RealGM Top 100 List #3

ElGee · Post #21 » by **ElGee** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 1:29 am

magicmerl wrote:Additionally, here's ElGee's championship odds indicator (which he takes pains to point out is not his top10 ranking)

It shortchanges careers which are currently in progress (Duncan, LeBron) but otherwise seems to pass the sniff test.

Edit: Looking at that makes you feel bad for Bird and the injuries that derailed his prime.

This allows me to make the point I wanted to make.

Bird 80-83 is often underrated due to looking up something on basketball-reference, while 80-83 Magic overrated due to the perpetual brownie points from G6 1980. If you haven't dug into 1983 and the early 80's in detail, don't dismiss how much better Bird was Magic here (as you see above, it takes two more prime years from Magic to match Larry's first 4). Bird is a GOAT-level rookie out of the gate and MVP-level player. Magic is fantastic but did ramp up over the first few years.

I recommend youtube games, the SI vault, old newspaper articles, etc if you aren't familiar with the details of these teams and these seasons and find yourself more or less performing reductionism on these 4 years. The difference in play in these early seasons is probably why I'm one of few people on real gm to have Bird over Magic.

magicmerl · Post #22 » by **magicmerl** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 1:35 am

ElGee wrote:This allows me to make the point I wanted to make.

Bird 80-83 is often underrated due to looking up something on basketball-reference, while 80-83 Magic overrated due to the perpetual brownie points from G6 1980. If you haven't dug into 1983 and the early 80's in detail, don't dismiss how much better Bird was Magic here (as you see above, it takes two more prime years from Magic to match Larry's first 4). Bird is a GOAT-level rookie out of the gate and MVP-level player. Magic is fantastic but did ramp up over the first few years.

I recommend youtube games, the SI vault, old newspaper articles, etc if you aren't familiar with the details of these teams and these seasons and find yourself more or less performing reductionism on these 4 years. The difference in play in these early seasons is probably why I'm one of few people on real gm to have Bird over Magic.

Elgee, would it be possible for you to update that graph up to 2014, and maybe add LeBron on there as well? He was on your 11-21 list, but he's quite clearly an outlier on that chart.

ThaRegul8r · Post #23 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 1:36 am

magicmerl wrote:My vote goes to Bill Russell. I voted for him for #1 and #2 and see no reason to deviate here.

[...]

vs Duncan - It's eerie to me the similarities between these two. Both are primarily defensive centers, that have played for the same team their whole career, enjoyed sustained brilliance from the day they entered the league until their left, plus their character infused the whole team so that everybody was about winning. I'd be fascinated by the outcome of a similar swap between Duncan and Russell as was done between Hakeem and Russell.

Duncan's someone I'd wanted to see other people talk about in comparison to Russell, with the comparisons he's drawn to him over the years. I'd been writing about it myself, but I wanted to get the opinions of people outside myself.

Another parallel I wanted to see discussion on was Shaq/Wilt. I know Wilt's dropped here, but I wanted an objective discussion putting aside personal feelings or emotions. I was hoping for a fresh start, and to get into it at the level of depth I would prefer.

I want to preface this by saying that I hope that none of what I say is going to be taken for ammunition for agendas (as it's been on various boards in the past when people see I have stuff they don't that helps their agenda), as I want to spark a legitimate discussion. I don't care about agendas.

The two have a lot of parallels and similarities. They were both the strongest of their era, which led to problems about refereeing:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:
Coach Irked by Defense
By The Associated Press

The San Francisco Warriors have lost seven straight National Basketball Association games and Coach Alex Hannum is less than completely happy about it.

He charged the league had a double standard for defensive play after the Warriors were beaten Friday night by the New York Knicks 101-100 and the Warriors’ Wilt Chamberlain and the Knicks’ Jim Barnes almost got into a fight.

“There’s a double standard for defense in the pivot, one for the rest of the league and one for defense against Wilt,” Hannum said.

“Everybody can shove and push and maul Wilt and get away with it. We probably feel it more now because we’re losing, but it’s not fair.”

“Shaq is the most abused player in the league, hands down,” said Boston Globe columnist Peter May. “Yes, he dishes it out, but night in and night out, no one takes more whacks, chops, or blows than the Big Aristotle. As Paul Pierce noted yesterday, ‘I get hit a lot and I get frustrated when I don’t get the call, but it’s nothing compared to what Shaq goes through. I’m surprised he didn’t strike back a long time ago’ ” (Boston Globe, Jan 15, 2002).

Spoiler:

Shaq vs. the Refs
Does the Lakers' Shaquille O'Neal get away with murder in the paint, or is he the hapless victim of serial muggings?

By Jack McCallum

Shaquille O'Neal rises to his full 85 inches and extends a backside large enough to cover your average love seat. "See, I don't do this," he says, moving backward with little steps, leading with his butt, imitating an NBA center who shall remain nameless other than to say that Vlade Divac would be a good guess. Then he put his shoulder into a would-be defender and playfully knocked him back. "Are you telling me I that gotta knock over Shawn Bradley or David Robinson or anybody to make a basket?" says Shaq.
Well, uh, yes, Mr. O'Neal, some NBA observers say precisely that.

"I'll tell you this," continues Shaq, "it's going to be scary when I do start running people over because I have a lot of frustration to let go. I don't have a hit list or anything like that, but when I go after some people, I don't want to hear mouths running. Oh, why did Shaq do that? They're going to know why. I've been getting beat up for nine years, and maybe it's time to do some beating up."

Thus does the league's most irresistible force, as well as its most immovable object, elucidate his view of the unusual maelstrom of activity that seems to result whenever he gets the ball near the basket. Shaq's take: I'm getting killed under there. Others who prefer to remain nameless--possibly to stay off any list the 29-year-old O'Neal might one day draw up--believe that Shaq inflicts most of the damage, that he is "borderline dirty" (one Western Conference assistant coach) and that "as long as the refs won't blow the whistle, he can get away with anything in there" (one Western Conference player).

The question is this: Has the Los Angeles Lakers superstar become unrefereeable? Most NBA observers, even those who speak off the record, fall somewhere in the middle of the great debate--does he always foul or always get fouled?--believing that he is an extremely physical player who doles out punishment proportional to the punishment he receives. They concede that the singular combination of O'Neal's size, strength, nimble-footed quickness and ever developing skills has made it extremely difficult for even the best officials to whistle his game fairly.

By the end of last season's Finals, during which the Philadelphia 76ers' 7'2", 261-pound Dikembe Mutombo draped himself like a poncho over O'Neal, it was hard to recall a play near the basket that hadn't resembled a WWF cage fight. Sixers supporters thought O'Neal was playing bully; Lakers people thought Mutombo was to blame; neutral observers figured that the referees simply couldn't figure out who was initiating the mayhem.

The NBA, of course, has long had to contend with big men who seemingly threatened to overwhelm the game. Those men were different from O'Neal, however. In the 1950s George Mikan was a gentle giant who preferred a lefty or righty hook shot, often banked off the board. Wilt Chamberlain in the '60s was O'Neal's equal as a physical specimen--he may even have been more commanding because his opponents weren't exactly sculpting themselves in the weight room--but he preferred to show that he was made of finer stuff, often launching a fadeaway one-hander that left him 15 or 20 feet from the basket. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the '70s was a finesse player, a tactician who made 20 skyhooks for every rim-rattling dunk.

O'Neal? He likes it down low and low-down. Yes, his body control is phenomenal for a man of his size (340 pounds), and, yes, his ball handling is so adroit that Lakers coach Phil Jackson doesn't mind when he leads the fast break. Nonetheless, in the half-court game he invariably winds up near the basket, forever trying to get nearer, an eight-foot jump hook his version of a perimeter shot. He plays within a confined space, which becomes all the more crowded because of his size. "There are other huge people in the league," says the Dallas Mavericks' Bradley, who at 7'6" is five inches taller than Shaq but about 100 pounds lighter, "but nobody feels like Shaq. And nobody that size is nearly as quick or can jump like that."

Adds Jackson, "He's a very hard guy to referee. Around Shaquille, it seems to be a very physical game." Gee, you think?

O'Neal differentiates between players who guard him tough and players who guard him dirty. In the first category he puts, in no particular order, the old warriors of the post: Mutombo, Robinson, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing and Hakeen Olajuwon. He will not list the players he considers dirty other than to say that "most of them are forwards who come on the double-team to get me." He is not shy, however, about saying which players guard him without bending or breaking the rules. "Nobody," he says. Well, how about if you had to name someone? "I couldn't," he says. "I'm too big and too strong and too skillful for anyone to stop me."

He hates floppers as much as he hates dirty players. He singles out Divac of the Sacramento Kings and Arvydas Sabonis, late of the Portland Trail Blazers, as the leading practitioners of that dubious art. "When you flop, that's just another message that you don't know how to play me," says O'Neal. "Stand up and take your medicine like a man."

