Your unpopular takes? (PC Board Edition)

[OhayoKD]

Bill Russell was better than Michael Jordan at team basketball.

I know this is an unpopular take, but I sincerely believe it shouldn't be.

The ultimate winner in this sport didn't outshine other all-timers thanks to his otherworldly offensive stats or impact, in fact that's an argument that's used pretty often to lower him in GOAT lists (subpar offense). But that means he must have been better than anyone else at making his team win, which is just one way of saying "better at team ball". That leadership, together with his unbeaten deffensive prowess, are the tools he used to become the winningest player (by far) in the history of basketball. It has to count for something.

Plus, I am not a member of the Jordan Church, where the first commandment is that Jordan was the best ever at literally everything. He was surpassed many times at many skills, this being one of them. It's not a controversial take, and it certainly shouldn't be unpopular.

Ah, but(at least based on what we have), he absolutely does:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=103699576#p103699576
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=103720567#p103720567
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=103696960#p103696960

In fact, what we have would support Russell being the most valuable player ever(not accounting for longetvity), even over modern "impact king" Lebron and retro "value price" Jabbar

[prolific passer]

Celtics drop in defense from 69 to 70 had as much to do with the fact they didn't even attempt to replace Russell as whatever his defensive impact actually was at that point a la 2011 Cavs. This is further evidenced by Celtics climbing right back to #3 defense in 71 with a rookie Cowen.

Who could the Celtics have gotten to replace Russell in the 69-70 season?

[eminence]

Celtics drop in defense from 69 to 70 had as much to do with the fact they didn't even attempt to replace Russell as whatever his defensive impact actually was at that point a la 2011 Cavs. This is further evidenced by Celtics climbing right back to #3 defense in 71 with a rookie Cowen.

Who could the Celtics have gotten to replace Russell in the 69-70 season?

I want to say Mel Daniels got a new Indiana contract that offseason, but perhaps it was mid season. Probably the best they could've had a chance at if they were willing to spend big.

[VanWest82]

Celtics drop in defense from 69 to 70 had as much to do with the fact they didn't even attempt to replace Russell as whatever his defensive impact actually was at that point a la 2011 Cavs. This is further evidenced by Celtics climbing right back to #3 defense in 71 with a rookie Cowen.

Who could the Celtics have gotten to replace Russell in the 69-70 season?

I want to say Mel Daniels got a new Indiana contract that offseason, but perhaps it was mid season. Probably the best they could've had a chance at if they were willing to spend big.

I guess the point was more that Celtics didn't have even a replacement level defender. This has caused many to exaggerate Russell's impact. Unless we're going to argue rookie Cowens was an all world defender capable of single-handedly turning defenses around as appose to just being solid big who was capable of playing a role immediately, then we probably have to contend with the fact that Russell might not have been the incredible defensive player toward the end of his career that people are claiming.

Further, given those early-mid 70s Celtics teams all had top 5 defenses, maybe it's time we give Red the appropriate amount of credit he deserves for installing that system plus however you want to credit Tom Heinsohn.

[70sFan]

Who could the Celtics have gotten to replace Russell in the 69-70 season?

I want to say Mel Daniels got a new Indiana contract that offseason, but perhaps it was mid season. Probably the best they could've had a chance at if they were willing to spend big.

I guess the point was more that Celtics didn't have even a replacement level defender. This has caused many to exaggerate Russell's impact. Unless we're going to argue rookie Cowens was an all world defender capable of single-handedly turning defenses around as appose to just being solid big who was capable of playing a role immediately, then we probably have to contend with the fact that Russell might not have been the incredible defensive player toward the end of his career that people are claiming.

Further, given those early-mid 70s Celtics teams all had top 5 defenses, maybe it's time we give Red the appropriate amount of credit he deserves for installing that system plus however you want to credit Tom Heinsohn.

1969 Celtics: -4.6 rDRtg
1971 Celtics: -0.6 rDRtg

I don't see the point.

[Colbinii]

The Bulls didn't replace Jordan in 1994 yet they still won 55 games with Pete Myers playing the starting SG role.

