RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 (Bill Russell)

[Ainosterhaspie]

Garnett was ALWAYS a natural BBIQ guy to a degree that was shocking given that he struggled with things like the SAT. Work outs from his draft year tell stories of a kid who did bad in drills against cones but the moment he was matched up in a team basketball setting he was vastly more intelligent out there than guys who were college vets. He just had an instinctive feel for what to do out there, which has everything to do with how he was able to have superstar impact as a 3rd year player while Kobe would likely have still been less valuable to the Lakers than Eddie Jones if they hadn't traded Jones away.

I love stumbling on little snippets like this.

lol. To be clear, I think it's clear that the Lakers traded Jones away because they saw superstar potential in Kobe that Jones didn't have. At a certain point they just decided to go for it and fully embrace all the Kobe airballs betting that when he figured it all out, he'd be better than Jones. And clearly, they're glad they made that bet.

I was focused on the Garnett praise, not the Kobe sleight.

[limbo]

"can average 30-50 ppg on elite efficiency, has some passing acumen". You're starting by giving Wilt credit for great scoring and passing and asking "So what was the problem?" And I'm saying that Wilt scoring at the volume he did was built on a scheme that led to mediocre team offense. The end.

I'm giving Wilt credit for showing the ability/capacity of volume scoring on great efficiency. Nothing more, nothing less. Why that led to mediocre team offenses is a separate subject that has to do with how Wilt's volume scoring was used within a team-wide context on offense.

Yes, you can argue that in a different scheme maybe he'd be able to put up similar numbers with an elite ORtg, but I strenuously object to what you're seeing as a proof of concept. The opposing defense's goal is to keep their DRtg low, not keep an individual player from getting numbers.

It's proof that Wilt could score/finish at a higher level then most players in the league at the time... Again, nothing more, nothing less. To me, that's not an insignificant piece of data that means nothing when it comes to Wilt's profile as a basketball player. It does tell me something about Wilt's ability as a basketball player. Of course, the context in which specific numbers are obtained is equally or even more important. So, i'm not ignoring that either.

On "passing acumen" specifically, as I always said with Kobe: My evaluation of your passing is not based on you proving you can make a pass to prove a point, and it's also not based on teams leading your teammates open for passes because they know you've called your own number that vast majority of the time. It's based on your ability to make the right play to make the offense be as strong as possible.

Agreed. The reason i cited 'passing acumen' is to suggest Wilt wasn't some tunnel-visioned scorer on offense that had little-to-no ability to make good reads and passes. I'm not going to give Wilt credit for being a great passer, because i don't believe he was one, nor am i going to ignore the fact that Wilt waited far too long in his career to unlock that part of his game (and when he did, he kind of went overboard with it to prove a point, instead of just reading and reacting based on the situation at hand). Again, this is all to suggest Wilt had the capacity/ability to be a better overall offensive player through his passing, but he lacked the mental faculties and proper guidance from his coaches. along with a lack of personal foresight on his own part, to unlock that part of his game... That's all.

Seems to me you're asking "There had to be a way to make use of Wilt's scoring and passing more optimally", and to that I'd say I think we saw in that year with Hannum. That IS what it looked like. Why did Wilt need to drop his scoring so much to make that work? I mean, I think it's clear that Hannum wasn't telling him to allocate his shot rate. When Wilt was actually looking to feed his teammates, he ended up scoring a lot less. When Wilt was looking to score all the time, his teammates looked like trash.

Exactly. But that doesn't mean it couldn't look any differently outside of what Hannum was able to draw on the blackboard. I'm not suggesting an alternate scenario where Wilt is shooting 29 FGA... but i could see Wilt averaging 25-30 ppg and the offense still being elite, he'd just need to be casted in a more finishing role where he's feeding off the creation off teammates on offense, instead of a isolation scoring one.

Could a better scheme be implemented today? Quite possibly, but I think the rule is clearly that you can't overload Wilt with complexity. He functions best as a robot. Get him to focus on passing or rebounding and he'll be a major net positive for you. Get him to focus on scoring and he won't. Try to make him balance and you just won't get it.

I think you could get more done with a Wilt-centric offense in the 60's than today... Now, that doesn't mean a Wilt-centric offense looks like what it actually did in the 60's; giving Wilt the ball on every possession and standing still. What i had in mind was exactly along how Hannum used him. Have him as a 25-30 ppg scorer finisher... Ideally you would want to pair him with an elite creator that could get him easy shots. The Sixers were kind of weak in the playmaking department, but still made it work relatively well.

Re: below average defense. I mean, c'mon. When teams go from good to bad to good on defense from year to the next, isn't the obvious question to ask whether there was some slacking off? Guys who don't pride themselves on every-game-defense have always slacked on defense, and Wilt's story emphasizes that more than most.

Sure. It's human nature to slack off. Especially in basketball, when you're carrying the biggest load on both offense and defense, that tends to happen. Even a guy like Garnett, who many would describe as the poster boy for having a high motor, when he played in Minnesota experienced dips in defensive consistency from 2004 to 2005 to 2006 to 2007... When you're a guy that carries both the offense and defense, and the coaching/teammate situation you find yourself under looks pretty dire, you tend to succumb to these kind of things... Russell was never in a similar position in his career.

As stated in earlier threads, for that offense to work Wilt had to become the #5 scoring option in the starting line up, and you're describing him as if by category as a scorer. That's the problem I have.

Not necessarily. I think if the Sixers had better playmaking on their roster Wilt could've been more prioritized in the FGA department and still be part of an elite offense.

I think there's a tendency to essentially evaluate Wilt's scoring based on the volume/efficiency and to just chalk up his ineffectiveness in that role as "the coach's fault", hence asserting that Wilt ought to be expected to be able to put up an impact as big as the volume/efficiency would have you believe if he just had a better coach. But when the player in question is getting his numbers precisely because the offensive system has a crippling flaw, those numbers are not the right way to peg the quality of his contributions.

I wouldn't expect Wilt to have West/Oscar levels of offensive impact in any case because his offensive game and skillset lacked severely in many areas comparison to the other two. I would, however, expect a guy with Wilt's finishing talent and physical presence on the boards to have the ability to be a cornerstone of much more potent offenses than he was in the early 60's...

Doc... With all due respect, Walt Bellamy was the 1st option on Top 3 offenses in the early 60's.. It wasn't that hard... Was Walt Bellamy more offensively talented than Wilt? No. Him and his team just didn't have delusions of grandeur and Globetrotter complex where they thought everything had to be ran through Bellamy to the extreme. Wilt was a victim of his own personal brand. I'm not shouldering the blame off his shoulders, he is 100% to blame, but ultimately, the question i addressed was whether or not Wilt was CAPABLE of leading elite offenses and ATG defenses... And the answer i think is yes, he was capable as proven in '67 on offense and multiple times on defense, including when he was 35/36 years old... Why that hasn't fully materialize more often over the course of his career is a separate issue which you are shedding more light on. I was just touching on his potential to do so.

