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

[Baller 24]

Jordan and Erving look like they win by a good margin.

[GilmoreFan]

Yeh, this is going to be rough on Kobe fans. Doubtless there was alot of excitement when Kobe finished 10th, but in actuality only 17 people actually voted in that (and only 6 gave him the nod, invariably for 10th place or unspecified, compared to the 15-17 votes for the other 9 candidates), whereas the list I collated for Penbeast on the other thread shows we now have 37 voters, and a good majority of them seem to have Kobe out of the 10 from the posts I've been reading. I'd be surprised if Kobe makes the top 12. I have him 15 myself.

[GreenHat]

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.

Don't you have the same bias?

You haven't mentioned how any of these factors helped Russell either (at least that I have seen)

If there is no three point shot that helps the player who is a dominant defensive center and the team that has him.

Like you said lanes were more packed so it was harder to drive in against him/them.

Players weren't allowed to carry the ball and charges were called, so teams were easier to defend.

More contact was allowed by the defensive player especially at challenges at the rim, wouldn't that help Russell too?

[GreenHat]

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.

Look all I am saying is that they were the second best team. And I only brought it up in the context of "they weren't much of a team until Russell arrived".

I have never contended that Russell didn't improve the Celtics a ton and I would ask that you please stop attributing these silly arguments to me.

I said that they were the second best team in the league in response to "they weren't much of a team until Russell arrived".

No I wouldn't say that those 8 teams were worse because its the same talent pool being concentrated. But I would say that players on the best team in that league have a much easier road to winning a bunch of championships, don't you agree? Your reasoning would have us believe that it wouldn't be much easier for the best team.

And no I understand that SRS is more closely grouped with less number of teams. That's why I'm not making comparisons to the Mavs beating a 6 SRS team in the Finals compared to the Celtics. But there is a huge difference between 6 and NEGATIVE even accounting for league size.

They won the title without playing a team with a positive SRS, now teams have to play four (sometimes 3) and at least two or three of them stratify themselves pretty high up there.

I bring this up not to demean the Celtics Championship. But to point out that there weren't any other great teams (in a lot of those years). They were standing out compared to what you have deemed as mediocrity.

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.

What other role did Russell play?

And what other stars would you say had similar supporting casts throughout their career? Especially those that didn't overlap their own talents.

You got my line of thinking with their post Russell success, but you exaggerated it for your own benefit. Do you really think I was saying Russell was desperately lucky to play on Red's team?

I don't even think Red was a good coach, but he was a much better General Manager than the buffoons running most of the other teams and that's why Russell was able to continuously have such good supporting casts throughout his career. That played a large part in Russell's success (not as much as his actual play of course before you make that assumption of my thinking)

I think I need change my sig to I don't hate Bill Russell, I just don't think he's the best basketball player of all time lol.

[JordansBulls]

As far as I can see this was the total votes and nominations.

Votes:

MJ = 21
11111
11111
11111
11111
1

Russell = 6
11111
1

Kareem = 5
11111

Wilt = 1
1



Nominations
Dr J = 10
11111
11111

Oscar = 3
111

Garnett = 3
111

West = 3
111

Moses = 3
111

Karl = 3
111

Mikan = 3
111

Lebron = 1
1


As a note a few posters didn't give nominations they just voted for the #1 player.

[rrravenred]

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.

Well, you can give him points for style, but if we're going to rate that aspect of the "game" then Wilt soars up the rankings, with Magic as probably the number two...

[GilmoreFan]

Your count is definitely wrong Jordanbulls.

[Doctor MJ]

What other role did Russell play?

In college Russell set the record for most "March Madness" (I know, wasn't called that back then) scoring. He came into the league scoring in the high teens with relatively high efficiency. Then his scoring nosedived as he moved to a different role on the team.

He became his team's primary distributor from the center position which was highly unusual.

Obviously he was amazing on defense, but people don't think about his versatility on that front. He was known for great man defense against everyone from the biggest big man in the game down to 2 guards all depending on what was needed. He did that while being an unreal help defender both in terms of raw shot blocking and in terms of being award of the the state of the floor.

Then, he was asked to literally replace Red Auerbach as coach and after a year of struggling with multi-tasking became very respected.

There is really no doubt in my mind that if his team had needed him to play in a very different way, he'd have been willing to do it, and competent at it.

And what other stars would you say had similar supporting casts throughout their career? Especially those that didn't overlap their own talents.

