RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Time

[Baller 24]

By what metrics is Wade a better player than either West or Oscar? I would say both West & Oscar are more skilled than Wade, and can do more things on the court too. Wade is elite at attacking the rim, but West is a better shooter, better off the ball, and an equal facilitator/defender. Oscar is a better all-around player. How is Wade a better player? I need something specific.

Wade's mid-range game is spot on. Wade's a better athlete in pretty much every part area comparing with West who mind you has horrible issues with his left handed abilities with the ball, save Oscar Robertson, considering his athletic abilities MAY similarly mimic. Please showcase how West is better off the ball and an equal defender? Both Wade and LeBron need to be ball dominant, and I think both this past season showcased how well they can play off the ball when both are on the court at the same time. Statistically his numbers barely skipped a beat, he still continued to play elite ball, mind you this is with another player averaging what, 27/7/7? So Wade's defense is now considered equal to Jerry West? How so? Wade set a record for blocks with his listed height, he shut down Kobe Bryant (2nd Best SG) on two different occasions, and in the ECF where he readily handled an inefficient Rose, and absolutely burned Ray Allen. I'm not going to sit here and talk about the style of Wade's play, when there's footage from literally a month ago of Wade's playing.

Wait a minute, now here's where I don't understand the bias. When it comes to attacking Bill Russell's legacy, you're all in for your sake of arguments about playing against bad defense, short white dudes, and statistical inflation. But now all of that is somehow ignored when bringing up a modern player such as Wade. Yeah, not understanding that. Wade's best season statistically and physically is on par with ANY SG this decade if not better (be it '06 Bryant or '03 McGrady), it's definitely up there.

Let's compare era dominance...

West:
10 All-NBA 1st teams
4 All-D 1st teams
8 Top 5 MVP finishes
2.090 MVP Shares

Oscar:
9 All-NBA 1st teams
9 Top 5 MVP finishes
2.479 MVP Shares

Wade:
2 All-NBA 1st teams
2 Top 5 MVP finishes
0.784 MVP Shares

Should I bring up competition, or no? Wade from 2004 to 2011 has been competing with the following players WHILE at elite form for All-NBA First Teams: Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Derrick Rose, and Chris Paul. All perennial MVP candidates, three of which won MVPs during Wade's tenure. Why not include Wade's All-NBA 2nd and 3rd Teams? Or his All-NBA Defensive teams? If you're going to sit there and tell me that you use the All-NBA Teams as a focal point to measure the level of talent, please don't even bother being in this discussion.

West and Robertson? only superior level talent they had to compete with was Walt Frazier for a minimal time, and that didn't even last long. And here's where the bias starts up again, you're again using the same era of players you recently in the thread tore up for the level of competition for their MVP finishes to All-NBA Teams, but now are using as evidence to counter-attack? Gotcha.

^
If you include his 2006 playoff run, then Wade has 3 elite seasons, as compared to West & Oscar. Hell, you can throw in 2011, and it's still just 4 elite seasons. You bring up 2006 vs. Mavs, and I can counter with West & Oscar was great playoff performers in their own right.

?
'05, '06, '07, '09, '10, '11, if I'm counting that right, that's about 6 years of elite SG level of talent and play. I don't know where you got 3 seasons, considering it was only 1.5 seasons where he was brutally injured.

My point in bringing up the 06' Mavs, is their defense. If you want to proclaim Wade's series as one of the best Finals ever, I feel the need to point out that the Mavs were a weak defensive team, that were outscored in 3 quarters earlier that year by a single player. They had no one to guard Wade, and were offensive minded. Defensively, the 2006 Mavs were near the bottom of All-time Finals opponents.

So I'm guessing Michael Jordan's '93 Finals where he averaged, what 41PPG(JB?) came against a brilliant offensive team incapable of playing stagnant defense (statistically WORSE than the Mavs) shouldn't be proclaimed as one of the best Finals ever, correct? The fact that he did it in such dominant fashion should showcase something to the very least. But with the way you're stating it nope, definitely not proclaiming it as one of the best ever.

