therealbig3 wrote:And I think it's kind of missing the point to just focus on ONE aspect of defense like shot blocking...KG is a less prolific shot blocker than a lot of the best defensive players in his era, even guys with similar athletic gifts (Ben Wallace, Dwight Howard), and yet he's consistently measured out to be a comparable or better defender than they are.
It's not like KG was a poor shot blocker either, he averaged 1-2 a game throughout his prime, and he also played PF rather than the typical C position (in a time where there are a lot of stretch 4s), even playing SF at times, meaning he was away from the basket more. But his court coverage, intelligence, and timing is clearly more important than his shot blocking...if you want to argue that Russell provided all of that + shot blocking, cool, I understand that argument...but how much better impact does 2-3 more bpg give you? And does it compensate for the fact that KG is clearly a far better offensive player, especially in his prime?
And if you want horizontal + vertical...then I come back to Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson. Substitute their names for Kevin Garnett, and the argument stands.
Sorta OT - Have there been any in-depth threads on the vertical and horizontal games? The dichotomy between the two is fascinating.
What would you guys say the analogy on offense is? I feel like I've heard something similar stated on here about MJ and Dr. J, with MJ's horizontal game being the difference between the two.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
KG's per-36 numbers in 2008 are the same as they were in 2007, a year which nobody would or could conclude was not part of KG's athletic and overall prime. KG started the season in 2008 out dominating, getting triple doubles and scoring close to what he had for about 8 years before. Then Boston realized the REG SEA doesn't matter and simply went into "Let's build our habits, not care about our stats, and get healthy" mode. When it came time, we saw KG play the way he could and should have been playing throughout his prime if he had an ideal supporting cast: 20/10/3/2/1 with very good efficiency and all-time great defense. Devastating package.
To be honest, sometimes I wonder if Garnett (and Duncan) were better than Russell, too. The shot-blocking and defensive rebounding are the things that hold me back some.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
ronnymac2 wrote:To be honest, sometimes I wonder if Garnett (and Duncan) were better than Russell, too. The shot-blocking and defensive rebounding are the things that hold me back some.
And from my POV, these are the things that made Russell better than them...ON DEFENSE. What about the overall game...what about their offense? I don't think anyone can really claim that Russell was on their level offensively, can they?
Don't have the DRB% split, but if I just take the raw average of TRB% over those years, Russell's TRB% over his career was 20.0%.
KG's career TRB% is 17.0%, and during his prime (imo, 99-08), he was at 18.3%.
Duncan's career TRB% is 18.5%, and during his prime (imo, 98-07), he was at 18.3% (oddly, he's had some REALLY strong rebounding years since 07).
So yes, Russell was a better rebounder than either of them, no question...but by how much really?
And FWIW, KG was consistently among the league leaders in DRB%, leading the league in 04 and 07. He was also playing HUGE minutes, and was the offensive anchor of his team.
Of the players we have data for, Garnett has 2 of the 29 seasons where a player played at least 30 mpg and had a DRB% of at least 30%. If we extend that to 36 mpg, there are only 14 of those seasons. The only players that have more appearances on that list than Garnett are Dennis Rodman (3x) and Dwight Howard (3x).
Garnett was a beastly defensive rebounder. Even THIS season, after massively declining...if he was eligible, he would have led the league in DRB% at 32.1%...the best of his career.
90sAllDecade wrote:Fair enough. I'm curious to see how things turn out and I'm enjoying it so far.
Apologies, but I haven't had the time to wade through all 20 pages on this thread recently. I saw you earlier indicated you preferred Kareem. Did you go back and change your earlier vote, or are you still waiting for more discussion? I ask because I believe it's tied atm.
ronnymac2 wrote:To be honest, sometimes I wonder if Garnett (and Duncan) were better than Russell, too. The shot-blocking and defensive rebounding are the things that hold me back some.
And from my POV, these are the things that made Russell better than them...ON DEFENSE. What about the overall game...what about their offense? I don't think anyone can really claim that Russell was on their level offensively, can they?
Don't have the DRB% split, but if I just take the raw average of TRB% over those years, Russell's TRB% over his career was 20.0%.
KG's career TRB% is 17.0%, and during his prime (imo, 99-08), he was at 18.3%.
Duncan's career TRB% is 18.5%, and during his prime (imo, 98-07), he was at 18.3% (oddly, he's had some REALLY strong rebounding years since 07).
So yes, Russell was a better rebounder than either of them, no question...but by how much really?
And FWIW, KG was consistently among the league leaders in DRB%, leading the league in 04 and 07. He was also playing HUGE minutes, and was the offensive anchor of his team.
