RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #3 (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes:
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell
3. Wilt Chamberlain

I'm voting for the 3 guys left I feel have an argument for the GOAT spot.

Kareem is tier 1 in longevity. I also have him at least tier 2 for peak and prime (and the gap is not big for the tier 1).

Offensive force scoring wise, his numbers make justice to what he did in that regard. Best scorer ever in the NBA volume wise, great ts% in the playoffs (even more impressive if we consider it against the league average at the time). I don't have him as the best scorer ever, that is on MJ, but I have him as #2.

Rebounding machine trough his career.

However the ability of creating trough him for the rest of the team makes me drop him as a tier 1 peak or prime player. Still very good, but this is the reason why he didn't dominate on offense like Shaq or Hakeem (who wasn't brilliant with his passing for his entire career, but got a lot better once he developed). However, when playing with great talent in the perimeter (Oscar and Magic) he for sure was a big part of the team success, since he gave a lot on every other department. 6 rings make justice on how good he played for team success.

On defense he was a good player, not tier 1 but again the gap is not something really big.

Accodales wise, he's in very good position. Most MVPs in NBA history and 2 FMVPs.

He was consistent with his production in the playoffs, usually did not drop the ball. That is very important for ranking someone as high as #3.

One aspect that goes well with KAJ is that he adapted to other roles when older, and that he had the ability of sharing the spotlight with other stars and coexisting well. This is something not every player has the ability to do when they're such big stars.

To sum it up:
- More points ever in the NBA;
- Most MVP awards;
- Great adaptability to other roles when he got older;
- Great team success;
- Coexisted well with other stars, and that was major for team success;
- Tier 1 in longevity;
- Close to tier 1 in both peak and prime;
- Two way player, his defense is not among the best ever but it's not like the gap is gigantic;
- Consistent production in the playoffs.

I think his longevity, team success and knowig better his role makes him take the spot over Wilt;
I think his longevity, greater individual offense puts him a tiny bit over Russell;
I think his longevity is still a bit better than Tim's, and that his prime is still a bit ahead of Duncan. Also I believe the gap on offense is a bit bigger than the gap on defense for Tim.
Accodales put him ahead of Tim and Wilt at least. Against Russell is a bigger discussion.

It's a difficult spot to vote for, that is for sure. I think all of these guys can be argued.

I also value offense a bit more than defense, so I'm giving it to KAJ here.

[LA Bird]

A long post on why I am not as high on Russell as some. Other than a section in part 3 on Russell's offensive development, this entire post will not discuss era strength and portability because I feel that the time travel argument is a distraction from the main point which is that Russell didn't have by far the GOAT in-era impact unless you are just looking at the 11 rings.

1. One way dominance and two way value

Arguments that Russell was by far the most impactful player in history generally rely on an inaccurate definition of how a player can impact the game. The idea usually goes something like this:

• Celtics had the best relative DRtg in NBA history by far
• Russell had the highest DWS seasons in NBA history by far (this used to be a popular argument back in the days)
• No team in history have a better relative ORtg than the Celtics relative DRtg (in regular season at least)
• Celtics DRtg matched Russell's career arc and he was the only player from the start to the end of the dynasty
• No player in history have been as dominant on offense as Russell was on defense and therefore he is the GOAT.

I agree Russell dominated on defense more than anyone else in NBA history but focusing on one end of the floor alone does not prove he had more total impact than all other players. A player's value is not the maximum of either offense or defense but the summation of both offense and defense. Instead of looking only at the Celtics's relative DRtg, why not include relative ORtg as well for the team's total net rating? Instead of looking only at Russell's DWS, why not his OWS and total WS? If we use Boston's dominant defense to showcase Russell's defensive impact, why do we overlook the fact that their consistently below average offense was reducing their overall performance? Everybody knows about the poor defense of Nash-led offenses so why should we ignore the poor offense of Russell-led defenses when discussing his overall impact? The 64 Celtics have the best rDRtg in NBA history but they had a league worst relative ORtg of -4.5. That is as bad as the relative DRtg of the 04 Mavs, the team with the best rORtg in NBA history, yet only one of these teams is panned for their poor play on one end of the floor. When a team is giving up so many points on one end of the floor, you can't just ignore their weakness and exclusively focus on the one end of the floor that they were dominant in and credit the superstar for it. A 7 SRS team with -4 offense, -11 defense or +11 offense, +4 defense is not better than a 10 SRS team with +5 offense, -5 defense. Russell's Celtics were a one way team whereas the very best teams in NBA history by SRS were elite on both ends of the floor. They may not be as good on any one end of the floor as the Celtics defense but they were an overall better team when looking at both offense and defense.

Boston had the best relative DRtg in history but not when it comes to overall net rating. Russell had the highest DWS seasons in history but not when it comes to overall WS. Unless one makes the mistake of defining a player's overall value as only one way rather than two way impact, it is very difficult to argue that Russell was far more dominant relative to his era than anyone else. In fact, Russell is behind LeBron, Jordan, Magic and several others in WOWYR, the best in-era impact metric we have across NBA history. People talk about Russell immediately transforming the Celtics defense when he entered the league but when you consider their offensive decline as well, the Celtics's overall team improvement by SRS in his rookie season was less than that of LeBron or Jordan's in their rookie seasons. The 57 Celtics were also already a much better team than the 56 Celtics even without Russell so the WOWY impact he had that season was actually not that large. Here are some numbers I posted in the peak project on Russell's impact during his rookie season in comparison to Mikan's final season just the year prior:

1956 Lakers and Mikan
With (37G): +2.22 MOV
Without (35G): -4.17 MOV
Difference: +6.39 MOV

1957 Celtics and Russell
With (48G): +6.02 MOV
Without (24G): +4.54 MOV
Difference: +1.48 MOV

And here are some numbers by colts18 in an old thread on Russell's WOWY impact over his entire career:

Bill Russell missed 52 games in his career, here is how his team did without him.