Wade simply hasn't proven to be better than West or Oscar. Both West & Oscar could still excel in today's era, but I'm not sure how Wade would have done in the 60's considering his style of play, which is to attack the rim.

[/quote][/quote]

Oh for the love of **** god. Please read what you just wrote, and then go back a few pages and re-read that to see if that makes any sense. You just finished questioning if Bill Russell was a great defender of his era or were the offensive players just bad in terms of talent. Now you're saying one of the TOP athletes of the modern era, similar compared to that of first-three peat Michael Jordan in terms of style of play, physique, and athleticism cannot compete in the '60s? But somehow magically Jerry West and Oscar Robertson with their statistical inflation can vary so easily. Wow.

[GreenHat]

Wait a minute, now here's where I don't understand the bias. When it comes to attacking Bill Russell's legacy, you're all in for your sake of arguments about playing against bad defense, short white dudes, and statistical inflation. But now all of that is somehow ignored when bringing up a modern player such as Wade. Yeah, not understanding that. Wade's best season statistically and physically is on par with ANY SG this decade if not better (be it '06 Bryant or '03 McGrady), it's definitely up there.

You don't understand the bias?

I'll help you its spelled K-O-B-E lol. He was going on a Wade tangent.

Edit- Cut down the quote
Edit2- fixed the quote tags

[An Unbiased Fan]

By what metrics is Wade a better player than either West or Oscar? I would say both West & Oscar are more skilled than Wade, and can do more things on the court too. Wade is elite at attacking the rim, but West is a better shooter, better off the ball, and an equal facilitator/defender. Oscar is a better all-around player. How is Wade a better player? I need something specific.

Wade's mid-range game is spot on. Wade's a better athlete in pretty much every part area comparing with West who mind you has horrible issues with his left handed abilities with the ball, save Oscar Robertson, considering his athletic abilities MAY similarly mimic. Please showcase how West is better off the ball and an equal defender? Both Wade and LeBron need to be ball dominant, and I think both this past season showcased how well they can play off the ball when both are on the court at the same time. Statistically his numbers barely skipped a beat, he still continued to play elite ball, mind you this is with another player averaging what, 27/7/7? So Wade's defense is now considered equal to Jerry West? How so? Wade set a record for blocks with his listed height, he shut down Kobe Bryant (2nd Best SG) on two different occasions, and in the ECF where he readily handled an inefficient Rose, and absolutely burned Ray Allen. I'm not going to sit here and talk about the style of Wade's play, when there's footage from literally a month ago of Wade's playing.

-Wade's mid-range is weak. He certainly didn't have anything close to West's range.

-Was West a super elite athlete like Wade, no. But neither is Nash or Manu or Miller. West was still elite at getting his shot off, and moving without the ball.

-Wade does have better handles for sure, but to fair, West was a perimeter guy.

-Off the ball, West moved better(from what i could see), and gelled quite well with Baylor & Hot Rod with and without the ball.

-Defensively, West was quite good. He didn't average a block like Wade, but then again, was significance is 1 block a game from a guard anyway? West was a scrappy defender, with tons of hustle. I rated them on par on the defensive end. BTW, Wasn't Lebron the one defending Rose in key moments? Why wasn't Wade "shutting down" Terry?

As for Oscar, do I really need to count all the ways he's better than Wade skill-wise? You can't even use the athleticism arguemnt against the Big O. I will give Wade the defensive edge, and the ability to finish at the rim, but everything else goes to Oscar.

Wait a minute, now here's where I don't understand the bias. When it comes to attacking Bill Russell's legacy, you're all in for your sake of arguments about playing against bad defense, short white dudes, and statistical inflation. But now all of that is somehow ignored when bringing up a modern player such as Wade. Yeah, not understanding that. Wade's best season statistically and physically is on par with ANY SG this decade if not better (be it '06 Bryant or '03 McGrady), it's definitely up there.

My argument against Russell being the GOAT, is that I don't think his skills & style of play translates across differing eras like other Top candidates. You will also note, that I didn't say the same about Wilt, in fact, I was arguing for Wilt over Russ because I felt he could play at an elite level in any era.