Predictably, the NBA will not admit that O'Neal presents a conundrum; the league has tried to avoid singling out players in any discussion of whistle-blowing. Ed Rush, the league's director of officiating, points out that there have always been players who present a challenge to referees. Rush, a respected ref for 31 seasons who retired in 1997, remembers sitting in a New York City steak house and watching refereeing legends Norm Drucker and Mendy Rudolph move around salt and pepper shakers to illustrate the correct position to make calls involving Chamberlain.

Rush says that NBA referees spent much off-season time working on officiating post play, and as he puts it, "Shaq is the poster child" for that greater examination. One difference this season is that the slot official--the middle one in the three-man crew--will be asked to make more calls on low-post plays, the league having decided that the ref on the baseline is frequently blocked.

Three situations can be pinpointed as particularly troublesome in trying to whistle the ultimate power player. The first is when Shaq comes across the lane in preparation for setting up on the low block and seems to clear out an area, claiming it as his own--"rooting out" his defender, in NBA parlance. "That can get a little frustrating," says the San Antonio Spurs' Robinson. "I remember one time he just rolled me over and kept going. I said to the refs, 'If you're not going to let me stop him with my hands [the league outlawed hand checking in the post in 1999], how can you let him knock me over?'"

The second is when Shaq receives the entry pass, tosses it back out, then moves closer to the hoop for the second entry pass. "When he passes the ball back out, the refs aren't really looking at him, at how he's reestablishing his space," says Bradley. "For a defender, it's very, very hard to get around anyone at that point--but particularly him."

Sacramento coach Rick Adelman concurs: "That's the one the referees let go way too much."

Number three occurs when Shaq, holding the ball, makes a quick pivot or simply turns to the basket and rams into his opponent's...what? Head? Shoulder? Jaw? "If you're guarding Shaquille, you try to lower your center of gravity," says NBC commentator Steve Jones, a former NBA guard. "So when Shaq comes across with his elbows, a player such as Dikembe has his face right there. If Shaq threw an elbow way out, you'd say it was an obvious foul. But it's within his offensive move, and that makes it difficult to officiate."

Bradley agrees. "One thing that's hard for Shaq to deal with--and I should know--is that his normal move will look high," he says. "He'll turn, clip somebody in the head with his elbow, and it'll be called. Happens to me, too. I say to the refs, 'Do you want me to play with my arms down at my sides?' You have to play close to Shaq, hang in there with him. But you also want to be able to smile when your career's over."

The glib (but accurate) assessment of these three situations is this: Sometimes Shaq is guilty, sometimes he's not. He's more often guilty, though, in the first situation than in the others. Shaq frequently runs over defenders when he comes across the lane to set up because, like all experienced players, he knows that refs are loath to call off-the-ball fouls. As for his talent at reestablishing, he is only doing what almost every other NBA player does, but with more size and skill. "You will never see me not use an angle," O'Neal says, and then he tells a reporter to stand behind him for a demonstration. (To the reporter, the effect is not unlike ducking into the shadow of a tall building.) "When I throw that ball back out, right away I put my foot where your foot is not," Shaq says, stepping over the defender's right foot and planting his own. "If I can get my foot there before you get yours there, I'm legal. Then I put the big ass on you, and son, you're done. I never back straight up into anyone. It's always an angle." We'll grant that he's more innocent than guilty in this situation.

Who's to blame when Shaq turns quickly and a defender ends up on his rump? According to Rush, "The offensive player is permitted to turn and make a natural basketball pivot." Makes sense. But what if the defender is so close that there's a lot of contact? "It's a bear of a call," says Rush. "It's dramatically easier to decipher incidental contact between guards and small forwards than it is between two big men. With big guys like Shaq the contact is so severe that even on a no-call somebody goes sprawling, usually the defender."

One thing is clear: In most cases O'Neal is not guilty of throwing elbows. "I was taught to keep my elbows right here," says Shaq, grasping a ball so that his upper arms form approximately a 40-degree angle with his rib cage. "You will never see me with my elbows out. They teach big men to protect the ball but not to swing the elbows. That's how I play. Now, if I turn and somebody's jaw is there," he says with a straight face, "well, that jaw is supposed to get broken."

Indeed, if some consider O'Neal borderline dirty, no one seems to think he's squarely on the dirty side. In fact, most opponents consider him among the cleanest players in the league, his physicality notwithstanding. "It's not about Shaq and the refs," says Charles Oakley, the Chicago Bulls' veteran power forward, referring to the constant whining by opposing centers. "It's about guys who guard Shaq having to check their own hearts."

Shaq's nearly impeccable on-court comportment certainly earns him points with the refs. "If most players were fouled the way Shaq gets fouled--hard fouls, hacking--they'd be ready to fight," Minnesota Timberwolves coach Flip Saunders says, "but Shaq just takes it and goes to the free throw line."

O'Neal doesn't say much to the referees or talk much about them publicly. He does, however, have rather strong feelings about them. Last season Jackson was lecturing his team about the increased pressure they would face not only from opponents but also from officials. Then he solicited opinions about referees. "I think they cheat," answered Shaq quickly. Jackson pooh-poohed this notion, but O'Neal reiterated it. "Guys have a knee in my butt and they're leaning on me as hard as they can, and nothing gets called," he said. Shaq considers all those no-calls tantamount to "cheating" by the refs.

This remains O'Neal's essential complaint about refereeing: When he posts up, defenders use everything short of an earthmover to dislodge him from his rightful position, and a foul is rarely called. He stops short of using the c word, but his position is clear. "Coming from a military family," says Shaq, "I believe that whatever is written should be enforced. Don't come to training camp and tell me that a defender can use only one hand [a defender can use one forearm to 'protect and maintain position'], and then somebody uses both of them, and you don't call it. Don't tell me that a defender can't put a knee in my ass, and then when somebody does, not call it. Whistle it exactly how the rule is written."

It will be interesting to see if the way the new zone rules are written will have a big effect on Shaq. Mavericks assistant Sidney Moncrief thinks O'Neal will be more effective because his rebound putbacks will increase if teams zone the Lakers, while Saunders thinks he will grow more frustrated because double-teaming will limit his touches. O'Neal maintains that he is prepared for the latter prospect. "My scoring is going to go down, and the more I get doubled, the more I'll depend on my guys," he says.

The key point may have been made by Washington Wizards coach Doug Collins, who believes Shaq is the one player strong enough to go wherever he wants regardless of which players--or how many--are in his way. Shaq smiles at that. "One thing you have to remember is that I've used only 20 percent of my strength at the offensive end," he says. "I keep it to that because I never know how the game is going to be called. With the new rules, who knows? Maybe I'll up that a little."

As ridiculously low as that 20% figure seems, Bradley believes it. "Sometimes I look at him, and as much as people are getting moved around in there, I know he's not using all of his strength," says Bradley. "I have thought about what would happen if he did." And what would happen? "I'd rather not go there."

Though we know they didn't both use their strength equally. In a 1993 interview with Roy Firestone, Wilt said:

Spoiler:

This was one of the criticisms of Wilt during his career:

Nat Broudy: Wilt [Chamberlain] was a funny ballplayer. He could have been so much better if he’d have gone to the basket more. You see, his shot was going away from the basket, that fadeaway shot.”

Charley Eckman: Wilt was the strongest man ever to play basketball, but he always took a fallaway. It was the damnedest thing. He played basketball the hard way. For that reason alone, he couldn’t carry Russell’s jock. If Wilt had consistently driven to the basket, he’d have scored 200 in a game.

Spoiler:

Shaq, however, didn’t care. “My role is to be a power player and dominate and dunk. That’s what made Shaq Shaq” (Elliot Kalb, Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball?: ‘Mr. Stats’ Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time, p. 7). “Shaq was and is an American original, Goliath who loved being Goliath, a big man always completely comfortable in his skin” (Michael Wilbon, “Shaq as Showman; Shaq as Superstar.” http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/s ... bon/110601). Though Shaq did grow up in another era, which enabled him to do this. A black man playing like Shaq in that era might not have gone over too well.

Jack Ramsey said, “I really think that Shaq was more of a team player. Wilt was a stats collector. He would decide before the season in what stats he wanted to lead the league” (“Classic Confrontation: Shaq vs. Wilt.” ProBasketballNews. 22 May 2006. http://www.probasketballnews.com/friedman_052206.html). Though Wilt did lead two of the greatest teams in NBA history in the '67 Sixers and '72 Lakers.

To be objective and balanced, as I said this isn't about agendas, one criticism of Shaq is that he didn’t come of age and become the "MDE" until all the other great centers either retired or passed their prime. He wasn’t First Team All-NBA until the 1997-98 season, his sixth in the league, when Hakeem Olajuwon was 35, David Robinson was 32, and Patrick Ewing was 35. Feb. 10, 2002, there was an article in The New York Times entitled, “Missing From the NBA Lineup: Peers For The One True Center”:

Spoiler:

Missing From the N.B.A. Lineup: Peers for the One True Center

By CHRIS BROUSSARD
Published: February 10, 2002

Two years ago, Pete Newell, a longtime teacher of basketball and a specialist in tutoring big men, was addressing hundreds of college and high school coaches at a clinic in Palm Springs, Calif.