26-26 W-L
1.54 MOV, 0.70 SRS
114.31 PPG against opponent D of 108.63 (+5.67)
112.77 PPG allowed against average O of 107.04 (+5.73)

So the Celtics offense was very much above average without Russell. In fact most years that offense would be at the top. The same story for the defense except the opposite. Without Russell, they are around the worst defense of that era.

Now here is how did in comparison to weighted average of the 57-69 Celtics:

Without Russell vs. overall Celtics:
0.70 SRS vs. 5.38 SRS (-4.68 SRS)

114.31 PPG vs. 110.71 PPG (+3.59)

112.77 PPG allowed vs. 104.77 PPG (-8.0)

So the offense was clearly much better without Russell which jives with my opinion that he is a net negative on offense, but Russell's impact on defense was clearly higher. That minus 8 PPG shows that Russell was the best defender of that era by a clear margin.

There are some limitations with this WOWY analysis because of the lack of data on pace before the 70s but the point still stands that Russell didn't have by far the greatest impact overall of all time. We can make Russell's numbers look better with a reduced prime sample but even then, LeBron, Robinson, Walton and Jordan have seen their teams decline more by SRS than the Celtics did without Russell (note: removing Russell's rookie season means we are looking at only around 2 missed games per season for his career). Russell's Celtics teams had the GOAT defenses but they never reached the heights that the greatest two way team like the Jordan Bulls or Curry Warriors did because of their consistently negative offense. The same goes for Russell individually, where his negative offense meant he wasn't necessarily the most impactful player overall despite being the most impactful defensive player. A player's value depends on both offense and defense and as such, focusing on only one end of the floor alone exaggerates how impactful Russell was in comparison to all time great two way players who contributed on both ends. It is not impossible for a one way player to be the GOAT but Russell never reached that level of dominance IMO.

2. The playoffs and relative ORtgs

I think most of us can agree that Russell had the most defensive impact of any player ever, relative to his own era. However, as we have seen from part 1, having the GOAT in-era impact is more than just having the most impact on one end of the floor. Another element to that discussion is whether there are any players who were as impactful on offense as Russell was on defense. If we are looking at the regular season, that answer is a clear no. However, that changes if we look at the playoffs where offensive stars can sometimes elevate their team more than defensive stars. For example, if we compare Russell and Magic, the only other one way player in the top 10, these are their team results over their best years.

Regular season
60-65 Russell: -2.54 Offense, -8.52 Defense, +5.98 Net
85-90 Magic: +6.12 Offense, -1.17 Defense, 7.29 Net

Playoffs
60-65 Russell: -2.81 Offense, -9.58 Defense, +6.77 Net
85-90 Magic: +8.97 Offense, -0.24 Defense, +9.22 Net

No player has come close to leading an offensive dynasty comparable to the defense of Russell's Celtics in the regular season but this advantage of Russell's is small when it comes to the postseason. Besides Magic, Shaq and LeBron led offenses have also been around +9 or more over a multi-year period in the playoffs. And importantly, none of these offense-first teams led by LeBron / Magic / Shaq come with the issue of being a huge negative on the other end of the floor like the Celtics were. Boston need a large lead in one way dominance to overcome the deadweight of a negative team offense but they weren't that dominant historically on defense relative to the greatest postseason offenses.

3. Russell's offense

An issue I find with Russell arguments is that he is often not only not penalized for the Celtics's poor offense, he is almost rewarded for it as though it is even more impressive that their defense was dominant enough to overcome the negative offense. Just because the Celtics won overwhelmingly with their defense does not mean Russell gets all the credit for the defense while his supporting cast is regarded poorly because of the mediocre offense. Offense and defense are two sides of the same coin. If people are going to credit Russell as being a point center through which Boston ran their offense, why shouldn't we consider the team's relative ORtg as a measure of his offensive impact? After all, every argument for Russell's GOAT defense starts with his team's relative DRtg.

An argument that is often raised in favor of Russell on offense is that he could turn defense into offense by blocking a shot and tipping it to his teammates to start the fastbreak for easy buckets. If that was the case and the Celtics were getting so many high efficiency transition opportunities, how were they still consistently a subpar offense under Russell? Either:
a) They weren't actually any good in transition. I personally find this to be unlikely since Boston had a great fast paced offense with Cousy before Russell arrived, or
b) They had a garbage half-court offense that negated the value of their transition offense
If the situation was a), what does that say about the (lack of) offensive value that Russell generated with all these transition opportunities? And if the situation was b), what does that say about Russell's value as a high post passing center in the half court? No matter the justification, the Celtics were a poor offense. It doesn't make sense to credit Russell for his role on the offense and the cliche 'doing all the little things to help his team win that don't show up in the stat sheet' while overlooking the fact that the end result was a consistently negative offense that took away from the greatness of their defense.

Everything up to this point has been in-era with no consideration for Russell's value over different eras. Sometimes though, Russell supporters would argue that he could develop more offensive skills in a later, more offensive-oriented league if that is what was required of him to win. I think this is wishful thinking. Russell's career FT% is lower than Dwight Howard's. He came into the league among the leaders in FG% but stagnated as the NBA around him improved and he was among the worst starting centers in both scoring volume and efficiency for the second half of his career. Russell ranked highly in assists per game especially later in his career but he wasn't anywhere close to Jokic or elite passers like Walton, Divac and others. Numbers aside, even Mikan who came before him looks to be a more skilled passer from the limited footage I have seen:

Russell is a high IQ, selfless team player but he is still bound by his limited offensive skillset. He grew up in an era where bigs had the green light to do whatever they want on offense and if he couldn't develop some scoring skills then, why would he suddenly be able to be become a better offensive player today when perimeter guys are given more offensive primacy? If Russell's career FT% was something like 76%, you could maybe argue he would develop a nice perimeter game today. But it's not. He shot 56% from the line. Unless there are other centers who shoot that poorly on FTs and has a good jumper from mid range or 3pt line, Russell is not likely going to be a much better shooter today than who he was in his own days.