[Hal14]

I don't think he's arguing the fact that Russell's Celtics skewed the league average more. I think he's arguing that it's simply easier to be a dominant defense in an 8 team league than a 30 team league due to the quality of the rest of the league. I could be wrong.

hmm, I would think the opposite would be true. Only 8 teams in the league means less players on an NBA roster = more competition to make an NBA roster = only the best players make an NBA roster = tougher competition night in and night out where almost every night you're going against a legit hall of famer.

Russell touches on this point at the 2:22 mark of this video:

Watch on YouTube

My vote (although I'm not sure if the voting is open to everyone or just certain posters)

4) Bill Russell
5) Larry Bird
6) Wilt Chamberlain

[Blackmill]

I had KG as my #1 vote in the previous thread.

Defensively I have KG at the very top of my list. He was a rare center who could move his feet like a wing. And he combined this ideal physical profile with a great motor and one of the best minds ever for defensive positioning. Here's a play that I think highlights Garnett's intelligence:

Watch on YouTube

KG sees the double on Parker and knows Ginobili is now open in the corner. If Garnett stays on Duncan's hip, Duncan will screen KG's close out attempt, but he also can't preemptively leave Duncan to defend the corner 3 without giving up a great look for Duncan. So what KG does is immediately read this and move into fronting position. This meant

1. He was able to deny Duncan the ball.
2. Because Garnett was above Duncan rather behind him or on his hip, KG would have an unobstructed close out.

Once the pass to Ginobili is made KG flawlessly contests the shot. This whole sequence was a very smart, in the moment play with no hesitation between the play developing and Garnett seeing the solution. This is easy to observe on the replay but very difficult in game.

Critics of Garnett say his rim protection was less than the very best. There's some truth to this. He didn't absorb impact as well as Hakeem or Duncan. He simply wasn't as broad and large. That said, KG was undoubtedly a top-tier rim protector. Here he blocks Duncan after an offensive rebound. This isn't easy. Duncan was a strong and very good finisher. But Garnett's length and quick second jump allow him to get a hand on the shot.

Watch on YouTube

I won't glance over Garnett giving up the rebound in the first place. It wasn't an ideal bounce but in general Garnett had some problems boxing out larger, stronger players like Duncan. Returning to the point about rim protection, Garnett opperated less from the weak side dunkers spot than Duncan for instance, and that contributed to him accruing fewer blocks. He also was able to stop more drives on the perimeter before they became shots in the paint. I'm not going to say Garnett was the better rim protector of his time, I think that was Duncan, but he was among the best rim protectors in the league while being the best PnR defender and the best big at closing out to shooters. Defensively, I see KG as a modern day Bill Russell except I am much more confident in his value because of the wealth of film.

On offense Garnett checked all the boxes. He was an excellent outside shooter and passer. His screen setting was among the best ever in my opinion. The same quickness, footwork, and identification of driving angles that Garnett displayed on-ball and defending helps him here. He was quicker to set the screen than other players, and together with his outside, this consistently gave his teammates a step advantage. He was also one of the most active at settings screens. He would sometimes set two or three screens in a possession. He was never idle off-ball. For the same reasons, Garnett was an extremely good PnR partner. He served as a threat to pop or to roll and he was very good at finding the open player when tagged.

Garnett was not a strong enough player for me to see him as a viable first option. How Giannis played this season and last made me wonder how Garnett would look in a system designed provide him with face up opportunities. Obviously KG would the better passer and shooter but what about his drives? Giannis is mobile for a big but relies much more on a power game that I don't think Garnett ever had. I don't see Garnett getting to the rim at a high enough rate to create for himself and others like a true offensive engine. But even so, Garnett will make whatever offense he's plugged into suddenly much better, since he contributes to everything on the court. And Garnett would still be a very valuable second scoring option. He was a fluid dribbler with great footwork and quickness. His face up game would be deadly against smaller, weaker players in the modern NBA.

I do wonder if I'm not critical enough of Garnett's longevity. He suffered some injuries later in his career and there's a real argument that he had fewer years near his peak than Russell or Kareem. Still, I was impressed enough to have voted for KG as my #1 vote last thread, and will likely do so again in this thread. Although I could be convinced that Hakeem should have the #1 vote.

I plan to add some additional comments but will end the post here for now so I can enjoy my evening.

The clips I took are from this game:

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

[trex_8063]

My vote (although I'm not sure if the voting is open to everyone or just certain posters)

4) Bill Russell
5) Larry Bird
6) Wilt Chamberlain

Official sign-up took place in this thread, where you can find out the nitty gritty details (I encourage you to read OP if participating).
I can add you to the voter panel, but you'll have to provide some specific reasons for your vote(s) [the top Russell vote, at least] for them to count.

[Hal14]

My vote (although I'm not sure if the voting is open to everyone or just certain posters)

4) Bill Russell
5) Larry Bird
6) Wilt Chamberlain

Official sign-up took place in this thread, where you can find out the nitty gritty details (I encourage you to read OP if participating).
I can add you to the voter panel, but you'll have to provide some specific reasons for your vote(s) [the top Russell vote, at least] for them to count.

Ok.

1) During two stretches in Russell's career where he missed a few games. The Celtics went 0-4 and 0-5. This was a dynasty, they won 11 titles in 13 years but you took Russell off the team and they went 0-9! The Celtics went from a 48 win team in Russell's last year to only a 34 win team the first year of his retirement. Meanwhile the Bulls won 57 games in 92-93 and the following year with Jordan retired they only won 2 less games, 55. Think Russell was only good because he played with 7 hall of famers? Skip to the 3:30 mark of this video and you'll be proven wrong. :

2) If Russell only did it because he played with hall of famers and because there was only 8 teams back then, then why is it that he won back to back championships during his last 2 years of high school and back to back championships during his last 2 years of college...and an Olympic gold medal?

Watch on YouTube

;feature=emb_logo

3) Phil Jackson actually said that if he was starting a franchise he'd pick Russell over Jordan. Phil could have said Jordan since they won 6 titles together whereas Phil played against Russell - but he picked Russell instead. That speaks volumes. There's no doubt Phil knows the game of basketball.

4) Wilt even admits that if he was on those Celtics teams instead of Russell, they wouldn't have won as many titles because Wilt would have been focused more on scoring and it would have taken shots away from Cousy and the other stars on the team whereas Russell was team-first. Because of this, Wilt admits that Russell was better than him. As Russell said, "Wilt's teammates fed him the ball. I fed my teammates." That's a big reason why Russell had so many hall of fame teammates - they became better players BECAUSE Russell made them better.

5) Russell played in 21 games where it was winner take all. His record was 21-0. No other player in history can claim that.