Of the players we have data for, Garnett has 2 of the 29 seasons where a player played at least 30 mpg and had a DRB% of at least 30%. If we extend that to 36 mpg, there are only 14 of those seasons. The only players that have more appearances on that list than Garnett are Dennis Rodman (3x) and Dwight Howard (3x).
Garnett was a beastly defensive rebounder. Even THIS season, after massively declining...if he was eligible, he would have led the league in DRB% at 32.1%...the best of his career.
Dipper 13 did some game tracking on Russell, and ended up with a 17/86 split of off/def rebounds. So if we play around with the numbers (just playing around with numbers here, but I think this gives us an accurate guess):
This assumes a couple of things though, namely that the sample is representative, and that there are equally as many offensive and defensive rebounding opportunities. I think in reality, a 10%/30% split is closer to the truth though.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
ronnymac2 wrote:To be honest, sometimes I wonder if Garnett (and Duncan) were better than Russell, too. The shot-blocking and defensive rebounding are the things that hold me back some.
And from my POV, these are the things that made Russell better than them...ON DEFENSE. What about the overall game...what about their offense? I don't think anyone can really claim that Russell was on their level offensively, can they?
Don't have the DRB% split, but if I just take the raw average of TRB% over those years, Russell's TRB% over his career was 20.0%.
KG's career TRB% is 17.0%, and during his prime (imo, 99-08), he was at 18.3%.
Duncan's career TRB% is 18.5%, and during his prime (imo, 98-07), he was at 18.3% (oddly, he's had some REALLY strong rebounding years since 07).
So yes, Russell was a better rebounder than either of them, no question...but by how much really?
I wouldn't be so sure he was better rebounder, because "pure" TRB% number doesn't say that. Opponents (and teammates to some extent) matter here, because obviously it's easier to have higher TRB% against weaker competition. And even at the end of Russell's career league was only 50% black and offenses were still pretty primitive, so it influenced rebounding numbers of good players like Russell (or Wilt and Oscar - yeah, I'm Robertson's fan, but I think he is badly overrated as rebounder).
Okay I'm clearly struggling with replies Jan the RealGm app. Just quick hits on the responses to my post:
-point center position not point enter
-I'm well aware that Garnett's defensive impact surpasses more prolific blockers. What I'm unwilling to conclude is that this makes him perfect at blocking. I think you can play the defensive quarterback and still block shots more like Camby than Wade, it's just not easy.
-Hakeem like KG with shot blocking? How sure are we about that? I'm not disputing Hakeem was a great defender but if people have articles talking about Hakeem directing tight defense from his teammates like we know with Garnett or Russell is like to see it.
Understand I'm not saying its a given that Hakeem is lesser on that front but it's no minor thing to assume.
I see with Russell that full package and it's my feeling that you really needed the whole shebang to do what he did.
In this thread, if you've read it all, you know that Russell had a complete turnover in his roster during his career. This resulted in Russell very much shifting his role and basically inventing the point enter position along the way while at times playing with entirely platooned teammates of a variety if different shapes and sizes. And if course he won titles with all of them
Meanwhile Kareem spent his entire career basically just doing the same thing.
Woah, wait a sec. Did you really say, "Kareem spent his entire career basically just doing the same thing", while praising Russell for dealing with complete roster turnovers, and shifting roles?
1) Kareem played across two separate eras. Without a 3pt line, and with one at high levels. From the 70's Bucks style, to the Showtime Lakers.
2) Russell had the most set role of pretty much all the ATG players. He was a defensive anchor, and a 4th option on offense. For the 1st half of his career he had the benefit of a narrow lane. At no point did he ever deal with a 3pt line and the fundamental change in floor spacing that caused.
3) Not sure what the "point enter position" is.
4) Yes, Russell won titles with all his teamamtes.....who happened to be HOF caliber, and on the Celtics who had only one comparable rival late into the 60's. I posted the SRS of the teams the Celtics faced, but it deserves repeating...
Celtic playoff opponents SRS: 1957: Syracuse -1.02 St. Loius -0.26
1958: Philly 0.21 St. Louis 0.82 (lost)
1959: Syracuse 3.74 Lakers -1.42
1960: Philly 2.77 St. Loius 1.77
1961: Syracuse 1.92 St. Loius 2.98
1962: Philly 2.63 Lakers 1.80
1963: Royals 1.24 Lakers 2.67
1964: Royals 4.43 Warriors 4.41
1965: Philly -0.13 Lakers 1.70
1966: Philly 4.16 Lakers 2.76
1967: Knicks -2.74 Philly 8.50 (lost)
1968(12 team): Detroit -1.70 Philly 7.96 Lakers 4.99
1969 Philly 4.79 Knicks 5.48 Lakers 3.84
^ So sure, the Celtics dominate that era, but there weren't facing a long list of great teams. Kareem dealt with tough Knick, Portland, Philly, Boston teams throughout his years. He didn't have the benefit of being on the most talented squad in a 8-12 team league.