4. Winning

Some Russell fans may just skip all of the above and go to the rings argument. After all, it is simple and foolproof. If you play the game to win and Russell won more than anyone, any weaknesses from him or the Celtics can be dismissed as an irrelevant byproduct. I personally disagree with this argument. The Celtics were pushed to close Game 7s far too often during their dynasty by relatively weak teams and many of those final posessions came down to clutch shots which had little to do with Russell himself. The fact that a championship run only required two series wins for most of his career also helped decrease the chance of an upset. They still won in the end but in comparison to teams led by other all time greats, the 11 rings overstate how dominant the Russell Celtics were. For example, here is a combined graph of the ELO ratings of the teams of Magic, Russell, Duncan, Bird, Jordan, LeBron and Curry:



The Duncan Spurs played at a higher level for longer. The Jordan Bulls and Curry Warriors peak were shorter but far higher. Bird's Celtics were just as good as Russell's Celtics but won less because they had to compete against another all time great team in the Showtime Lakers. LeBron teams's ELO fluctuated widely in some years because the metric is not designed for players changing teams but they have hovered around the same level for most of his prime too. One thing you can say about the Russell Celtics is that they were very consistent but if you look at the ELO of all the other title teams by these superstars, every single one except the 88 Lakers were higher than Russell's best championship teams. The Celtics were a very good but not otherworldly dominant team and just kept on winning because teams largely stayed the same year in year out due to the lack of player movement.

TLDR:
1. There is little evidence of Russell having by far the most in-era impact. Defensive impact? Yes. Overall two way impact? No.
2. Some players have led postseason offenses comparable in dominance to Russell's defenses without the trade-off on the other end of the floor. This means they were overall a more dominant two-way team than the Russell Celtics.
3. Celtics were a below average offense. Russell himself was not a particularly great offensive player and wouldn't be one today.
4. Boston won 11 rings but considering the playoffs format and quality of competition, they weren't any more dominant than teams led by other all time greats.

[penbeast0]

....

So that's why i've asked this question. Kareem was basically the best player in the league every year in the 70's outside of maybe two where you could argue like McAdoo or Walton/Moses... In the early 70's he was lapping the competition by an insane amount in some of those years, being the clear cut best offensive player in the league while playing elite defense by most accounts. For anyone believing Bill Russell would've done a better job than Kareem and squeezed more titles in his position, you'd need to believe Russell would need to have like three times as much defensive impact on the game as the best defensive players at the time (Wilt, Kareem, Cowens) because we know Russell is not coming anywhere near carrying a team offensively.

When I came onto this board, I would have agreed with you. But, over the years, smarter posters than I am have convinced me that Russell did have more than 3 times the defensive impact of the likes of Wilt or Kareem. I also think SRS gets exaggerated in the 70s due to the greater amount of really poor teams (as I think it does in the modern era due to the tanking) which was a result of the massive expansion of that era.

I do clearly agree that Wilt and Kareem were better/more dominant individual players than Russell. But it's a 5 man game and I don't think Wilt and Kareem's teammates improved the players around them's team impact to the degree that Russell did either. That's where the extra impact, particularly defensive impact, comes in.

[2klegend]

I'm glad we can get back to fair analysis now that that first Project #1 and Project #2 is out of the way. I consider that an anomaly because of the recent bias as Lebron just won a title. Thank you!

Now this project, I have
1. Kareem
2. Russell
3. Magic

Legitimately, if NBA GOAT count toward NCAA basketball career, then there is undoubtedly Kareem will top the list of basketball GOAT. His resume speaks for itself. In fact, his resume of winning is 2nd to none. Even MJ will have to bow his head to Kareem's resume. He has the most unstoppable shot in the game, the skyhook. Why Kareem is not #1 and #2 is due to the sheer dominant of MJ/Lebron as wing player but make no question about it, Kareem is an easy TOP 3 choice and should be on anybody list if they are fair about it.

Russell is another close one but I penalize Russell's winning pedigree to a large portion of mediocre stat and the fact that he only needs to win 2 rounds to earn a title. He also lacks the offensive power to anchor that end of the game. He is very lucky to play with such incredible offensive firepower that was the 60s Celtics.

[Blackmill]

A long post on why I am not as high on Russell as some. Other than a section in part 3 on Russell's offensive development, this entire post will not discuss era strength and portability because I feel that the time travel argument is a distraction from the main point which is that Russell didn't have by far the GOAT in-era impact unless you are just looking at the 11 rings.

<snip>

I appreciate the different perspective. I hope it sparks debate and not outrage. Anyways, a few comments.

Arguments that Russell was by far the most impactful player in history generally rely on an inaccurate definition of how a player can impact the game. The idea usually goes something like this:

• Celtics had the best relative DRtg in NBA history by far
• Russell had the highest DWS seasons in NBA history by far (this used to be a popular argument back in the days)
• No team in history have a better relative ORtg than the Celtics relative DRtg (in regular season at least)
• Celtics DRtg matched Russell's career arc and he was the only player from the start to the end of the dynasty
• No player in history have been as dominant on offense as Russell was on defense and therefore he is the GOAT.