6) You can say all you want about the era that he played in but think about this. As good as Russell was and as dominant as he was, think about how much better and more dominant he would be if he had the benefit of modern weight training, modern nutrition, if he got to shoot a modern basketball (which is designed to be much easier to get it in the basket than the ball Russell played with), if Russell played with modern strength and conditioning, if Russell could study film of his opponents, etc.

7) 11 titles in 13 years and would have been 12 titles in 13 years if he didn't injured in 1958.

8) Russell's knowledge of the game was unmatched. For about the first 16 minutes of the game, he allowed Wilt to score. Then he would clamp down. At this time, Wilt's teammates were not in rhythm to pick things up. That is when the Celtics would rattle off something like a 28-8 run. He blocked shots and the ball was going to a teammate for a fast break. That was a normal block for him. Many others would block a shot and the ball would go into the 2nd row

According to Russell, "I played games in my peak where I only had just 6 shots, but I could close out the middle of the court; the way I play my team wins”

[Dr Positivity]

I'm feeling pretty good about putting Russell over Wilt

- Better clutch history - I believe there's a select few players that should be upgraded for being big game/big moment performers, and Russell is one of them. His record in Game 7s is in part due to being at his best in the most important game and the most important play.
- Way better intangibles. Not only as a team leader, making his teammates better, etc. but it can't be understated how impressive it is for Russell to have kept having that drive instead of getting mentally and physically tired. I read an article from 63 where even that early he said he had already done everything in basketball and he gets more excited by something random his kids do than anything that can happen on the court. What did he have left to chase at that point? By the time of his 6th title he had already accomplished more than Mikan. So to somehow keep it up 6 more years after that while leaving it all out there is impressive to me. The Celtics most likely should have been done mentally and physically after the 67 loss and having their 8 straight titles streak end, and at the time everyone thought so.
- Seems clear people at the time had it as Russell > Wilt by the end of their careers. Winning bias exists but I think less in the pre Jordan era. The main reason for count the ringz is Jordan stans imo.

Yes it's hard to believe that an elite defender in Wilt + way better offense couldn't be better than Russell, but it would have been at the time as well and it looks like Russell did enough to be credible as better than Wilt

I'm not convinced anyone else should be put above a player of Wilt's talent, and Wilt had misfortune when it comes to competition and close losses. I consider Duncan having more titles than Wilt to be meaningless for that reason for example.

I feel Duncan should be put over Hakeem only played at a top 10 all time caliber level for a few years. I'm not as high on the pre-93 version of Hakeem on offense and he declines on defense in 95 by all signs. I have a much longer take on Hakeem and why he's not in my top 10 but I don't think he's getting in here so I'll save it.

Duncan vs KG is hard, I feel KG is less proven as a playoff scorer and relies a lot on midrange jumpers, I'm not sure as a scorer he's any better than like LMA (Better offensively overall due to the passing). The combination of spacing and perimeter playmaking gives KG a lot of value though. Overall I lean a bit towards Duncan being more reliable but am willing to have my mind changed. Not sure what to do with Shaq but I think I prefer Duncan's consistency and intangibles.

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Tim Duncan

[trex_8063]

#6 between shaq and Duncan for me. I could lean Duncan because of his consistency and better defense but I would never, ever draft him ahead of Shaq and thats just a simple truth. I don't believe any GM would, across history, even with hindsight. Duncan, as great as he is, had a lot of great rosters and perhaps the greatest coach ever, and was arguably not the MVP on the team for the latter titles.
With all of that, the spurs were never a dynasty in his ~20 year career. They were a consistent team but could be overpowered by better teams peaking at the right time, which tells me they weren't the best team of their era, simply "one of the best".
Shaq plus virtually any legitimate second scoring option will get you to the finals. Prime shaq was completely and utterly unstoppable en route to 3 titles. He and duncan on the court, theres no doubt shaq was clearly better. You put prime shaq in ANY era with a high level second option and they will steamroll to a dynasty. Says quite a lot because only MJ can also claim that (so far...we'll see with LeBron and Davis) If he were a little more focused throughout his career, i'd swap he and LeBron on the list.

Actually, yeah shaq for #6. I'll probably slot duncan at 7.

I started writing up my vote with Russell next followed by Duncan, then started writing about it and prefaced my vote for Russell with a bunch of ways I thought Duncan was better and ended up asking myself why I'm going with Russell. Your questions reflect my struggles and then some. May have to reconsider.

If you're waffling at all, I'm going to lobby on behalf of Duncan. If you haven't read my post pertaining to Duncan (post #7 itt) yet, I'd encourage you to do so; at the very least everything that comes at "The Pop Factor" and after.......it's pretty pertinent stuff [imo], and certainly more than enough to function as a "tie-breaker" consideration.

[mailmp]

1. Bill Russell
Arguments that his impact may be overstated are not wholly unfounded, but they are far from perfect and draw impossible hypotheticals and analogies. There is no one really like Bill — no one that far ahead of the game, no one with such an unblemished record, no one who mastered their purview so completely — and while the hypothetical that a player like Duncan may have matched or exceeded him had their situations been reversed merits some consideration, the empirical and logical support is not overwhelming enough to overwrite how Russell’s career actually played out.

2. Tim Duncan
I did not need to be convinced, but all the arguments shared for him are well placed. Five titles, superb longevity, excellent playoff performer and defender, immaculate team results... Comes across as a lab-designed draft pick, even with the limits of his long-term leg injury.

3. Wilt Chamberlain
Any of Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq, or Magic are fine for these next four spots. Magic lacks longevity; Hakeem lacks some regular season impact and may have some overstated postseason numbers against middling defensive oppositions; Shaq has seriousness concerns and perhaps exaggerated peak numbers in the context of a league at a general loss for elite centres; and Wilt has impact criticisms based on his lesser understanding of the game compared to Russell. But the comparison is not with Russell. Of these players Wilt likely maximised his career the least (and seeing as he is not literally Russell, yes, that is something coaches need to address), and even then he was still the best player on two all-time teams and pushed the unbeatable Bill Russell harder than anyone else.

[ZeppelinPage]

You have to remember we're talking about an era where Wilt averaged from 30 to 50 ppg for half a decade and they still couldn't figure out a way to have an above league average offense, despite several different coaches and player turnover... That's the level of sophistication we're dealing with here...

Whoa hold on.

You're writing this as if from this viewpoint:

"Wilt was having 30 to 50 points per game of impact and the rest of the offense was so bad they still weren't above average!"

Not saying that that's actually your philosophy here, but you're talking as if "A good coach ought to be able to be able to make an elite offense if he's got a 30-50 point scorer on his team."

But that's not how things work. Wilt was a "30-50 point scorer" because the offense called for him to try to score on every possession. The team ORtg is team result that created. That tells us that the general sense of impact people have about Wilt's volume scoring was fundamentally wrong. That having an approach like they did really didn't result in anything that was that hard to guard against.