I don't think my posts were saying that the 60's were crap(at least that wasn't my intention), hell, I think I've been the most vocal in defending the older players in this thread. My main issue with Russell has also been how his play translates into the post-merger era. Guys like Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor, Barry, all have the skills and style of play to be Top stars in today's league.

And while Wade had a great ball-dominant statistical year in 09', both West & Oscar have similiar years.

Should I bring up competition, or no? Wade from 2004 to 2011 has been competing with the following players WHILE at elite form for All-NBA First Teams: Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Derrick Rose, and Chris Paul. All perennial MVP candidates, three of which won MVPs during Wade's tenure. Why not include Wade's All-NBA 2nd and 3rd Teams? Or his All-NBA Defensive teams? If you're going to sit there and tell me that you use the All-NBA Teams as a focal point to measure the level of talent, please don't even bother being in this discussion.

West and Robertson? only superior level talent they had to compete with was Walt Frazier for a minimal time, and that didn't even last long. And here's where the bias starts up again, you're again using the same era of players you recently in the thread tore up for the level of competition for their MVP finishes to All-NBA Teams, but now are using as evidence to counter-attack? Gotcha.

I could have added 2nd teams, but what would be the point when both West & Oscar have those too?

Also, the fact that Wade couldn't beat out all those guys on a consistent basis, only proves my point that he wasn't nearly as dominant in his era as West & Oscar. I'll concede Kobe over Wade, but he still lost out to Nash twice(certainly not a super-athlete), Billups, Arenas, and Allen(all guys who aren't super athletes either).

Now you dismiss West/Oscar's competition, but Cousy, Greer, Jones weren't chop liver. And you're also ignoring that Oscar/West were Top MVP candidates throughout their career, and destroy Wade in MVP shares. So they were considered great against all players, not just guards.

?
So I'm guessing Michael Jordan's '93 Finals where he averaged, what 41PPG(JB?) came against a brilliant offensive team incapable of playing stagnant defense (statistically WORSE than the Mavs) shouldn't be proclaimed as one of the best Finals ever, correct? The fact that he did it in such dominant fashion should showcase something to the very least. But with the way you're stating it nope, definitely not proclaiming it as one of the best ever.

MJ definitely faced some marginal defensive teams in the Finals, but even still, I feel he performed better than Wade did in 06', and didn't need 16 FTA/game. I don't think many view the 06' Mavs as being on par with any of MJ's opponents.

Oh for the love of **** god. Please read what you just wrote, and then go back a few pages and re-read that to see if that makes any sense. You just finished questioning if Bill Russell was a great defender of his era or were the offensive players just bad in terms of talent. Now you're saying one of the TOP athletes of the modern era, similar compared to that of first-three peat Michael Jordan in terms of style of play, physique, and athleticism cannot compete in the '60s? But somehow magically Jerry West and Oscar Robertson with their statistical inflation can vary so easily. Wow.

Note that I never brought up stats in my original post. And again, where did I question if Russell was a great defender? I said he would be a DPOY in today's league.

My problem with Wade in the 60's, is that the guards didn't have the abilty to get to the rim like they do postmerger. The addidtion of the 3-point alone and how it created space was huge, nevermind how much the refs let go with letting guards get knocked down if they entered the paint.

I hate the "well player A is a better athlete" arguemnt", because skill has also been way more important in any era.

[drza]

@drza Similarly, I was using the numbers to try and extend beyond all-nba teams. Not all all-nba team nods are remotely equal. You can have two guys on the same all-nba first team, one who is the GOAT peak player ever, and another who might be the 10th-best guy in the league that year.

Garnett's a great example. He makes all-nba 1st in 2000, but he's not as good as he would be in the next two years. I think it's around 01 or 02 we start talking about play comparable to the Malone Machine. Then he has his 03-05 peak. Judging 06-07 is tricky. 08, clear yes. But 09 the dude's injured, so that's out. 2010 he's hobbled a bit, but even in 10-11, I have a hard time placing him as a top-10 player, and therefore regardless of the accolades (let's say he had 2 more all-nba teams) those seasons aren't in the same ballpark as prime Malone seasons. I see, at most, 9 relevant seasons from KG there. (And by relevant I mean to this discussion, to "prime" seasons. KG's peripheral seasons still "count," but the impact they have on my team is hugely different as an all-star or even borderline all-nba guy compared to a top-3 or top-5 MVP guy.)

