RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #2

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

According to the formula I use KAJ is #1. (not in that thread since I haven't put it all there, because I'm updating as much as I can on my free time for the top 100 players project) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

Now, I understand the formula has some problems when ranking players below 1980 especially, but it goes a bit both ways: more RPG, higher pace, but I don't adjust ts% and it's not the most efficient era of the NBA.

KAJ has a tremendously extended prime, from 1970 to 1986.

That's 17 seasons of great produtction. If you think about it, MJ has 11 full seasons of those. (one injured in Chicago and in 95 he didn't play the entire season)

KAJ is the leading scorer in the history of the NBA and many people know him as a scorer, but he's way more than that.

Excellent passer when doubled in the post, very good passer in transition (he didn't have to look for a short pass for the PG, he could initiate transition with his own passes, and long ones - if you think about it that's really useful for a guy that got so many defensive rebounds over his career and played on teams that liked to run like showtime lakers).

Very good help defender and shot blocker.

He covers more ground than the traditional C. I'm not talking about KG levels here, but he sure was good at it. In the last thread we saw a lot of votes that way.

Basically he had very good impact on both ends of the court during a long long time.

I see his peak and prime a little lower than MJ's and LeBron's, but not by large margins. And so far LeBron has had great seasons since 2006 (12 great seasons) but I still need a bit more from him to overtake KAJ (at least 14/15 seasons of LBJ's prime).

KAJ also proved himself as both a floor raiser and as a guy who could play his role on high ceiling teams (both as the man and later as a 2nd best).

He won 6 MVPs (most in NBA history), he won 6 rings, 2 finals MVPs, and I think he was clearly the man in 3 of his rings, co-best player in another and a very important complementary piece in his last two.



What separates KAJ from Bill Russell? (since I think he will be the other main candidate along LeBron and I've already discussed LBJ)
- Floor raising. I don't believe you can put a bad cast with Russell and have nearly the same success as you can have with KAJ. Of course I'm not talking about championships with garbage casts, but I think the average cast KAJ needs to contend is much lower than the one from Russell; (I see a good case for LeBron here)

- Offensive impact. Sure Russell has the edge on D, but I don't feel it's gigantic. Clear one. On the other end of the floor, I think Russell doesn't even belong in the same page as KAJ. I can understand the defensive argument for Russell against players who don't come near him in defensive impact like Magic or Bird, but not against KAJ; (I see a good case for LeBron here)

- Longevity. I can even see someone discussing peak and prime for Russell (I don't see it, I think KAJ is definitely above - and prime is if you define it as 5 years or something). However, longevity goes a long way for KAJ. He has more prime seasons than the entire Russell career. (I still think it's too much for LBJ to overtake).

2nd vote - LeBron James

I don't think it is about seasons it is what you do in those seasons especially when you have legit championship squads. For most of his prime the teams underachieved from 1975-1979 (Except maybe 1977) missing the playoffs twice in his prime in a divided league when you had a one man show who led a team to the title one of those years and very poor to average teams won it all in 1978 and 1979. Playing longer doesn't do it for me unless the player is collecting MVP's, Titles, etc as the best player on the squad especially when the player that played less won as much or more as the clear cut and has as many accolades as well if not more.

Spoiler:

I look at it like Jim Brown in football. He played 9 years, but just because Emmitt Smith played longer doesn't make him better or that he has done more.

Sorry can't understand the comparison with football, I don't follow football.

The sports I watch the most are basketball, soccer (the real football xD), and cycling. I also like 5x5 soccer, but don't follow it as much.

However I look at it as adding value. For example, if KAJ is worth in his prime 0.9 of MJ's prime, longevity then covers up that 0.1 difference easily.

Prime for prime (5 years prime) I still have MJ ahead.

Prime for prime, given the margin is not that big, KAJ overtakes that difference.

I see a contending team with KAJ having a much bigger window to win it all than with MJ. So if some bad luck strikes, if in some years there is a better team, KAJ still has more time to cover all that up. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but that's how I see it.

[Clyde Frazier]

Kinda crazy observation after looking over wilt’s stats again: As he transitioned to a lesser scoring role on the lakers (especially his last 2 seasons), you’d think his minutes would at least dial down to under 40.

Nope: In 72 taking 9.3 shots per game, he played 42.3 MPG and in his final season taking only 7.1 shots per game he played 43.2 MPG at 36 years old. He crazily ramped up in the playoffs to 46.9 MPG and 47.1 MPG respectively. His efficiency was also off the charts in the regular season, and while it dipped in the playoffs was still impressive.

Do we not give enough credit to wilt on the whole for making that transition of scoring less and focusing on defense when he was criticized for not always being a team player earlier in his career?

[Joao Saraiva]

Kinda crazy observation after looking over wilt’s stats again: As he transitioned to a lesser scoring role on the lakers (especially his last 2 seasons), you’d think his minutes would at least dial down to under 40.