Another common argument for Russell that I don't see mentioned is none of his teammates were great defensively so he deserves most of the credit for the Celtics defense. I'm guessing most of us (including you) agree that Russell does deserve most of the credit. That said, even if Russell's teammates were not good defenders, they could have a markedly positive impact on defense by reducing live-ball turnovers. I really hadn't thought of that until reading your post and unfortunately we don't have these statistics. Maybe trex could comment on this thanks to his tracking?

Spoiler:

Did you track the Celtics turnovers, trex? Any thoughts on the above?

I think most of us can agree that Russell had the most defensive impact of any player ever, relative to his own era. However, as we have seen from part 1, having the GOAT in-era impact is more than just having the most impact on one end of the floor. Another element to that discussion is whether there are any players who were as impactful on offense as Russell was on defense. If we are looking at the regular season, that answer is a clear no. However, that changes if we look at the playoffs where offensive stars can sometimes elevate their team more than defensive stars.

<snip>

No player has come close to leading an offensive dynasty comparable to the defense of Russell's Celtics in the regular season but this advantage of Russell's is small when it comes to the postseason.

This is an interesting point that I think needs closer inspection. Regardless of the offense vs defense debate, I expect it to be true that the gap between Russell's defenses and great offenses is smaller in the playoffs. This is simply because Russell played so many minutes during the regular season. A player like LeBron might play 10% more minutes per game in the post-season on average. And up to 25% more minutes in close games which would significantly boost his team's offense. With Russell already playing ~44 minute per game he couldn't simply play more to have more impact. At least not to the same extent.

The Celtics were a very good but not otherworldly dominant team and just kept on winning because teams largely stayed the same year in year out due to the lack of player movement.

I would be very interested in hearing other perspectives on this. What was player movement like in the 60s? Did teams have as much ability to trade for pieces as they do now?

[DQuinn1575]

Again, and for the last time, I copied my post from 1 and 2 below, but kept as a spoiler.
To expound on Russell a bit more, 11 championships is mind boggling. People talk about his teammates, but Sam Jones and Cousy/Havlicek give him probably only 3 Top 100 teammates in 13 years, with Cousy and Havlicek not overlapping in terms of being that quality. So he really doesn't have much more help than the other top players, and he won so much more.
I think Russell joined the Celtics when they were the best team with Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, then of course lost the following year. What followed was a very short period where Wilt, Baylor, Oscar, and West joined the league - 4 of the top 5-6 players of all time joined the league to compete against Russell in a couple of year time span. West always had Baylor and then Wilt, Oscar had Jerry Lucas -there were teams that could challenge them, and there were times they probably shouldn't have won.
But they always did, and one player was definitely regarded as the best.
I do know he was quite an athlete, I have no idea how good or bad he would be today. He trained and focused on what he had to accomplish, and obviously succeeded. You can only beat who you play, and he almost always did.

Spoiler:

I think the Top 11 are pretty consistent with most everyone,
Wilt, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, LeBron, Shaq, Kobe
I havent done my list in order, so someone might squeeze in and get 10 or 11, but can't see anyone else getting a Top 3 vote. So let me start my logic -
I dont think that Magic, Kobe, Duncan, or Olajuwon were ever the best player in the league for an extended time, and can't call them the best ever as a result.
Bird just doesnt hold up in any argument against LeBron or Jordan
Shaq led his team to 3 titles, but WIlt has 2 and much more impressive stats, so Shaq is out.
THat leaves me with Wilt, Russell, Jordan, LeBron, Jabbar.
Wilt only won 2 titles, and the second had him as a shared one with West, 1.5 is so far behind the other 4 that he gets ruled out. And they are in 67 and 72, and I do have to give some timeline adjustment due to the available talent pool and discount those somewhat.
I havent mentioned Russell yet, but 11 titles, and in most he was definitely the best player. Yes, there is a timeline adjustment, and yes he had more help, but 11 out of 13, really out of 12 as he was hurt once. And yes, the time he lost Wilt beat him - so hang a loss on him.
I dont judge longevity a lot. It's a question of who was the better player, and Russell was like Alexander the Great who had no more worlds to conquer. Kareem playing seasons 14 and on not being the best player on his team doesn't do anything for me to judge him higher than the others.
LeBron has been fantastic, being one of the best players in the league for a long time. I'm not as high on him for 2020 as some, it was a shared title with AD, and in recent years Durant, Curry, and Giannis have all shown that maybe they are playing better or had better years. A couple of bad playoff series where his team didnt win hurt him here more than Russell or Jordan. Jordan's only bad playoff where they lost was 1995, and Russell 1967.
So Jabbar and LeBron won most of the time when they had a competitive team, but not always. Jabbar's team lost a few times as did LeBron when they probably had the best team.
I don't think Jordan or Russell ever lost when they had a team as good as anyone else. So that makes them 1 and 2.
And LeBron and Jabbar 3 and 4. Because being the best of all time includes making the team the best.
I think Jabbar was the more consistent and better scorer, at his peak the better defender, and the better rebounder. Obviously LeBron is a better passer, and really darned good in the other categories. So Jabbar goes 3 and LeBron 4.
Finally, Jordan was a better individual player than Russell. Russell obviously gets defense, but MJ everything else. And Russell had more help - he joined the best team in the league, and had Cousy, Sam Jones, and Havlicek - Russell would have won a lot of Finals MVP (The Bill Russell Award!), but not 11. All six of the titles were Jordan taking a team to the title, a few years with some good help from Pippen. But when it was close or they needed it he always got it done.

1.Russell
2. Jabbar
3. Wilt

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Vote 2 - Bill Russell
Vote 3 - Magic Johnson

Kareem came into the league and basically dominated the competition, which rarely happens even as a rookie with 4 years of college experience. He had an argument for best player in the league for the majority of the first 13 years of his career. He also had excellent durability, playing in at least 76 games in 18 of his 20 seasons. And how about that absurd longevity? It wasn't until his last season that his production really fell off a cliff.