After stating that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's sky hook was arguably the best, most proficient shot ever produced, Newell asked a question: ''How many of you could see the possibility of a player like Kareem executing his sky hook within the parameters of your offense?''

Not one coach raised his hand. So Newell repeated the question. The response was the same.

''I said, 'You know what you're telling me,' '' Newell said in a telephone interview last week. ''You're telling me that if Kareem went to your school and liked basketball, he would be the biggest darn manager in the history of the game.' ''

Imagine if professional basketball had never featured Abdul-Jabbar's graceful sky hook, or the legendary battles waged by Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, or even the face-offs between Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon. Sound farfetched?

Well, many respected people in basketball believe skilled post play is essentially a thing of the past and that the center position, once the most glamorous and dominating in the game, is now virtually bereft of first-rate players.

As evidence, they point to the National Basketball Association's 51st All-Star Game, which will be played Sunday at First Union Center in Philadelphia. Of the original 24 players selected to play, only 3 are bona fide centers. Shaquille O'Neal, the only offensively dominant center left in the league, will not play because of a toe injury.

Thus, the Western Conference team will feature five guards and seven forwards; the East will counter with seven guards, three forwards and two centers, neither of whom averages as many as 16 points a game.

As an aging generation of great centers -- Ewing, Olajuwon, David Robinson, Dikembe Mutumbo and Alonzo Mourning, who has been slowed by a kidney disease -- becomes less of a factor, a new wave of agile big men is redefining the role of frontcourt performers.

Players like Minnesota's Kevin Garnett, Sacramento's Chris Webber and Dallas's Dirk Nowitzki are changing the game by playing on the wing, facing the basket and showcasing the skills traditionally associated with small forwards or even guards.

Meanwhile, the center position is left to less talented, less athletic, often plodding players. So while six years ago there were five centers in the top 10 in scoring and rebounding, this season, O'Neal is the only center among the league's top 20 scorers. Among the top 20 in rebounding, only four play center exclusively.

''It's kind of a lost art,'' said Jerry West, the Hall of Fame player and former Laker general manager who constructed several championship teams, including the current one. ''If you look at all these young kids coming out who are 6-9 to 7 feet tall, they all want to play outside. They handle the ball extremely well, but the bottom line is that when somebody's that big, you certainly would prefer that they play closer to the basket, and more importantly, develop the kind of skills that back-to-the-basket centers have. I don't view this trend as a positive thing.''

Newell, who has run his highly regarded Big Man's Camp for the last 24 summers, said the nurturing of traditional post players began to fade when college and high school coaches began employing motion and flex offenses almost exclusively in the 1970's and 1980's.

In contrast to the post-oriented offenses that ran through the center and featured plenty of cutting and backdoor action, the motion and the flex rely on screening and creating shots for players coming away from the basket. They also congest the area near the basket, eliminating the space that is necessary for a post player to operate. That is why none of the coaches at Newell's clinic two years ago could imagine a player like Abdul-Jabbar having the room to utilize his sky hook in their offensive schemes.
''The adoption of those offenses meant the position of the post player was changed totally,'' said Newell, who has worked with Olajuwon, Abdul-Jabbar, O'Neal and Bill Walton, among hundreds of others.

''Motion and flex kind of took the center out in terms of being a skilled passer and shooter with various moves: hooks, reverses, spin moves, fake hooks.''

Several of today's more versatile big men point to another factor in their development: the effect of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, two icons of the 1980's.

Johnson, the 6-foot-9 point guard with the dazzling floor play, and Bird, the 6-9 marksman, destroyed the notion that height relegated one to playing in the post. The allure of giving and taking bruises beneath the basket could not compare with the excitement that young players associated with Johnson leading the fastbreak and tossing no-look and behind-the-back passes.

''When I was younger and saw Magic, George Gervin and Larry Bird, who was 6-9 shooting 3's, I wanted to emulate them,'' said Webber, who is 6-10. ''I think it's just an evolution. It's more about being a basketball player now, and I think that's good. The misconception is gone that because you have a tall eighth grade son, he has to play center. Dirk Nowitzki's 7 feet shooting 3's. I think that's awesome for basketball.''

These days, it seems that only the less gifted youngsters aspire to play down low. The top two picks in last summer's N.B.A. draft, the 6-11 Kwame Brown of Washington and the 7-foot Tyson Chandler of Chicago, both want to be small forwards rather than centers. So the Wizards' future interior will be left to Brendan Haywood, a promising 7-foot rookie who admits to playing inside only because he lacks the skills to compete elsewhere.

''It's definitely more attractive to play outside,'' Haywood said. ''If you're a young player coming up, you're seeing guys crossing people up with the dribble, shooting deep 3's, doing fancy moves. A lot of kids want to go out there and be entertaining, so they learn to play different positions. I really didn't have that option. I wasn't talented enough to go out and play small forward. I've been a center all my life and I'm going to continue to be one.''

Wayne Embry, a five-time All-Star center in the 1960's and a Hall of Fame executive, believes this style-over-substance mentality has led potential centers to opt for a less taxing perimeter game.

''There's a great deal of insecurity in developing a back-to-the-basket game,'' Embry said. ''You have to work hard, practice right-and-left-handed hook shoots, counter moves. If you just play facing the basket, you just need to practice jump shooting and putting the ball on the floor and driving. Another reason is that you get punished down low. You've got to have some heart to play in the post.''

Mourning, who along with Mutombo will be the only true center in today's game, agreed that the physical pounding intrinsic to post play deters many players.

''Not too many guys want to take that beating down there that we take on a regular basis,'' Mourning said. ''That's why there aren't too many of us left.''

West contends that strong post play makes the game easier for everyone and is essential to winning titles. N.B.A. teams are indeed combing the globe for quality centers. The reason? While the new breed of big men may wow crowds with their versatility, the old throwback, O'Neal, has won the last two championships.

''It's fun to watch centers like Vlade Divac, who is an outside guy and moves the ball and doesn't just have one type of game,'' Dallas Coach Don Nelson said. ''But Shaq is probably the most important player in the game.

''He wins the titles. He's the guy that's unstoppable. If you can find another dominant guy, you're going to get him and let him do what Shaq does.''

But O'Neal had some bad news for the purists. ''I'm the last of the true centers,'' he said. ''After I leave, there won't be any more.''

In that season Shaq made the All-NBA First Team at center, and the Second Team didn’t even have a center, but instead three forwards: Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Garnett and Chris Webber.

“Former NBA player and coach Matt Guokas was asked recently about whom he thought was the greatest center of all time. He said Wilt Chamberlain. He said that Shaquille O’Neal is missing somebody to make him better. ‘[Bill] Russell and Chamberlain had each other, along with Nate Thurmond, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Who does Shaq have? Evan Eschmeyer? Hakeem Olajuwon? Maybe Alonzo [Mourning] when he was younger. When Shaq was younger, he had Patrick [Ewing], Hakeem and David [Robinson]. They are not even in the same stratosphere with him now. He has no individual [rival]’ ” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar 10, 2002).

Spoiler:

Shaq is great — but how great, we may never know
Published: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:53 p.m. MDT

By Brad Rock
Deseret News sports columnist

He played with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Shaquille O'Neal, in different eras, which makes New Jersey Nets coach Byron Scott a good source on great centers. In addition, he played against some of the best ever — Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Bill Walton, Robert Parish, Patrick Ewing.

But never in his long career did he meet anyone as overwhelming as O'Neal, the unstoppable force as well as the immovable object. Best plan of action if Shaq comes at you in the low post? Same as what you do in an earthquake — crouch and cover.

"Whatever you're going to do, change the rules, to stop him, it's not going to stop him," Scott was telling reporters at the NBA Finals the other day. "When he wants to take over a basketball game, there's nothing you can do. He has the strength and the size and the agility. So if Mrs. O'Neal and Mr. O'Neal are around, if they can make one more for me, I'd really appreciate it."

Sorry, it's a limited edition of one.

When it comes to dominating centers in today's NBA, O'Neal stands alone. With three straight championships now on his resume, it is time to consider whether he is the greatest center ever.

Except for one problem: How are we to know?

Certainly at 7-foot-1, 350 pounds, he is the most imposing of all the great centers. Unfortunately for him, he arrived just as dominating centers were going out of fashion. Now there is Marcus Camby, masquerading as a center, and even Todd MacCullough is considered above average. It is an era of Bryant Reeves, Greg Ostertags, Jim McIlvanes and Shawn Bradleys.

A period in which the big men really aren't the Big Men.

Where have all the centers gone, long time passing? Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo are on the downward slope of their careers. None is young enough or strong enough to do much damage to either O'Neal's game or his psyche.

A long time ago, the game was populated by great centers — Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Walton, Abdul-Jabbar. But one at a time they grew old and left. That was followed by the aforementioned wave of centers, now in decline.

Eventually O'Neal arrived, as tall as the previous models and many pounds heavier. It became quickly apparent he was a cement truck in a Hyundai factory.