Nope: In 72 taking 9.3 shots per game, he played 42.3 MPG and in his final season taking only 7.1 shots per game he played 43.2 MPG at 36 years old. He crazily ramped up in the playoffs to 46.9 MPG and 47.1 MPG respectively. His efficiency was also off the charts in the regular season, and while it dipped in the playoffs was still impressive.

Do we not give enough credit to wilt on the whole for making that transition of scoring less and focusing on defense when he was criticized for not always being a team player earlier in his career?

I think Wilt is not given enough value on the 2 roles. I think it comes a lot with winning bias... since he didn't win those many rings people come up with reasons to blame him, even if they're not there. At least that's how I feel about it.

I think on a diferent scale that happens to Adrian Dantley. I think he's worth more than people give him credit.

[JordansBulls]

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

According to the formula I use KAJ is #1. (not in that thread since I haven't put it all there, because I'm updating as much as I can on my free time for the top 100 players project) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

Now, I understand the formula has some problems when ranking players below 1980 especially, but it goes a bit both ways: more RPG, higher pace, but I don't adjust ts% and it's not the most efficient era of the NBA.

KAJ has a tremendously extended prime, from 1970 to 1986.

That's 17 seasons of great produtction. If you think about it, MJ has 11 full seasons of those. (one injured in Chicago and in 95 he didn't play the entire season)

KAJ is the leading scorer in the history of the NBA and many people know him as a scorer, but he's way more than that.

Excellent passer when doubled in the post, very good passer in transition (he didn't have to look for a short pass for the PG, he could initiate transition with his own passes, and long ones - if you think about it that's really useful for a guy that got so many defensive rebounds over his career and played on teams that liked to run like showtime lakers).

Very good help defender and shot blocker.

He covers more ground than the traditional C. I'm not talking about KG levels here, but he sure was good at it. In the last thread we saw a lot of votes that way.

Basically he had very good impact on both ends of the court during a long long time.

I see his peak and prime a little lower than MJ's and LeBron's, but not by large margins. And so far LeBron has had great seasons since 2006 (12 great seasons) but I still need a bit more from him to overtake KAJ (at least 14/15 seasons of LBJ's prime).

KAJ also proved himself as both a floor raiser and as a guy who could play his role on high ceiling teams (both as the man and later as a 2nd best).

He won 6 MVPs (most in NBA history), he won 6 rings, 2 finals MVPs, and I think he was clearly the man in 3 of his rings, co-best player in another and a very important complementary piece in his last two.



What separates KAJ from Bill Russell? (since I think he will be the other main candidate along LeBron and I've already discussed LBJ)
- Floor raising. I don't believe you can put a bad cast with Russell and have nearly the same success as you can have with KAJ. Of course I'm not talking about championships with garbage casts, but I think the average cast KAJ needs to contend is much lower than the one from Russell; (I see a good case for LeBron here)

- Offensive impact. Sure Russell has the edge on D, but I don't feel it's gigantic. Clear one. On the other end of the floor, I think Russell doesn't even belong in the same page as KAJ. I can understand the defensive argument for Russell against players who don't come near him in defensive impact like Magic or Bird, but not against KAJ; (I see a good case for LeBron here)

- Longevity. I can even see someone discussing peak and prime for Russell (I don't see it, I think KAJ is definitely above - and prime is if you define it as 5 years or something). However, longevity goes a long way for KAJ. He has more prime seasons than the entire Russell career. (I still think it's too much for LBJ to overtake).

2nd vote - LeBron James

I don't think it is about seasons it is what you do in those seasons especially when you have legit championship squads. For most of his prime the teams underachieved from 1975-1979 (Except maybe 1977) missing the playoffs twice in his prime in a divided league when you had a one man show who led a team to the title one of those years and very poor to average teams won it all in 1978 and 1979. Playing longer doesn't do it for me unless the player is collecting MVP's, Titles, etc as the best player on the squad especially when the player that played less won as much or more as the clear cut and has as many accolades as well if not more.

Spoiler:

I look at it like Jim Brown in football. He played 9 years, but just because Emmitt Smith played longer doesn't make him better or that he has done more.

Sorry can't understand the comparison with football, I don't follow football.

The sports I watch the most are basketball, soccer (the real football xD), and cycling. I also like 5x5 soccer, but don't follow it as much.

However I look at it as adding value. For example, if KAJ is worth in his prime 0.9 of MJ's prime, longevity then covers up that 0.1 difference easily.

Prime for prime (5 years prime) I still have MJ ahead.

Prime for prime, given the margin is not that big, KAJ overtakes that difference.

I see a contending team with KAJ having a much bigger window to win it all than with MJ. So if some bad luck strikes, if in some years there is a better team, KAJ still has more time to cover all that up. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but that's how I see it.

