RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[Texas Chuck]

My point is you have tried very hard prior to this to insist on who could vote and who couldnt. It looks bad. Just avoid any hint of impropriety by letting other guys handle it.

I want their votes to count regardless who they are for. I have no stake in Russell winning. You are the one trying to limit votes by cutting off discussion due to nothing more than impatience.

Just relax and participate.

[DQuinn1575]

The original post said two days, and now it looks like you're closing out the vote before people who are following your rules have a chance to post.

I start with 5 players who were considered the best in the game for a period of years:

Mikan
Russell
Chamberlain
Jabbar
Jordan


Mikan - Dominated a 9 team (or more) league, with many of the best players not in the league, as virtually no African-Americans were in the league, plus many college stars, such as Bob Kurland, bypassed the NBA to play AAU Basketball.
The GlobeTrotters beat the Lakers in two exhibition games, and Kurland bested Mikan in college. This leaves me with a huge competition adjustment I would have to make, and leaves me with a player who dominated a league that did not feature the level of competition the others faced. Mikan gets pushed out of the top (and second) tier for me, and I won't revisit him for the rest of the Top Ten.

Chamberlain - video game stats and personal dominance, but the lack of championships compared to the others is his death blow.
Starting in 1967, his teams were favored and had a good opportunity to win every year except to the 1971 Bucks.
Yet in 6 tries he still only won twice, a much lower success factor than the others on the list.

Jabbar - Being the best player in the game carries a lot of weight with me, and Jabbar probably was for about 10 years.
The issue I have with Kareem is that he was held to a standstill four times in playoff losses:

1972 vs Wilt
1973 vs Thurmond
1977 vs Walton
1981 vs Malone


So 4 different players, only one of whom will rank as a Top 10 player, were able to hold their own against Kareem.
That didn't happen to the others here, and it happened too many times for me to take Kareem as #1.


Bill Russell - I started watching basketball shortly after Russell retired, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of his play.
The issues I have with Russell are:

1. Russell joined the Celtics mid-year in 1956-57. The team was 16-8 when he joined, and finished 44-28. That means the team had a better
winning percentage without him. It also meant he joined the best team in the league. So although 11 of 13 is a fantastic
achievement, Jordan did not have that opportunity. The team was averaging 105.2 ppg and giving up 100.6. After Russell
showed up it was 105.7 and 100.0 - so the defense didn't change that drastically, and didn't change much the following
year when he was there the full season.

2. If we believe that Russell's team were the all-time best in defense, then they were below average on offense. If
Russell was always the 3rd or 4th option then he was a below average offensive player. This isn't Kevin McHale or James
Worthy on a loaded offense - this is an average at best offense, and the team wasn't going to the guy.

3. Bill played with Sharman,Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek, et al - a better set of teammates than Jordan had virtually every year.
Yet Jordan's Bulls had 4 seasons of SRS superior to the best Celtics team. So if Russell's teammates > Jordan's teammaters
and Jordan's teams > Russell's teams, well the math puts Jordan > Russell.

4.I could list many examples where Jordan saved the day for the Bulls. I can't list any of Russell's. Havlicek stole the ball,
Sam Jones and Don Nelson made clutch shots. Big stars make big plays - Magic's junior junior sky hook, Bird's steal, Kareem's hook against
Boston. I know Russell was the star, but what did he do to win?

5. In 1970 Russell retired. The year before the Celtics won 48 games. The next year the two expansion teams added Jabbar and Dandridge, and Connie Hawkins and 2nd overall pick Neal Walk. They increased by 52 wins. which took away about4 wins per team. That would give the Celtics 44 wins. They lost Sam Jones, one of the top 50 or so players of all-time PLUS Russell, and only dropped 10 more games.


So, the team did not improve much after he arrived.
He was in a great situation, which helped him win 11 of 13
He was below average offensively
He did not make any known game winning plays.
The team did not fall apart when he left.
His best teams were not as good as Jordan's, although he had a better supporting cast.