I had no idea Kareem was such an accomplished 3-point shooter.
In all seriousness you can't just list a rule change as proof of adaptability for every player on the league before and after. Talk specifically about how Kareem changed his game or you've got nothing.
Now Kareem obviously learned some things over the course of his career and it's not like I'd suggest major changes to Kareem given his physical pros and cons I don't mean to knock him, but since people are knocking Russell for supposedly depending on lucky team fit, it just seems apt to point things out
I would agree that Hakeem DRob and maybe KG were better players than Russell but that is pretty much irrelevant when this is a list of Greatest players. Sure they all have peaks better than Russell but we measure the peaks of these players in weeks or months while with Russell its pretty much every day of his career. If Hakeem played his entire career like he did in 94-95 then he would be in the GOAT discussion but he only did that for 2 yrs. DRob was was better than Russell for about 18 months and KG in 2004.
For Russell quantity is a quality all its own.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
fatal9 wrote:Could someone link me to posts that have all the latest up to date data which is mainly used to reinforce Russell's case (ie. year by year defensive rating of the Celtics, in/out data of Russell)? And is bball reference's team rating data of the 50s/60s accepted as legitimate around these parts? After acquiring a better holistic understanding of the Celtics of that era, I have some questions that hopefully I get time to ask tomorrow.
SRS Gs w/o Ws w/o Ls w/o MOV w/o with w/o diff years 52 26 26 1.54 5.4 0.7 4.7 ‘57-'69
114.3 PPG (against opponent D of 108.6, so +5.7) w/o vs 110.7 PPG with (so -3.6) 112.8 PPG allowed (against opponents O of 107.0, so +5.7) w/o vs 104.8 PPG allowed with (so -8.0)
without Russell vs. Overall: O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference) D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)
Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go: O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference) D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)
the same without Russell’s rookie year:
10-18 W-L -2.03 SRS 122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72) 123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)
Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics: -2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)
122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)
So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).
Year = year Pace = team pace in playoffs (calculated using this methodology: http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20 ... 1951-1973/) lgOD = league average ORtg/DRtg PTS/G = team ppg OPP/G = opponent ppg ORtg = relative team ORtg during playoffs avgD = average relative defense faced in playoffs DRtg = relative team DRtg during playoffs avgO = average relative offense faced in playoffs O = sum of ORtg and avgD columns (positive is better) D = sum of DRtg and avgO columns (negative is better)
All that data shows several interesting things: 1. Celtics in 1957 season were already +3.6 SRS team before Russell joined them. And it shouldn’t be surprise, because they also added Heinsohn and veteran PG Phillip. So there’s no sense in comparison of 1957 Boston with 1956 version and saying that Russell improved them by +4 SRS, because other important changes also happened and they clearly improved Celtics. So Russell’s impact as a rookie seems to be around 1.5-2 SRS
2. But he was just a rookie – someone might say. It’s obviously true, but not forget that top rookies back then were more like rookie Duncan – after full 4 years in college (with rare exceptions like Wilt) and with immediately big impact.
3. But even if you disagree with point no 2, then what would you say about Celtics SRS during Russell’s first three years? 4.8, 5.0 and 5.8 – why Boston didn’t improve more if Russell was really +6 or more player since his second year? They lost some players, sure, but usually from previous era, white old veterans, some of course valuable (Phillip), but they also added both Jones and increased minutes of Ramsey. IMO all that suggest that Russell wasn’t more impactfull during his first three seasons than +2.5 SRS player.
4. Next year Celtics improved a lot (~ +2 SRS), but in 1961 regressed again (~ -2.5 SRS), so I’m not so sure what to think about these seasons.
5. Celtics became consistently really good since Russell’s 6th year (1962). IMO main reason of that (except of Russell, of course) is that 50s players retired (for example Sharman) or their role was reduced and shortly after also retired (Cousy), when at the same time roles of new players, especially defensive oriented (KC, Sanders, but also Sam and shortly after that Hondo) increased. Sure, everything was built around Russell, but we can’t ignore how Celtics improvement is consistent with so important roster changes. IMO Russell at this point was +4.5 SRS player, maybe +5.5 during his peak season.