Ok this is what gets me. He played with Oscar for 4-5 years and then Magic for like 9-10 years, and two of those titles he was clearly either the 3rd best player on the squad or maybe 4th (I'll give him 3rd still in 1988 to save face.) I don't see how he gives you a bigger window to win it all when he wasn't really dominating (winning much) in a bad conference half the time and then a league that had a split league. Now had his first 4 years been the way it went the rest of the 70's with elite teams that is one thing but after 1973 there really wasn't any real elite teams to deal in the 70's. He was 3-7 in series without HCA. 2 of those series in 1982 and 1985 which was after his peak and prime when he no longer was winning MVP's.
Now I understand the 1983 Sixers were an all time great team, but you are the defending champions as well and then you have an elite championship team and then you get swept in the Finals with another top 3 player in the league on the squad. You should get a game at least or even 2 especially when you are a championship team as well. Not to mention 1981 losing in round 1 to a team below .500 once again as the defending champion.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't think it is about seasons it is what you do in those seasons especially when you have legit championship squads. For most of his prime the teams underachieved from 1975-1979 (Except maybe 1977) missing the playoffs twice in his prime in a divided league when you had a one man show who led a team to the title one of those years and very poor to average teams won it all in 1978 and 1979. Playing longer doesn't do it for me unless the player is collecting MVP's, Titles, etc as the best player on the squad especially when the player that played less won as much or more as the clear cut and has as many accolades as well if not more.

Spoiler:

I look at it like Jim Brown in football. He played 9 years, but just because Emmitt Smith played longer doesn't make him better or that he has done more.

Sorry can't understand the comparison with football, I don't follow football.

The sports I watch the most are basketball, soccer (the real football xD), and cycling. I also like 5x5 soccer, but don't follow it as much.

However I look at it as adding value. For example, if KAJ is worth in his prime 0.9 of MJ's prime, longevity then covers up that 0.1 difference easily.

Prime for prime (5 years prime) I still have MJ ahead.

Prime for prime, given the margin is not that big, KAJ overtakes that difference.

I see a contending team with KAJ having a much bigger window to win it all than with MJ. So if some bad luck strikes, if in some years there is a better team, KAJ still has more time to cover all that up. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but that's how I see it.

Ok this is what gets me. He played with Oscar for 4-5 years and then Magic for like 9-10 years, and two of those titles he was clearly either the 3rd best player on the squad or maybe 4th (I'll give him 3rd still in 1988 to save face.) I don't see how he gives you a bigger window to win it all when he wasn't really dominating (winning much) in a bad conference half the time and then a league that had a split league. Now had his first 4 years been the way it went the rest of the 70's with elite teams that is one thing but after 1973 there really wasn't any real elite teams to deal in the 70's. He was 3-7 in series without HCA. 2 of those series in 1982 and 1985 which was after his peak and prime when he no longer was winning MVP's.
Now I understand the 1983 Sixers were an all time great team, but you are the defending champions as well and then you have an elite championship team and then you get swept in the Finals with another top 3 player in the league on the squad. You should get a game at least or even 2 especially when you are a championship team as well. Not to mention 1981 losing in round 1 to a team below .500 once again as the defending champion.

KAJ played with Oscar at the tail of his career. And when he did so there were some great teams winning it all. I really don't see a big problem with that.

In 1982 KAJ was still the alpha dog.

In 1985 he was in a 1a 1b combo. You really talk a lot about finals MVPs and stuff like that, but when he wins it in 1985 you change your argument? Come on. At least stay consistent.

I understand the failure in 1981. But basketball is a team sport... and Houston wasn't exacly a bad team despite what their record tells you. And also had Moses Malone, so if anything KAJ had the most difficult matchup of the series.

You say he played with Magic... well, then let's see who wet the bed in those series.

Magic - 14.5 PPG 6 APG 11.6 RPG 17 PER 44.1 ts% 8.2 WS/48

Kareem - 26.7 PPG 4 APG 16.7 RPG 22.4 PER 51.7 ts% 15.9 WS/48

Given KAJ had the most difficult matchup, seems like he's the one to blame less, especially when you put Magic as a top 3 player in the league.

Even with all that into the equation, you say KAJ failed once with the Lakers. So what's up with that? In so many seasons, I really can't hold it much against him.

Then you talk about the two seasons he missed the playoffs... What should have KAJ done more in order to have more success? Those rosters were really bad. MJ also didn't have anywhere near the same success when he didn't have great casts.

Then you talk about weak conference... well, the East the Bulls triumphed wasn't exactly that great either. Or you want to bring up stuff like Ewing's Knicks being a top team or whatever? They weren't.

[Hornet Mania]

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2nd: Tim Duncan

Two-way big men with awesome longevity. I consider Kareem the second-greatest player ever, and he's actually quite close to MJ in my mind. His longevity was just ridiculous, Duncan's is historically strong and yet Kareem still has him soundly beaten. I also think Kareem had a better peak, so that's 2/2, and I'm someone who is quite high on prime Duncan (as you can tell).