Jordan -

Did not get outplayed in any playoff series
Best offensive player who led teams to titles.
Excellent defender
Many game winning plays


I vote Michael Jordan as the #1 player in NBA history

[Texas Chuck]

BTW,

Some great Mike stuff here. Sometimes it's easy for me to forget some of the specifics of just how great he was. I'm guilty at times of taking his brilliance for granted and I appreciate a ton of the details and reminders of just how absurdly special Jordan really was.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think the mid-to-late 60s era of basketball sucked. I suppose that's really the point. The gap between '55 & '70 is considerably bigger than the gap between '70 & '15 to me.

In what ways? I would say in terms of league size, talent level, skillsets, floor spacing, pace, and team schemes, Russell's era is not that different from Mikan's. The only difference is the shot clock which quickened the pace, but other than that, what was really that different?

On the flipside, MJ played in league's 3 times bigger, with much more talent, athleticism, skill, and team gameplanning/adjustments.

If you look at changes in average height, field goal %, and other stats, you'll see the S curve I wrote about cluster around the era I talked about.

I agree with you that team strategy has continued to advance since then, but in terms of major skills, the big shift happened in the '60s.

Also you mention the size of the league, but of course that's something that reduces average quality. There's really no doubt that as a result of rapid expansion quality actually went down for a bit in the '70s before the Golden Age of the '80s. And while the '80s were beautiful, there's no real reason to look at the Oscars and Wests of the '60s like they were some mere fraction of the stars that came later.

[MisterWestside]

I asked you for specifics, you shied away. I guess it wasn't clear: If you want to make a case about Russell specifically, you've got to drill down into the granular details.

Okay, I'll take the blame for that. Apologies.

I was piggybacking off of the things that Owly about Russell's offense/defense some pages back. It's a duh-worthy statement that the players around Russell fit and took the burden off of him, but the fact that isn't mindblowing commentary doesn't make it any less irrelevant or truthful. While Russell was the cog of the Celtics dynasty, this still factored into his success. And it's not something every great enjoys for a decade-plus.

Key line from your second point:

Auerbach using Russell well does not change what Russell was, only how he was perceived.

You're right. But I think that perception is enhancing what people thought he was. Hence the dispute over his modern impact.

What do I have to do to get you to actually talk specifically about basketball?

I'm okay with you talking "what ifs", but you want to knock Russell for his supporting cast without making clear you know anything about the supporting cast and you want to assert the relative greatness of Garnett & Robinson without making clear you know anything about them either.

However powerful you think what you're doing now is, I assure you getting into more specifics and doing it well will be far more effective.

I wasn't looking to elaborate on those two in this thread. They'll be analyzed appropriately; I was merely suggesting that I thought that they were more or less on the same skill level as a defensive anchor as Russell (FWIW, I have Russell ahead of them anyway, but only slightly), and would replicate similar impact. They're just as savvy, athletic (at least Robinson), and versatile.

Re: Knocking Russell for his supporting cast. I'm doing that where his impact is concerned (along with knocking him impact-wise for the era that he played in). Skill-wise and talent-wise, though? I'm not knocking Russell one bit. Not one. He's the defensive GOAT, IMHO.

Just not at the magnitude that the era-specific impact says that he is.

[sp6r=underrated]

Is it possible that part of the reason people perceived a decline in quality of play is due to the Celtics and Lakers taking a step back for part of the 70s? Fan interest is partly driven by which teams are winning. More glamorous teams will bring more fans. This is especially true in the era before cable tv when fans had limited exposure to teams outside their market. A lot of people allege the NBA took a leap in quality from 2007 to 2008 when power shifted from SAS/Phoenix.Dallas to LA/Boston.

I'm not saying that is entirely the reason people think the NBA got better in the 80s but it could be a component.

[Baller2014]

2008 did seem to usher in several super teams in an NBA that hadn't really had them often in the previous 5-6 years. That trend basically continued from 08 through to now.