[Colbinii]

Here are the Celtic defenses from 1969-1972

1971-72 NBA Boston Celtics* 95.2 -2.7
1970-71 NBA Boston Celtics 95.3 -1.9
1969-70 NBA Boston Celtics 98.9 -0.1
1968-69 NBA Boston Celtics* 89.1 -6.4

And then here are the defenses from 1973-1977

1976-77 NBA Boston Celtics* 98.3 -1.2
1975-76 NBA Boston Celtics* 96.7 -1.6
1974-75 NBA Boston Celtics* 94.7 -3.0
1973-74 NBA Boston Celtics* 95.1 -2.6
1972-73 NBA Boston Celtics* 91.0 -5.8

As you can see, while the team never became as good defensively with Russell as they did without him, certainly not upto the mid-1960s Celtics, who routinely were -5 to -10 defense for the better part of the decade. But, if we focus on the 1973 team, they had a ton of great defenders. Cowens, Havlicek and Silas were premier defenders in the league [Top 10-15 guys in 1973] while the roster was rounded out by Don Chaney [Received All-Defensive votes for multiple years in the 1970s] and JoJo White [A respectable defensive PG with good size for the 1970s at 6' 3"].

[VanWest82]

I want to say Mel Daniels got a new Indiana contract that offseason, but perhaps it was mid season. Probably the best they could've had a chance at if they were willing to spend big.

I guess the point was more that Celtics didn't have even a replacement level defender. This has caused many to exaggerate Russell's impact. Unless we're going to argue rookie Cowens was an all world defender capable of single-handedly turning defenses around as appose to just being solid big who was capable of playing a role immediately, then we probably have to contend with the fact that Russell might not have been the incredible defensive player toward the end of his career that people are claiming.

Further, given those early-mid 70s Celtics teams all had top 5 defenses, maybe it's time we give Red the appropriate amount of credit he deserves for installing that system plus however you want to credit Tom Heinsohn.

1969 Celtics: -4.6 rDRtg
1971 Celtics: -0.6 rDRtg

I don't see the point.

Not sure how you're calculating that. Going by league average on bbref...

68: -4.4
69: -6.4
70: -0.1
71: -1.9
72: -2.7
73: -5.8
74: -2.6
75: -3.0

Russell was in clear decline that last year both anecdotally and statistically. I find it really hard to believe that he was responsible for Celtics defensive improvement that year as his body is breaking down and when he's spending all that time and energy on social justice issues. Havlicek was in his defensive prime and Sanders made all defense that year. Was Russell still great defensively? Yes. Was he the biggest reason for their #1 defense? Yes. Was his impact accurately represented by the change in Celtics defense from 69 to 70? No, I don't think so. Further, I think we frequently misuse that type evidence.

[penbeast0]

I guess the point was more that Celtics didn't have even a replacement level defender. This has caused many to exaggerate Russell's impact. Unless we're going to argue rookie Cowens was an all world defender capable of single-handedly turning defenses around as appose to just being solid big who was capable of playing a role immediately, then we probably have to contend with the fact that Russell might not have been the incredible defensive player toward the end of his career that people are claiming.

Further, given those early-mid 70s Celtics teams all had top 5 defenses, maybe it's time we give Red the appropriate amount of credit he deserves for installing that system plus however you want to credit Tom Heinsohn.

1969 Celtics: -4.6 rDRtg
1971 Celtics: -0.6 rDRtg

I don't see the point.

Not sure how you're calculating that. Going by league average on bbref...

68: -4.4
69: -6.4
70: -0.1
71: -1.9
72: -2.7
73: -5.8
74: -2.6
75: -3.0

Russell was in clear decline that last year both anecdotally and statistically. I find it really hard to believe that he was responsible for Celtics defensive improvement that year as his body is breaking down and when he's spending all that time and energy on social justice issues. Havlicek was in his defensive prime and Sanders made all defense that year. Was Russell still great defensively? Yes. Was he the biggest reason for their #1 defense? Yes. Was his impact accurately represented by the change in Celtics defense from 69 to 70? No, I don't think so. Further, I think we frequently misuse that type evidence.