At his peak Kareem was as dominant as any of the great big men, the fact most people remember mid-80s Kareem is unfortunate, because they often assume that was all Kareem ever was. Yet at his peak Kareem was a dominant presence, it was a very physical era in the paint and the fact he dominated in it so consistently for so many minutes and so many seasons is really incredible. I haven't gotten to see much of early-70s Kareem which is a real shame, but 1980 Kareem was an absolute monster and he was still the driving force of those great Laker teams in 81 and 82. In terms of peak he has to be in discussion for the short list. That coupled with longevity is just too sweet pass up, he's my 2nd-greatest player ever with a bullet.

[trex_8063]

I'm starting with Kareem's defense because opinions on it vary from he was a lazy defender to he was an all time great defender. I think Kareem, at his best, was an all time great defender.
(…)

You may notice that this is not a regular season game. This is the 1976 NBA All Star Game, which I will tell you, is one of the most important games we have of Kareem's career. From the mid- to late-70's, we only have four full games, which are of Kareem's 1977 playoff run and the 1976 All Star Game.

KAJ wasn’t all time great defender and 1976 ASG is good example of that. You just showed some cherry picked plays, when he did something good, but that is not comprehensive analysis. I have this game stat tracked and look at KAJ’s overall defensive stats:

55% DFG (11/20)
10 (!) ORB allowed
4 BLK (but all of them were rebounded by opponents or landed out of bounds - so he was anti-Russell here).

Having watched this particular game on YT more than once, including watching about 60% of it very recently, I'll give you the offensive rebound thing: I was somewhat underwhelmed with how consistently or aggressively he was boxing out, and Cowens in particular was really hammering at the offensive glass for the East.

But otherwise, considering the sample size, you don't see this as kinda result oriented thinking? You know, the kind of thinking that says "well, the shot went in, therefore the defense must have been bad".
If we were looking at a single shot/play in this manner, whether or not the shot went in is an exceedingly poor means of assessing how the defense was. Likewise, jumping to the conclusion that his defense is "meh" based on 55% shooting in a 20-shot sample (in which all the shooters are obviously better than average players---All Stars) is likely inappropriate.

If you had a whole season of more regular players shooting 55% against him, sure, that's kinda saying something.
Ditto the "anti-Russell" conclusion based on a mere four blocks.

As many have said so far:
- the deadliest shot in NBA history

Not true. According to Dipper's research (and mine stat tracking confirms that) KAJ shot 56% from skyhook.

Ok. But let's, for example, say that this sky-hook is then the ONLY shot he ever takes, and that he has paltry .200 FTr......given his career FT%, that would leave him with a TS% of 58.1%.
And in reality his FTr would be higher AND he'd also occasionally get some easy buckets (drive and dish, transition, put-backs, etc), though occasionally would be forced to take some bail-out lower% shots, too.

So considering this is a shot that he can get at almost any time, and can take in isolation......that's a remarkably effective move.

[Joao Saraiva]

Calling KAJ the anti-Russell based on a 1 game sample... damn. And I thought people saying LeBron can't be the GOAT because of the 11 finals was some sort of surreal stuff on such short sample.

Should we say Wilt was the best scorer CLEARLY ever based on 1 all-star game he got a ton of points?

[THKNKG]

So, my #1 vote will be the same, unless someone is able to dissuade me. I'd like to compare Wilt/Russell/Kareem/KG, and if I had time, it'd be cool to look at Shaq/DRob/Dirk/Hakeem as well (though I feel they are the next tier of player). I hope to do whatever I can to provide non-box score info, because if you want box scores, you could much more easily access BBREF.

[Joao Saraiva]

So, my #1 vote will be the same, unless someone is able to dissuade me. I'd like to compare Wilt/Russell/Kareem/KG, and if I had time, it'd be cool to look at Shaq/DRob/Dirk/Hakeem as well (though I feel they are the next tier of player). I hope to do whatever I can to provide non-box score info, because if you want box scores, you could much more easily access BBREF.

Box-score is important. Basketball is the most well documented sport in the world, so box-score gives you a ton of information.

I use it a lot, but it's also a matter of giving context to it.

[THKNKG]

One question I had - I've always discounted Wilt as not having maximized his impact, but it seems as if he came pretty close to maximizing his teams in a variety of roles (massive volume scorer, passing/defensive hub, old defensive anchor etc.). I mean as a volume scorer, he took Russell's Celtics to 7 games. I talk frequently about Russell's impact, so was Wilt's impact similar, or was it something else?

[ThaRegul8r]

Here are some quotes and post regarding them both.

By ThaRegul8r

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two and then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. My problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was.

Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times where I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

Now, see, this is annoying because I already covered this last Top 100 Project:

This comes down to two players imo. Bill Russell and Kareem. Here are some quotes and post regarding them both.

By ThaRegul8r

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two and then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. My problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was.

Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times where I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

Those are not my words, so they are not to be attributed to me. I've never said anything of the sort. (Nor do I even write like that. It's clear it wasn't written by me—I've graded many papers, and thus I can recognize writing styles.) That came from a post I quoted from a discussion on another board I was on under another name prior to registering on RealGM:

ElGee - why do you have Kareem apart from MJ and BR? KAJs resume is almost the same as Jordan's. I know this "he was second option to Magic" argument but he won numerous MVPs before Magic's arrival. Era differences doesn't matter as 90s were similarly bad as 70s, maybe only a little better. Kareem also led worse team than MJ for that period of time. He's right there.

Here's a post from a conversation I and several other posters had on another site seven years ago:

Date: 5/23/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: AlpJones3
MsgId: <20040523185639.15258.00038667@mbs-r04.aol.com>

ActiveVerb wrote:
[[I agree with that. In my opinion you can make a case for 5 guys as number 1:

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Jordan
Magic

After that it's hard for me to see anyone making a strong case for anyone as the single best player of all time.

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two anf then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. Mt problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was. Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times wher I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

It was a post of someone else's ("AlpJones3" would be the correct citation, "as quoted by ThaRegul8r") provided as an example of someone who thought the way the quoted RealGM poster was questioning to give insight into that line of thinking.

So, again.

Those are not my words.

They are not to be attributed to me.

I have never, in any medium, opined on the greatest player in NBA history. Narrowing it to a top six in this year's #1 thread was the farthest I'd ever gone towards a GOAT list before.

Once again, I did not write the words JordansBulls said were "By ThaRegul8r." This is the second time in the last two Top 100 projects that I've said so.

[Tesla]

1st Vote: Lebron James
2nd Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Lebron has been playing at a very high level for a very long time. It is one of the best peaks ever statistically and it's already one of the best primes ever if it ended today. He has been top 5 in MVP voting 11 times (12 if you count this year, which I'm sure it will be). Just to put that into context, only Kareem and Kobe have exceeded that. That is an incredible prime, and it has coincided with an incredible amount of team success that he is mainly responsible for. I can be swung to have KAJ above him, but I do feel that Lebron has a little extra peak value / Kareem more longevity/prime length.

I'll be able to post more later.

[trex_8063]

So, my #1 vote will be the same, unless someone is able to dissuade me. I'd like to compare Wilt/Russell/Kareem/KG, and if I had time, it'd be cool to look at Shaq/DRob/Dirk/Hakeem as well (though I feel they are the next tier of player). I hope to do whatever I can to provide non-box score info, because if you want box scores, you could much more easily access BBREF.

Please do specify your 1st and 2nd picks (bolded, preferably) in a separate post, though.

[THKNKG]

So, my #1 vote will be the same, unless someone is able to dissuade me. I'd like to compare Wilt/Russell/Kareem/KG, and if I had time, it'd be cool to look at Shaq/DRob/Dirk/Hakeem as well (though I feel they are the next tier of player). I hope to do whatever I can to provide non-box score info, because if you want box scores, you could much more easily access BBREF.

Please do specify your 1st and 2nd picks (bolded, preferably) in a separate post, though.

For sure, i just tend to make lots of "thinking out loud" posts.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[BasketballFan7]

No change for me. I disagree with Jordan at one. I thought that the pro-Jordan arguments were less nuanced than the pro-KAJ and pro-Russell ones that I heard from other posters. That said, Jordan at one was the expected outcome and can't be critiqued too much.

My first choice remains Bill Russell.

My second choice remains LeBron James (who I have a bit further ahead of number 3 than before following the KAJ discussion to this point).

First of all, I will say that I don't agree with the emphasis on era translation that so many posters tend to have. I think introducing unnecessary hypotheticals is messy, unfair, and susceptible to bias of one sort or another. If I discuss the greatest presidents in US history, I don't ask myself how George Washington would have adapted to Twitter. If I discuss great military generals, I don't penalize Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar for never interacting in gunpowder based warfare. I don't wonder how Michelanglo would have done with computers. For me number one is:

BIll Russell

My "criteria."

Spoiler:

I want to have some sort of numerical system so that I can try to not let bias overwhelm my voting. I don't plan on the system being very scientific or at all revolutionary. I only desire to be able to create it so that my ranking thought process is transparent. I looked at the past 50 championship teams to form tiers of players that have been on championship team. I will use other poster's arguments to tweak my system. I will look at individual seasons from the perspective of a GM or coach. Can I count on this player, during X season, to:

- Tier 1A: Be the clear best player on a championship team and provide GOAT-level impact throughout the RS and PS (11 points, example 88-93, 00-03 Shaq, 02 and 03 Duncan, 93-95 Hakeem, etc)
*I cut off level 10 after the top seasons of Magic and Bird
- Tier 1B: Be the clear best player on a championship team (9 points, example 08-10 Kobe, 99,05,07 Duncan, 15 Curry, 83 Moses Malone, 11 Dirk, 06 Wade) *Must have reached playoffs
- Tier 1C: Be a potential best player on a championship team (8 points, the player missed the playoffs; examples 75 and 76 KAJ, 05 Garnett), or one who had that level of play in the RS but not in the PS, example 10 Chris Paul, 94 and 95 Robinson, 85 Bird)
- Tier 1D: Be a co-best player on a championship team (7 points, example Karl Malone, non-peak versions of Malone, Dirk)
- Tier 2A: Be a quality second best player on a championship team (5 points, example John Stockton, 91 Pippen, 00 Kobe, 05 Manu, 85 Kareem)
- Tier 2B: Be a second best player on a championship team (3 points, example 05 Parker, 16 Irving, 14 Duncan, 15 Klay Thompson, 87 Kareem)
- - Tier 2C: Be a decent role player on a championship team (1 point, example 15 Bogut, 15 Livingston, 16 Duncan, 88 Kareem)

I don't give any credit for seasons where the player missed more than 50% of the regular season games or the playoffs.