Even when he was young and inexperienced, it was never a matter of stopping Shaq, just whether he wanted to play that night. And so the games turned slightly silly as this year's NBA Finals progressed. That's because once the ball goes in to O'Neal, it's all over but the bruising. He either pounds his defender out of the way with his caboose or removes any obstacle by spinning his huge upper body.

When Shaq gets the ball, things always move.

In addition, he has extended his shooting range several feet in recent years — as though he needed another weapon.

O'Neal is a dramatic reminder of a lost era, when giants ruled the earth. Once upon a time fans could look forward to a Russell-Chamberlain matchup. There was anticipation, competition, suspense. Now the outcome is as certain as a death certificate. Viewers today don't have the pleasure of debating Russell versus Reid, Chamberlain versus Thurmond, Robinson versus Olajuwon.

Nowadays they get to watch Ostertag versus Reeves or, at best, Shaq versus Chump-of-the-Week.

Ultimately this dearth of top level centers could come back to haunt O'Neal. He's a certainty for the Hall of Fame, but he may eventually be shortchanged. Judging him against the current crop is like putting Bob Dylan in the midst of a group of boy bands — lightweights one and all.

He played against a few of the best centers but only when he was young and rising, not in his prime. No one coming up will develop in time to meet him at his best.

He will retire having never been seriously challenged.

The stark truth is that O'Neal will be winning rings until he gets bored. He will be listed among the greats. But whether he's the greatest may never be known. It's hard to judge how good the food is when you're the only restaurant in town.

I once posted early in my time here:

Spoiler:

ThaRegul8r wrote:Of Chamberlain’s 160 playoff games, 49 came against Bill Russell (30.6%). 30 percent of Chamberlain’s games were against the greatest defensive center of all time. Chamberlain played 62 playoff games after 1969, meaning that while Russell was in the league, Chamberlain played 98 postseason games, meaning exactly half of them were against the greatest defensive center of all time. Chamberlain went through Russell and Thurmond to win his first title in 1967, and went through Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Jerry Lucas to win in 1972. During the Lakers’ three-peat, O’Neal went through Rik Smits in 2000, a 35-year old Dikembe Mutombo in 2001, and Todd MacCulloch, Jason Collins and Aaron Williams in 2002.

Wilt faced Russell in the playoffs in 1960 (ECF), 1962 (ECF), 1964 (Finals), 1965 (ECF), 1966 (ECF), 1967 (ECF), 1968 (Finals), and 1969 (Finals), Willis Reed in 1968 (EC Semifinals), 1970 (Finals), and 1973 (Finals), Jerry Lucas in 1972 (Finals), Nate Thurmond in 1967 (Finals), 1969 (Western Conference Semifinals), and 1973 (WCF), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 1971 (WCF), 1972 (WCF).

EVERY YEAR WILT WAS FACING A HALL OF FAME CENTER AND TOP 50 PLAYER OF ALL TIME IN THE PLAYOFFS. Wilt played 49 games against Russell, 17 against Willis Reed, 17 against Nate Thurmond, 11 against Kareem, and five against Jerry Lucas. 99 of his 160 playoff games (61.9%).

In 1994, O’Neal was swept by Indiana and Rik Smits (15.7 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 2.0 apg, 1.05 bpg, .534 FG%) in the first round. Orlando was 50-32 and Indiana 47-35. In 1995, O’Neal faced Boston’s Eric Montross in the first round, Chicago’s Luc Longley in the Eastern Conference Semi-finals, Rik Smits (17.9 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, .526 FG%) in the Eastern Conference Finals, and was swept by Hakeem Olajuwon (27.8 ppg [2nd], 10.8 rpg [8th], 3.5 apg, 3.36 bpg [2nd], .517 FG%, Third Team All-NBA) in the NBA Finals. In 1996, O’Neal swept Detroit’s Otis Thorpe in the first round, faced Atlanta’s Andrew Lang in the EC Semis, and was swept by Chicago’s Luc Longley in the Eastern Conference Finals. In 1997 he faced Portland’s Arvydas Sabonis (13.4 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 2.1 apg) and Chris Dudley in the first round, and lost in five to Utah’s Greg Ostertag in the WC Semis. In 1998 he faced Sabonis (16.0 ppg, 10.0 rpg [9th], 3.0 apg, .493 FG%) in the first round, Seattle’s Sam Perkins (6-9, 235) in the WC Semis, and was swept by Utah’s Greg Ostertag in the WC Finals. In 1999 he beat a 36-year-old Hakeem Olajuwon (18.9 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.46 bpg, .514 FG%, Third Team All-NBA) in four in the first round, and was swept by San Antonio’s David Robinson (15.8 ppg, 10.0 rpg [10th], 2.1 apg, 2.43 bpg [9th], .509 FG% [5th], 31.7 mpg) in the WC Semis.

In 2000 he went through Sacramento’s Vlade Divac (12.3 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.0 apg, .503 FG%) in five in the first round, Phoenix’s Luc Longley, Mark West and Oliver Miller in five in the WC Semis, Portland’s Arvydas Sabonis (11.8 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 1.8 apg, .505 FG%) in seven in the WCF, and Indiana’s Rik Smits (12.9 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 1.1 apg) in six in the NBA Finals. In 2001 he went through Sabonis (10.1 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 1.5 apg) in three in the first round, Divac (12.0 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 2.9 apg) in four in the WC Semis, David Robinson (14.4 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 1.5 apg, 2.46 bpg [8th], 29.6 mpg, Third Team All NBA) in four in the WCF, and Defensive Player of the Year Dikembe Mutombo (10.0 ppg, 13.5 rpg [1st], 1.0 apg, 2.71 bpg [5th], .484 FG%, Second Team All-NBA) in five in the NBA Finals. In 2002, he went through Sabonis in three in the first round, Robinson (12.2 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1.79 bpg, .507 FG%, 29.5 mpg) in 5 in the semis, Divac (11.1 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 3.7 apg) in seven in the WCF, and New Jersey’s Todd MacCulloch (9.7 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 1.3 apg, 1.44 bpg, 24.2 mpg), Jason Collins (4.5 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 1.1 apg, 18.3 mpg) and Aaron Williams (7.2 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 0.9 apg, 18.9 mpg) in the Finals.

In 2003, O’Neal faced Minnesota’s Rasho Nesterovic in the first round, and lost to David Robinson (8.5 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 1.0 apg, 1.73 bpg, 26.2 mpg) in the semis. In 2004 he faced Houston’s Yao Ming (17.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.5 apg, 1.90 bpg, .522 FG%, Third Team All-NBA) in the first round, Rasho Nesterovic in six in the Western Conference Semis, Minnesota’s Michael Olowokandi and Ervin Johnson in the WCF, and lost to Detroit’s Ben Wallace (9.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg [3rd], 1.7 apg, 3.04 bpg [2nd], 1.77 spg, Second Team All-NBA) in five in the NBA Finals. In 2005 with the Heat he faced New Jersey’s Nenad Krstic and Jason Collins in the first round, Washington’s Brendan Haywood in the EC Semis, and lost to Ben Wallace (9.7 ppg, 12.2 rpg [2nd], 1.7 apg, 2.38 bpg [5th], 1.43 spg, Third Team All-NBA, DPOY) in seven in the ECF. In 2006 he went through Chicago’s Tyson Chandler in the first round, New Jersey’s Nenad Krstic and Jason Collins in the Semis, Ben Wallace in the ECF, and Dallas’ Erick Dampier and DeSagana Diop in the NBA Finals. In 2007 he was swept by Chicago’s Ben Wallace and P.J. Brown in the first round.

Shaq was eliminated from the playoffs by Rik Smits (1994), Hakeem Olajuwon (1995), Luc Longley (1996), Greg Ostertag (1997, 1998), David Robinson (1999, 2003), and Ben Wallace (2004, 2005, 2007). Wilt was eliminated by Russell (1960 [Second Team All-NBA, 2nd in MVP voting], ’62 [Second Team All-NBA, MVP], ’64-66 [MVP], ’68 [Second Team All-NBA], ’69 [First Team All-Defense, 4th in MVP voting]), Kareem, and Willis Reed (1970 [First Team All-NBA, First Team All-Defense, MVP; 21.7 ppg, 13.9 rpg [6th], 2.0 apg, .507 FG%], 1973). Shaq played 8 games against Hakeem Olajuwon and 19 against David Robinson. That’s 27 of 198 career postseason games (13.6%).

Wilt faced a Hall of Fame center and Top 50 Player of all time in 61 percent of the playoff games in played in his career. Shaq faced a Hall of Fame center and Top 50 Player of all time in 14 percent of the playoff games he played in his career.