Take it back a bit further to get Russell's stronger years for impact; BB-R has 68 as arguably the team's weakest defensive year during Russell's tenure.

[VanWest82]

1969 Celtics: -4.6 rDRtg
1971 Celtics: -0.6 rDRtg

I don't see the point.

Not sure how you're calculating that. Going by league average on bbref...

68: -4.4
69: -6.4
70: -0.1
71: -1.9
72: -2.7
73: -5.8
74: -2.6
75: -3.0

Russell was in clear decline that last year both anecdotally and statistically. I find it really hard to believe that he was responsible for Celtics defensive improvement that year as his body is breaking down and when he's spending all that time and energy on social justice issues. Havlicek was in his defensive prime and Sanders made all defense that year. Was Russell still great defensively? Yes. Was he the biggest reason for their #1 defense? Yes. Was his impact accurately represented by the change in Celtics defense from 69 to 70? No, I don't think so. Further, I think we frequently misuse that type evidence.

Take it back a bit further to get Russell's stronger years for impact; BB-R has 68 as arguably the team's weakest defensive year during Russell's tenure.

Going further back it gets easier to believe in his impact. What isn't easy to believe is this defensive jump in his last year as he's noticeably breaking down which people then use along with 70 Celtics DRTG to prop up how valuable his defense still was in his last year. I have Russell as the GOAT defender. I don't question his impact through the mid 60s. I'm questioning his impact those last couple of years, and specifically that last year.

[penbeast0]

He was getting older but still isn't that old for a big (34-35) and is still playing 3281 minutes (42.1 a game). I think breaking down might be a gross overstatement. One reason the team may not be as great defensively in 68 might be that Russell only played 2953 minutes, his lowest since his 2nd year in the league.

[VanWest82]

He was getting older but still isn't that old for a big (34-35) and is still playing 3281 minutes (42.1 a game). I think breaking down might be a gross overstatement. One reason the team may not be as great defensively in 68 might be that Russell only played 2953 minutes, his lowest since his 2nd year in the league.

Maybe, but I don't think so. His stats dropped off noticeably that last year. I think those extra mins in 69 hurt his defense, not helped. Plus, he played the second half of that season on a bum knee. Again, have to think that hurt his defensive effort.

[70sFan]

Not sure how you're calculating that. Going by league average on bbref...

68: -4.4
69: -6.4
70: -0.1
71: -1.9
72: -2.7
73: -5.8
74: -2.6
75: -3.0

I take it from thinkingbasketball.net, which relies on more accurate pace estimations.

Even by bball-ref numbers, 1971 Celtics weren't close to 1969 Celtics defensively. They weren't close to them next season either and only had one outlier season in 1973 when approached defensive dominance of past prime Russell. You can't compare 1969 and 1973 rosters straight though.

Russell was in clear decline that last year both anecdotally and statistically.

Yeah, he wasn't in his prime anymore. That's a moot point though, because prime Russell's defensive impact was even higher.

I find it really hard to believe that he was responsible for Celtics defensive improvement that year as his body is breaking down and when he's spending all that time and energy on social justice issues.

His body didn't break down, he was in excellent shape and didn't have any major injuries throughout the season. He was perfectly capable of playing more seasons physically.

In terms of focus, Russell was a maniac. He was always focused on winning and that's the reason why he retired earlier than he could. He just couldn't keep coming at this point and he knew he couldn't do it differently.

Havlicek was in his defensive prime and Sanders made all defense that year. Was Russell still great defensively? Yes. Was he the biggest reason for their #1 defense? Yes. Was his impact accurately represented by the change in Celtics defense from 69 to 70? No, I don't think so. Further, I think we frequently misuse that type evidence.

Well, nobody said he's the only season why Celtics were good but keep in mind that without him Celtics couldn't realistically be a good defensive team. They would have to add another strong defender at his position (like Cowens) and even with him, they didn't reach this level consistently.