But see, I think you're blurring the line here between "longevity" and "quality". You site KG in 2000, where he was 1st team All NBA and 2nd in the MVP vote, but say that doesn't count as being on Malone's level. Whether I agree with you or not (I don't), that's an entirely different criterion than "longevity". FWIW, KG in 2000 vs late 1990 Malone is going to be (quality-wise) the same argument that I'm sure we'll have when it comes to comparing them: Malone is scoring more on higher efficiency, KG is playing more of a distributor role and is better on defense. How you fall on how to value that probably plays a large part in which one you think was the better player, but that is a separate question than longevity.

Longevity-wise, as I pointed out in my last post, KG was "All NBA-caliber" from 1999 through 2011, with the possible exception of his injured year in 2010 when even the +/- numbers indicate that he slipped, so that's a run of 12 out of 13 years of high-end play. You can say that Malone might still have a slight advantage still in longevity over Garnett, but at this point that advantage is small and shrinking every year. Now, you can say that you just think Malone's consistent offense made him a better player than what Garnett brought to the table if that's what you believe, but to me that's now a question of how you value player quality and not a question of longevity anymore.

[penbeast0]

Note that I never brought up stats in my original post. And again, where did I question if Russell was a great defender? I said he would be a DPOY in today's league.

My problem with Wade in the 60's, is that the guards didn't have the abilty to get to the rim like they do postmerger. The addidtion of the 3-point alone and how it created space was huge, nevermind how much the refs let go with letting guards get knocked down if they entered the paint.

I hate the "well player A is a better athlete" arguemnt", because skill has also been way more important in any era.

And yet while you penalize Russell because you feel he wouldn't be as effective in a modern game where his help defense is lessened by 3 point shooting/spacing/referee calls; you don't feel a need to say that, well, Jordan on the other hand (or Wade or any of the modern slashers) would be far less effective in the 60s where there was no 3 point shot so lanes were more packed and referees called charges and carries plus allowed a lot more contact, especially against dunkers. Seems a bit of a double standard or "bias" if you would.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Note that I never brought up stats in my original post. And again, where did I question if Russell was a great defender? I said he would be a DPOY in today's league.

My problem with Wade in the 60's, is that the guards didn't have the abilty to get to the rim like they do postmerger. The addidtion of the 3-point alone and how it created space was huge, nevermind how much the refs let go with letting guards get knocked down if they entered the paint.

I hate the "well player A is a better athlete" arguemnt", because skill has also been way more important in any era.

And yet while you penalize Russell because you feel he wouldn't be as effective in a modern game where his help defense is lessened by 3 point shooting/spacing/referee calls; you don't feel a need to say that, well, Jordan on the other hand (or Wade or any of the modern slashers) would be far less effective in the 60s where there was no 3 point shot so lanes were more packed and referees called charges and carries plus allowed a lot more contact, especially against dunkers. Seems a bit of a double standard or "bias" if you would.

The difference between MJ & Wade, is that MJ actually had range, was a far superior shooter off the dribble, and had a post game. His skillset actually does translate to the 60's.

But I will concede that I probably was too easy on MJ. Wilt gave many an interview out here in LA during the 90's, and a point he did bring up a lot about MJ, is that players of his era would have knocked Jordan down if he came flying to the hoop. That said, I think Baylor's success(who played similiar to MJ) suggests that MJ would have adapted just fine. Wade on the otherhand, is a bit injury-prone, and not as big as MJ.

This is not to say Wade wouldn't have been a star in the 60's, he would have probably been the 3rd best guard of that era. His career span would have been short though, if he tried to play the same way as he does now.

[ElGee]

Before I forget...

Vote: Michael Jordan
Nominate: Karl Malone

[Doctor MJ]

I disagree that it makes it more impressive.