Wilt faced Hall of Fame centers who still played like Hall of Fame centers. Nate Thurmond averaged 18.7 points, 21.3 rebounds and 2.6 assists in 1966-67 when Wilt faced him in the NBA Finals, and finished second in the MVP voting; he averaged 21.5 points, 19.7 rebounds and 3.6 assists in 1969, and was First Team All-Defense; he averaged 17.1 points, 17.1 rebounds and 3.5 assists in 1972-73, was Second Team All-Defense and ninth in the MVP voting. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was back-to-back NBA Most Valuable Player when Wilt faced him in 1971 (31.7 ppg [1st], 16.0 rpg [4th], 3.3 apg, .577 FG% [2nd], Second Team All-Defense) and 1972.

Now, a rebuttal to this, from ShaqAttack:

Spoiler:

ShaqAttack3234 wrote:But he also faced better team defenses, and in 2 of his finals series from the 3peat came against top 5 defenses(the number 5 ranked 76ers in '01 and the number 1 ranked Nets in '02), he also had 27/11 on 64% shooting against the Pistons historically great defense in '04, and that was when he had already dropped off from his prime and a young Shaq put up 28/12/6 on 60% shooting vs Hakeem and the Rockets.

I think Shaq was going to get those numbers in the finals, or close to it, he seemed to raise his game, perhaps seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, though it didn't work out in '95 and '04. I mean if you look at the 2000 finals, regardless of Dale Davis being overmatched at 6'10", 260, he was still a tough, physical player who made the all-star team that year, and he still would have been a big player for Wilt's era. Not to mention that with Kobe struggling and essentially missing 2 games and the Lakers not having a legit 3rd option, Shaq faced extra defensive attention and just seemed to disregard the double teams, and Wilt has only topped that 38 ppg scoring average in one playoff series in his career, which was when Wilt had 38.6 ppg in a playoff series vs the Hawks in '64. Also, Shaq's 38 ppg in the 2000 finals were accompanied by almost 17 rpg and 3 bpg on 61% shooting.

You put the 2001 DPOY on Shaq in the finals along with a great defensive team and the first 2 games, 44/20/5 and a near quadruple double(28/20/9/8), and averages of 33/16/5/3 on 57% shooting shooting.

I don't think it was ever a matter of Shaq just facing a "good" or even great center. I think it was a matter of team that either had a defensive strategy that could slow down Shaq and the personnel to execute it such as the Spurs and Blazers.

I mean, look at Sabonis circa 2000. Shaq had just put up 29-30 ppg on him in the '97 and '98 playoffs, and that version of Shaq in '97 and '98 wasn't as good as the 2000 version, and the '97 and '98 version of Sabonis was better than the 2000 version.

But if you watched the Blazers defensive strategy vs Shaq in 2000, it was much better and they were a much better defensive team than the '97 and '98 Blazers which to me makes a bigger difference than the 1 on 1 matchup vs a guy like Shaq who gets doubled so much as well.

And Sabonis was able to help contain Shaq in the 2000 WCF due to one thing. He was big enough(7'3", 300+ pounds) so that Shaq couldn't just get great post position before the catch. He had to start his move out farther and this is when you saw the double/triple teams come, when he put the ball on the floor. And when they couldn't come with the double/triple before he got a good shot, or if Shaq got through the double/triple team, the strategy was hack him. Now, this strategy depends a lot on how well his teammates are playing, and the Lakers weren't shooting great in that series, so the strategy was able to continue.

To me, that's a dominant scorer, when you have to put that kind of strategy in to even hope to contain a player(and though 26/12/4 on 54% shooting were by far Shaq's worst averages of his 2000 playoff run, they still won the series and those numbers are still good).

I've posted Shaq's career stats vs Alonzo Mourning before, and he absolutely crushed him, 30+ ppg for his career, good efficiency, great stats across the board and Zo was a great defender. So I'll always believe that when it came to Shaq, the team defense and the opposing center's size mattered a lot more than if he was one of the better defenders in the league.

As support for this, on ElGee’s blog, he wrote a post about players who faced the toughest defenses in the postseason in their primes, and Shaq was #3 on the list (BackPicks has been down for some time, but I had copied the pertinent information into my notes before it went down. Don't know how well it'll come out here):

Spoiler:

Both were inconsistent defensively, though Shaq anchored the best defense in the league in 2000, and Wilt also anchored the Lakers' defense during his later years. In fact, it was the defense that he played in '72 that caused Rick Barry to change his stance on Wilt. Barry had some caustic things to say about Wilt, but after '72, he said that if he'd been playing that kind of defense all along, that would have changed things. After that, he's done a 180 on Wilt. I used to have the exact quote, but unfortunately I can't find it anymore.

Wilt's the better rebounder, that's inarguable. “Hall of Fame coach and ESPN analyst Jack Ramsay […] [said] he would take O'Neal over Chamberlain. ‘Shaq is quicker, more agile and has a more complete offensive game,’ Ramsay says” (David DuPree, “NBA’s Lords of the Rim Invade Hollywood.” USA Today, Feb. 12, 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba ... over_x.htm).

Spoiler:

“Wilt was a great passer, but I think Shaq is his equal there” (The Spectator, Jun. 5, 2002).

I think that's long enough for the moment, unless I think to include something else. But I like to get into discussions more in-depth than most. I'd like a balanced discussion of the pros AND cons of each, rather than one side lauding all the praises of one and drawbacks of the others. Hopefully, some will come of this.

EDIT: I opened a new Word file to copy stuff into for Wilt/Shaq discussion points, and forgot one thing. Shaq’s longevity is often cited by Shaq supporters, but from 1992-93 (his rookie season) to 2005-06 (his last year selected to the All-NBA First Team), Shaq played 81, 81, 79, 54, 51, 60, 49 (50-game lockout season), 79, 74, 67, 67, 67, 73, and 59 games. Subtracting the lockout, that’s an average of 68.6 games per 82-game season. During discussion on Bill Walton during the Highest Peaks project, one poster said:

Spoiler:

Yet Shaq played a mere four more games than Bill Walton played in ’1976-77 on average for his first 13 full seasons. I've wondered how one can reconcile that Walton is "fragile" for only playing 65 games, yet Shaq averages 69 for 13 years, but that isn't a problem. Wilt, on the other hand, was an ironman. He had only one major injury in his career, when he missed 70 games in 1969-70. Outside of that season, he averaged 79.5 games a season. Phil Jackson wrote of Shaq:

Spoiler:

Now, that same size which contributed to his "unstoppability" also hampered his durability. Now, people can say they're okay with that so long as Shaq is ready to perform in the postseason, but I find it disingenuous when Shaq's longevity is cited without mention of his durability, when another player is "fragile." As, I said, I'd like a balanced discussion covering BOTH pro and cons instead of slanting toward one side. Since I have no GOAT list, I'm open to hearing it.

Post #24 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 2:53 am

VOTES WITH NO REASONING WILL NOT BE COUNTED. DON'T RESERVE A SPOT, DON'T SAY YOU WILL PUT REASONING IN LATER, DON'T POST UNTIL YOU ARE CAPABLE OF POSTING A COHERENT ARGUMENT. THANK YOU.

Post #25 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 3:09 am

Yeah I echo the don't reserve a spot because if several pages go by many of us might not think to go back and read your post and we might miss some really good insight. I know I'd never remember to go back and check.

Post #26 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 3:11 am

Obviously I'm voting Russell too.

Vs. the other bigs mentioned here:

He beat Wilt head to head in key playoff battles 10 out of 11 years! Wilt is the greatest individual stat machine to ever play, including Jordan and Kareem, but everytime it came to to crunch time Russell's team won. Then you look at team impact defensively (and the lack of incredible team impact offensively for Wilt to match his individual dominance) and it's clear to me Russell was the better player despite the stats.

He is clearly superior to Hakeem and Shaq not only defensively (though Hakeem is one of the top 5 all-time, Russell is the easy #1); he is a clearly superior rebounder, possibly just as important, he was a guy committed to team goals and winning from day 1. Hakeem was a pretty whiny player during a lot of the first half of his career, he tried to talk his way out of Houston several times. I think that stuff affects a team; particularly from their superstar (see Carmelo in Denver, the Dwightmare in Orlando, etc.). Shaq has been a "me" guy on a number of levels, from trashing his teams on his way out of town more than once to bickering with Kobe about number of shots. Can anyone imagine Russell bickering with teammates about his stats?

As for Duncan, he is the modern equivalent of Russell -- classy, team oriented, a winner from day one -- but he just never seems as dominant as Russell did. I will be open minded to arguments for Duncan v. Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem for that reason, but for #3, my vote is for the guy who I supported for #1, Bill Russell.

DHodgkins · Post #27 » by **DHodgkins** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 3:20 am

Vote: Bill Russell

Had him at #2 so not too much to say.

Greatest champion and greatest defensive impact ever. Mix in the intangibles, leadership and the accolades he would have won... He's the choice here.

Notanoob · Post #28 » by **Notanoob** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 3:29 am

[quote="ThaRegul8r"][/quote]
With regards to Russel's floor among big men, I'd put him ahead of KG, clearly but not by a huge margin. Russel's defensive impact was much greater than The Big Tickets; of this I have no doubt. Russel was, by all accounts, just as mobile and capable of smothering perimeter players and pick-and-rolls, and certainly there is no gap in intelligence in KG's favor. I believe that Russel would certainly equals KG's perimeter defense. However, Russel appears to be better at being an actually center- a guy who intimidated you in the paint, blocked shots and cleared the glass. Your article articulates what we all know- KG wouldn't block shots quite like Russel did.

