RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[drza]

I'm cool with the framing of this thread as Michael Jordan vs. Bill Russell. One thing that I fear in such a discussion, though, is that too much emphasis gets placed on the Celtics winning 11 titles and/or the 27 - 2 playoff series record of Russell's Celtics teams. Those are good data points, and they should be considered, but Russell's case has so much more to it than that. That was one of the big outcome of the Retro Player of the Year project we did several years back...prior to the project I didn't know as much about Russell and mentally saw him as potentially overrated due to his team's successes. However, in that project and since I've seen convincing data that Russell was personally having a GOAT-level impact on games, that his success drove his team success (and not the other way around), and that his approach and ability would have likely translated his impact a lot more than people credit.

So, first off, I'd like to post ElGee's initial blog on Russell's defensive impact. This article shows the estimated team defensive ratings of the Celtics from 1958 (the year before Russell's arrival) through 1970 (the year after Russell retired), demonstrating that the historic Celtics' defense arrived with Russell, directly followed Russell's career arc, peaked with Russell, declined as Russell declined, and then went away when Russell retired. The article is found here: http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2010/12/31 ... ve-impact/

There are few, at this point, that dispute that Russell was the engine behind the Celtics' defense. But I wanted anyone unfamiliar with this work to see the numbers, as it helps to cement the concept that the Celtics' weren't just some over-talented team that happened to win when Russell was around. They were a team that won with defense far above-and-beyond all else, and that the defense was thoroughly captained by Russell.

[Baller2014]

I don't really see what the Russell argument is. He played in a weak league, with rules that favoured him a lot, on the most stacked team and best run organisation. If you transplanted Michael Jordan into the 60's, he'd still be Michael Jordan. I can't say the same about Bill Russell in today's game.

Just wondering:

1) Why specifically was it a weak league?
2) What rules specifically?
3) Why did teams "stacked" with offensive talent perform at mediocre-to-poor levels on that end, but consistently win with their defense?
4) Why do you feel that way specifically?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm still on the fence about my vote for #1, so I'd appreciate your specific responses.

Happy to answer all these. Let's address the weak league thing first. In every sport in which you can empirically measure performance (running, swimming, weights, etc) records from the 1960's have been smashed to pieces. There are some obvious reasons for this. Back then sport was much more amateur, and there was less money in it. Fewer kids tried to become athletes at a young age, and even fewer got access to professional training at a young age. These days it's common. As I'm sure you know, the 2nd best big in George Mikan's era chose to be a salesman rather than play ball, because there was no money in it, and the effect of so many promising players not opting into the sport in the 50's was still being felt. Then to add to that, blacks and Euro players had basically been excluded from the sport (Euro's wouldn't come into the NBA until decades later basically, and blacks were still recovering from the long period of being wholly outside the available talent pool, and getting no training, etc, from an early age). Today 70% of the NBA is coloured. Back then there were like 3-4 black guys per team at best, it was a 70-80% white league. It's hard to imagine that didn't have a huge impact on the game, just as the overall interest in basketball being less (among whites and blacks, Americans and non-Americans). Interest exploded in later decades, and the talent pool available massively increased. Sure, modern medicine today is better, but it's not like Bill Russell suffered from injuries, etc, so that's kind of a moot point in this case.

People try to claim "the NBA had less teams, so teams were tougher with all the talent compressed together!" This is a bad argument. Firstly, there was way less talent to compress in the first place (just as there is more talent to "dilute" today). Secondly, it's not tougher when most of the talent is on the same team... at least not for that team. This isn't to say today's game is the strongest ever, the 80s' featured insanely talented top end teams, where all the talent was coming to handful of teams (or a slanted amount of the talent), but the 60's was worse in virtually every respect than recent times.

As for the rules favouring Russell; these days perimeter players are protected way more, and there's way less scope for bigs to just patrol the paint and hard foul guys. Today we have the 3 point shot and rules designed to minimise the impact of bigs. Back then bigs could just rough guys up all the time, and nobody cared. There's a story about the first televised game. Many people in the NBA speculated that the rough and tumble tactics used in the paint wouldn't be possible anymore, now that everything was getting televised. Red told Bill "first play of the game, elbow your man in the face". "Why?" he asked. "So they know nothing's changed" Red told him. Jordan played in a league where a lot of crap was allowed by the bad boys, but it still wasn't as absurd as what guys could often get away with back in the 60's.

Some of Russell's guys were overrated, Cousy particularly, but at the end of the day his support cast was still better than anyone elses. He was the biggest part of that, but given the weaksauce league he played in I'm less than impressed. Then look at Russell's team results? Are they more impressive and dominant than Jordan's 6 year run? Russell's teams generally looked weaker in the regular season, and had far fewer playoff games to win in order to closeout their titles. They get credit for doing it 11 times, but the way they did it looks a lot less dominant than Jordan's run. I mean, just look at some of the teams Russell had to play back then. The organisations were mostly a joke. Some teams, and I won't name them, made decisions based on getting white players. Other, like the Royals, wanted to ensure most players were locals. It was in no sense a pro-league compared to today.