Still don't get this whole "didn't overlap their own talents" thing. As I look at it now, I suppose perhaps you're saying Russell was fortunate to have decent teammates with distinct skillsets from him. However, that's a bit of the point: Russell's skillset was rare and easy to blend in with.

Wilt Chamberlain on the 76ers had plenty of supporting talent, and he managed only 1 title with that group. He had far more supporting talent on the Lakers and it took him years to really figure out a way to fit in and make the team clearly better than it was without him.

Other people?

Well, Magic & Bird obviously.

Jordan? When he was winning titles, those were fantastic supporting casts for him. Obviously 6 titles is nice, but of course he would have had more opportunity than that if he hadn't been so retirement-prone.

Shaq & Kobe have had tremendous talent next to them for much of their career & could have of course had even more if they hadn't ruined it. I thought they'd end up with more titles together than Jordan.

[GreenHat]

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.

I am pretty sure of my assumption and in all the video I have seen I have not seen anything that remotely resembles a defender that is a HUGE gap better than Garnett. Can you provide me with anything that points to that? Or is your assumption just based on the numbers?

(I don't mean that mockingly, I am asking honestly. I'm always a numbers guy instead of the eye guy, in this case I think there are too many confounding variables and drastically different samples that we have discussed ad nauseum to only go by the numbers)

Either way I don't think I am underrating Russell by saying he would be the best defender in the league. If you think that he would lap the guy who is lapping everyone else, I think that takes a lot more assumptions to get to, specifically how he would adjust. For all we know he might be too foul prone (against modern players) to even play 40+ minutes like he did back then at the same intensity. And that's only one of the assumptions you would have to make.

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 am absolutely saying that its easier for a dominant defensive/rebounding big man to dominate when the other team's is missing so many shots and they are just coming down and chucking up low percentage 2 point shots. It played exactly to Russell's strengths which he was able to exploit.

Teams today don't play directly into his strengths because they have improved on those aspects that he was able to exploit.

While I still think he would be a great player and probable leader in those aspects, his lead wouldn't be as big in those areas.

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.

1. I agree, it is much harder to block shots now than then.

2. All great shot blockers are putting pressure on shots that they don't block and changing a lot of them. That's not an aspect exclusive to Russell. However he's not going to be blocking or disrupting a lot of three point shots. And he's not going to be blocking or disrupting shots that fouls are called on. We both know that those two factors are a lot higher percentage than they were in Russell's day.

3. Again I have said Russell has had the best career. This thread I am identifying who is the best at playing basketball not who had the best career. Kobe Bryant had a better career than a lot of the players that I think are better than him. That's the distinction I make.

You judge them based on their competition, while I additionally want to take a closer look at the competition. If you only "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" where do you have someone like Mikan ranked? He should be pretty high given your criteria you spelled out.

I have Mikan pretty low because I think his competition was worse. I don't think the 60s were that bad, but I think the level of play was worse than Jordan's years and now by a good margin.

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.

I was referring to Dwight's career BLK% as well (with a little projection). Basketball reference has him at 5.59 for his career http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career_p.html but that's including his early teenage seasons where he was a teenager getting under 4%.

I don't think its a stretch to project him as a 6% career guy (especially removing his young years that no one else had dragging them down).

And yeah I was referring to career wise not isolated years for all four of them.

While I think Russell would be a better defender, there is nothing to suggest he would be a MUCH better shot blocker than Deke over his career.

Camby was a great shot blocker too. Unlike all of the other guys he wasn't as good at defense though and would constantly be out of position chasing shot blocks (something I don't see Russell doing).

Having said that BBref has Camby under Howard for their careers http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career_p.html

I was referring to Russell's career projection as compared to Deke, Zo, Dwight. If you didn't mean 5 bpg career wise (which now that you are saying 5 for one season seems long I doubt you meant that) I apologize.

But I wasn't trying to use Dwight's peak compared to everyone else's career. I see Dwight as a 6ish career guy who hasn't had his peak block season yet. And I don't think Russell is 66% better at blocking shots than Dwight, Zo or Deke. (percentages would be less for Deke and Zo, but you get what I mean)

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.

I am going to put off the Russell-Wilt stuff until we get to that thread if you don't mind. It seems that all that proves is that Russell was better than Wilt, which isn't the argument. If Russell is better than Wilt, he should win unless Wilt's cast was a lot better.