[Greatness]

I'm not surprised at the overwhelming amount of MJ votes as he is a very worthy pick for #1. However I was hoping to get a few backers on Kareem, but I'm sure the #2 spot will hold a lot more arguments in his favor.

[bledredwine]

Vote - Michael Jordan

[Baller2014]

I'm not surprised at the overwhelming amount of MJ votes as he is a very worthy pick for #1. However I was hoping to get a few backers on Kareem, but I'm sure the #2 spot will hold a lot more arguments in his favor.

I'll definitely be voting Kareem for #2.I think alot of the other 23 Jordan voters will be too. IMO he's the clear #2 behind Jordan.

[penbeast0]

Vote - Michael Jordan

Our first bad post of the project. If you post without analysis, your vote will not be counted. Fortunately, this poster is not registered for the project according to our rules set forth before the project started. I will be a bit hesitant to add this poster to the project unless he or she can show an understanding of what we are about.

Voters can be added based on good discussion in prior threads; they will not vote in the first thread they post in. I have no problem with any of OUR 5 BOARD MODS adding a poster to the list, just make sure to PM me a confirmation so I don't miss it.

If you have issues with the voting, do not post it here. PM me so we do not derail an otherwise excellent discussion thread with a side issue.

Thanks,

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm not surprised at the overwhelming amount of MJ votes as he is a very worthy pick for #1. However I was hoping to get a few backers on Kareem, but I'm sure the #2 spot will hold a lot more arguments in his favor.

I'll definitely be voting Kareem for #2.I think alot of the other 23 Jordan voters will be too. IMO he's the clear #2 behind Jordan.

If your concern in this project is getting this list to reflect your own personal list, then don't worry, Kareem will get in at #2.

[magicmerl]

I'm not surprised at the overwhelming amount of MJ votes as he is a very worthy pick for #1. However I was hoping to get a few backers on Kareem, but I'm sure the #2 spot will hold a lot more arguments in his favor.

I'll definitely be voting Kareem for #2.I think alot of the other 23 Jordan voters will be too. IMO he's the clear #2 behind Jordan.

It'll be interesting to see how the Jordan vote splits out. Since I can't see any of the Russell voters picking Kareem or whoever if they pushed him for the top slot.

Speaking of which, if the player you voted for was unsuccessful, shouldn't it be mandatory that you vote for the same player in the next round? Otherwise you are open to potential tactical voting....

[PCProductions]

Though now long removed since my initial post briefly stating my reasoning for voting for Jordan, I gotta say these posts on Russell are damn convincing. I was always sold on him being a clear top 3 player ever, but his argument for #1 ever seems like it might even be stronger than Jordan's when broken down to the atoms like y'all have. Great contribution so far, guys!

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't think the mid-to-late 60s era of basketball sucked. I suppose that's really the point. The gap between '55 & '70 is considerably bigger than the gap between '70 & '15 to me.

In what ways? I would say in terms of league size, talent level, skillsets, floor spacing, pace, and team schemes, Russell's era is not that different from Mikan's. The only difference is the shot clock which quickened the pace, but other than that, what was really that different?

On the flipside, MJ played in league's 3 times bigger, with much more talent, athleticism, skill, and team gameplanning/adjustments.

If you look at changes in average height, field goal %, and other stats, you'll see the S curve I wrote about cluster around the era I talked about.

I agree, but I think the issue is instead about the skill/athletic level of the eras, and of course the league structure.

I agree with you that team strategy has continued to advance since then, but in terms of major skills, the big shift happened in the '60s.

I'd say the big shift came in the late 60's, but this new crop of players were either in their first years, or in college during Russell's era. For nearly all of Russell's career, including his prime, the skill level in the NBA was very basic. One hand dribbling, basic shots, limited moves, poor offensive skillsets, it was very flawed.

Athletically, the NBA didn't attract as many great athletes back then. the vast majority of the league had a major dropoff in ability from the Top 10 players of the 60's or so. In explosiveness, it's night & day. Imagine how much easier it would be for any of the Top 20 players ever to play in a NBA where the vast majority of players had the athletic ability of Luke Walton. Russell barely jumps to block shots. He doesn't even break a sweat rotating on defense in any of the old Celtic games on video. No one attacks the rim(save Baylor).