So the question is "how big is the gap on offense, and is it big enough to put KG ahead?" I'd say no. I believe that Russel gets the short end of the stick with regards to his offense. We (I suppose I shouldn't include you here) look at his garbage FG% and low volume and don't consider how his stats were negatively effected by the offensive system, or even if we do acknowledge that, we don't really consider how he'd be used today. It's really not that hard. You've got a 6'11" super-freak athlete who can out-run and out-jump the majority of guys in the league- you put him in pick and rolls, you have him hang out around near the basket and clean up missed shots or get alley-oops; in other words, dunks, dunks, and dunks. Just look at how valuable a guy like Andre Drummond is with essentially no skills yet. All he has to do is jump, catch the ball and throw it down, and he's a net positive. I struggle to believe that Russel couldn't do this. He'd keep his man glued to him because no one would want to give him an easy lane to the basket.

We also know that Russel was an all-time great rebounder, and I believe that he could certainly crash the offensive glass. Dennis Rodman was a positive on offense by sheer rebounding prowess; keep enough possessions alive and you'll be bound to help out.

But we know that Russel had more than athleticism like Drummond or obsessive rebounding like Rodman, he also was a proficient passer. He was known for his outlet passing, but even in a transition-heavy offense, managed to pick up as many as 5.8 assist per game (not sure what that would look like pace-adjusted), when you had to immediately shoot the ball upon catching it to pick up an assist. He had to have some skill at passing the ball in the half-court for this to happen.

So combine all that together and while you don't have a first option or offensive anchor, you do have a very positive contributor on offense, who's extremely portable. Cleans up you're volume scorer's mess, finishes nicely for your set-up man, and sets people up himself- unselfish and a benefit to everyone.

I'd place Russel ahead of KG and next to David Robinson, but behind Hakeem. I believe that Robinson and Hakeem are two guys who could nearly approximate Russel's defense given that they didn't have to shoulder a heavy offensive load, but they have more isolation scoring ability to give them the edge on offense.

E-Balla · Post #29 » by **E-Balla** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 3:36 am

I'm voting Russell. I'm busy right now but do I really need to explain? Most impressive career of anyone sans Jordan and he isn't the best player left in the pool but he's the most consistent (his worst year is better than anyone else' worst year I can think of). A consistent top 5 performance for 13 years that end in 11 rings is deserving of the 3rd spot

ThaRegul8r · Post #30 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 4:01 am

Notanoob wrote:With regards to Russel's floor among big men, I'd put him ahead of KG, clearly but not by a huge margin. Russel's defensive impact was much greater than The Big Tickets; of this I have no doubt. Russel was, by all accounts, just as mobile and capable of smothering perimeter players and pick-and-rolls, and certainly there is no gap in intelligence in KG's favor. I believe that Russel would certainly equals KG's perimeter defense. However, Russel appears to be better at being an actually center- a guy who intimidated you in the paint, blocked shots and cleared the glass. Your article articulates what we all know- KG wouldn't block shots quite like Russel did.

So the question is "how big is the gap on offense, and is it big enough to put KG ahead?" I'd say no. I believe that Russel gets the short end of the stick with regards to his offense. We (I suppose I shouldn't include you here) look at his garbage FG% and low volume and don't consider how his stats were negatively effected by the offensive system, or even if we do acknowledge that, we don't really consider how he'd be used today. It's really not that hard. You've got a 6'11" super-freak athlete who can out-run and out-jump the majority of guys in the league- you put him in pick and rolls, you have him hang out around near the basket and clean up missed shots or get alley-oops; in other words, dunks, dunks, and dunks. Just look at how valuable a guy like Andre Drummond is with essentially no skills yet. All he has to do is jump, catch the ball and throw it down, and he's a net positive. I struggle to believe that Russel couldn't do this. He'd keep his man glued to him because no one would want to give him an easy lane to the basket.

We also know that Russel was an all-time great rebounder, and I believe that he could certainly crash the offensive glass. Dennis Rodman was a positive on offense by sheer rebounding prowess; keep enough possessions alive and you'll be bound to help out.

But we know that Russel had more than athleticism like Drummond or obsessive rebounding like Rodman, he also was a proficient passer. He was known for his outlet passing, but even in a transition-heavy offense, managed to pick up as many as 5.8 assist per game (not sure what that would look like pace-adjusted), when you had to immediately shoot the ball upon catching it to pick up an assist. He had to have some skill at passing the ball in the half-court for this to happen.

So combine all that together and while you don't have a first option or offensive anchor, you do have a very positive contributor on offense, who's extremely portable. Cleans up you're volume scorer's mess, finishes nicely for your set-up man, and sets people up himself- unselfish and a benefit to everyone.

I'd place Russel ahead of KG and next to David Robinson, but behind Hakeem. I believe that Robinson and Hakeem are two guys who could nearly approximate Russel's defense given that they didn't have to shoulder a heavy offensive load, but they have more isolation scoring ability to give them the edge on offense.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of detailed analysis I was looking for.

lorak · Post #31 » by **lorak** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:05 am

I see people are still voting for Russell, but no one explaind some key things and I would like Russell's supporters to do that:

- how do you explain Russell's first three seasons? why he didn't improve Celtics more than by ~1.5-2 SRS?

- how valuable were players like Joneses, Hondo, Sanders, Heinsohn or Howell? (it's important to understanting how much credit Russell should get for mid 60s Celtics teams)

- how do you explain that during last several years Celtics offense in the playoffs was as important as defense?

- what you think was Russell's offensive impact (and why you think so), especially in light of data presented by Colts (w/o Russell Boston's offense was very good), and thus what was his overall impact?

Post #32 » by **TrueLAfan** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:09 am

Well, I’m voting for Bill Russell. I thought Baller2014’s writeup of Duncan was sensational. It’s making me reconsider my votes at #4 and #5. And I’ve said why I like Russ in my posts for the #1 and #2 player. To me, it’s either Russell or Wilt or Magic (although, as I said, I’m thinking of pushing TD into the discussion more in the next round or two.)

As others have noted, Magic has the reverse Bill Russell impact—amazing offense. (Not so much on D.) Great leadership. Magic Johnson is my favorite NBA player of all-time. And I am left to wonder whether, if Karl Malone hadn’t been a complete ****, what would have happened to Magic with a bunch more seasons added to his legacy. But that didn’t happen—he “only” has the five rings. And, to be honest, Magic was a totally great—but not fully formed—player in his first 3-4 years. He and Kareem were pretty much1 and 1A in that period. I think Russell in his final 3-4 yerars was more valuable than Magic. That eliminates Magic for me. Well, that and the 11 rings.

That leaves Wilt. Figures.

I’m a Wilt fan. Always have been. And I think RealGM treats him more roughly than it should sometimes, for reasons beyond Wilt’s control. In the #1 thread, I noted that Russell has had a lot of luck go his way—the examples I noted were:

• A fortuitous goal tending call against the opposing team in the final minutes of game 7 of the EC Finals in 1962
• Havlicek’s steal (following Russell’s turnover!) in the final seconds of game 7 of the EC Finals in 1965
• The 1968 EC Finals which was just a clusterf%@# by and for the Sixers
• Butch Van Breda Kolff’s coaching miscues in Game 7 of the Finals.

Every one of those was against Wilt’s teams. The vast majority of these had nothing to directly do with Wilt or Russell. But the fact is that the prime beneficiary was Bill Russell, and the guy who took the hit was Wilt Chamberlain. I think that sucks. I think that makes us get more down on Wilt more than we should. Let’s say that Mendy Rudolph—who really was kind of a Boston homer—doesn’t make the bad goaltending call on Wilt in 1962. And Hal Greer throws a decent inbound pass in 1965 and somebody scores. Russell would still have 9 rings. Wilt would have 4. How much differently would we look at them? How would this alter the discourse? I think it would change things a lot. Wilt had 30 points (on 12-15 shooting) and 32 rebounds in the 1965 Game 7. The 1962 Celtics had a (far) better team than the Sixers, and Wilt would have led the upset. I really think we’d look at Wilt differently.

But that didn’t happen.

And even if it did—Wilt Chamberlain was the most self-destructive great player of all time. (Shaq is second.) I’ve said before that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest rebounder, greatest defender, and greatest scorer in history. But he was never more than one of those things at the same time. What strikes me about Wilt is that he needed to be told things. And when he did what he was told, and it didn’t work out, he took the blame. That is not the dnmic personality suited to big game basketball. In the 1968 EC finals, when his teammates weren’t doing anything, Wilt kept passing them the ball. Yes, Alex Hannum should have said something. But Wilt was on the court. And Wilt was passive. Wilt should have done something. In the 1974 NBA Finals Game 7, Heinsohn made the double teams of Kareem constant after Kareem had a 14 point first quarter. And Kareem was held scoreless in the second quarter. Kareem was doing what he was told to do; what every player is told to do in that situation. He was passing the ball to the open man—just what Wilt did in the 1968 EC Finals Game 7. The only other guy on the court for the Bucks that was really hitting was Mickey Davis, who was playing in place of the injured Lucius Allen. Mickey didn’t shoot much, but when he did, it went in in this game…he was 6-9 from the field. The other three starters were 8-28. The Celtics had a 15 point lead in the middle of the third quarter.