6. Why so low? Because he was awful offensive player. Look at data provided by Colts. No doubt he was really great defensively, but a lot of his defensive impact was lost by his offensive anti-impact.
7. We have two with/without samples: from Russell’s rookie year and from rest of his career combined. Unfortunately second sample covers so big period of time (over a decade) that it’s very noisy, much more than one season samples, and thus it can’t provide reliable information. But even if someone would like to use it as main argument it still wouldn’t say that Russell was more than around +7 SRS player (Celtics were better with him by +8.4, but without him -2.3, so that “8.4” isn’t improvement on neutral, 0 team.). In other words that’s his absolute ceiling and it’s not GOAT like impact (but rather top 10-15 all time).
8. Celtics also regressed A LOT (-7 SRS!) after Russell retired. But they also lost Sam Jones and had new coach. Fatigue of core players after so many runs to the finals also is a factor here, as well as really bad replacement center or less minutes of important players like Howell or Sanders. In 1971, when they added normal center (Cowens) Celtics were +2.3 SRS team with some core players the same as in 1969. I think it’s similar case like with 1994 Bulls. We shouldn’t compare them to 1993 version, but to 1992. The same here: comparison of 1969 team to 1971 tells more, because of how drastic changes (both mentally and physically – roster, coach) happened after 1969 and team needed one year to recover.
9. It’s really interesting that after 1964 Celtics offense in playoffs was as important as defense! Except of one year – 1967, when they lost.
tl,dr Russell’s OVERALL impact wasn’t GOAT like, more like top 10-15 player of all time. His negative offensive impact is overlooked, as well as importance of some Celtics players (Heinsohn, KC, Sanders, Hondo) and how Boston was doing during Russell’s first 5 seasons.
drza wrote:I'd say that it goes back to the idea of the science experiment model. James himself didn't change, but his circumstances did. And thus we were able to judge how valuable his particular skill set might be in these different circumstances. And thus that gives us more data to help triangulate/estimate what his actual "goodness" is, which is made up by how much he could contribute in every possible situation.
Edit: I would say that your defintion of goodness (which includes what you said about goodness in your previous post) is flawed, because it's supposed to be something that's inherent. It's not supposed to change. Also, good coaches and organizations don't go about building teams by failing to take advantage of their player's skills. If Russell was used as a jump-shooting perimeter player on offense, and was also not allowed to focus on the defensive end, he wouldn't contribute as much to a team. Perhaps someone like Kevin Garnett could, however. But that doesn't make Russell a lesser basketball player than Garnett. The objective is to extract as much impact from your players as possible, based on the basketball goodness of each player. Russell defensive skills were legendary. You want him using that goodness on the court instead of shooting a perimeter jumper.
Back to the James example; you already knew what he could or couldn't do on a basketball court during those seasons, and also how he contributes to a team. Those things didn't change in his move to the Heat, even though his value did. Making goodness about how a player improves their team would lead you to falsely conclude that James was somehow a lesser player in Miami, even though you already admitted that he didn't change.
"Goodness" may be inherent to some extent (obviously player quality changes over time, but speaking at any given moment) but our evaluation of that goodness is NOT inherent. In your example, The Cavaliers situation is NOT the only basketball situation there is. It's not even the only LIKELY scenario for LeBron. Therefore, you can't necessarily evaluate his global value just by determining how good he is in that one role (I really feel like I should be preaching to the choir with this post, as the kernel is one of the big arguments you've been using against Russell in this thread).
Back to your LeBron example, I disagree with your assertion that he didn't help the Heat. In fact, he dramatically helped the Heat. Just not to the extent that he had previously lifted the Cavs. So what seeing LeBron in 2010 on the Cavs and 2011 on the Heat did was to give us two snapshots of what LeBrons value might be in 2 very different situations. His inherent goodness didn't change, but our ability to judge that goodness got more sophisticated.
This all ties into the concept of portability. Portability doesn't mean that you make a player play in ways that are contrary to their nature (like your Russell shooting perimeter shots example). No, portability is closer to what you suggested...it's the concept of how many situations and on how many different (but realistic) types of teams can a player make a maximal impact.
In your LeBron example, he showed he could have a historical impact in his time in Cleveland and a still league-leading impact in his time in Miami which suggests very good portability. But the fact that pairing him with another high quality ball dominant wing lessens his impact shows that some of his package of goodness might reasonably be replicated on good teams and that thus his portability might not be as good as some others.
The argument that I've made for Russell is that his impact was huge, and that his portability would also be huge because his skillset doesn't assume anything about his teammates nor does it require them to decrease their contributions...primarily because his skill set doesn't require the ball. As I argued last thread, defense is generally more additive while offense tends to be more replacing.