And luck has a lot less opportunities to work against someone trying to win every year (like Jordan was as well) when they only have to win two series instead of four, only have to beat out 7 teams instead of 29 (or 26) and when you can win the title without playing a team with a winning record.

[GreenHat]

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.

Forgot this part. Its not just about losing in the first round, players can get hurt as well. Not just Russell, someone on his team etc. That's 22 less series just in the title runs.

And teams today are playing against positive SRS teams in the first round than Russell sometimes played in his whole finals run. Given the SRS range is more clustered with less teams, a negative SRS is not a good team in any circumstance. Russell got to face one and sometimes two of teams like that in his title runs.

Not having the best record in the league doesn't preclude you from being the favorites (I wasn't around back then so I can't tell you with certainty if they were or not). But take this year for example. The Spurs had the best record and weren't the favorites. The Heat were and they didn't even have the best record in the East, the Bulls did.

And then none of those teams won it all the Mavs did.

Something like that can't happen in an era where in your own words, the second best team in a season can be a mediocre team.

[GreenHat]

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.

I actually think defense travels through eras better than offense.

I said Russell could be the best defender in the league today.

Ben Wallace did excel in this era. I think Russell would be better than Ben Wallace. But how much better would a better Ben Wallace have to be to be better than Jordan? I think Garnett is the better comparison (Russell being the better shot challenger and defender, Garnett better on offense), what do you say the gap is between Garnett and Jordan?

I'm not saying that Russell made a style to fit his era, I'm saying an era with a lot of missed shots, benefits the great rebounders. There are a lot less rebounds to be had now (fewer shots and fewer misses per shot) so the impact of a rebounder goes down. I am saying its easier to make bad offensive players look worse than it is to drop good offensive players the same amount and that helps the player who is a dominant defensive player to standout.

And if only one team is playing defense, its easier for that team to standout as a team defensively.

A lot of teams today rely on the 3pt shot. For example what is Russell going to do if he is playing the Mavs and they are just draining 3s like this years playoffs?

Russell was not bad on offense (relative to stars today, not his peers) because of a lack of energy. His FG% would go up of course. I disagree with his pg-level passing. Also its much easier to throw an outlet pass when transition defense is in its infancy. Russell would not be a better offensive player than someone like Garnett (who is more of a defensive player than offensive anyway), he just isn't as skilled.

[GreenHat]

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.

I agree that Garnett is underrated (a lot of which is because he played in Minnesota).

I agree that Russell is a much better shot blocker and I would make the argument that you mentioned of Garnett being a lot better on offense.

My question is how much better do you see Russell being from Garnett overall as a player not careerwise? (including offense)

We both agree that Garnett is underrated and that Russell is better, so how much better do you think he is?

Edit- I don't put much stock into Russell as a coach. Most of the coaches were horrible back then (compared to now). Garnett could have coached back then as well.

[GreenHat]

What other role did Russell play?

In college Russell set the record for most "March Madness" (I know, wasn't called that back then) scoring. He came into the league scoring in the high teens with relatively high efficiency. Then his scoring nosedived as he moved to a different role on the team.

He became his team's primary distributor from the center position which was highly unusual.

Obviously he was amazing on defense, but people don't think about his versatility on that front. He was known for great man defense against everyone from the biggest big man in the game down to 2 guards all depending on what was needed. He did that while being an unreal help defender both in terms of raw shot blocking and in terms of being award of the the state of the floor.

Then, he was asked to literally replace Red Auerbach as coach and after a year of struggling with multi-tasking became very respected.

There is really no doubt in my mind that if his team had needed him to play in a very different way, he'd have been willing to do it, and competent at it.

He was competent at those things because of the era.

If you needed a scorer today, your team would fail with Russell (NBA today is a lot different than NCAA in the 50s).

If you needed a coach today, you wouldn't be getting a good one with Russell (look at the offenses that his teams were running).

He could guard two guards, but remember he was allowed a lot more contact, the rules were a lot tighter on ball handling, the lanes were clogged up making it harder to drive and he didn't have to worry about a three point shot. And that says nothing of the skill gap.

Today Russell would only be elite in the role of Defender/Rebounder. Not coaching, scoring, passing or defending two guards.

If you put Jordan back in the 50s/60s and told him his role is to rebound, he'd be a much better rebounder than Russell would be as a scorer today. Its easier to be closer to the best at multiple categories with less (and inferior) competition.