How well he produced from ages 35-39 in the playoffs specifically is unreal:

Per game: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/abdulka01.html#1983-1987-sum:playoffs_per_game

Advanced: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/abdulka01.html#1983-1987-sum:playoffs_advanced

In the 85 finals win over the celtics at 37 years old, kareem put up 25.7 PPG, 9 RPG, 5.2 APG, 1 SPG, 1.5 BPG on 62.9% TS and a 119 ORtg. His combo of longevity, individual production and accolades is unmatched at this point. 

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not voting for anyone with less than 4 MVPs here. I don't think a player like Duncan is talented enough to be put over someone like Kareem who was the Jordan/Lebron level THE GUY of his era. I'm a believer in the concept of generational players vs just regular all time greats.

My pick is between Russell, Kareem, Wilt

Russell vs Wilt - In terms of clutch play by the end of their career it was considered a non contest, I believe Brady vs Manning esque. Russell just came up big repeatedly while Wilt had too many shaky playoff moments mixed in with some good ones, especially against Russell. For making teammates better and intangibles Russell wins. Wilt had plenty of talent in the late 60s and couldn't overcome the Celtics. Finally I would point out by the end of their careers virtually everyone put Russell over Wilt. Some of that is winning bias but we also have to assume they saw things we never will. Russell was voted GOAT in 1980 not Wilt. I'm highly impressed that Russell has more regular season MVPs than Wilt including 4 in the 60s against tough competition. You'd think Wilt would be the king of the regular season numbers but Russell did really well. Wilt having 4, Oscar having 1 and West having 0 is about what they'd do in other eras, if not slightly under. So Russell having 5 should be as credible as the other players who've won 5. Russell winning 11 titles is virtually impossible unless he's the best player in the league. It doesn't make sense with any other point in NBA history that Wilt or West could be the real best player and get beat by Russell so many times. However I will be defending Wilt in other ways later when it comes to competition and how he was a few more clutch role players away from winning 4-5 titles.

To put Russell in perspective his replacement in the 70s Cowens had better offensive stats than him, and I suspect was the most valuable defensive center in the league pre-Walton (He was the best perimeter defending center of all time to that point I believe allowing the Celtics to play a revolutionary style of defense again with switching, much like they had changed the game on defense with Russell), had A+ intangibles, won 2 titles... and still nobody thought he genuinely replaced Russell. He won 1 MVP in a weak era as a bored of Kareem vote, and was not on the 1980 anniversary list where Russell was voted GOAT. So Russell was doing something extra even an elite level defensive center with 20 pts/4 assist couldn't really come close to in terms of respect in his time. You could also compare to Thurmond who was an all time great defensive center, put up points, and still was miles away from Russell in terms of accolades. So Russell was a unicorn even for his own time in terms of being that much of a superstar with ok offensive stats. There were other elite defensive centers who even put up 20 point seasons, there were other all time great defensive players like Bobby Jones and Dave DeBusschere with role player scoring, and yet nobody pretended they were even licking Russell's boots. If all Russell did was play the same level of defense as Cowens, Thurmond, or Jones he's not a 5x MVP, 11x champion, considered GOAT after he retires player, that's just not happening with his offensive numbers. It's believable that Russell simply had by far the biggest defensive impact... to the point where it's just a freakish thing that's happened once and was weird then too.

Russell vs Kareem - Kareem's enormous offensive advantage should not be ignored. Yes Russell was better defensively than he ever was, and he was one of the most important Celtics on offense as well. Still, that scoring goes a long way, and Kareem is a top 10 center defender as well. Kareem has the most "1st places" in objective ways of anyone which is nice. Russell's biggest advantage is connecting with his teammates more and making them better compared to the more withdrawn Kareem, and while Kareem has a good playoff history, I believe Russell was a step above in terms of always raising his game at the right time.

Ultimately I have a hard time figuring out who's better between Russell and Kareem. So the most logical thing to do is to go with the longevity player. Kareem's 13th season is 82, from 83-89 he still has an impressive run with 2 1st team All NBA, 2 2nd team All NBA, which would've made him top 100 list on its own.

Vote

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell
3. Wilt Chamberlain

[Dr Positivity]

Another common argument for Russell that I don't see mentioned is none of his teammates were great defensively so he deserves most of the credit for the Celtics defense. I'm guessing most of us (including you) agree that Russell does deserve most of the credit. That said, even if Russell's teammates were not good defenders, they could have a markedly positive impact on defense by reducing live-ball turnovers. I really hadn't thought of that until reading your post and unfortunately we don't have these statistics. Maybe trex could comment on this thanks to his tracking?

I don't think this is true. I believe KC Jones, Havlicek and Sanders are three of the best defenders at non center positions in the league.

[Blackmill]

Spoiler:

Another common argument for Russell that I don't see mentioned is none of his teammates were great defensively so he deserves most of the credit for the Celtics defense. I'm guessing most of us (including you) agree that Russell does deserve most of the credit. That said, even if Russell's teammates were not good defenders, they could have a markedly positive impact on defense by reducing live-ball turnovers. I really hadn't thought of that until reading your post and unfortunately we don't have these statistics. Maybe trex could comment on this thanks to his tracking?

I don't think this is true. I believe KC Jones, Havlicek and Sanders are three of the best defenders at non center positions in the league.

For what it's worth, I wasn't taking a position on the defensive quality of Russell's teammates, I was just noting this is a line of logic that I've seen.

[ZeppelinPage]

3. Russell's offense

Spot on. In terms of Russell's impact I found (through tracking) Bill Russell's TOV% to be 23.3%, pretty awful.