Other point bonuses:

Flag Bearer(player played entire career with one team; examples Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant) - 5 points
Icon (player gives some significant value to basketball outside of the court) - 5 points
Ring Counting (won a ring as the best player on the team by MVP shares) - 2 points
Ring Counting 2 (won a ring as an all-star) - 1 point
MVP (MVP award shares) - 2 points x MVP award shares (rounded down)
Peak Bonus - Based on the RealGM peaks project; top 5 (7 points), top 11 (5), top 25 (3), and top 40 (2); my reasoning is that I believe the 4 GOAT peak contenders are MJ, LeBron, Shaq, and Wilt. I then see the next small gap following Magic and Bird at #11.

Offense v. Defense
For players who I deem to be best player on a championship team caliber, I value offense for any player I judge outside of the 1960's because it seems to me that it is generally a necessity for your best player to be a capable scorer. I nevertheless

Portability
I don't care about cross era portability. For upper echelon players, I don't care about portability at all as anything other than a tie breaker. It is the responsibility of the role-players to fit around them and the responsibility of the GM to find the pieces to make it work. I would likely only subtract value in an extreme case. Perhaps with a player such as 17 Russell Westbrook. The stars dictate. As player quality drops, I do value portability and scores will be adjusted accordingly,

Box Score Statistics
I don't use box score advanced statistics unless I a comparing a.) player's in similar circumstance and of the same position or b.) a player's ability to maintain his own production into the postseason or from season-to-season. For instance, I may compare a player's regular season PER with his postseason PER, but I won't do that without examining the context. Or I will view a player's decline through the decline of his own box score stats. I won't compare Ben Wallace and Steve Nash with PER. I won't compare Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, and Chris Paul with PER.

Impact Statistics
I like impact stats. I can be convinced by them. I like the overall per minute value over the offensive and defensive splits. I don't think they have that sorted out yet. Where impact stats are not available, I will still take "impact" into consideration. I won't lean entirely on box score for years in which impact data isn't readily available.

Playoffs vs. Regular season
For top tier players, I definitely value the playoffs greatly. I cannot give a player the benefit of the doubt if they do not make the playoffs. Not in a "greatest players / careers" list. I could do that in a "best seasons" list. But, for careers, I would essentially be saying that I would view Chris Paul, David Robinson, Karl Malone, or Kevin Garnett, to use some examples, as better players if they missed the playoffs altogether.

Accolades
As for accolades, I am using MVP award shares to determine who was the best player on each team and for adding points to player scores.

Intangibles
I don't want to value them heavily because I know zilch about these players personally. So they won't have a big impact. I will say that what I know about these players may give them the benefit of the doubt in some situations, or it may make me do the opposite.

Durability
I don't count seasons where a star player ended the season missing the playoffs or when he missed over half of the regular season. I don't expect to win a championship (or have a chance to) under those circumstances. As for missed games, I don't really care if a player missed a few games a year. I am looking at seasons that I gave credit for in which the player missed 10 or more games. I am adding the missed games in such seasons together and subtracting one point from the players total score for every 20 missed games during these seasons. This is essentially the Shaq rule. His score is inflated without it. I don't care about missed RS games much, but he missed a lot.

Please inform me on inconsistencies or suggestions for my system. I don't want it to be precise. I simply want to be consistent and have it reflect what I value.

I'm not adverse to changing my scores upon review by other posters or picking a player with a lower score if it's close and I have a preference for one over the other.

For Bill Russell, the score came out to 156.

Spoiler:

Bill Russell
1957 Tier 1D 7
1958 Tier 1C 8 (injury in finals, missed 2 games)
1959 Tier 1B 9
1960 Tier 1B 9
1961 Tier 1B 9
1962 Tier 1a 10
1963 Tier 1B 9
1964 Tier 1a 10
1965 Tier 1a 10
1966 Tier 1B 9
1967 Tier 1D 7
1968 Tier 1D 7
1969 Tier 1D 7
111


Seasons with 10+ missed games – 1 (1957, 24 games) – minus 1 point
Flag Bearer – 5
Icon – 5
MVP Award Shares – 4.8 (2) = 9.6 = 9
Ring Counting I – 11(2) = 22
Peak – top 11 peak – 5
45

156

*Obviously it is more difficult to rank the seasons with a player who played in the 50s and 60s. I believe I was conservative with his numbers. Because I don't care about portability, I could have given Russell a 10 every year from 59 to 66. Everything that I have read says that he was incredibly consistent from year to year. The only criticism I find for his impact is that he was a negative or at best neutral offensive player and that that doesn't really translate across eras. I was conservative with his impact and he still came out on top. I only gave 2 points per ring and without the ring count he is still right there. He has a significant score lead.