Also you mention the size of the league, but of course that's something that reduces average quality. There's really no doubt that as a result of rapid expansion quality actually went down for a bit in the '70s before the Golden Age of the '80s. And while the '80s were beautiful, there's no real reason to look at the Oscars and Wests of the '60s like they were some mere fraction of the stars that came later.

Despite the larger size, I would say the modern NBA is more talented. The crop of talent coming from high school/college is deeper. And the range of recruiting also spans the globe now. This is a by product of the NBA popularity, and the shift from baseball to basketball as a pasttime in working class neighborhoods. Think of it like soccer. In Euro, kids grow up playing, and their skill level dwarfs the US. in the US we are weaker because out top athletes play other sports. That how the NBA was in the 60's.

[Doctor MJ]

Is it possible that part of the reason people perceived a decline in quality of play is due to the Celtics and Lakers taking a step back for part of the 70s? Fan interest is partly driven by which teams are winning. More glamorous teams will bring more fans. This is especially true in the era before cable tv when fans had limited exposure to teams outside their market. A lot of people allege the NBA took a leap in quality from 2007 to 2008 when power shifted from SAS/Phoenix.Dallas to LA/Boston.

I'm not saying that is entirely the reason people think the NBA got better in the 80s but it could be a component.

I don't think there's any doubt that people oftentimes confuse a lack of a dominant force with a general weakness, but the rapid expansion of the '70s simply had to take a toll.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not surprised at the overwhelming amount of MJ votes as he is a very worthy pick for #1. However I was hoping to get a few backers on Kareem, but I'm sure the #2 spot will hold a lot more arguments in his favor.

I'll definitely be voting Kareem for #2.I think alot of the other 23 Jordan voters will be too. IMO he's the clear #2 behind Jordan.

Yup, Kareem's got a great shot for the #2 spot. I wouldn't take Russell finishing 2nd in the thread as any kind of reason to think that he'll maintain the lead in the next slot.

[ElGee]

The original post said two days, and now it looks like you're closing out the vote before people who are following your rules have a chance to post.

I start with 5 players who were considered the best in the game for a period of years:

Mikan
Russell
Chamberlain
Jabbar
Jordan


Mikan - Dominated a 9 team (or more) league, with many of the best players not in the league, as virtually no African-Americans were in the league, plus many college stars, such as Bob Kurland, bypassed the NBA to play AAU Basketball.
The GlobeTrotters beat the Lakers in two exhibition games, and Kurland bested Mikan in college. This leaves me with a huge competition adjustment I would have to make, and leaves me with a player who dominated a league that did not feature the level of competition the others faced. Mikan gets pushed out of the top (and second) tier for me, and I won't revisit him for the rest of the Top Ten.

Chamberlain - video game stats and personal dominance, but the lack of championships compared to the others is his death blow.
Starting in 1967, his teams were favored and had a good opportunity to win every year except to the 1971 Bucks.
Yet in 6 tries he still only won twice, a much lower success factor than the others on the list.

Jabbar - Being the best player in the game carries a lot of weight with me, and Jabbar probably was for about 10 years.
The issue I have with Kareem is that he was held to a standstill four times in playoff losses:

1972 vs Wilt
1973 vs Thurmond
1977 vs Walton
1981 vs Malone


So 4 different players, only one of whom will rank as a Top 10 player, were able to hold their own against Kareem.
That didn't happen to the others here, and it happened too many times for me to take Kareem as #1.


Bill Russell - I started watching basketball shortly after Russell retired, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of his play.
The issues I have with Russell are:

1. Russell joined the Celtics mid-year in 1956-57. The team was 16-8 when he joined, and finished 44-28. That means the team had a better
winning percentage without him. It also meant he joined the best team in the league. So although 11 of 13 is a fantastic
achievement, Jordan did not have that opportunity. The team was averaging 105.2 ppg and giving up 100.6. After Russell
showed up it was 105.7 and 100.0 - so the defense didn't change that drastically, and didn't change much the following
year when he was there the full season.