Russell's mTOV% over this little sample is 13.96%, which is poor even for a big-man.

Even adding his assists into the mix with mTOV%, it's still quite poor--and I have found, through film study and research, that none of these assists were particularly difficult for reasons I have previously outlined in this post:

My sample on Russell was pretty similar in amount of games to yours, so it's not surprising he was poor in this aspect. I also do feel like using something like mTOV% for Russell (which factors in assists) undersells just how turnover prone he was in comparison to a modern player like Dwight Howard. The fact that his mTOV% is worse than Dwight's even with the assists, should tell anyone wondering about Bill Russell's offensive game that he definitely had issues in this area, specifically with live-ball turnovers, which are devastating to a teams offense--and it becomes apparent on film.

To put it in perspective for anyone reading that is still confused: Red Auerbach's system was based around a lot of screens and movement--a clear point Red would make in practice would be to keep moving. He constantly wanted his players moving around Russell when he had the ball and working off screens. So, when you watch the film of the Celtics, and while Russell definitely was a good passer for a big man, especially later in his career--what begins to become apparent is that a lot of Russell's assists were coming from simple passes like hand offs and pass outs because of Auerbach's system in place.

Before the Celtics acquired Russell in 1956, Ed Macauley was the center. In '53, he averaged 4.1 assists, which was good for 7th in the league--he was also the only center in the top 20 in APG. Now, Russell is a more skilled passer than Ed (who was a good all-around player.) But, it's fair to say Russell was getting assists in a way that other centers in history weren't able to. Watching Warriors Wilt, for instance, the entire team stands around with little movement. Wilt could obviously make more difficult passes than Russell, but he didn't have an offense that was quite as movement based until Hannum came along (and even his offense definitely wasn't Auerbach's.)

Now, some might say "Well, he is still making the passes that allow his team to score, it's valuable." But, here's the thing: why did the Celtics get so much worse on offense with Russell then? It's because his assists weren't as valuable as one might think on first glance for a center averaging 5 APG. Basically, Russell wasn't actually making the defense react to him, like someone such as Shaq or Dwight Howard would do: post up as a threat, draw pressure, and pass out to the open man. Russell was literally standing motionless in the same spot, waiting for players to move off screen--he wasn't actually putting any pressure on a defense. The other team wanted him to shoot from the post instead of his more offensively talented teammates, so if he was in the post there was really no point in doubling him at all.

Basically, Auerbach predicated his offensive system to work through the center as almost a "central hub" which allowed other players to score off passes from the post. In conclusion, Russell's actual passing ability is a little bit overrated, and this makes sense considering his turnover proneness.

[trex_8063]

Did you track the Celtics turnovers, trex? Any thoughts on the above?

Yeah, though again it's a mere 4.65 game sample. They turned it over 81 times as a team in that sample (avg of 17.4 topg).

Aside from the tiny sample, I don't really know if 17.4 was good/bad/average for that time period, either.

As an individual, Russell himself was responsible for 18 of those turnovers (~3.9 per game, bearing in mind he never left the court, as was pretty common for him in the playoffs [the entire sample is playoff competition]). His mTOV% was 13.96%, which admittedly is fairly poor, even for a big man. But again: sample size.

[ZeppelinPage]

Did you track the Celtics turnovers, trex? Any thoughts on the above?

Yeah, though again it's a mere 4.65 game sample. They turned it over 81 times as a team in that sample (avg of 17.4 topg).

Aside from the tiny sample, I don't really know if 17.4 was good/bad/average for that time period, either.

As an individual, Russell himself was responsible for 18 of those turnovers (~3.9 per game, bearing in mind he never left the court, as was pretty common for him in the playoffs [the entire sample is playoff competition]). His mTOV% was 13.96%, which admittedly is fairly poor, even for a big man. But again: sample size.

I think equating the Celtics performing worse on offense when Russell joined the team with his turnover numbers seem pretty reasonable to me. Even with the low sample size we have, he wasn't an awful shooter efficiency wise, so the turnovers probably did continue as a negative even with a larger sample.

If his turnover numbers are better or worse than what we currently have? There is no way to know until/if we get more games. But it seems logical to conclude that turnovers were an overall negative for Russell, and was a factor in the lowered Off Rtg of an otherwise strong offensive team.

[mailmp]

Trex, I can at least receive PMs, even if sending them is something apparently restricted to me; thanks!

Anyway, been thinking more about Kareem versus Russell. I guess in some sense Russell’s argument really boils down to 1964 and 1969. Everything else aside, those are two of the more impressive title runs in league history. In terms of pure value, yes, Kareem has a comfortable advantage. In terms of transplanting, yes, I think Kareem generally could have matched most of Russell’s dominance (with the acknowledgment that Wilt seemed to be tougher for Kareem to deal with than he was for Russell). So could he match 1964 and 1969? Well, coincidentally, Kareem’s 1977 matches up well with Russell’s 1964, and generally speaking I imagine 1977 Kareem could lead an 8 SRS team capable of beating the other two best teams in the league in five games each (again conceding that Wilt — and Thurmond — likely could hamper Kareem’s game better than he could hamper Russell’s game). In fact, a similar logic can extend to Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan.

So that leaves 1969 (the other argument, that of Russell’s functional air of invincibility and unmatched “clutchness”, is too similar for my tastes to the often lazy, albeit not wholly unfounded, arguments used to back Jordan). Well Hakeem is certainly no stranger to difficult playoff runs (the “modern Russell” indeed). Perhaps Duncan too, albeit less clearly. As for Kareem, the Magic factor certainly undercuts that. But then I suppose I should ask if Russell’s impressive feat in 1969 automatically offsets every longevity advantage for Kareem. And I guess I need to answer that it probably does not.