[Warspite]

For me the GOAT list is what a player did and not what he could do so in that vein Im going to vote

Bill Russell

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Michael Jordan

Two of the most physically and mentally dominant players for their position, both big in the playoffs repeatedly and kept winning past what their championship expiration date could've been. I feel Russell's scoring skill level is a bigger weakness than anything in Jordan's game and I'm sympathetic to the argument it was easier to dominate the 60s than the 90s. Jordan is a more perfect shooting guard talent than any other player is for a position, with the possible exception of Lebron (who will probably get consideration at #1 from me on the 2016 top 100 or w/e).

[PCProductions]

My vote for #1 player of all time: Michael Jordan

Reasoning: Reliability, durability, dominance and transcendence.

He embodied the sport all the while demonstrating a mastery in nearly every aspect of the game and managed to perform with unparalleled consistency. He, almost like Russell, dominated the league for a near decade and was always the biggest reason when his team won.

Offense: The best scorer of all time and a brilliant playmaker and off-ball player. Deadly in transition. Would capitalize on any inch of space given. Great free throw shooter and devastating mid range shooter in his later years. Great ballhandler with electrifying quickness to create off the bounce.

Defense: A terrorizing on-ball defender with a knack for steals in the passing lanes. One of the great blockers for a guard. A menace in the half court with the smarts to dictate an entire defense. Big hands.

[therealbig3]

This is actually between Jordan and Kareem for me, and I've been pretty clearly on the pro-Jordan side, so I think I'm going to stick with that. Kareem was a fantastic player, but I'd take Jordan's CLEARLY superior peak/prime level of play over Kareem's longevity.

My argument against Russell is the same one I've had for a little while now. I used to think very highly of him, but there are certain things I can't reconcile.

If we shouldn't assume how a player is affected by their era, and just take their impact as is...then why isn't George Mikan ever considered the GOAT on anyone's list? I get it, this project is focusing on the post-shot clock era...but in general, I don't ever see Mikan's name anywhere close to the top spot on any list. I think in that case, we're recognizing that the infancy of the game and thus environment of the era greatly benefitted Mikan and allowed him to have an impact unmatched by other players...which had nothing to do with how great of a player he was, the era he played in was just so different from today, that it allowed him to dominate.

I think the same is true of Russell to an extent. Again, I keep mentioning this: Russell's claim to GOAT status is the fact that his defense was leagues ahead of anyone that has ever played. But I think the main reason for that is not because he was just that good defensively, but because the 60s allowed for an elite defensive big man to have unheard of impact. Dumb offenses and no 3pt line allowed Russell to have more impact than players that weren't necessarily any less capable than he was on defense. And he clearly had issues on offense, that have no guarantee of becoming better if he grew up now. I think a lot of his impact is era-dependent, and I can't really give him extra credit for that. OTOH, I really can't see how Jordan wouldn't be Jordan regardless of when he played.

Looking at Michael Jordan...the guy had no weaknesses to his game. Elite scorer, great passer, great rebounder for his position, and a great defender. Could generate offense with or without the basketball, had an elite perimeter jumper, if not range, and could get to the basket seemingly at will. Unstoppable post scorer. Great at drawing fouls and getting to the line. Elevated his game in the playoffs. And as far as his longevity...he's got his mega-prime of 88-93, and his 87, 96, and 97 seasons during which he wasn't on the same level, but was still pretty clearly the best player in the game. That's 9 seasons where you're getting the best player in the league, almost regardless of who else is in that league. It's only his 98 season where he was pretty mortal and there are quite a few seasons from other players throughout history that I would take over him...but even in that year, I think Jordan was still the best player in the league.

Vote: Michael Jordan

[drza]

This post will contain some food for thought for those that don't think that Russell's impact could translate to the more modern game. From what I read, the main arguments used against him are some combo of a) the league is more athletic now than it was in the 60s, b) the arrival of the 3-point line reduces the impact of protecting the rim because the game is more spread out, and c) Russell wasn't much of a scorer by either volume or percentage. In response, I would point out a few things:

1) Russell was taller than you think. He was listed at 6-9 at a time period when players were usually listed by heights without shoes. These days, players are listed at heights with shoes which normally adds 1 - 2 inches. And anecdotally, when Russell stands next to players known to be 7-feet he often appears to be similar in height. In today's game, Russell would probably be listed at 6-10 or 6-11.

2) Russell was an insane athlete. He considered going to the 1956 Olympics as a high jumper. Track and Field News ranked him as the #7 high jumper in the world, and he was ranked #2 in the United States at the time when he would have had to make the decision (he instead decided to go lead the basketball team to Olympic gold). He also apparently already enjoyed psyching out his opponents the way he later would Wilt: http://www.worldsstrangest.com/mental-f ... l-russell/

Russell also told Plimpton that he reveled in psyching out other jumpers. “I recall we had one big meet with 34 jumpers. They wanted to start the bar at five-eight. I said, ‘Let’s start it at six-four—let’s get rid of all this garbage.’ I wore a silk scarf, basketball shoes, a track suit and black glasses. I took off the glasses to jump.”