*I like that Russell came out on top. I love the consistency. I think the intangibles sound great. He was a winner, resilient, and loyal. I think he is the GOAT from a GM's perspective. If I am team building, Jordan missing what amounts to 3 seasons (86, 94, 95) is troubling. LeBron is so demanding of ownership and his surroundings that he is a constant threat to depart. KAJ left for LA. Shaq and Wilt moved around. For me, I ask myself "How many years can I count on this player to anchor my roster?" Russell shines. He gives a prolonged window where he is constantly available and performing.

Some post mining:

Spoiler:

His ability to block/alter shots AND clean the defensive boards. Based on the available (limited) video footage, he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage. To be that dominant in either one of those areas is something, but to be that dominant in both? Keep in mind how shot blocking tends to take you out of proper rebounding position. Below are the career leaders for block percentage and defensive rebounding percentage. To think Russell might be near or at the top on both of these lists is amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html


He was basically rebounding the defensive glass like Rodman and blocking shots like Hakeem/Robinson. You talk about a guy who not only doesn't have a defensive weakness, but is so dominant at virtually every area on that side, that is Bill Russell.

1966 Celtics defensive highlights -

Watch on YouTube

;t=36m47s



Plus he may the be the best at keeping his hands up on defense, even after jumping. This is something you rarely see with contemporary big men. Below we can see how Russell keeps his arms up when defending after a fake, both in a practice drill and in playoff competition vs. Willis Reed. Have we ever seen such a fundamentally sound defensive player since?

Watch on YouTube

;t=2m32s

Watch on YouTube

;t=17m44s



Russell also had the best reflexes of any player ever at any position and a unique shot blocking style where he used his wrist to deflect shots rather than swat it out of bounds. Very seldom have we seen other big men do this with the same consistency.

Watch on YouTube

;t=12m55s

Spoiler:

If you take out Russell's rookie year, the impact difference is huge. Here is how they did without him from 58-69:

10-18 W-L
-2.03 SRS
122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)

Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics:
-2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)

122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)

123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)

So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).


*this doesn't take into account pace and its likely they played at a higher pace without Russell.

Spoiler:

You had some other good points, but PPG is not a really good way to judge offense or defense. Until you know the pace a team played at, you don't have a basis for saying how successful they were being at converting possessions into points (or preventing that conversion).

It's hard to say. I mean the Celtics in 1960 were at an insane 136 possessions per game. The Celtics weighted pace during this period was 121.54. For the 58-69 period, its 124.4 pace. So here is O rating and D rating based on that:

O rating 98.18 (+3.59 relative to league average)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42 to league average)

without Russell vs. Overall:
O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)

Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go:
O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference)
D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)

So either way the offense was still better without Russell, but Russell made a huge defensive impact.

I will relish any criticism.

My 2nd ballot goes to LeBron James, who I have scored at ~147 right now.

[drza]

Spoiler:

Back to WOWY, at peak

I mentioned the genesis of ElGee's WOWY work from the RPoY project, but of course he went on to develop it in much more detail across NBA history. As such, I can reference that work and find single-year WOWY runs, across multiple seasons during their peak years, for each of Kareem, Walton and Duncan. Let's take a look:

Kareem 1975 (16 games missed): SRS in 2.6, SRS out -4.5
Kareem 1978 (20 games missed): SRS in -3.4, SRS out -1.7

Duncan 2004 (10 games missed): SRS in, 8.5; SRS out, 5.3
Duncan 2005 (12 games missed): SRS in, 9.3; SRS out, -1

Walton 1977 (16 games missed): SRS in, 7.8; SRS out, -2.6
Walton 1978 (10 games missed): SRS in, 9.4; SRS out, +1

ElGee went through and calculated his WOWY score for each run, but I honestly don't have the greatest handle on that process so I'll abstain from quoting the scores themselves (though Walton's and Duncan's were both higher, here).

But, just looking at the raw data for these runs, two seasons each, right around each of their peaks...both Walton and Duncan seemed to be having significantly larger impacts on their team's fortunes at their peaks than Kareem did. At least, by this one measure. But, in many ways it's the best impact data available from the pre databall era, especially since each missed significant time during peak years so that the measure could be made.

Put it together...what does this suggest about Kareem's peak + trends from databall

So, what am I left with, here:

1) Kareem, in his prime, had elite skillsets across the board (thanks, Blackmill vids)

2) Kareem, in his prime, put up scoring (volume and efficiency) numbers at an all-Mt. Rushmore level.