It seems that you don't want believe that Russell was extremely impactful in his last season, but you don't show any reasoning behind it.

[penbeast0]

He was getting older but still isn't that old for a big (34-35) and is still playing 3281 minutes (42.1 a game). I think breaking down might be a gross overstatement. One reason the team may not be as great defensively in 68 might be that Russell only played 2953 minutes, his lowest since his 2nd year in the league.

Maybe, but I don't think so. His stats dropped off noticeably that last year. I think those extra mins in 69 hurt his defense, not helped. Plus, he played the second half of that season on a bum knee. Again, have to think that hurt his defensive effort.

Maybe, per minute, but the extra minutes were minutes where the Celtics weren't depending on Jim Barnes (69) or Wayne Embry (68) out there.

[70sFan]

He was getting older but still isn't that old for a big (34-35) and is still playing 3281 minutes (42.1 a game). I think breaking down might be a gross overstatement. One reason the team may not be as great defensively in 68 might be that Russell only played 2953 minutes, his lowest since his 2nd year in the league.

Maybe, but I don't think so. His stats dropped off noticeably that last year. I think those extra mins in 69 hurt his defense, not helped. Plus, he played the second half of that season on a bum knee. Again, have to think that hurt his defensive effort.

Well, we can't be sure but I have collected some 1969 Russell footage recently and I don't see his effort being any weaker. In fact, it's shocking how active he still was at this age.

If you want to discuss it in more details, I can post a lot of 1969 Celtics footage in a separate thread.

[VanWest82]

He was getting older but still isn't that old for a big (34-35) and is still playing 3281 minutes (42.1 a game). I think breaking down might be a gross overstatement. One reason the team may not be as great defensively in 68 might be that Russell only played 2953 minutes, his lowest since his 2nd year in the league.

Maybe, but I don't think so. His stats dropped off noticeably that last year. I think those extra mins in 69 hurt his defense, not helped. Plus, he played the second half of that season on a bum knee. Again, have to think that hurt his defensive effort.

Well, we can't be sure but I have collected some 1969 Russell footage recently and I don't see his effort being any weaker. In fact, it's shocking how active he still was at this age.

If you want to discuss it in more details, I can post a lot of 1969 Celtics footage in a separate thread.

You should at least go look at a game or two in the first half of the year vs. post knee injury. My sense is he rushed back when they started losing games.

Don't you think it's odd that so many regulars shot worse in 69 vs. 68? Why do you think that happened? I think it's because Russell was slowing down and guys couldn't get away with inconsistent effort anymore. It's not an accident that Sanders made all D that year. We probably credit other Celtics too much for their great D in the early part of that decade, but imo we're making the opposite mistake in 69.

[70sFan]

Maybe, but I don't think so. His stats dropped off noticeably that last year. I think those extra mins in 69 hurt his defense, not helped. Plus, he played the second half of that season on a bum knee. Again, have to think that hurt his defensive effort.

Well, we can't be sure but I have collected some 1969 Russell footage recently and I don't see his effort being any weaker. In fact, it's shocking how active he still was at this age.

If you want to discuss it in more details, I can post a lot of 1969 Celtics footage in a separate thread.

You should at least go look at a game or two in the first half of the year vs. post knee injury. My sense is he rushed back when they started losing games.

Don't you think it's odd that so many regulars shot worse in 69 vs. 68? Why do you think that happened? I think it's because Russell was slowing down and guys couldn't get away with inconsistent effort anymore. It's not an accident that Sanders made all D that year. We probably credit other Celtics too much for their great D in the early part of that decade, but imo we're making the opposite mistake in 69.

That's your hypothesis, but I'd like to see more to back it up than just assumptions.

In all 1969 games I have seen (limited sample), Russell looked like the best defender in the world. It's very clear that Celtics needed him on that end and they collapsed without him. Whether he was worthy of X or Y points on that end is another matter, but his impact is undeniable. He was still a superstar in his last season and a candidate for the POY.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

My controversial take:

Shaqs most impressive season was actually his rookie season.