3) Russell was a scorer in college. One of the big arguments used against Russell is that he couldn't score enough to play in today's game. I've seen folks say that in today's game, Russell would be similar to players like Joakim Noah or Ben Wallace. But Russell has stated before that he consciously chose the way that he played, to focus more on defense than on offense, in order to maximize his team's success (I can't find the quote, but if anyone has it please post it). But prior to that decision, Russell actually COULD score. In college, Russell averaged 20.7 ppg on 51.6% shooting from the field. He may never have projected into a monster scorer, but were scoring more of his focus (as it likely would be in today's game) there's no reason to believe he couldn't have done so.

4) Russell was a master of both "horizontal and "vertical" defense", key to the modern game. On Doc MJ's blog "A Substitute for War", he had a really good article breaking down the difference between "vertical defense" (e.g. protecting the rim by waiting there to block shots) and "horizontal defense" (e.g. mobile help defense over a larger area). In the post (found here: https://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com ... #more-1569 ) there is a quote from Bill Russell: a Biography, that speaks to Russell's defensive style:

"Bill understood that Wilt’s game was more vertical, that is, from the floor to the basket. Wilt’s game was one of strength and power…Bill’s game was built on finesse and speed, what he called a horizontal game, as he moved back and forth across the court blocking shots, running the floor, and playing team defense."

Now, take a moment and think about what that might mean for the 3-point era. In this era, the best defensive anchors are able to move around the court. Pick-and-roll help defense (on- and off-ball) are incredibly vital. It's still good to be able to block shots, but the data indicates that it's also key to be able to blow up plays defensively before the shot can even go up. In the generation just prior to the +/- data, the generally agreed upon two best defensive players were Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson...both of whom were mobile bigs that were excellent at both horizontal defense and shot-blocking. In the +/- era (now from 1997-98 through 2014), the two most impressive defenders are the best shot-blocker (Dikembe Mutombo) and the most horizontal defender (Kevin Garnett). Mutombo and Garnett, in fact, have defensive seasons where their impacts on defense alone rival the very best individual offensive seasons in that stretch (including peak Shaq, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, LeBron and Dirk) according to DocMJ's normalization method of RAPM across years.

From everything that we know, it is certainly fair to project that Russell in the current day might combine the best of the primary defensive strengths of Garnett (mobility, intelligence) and Mutombo (shot-blocking, timing). As such, Russell very likely would still have a defensive impact at least on the order of the very best offensive players of our time, even in the modern era with the 3-point line.

[Dr Positivity]

I agree to an extent therealbig3 but I think Russell still had the most perfect defensive body and most perfect defensive mind in history of C position, so to me it would probably translate to other eras, even if not at the impact he had in the 60s. I think there's a valid argument to be made Hakeem, Garnett, Robinson, Duncan are possibly as good as defensive players as Russell if playing in another era, and thus above him at their peaks when taking into account offense

As for that impact while clearly tons of it was him, the Celtics it would appear, have easily the most defensive identity in the league and are known for taking breathers on offense while going all out on defense. Red Auerbach is most likely doing things ahead of everyone else in defensive strategy. Possibly Russell is "coaching" his team defensive strategies that are decades ahead of his time because his internal analyzing of the game is that freakish. They have the PIppen of their era in Havlicek. When a team historically dominates on defense as much as the Celtics in that decade, it's likely to require a variety of reasons even if the biggest is Russell. They were a team with the best defensive player of all time at center, best perimeter defender in the league, the best defensive coach, effectively a 2nd genius coach in Russell and they most likely cared about defense the most. And they did this against a league with very questionable offensive tactics, to the point where even the smarter than everyone Celtics didn't realize that scoring more points because of pace doesn't make your offense better

[Baller2014]

In Russell's times bigs could elbow guys in the face at will, often with no foul call, let alone a suspension. Offensive schemes didn't really exist yet, and there was no 3 point shot to space the floor, let alone the pro-perimeter rules of today's NBA. Russell was big and athletic. So are a lot of great players. For every "Russell could outjump high jumpers" I could include a story about how Wilt was faster than track athletes, more lithe than ballerinas, was immune to pain, and fought bears in his spare time... but nobody is seriously arguing Wilt at this spot, and I'll be surprised if he's in the top 8. So Russell was big and athletic. It doesn't change any of what I've said. Nobody here said he doesn't belong in the top 10 discussion, but it's hard to vote for a guy for #1 all-time when he benefitted from a weak sauce, unprofessional, slanted NBA, and had a skill set that clearly would not allow him to be the GOAT in today's game. If Russell played in today's game he wouldn't be better than Duncan or Shaq, let alone Kareem or Jordan.

[therealbig3]

But haven't we seen guys with a combination of the best of Garnett (mobility and intelligence) and the best of Mutombo (shot blocking and timing) in more recent times: Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson? I'd throw Duncan in that group, even if his mobility might have been the weakest between him, Garnett, Hakeem, and Robinson, and it's not like he was a sloth in his prime. Even Garnett himself was a bit of a shot blocker during his prime...he averaged over 1 bpg, peaking at 2.2 bpg, every year for the first 14 years of his career. Since then, he's still averaged 0.9 bpg, despite a noticeable reduction in mpg.

