imagine MJ or Kareem or Wilt coming into the league playing with the ROY and league mvp.

It was a different era JB. A black man was not winning those awards and we all know it.

He wasn't going to win it missing 1/3 of the season no matter ethnicity.

[E-Balla]

Vote: Mr. William Russell

Some great arguments already made for him itt. I won't rehash it.

I'll concede the point that if you are talking solely about individual skill as a basketball player Mike takes him. As does KAJ. Wilt. Shaq. etc... Russell can't come close to competing with those guys as offensive players. And we know for many people offensive ability(scoring really) = skill But. But. But.

Basketball is not an individual game. It's a team game. And no one did more to impact his team to the good than Russ did.

We don't have all the advanced statistical info on Russell like we do on guys today and I think that naturally makes guys skeptical that his impact could really be what it actually was. Its why we get some of the Noah etc comparisons. But this is a guy who played in an era with another top 10 guy in Wilt(some have him much higher) and 2 other guys in the top 15(Oscar and West) and essentially every player, coach, FO guy, all agreed that Russell was hands down the best player in the league. There was never any debate despite the absurd numbers the other 3 were putting up, especially Wilt.

So not only did he dominate his era more than anyone else every has(or likely will), he also did so not in some weak era as is frequently argued, but in reality the most top-heavy era of all-time when it comes to great players.

It might be the most top heavy era (or close along with the late 80s/early 90s) but the average player was way worse than the top talent no? That's why those guys were so revolutionary - role players as we know it didn't really exist.

[Texas Chuck]

1. He's the perfect player. So yes we can agree that Russell was a more impactful player in his time but he had weaknesses. Bill wasn't a good scorer by any stretch of the imagination and he was maybe average at best. A low scoring center with barely above average efficiency is not getting any second looks from teams when they're gameplanning. Jordan's only weakness was the three point shot and there's a solid 6 year period where it was butter so that's 6 seasons of Jordan having no weaknesses.

You don't think opposing teams had to gameplan for Russell's incredible ability to disrupt offenses?

[E-Balla]

1. He's the perfect player. So yes we can agree that Russell was a more impactful player in his time but he had weaknesses. Bill wasn't a good scorer by any stretch of the imagination and he was maybe average at best. A low scoring center with barely above average efficiency is not getting any second looks from teams when they're gameplanning. Jordan's only weakness was the three point shot and there's a solid 6 year period where it was butter so that's 6 seasons of Jordan having no weaknesses.

You don't think opposing teams had to gameplan for Russell's incredible ability to disrupt offenses?

Well they should've but offenses were prehistoric before the late 60s or even the early 70s some would argue. It was run and gun for all 8 teams with little rhyme or reason. In the modern era you would see way more gameplanning for Russell on defense and to an extent it could be effective (I understand he's the GOAT but a team like San Antonio with many threats could basically neutralize his impact).

In that same light Jordan was no scrub on defense either. He had to be accounted for on both ends because of his uncanny 6th sense for where the ball was going.

[ThaRegul8r]

The shooting/scoring in general is obviously is a concern. What quotes/evidence do we have in particular about how Boston ran their offense? Was the goal truly to get up more shots than the opponent? [...] I'd like some quotes before drawing any conclusions on this to demonstrate that inefficient shooting was by design.

As of now, I think I'm going to abstain from the project, as I'm projected out from the Highest Peaks Project, and I still have my reservations as to whether the tone of the discussions here will be any different from the ones then. But I have some quotes regarding that that I can PM you, and you can do with them what you wish.

[Texas Chuck]

It might be the most top heavy era (or close along with the late 80s/early 90s) but the average player was way worse than the top talent no? That's why those guys were so revolutionary - role players as we know it didn't really exist.

My point in bringing that up is to illustrate that he faced the strongest competition to be considered the best player in his own era of any player ever. He had not just Wilt, but Oscar and West as well as strong contenders and it was never even a question. Everyone knew Bill was the best. Just like everyone knew Mike was the best. The difference was by the time Mike was the best only Magic was even a challenger and then he was cut short as was Bird before him.

[E-Balla]

Well you have to score more than the opponent so you definitely have to have the offense and scoring to win. Sure it wasn't there dominant trait it was there defense, but it still doesn't change the fact they needed the offense and scoring to win nor does it change the fact that the ROY was Heinsohn, MVP in Cousy when Russ was just coming into the league. Imagine MJ or Kareem or Wilt coming into the league playing with the ROY and league mvp.

It was a different era JB. A black man was not winning those awards and we all know it.

He wasn't going to win it missing 1/3 of the season no matter ethnicity.

Well that's definitely true. I completely forgot he missed a large chunk of his first campaign.

[Basketballefan]

It might be the most top heavy era (or close along with the late 80s/early 90s) but the average player was way worse than the top talent no? That's why those guys were so revolutionary - role players as we know it didn't really exist.

My point in bringing that up is to illustrate that he faced the strongest competition to be considered the best player in his own era of any player ever. He had not just Wilt, but Oscar and West as well as strong contenders and it was never even a question. Everyone knew Bill was the best. Just like everyone knew Mike was the best. The difference was by the time Mike was the best only Magic was even a challenger and then he was cut short as was Bird before him.

So i guess Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Drobb, and young Shaq are just chopped liver huh?

[E-Balla]

It might be the most top heavy era (or close along with the late 80s/early 90s) but the average player was way worse than the top talent no? That's why those guys were so revolutionary - role players as we know it didn't really exist.

My point in bringing that up is to illustrate that he faced the strongest competition to be considered the best player in his own era of any player ever. He had not just Wilt, but Oscar and West as well as strong contenders and it was never even a question. Everyone knew Bill was the best. Just like everyone knew Mike was the best. The difference was by the time Mike was the best only Magic was even a challenger and then he was cut short as was Bird before him.