And what other stars would you say had similar supporting casts throughout their career? Especially those that didn't overlap their own talents.

Still don't get this whole "didn't overlap their own talents" thing. As I look at it now, I suppose perhaps you're saying Russell was fortunate to have decent teammates with distinct skillsets from him. However, that's a bit of the point: Russell's skillset was rare and easy to blend in with.

Wilt Chamberlain on the 76ers had plenty of supporting talent, and he managed only 1 title with that group. He had far more supporting talent on the Lakers and it took him years to really figure out a way to fit in and make the team clearly better than it was without him.

Other people?

Well, Magic & Bird obviously.

Jordan? When he was winning titles, those were fantastic supporting casts for him. Obviously 6 titles is nice, but of course he would have had more opportunity than that if he hadn't been so retirement-prone.

Shaq & Kobe have had tremendous talent next to them for much of their career & could have of course had even more if they hadn't ruined it. I thought they'd end up with more titles together than Jordan.

I think the overlap thing makes sense. Just look at the HEAT today. They would probably be better with a slightly lesser talent that fit better than their stars do.

I don't have Magic/Bird/Kobe on the same level as Russell/Shaq/Jordan/Wilt. That's my fault I should have been more specific with "stars".

I don't think you can compare the supporting cast of any of those three to Russell over the duration of their career. You can pick out parts of their career, but I'm talking their whole career.

Russell had the greatest supporting cast over his whole career (relative to his league). I'm not saying they carried him to titles, but he did have a lot of help that fit with him better than the other top guys throughout his career.

I don't see how you describe Shaq and Jordan's supporting casts as "fantastic" and "tremendous" but then in a previous post you refer to Russell's as just "good".

[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.

Well, you can give him points for style, but if we're going to rate that aspect of the "game" then Wilt soars up the rankings, with Magic as probably the number two...

It's not about quantity. It's the quality.

[rrravenred]

Bah... that's a peak vs prime argument if I ever heard one.

[Sedale Threatt]

Interestingly, for the support Russell got, only one poster made a significant effort to assess him in comparison to Jordan.

[Sedale Threatt]

Bah... that's a peak vs prime argument if I ever heard one.

True. Although, if you believe the rumors, Jordan was no slouch. I mean, Wilt and Magic were never the subject of a porno movie, a la the classic "Face Jam."

[Doctor MJ]

I was referring to Dwight's career BLK% as well (with a little projection). Basketball reference has him at 5.59 for his career http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career_p.html but that's including his early teenage seasons where he was a teenager getting under 4%.

I don't think its a stretch to project him as a 6% career guy (especially removing his young years that no one else had dragging them down).

And yeah I was referring to career wise not isolated years for all four of them.

While I think Russell would be a better defender, there is nothing to suggest he would be a MUCH better shot blocker than Deke over his career.

Camby was a great shot blocker too. Unlike all of the other guys he wasn't as good at defense though and would constantly be out of position chasing shot blocks (something I don't see Russell doing).

Having said that BBref has Camby under Howard for their careers http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career_p.html

I was referring to Russell's career projection as compared to Deke, Zo, Dwight. If you didn't mean 5 bpg career wise (which now that you are saying 5 for one season seems long I doubt you meant that) I apologize.

But I wasn't trying to use Dwight's peak compared to everyone else's career. I see Dwight as a 6ish career guy who hasn't had his peak block season yet. And I don't think Russell is 66% better at blocking shots than Dwight, Zo or Deke. (percentages would be less for Deke and Zo, but you get what I mean)

GreenHat, appreciate you putting in more effort on these several replies. Afraid I don't have the energy tonight to respond. Will try to tomorrow.

However, did want to make clear: You are looking at playoff leaders not regular season leaders, but it really seems like you're referring with the "under 4%" to regular seasons.

Here's the regular season leaders:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... career.htm

As you'll see there, Howard's at about 4.5 there, well below not way only Mutombo, Camby & Zo, but also Jermaine O'Neal and Josh Smith.

[rrravenred]

Bah... that's a peak vs prime argument if I ever heard one.

True. Although, if you believe the rumors, Jordan was no slouch. I mean, Wilt and Magic were never the subject of a porno movie, a la the classic "Face Jam."

You realise that once I've glanced at this post, I can't scrub it from my memory?

[Sedale Threatt]

How do you think I feel, as someone who actually saw it? Multiple times. There's a bizarre porn alternate universe where Peter North was an All-Star power forward.