Even so, let's look at Hakeem and Robinson, who are the two most obvious comparisons to Russell defensively, when you look at their combination of mobility, athleticism, rim protection, and ability to force TOs. As far as their intelligence, both of those guys were considered two of the most intelligent defensive players of their era as well, Hakeem especially.

So Hakeem and Robinson seemed to have mastered the horizontal and vertical aspects of defense as well, and were as good at that as anyone ever. And I can guarantee that they still would not have been considered best in the game caliber players (and neither would have Duncan or Garnett) if they weren't also high-caliber offensive big men as well.

[Dr Positivity]

Personally I have Russell behind Hakeem, Duncan, KG and at the back half of the top 10. He may be better defensively than them and on the glass but not enough to make up for the offense. Robinson is out of that discussion because of longevity. I think one of the reasons why the "is Russell actually better than Hakeem/Duncan/KG" argument feels strong is just that the other 3 guys are just that good. Like almost GOAT good. I'm toying with voting them 2, 3, 4. Being as good at them at defense and offense at the same time is incredibly rare - other than Jordan or Lebron and them the list is short. Bastillion started a long time ago that Jordan and Hakeem were 1-2 and I'm beginning to wonder if he was right all along

[therealbig3]

I agree to an extent therealbig3 but I think Russell still had the most perfect defensive body and most perfect defensive mind in history of C position, so to me it would probably translate to other eras, even if not at the impact he had in the 60s. I think there's a valid argument to be made Hakeem, Garnett, Robinson, Duncan are possibly as good as defensive players as Russell if playing in another era, and thus above him at their peaks when taking into account offense

As for that impact while clearly tons of it was him, the Celtics it would appear, have easily the most defensive identity in the league and are known for taking breathers on offense while going all out on defense. Red Auerbach is most likely doing things ahead of everyone else in defensive strategy. Possibly Russell is "coaching" his team defensive strategies that are decades ahead of his time because his internal analyzing of the game is that freakish. They have the PIppen of their era in Havlicek. When a team historically dominates on defense as much as the Celtics in that decade, it's likely to require a variety of reasons even if the biggest is Russell. They were a team with the best defensive player of all time at center, best perimeter defender in the league, the best defensive coach, effectively a 2nd genius coach in Russell and they most likely cared about defense the most. And they did this against a league with very questionable offensive tactics, to the point where even the smarter than everyone Celtics didn't realize that scoring more points because of pace doesn't make your offense better

I agree, Russell is still my pick for best defensive player of all time...but he BARELY beats out other defensive greats like Duncan and Robinson. Among superstar big men, my top 5 defenders would be Russell, Duncan, Robinson, Garnett, and Olajuwon, in any order outside of Russell at #1.

And you kind of made my point...it wasn't just Russell that made the Celtics defense great, even if he was the main reason, and this was in a league where offenses were just plain stupid for the most part. For example, keep everything exactly the same, but now everyone's offenses in the 60s actually have a concept of pace and efficiency, and there are more advanced strategies and playcalling than just running like all hell and chucking up terrible shots. How dominant would Russell's Celtics have been on defense? I'm willing to bet that you would have seen a pretty clear decline in their statistical dominance, even if they were still great defensively. And that's still without considering the effect of the 3pt line.

Would they really be separating themselves from Duncan's Spurs or Garnett's Celtics if those changes had happened? In fact, I feel like Russell's Celtics' defensive dominance is being overstated in general. They didn't really separate themselves from more modern defensive teams all that much.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205
viewtopic.php?p=28520301#p28520301

As you can see, Russell's Celtics aren't exactly way out in front of other great defenses...in fact, they're not even the best overall defense of all time...that would be the 93 Knicks, statistically speaking. And for a more simplistic view of things, in lorak's post, if we compare 5-year defensive peaks in terms of deviation from league average, Russell's Celtics barely beat out Duncan's Spurs...and this is a situation where you can't really point to Duncan's teammates or coach as being superior, because we're comparing him to Bill Russell here, who had the best teammates and coach of any other superstar of his era.

[ardee]

I'll post in detail later but honestly I'm tempted to go with Russ here.

I've always held Jordan as my GOAT but Russ has slowly climbed my list from 6 to 2 and now I can absolutely see my voting him the GOAT.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Quotatious]

Vote: Michael Jordan

Why Michael Jordan over Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? For me, these are the only three guys with any case for the GOAT, but MJ is my pick because he just has the least amount of weaknesses, both in terms of his skill-set, and performance. It's obviously hard to back up without stats like RAPM for Russell, or even for pre-1997 Jordan, but I believe that Michael's global impact (offense+defense) was greater than Russell's. For me it's clear that scoring was Russell's weakness - at least a weakness if you compare him to other GOAT-level players. I don't really care about Russell's ability to score well in college (like drza mentioned, he averaged 20.7 PPG on 51.6% FG and 52.9% TS), because the competition level was so inferior to the NBA.