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell
3. Tim Duncan

Duncan something of an obvious choice as a player who essentially mixes Kareem and Russell. Were it not for his early career injury, I think he could have competed for the title of greatest ever. Shaq certainly benefitted from his absence in 2000. But sadly, he will need to settle for top five.

[ZeppelinPage]

Russell vs Wilt - In terms of clutch play by the end of their career it was considered a non contest, I believe Brady vs Manning esque. Russell just came up big repeatedly while Wilt had too many shaky playoff moments mixed in with some good ones, especially against Russell. For making teammates better and intangibles Russell wins.

If anything, Wilt consistently played well, rather than shaky, against the Celtics, who had the greatest defense of all time:

From last thread (thanks to limbo):

Wilt:

1960: vs Celtics = 30.5 ppg on .510 %TS [+4.7 rTS] (-6.2 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)
1962: vs Nationals = 37.0 ppg on .500 %TS [+2.1 rTS] (-2.0 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)
1962: vs Celtics = 33.6 ppg on .515 %TS [+3.6 rTS] (-8.5 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)
1964: vs Celtics = 29.2 ppg on .509 %TS [+2.4 rTS] (-10.8 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)
1965: vs Celtics = 30.1 ppg on .575 %TS [+9.6 rTS] (-9.4 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)
1966: vs Celtics = 28.0 ppg on .500 %TS [+1.3 rTS] (-6.6 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)
1967: vs Celtics = 21.6 ppg on .564 %TS [+7.1 rTS] (-5.1 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)
1967: vs Warriors = 17.7 ppg on .497 %TS [+0.4 rTS] (-3.0 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)
1968: vs Celtics = 22.1 ppg on .486 %TS [-1.2 rTS] (-4.4 rDRtg, 2nd ranked defense)
1969: vs Warriors = 12.0 ppg on .472 %TS [-1.9 rTS] (-2.0 rDRtg, 5th ranked defense)
1969: vs Celtics = 11.7 ppg on .476 %TS [-2.5 rTS] (-6.4 rDRtg, 1st ranked defense)

Wilt had plenty of talent in the late 60s and couldn't overcome the Celtics.

As did the Celtics--they also had a significantly superior coach in Red Auerbach compared to Dolph Schayes and van Breda Kolff, as well as a team chocked full of talent. The Celtics had a higher SRS in every year save '67 (championship) and '68 (injuries). An important thing to remember is that Wilt's teammates were never quite talented enough (for the majority of his career) to overcome the competition differential that he himself clearly could. Their all-time great defense allowed them to shut down Wilt's teammates--the '67 and '68 teams added more talent and players like Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham improved which took them to another level.

Finally I would point out by the end of their careers virtually everyone put Russell over Wilt. Some of that is winning bias but we also have to assume they saw things we never will. Russell was voted GOAT in 1980 not Wilt.

Winning bias is definitely a factor, look at this very thread. LeBron winning a new title has definitely created more bias towards him this year. The media in general has always favored winning above everything else, we see that even today with the best players on the best teams almost always winning MVP.

Russell winning 11 titles is virtually impossible unless he's the best player in the league. It doesn't make sense with any other point in NBA history that Wilt or West could be the real best player and get beat by Russell so many times.

Actually, it's not impossible at all--we have seen it the past few years with LeBron vs the Warriors. Who is the best player in the league? LeBron. Why couldn't he win in '15, '17, or '18? His team was worse. Now imagine if LeBron had to play that Warriors team with Durant every year for a decade, with clearly lesser talent. He would lose every year. The '16 win was with much help from Kyrie Irving (top 10 talent) as well as luck (Draymond suspension, Bogut out, Curry injured.)

Russell's biggest advantage is connecting with his teammates more and making them better compared to the more withdrawn Kareem, and while Kareem has a good playoff history, I believe Russell was a step above in terms of always raising his game at the right time.

I'm not even sure what this really means, and I hear it often with little evidence to actually back it up. "Connecting with his teammates" is a bit of generalization, because we cannot quantify that on the court--nor were any of us actually there to witness Russell in the locker room and around the team. Even in '56, Russell seemed like he resented Heinsohn for winning Rookie of the Year, from The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball:

Heinsohn felt that Russell resented him because the former was named the 1957 NBA Rookie of the Year. Many people thought that Russell was more important even though he had only played half the season. Russell also ignored Heinsohn's request for an autograph on behalf of his cousin and openly said to Heinsohn that he deserved half of his $300 Rookie of the Year check. The relationship between the two was tenuous at best.

That particular story doesn't seem to show his "team above all" approach that he seemed to have while on the court, and to be honest I think the intangibles aspect of Russell, regarding his teamwork and ability to connect, is overrated. Connecting with teammates is all well and good, but does that actually contribute to a better basketball team on the court? Does connecting with his teammates make them better shooters? Better passers? Better defenders? I would say not. Coaching, training, and talent do those things. Not to say that being a good teammate isn't a plus, I just doubt the actual impact of that on the court--and regardless, there is no actual way to prove this is such an advantage Russell has over other players. It's just a statement, it's not tangible.

[70sFan]

I want to remind one thing - Russell was Celtics headcoach in 1967-69, not Auerbach.

[Dr Positivity]

For what it's worth any times I've watched Russell games I've liked what he's doing on offense, and borderline is one of their most important players on that end due to the little things he's doing (he gets lots of hockey assists I think due to halfcourt and transition passing. Seems like a good screen setter.). Then again in the same games I can't tell from the video alone that he's the GOAT defender. So maybe grain of salt in both cases.

I don't see why he has to be worse than say 2014 Noah on offense.