Is it more impressive if I beat out seven 5s or beat out 29 teams that includes a bunch of 8s and 9s (along with some 3s and 2s)? I think its the latter by far. Its not like you have to beat out the 3s and 2s in the playoffs anyway. And in the first scenario you only have to beat two teams instead of four.

I stand by my statement that they were the second best team in the league. If you want to call 7/8 of the league at the time mediocre, than why is being the best team in such a mediocre era such a big deal?

Keep in mind the team the Celtics beat in Russell's rookie year was WORSE than the pre-Russell Celtics. He was beating teams in the Finals that were worse than the Celtics before him.

My only point was that Slater Martin (and Reg for posting it) were wrong in saying that the Celtics were "not much of a team" before Russell showed up. "Not much of a team" would be the Cavs, that's why I brought them up.

Do you agree that the Celtics were "not much of a team" before Russell? That's what brought up this tangent. I wasn't saying Russell had no impact because they were in second before him. I was arguing against the Celtics not being "much of a team" because they were the second best team in the league.

The era was a lot worse in terms of level of play, but compared to their era they were the second best team. If you count the second best team as "not much of a team", then it really is not much of a league.

The numbers you are assigning though have no real basis to say they are equivalent.

If we take the current NBA, reduce it to 8 teams of the very best talent, we may very well find that there is more parity than the current league. Your reasoning would have us conclude that those teams were worse than 30-team league contenders simply because of an inability to recognize weak competition.

Now, of course, the idea that the talent concentration back then was more than now is highly debatable which throws a monkey into my analogy. That's kind of the point though: If you think play was worse back then that's fine, but using SRS standard deviation to make a statement about championship worth is miguided.

Re: "beating teams worse than old Celtics". The Celtics had dominant SRS' with Russell. When a team with a strong SRS wins the title, it just seems so silly to try demean their accomplishment based on playoff matchups. They were typically easily the best team in a league that was most certainly not diminishing in talent and skill compared to pre-Russell eras.

Re: "not much of a team". No, I wouldn't say that. My point is really that I find the notion that the Celtics didn't improve a ton with Russell to be silly.

If we want to do retroactive MVPs because of narratives, I think that is only going to help Jordan's case lol. I don't put much stock into them either way, I just used it to point out Cousy was already one of the best players of the era.

You agree that Russell didn't have a bad supporting cast, but are you not willing to say he had a good supporting cast that didn't overlap his strengths?

No doubt that Russell had a big impact. But so did a lot of the all time greats. They weren't able to rack up as many titles in between because they had to face a lot more competition (again no winning the title while only beating two negative SRS teams in the playoffs).

I would also note that after Russell retired, the Celtics were back to that level 3 seasons later and then averaged almost 60 wins over 5 seasons winning two titles. And like you said that was in an era where parity was a lot higher than it is now.

I'm not trying to find narratives to help Russell, I'm trying to get the most accurate read on things. And yes, doing so helps Jordan look even better (as it also does for Russell imho).

Re: "Good supporting cast that didn't overlap his strengths"? The thing about Russell is that he won basically nonstop while his entire team turned over, forcing him to change his role more so than Jordan was ever able to do even when he should have (Olympics, Washington). So I just don't see a reason to look at Russell like he had a super-special team situation. He had a good supporting cast, but not a drastically superior one to what other stars have had.

Re: 3 seasons later. What is it exactly you think happened? Let me put it to you this way:

When Russell retired, the team went to crap.

The 3-year-later team had exactly 3 players left from the '68-69 championship team in the rotation, only 1 of whom was a star.

So what are you alleging here? Doesn't make sense to me to think it means that Russell played with ungodly supporting talent given the facts.

Perhaps you're saying Auerbach was so incredibly good that Russell was desperately lucky to play on Auerbach's team? It's not a totally insane point, but I would point out that Auerbach ran pro basketball teams for about 40 years and by far the bulk of his success came with Russell. In comparison, Phil Jackson was less dependent on Jordan for his success than Auerbach was with Russell. I'm not going to say Jordan was a product of Jackson, so I'm certainly not going to say Russell was a product of Auerbach.

[Sedale Threatt]

Vote: Jordan
Nomination: Julius Erving

[Doctor MJ]

So lets say he would be around Garnett on defense. Maybe better.