That's the only year in his career I felt he really went all out in every aspect of the game. Many will say 99-00 given LAs top ranked defense he anchored but as far as I'm concerned there was hardly anyone left to challenge him at Center, not to mention the arrival of Phil Jackson and a emerging hungry Kobe helped contribute to that

Whereas in 92-93 there was a murderers row of prime HOF Cs in the NBA.vying for supremacy and he was on a Orlando team with little history.

Even though Shaq was young and raw, he tried to block everything in sight and was at his best as a help defender.

He never posted better regular season rebounding/shotblocking averages in any other season. Had he not swung at Alvin Robertson he would've played all 82 games

I think this was the best game of Shaq's entire career:

Watch on YouTube

Jordan had 64 points, but Shaqs overall performance hardly took a backseat:

28pts, 24 rebounds & 5 blocks & 61% FG. My favorite game of his.

[70sFan]

My controversial take:

Shaqs most impressive season was actually his rookie season.

That's the only year in his career I felt he really went all out in every aspect of the game. Many will say 99-00 given LAs top ranked defense he anchored but as far as I'm concerned there was hardly anyone left to challenge him at Center, not to mention the arrival of Phil Jackson and a emerging hungry Kobe helped contribute to that

Whereas in 92-93 there was a murderers row of prime HOF Cs in the NBA.vying for supremacy and he was on a Orlando team with little history.

Even though Shaq was young and raw, he tried to block everything in sight and was at his best as a help defender.

He never posted better regular season rebounding/shotblocking averages in any other season. Had he not swung at Alvin Robertson he would've played all 82 games

I think this was the best game of Shaq's entire career:

Watch on YouTube

Jordan had 64 points, but Shaqs overall performance hardly took a backseat:

28pts, 24 rebounds & 5 blocks & 61% FG. My favorite game of his.

I think you overestimate the importance of h2h matchups against all-time great centers, which happens in less than 10% of the season even in 1993.

As to Shaq - well he clearly improved a lot as he got older. It depends on what you mean by "impressive", but he certainly was much better player later on.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

My controversial take:

Shaqs most impressive season was actually his rookie season.

That's the only year in his career I felt he really went all out in every aspect of the game. Many will say 99-00 given LAs top ranked defense he anchored but as far as I'm concerned there was hardly anyone left to challenge him at Center, not to mention the arrival of Phil Jackson and a emerging hungry Kobe helped contribute to that

Whereas in 92-93 there was a murderers row of prime HOF Cs in the NBA.vying for supremacy and he was on a Orlando team with little history.

Even though Shaq was young and raw, he tried to block everything in sight and was at his best as a help defender.

He never posted better regular season rebounding/shotblocking averages in any other season. Had he not swung at Alvin Robertson he would've played all 82 games

I think this was the best game of Shaq's entire career:

Watch on YouTube

Jordan had 64 points, but Shaqs overall performance hardly took a backseat:

28pts, 24 rebounds & 5 blocks & 61% FG. My favorite game of his.

I think you overestimate the importance of h2h matchups against all-time great centers, which happens in less than 10% of the season even in 1993.

As to Shaq - well he clearly improved a lot as he got older. It depends on what you mean by "impressive", but he certainly was much better player later on.

Not even bringing HOF Cs into the equation in 92-93 there were a lot of very good Centers not in the HOF just in Shaqs conference alone that season.

Brad Daugherty
Rik Smits
Rony Seikaly

And I was referring to end of year all nba team accolades moreso than h2h matchups. Daugherty was a 20/10 and Seikaly was a 17/11 starting Center. Both very respectable above average seasons. Shaq himself averaged 23/13/3 in 92-93 and couldn't even make an all nba team. In 99-00 someone averaging 23/13/3 at Center would've easily made 2nd team all NBA with ease.

As for the latter statement. It's just my opinion. I found his engine/effort overall above any other level of his career (hence why he posted career best shotblock/rebound averages) which is what I'm impressed most about when referring to rookie Shaq.