Yet, Russ is my pick for the GOAT defensive player, and quite easily, at that (second best rebounder and likely the best shotblocker, too), but Jordan for me is the best/greatest offensive player ever, and ranks much higher on defense, than Russell ranks on offense - that's my argument for MJ>BR. I think that defense is generally a bit more constant quality than offense, it generally seems to be more consistent, but Jordan's offense was not only the best in terms of peak value, but also one of the most consistent. He's the all-time leader in career USG%, and at the same time, #22 on the all-time TOV% list, with just 9.34% (Dirk is the only other top 15 caliber player who's ahead of him, no one else is even in the top 100, with Kobe being #116 as the closest). So, obviously his efficiency on such high volume clearly makes him look like the GOAT offensive player.
I don't even want to get into the whole "Russell's impact wouldn't be as great today" thing (although I agree with that), because it's a bit too hypothetical for my liking, but if someone wants to do it, it seems like a valid argument against Bill.

Honestly, I think I'll have to rethink my #2 - just a little more than a year ago, I had Kareem as my #2, and now I see that there's a possibility that I'll go back to that, but my #1 is MJ quite firmly.

[Dr Spaceman]

but Jordan for me is the best/greatest offensive player ever,
.

I'm going to nitpick here, as this is a major point of contention for me. Jordan is the greatest scorer/ offensive force to ever play. But calling him the GOAT offensive player in the sense that Russell is the GOAT defender doesn't pass the test for me.

We have mountains of evidence stating that Bill Russell was the best defender ever. For one, he was a defensive force in the way Jordan was an offensive force. He was a terror, and severely limited/intimidated pretty much every center he ever went up against. The fact is, Wilt Chamberlain consistently played worse against him and consistently lost to him in terms of individual matchups. It's a common theme, people just could not beat Bill, and he dominated in a way we've never seen since.

But let's look to another main support of Russell: he led SEVERAL of the greatest defensive teams of all time. ElGee and fpliii have made this case, but no one's defensive impact more directly translated into team defensive efficacy than Russell. We've seen great defenders come and go, but none of them have come close to pulling their teams to the heights Russell's teams consistently did. And here's where Jordan's case gets hairy: you can't say the same for him on offense. In fact, you can very clearly say that Magic Johnson's offensive contribution weighted more heavily on his team's success. Note I'm not talking about winning, I'm talking about team offensive performance as a whole, where Jordan can't claim to be the GOAT. we can say he could have led GOAT offenses, but it never really happened. And in fact, we've seen players like Nash and James, who both take a more "hands on" approach to team offense, pull their teams to greater heights than the Jordan's Bulls ever reached.

And then there's exploitability. Although few in number, there were times when teams were able to limit Jordan's offensive impact. I'm talking specifically about the pistons here, as they quite clearly had a blueprint for dealing with him. Granted, he dismantled it later in his career, but it still existed. Russell never had such deficiencies. Nobody ever figured out how to beat him. Ever. Until he retired, his defense was basically the most consistent thing outside death and taxes. You can point to coaching and strategy, which is fair, but the point is nobody ever figured out Russell. He was probably he most adaptable players ever, and could just change his strategy in a heartbeat to counter whatever the offense was doing. This is a primary reason his contemporaries treat him with such reverence.

I can't get behind claiming Jordan as the offensive GOAT in the same sense as Russell being the defensive GOAT. His offensive impact frankly just doesn't hold up to the same scrutiny we use to evaluate Russell.

[Dr Spaceman]

EDIT; BILL RUSSELL is my vote. Came into this with a nod to MJ, but having an open mind. Been fervently researching Bill in anticipation of this project. Resume speaks for itself, GOAT defender, unprecedented team success, just IMO the most impactful player to ever play.

In short, his defense was more valuable than anything any other player has brought to the table, and this is reflected by his team results.

Ultimately, a lot of the arguments in this very thread are what swayed me to give this to Bill by a nose. Good work guys.

[kayess]

The title of GOAT is between MJ, Russ, and KAJ for me. As someone with a maths background, seeing ElGee's work on expected championships delighted me - I think that is absolutely 100% the way to structure your arguments. Players make teams better - how does this translate to the number of titles you can expect to win? Therefore, the main focus of my efforts will be on determining player value, most readily approximated by RAPM, box-score, and contextualized by the eye-test, to come up with an answer.

Of course the stats aren't perfect, or close to it (not yet anyway), so there are still other extenuating circumstances: luck, era strength, era portability, etc. If player value is close enough that it's too hard to make a call one way or the other, these other factors decide.

Impact: They all have GOAT caliber peaks - MJ, I felt, had the greatest stretch out of these 3 ('88-'93), where he was a +8.5 player at his weakest. He did it by essentially having no weaknesses (unless you count "being frustrated at crappy teammates" a weakness) - able to do quite literally everything on offense at an extremely high level, at the very least, and GOAT level in others. On-ball (archangel stretch!)/off-ball, inside (where he is rivaled at the very top only by LBJ, Shaq, and Charles)/outside (his ability to square for those off-balance jumpers, especially), in the post, PASSING it off when necessary, using his insanely huge hands to his advantage every way possible. Defensively, active hands, incredible reading of the game, and an inexhaustible motor made for one of the best perimeter defenders of all time. His personality drove the team - not saying it's the only way to do it - but it was clearly effective. Just zero weaknesses.