My point is that he wouldn't be ANOTHER Garnett distance above Garnett himself (if that makes any sense) and that's where a lot of Russell supporters have him, because of his beastly numbers against inefficient scorers.

I know that he made those bad scorers even worse, but I think its easier for an elite defender to make bad scorers worse than it is to make good scorers worse.

I don't think he would be so far ahead in defensive impact, playing against modern offenses. In all of the video I have seen, I see an elite defender shutting down crappy offenses. I think there are elite defenders in the rest of history who could have had similar impacts, against those offenses playing with those rules (which favored the defense)

Re: A Garnett-distance above Garnett. If you don't believe that, find. I'm really not so sure.

Re: "beastly numbers against inefficient scorers". You keep saying this and I don't get it. Russell's rep is not based on individual stats, nor based on raw team defensive efficiency. His numbers aren't inflated in any traditional sense, because those type of numbers basically don't exist for Russell's era.

Russell's rep is based on incredibly team dominance relative to his contemporaries who were going up against the same scorers he was.

Now, if you want to say Russell only had such a big edge because he exploited those scorers' weakness in a way his contemporaries didn't, and that those weaknesses no longer exist, then that's an argument worth making. It just doesn't seem to me like what you're actually doing as it requires a good amount of nuance I don't see you getting into.

I'll say 3 things:

1) I think it's a bit harder to block shots now than back then because players are more skilled in avoiding blocked shots and are shooting from further away from the basket.

2) However, Russell's game was not predicated on the actual blocking of shots so much as putting pressure on shots. Yes he blocked shots, and that was a crucial part of the deal, but it was always the case that the vast majority of shots aren't blocked. The crucial thing is understanding that forcing someone to adjust their shot makes them much more likely to miss. That's as true today as it ever was, and I don't think anyone's been as good at that as Russell.

3) I would agree that Russell wouldn't be as much of an outlier today as he was back then. I don't think the difference is so dramatic though that it makes sense to talk about Russell's actual career as if it was in some bizarro NBA that doesn't really count. I don't judge players simply based on how they would do today. The rules of today and the rules of yesterday were both legit.I look at how impressive they were given the level of competition and given the rules they played under, and I find Russell's career to be unparalleled.

I think five is out of the question.

Dwight Howard is about a 6 blk% now and he's still not getting 3 blocks a game. Career wise 6% is about as high as you can get as a full time player (if you only play 15 mins a game or something, you can get higher). The highest career blk% of any full time player for all the years we have data is 6.44 by Zo and 6.14 by Deke.

I think Russell would be in that 6% range (greatest shotblocker of alltime range, no slight). If you think he can get five in today's game you're putting him at about 10%, about 33% better at blocking shots than every other human being of all time. I'm sorry I don't buy that.

Zo and Mutombo were in the 6% range, same as Dwight (Ratliff was a part time player, averaged 25 mins for his career).

You say there isn't a reason for fewer blocks from the days of Zo, Mutombo, etc. but there absolutely is. There are less shots to block. How many more threes are there today? How many fewer shots are there?

Plus teams pull the center out now by running that high pick and roll. But the less blockable shots is the real key.

Zo and Mutombo would not be blocking 4 a game in today's game and Russell would not be blocking 5. I don't buy Russell as a 10 blk% player when Zo and Mutombo (and every fulltime player) is under 6.5 for their career.

I don't understand how you think it's appropriate to refer to Howard's peak Blk% number and Zo & Mutombo's career average Blk% number as if they are measuring the same thing.

Dwight's peak is 6.0, and his prime average is around 5. Mutombo's prime peak was 8.8, and his prime average was aroudn 7.5. Literally, Mutombo at his best was about 25% ahead of Dwight just going by the stats you've chosen to work with, so you're talking about Russell as if it's safe to say he'd be about that much weaker than Mutombo.

Now, you mention the 3's and that's a good point, but I already mentioned old man Camby blocking shots on a level Howard's never come close to right in the thick of this era.