To be clear, I'm not saying it was fundamentally impossible to build a great offense where Wilt also volume scored, but we have ZERO evidence based on actual team accomplishment that letting Wilt shoot that much was a good idea.

All we know is that it was a really, really, really-better-than-any-idea-in-NBA-history, really a good idea to have Wilt stop shooting so much. Which means there was something wrong with it as it was actually executed.

Honestly, I think the game of basketball is a bit more nuanced than that. Blaming the best player on the team is always easy, and was definitely a narrative in the 60s newspapers I've often sifted through. I'll have a more detailed post later on the idea of Wilt scoring = bad, but I did want to touch on something more here regarding his 50 PPG season.

First and foremost, lets look at this "Warriors offense was above average" statement I see thrown around quite a bit and examine it. Because the difference between above average in 1962 and above average in modern play is quite different.

The '62 Warriors were 0.9 above league average in ORtg, good for 4th. The 3rd ranked team (Lakers) were 1.4 above league average and the 2nd ranked team (Hawks) were 1.6 above league average. The difference between an average offense and a 2nd ranked offense in 1962 was 1.6 points. In 2020, the same difference in average and 2nd would be 3.3--over double. In 1985, the difference between a league average offense and a top 3 offense was over 4 points.

Because of the defensively focused rules and playstyle, it caused many of the offenses to be packed closer together in ORtg. So essentially, having an above average offense in 1962 was good. And this isn't even taking into account the fact that the Warriors were playing a -8.5 Rel DRtg team 3 more times than the Hawks or Lakers that year. It's no surprise to me that the top 3 teams in offense were apart of the western conference.

Now, lets examine the actual 1962 Philadelphia Warriors roster--was letting Wilt shoot more really a bad idea?

From '61 to '62, under Frank McGuire, the Warriors actually improved by 3.3 points in ORtg--but, instead of giving all the credit to just Wilt on that, lets examine the actual team. Because, after all, it takes a team to win and contribute, not just one player. Just as you cannot give Wilt all the blame for their offenses not peaking higher, you also cannot give Wilt all the credit for improving the offense.

So, how did the '62 Warriors rise so high in offense? Well, the team lost Andy Johnson, where (thanks to TS Added) we can now see that he was an abhorrent -141.5 in TS Added compared to league average (3rd worst in the entire league). They also got rid of Joe Graboski (-86.5) and Vern Hatton (-68.5) and Al Attles improved a significant amount that year. All these changes helped the Warriors offense improve, but there were also some negatives:

Paul Arizin was in his last year and declined a significant amount in efficiency (132.7 to 26.2) and Tom Gola was injured for 20 games and into the playoffs and never seemed to play how he had previously (51.5 to -9.3.) Guy Rodgers also had an historically awful year, even on lowered shot attempts by Frank McGuire, going from -89.9 to -138.8 below average (3rd last in the league).

Is Wilt to blame for all this? Well, the team improved, so clearly it was the right decision. Arizin was in his final year and was playing efficiently next to Wilt the previous 2 years, so I think it's safe to say it wasn't from an uptick in Wilt's shots. Tom Gola came back the next year, played a little better and was traded to the Knicks, where he was never quite as good as his years on the Warriors. He also was a positive offensive player while Wilt was on the team, so I would attribute it to more of an injury issue/age (Tom Gola was abysmal in the playoffs that season due to nagging injuries.) Finally, Guy Rodgers was historically bad for basically the rest of his career, with or without Wilt.

The team also added rookies Tom Meschery (-33.8) and York Larese (-42.5) who were not as bad as previous players, but still a negative. So, with the regression of key offensive players like Paul Arizin and Tom Gola, as well as starter Guy Rodgers--how did the Warriors improve by a full 3.3 points in offensive rating?

Safe to say, Wilt getting more shots over the rest of his team as they regressed and played worse that year would be a good reason. It isn't the entire reason, obviously--but I would argue it was the largest.

The big point here is that, in the end, there is a cap to a teams offensive potential. If you have one incredible player surrounded by average to awful shooters, it isn't going to result in a top offense--especially in a defensively focused era. Because it takes a team full of talented players to make that happen.

[KPT1867]

My vote is for Wilt Chamberlain.

This is not because of his stats which were obviously inflated by the number of minutes played and pace of play. My vote for Chamberlain is based on a few things. He did the most for his teams. His win shares divided by team wins is far above any other in history. His teams were not bad either. Not including ‘65 and ‘70. His winning percentage was 0.676.

He scored a lot early in his career because he was asked to do so. That was a product of Ed Gottileb (forgive my spelling). But he later showed that he had other skills that could do more if he was asked to. What I think is more impressive is how he shot 0.600 later in his career.

He is an underrated defender. There is plenty of footage that shows this. His defensive win shares are second only to Bill Russell.

He is a cross generational physical specimen. He is built like Javale MaGhee and Rudy Gobert, but he could move like a small forward.

His downside is that he was the Goliath of that time. Coaches and GMs simply thought feeding him the ball that many times was the best strategy for winning games. To me this is no different that Daryl Morey having James Harden shoot 20 threes a game.

[LA Bird]

The overarching issue I'd see things differently from you on is that you're trying to compare dominance between very different eras and concluding that the team that reliably won the championship more frequently in any team in history wasn't all that dominant. To me those 11 titles in 13 years is basically dominance defined. You can argue it's less of an accomplishment because of lesser competition, but unless you want to focus on the idea of luck, they were more reliably winning the focal point of the season than anyone else has.

Comparing very different eras is precisely the reason why we should be looking beyond just the basic ring count. Even without considering era strength, winning a ring in the 60s is not the same as a ring in later periods. It is a lot easier to win 2 series than 4 series. If a player goes to 16 playoffs with a 75% chance of winning each series, the expected result would be 5 rings if a title requires 4 series wins vs 9 rings if a title requires 2 series wins. You are ignoring context if you think a player is more dominant just by going through an easier playoff format to win more titles. ELO solves this issue by actually looking at each game a team plays and rewarding them accordingly.

What is the effect of expansion on things like W-L dominance, SRS, and ELO?

Here I'd say the best thing to look at in basketball is quite possible the best thing to look at in all of sports:

The early '70s saw far more extreme of those type of numbers than we saw before.

In '71-72 for example, the Chicago Bulls had an SRS of 7.91, which the Russell Celtics only surpassed twice. Do we really think that that Bulls team, had they existed in the '60s and sustained themselves all decade, would have been the dominant dynasty of the '60s over the Celtics? Frankly if so, then maybe we should be talking about Bob Love right now as the guy who was secretly a GOAT.