Kareem had the longest such stretch (but clearly didn't peak as high as Jordan, I feel), probably quite clearly the best player in the league upon his arrival, and was indisputable barring a few stretches (Walton's epic season, times when he was injured, etc). Perhaps MJ was the better defender relative to position, but in terms of defensive impact he still has him beat. Unstoppable offensively, able to set-up on either side of the block, firing off skyhooks, finishing inside, making free throws at an above average rate meant that he was always going to be able to get his. Smart passer too.

Russ is somewhere in the middle, I feel - his tremendous global impact arguably higher than KAJ's (though not higher than Jordan's), and maintained it slightly longer than Jordan's (but not as long as KAJ's). The way he constantly adapted - that tidbit about them losing Cousy and him shifting the team into one of the GOAT defense teams is just scary - is amazing.

My verdict here overall is that in terms of value, it's MJ, Russ, KAJ in that order.

Adjustments for circumstance: I feel they all got reasonably close to the max one could ask for given their situations - as such, translation across eras is the tie-breaker for me here.

To address drza's post above, I thought that:

1) His point about scoring wasn't very good - the competition in college was just way, way inferior compared to the NBA
2) I thought Hakeem, given what we know of both him and Russell, would have represented something very close to what Russell's best case impact would be in this era (those clips of him guarding... Ainge I believe? on the perimeter in the '86 finals, stripping him 1v1, going coast to coast were representative of this). The same goes with Garnett (who could guard even 1s, though not all the time obviously).
3) There's possibly an endless back and forth on the "offenses of his time were crap, there was no 3 point line" argument. Russ supporters would simply argue "but schemes have adjusted, 2.9s defense, Thibs' schemes could compensate". Offensive schemes have improved too - just look at the Spurs! And it's a stalemate. Theoretically, the offense should still have the advantage (after all, they still have the ball), but since I feel that offensive schemes have simply come further than defensive ones, I think this means there's simply no way to replicate individual defensive impact on that scale in this era - unless of course, someone even more physically/mentally talented than Russ comes along.

I think this all means that Russell's impact would translate, though not as well. Whereas KAJ/MJ wouldn't have the same problem - they'd be Mike and Cap regardless of era. Because I think MJ/KAJ have a slight, but clear lead on Russ in player value, and they benefited less from their eras, and because I think MJ > KAJ by a hair (he peaked higher and maintained it long enough to just edge out KAJ's slightly inferior peak, but longer prime),

Vote: Michael Jordan

My apologies if I was unable to substantiate everything: really, I wanted to cite every material I've ever read/watched on this board/otherwise, but I hope it can be taken in good faith that I'm not just making stuff up. But if there's anything I can do to improve, please let me know.

Jordan also never lost with HCA, and led a team that had never won before to the title as the man, so there's also that. (Sorry, had to).

[MacGill]

Some greats posts so far

I am all for portability here in a player but I am wondering why some of you are using this as a means to detract from Russell here? The game has changed, but to me, whether or not Bill Russell would be GOAT in our era has little to do with him being the GOAT of his era and the question of overall GOAT.

What I have taken from all the conversation here over the years is to let go of this mentality. Why? Because we know he'd be a top talent in our league regardless, even if he couldn't replicate the same impact (or it looked differently), and he doesn't have to be an actual GOAT player in our era to reinforce what he actually accomplished during his time.

The way the game is played now you'll never see another player dominate on Russell's level but we also have to remind ourselves that this is not Bill's fault nor did he have anyone from a player mentor perspective to really shape him into the player he became to be. He was a pioneer!! His style of play during that era was how you maximized your impact. One that later was asked to even Wilt Chamberlain to try and replicate. In that era of basketball defense by way of Russell's Celtic's was how you won. It was no different than 'hero ball' except boring and unappreciative to the casual fan. Russell's impact faced off against teams with an offensive juggernauts and saw success. It's not like he didn't have a Magic to his Bird to go up against here. But to understand that there was a reason why you never saw the back and forth of the chips between teams and that is because Russell impacted the defense on a level that MJ impacted the offense.

Fpliii did a great job posting the estimations and you need to ask yourself what type of human being can consistently bring the pain after (what some are saying) was a much weaker league?? What more does an athlete owe after he anchors his team 4 times in a row? How about 6-7? Not to mention 8. It's not about the actual titles here it's the fact that he was able to stay hungry and that's because he had players in the league that he knew could dethrone him, but he wouldn't allow it. The difference between he and MJ was luck and Russell landed on an older version of the Spurs with pieces in place to compete for over a decade. Winning isn't just assembled, it's earned through sweat and tears. Bill Russell was the MJ assassin before MJ who needed no break because of burn out.