Actually, it's not impossible at all--we have seen it the past few years with LeBron vs the Warriors. Who is the best player in the league? LeBron. Why couldn't he win in '15, '17, or '18? His team was worse. Now imagine if LeBron had to play that Warriors team with Durant every year for a decade, with clearly lesser talent. He would lose every year. The '16 win was with much help from Kyrie Irving (top 10 talent) as well as luck (Draymond suspension, Bogut out, Curry injured.)

I'm skeptical Russell ever had a team as overpowered as the Warriors with Durant with adding an MVP to an already champion team. The best comparable to the Warriors in that era is the 69 Lakers in fact.

The Warriors by their 2nd year with Durant were also no longer overpowered, either by their regular season results or losing to the Rockets, and they were fortunate in 2018 that Kyrie self combusted the Cavs. They were never going to win another 10 titles regardless of injuries or Durant resigning. If Durant and Klay don't get injured and Durant resigns who wins the Western Conference this year between the Lakers and Warriors? I have the Lakers (increasingly poor Draymond, no Iguodala or Livingston, overall tired team, etc.)

By Lebron winning 2016 and 2020 it shows how hard it is to keep the best player in the league down if he's willing to do exactly what Wilt did which is change teams to reload in talent. Therefore I stand by my take that it would be a huge aberration if the non-best player in the league or anyone less than at least the 1b best player won 11 titles and dominated Wilt and West H2H. Impossible is not the right word, since unlikely events can happen, but there would be no other time period in NBA history even close to comparable. To use an example is there any universe where Stockton and Malone win 11 of 13 titles? Say their run starts in the late 80s and they tear a hole through Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan and Shaq, despite Malone being worse than those players? And Jordan switches 2 teams in that team to get more talent to beat them? Say he goes to like the Sonics halfway through (mid 60s Sixers comp) and then finally teams up with Hakeem and Barkley in Houston to end his prime. *Probably* not. Give the Jazz Pippen, give them Nate McMillan, I'm not sure it matters. And there's no universe where a team who's best player in Bad Boy Pistons or 2004 Pistons level wins 11 of 13 titles. The Bad Boys had as deep and good a defensive team as you can possibly get and their run stopped at 2 titles due to the natural history of the league where superstars end up eating everyone else eventually. This is where Celtics success in late 60s is illuminating because if the theory was that Russell, Havlicek and Jones were just this group of 2nd tier star talents that had a deeper team, it should have been over as soon as Wilt got players like Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Wilt's Sixers team is every bit the talent that Russell's overpowered Celtics was supposed to have, and that's before he changed teams again to play with a player in West who's easily better than anyone Russell played with. It doesn't matter if Baylor and the rest of the Lakers was flawed - it's Wilt with another top 15 player in history, that's devastating talent wise (and for the record I'm skeptical of just discounting Baylor who was very good under van Breda Koff, he might still be one of the best 3rd best players in history)

[KPT1867]

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Kareem in the 1970s, had 5 MVPs, one championship, went to the Finals once. On the All-time list, he has the record WS for one season. He is also 5th and 7th. Those are typical arguments for Abdul Jabbar. Looking through 1970s game logs, there is a large drop off of his team's performance when he is on and off the court. By my estimation, his team's ORtg (score/ average pace) drops by 5 when he is not on the court, and the team's DRtg drops by 2.5 when he is not on the court.

Kareem's effectiveness in the 1980s drops significantly, but of course he was a key part of the 5 championships. We have to keep in mind that Abdul Jabbar played all four years of college, meaning playing 20 seasons means playing until 42, instead of playing until like 38 or so.

2. Chamberlain

Chamberlain did the most for his teams. If we look at WS as a percent of team wins, during his top 10 seasons. Chamberlain accounts for about 43% of his teams wins. His teams were not bad either. Excluding '65 and '70, his teams winning percentage was 0.676. He won the title twice, and went to the Finals six times. The same argument that is being used in favor for James of running against better Warrior teams, should also be used for Chamberlain. His numbers accounting for pace and number of minutes are not nearly as staggering, but still very impressive. His athleticism is at another level. We have to imagine what Chamberlain would do if he had consistent good coaching and he had work out regimens of today.

3. Magic Johnson

From a skillset, Johnson is most similar to James. Both of them can do anything that is asked. His numbers are not as impressive as James and he does not have the same built. We have to wonder if he had the same workout regimen or if he had been asked to do more. He did less, similar to Russell, because he could afford to do so. He did not have play stellar defense, because they had Michael Cooper. During his best seasons, the Laker's ORtg was about 5 higher with him on the court than with him off.

[Gibson22]

Was Bill Russell a better offensive player than 2020 adebayo, and does he look similar to him, to you?

[Texas Chuck]

I know you've championed KG as much as any one. Is the emphasized line why you haven't voted for him or has your evaluation changed? I'm very tempted to vote for KG as one of my three votes in this next round.

I appreciated and respect drza's candor and position on why he hasn't brought up KG as to not derail discussion. But I hope both of you will consider just going with what you think without worrying about reaction. The biggest KG-haters are nowhere to be found this go around so hopefully people would just evaluate him on the merits.

I freely admit I have KG nowhere near #3 and am unlikely to be swayed as I am pretty familiar with drza's case already and find it hard to believe there is a much more compelling argument to be made than his. But I also know I championed Russell at #1 as one of only a couple and I know down the line I'm going to be championing some players much higher than I expect the group to -- Admiral, Stockton, Kidd, Pippen to name a few. We should all like to be challenged more. If I don't come away from this project with new opinions on multiple players that would really concern me.

Plus if you guys bring up KG, then I get to bring up Dirk because I have those two guys as nearly impossible to decide which one had a better career. I've gone back and forth so often. And I love talking about Dirk.