So Kareem simply started shooting again—whether he had a good shot or not. Whether he was double teamed or not. He saw that others weren’t getting it done, and he did what he had to do. Kareem scored 12 in his last 16 minutes of court time. The Bucks cut it to one early in the fourth quarter, but Boston went on a couple of runs and had it put away in the final minutes.

So what’s the point? Both guys lost—but the way they lost reflects very differently on each player. Kareem did what he had to do. There’s never been any indication that Larry Costello was going crazy setting up plays (that was not his style). Costello didn’t need to. Kareem saw what was going on and knew what he had to do. Wilt was not like that. When his teammates weren’t scoring in the 1968 Game 7, he kept passing them the ball. The guy who had led the league in FG% for the last four years and never averaged less than 24 points a game kept passing the ball. And the Sixers lost. It’s very different from the way the Bucks lost (and this is leaving out Richie Powers ignoring Dave Cowens’s fouls in the fourth quarter). One guy stepped in and made decisions to try and right a bad situation. The other did not.

At certain critical junctures of games, great players take over. Wilt had fewer of those games than any other great player. Part of is certainly bad coaching—which he had a lot of. And part of Wilt’s strength—that he could do so many things at a high level—might have hurt him. Nobody ever asked Shaq to cut his scoring by 50-70% and be the best defender in the league—it wouldn’t have worked. But Wilt was asked. He did what he was told. And, IMO, that attitude sometimes made him a passive participant in games that should have been won.

This is leaving out the ego, the focus on stats, stuff like that. I think that’s overblown. But I also think it’s true. I have personally asked Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to describe/talk about a year when he thought he was passing the ball well. “Hmmm. It’s hard to say,” was his response. Wilt would have known the years and assist numbers. He had a different focus, and that focus was not always on winning (or kept him from focusing on winning). Sometimes it was puzzling. Everyone remembers Willis Reed in the 1970 Finals Game 7. But Reed got hurt in the first quarter of Game 5—and the Knicks won that game. Wilt took a total of 12 shots—only nine after Reed went down. In Game 6, Wilt was dominant … with Reed out, he went 20-27 from the field and had 45 points and 27 boards. It was amazing. But that only highlighted the fact that he didn’t do that for the final 36 minutes of Game 5. Did it take a day off to realize his massive size advantage against DeBusschere? Really? Again, passivity. I simply cannot take a player like that over Bill Russell. The top 3 players, to me, are a substantial level above the next group. That, to me, is where Wilt is. Sorry.

I 100% believe that if Wilt had had good coaching for most of his career, he would have won more titles and been a “better” player. (And at times, even below average coaching would have been enough—Hello Butch!) So part of his problem is beyond his control. But I don’t know if Wilt ever would have been in the top 3. I think he lacked the killer instinct. In a way, that he was as good as he was, given his idiosyncratic personality and run of bad luck, is kind of amazing. I think he’s a top 5 player. But he’s not the #3 player.

drza · Post #33 » by **drza** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:13 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:(snip)
So, in comparison with Russell, Russell has the horizontal game plus shotblocking that Garnett never did, and rebounded at a level that Garnett didn't do in Boston where he could concentrate on defense. This is something you mention as well. So Garnett's a better two-way player, but when he was in a situation where he could play like Russell, he didn't rebound like him or block shots like him. So if Garnett is the floor, it's something to ponder. Additionally―rightly or wrongly―Garnett's "clutchness" was questioned during the title run, while Russell was regarded as clutch when he played, and Russell was actually a name I saw brought up against Garnett in a couple of articles as someone who possessed the "clutchness" Garnett didn't.

I'm definitely planning to weigh in here, but I haven't had the time to put something together yet. In the meantime, as I was looking through my notes I re-found this article written by Paul Shirley in the summer of 2007 called "Kobe and KG - What would happen if the NBA's two most intriguing players ended up on the same team?" Shirley has an interesting perspective, having had a cup of coffee with both the Lakers and the Timberwolves. In his take, he compares KG with Russell. The comparison is more general, not the kind of defensive breakdown you're looking for, but still interesting. And I also had to chuckle at his vision of what a team would be like with both KG and Kobe on it.

Kobe and KG - What would happen if the NBA's two most intriguing players ended up on the same team?

The NBA Finals ended 10 days ago. By all accounts, including my own, they were a disaster—the lowest rated Finals in the history of the world. Bucking my normal holier-than-thou attitude, I tried to watch the games. I should have stuck with aloofness; my strategy of combating boredom with lines of cocaine probably won't aid me in finding a basketball job for the coming season.

Fortunately for the emotional health of the general public—and for the nasal health of me—more important events have come to pass since the Spurs won the title. It has been reported that Kobe Bryant (arguably the league's most marketable player) and Kevin Garnett (arguably its most talented) might … in theory … possibly … be traded … if about 573 variables line up correctly. And now, "league sources" are saying that both guys could end up on the Lakers. In the wake of the Finals debacle, all of this has been sufficient to ignite the requisite sports media firestorm.

I have something of a unique viewpoint on all of this. In the fall of 2001, I lasted three weeks in training camp with Bryant's Los Angeles Lakers before being released and told that I probably ought to go play in Europe. In 2006, I repeated the experience with Garnett's employer, the Minnesota Timberwolves, before being cut so the team could concentrate its financial resources on an alcoholic, a guy who dances like Elaine Benes, and a man who had only that year crashed his SUV while masturbating.

Having spent a similar amount of time in the semi-intimate company of both men, I can say confidently that two people couldn't be more different. Kevin Garnett is one of the most impressive humans I've ever been around.

Kobe Bryant isn't.

As a strict contrarian, I wish it weren't so. But in this case, there have been no mischaracterizations. Garnett is noble, loyal, and larger-than-life. And, again, Bryant isn't.

Of course, Kevin Garnett is no teddy bear. When I arrived in Minnesota for camp, I spent my first two days playing pickup games with the team. Upon finding me—a person he had never met before—on the court, Garnett quickly had me replaced by someone from the sideline. Which I certainly didn't appreciate. But after a few weeks around the man, I decided that he had the right to tell me what to do—the court we were playing on was his court. The team playing on it: his team.

As for personal encounters with Bryant, suffice it to say that his replica jersey is not hanging in my bedroom. I related a few details of our brief time together in my book—the multiple bodyguards he employed in training camp, his insecurity, his general surliness toward most of humanity. Feel free to jog down to the local Barnes & Noble and skim the first 30 pages as supplementary reading. (I wouldn't sink so low as to tell you to buy it. That would be despicable.)

Garnett is a throwback superstar, a Bill Russell for the modern age. When some people conjure up Russell they visualize the consummate winner, a man who led his teams to 11 NBA championships. But I link the two men by personality. By all reports, Russell shares Garnett's intelligence, grace, and intensity. And, in his defense, Garnett has never had a Cousy or a Havlicek.

Unfortunately, it could be that the modern age has no use for Bill Russell. One of Garnett's greatest strengths—his loyalty—is laughably out of place in the superstar-focused NBA. Compared, for example, to the Kobe Bryant school of leadership. Bryant has publicly questioned the ability of his teammates; Garnett has never complained about the mediocre supporting casts he's been given. Bryant refused to play for the team that drafted him (the Charlotte Hornets); Garnett has embraced the state of Minnesota like a taller, darker version of Prince. Even this year, with his team in a tailspin and his own game under scrutiny, Garnett did nothing to shift the blame. Meanwhile, Bryant was preparing for a summer of trade demands and pro-wrestler-style pronouncements.

As for the rumors of a Bryant/Garnett combination in purple and gold: The scenario might be plausible if everyone who's not on the Lakers payroll lost his mind at the exact same moment. Then again, Kevin McHale has long been considered a rather ineffectual GM. It is possible that he would be dumb enough to help create the most unstoppable pairing since He-Man and Battle Cat. But I've gathered that his IQ hovers above the level needed to button a polo shirt in the morning, so I'd wager that he's smart enough to avoid bringing about the basketball apocalypse in his own conference.

Should McHale's neurons stop firing and the trade get made, the resulting cauldron of intensity would be impressive to behold. For all their differences, Garnett and Bryant do share one trait. They might be the two most focused human beings I've been around. In fact, if they were on the same team, they'd probably each reach new heights as a result of their efforts to outdo the other. The Lakers would cease to exist as a team, per se. Instead the "team" would be two dudes screaming at each other while three others ran around trying to avoid their wrath. Should the trade happen, the Lakers' front office would immediately begin a search for players with only one trait: "enjoys being subjected to extreme levels of verbal abuse."