The 72 Bulls were a single season anomaly that otherwise hovered around 3 SRS. Their ELO were only around 1600 at best and they were in no way comparable to all time great teams led by GOAT level players. The graph I displayed show Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, LeBron and Curry on it so unless you are excluding all of them due to "expansion", I don't see how the fun Bob Love example is anything but a distraction from the discussion. Russell's Celtics won a lot due to the shorter playoff format but weren't a more dominant team than a few other dynasties that came later.

I will say that I'd rank Russell's best season ('64 or '65) ahead of Duncan's ('03). I've already described how I see Russell's years - a defense that was just absurdly dominant. Literally in '64 the gap between the Celtics and the 3rd best defense in the league was bigger than the gap between the best and worst offenses. When defensive variance is that much greater than offensive variance, defense is going to dictate the champions.

This goes back to the first point in my post. Why is it always about defensive dominance and not overall dominance with Russell? As a hypothetical example, if the Celtics leave Russell in the backcourt and play 4v5 on offense every possession, they will have an even better defense. Does that make them a better team overall? No. Because their offense will turn to **** and basketball is about both offense and defense. The 64 Celtics's -10.8 defense came with a -4.5 offense. If the Celtics were the most dominant team overall, there would be no reason for you to always focus only on the defensive end. But they fall short of the all time great teams in overall two way performance so the argument is always framed in such a way to exclude the one end of the floor where they were a huge negative in. The number that shows how dominant they were as a team is the overall 7 SRS. Whether they got there with a -6 defense or -11 defense or -16 defense doesn't make any difference.

Well, I remember the '03 playoffs. And I remember the feeling that I and everyone else had was that no one really felt like a worthy champion. The Spurs were a team that lost 2 games to every single opponent and it didn't so much feel like they were playing against opponents above their head but that the Spurs were a team that wasn't really ready to perform at their best when it really mattered.

Now Duncan supporters will say "Yes, his supporting cast was awful that year!" and hyperbole aside they have a point. It was easily the weakest supporting cast he'd win a title with.

But the Spurs also had HCA over the entire league. This wasn't a plucky upstart that had an amazing playoffs. This was a team that many though would win the title going into the playoffs, and in the playoffs, they felt unworthy. They did not look like a 60-22 team much of the time.

Duncan's problem is that they didn't look like a 60 win team in the playoffs? And that you didn't 'feel' they were a worthy champion? Come on, this is the type of argument I would expect from facebook and not a smart mod. If you really want to talk about "unworthy" titles, you should look at which player won his first title beating two negative SRS teams then won his second beating two sub .500 teams.

Additionally, it's weird to me that people see Duncan as "successful volume scorer" and tend to not let Garnett in that same tier. In '03 with this "bad supporting cast", Duncan scored less than 25ppg in those playoffs. I'm not saying Duncan scored too little just as I'm not saying he scored too much, but what I can say is that team's offense felt clunky and spotty all playoffs in a way it just wouldn't have if Duncan were doing a 35ppg type thing.

Duncan averaged 24.7ppg on +5.7% rTS when league pace was at it its slowest ever. He doesn't need to average 0.3 more points to hit that nice round 25 threshold to be a successful volume scorer. And he doesn't need to score 35ppg either because only Jordan can score in the playoffs like that. Garnett's usually not regarded in the same tier as Duncan as a scorer because of his low postseason TS% and you already know that.

It's to their credit they figured things out of course, but to me they felt like a lot of first time champions do. A bit shaky. A bit yip-prone. They figured it out together and would go on to have extraordinary success together over the next decade plus, but I'm honestly not all that sure I'd say Duncan in '03 was him at his career peak. I think he learned a hell of a lot that year, and would go on to keep learning a lot for at least the next few years.

I think our "lone star" based thinking has tended to get things backwards based on the idea that the various Spurs champion teams must have been roughly comparable in what they achieved and since 2003 had the weakest supporting cast and Duncan had his gaudiest numbers, this must have been him at his best. In reality that '03 Spurs team got really lucky in their competition and had they not, then they don't win the title. If the Lakers are themselves, they destroy the Spurs. If the Mavs had a bit more seasoning, and bit better sense of how close they were to something that would revolutionize the sport, they beat the Spurs. If the Spurs had played a team an actual elite team in the finals, maybe that teams wins. And then there's the matter that the Spurs lost two games and got held to under 100 ORtg against a Suns team that was not remotely a serious team.

2003 was his second title and the Spurs were already pretty successful in the prior seasons. Not sure why you are so intent on tearing down 03 Duncan like he was inexperienced and still had to figure things out when it is universally regarded as his peak by pretty much everyone and was an unbelievable carry job by any eye test or metric on both ends of the floor. They lost 2 games against the Suns but Russell's championship teams have lost 3 against teams that didn't even win 40. How are you going to talk about Duncan's luck when Russell went to several game 7s decided by single possessions? BTW, we can play the if game with Russell too if you want. If the Celtics had to play 4 series, maybe they don't win that many titles. If Wilt actually utilized his physical talents instead of trying to be a fadeaway shooter. If the Lakers even had a half decent center for most of the 60s. If Connie Hawkins wasn't banned from the NBA. If Maurice Stokes hadn't been paralyzed in a freak accident and left the Royals without any defense. If Barry didn't leave and join the ABA. There are a lot of ifs everywhere and if anything, I would say Russell benefited more from them than Duncan did.

Thanks for replying to my post though. I don't think you really refuted my original points but you are the only Russell voter to address them instead of just skipping it.

[Doctor MJ]

I love stumbling on little snippets like this.

lol. To be clear, I think it's clear that the Lakers traded Jones away because they saw superstar potential in Kobe that Jones didn't have. At a certain point they just decided to go for it and fully embrace all the Kobe airballs betting that when he figured it all out, he'd be better than Jones. And clearly, they're glad they made that bet.

I was focused on the Garnett praise, not the Kobe sleight.

Ah, that makes more sense, and good for you for your sincere curiosity.

[Doctor MJ]

You have to remember we're talking about an era where Wilt averaged from 30 to 50 ppg for half a decade and they still couldn't figure out a way to have an above league average offense, despite several different coaches and player turnover... That's the level of sophistication we're dealing with here...

Whoa hold on.

You're writing this as if from this viewpoint:

"Wilt was having 30 to 50 points per game of impact and the rest of the offense was so bad they still weren't above average!"

Not saying that that's actually your philosophy here, but you're talking as if "A good coach ought to be able to be able to make an elite offense if he's got a 30-50 point scorer on his team."

But that's not how things work. Wilt was a "30-50 point scorer" because the offense called for him to try to score on every possession. The team ORtg is team result that created. That tells us that the general sense of impact people have about Wilt's volume scoring was fundamentally wrong. That having an approach like they did really didn't result in anything that was that hard to guard against.

To be clear, I'm not saying it was fundamentally impossible to build a great offense where Wilt also volume scored, but we have ZERO evidence based on actual team accomplishment that letting Wilt shoot that much was a good idea.