3) Kareem, in his prime, put up excellent rebounding, blocked shot and assist numbers as well

4) However, while Kareem had the ABILITY to be an elite horizontal defender and possibly offensive hub as a passer from the center position, in PRACTICE he tended to be more of a vertical defender around the rim and to pass as more of a secondary role, not as a big man team offense initiator

Spoiler:

Couple of comments/observations which give me pause wrt the above data......

1) The "games missed" cited appear incomplete: it has 16 of the 17 games Kareem missed in '75, and all 20 that he missed in '78...... but for Duncan it's showing only 10 of the 13 he missed in '04 and 12 of the 16 he missed in '05. With Walton apparently 16 of 17 games missed in '77 are included in the data-set, but only 10 of 24 missed games in '78.
I don't know, but it's possible that the games NOT included in the Duncan/Walton samples may be skewing things in their favour.

2) In the '78 sample for Kareem, I'd note that Kermit Washington was around for I think all of the games in which Kareem was absent, but then missed almost the entirety of the 62 games Kareem played that year; ditto Earl Tatum and rookie James Edwards. Jamaal Wilkes too was around when Kareem was absent, but missed a huge chunk of the games in which Kareem was present.
As far as the flip-side, it was late-career Charlie Scott and 2nd-year Adrian Dantley who were absent at the same time Kareem was absent, but largely around when he was around.
Still, I'm just pointing out that there was A LOT of other roster changes/absences around when he was present, and probably the slight majority of them would tend to skew things NOT in Kareem's favour (particularly that near-total absence of Kermit Washington and James Edwards in the games Kareem played in: basically left them without a respectable back-up center).

3) I wouldn't equate "Impact" exactly to "Player Quality". I'm not sure of if you are, or how you would factor other components of impact into your views, but just putting that out there.

I don't equate the two, exactly, but I do think impact is important. I feel like, the argument that used to be Ringzzz has evolved into impact. The whole point of the ringzzz approach was that, if a player was winning titles, he must be playing right. Then, that became ringzzz as the best player. Then, team success given teammate quality and situation. Then, trying to determine how much an individual was contributing to winning. Present day state of the art "impact stats" give some quantification to that idea, using correlation techniques to try to isolate how much an individual is affecting his team's scoring margins.

Is it the ONLY thing? No, especially given that there are still limitations to how accurate the approach can get. And there are a bunch of other sources of information, and context is so important. However, I do think that impact is extremely important. And, if the comp is "impact" vs "inherent goodness", I'd lean towards valuing impact higher because goodness unrealized doesn't really help anyone.

[ElGee]

Pretty interested in hearing about ElGee or others candidacy for Hakeem this high up.

My candidacy for the No. 2 spot is solely based on my shooting and BBIQ. Yes, I had enough spring to dunk at only 6-2.5 (without socks, for TLAF), but I was sort of a precursor to Curry when it came to shooting from 30-feet away. My favorite spot to practice from the coaches hash, and I'd say similar to Curry my half court accuracy was 10-15%. So I could get some pioneer points there. I also remember this play in 7th grade where we were being pressed and were about to get a 10-second violation when a teammate lost the ball, and instead of diving on it (it would be 10 seconds) I scooped it and threw it way up in the air, over the timeline, like a hail mary, so we could possibly keep possession. My coach asked me what the hell I was doing, and despite my best explanation for the brilliance of this play, he benched me. Alex Hannum, he was not.

Wait, did you mean from me about Hakeem?

[drza]

Anyone have estimated team O-Rating/D-Ratings in a list/spreadsheet for for pre-1974? I know ElGee published the Celtics' D-rating estimates for 1956 - 1970 on BackPicks. But I'd love to get my hands on the O-Ratings for that team as well, in addition to:

Celtics O-Ratings/D-Ratings 1955 & 1971
All of Oscar Robertson's teams, from year before he came to year after he left
All of Kareem's teams
All of Wilt's teams

(I could go further, but that'd be a great start. If anyone has any of this type of data available, I'd be much obliged to check it out)

[Winsome Gerbil]

Pretty interested in hearing about ElGee or others candidacy for Hakeem this high up.

My candidacy for the No. 2 spot is solely based on my shooting and BBIQ. Yes, I had enough spring to dunk at only 6-2.5 (without socks, for TLAF), but I was sort of a precursor to Curry when it came to shooting from 30-feet away. My favorite spot to practice from the coaches hash, and I'd say similar to Curry my half court accuracy was 10-15%. So I could get some pioneer points there. I also remember this play in 7th grade where we were being pressed and were about to get a 10-second violation when a teammate lost the ball, and instead of diving on it (it would be 10 seconds) I scooped it and threw it way up in the air, over the timeline, like a hail mary, so we could possibly keep possession. My coach asked me what the hell I was doing, and despite my best explanation for the brilliance of this play, he benched me. Alex Hannum, he was not.

Wait, did you mean from me about Hakeem?

Okay, I am changing my vote:

1) ElGee
2) Hawes

I don't think any further explanation is really needed.