This is a tangible ability (even if measuring it is difficult), and in many ways it's the opposite side of the coin from individual "dominance". Dominance normally gets the plaudits, but making teammates better is just as important and, when building a championship team, may be even more valuable.
I think that Russell, Garnett and Walton may be the GOATs when it comes to making teammates better on an elite level at both ends of the court.
Here is some of my reasoning for that statement:
drza wrote:ThaRegul8r wrote:ElGee wrote:-Think about Walton's defense. Is it the closest to Russell's?
"He can beat a rival team with passing, his speed, his shot-blocking, his rebounding, or simply his overall defense. Only ex-Celtics Bill Russell in recent years has intimidated rival shooters more often than Walton. Also, like Russell, Bill often makes better players of his teammates."
- Christian Science Monitor, Jun. 7, 1977
One of the things that I really enjoy about these projects is that spending months with other obsessive basketball nerds leads to further evaluation of aspects of the game that maybe haven't gotten the due that they deserve. And I think this is another potential area of amplification, with players like Russell, Walton and Garnett as prime examples of some of the best.
I hear talking heads say often in passing that "he makes his teammates better", but I've never seen that seriously examined or any attempt to quantify it. Usually it's point guards that are talked about in this way, as they are the ones tha have the ball in their hands and can theoretically maximize the use of the offensive talent on the team by the way they orchestrate things. Sometimes you'll hear of dominant scorers making the game easier for their teammates by drawing defensive attention, which allows their teammates to score easier. Similarly, traditional low-post bigs are said to open up the court for teammates on offense because defenses have to collapse on them, leading to open jumpers. And finally "spacing" has become a new offensive area getting attention, because a good long-range shooter pulls defenders out of the paint and opens up lanes for teammates to score easier.
While these are all useful things to look at on offense, it shouldn't be forgotten how much easier a dominant big man can make the game for his teammates on defense as well. A dominant defensive big can erase so many mistakes that it allows his teammates to go army and be all they can be. A terrible defender who might be good on offense can be played next to a great defender. A perimeter player can afford to take more chances and be more aggressive when he has help behind him. A slow-footed post defender can afford to just concentrate on his own man if he's playing next to another big that covers lots of ground. And the other players are able to spend more energy on offense or other aspects of their games, when they don't have to expend quite as much on defense or hitting the boards.
A great defensive big can be so valuable at making their teammates better...but ironically, because of the lack of defensive statistics (there's no such thing as a defensive "assist", for example) it is often somewhat overlooked. People know that a defensive anchor can be great for a defense...but maybe don't pay as much attention to how it might help the offense as well because it allows them to focus. I've seen that argument made for how Dirk's (or other high-efficiency offensive players') offense might help the defense, but I haven't seen it mentioned how a dominant defensive teammate can help the offense. But in a very real since, dominant defenders make their teammates better. And all of the historic-level defensive big men from Thurmond to Hakeem to DRob to Mutombo to Ben Wallace to Dwight Howard can make that claim.
But what separates Russell, Walton and Garnett from some of their dominant defensive brethren in the concept of "making their teammates better" is that they can help all aspects of their teammates' games, with offensive emphasis as well due to their passing and unselfishness. All are excellent passers for bigs and can run an offense from the high post, giving them an aspect of that PG-make-teammates'-offense-better contribution. Russell and Walton were noted for their outlet passing, which literally jump-started the offense and allowed their teammates to get easier buckets in a time period when the fast break was hugely important. And for Garnett in this era, he actually does all of the offensive "make teammates better" things that I mentioned above...he's run offenses like a PG, while provided a primary scoring threat, while acting as a strong post threat to collapse defenses, while also providing spacing as a big with 20-foot range. Duncan also fits in this category to an extent in my opinion, because while he never showed the ability to play full-time "point-big man" the way the other three have, he is also a very good passer with a versatile offensive game who can draw the defense but is seemingly completely unselfish in his desire to set up his teammates.
Anyway, this post maybe fits more in the lines of "things that I think about when making my evaluations" than it is a pure post on who I think the 4th best peak ever has been. But similar to the "portability" discussions, I think that it is an aspect of the game beyond box score stats that really does play a tangible part in producing championship caliber play.