All we know is that it was a really, really, really-better-than-any-idea-in-NBA-history, really a good idea to have Wilt stop shooting so much. Which means there was something wrong with it as it was actually executed.

Honestly, I think the game of basketball is a bit more nuanced than that. Blaming the best player on the team is always easy, and was definitely a narrative in the 60s newspapers I've often sifted through. I'll have a more detailed post later on the idea of Wilt scoring = bad, but I did want to touch on something more here regarding his 50 PPG season.

First and foremost, lets look at this "Warriors offense was above average" statement I see thrown around quite a bit and examine it. Because the difference between above average in 1962 and above average in modern play is quite different.

The '62 Warriors were 0.9 above league average in ORtg, good for 4th. The 3rd ranked team (Lakers) were 1.4 above league average and the 2nd ranked team (Hawks) were 1.6 above league average. The difference between an average offense and a 2nd ranked offense in 1962 was 1.6 points. In 2020, the same difference in average and 2nd would be 3.3--over double. In 1985, the difference between a league average offense and a top 3 offense was over 4 points.

Because of the defensively focused rules and playstyle, it caused many of the offenses to be packed closer together in ORtg. So essentially, having an above average offense in 1962 was good. And this isn't even taking into account the fact that the Warriors were playing a -8.5 Rel DRtg team 3 more times than the Hawks or Lakers that year. It's no surprise to me that the top 3 teams in offense were apart of the western conference.

Now, lets examine the actual 1962 Philadelphia Warriors roster--was letting Wilt shoot more really a bad idea?

From '61 to '62, under Frank McGuire, the Warriors actually improved by 3.3 points in ORtg--but, instead of giving all the credit to just Wilt on that, lets examine the actual team. Because, after all, it takes a team to win and contribute, not just one player. Just as you cannot give Wilt all the blame for their offenses not peaking higher, you also cannot give Wilt all the credit for improving the offense.

So, how did the '62 Warriors rise so high in offense? Well, the team lost Andy Johnson, where (thanks to TS Added) we can now see that he was an abhorrent -141.5 in TS Added compared to league average (3rd worst in the entire league). They also got rid of Joe Graboski (-86.5) and Vern Hatton (-68.5) and Al Attles improved a significant amount that year. All these changes helped the Warriors offense improve, but there were also some negatives:

Paul Arizin was in his last year and declined a significant amount in efficiency (132.7 to 26.2) and Tom Gola was injured for 20 games and into the playoffs and never seemed to play how he had previously (51.5 to -9.3.) Guy Rodgers also had an historically awful year, even on lowered shot attempts by Frank McGuire, going from -89.9 to -138.8 below average (3rd last in the league).

Is Wilt to blame for all this? Well, the team improved, so clearly it was the right decision. Arizin was in his final year and was playing efficiently next to Wilt the previous 2 years, so I think it's safe to say it wasn't from an uptick in Wilt's shots. Tom Gola came back the next year, played a little better and was traded to the Knicks, where he was never quite as good as his years on the Warriors. He also was a positive offensive player while Wilt was on the team, so I would attribute it to more of an injury issue/age (Tom Gola was abysmal in the playoffs that season due to nagging injuries.) Finally, Guy Rodgers was historically bad for basically the rest of his career, with or without Wilt.

The team also added rookies Tom Meschery (-33.8) and York Larese (-42.5) who were not as bad as previous players, but still a negative. So, with the regression of key offensive players like Paul Arizin and Tom Gola, as well as starter Guy Rodgers--how did the Warriors improve by a full 3.3 points in offensive rating?

Safe to say, Wilt getting more shots over the rest of his team as they regressed or played worse that year would be a good reason. It isn't the entire reason, obviously--but I would argue it was the largest.

The big point here is that, in the end, there is a cap to a teams offensive potential. If you have one incredible player surrounded by average to awful shooters, it isn't going to result in a top offense--especially in a defensively focused era. Because it takes a team full of talented players to make that happen.

It sounds like you're saying that due to how things were back then it wasn't possible to make team offense much better or much worse. Even if that were true, wouldn't that just hammer home the point Wilt's scoring not meaning a whole lot?

Here's what I think is actually the case: In the absence of the kind of data we have today, it was just really hard to know what was working and what wasn't in a sport where the gap between team is on the order of only 5% of their total scoreboard performance. The truth with Wilt was undoubtedly that he was doing some things yielding sharp positive impact but that there were "leaks" in the offensive efficacy that left the team offense about as effective as any other offense. And while every team had stuff like this, those players with a better feel for the game were better at patching the leaks.

[Dr Positivity]

But they fall short of the all time great teams in overall two way performance so the argument is always framed in such a way to exclude the one end of the floor where they were a huge negative in.

Disagree that they can be framed as falling short of all time dominance in any way. First off does winning 11 titles not count for anything? Regular season is not the same as playoffs or else the 2020 Bucks would be one of the best teams of all time. Secondly how is this not lapping the field?:

In 1960 they went 59-16 and has 7.62 SRS while the second best record was 49-26 and 2nd best SRS was 2.77.
In 1962 they went 60-20 with 8.25 SRS while the second best record was 54-26 and SRS 2.36.
In 1965 they went 62-18 with 7.46 SRS while second best record was 49-31 and 2nd best SRS was 2.68.

I don't see how this is anything other than completely crushing everyone in these regular seasons. Also noting that they already had the regular season win mark so there was no motivation to chase 70 like the Bulls and Warriors season, and really had nothing to prove in any of these seasons. They had the best record in the league 9 straight seasons in addition to 8 of 9 titles, the only loss being with a Russell injury.

I also think there is some truth to the idea that it was harder to have as high a ceiling in 60s. I think the main reason the 67 Sixers have 8.5 SRS and the 72 Lakers had 11.65 is expansion. I don't think the Lakers had a more dominant season personally. Another way to put it is that in between 57 and 68, the only teams to break 5 SRS and 60 Ws were Russell Celtics and Wilt 76ers.

[DQuinn1575]

I also think there is some truth to the idea that it was harder to have as high a ceiling in 60s. I think the main reason the 67 Sixers have 8.5 SRS and the 72 Lakers had 11.65 is expansion. I don't think the Lakers had a more dominant season personally. Another way to put it is that in between 57 and 68, the only teams to break 5 SRS and 60 Ws were Russell Celtics and Wilt 76ers.

Good post; however, I don't think the 67 Sixers SRS you can attribute to expansion; the Lakers had the COMBINATION of expansion and ABA as by 1972 that was a factor - maybe they were closer to the 8-9 SRS like the Sixers. But in both cases you had a Golden Year where things come together for a team, but it took that type of team, or a Russell injury, for them to lose.