I don't look at it as much to say was the league weaker as compared to today because we know it was. I look at it and say who else was anchoring teams and could have dethroned him? There were other players and teams capable of this. His era wasn't superstar less and he had rivals. He also willed his teams to victory over and over and over again by producing the defense needed to make this happen. This is what his era needed and something no one showed him how to do. He just knew. And while we see today that his sort of impact may fall short in impact replication, we have a nice list of players who anyone of us would take as a building block for today's game that anchor the defense. His IQ was off the charts that if he had all the history to review, like current greats....I'd bank he'd figure out how to become that strong 2 way player everyone is looking for him to be

[ardee]

Ok, so in my head Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Wilt are all candidates for the no. 1 spot.

However, I think Wilt and Kareem are somewhat 'lite' candidates, and this comes down to Jordan and Russell, but I'll briefly outline their cases anyway.

Kareem: GOAT longevity. Very high peak as well, but not as high as Jordan or Wilt. His holistic game is very good, arguably the second GOAT scorer after Jordan, but the rest of his arsenal ranged from decent to very good. He was a beast of a defender some years, especially the Milwaukee years, but had to concentrate more on scoring in his early LA years with the horrible supporting cast around him. Rebounding fell off rather quickly, but in his prime there were few better. Honestly it's hard to get closer to the GOAT without actually being the GOAT, but when I put together the sum of his career I see a few too many blips. '72 Playoffs when Wilt outplayed him despite being 11 years his senior. '73 Playoffs he gets shut down by Thurmond. '75 and '78 he could've played better. He's up against guys with essentially perfect careers, like Jordan and Russell. When they got into full gear run-the-table mode, you weren't stopping them. It wasn't that way with Kareem. However, like it or not, you're not taking away the highs of '70, '71, '74, '77 and '80.

Wilt: GOAT peak, and maybe GOAT prime ('64-'68). IMO, the only 5 year stretch that is also in the discussion is '88-'92. On the basis of that 5 year stretch alone I'm comfortable ranking him as my no. 3 GOAT. He also had some other very good years in '62, '71 and '72. He gets a bad rap on this board because of alleged 'lack of offensive impact' but when Dipper 13 ran the season to season numbers, few came out as good as him in terms of with/without. Now admittedly, '63 hurts a little bit. It wasn't completely his fault, but I'd knock him for missing the Playoffs the same way I would KG in '06 and '07. Plus, basically missing a whole season in '70 doesn't help with a 13 year career. Overall though, he was a top 5 player essentially every full year of his career, and probably top 3 every year except 1963. By all rights he should be regarded as being just as good as Jordan. Astounding big game player, complete in all facets of the game besides FT shooting, sacrificed his game for the team multiple times. He's definitely more of a serious GOAT candidate than Kareem (better peak, better prime, only reason the gap isn't bigger is longevity). But again, I can't rank him ahead of guys with essentially no blips. So 3 it is.

So. Jordan and Russell. Here goes.

For starters, I think Jordan going 25-1 in his last 26 Playoff series and 29-7 overall in the 80s and 90s is just as impressive as Russ going 27-2 in the 50s and 60s. I'm not going to be basing this off team success.

Jordan's case for GOAT is so well known I don't even need to spend too much time here. Unquestioned best player in the league arguably for the last decade of his career ('88-'98). NEVER really had a bad Playoff series. Unfathomable regular season consistency. GOAT scoring game, arguably GOAT all-around game for a 2-guard, perhaps in the contention for GOAT perimeter defender. He didn't really have a weakness, everything in his game ranged from very good (say, rebounding) to super elite (defense) to unfathomably great (scoring).

Here's the thing about Russ now. There's this notion that people have that a guy can't be as impactful on defense as guys like Jordan/Magic/Bird are on offense. This notion is wrong. The AVERAGE player's defense is not on par with the average player's offense, but in RUSSELL'S case, his defense is even MORE impactful than the GOAT offensive player (Jordan/Magic/Bird to me). The case for Russ built around his defense, really, is that his gap over the second best defender is SO MUCH BIGGER than the GOAT offensive player's gap over the second best offensive player (it's actually so close I can't even decide an order between those two).

If I had to rank it SRS wise for their primes I'd go:

Defense

Russell: 10
Hakeem: 5
Robinson: 5
Duncan/KG: 4.5

Offense

Jordan/Magic/Bird: 9-9.5
LeBron: 8.5 or so
Barkley/Oscar: 7.5-8
Kobe/Shaq/Dirk/Kareem: 7

It's a real cluster*** on offense, with defense it's SO clear that Russ is the GOAT it's not even funny.

And honestly I don't see why Russell's impact would not translate. Not to the 60s level of course but at least 85% of it would be there, other than the 3 point line. He moved horizontally like KG, covered ground as well as someone regarded the GOAT modern defensive mover, and blocked shots better than anyone. It's the complete package, perfect storm. Someone who competed in Olypmic level athletics definitely has the hops to dominate today.

And people who knock on Russell's offense: well, it doesn't matter! The thing about Russ was that he was SO DOMINANT on defense, that offense didn't even matter. The numbers don't lie. The Cs were last on offense most years of Russ's prime, but they were SO GOOD on defense that the results spoke for themselves. The gap between the Cs on defense and the no. 2 defense was greater than no. 2 and no. 10! In retrospect, you HAVE to have such crazy outlier results to win 11 titles.