Bringing Kareem into this, his skill set also suggests great portability. But to the extent I can estimate, it appears that his peak impact wasn't as good as Russell's or LeBrons. He also has historic longevity. But on the whole, I think Russell's combination of things that make up "goodness" is worth more to a given team than Kareem's total goodness package.
Couldn't we just declare it a tie then and they are both 2 and just to #4.
No, because All_Decade has been posting continuously in this thread, and has said he prefers Kareem. He has yet to officially change his vote, but I'd think that's a pretty compelling reason not to declare a tie. Someone should PM him actually so we can move on to #3 in time.
Since there's obviously not going to be any further discussion, reading through the discussions I thought I'd pose this question.
I don't have interest in a GOAT list, but one thing I've been pondering is GOAT ranges. After reading the arguments in this project, I think I'm going to add GOAT ranges to my notes. I'm still sticking to my initial prediction that Kareem gets the second spot, so I'll start with Russell.
ronnymac2 wrote:To be honest, sometimes I wonder if Garnett (and Duncan) were better than Russell, too. The shot-blocking and defensive rebounding are the things that hold me back some.
So to the anti-Russell contingent, where, in your mind, is Russell's floor? Just sticking to big men for the moment, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Garnett are over him, Wilt, Robinson, Ewing, I imagine? Howard I've seen? Is Mourning better? Which all-time big men are over him, and where does he fall? I imagine he would be below any big man who could play defense and has scored 20 in a season. I imagine prime Walton as well—Bob Ryan said prime Walton was better than Russell, but he didn't play long enough. Since some have of the participants him as GOAT, I'm interested in the lowest range. (Some say he'd be lucky to be a bench player today, but I'm not interested in that.)
Second question, for a big man who wasn't "two-way," how good of a scorer do they have to be to be better than Russell if they weren't an elite defender? For elite defenders, even if they weren't as good as Russell, the offense puts them over the top, but where Russell is clearly ahead, how good do they have to be offensively? Dirk would be a given. Who else? Barkley? People don't seem to like him because of his defense, but would his offense win out? Since nothing's going on, I thought this would be an opportunity to get some feedback.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
I keep Russell in the top 10, and I think most of the Kareem voters do. But like (I suspect) most of the Kareem voters, I'm keen to get on to discussing guys like Duncan, Shaq, Magic and (I guess) Hakeem at #3. I'd have Russell behind all of them... oh, and behind Bird and Lebron. That'd be it though. I just don't rate Russell's era, or his supposed accomplishments in his era, as highly as others do. I've posted quite a lot on this (start on the previous thread, and continuing on page 1 here).
Baller2014 wrote:I keep Russell in the top 10, and I think most of the Kareem voters do. But like (I suspect) most of the Kareem voters, I'm keen to get on to discussing guys like Duncan, Shaq, Magic and (I guess) Hakeem at #3. I'd have Russell behind all of them... oh, and behind Bird and Lebron. That'd be it though. I just don't rate Russell's era, or his supposed accomplishments in his era, as highly as others do. I've posted quite a lot on this (start on the previous thread, and continuing on page 1 here).
We could have gone on to discussing other players, but you wanted the thread to stay open.
Duncan, Shaq and Hakeem I already said. That was obvious. I already know what you've said earlier, as I've been reading the thread. If you don't rate Russell's era or accomplishments highly, then what would keep him above other two-way big men like Garnett, Robinson, etc? They're from a more modern era. I'm interested in people's thought processes.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
D.Rob has limited longevity, and KG isn't on the same level as those guys I named. Top 12-15, not top 5 material. Russell would have been a great defensive player in today's age, KG isn't a bad sort of comparison. Better than him on D, but worse on O by a long way. That's a top 10 player, but not a top 5 one.
Baller2014 wrote:D.Rob has limited longevity, and KG isn't on the same level as those guys I named. Top 12-15, not top 5 material. Russell would have been a great defensive player in today's age, KG isn't a bad sort of comparison. Better than him on D, but worse on O by a long way. That's a top 10 player, but not a top 5 one.
KG doesn't have to be on the same level as the guys you named, but since he's a two-way player who didn't play in a "weak sauce, whitebread league," it would seem that he would be better. What about Ewing, Howard, Mourning?
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Raja Bell was an All-Defensive team selection and an efficient wing shooter with range. Clearly he was more valuable to a championship team than, say, Ben Wallace who may have played better defense but was the worst offensive player I've ever seen. Or for centers, Brendan Haywood was a good defensive center and a solid high percentage offensive player.
And yet . . . .
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