Of course, the most likely outcome of the Garnett/Bryant brouhaha is the most boring one. In all probability, neither player will be traded. Bryant's Lakers will be unwilling to part with a proven cash cow, and Garnett's Timberwolves will struggle to find a partner in a trade. In the NBA, the salaries of the players involved in a trade have to match up, more or less. Garnett is scheduled to make $22 million next year. Last year, the Charlotte Bobcats' team payroll was $41 million. It would take a bunch of Bobcats to buy one Timberwolf.

Even so, all of this trade talk is good for the NBA. David Stern loves when the NBA knocks baseball off the front pages in the off-season. It gives basketball fans something to talk about. And it gives them hope after an awful, boring season. And sports is nothing without hope. Hope that the Cubs will win a World Series. Hope that a two-lap lead will be enough. Hope that the starting outside linebacker will stop impregnating 17-year-olds. And, this summer, hope that a very tall, very athletic man—good or bad, noble or not, hero or archenemy—will come to town to save the day.

Gregoire · Post #34 » by **Gregoire** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:19 am

My vote goes to Wilt Chamberlain. He is little disrespected on this board and I can see why, assuming all these approximations, numbers and SRS, but every time in playoffs with boston and philly/SF on the line in games 7, 1-3 points decided the outcome every time. Think about it. How we would see all the numbers disproportion of Wilt vs Bill if, saying, Wilt won 3 of 6 battles... and if 4? I know, its all "what if" thing, but our approximations and analysis of that era is usually not so much evident because of lack of footage. From what I saw by eye-test in small sample of footage.. Wilt was better.

Dipper 13 · Post #35 » by **Dipper 13** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:19 am

That is not the dnmic personality suited to big game basketball. In the 1968 EC finals, when his teammates weren’t doing anything, Wilt kept passing them the ball. Yes, Alex Hannum should have said something. But Wilt was on the court. And Wilt was passive. Wilt should have done something. In the 1974 NBA Finals Game 7, Heinsohn made the double teams of Kareem constant after Kareem had a 14 point first quarter. And Kareem was held scoreless in the second quarter. Kareem was doing what he was told to do; what every player is told to do in that situation. He was passing the ball to the open man—just what Wilt did in the 1968 EC Finals Game 7. The only other guy on the court for the Bucks that was really hitting was Mickey Davis, who was playing in place of the injured Lucius Allen. Mickey didn’t shoot much, but when he did, it went in in this game…he was 6-9 from the field. The other three starters were 8-28. The Celtics had a 15 point lead in the middle of the third quarter.

So Kareem simply started shooting again—whether he had a good shot or not. Whether he was double teamed or not. He saw that others weren’t getting it done, and he did what he had to do. Kareem scored 12 in his last 16 minutes of court time. The Bucks cut it to one early in the fourth quarter, but Boston went on a couple of runs and had it put away in the final minutes.

So what’s the point? Both guys lost—but the way they lost reflects very differently on each player. Kareem did what he had to do. There’s never been any indication that Larry Costello was going crazy setting up plays (that was not his style). Costello didn’t need to. Kareem saw what was going on and knew what he had to do. Wilt was not like that. When his teammates weren’t scoring in the 1968 Game 7, he kept passing them the ball. The guy who had led the league in FG% for the last four years and never averaged less than 24 points a game kept passing the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Vtw7fbktc&t=7m55s

On average, Wilt would get 15 post touches a quarter, or 60 per game. In the 2nd half of that game 7, Wilt got only 7 touches total, and 2 in the 4th quarter. They lost that series for the same reason they lost in '66. Boston defense collapsed on Wilt, denying him the ball while the perimeter guys kept missing.

Post #36 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:20 am

OK, this might be a touch of a dark horse pick, but for #3, My Vote: Wilt Chamberlain.

I'll allow that his motivations weren't always where we would all say they should be and that that resulted in some occasionally under-whelming team outcomes. He nonetheless DID have a considerable degree of team success:

*His teams collectively went 716-413 (.634) in the rs (fyi, that's better than the cumulative records of Hakeem, Barkley, Robertson, KG, West......approximately equal to those of Kobe Bryant or Dirk Nowitzki).

**Faults withstanding, I think he deserves a lot of credit for that team success: I think there can be little question he was a dominant player, for one. And from 1960-61 season thru the end of his career Chamberlain's teams were 625-348 (.642) when Chamberlain played, 42-39 (.519) when he was out (+12.3%).
The Warriors were 32-40 (.444) the year before he arrived.....improved to 49-26 (.653) his rookie season. The final half-season a slumping and poorly motivated Wilt played with them they were a dismal 10-28 (.263) when he played, but an even worse 7-35 (.167) without him.
He anchored a team which needs to be mentioned among the greatest ever assembled in '67.
***Career team playoff record of 88-72 (.550); that's a better playoff win% and more total playoff wins than Hakeem, KG, Barkley, Dirk, or Moses Malone (despite the shorter playoffs in Wilt's day), as well as more than Robertson.
****Did win two rings and had 6 finals appearances.

I rate his peak very high, pretty much neck and neck with Shaq (very comparable players, imo). And I think his dominance is fairly portable across eras. Actually discussed this to some degree in recent thread: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328035&start=80 (my post is #86). Russell's got the ringz, but I tend to think of Wilt as the best center (best player) of the 1960's.

And as far as "statistical footprint" is concerned......he is almost without peer. Kareem, and maybe MJ are about the only two he can realistically be compared with in this regard.

EDIT: Also---->From RPoY Project........4x #1, 3x at #2, 3x at #3, twice at #4, once at #6. Top 3 in 10 of 14 seasons, top 4 in 12 of 14; only season he wasn't in the top 6 was the year he was injured.

Anyway, that's it in a nut-shell.

Post #37 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:26 am

lorak wrote:I see people are still voting for Russell, but no one explaind some key things and I would like Russell's supporters to do that:

- how do you explain Russell's first three seasons? why he didn't improve Celtics more than by ~1.5-2 SRS?

- how valuable were players like Joneses, Hondo, Sanders, Heinsohn or Howell? (it's important to understanting how much credit Russell should get for mid 60s Celtics teams)

- how do you explain that during last several years Celtics offense in the playoffs was as important as defense?

- what you think was Russell's offensive impact (and why you think so), especially in light of data presented by Colts (w/o Russell Boston's offense was very good), and thus what was his overall impact?

Im confused. The Celtics SRS prior to Russell was .72. The year before that it was negative His first year it was 4.79 and they won the title. Seems like an immediate and obvious impact and was maintained long term.

Why don't you tell us how valuable they are. Seems like the onus should be on you to make the case that Russell wasnt the most important factor on those teams since its bothering you.

How did you determine offense was just as important? Or is it just because you say so? And typically both ends are important, not sure that one's ever more important. I guess what you mean to ask is why did the offense seem to have as much to do with their success as defense? Again you should be providing your reasoning, not simply stating it as fact and asking us to repute it. But maybe part of the reason is Russell was so good defensively it allows the team to both play more offensive minded players and to take more chances offensively. Much like Dirk allowed the post-Nash Mavs to play defensive minded players.

Again this obsession with making Russell out to be a scrub offensively. He finished in the top 8 in assists 4 times from the center position. Finished top 5 in FG% 4 times. He scored 15 ppg and 16 in hte PS. He's not an elite offensive player, but you are acting like he's Gana Diop. He's not. And is the goal really to make the offense better or the team? Seems likely when you play without the best defensive player in the world if you still want to compete its easier to make it up on the offensive end. I would imagine the games would be coached/played differently without him. But who cares? The goal is to win the game, not have the best offense, or defense, or whatever.

Dr Positivity · Post #38 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:47 am

I appreciate the Wilt posts here. My impression of Shaq and Wilt's games is I prefer Shaq's game's simplicity. To steal a metaphor from Michael Lombardi of NFL fame it feels like Wilt is the restaurant that has too needlessly big a menu, when a shorter one would allow them to make each meal on it better. Wilt sounds as insecure about his game as anyone so this is a concern

With that said I'll acknowledge that it's possible Wilt was Jordan/Kareem level and we're blowing it by using the Celtics team accomplishment, often by a thin margin, to judge individuals in Russell and Wilt

ThunderDan9 · Post #39 » by **ThunderDan9** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 5:59 am

magicmerl wrote:Additionally, here's ElGee's championship odds indicator (which he takes pains to point out is not his top10 ranking)

It shortchanges careers which are currently in progress (Duncan, LeBron) but otherwise seems to pass the sniff test.

Edit: Looking at that makes you feel bad for Bird and the injuries that derailed his prime.

Bird looks like a bona fide GOAT-candidate - for 8 seasons.

Unfortunately for him, other players managed to get some in the next 8 years as well (like repeating a threepeat and so :lol:

).

Post #40 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 6:18 am

http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/ ... asketball/

So for those not familiar with criticisms of Wilt, one thing I'd request you reed is my post above. I'd post the whole thing here but this is easier for me where I am.