Well I rank Magic 4th all time over all of Russell's contemporaries so that point didn't really reach me . I see what you are saying and it makes sense but he wasn't clearly seen as the best in his time even though I think he should've been. He and Wilt when playing at the same time both had 4 MVPs. Not easy to say he was seen as the clear best.

[penbeast0]

The shooting/scoring in general is obviously is a concern. What quotes/evidence do we have in particular about how Boston ran their offense? Was the goal truly to get up more shots than the opponent? [...] I'd like some quotes before drawing any conclusions on this to demonstrate that inefficient shooting was by design.

As of now, I think I'm going to abstain from the project, as I'm projected out from the Highest Peaks Project, and I still have my reservations as to whether the tone of the discussions here will be any different from the ones then. But I have some quotes regarding that that I can PM you, and you can do with them what you wish.

I hope you reconsider as the project continues. If I had to name the 10 posters I've learned the most from here, you'd be on the list.

[ceiling raiser]

Well you have to score more than the opponent so you definitely have to have the offense and scoring to win. Sure it wasn't there dominant trait it was there defense, but it still doesn't change the fact they needed the offense and scoring to win nor does it change the fact that the ROY was Heinsohn, MVP in Cousy when Russ was just coming into the league. Imagine MJ or Kareem or Wilt coming into the league playing with the ROY and league mvp.

Just got those playoffs numbers for you JB:



Year = year
Pace = team pace in playoffs (calculated using this methodology: http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20 ... 1951-1973/)
lgOD = league average ORtg/DRtg
PTS/G = team ppg
OPP/G = opponent ppg
ORtg = relative team ORtg during playoffs
avgD = average relative defense faced in playoffs
DRtg = relative team DRtg during playoffs
avgO = average relative offense faced in playoffs
O = sum of ORtg and avgD columns (positive is better)
D = sum of DRtg and avgO columns (negative is better)

The O and D stats are pretty telling. These were consistently dominant defensive performances in the playoffs (1964 in particular is insane). 65 and 68 are the only runs during which the offense outplayed the defense, and the vast majority of the other seasons weren't close at all.

The bolded in your post is very, very frustrating. I don't know why you keep bring those statements up. If these teams didn't perform well offensively during the season (see ElGee's research) or in the playoffs (see the table above), how are they relevant at all? I'm very interested in a specific response in terms of tangible performance.

As of now, I think I'm going to abstain from the project, as I'm projected out from the Highest Peaks Project, and I still have my reservations as to whether the tone of the discussions here will be any different from the ones then. But I have some quotes regarding that that I can PM you, and you can do with them what you wish.

Thanks, I'd appreciate it, if it's not too much trouble.

[Baller2014]

Jordan represents pretty much the perfect career arc a player can have, with an arguably GOAT peak, and lots of longevity too. He came into the NBA and lit it up immediately, got his team as far as could be expected with zero help, then as soon as he got some help the team went gangbusters, posting crazy SRS numbers, winning 3 titles in a row in the face of some great, stacked teams. Jordan retires, comes back 2 years later, and the Bulls are even more amazing than before. That's not all on Jordan, but most of it is. Stats and the eye test all seem to confirm he had the biggest impact, and there's no year you can really point to and say "well, if Jordan's impact is so huge, why didn't they do better in year X?" They basically met or exceeded expectations every year, something very few other players can say (Duncan is one, Russell arguably another). The Pistons were basically a placeholder title team (in spite of their astonishingly stacked teams) until Jordan got a good support cast, and as soon as he had that they were doomed. Not only are his numbers amazing, but we have every reason to think they'd be even better today with the current "hands off" rules.

I don't think a whole lot of Bill Russell and his era, so the only other candidate for me here is Kareem. I think Kareem is the clear #2 all-time. He has a great peak and longevity. But I'm just not convinced he was better than Jordan. A lot of years I look at Kareem and ask "I know Kareem can be so impactful, but look at his team this year, what's going on?" His early years with the Lakers (prior to Magic arriving) really fall into this category. The team's performance really doesn't fit with what Kareem should have been able to make them do (and had proven he could do in Milwaukee), and my feeling was always that it was partly Kareem's fault. He was a great competitor, but like a lot of great players (Shaq, Kobe, etc) his attitude wasn't always the best. I don't think being in LA helped those guys focus, at least not in the short term, and I think in his last year with the Bucks Kareem had kind of zoned out and was just treading water until they met his trade demands. His injury that year was a big part of it too. Despite being a top 2-3 GOAT candidate teams have really stayed far away from him since he retired, and that (plus a lot of other stuff) all really remind you about his attitude problems. Some of Kareem's latter years were emptier numbers than they seemed, because the Lakers played at such a fast pace.

Kareem will be my clear #2 choice, and he gets consideration for #1. But I can't see my way to voting against Jordan.

Vote: Jordan.

[Baller2014]

I don't really see what the Russell argument is. He played in a weak league, with rules that favoured him a lot, on the most stacked team and best run organisation. If you transplanted Michael Jordan into the 60's, he'd still be Michael Jordan. I can't say the same about Bill Russell in today's game.

[ceiling raiser]

I don't really see what the Russell argument is. He played in a weak league, with rules that favoured him a lot, on the most stacked team and best run organisation. If you transplanted Michael Jordan into the 60's, he'd still be Michael Jordan. I can't say the same about Bill Russell in today's game.

Just wondering:

1) Why specifically was it a weak league?
2) What rules specifically?
3) Why did teams "stacked" with offensive talent perform at mediocre-to-poor levels on that end, but consistently win with their defense?
4) Why do you feel that way specifically?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm still on the fence about my vote for #1, so I'd appreciate your specific responses.