It's too close for me, really. I don't know where to go with this. I feel like if I vote for either guy the other could say, "Really? What more could I do?"

These two really should be co-GOATs.

For now, I'm going to go here, might change my vote later.

Vote: Bill Russell

[penbeast0]

Jordan represents pretty much the perfect career arc a player can have, with an arguably GOAT peak, and lots of longevity too. He came into the NBA and lit it up immediately, got his team as far as could be expected with zero help, then as soon as he got some help the team went gangbusters, posting crazy SRS numbers, winning 3 titles in a row in the face of some great, stacked teams. Jordan retires, comes back 2 years later, and the Bulls are even more amazing than before. That's not all on Jordan, but most of it is. Stats and the eye test all seem to confirm he had the biggest impact, and there's no year you can really point to and say "well, if Jordan's impact is so huge, why didn't they do better in year X?" They basically met or exceeded expectations every year, something very few other players can say (Duncan is one, Russell arguably another). The Pistons were basically a placeholder title team (in spite of their astonishingly stacked teams) until Jordan got a good support cast, and as soon as he had that they were doomed. Not only are his numbers amazing, but we have every reason to think they'd be even better today with the current "hands off" rules.

I don't think a whole lot of Bill Russell and his era, so the only other candidate for me here is Kareem. I think Kareem is the clear #2 all-time. He has a great peak and longevity. But I'm just not convinced he was better than Jordan. A lot of years I look at Kareem and ask "I know Kareem can be so impactful, but look at his team this year, what's going on?" His early years with the Lakers (prior to Magic arriving) really fall into this category. The team's performance really doesn't fit with what Kareem should have been able to make them do (and had proven he could do in Milwaukee), and my feeling was always that it was partly Kareem's fault. He was a great competitor, but like a lot of great players (Shaq, Kobe, etc) his attitude wasn't always the best. I don't think being in LA helped those guys focus, at least not in the short term, and I think in his last year with the Bucks Kareem had kind of zoned out and was just treading water until they met his trade demands. His injury that year was a big part of it too. Despite being a top 2-3 GOAT candidate teams have really stayed far away from him since he retired, and that (plus a lot of other stuff) all really remind you about his attitude problems. Some of Kareem's latter years were emptier numbers than they seemed, because the Lakers played at such a fast pace.

Kareem will be my clear #2 choice, and he gets consideration for #1. But I can't see my way to voting against Jordan.

Vote: Jordan.

I can see slamming the 60s although personally, since the question is greatest of all time rather than who would be the greatest in today's league, I think being portable to the 50s and 60s is just as important as being portable to the last 20 years.

But saying the talent level in the 60s is inferior then picking Kareem who played his most dominant ball in the 70s seems disingenuous to say the lleast. For most of Russell's career, there were the same number of teams and players. There was expansion toward the end (67 and 68 plus the very limited impact of the ABA's 1st two years), but it was a small talent pool with multiple college superstars on every team.

The 70s had two factors lessening the talent pool and inflating the statistics and the top players. First (and lesser), the ABA started siphoning off talent. By 1969, Rick Barry was the only player to jump leagues although Mel Daniels was an NBA 1st rounder who signed with the ABA. By 1975, the ABA was pretty much on a par talentwise with the NBA . . . and that's more players than played in 1966's NBA, a doubling of the size of the player tool in 10 years. But that grossly UNDERestimates the expansion of the player pool. In that same period the NBA had gone from 8 teams to 18, MORE THAN DOUBLING. There may have been an expansion of the basketball playing population in that time but without international players or greatly increased popularity, I don't see how you can say the competition that Kareem faced on a day in and day out basis was close to as good as Russell faced.

Add to that the limited number of great centers in Kareem's heyday . . . the centers he faced that gave him the most trouble during the 70s (other than the one year of poor injury plagued Bill Walton) were Wilt and Nate Thurmond, both of whom played the majority of their prime during Russell's era, not Kareem's. His main competition for the top center in the 70s were Dave Cowens (who was smaller than Russell and not a true rim protector though I loved his motor) and Willis Reed (also smaller than Russell and a bit injury prone). Meanwhile he was able to feast on a lot of expansion era centers that might not have even made the league as backups in 1965. In 1975, Kareem faced basically 7 competent NBA centers (Ray, McAdoo, Cowens, Unseld, Lacey, Lanier, aging Thurmond) and 10 stiffs (Sojourner, Kunnert, Neal, Elmore Smith -- the JaVale McGee of the 70s, Tom Burleson, E.C. Coleman -- a combo forward out of position for the expansion Jazz, Awtrey, Gianelli, LeRoy Ellis, Chones). If you think Elmore Smith could actually play well, it's still 8 good to 9 stiffs. Russell in 1965 faced a HOF center more than half the time (Wilt, Reed, Beaty, Bellamy, Thurmond) with only 3 weak centers (Wayne Embry -- a lot of people like him better than I do, maybe Sam Lacey level, LeRoy Ellis -- yeah, same one only 24 instead of 33, and Ray Scott).

There is no real way to say you won't support Russell but favor Kareem because of era strength and pass the red face test.