[Colbinii]

Since Garnett is starting to get traction and nobody truly "leaves" this board

My post from the 2017 project. Images may not work because of age.

Thanks Woj. I understand why you like Moses, and it is a fair and valid point given your criteria and given your view of Kevin Garnett. I will attempt to present some new information that hopefully opens your mind up about the dominance of Kevin Garnett, which goes far beyond his 1 championship and 1 MVP.

First, I would like to focus on the defensive end.

1. Kevin Garnett was the most versatile defender we have ever seen play in the NBA. He can guard every position 1-5 and he has the ability switch every pick and roll.

Kobe Bryant flies by Anthony Peeler as he brings the ball to half-court.



Garnett picks up Bryant, forcing him inside to the help defense (Rasho Nesterovic)



Garnett has Kobe where he wants him, trying to finish over Rasho Nesterovic while being on Kobe's blind side



Garnett's length and skill allows him to block Bryant



Kobe runs the pick and roll with a goal to get an isolation on the right side of the court. Garnett switches onto Kobe.



Garnett forces Kobe to go inside, where his help is. Keep in mind, there are no players to the top right of the picture. The entire side of the court is open, yet Garnett is still able to force Kobe into the crowded paint. KG is also able to stay in front of a young Kobe Bryant with the use of great hand and foot work.



Kobe is forced to pass the ball out to the perimeter where the Lakers will have to reset with little time left on the shot clock.



A 22 year old LeBron is going 1 on 1 versus a 31 year old Kevin Garnett.



LeBron begins his drive and KG is happy to force him into two other celtics defenders.



Garnett stops LeBron in his tracks, forcing LeBron to pick up his dribble. LeBron attempts to do a spin move, but it works to no avail.



Garnett and Pierce communicate as Garnett gets ready to switch on Wally Szczerbiak after he receives a pass from LeBron.



Garnett begins to switch onto Wally Szczerbiak.



Garnett is now guarding Wally Szczerbiak and is pressuring him, forcing him back and outside of the 3 point line.



Garnett, originally guarding LeBron at the top of the key, is now guarding Wally Szczerbiak during the same possession.



Garnett strips Wally and they are off to the races.



What does this all mean?

Kevin Garnett is able to guard the best and most athletic wing players we have ever seen. He can stop LeBron and a young Kobe Bryant as they are driving to the basketball. He has the stamina to guard multiple ball handlers over a single possession.

2. Kevin Garnett is an elite rim protector

Peja grabs an offensive rebound and is looking to put the shot back.



As Peja sets up his shot, Garnett hastily steps towards Peja and closes the space.



Garnett meets the ball and actually grabs it and comes down with it, mid air.



One thing to note about Garnett's blocks, almost all of them end up in possession of his team. Garnett isn't only an elite shot "blocker", but he is also elite at controlling the ball as he blocks the shot.

Shooting percentage of opponents within 5 feet of the rim against Kevin Garnett from 97-10:

1997: 51.3% on 26.1 attempts/game
1998: 58.2% on 24.4 attempts/game
1999: 58.8% on 20.6 attempts/game
2000: 58.0% on 21.5 attempts/game
2001: 58.0% on 22.5 attempts/game
2002: 58.2% on 20.0 attempts/game
2003: 58.1% on 20.9 attempts/game
2004: 53.7% on 20.7 attempts/game
2005: 56.7% on 22.0 attempts/game
2006: 55.1% on 23.4 attempts/game
2007: 60.1% on 22.2 attempts/game
2008: 55.5% on 16.6 attempts/game
2009: 54.4% on 17.4 attempts/game
2010: 56.5% on 17.1 attempts/game

There is a clear correlation between the amount of attempts Garnett was forced to stop at the rim and how good his fellow perimeter defenders were. When he had the likes of Sam Cassell, Latrell Sprewell, Troy Hudson, and Wally Szczerbiak defending the perimeter, he was facing many more shots at the rim. When Garnett had players like Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, and Tony Allen, the amount of attempts defended within 5 feet drops substantially. The shots Garnett was defending while playing with mediocre to poor defenders were likely more difficult to defend as well.

When we compare these to Tim Duncan, he was between 49% and 52% when he played next to David Robinson. Without David Robinson, he was between 53% and 56%, in line with what Garnett played with in Boston and his peak season in 2004. Dwight Howard, from 07-11, was between 55% and 59% in each of those seasons.


3. Kevin Garnett's ability to rotate on time is in the GOAT tier for defensive big men.

Garnett rotates over to help his smaller guard in the paint.



Garnett is in position to meet the ball as it is still going up.



Garnett's hand is about 1 foot from to the top of the backboard as he makes this block.



Garnett starts on Robert Horry. An interesting part of this play is before Horry was at the top of the key, he was on the elbow. Garnett forced him back that far as he attempted to post up and receive an entry pass from the wing.



Garnett follows the entry pass seamlessly and begins to rotate onto Shaq while the ball is still in the air.



By the time Shaq takes one dribble, Garnett is already in position for a block attempt.



Garnett is able to block Shaq from behind without a foul. The block deflects off the backboard and right into a Timberwolves hands. It was likely easier for Garnett to block the shot to the sideline and out of bounds, but his ability to control his blocks is once again at the forefront.



There is no question that Garnett's defensive versatility sets him apart from every single player to ever play the game. Their were better rim protectors, but their hasn't been a player who was required to do the list of things Garnett did while in Minnesota on the defensive end.


Timberwolves/Celtics Defensive Rating with Kevin Garnett On/Off (League Rank):
2001: 102.9 (14th), 107.2 (27th)
2002: 104.2 (14th), 108.6 (Last)
2003: 102.4 (10th), 110.9 (Last)
2004: 98.5 (5th), 104.6 (20th)
2005: 106.6 (14th) , 105.3 (12th)
2006: 104.7 (11th), 105.5 (14th)
2007: 106.2 (13th), 112.5 (Last)
2008: 97.3 (1st), 101.4 (1st)
2009: 98.6 (1st), 105.8 (7th)
2010: 102.1 (1st), 106.7 (14th)
2011: 98.1 (1st), 104.4 (7th)

Garnett shows the ability to make absolutely terrible defensive players and personnel into average defensive teams. He has shown the ability to make average defensive players and personnel into very good defenses. Last, Garnett has shown that he can take already very good defenses and make them all-time great.

Here is a graph depicting the same information above.



What makes Kevin Garnett great offensively?

1. Passing

Kevin Garnett is one of the greatest passing offensive big men of all-time. As an offensive anchor for the Minnesota Timberwolves from 1998 to 2007 (10 seasons), he averaged 4.9 assists per game to only 2.7 turnovers. If we look at some advanced numbers, we get 22.7 AST% to 11.9 TOV%.