2. If we believe that Russell's team were the all-time best in defense, then they were below average on offense. If
Russell was always the 3rd or 4th option then he was a below average offensive player. This isn't Kevin McHale or James
Worthy on a loaded offense - this is an average at best offense, and the team wasn't going to the guy.

3. Bill played with Sharman,Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek, et al - a better set of teammates than Jordan had virtually every year.
Yet Jordan's Bulls had 4 seasons of SRS superior to the best Celtics team. So if Russell's teammates > Jordan's teammaters
and Jordan's teams > Russell's teams, well the math puts Jordan > Russell.

4.I could list many examples where Jordan saved the day for the Bulls. I can't list any of Russell's. Havlicek stole the ball,
Sam Jones and Don Nelson made clutch shots. Big stars make big plays - Magic's junior junior sky hook, Bird's steal, Kareem's hook against
Boston. I know Russell was the star, but what did he do to win?

5. In 1970 Russell retired. The year before the Celtics won 48 games. The next year the two expansion teams added Jabbar and Dandridge, and Connie Hawkins and 2nd overall pick Neal Walk. They increased by 52 wins. which took away about4 wins per team. That would give the Celtics 44 wins. They lost Sam Jones, one of the top 50 or so players of all-time PLUS Russell, and only dropped 10 more games.


So, the team did not improve much after he arrived.
He was in a great situation, which helped him win 11 of 13
He was below average offensively
He did not make any known game winning plays.
The team did not fall apart when he left.
His best teams were not as good as Jordan's, although he had a better supporting cast.


Jordan -

Did not get outplayed in any playoff series
Best offensive player who led teams to titles.
Excellent defender
Many game winning plays


I vote Michael Jordan as the #1 player in NBA history

Look at points, not wins. It's more accurate (descriptive and predictive).

[Texas Chuck]

Speaking of which, if the player you voted for was unsuccessful, shouldn't it be mandatory that you vote for the same player in the next round? Otherwise you are open to potential tactical voting....

I still think its incredibly sad that we even have to worry about such a thing. I could easily see a scenario especially as we move deeper and deeper into the list where I could vote for Player A for spot X, have player B win spot X and then vote player C for spot Y based on being swayed by some arguments in the discussion.

I still think its going to be crystal clear if someone has an agenda and I trust the guys running the project to make the correct decision regards keeping or discarding those votes as needed. But I hate the idea of having to stick to my vote if someone really convinces me I have a guy badly overrated.

Take Jason Kidd or Deke as examples. I think if you go through the pre-lists you will see I have both guys ranked much higher than either the mean or median. It's not a stretch for me to think I might introduce one of them at a slot, have a bunch of smart guys point out why I have them considerably too high and thus not continue to vote them in every thread until they make the list. I could simply be persuaded that I overrated them. Or I may stick to my guns because Im not convinced and vote Kidd 15 threads in a row. Either way I want the right to vote who I think deserves that spot.

[ElGee]

Help take the load off? I mean, c'mon, that's just normal supporting cast stuff. I've gone into how fortunate Jordan was too have rebounding specialists like Dennis Rodman. If you're going to allege that Russell was the one truly lucky along these lines, you need to give me something more than that they helped Russell "by doing something with the basketball".

I don't have to. It's not even like I'm suggesting that Sam Jones and company were once-in-a-generation players that Russell was fitted with, by any means. Even if I called them all average Joes, their importance as complementary players adds up. They didn't get in the way of what the Celtics wanted to construct around Russell, and that still means something.

Here's the simplest way to sum up Russell's supporting cast:

Without Russell, evidence suggests they were an average team. Only for a supporting cast, that also makes them above average. You know who else had an above average supporting cast when their teams were dominant? Every GOAT candidate ever.