But with all that said, I'm inclined to agree that 5 BPG would be a very tall order in this day and age. I probably wouldn't bet on Russell doing it.

In terms of the difference in supporting casts not being 11 to 2 worth, I'll use a chess example.

I am slightly better than my friend at chess. But I can win almost every time, because I am the better player. If we play 13 times, I can beat him 11 times because I am better.

The NBA back then was very skewed towards the favorite. The favorite almost always won it all back then. Russell's team was the favorite the majority of those years (obviously he contributed to that).

I'm sure we'll look into it further in the future matchups, so I'm not going to get into it now (that seems more of a Russell-Wilt thread than a Jordan-Russell one), especially since I have to respond to two other of your responses lol.

Again, we just went through the last years of Russell's career where he did not have the supporting cast edge. Russell on average had a better supporting cast than Wilt, but that's not the same as saying he had a cast edge every year.

Russell won 9 championships to Wilt's 1 while they were in the league together. In my opinion Wilt had the more talented supporting cast the last 3 of those years, and he was dang close the year before that. So Russell overperformed his supporting cast even before you consider how much luck works against someone trying to win every year.

Re: Skewed toward the favorite back then. You really overrate the dangers of the first couple rounds of the current playoffs. Results-wise, it's the 1970s where the favorites had the major problems getting through the playoffs when there was actually one round less than today.

I'll also point out that the Celtics didn't have the best record in the league the last 4 seasons, yet still won 3 titles in that span going 5-1 against HCA in that time period. So basically, when the Celtics were the favorites, you couldn't beat the favorites back then - and when the Celtics were the underdogs, being the favorite meant nothing. I see a pattern.

[GilmoreFan]

Well, it's clearly Jordan and Erving. I guess the 2 Malone's are going to be in serious contention for the next nomination, with Lebron and KG right behind.

[Doctor MJ]

Trying to get something more complete out, but to make sure I've got something before the deadline:

Vote: Russell just barely over Jordan

Nomination: Garnett reluctantly over Erving

[Fencer reregistered]

The anti-Russell argument seems to be that his greatness on defense was era-specific.

Perhaps that's backed up by a feeling that greatness on offense travels well across eras (because you can initiate what you want to do ) while greatness on defense is more constrained by what other teams do or do not choose to do. If so, I don't buy that part Russell innovated a style of defense that worked for his era. Even if you want to denigrate him as being a "somewhat better Ben Wallace" -- well, Ben excelled in a wholly different era.

The other part of the argument may perhaps be paraphrased as "Nobody could possibly have as much defensive impact in the modern game as a shotblocking center had in Russell's era." I think that has a little truth, but is in great danger of being overstated. Even today, if you can't attack the rim, you usually have great offensive difficulties.

What's more, suppose Russell played in an era where he had less he could accomplish on defense. Then perhaps he would have had the energy to do more on offense. Remember, he was an elite passer, both in transition and in the half court, with his half court passing being on a PG-like "figure out exactly where guy likes to receive the ball and hit his spots" level. Remember also that we're in an era where a smart player with great hands, body control, energy, and leaping ability is often good at least for some alley oops and other dunks. Translate Russell to the modern era and his FG% automatically goes up due to dunks.

[Sedale Threatt]

If I wasn't confident enough in my vote for Jordan -- which I was -- this just seals it.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1123798

Pure emotive genius. Beat that, Russell.

[JordansBulls]

If I wasn't confident enough in my vote for Jordan -- which I was -- this just seals it.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1123798

Pure emotive genius. Beat that, Russell.

[drza]

Vote: Russell
Nominate: Garnett

[An Unbiased Fan]

The anti-Russell argument seems to be that his greatness on defense was era-specific.

Perhaps that's backed up by a feeling that greatness on offense travels well across eras (because you can initiate what you want to do ) while greatness on defense is more constrained by what other teams do or do not choose to do. If so, I don't buy that part Russell innovated a style of defense that worked for his era. Even if you want to denigrate him as being a "somewhat better Ben Wallace" -- well, Ben excelled in a wholly different era.

The other part of the argument may perhaps be paraphrased as "Nobody could possibly have as much defensive impact in the modern game as a shotblocking center had in Russell's era." I think that has a little truth, but is in great danger of being overstated. Even today, if you can't attack the rim, you usually have great offensive difficulties.

What's more, suppose Russell played in an era where he had less he could accomplish on defense. Then perhaps he would have had the energy to do more on offense. Remember, he was an elite passer, both in transition and in the half court, with his half court passing being on a PG-like "figure out exactly where guy likes to receive the ball and hit his spots" level. Remember also that we're in an era where a smart player with great hands, body control, energy, and leaping ability is often good at least for some alley oops and other dunks. Translate Russell to the modern era and his FG% automatically goes up due to dunks.

Speaking for myself, I don't think Russell's defense is era-specific. All one has to do is look at the hype a guy like Greg Oden(defensive, rebounder with eilte athleticism, but no offense) got coming into the league, to see that Russell would be a premium talent, even today.

I do think though, that when you're speaking about the GOAT, that his offensive shortcomings should factor in. Guys like MJ, KAJ, Wilt were simply more complete players, and while Russell's team impact should be praised, he played in a 8-12 team league, had to go through less series to win it all, and had the best supporting cast fairly easily.

Offensively, Russell outlet's passing would be a nice intangible, but it should be noted that the system he played under would really dictate how imapctful that skill would be. If he played in a run n gun system, then that would be very useful. However, if he played on a slow paced team, then he would be handing the ball to the PG. And while his FG% would be okay, since guys like ROdman and Kwame both put up decent FG%, he still wouldn't offer any kind of volume scoring, and would average around 10-12 PPG. And frankly, that the huge blackmark against him. Put Russell on a team like Orlando, and I think they are a bit worse, put him on Boston 2011, and I think they win the title because he would have Pierce and Allen. Put Russell on the 90's Rockets, and I don't think they win a title, hell, put him on the 80's Rockets and I don't think they win a title. Would Russell on the 00's Spurs, lead to 3 titles that decade? I doubt it.

He was dominant in his own era, but across other eras, I just feel he falls a little bit short.

[Vinsanity420]

He was dominant in his own era, but across other eras, I just feel he falls a little bit short.

I actually do understand this case, somewhat... To play Devil's Advocate a little, how would Russell's defensive impact translate into a an era that favors perimeter players? Why couldn't say, KG do the same as Bill Russell did?

KG like Russell was a dominant defender according to +/-, was just as good of a passer, and a better overall offensive player than Bill Russell. His leadership was on clear display on the 08 Celtics team, where he made the rest of his team think defense and produced one of the best SRS turnarounds in history. So give everything that Russell had to work with to KG, would KG be considered the.... GOAT?

[Doctor MJ]

He was dominant in his own era, but across other eras, I just feel he falls a little bit short.

I actually do understand this case, somewhat... To play Devil's Advocate a little, how would Russell's defensive impact translate into a an era that favors perimeter players? Why couldn't say, KG do the same as Bill Russell did?

KG like Russell was a dominant defender according to +/-, was just as good of a passer, and a better overall offensive player than Bill Russell. His leadership was on clear display on the 08 Celtics team, where he made the rest of his team think defense and produced one of the best SRS turnarounds in history. So give everything that Russell had to work with to KG, would KG be considered the.... GOAT?

Remember that

1) Garnett's never been an elite shotblocker and Russell's the GOAT at it.

2) While Garnett has strong BBIQ, Russell is literally the only guy in history to player/coach his way to titles.

If you want to say that the offense of Garnett makes up for that though, that's an argument to be made.

And for reference, here are the APM leaders from '03-04 to '08-09:

Code: Select all

Player APM
Garnett 14.07
James    9.50
Ginobili 8.18
Duncan   8.01
Wade     7.99


Garnett's basically the king of +/- in the first years we have it, remains strong until today, and of course when he got moved to a team with supporting talent, the result was the single biggest year-to-year improvement of a team in NBA history and the best SRS since the Jordan era.

Yup, people underrate the guy.

[GilmoreFan]

I have to admit to caring very little about plus minus, but we can debate that when we get to Garnett around about the #11 slot (I have him 14 myself).