From 2001 to 2007, Garnett had 570 "bad passes", which is 81 bad passes per season (or 1 per game). For a guy who averaged nearly 5 assists per game, only 1 bad pass per game is a fantastic ratio. If we compare this for Vlade Divac from 01-04, he had 85 bad passes per season, but only 3.8 assists. Chris Webber, from 01-03 had 90 bad passes per season with 4.8 assists per game.

2. Post Scoring

If you want to get a picture of the variety of post-moves Garnett had in his arsenal, look no further than this video that highlights only his 2008 season.

Watch on YouTube

Here are Kevin Garnett's scoring numbers "at the rim" from 2001 - 2011 (%Assisted):

2001: 67.7% on 356 attempts (66%)
2002: 65.9% on 311 attempts (50.7%)
2003: 70.9% on 337 attempts (58.2%)
2004: 67.9% on 452 attempts (63.8%)
2005: 65.2% on 374 attempts (64.3%)
2006: 66.8% on 313 attempts (59.8%)
2007: 64.3% on 283 attempts (56%)
2008: 70.2% on 339 attempts (71.8%)
2009: 76.7% on 180 attempts (85.5%)
2010: 65.3% on 300 attempts (83.2%)
2011: 73.2% on 247 attempts (78.9%)

How does Duncan compare?

2001: 69.1% on 453 attempts (53.7%)
2002: 71.2% on 518 attempts (51.5%)
2003: 68.6% on 535 attempts (51.0%)
2004: Did not load
2005: 67.3% on 431 attempts (57.2%)
2006: 72.7% on 461 attempts (54.6%)
2007: 69.9% on 568 attempts (53.9%)
2008: 68% on 506 attempts (58.4%)
2009: 64.1% on 370 attempts (62%)
2010: 68.6% on 382 attempts (66%)

Duncan has a slight edge as a better finisher around the rim, but Garnett is still elite in this regard. Duncan takes many more shots at the rim, which is why his FG% is higher than Garnett, but does that make him a better scorer?


3. Mid-Range Shooting

What made Kevin Garnett such a fantastic offensive player, aside from his already covered elite passing skills, was his ability to score from everywhere, and specifically, score where the team needed him. Unlike Duncan, Garnett is an elite mid-range shooter.

Here are Kevin Garnett's scoring numbers "10-16 feet" and below them "16 to <3-pt" from 2001 - 2011 (%Assisted):

2001: 44.4% on 306 attempts (52.2%)
2002: 48.1% on 314 attempts (54.3%)
2003: 49.6% on 413 attempts (56.6%)
2004: 47.3% on 476 attempts (53.3%)
2005: 42.9% on 361 attempts (67.1%)
2006: 51.1% on 284 attempts (50.3%)
2007: 43.9% on 328 attempts (51.4%)
2008: 48.7% on 302 attempts (43.5%)
2009: 44.1% on 136 attempts (48.3%)
2010: 39.8% on 161 attempts (51.6%)
2011: 43.8% on 137 attempts (60%)


2001: 41.5% on 407 attempts (73.4%)
2002: 40.0% on 395 attempts (72.2%)
2003: 46.6% on 459 attempts (70.1%)
2004: 43.3% on 614 attempts (81.6%)
2005: 46.5% on 318 attempts (83.1%)
2006: 46.4% on 358 attempts (80.1%)
2007: 42.3% on 423 attempts (74.9%)
2008: 47.2% on 511 attempts (89.6%)
2009: 44.1% on 279 attempts (93.5%)
2010: 47.6% on 401 attempts (90.6%)
2011: 46.2% on 355 attempts (92.1%)

How does Dirk Nowitzki compare?

2001: 46.8% on 250 attempts (57.3%)
2002: 42.9% on 226 attempts (54.6%)
2003: 50.5% on 376 attempts (46.3%)
2004: 46.0% on 276 attempts (52.0%)
2005: 43.6% on 349 attempts (45.4%)
2006: 48.4% on 516 attempts (35.2%)
2007: 49.3% on 363 attempts (36.9%)
2008: 48.1% on 370 attempts (43.3%)
2009: 49.0% on 567 attempts (41.0%)
2010: 45.6% on 472 attempts (46.5%)
2011: 49.2% on 429 attempts (42.7%)


2001: 44.9% on 292 attempts (73.3%)
2002: 49.0% on 355 attempts (75.9%)
2003: 40.4% on 532 attempts (68.4%)
2004: 46.6% on 487 attempts (75.3%)
2005: 41.6% on 630 attempts (59.2%)
2006: 47.2% on 606 attempts (59.4%)
2007: 50.0% on 504 attempts (64.7%)
2008: 49.5% on 412 attempts (72.5%)
2009: 47.9% on 603 attempts (73.7%)
2010: 46.9% on 605 attempts (79.6%)
2011: 51.9% on 489 attempts (84.3%)

Garnett is actually better from mid-range from 01-05, and it isn't until 2009 where Dirk has a clear edge in terms of mid-range scoring. Now, my point here isn't "OMG KG IS A BETTER MIDRANGE SHOOTER THAN DIRK", rather, it is to show just how close they are in terms of mid-range shooters, like I did with Garnett and Duncan for at-rim scoring. If we are looking at it like this, we see that Kevin Garnett is a clearly superior playmaker/passer to both these bigs, and is a comparable scorer to both these all-time greats.

When looking at Kevin Garnett's offensive game, he doesn't have any weaknesses, and that is what we should look at when we look at top 10 players of all-time. Kevin Garnett is an elite mid-range and close range scorer. He provides an insane amount of spacing for his teammates, which allows him to play with any type of big man in NBA history. He can play with a low post threat like Shaquille O'Neal and he can play with a big man who has range like Dirk Nowitzki with no issues for fit. Unfortunately, a majority of Kevin Garnett's career was spent playing with big men like Rasho Nesterovic, Ervin "Not so Magical" Johnson, Cherokee Parks, Joe Smith, and Kendrick Perkins.

What does this mean for Kevin Garnett's impact on the game of basketball offensively? A ton.

If we look at Kevin Garnett's on/off for offensive through his career, we can see just how much his passing, playmaking, and scoring arsenal effect his team.

Timberwolves/Celtics Offensive Rating with Kevin Garnett On/Off (League Rank):

2001: 106.2 (8th), 101.7 (18th)
2002: 110 (2nd), 104.4 (15th)
2003: 108.5 (3rd), 93.4 (2nd to Last)
2004: 108.3 (3rd), 93.8 (Last)
2005: 108.4 (6th), 106.3 (14th)
2006: 105.3 (18th) , 95.2 (Last)
2007: 105.7 (16th), 97.3 (Last)
2008: 113.6 (2nd), 105.9 (21st)
2009: 112.8 (3rd), 109.4 (10th)
2010: 109.8 (10th), 106.7 (19th)
2011: 111.1 (6th), 101.3 (Last)

As we see here, Garnett's impact on offense is immense (just like his defense). Again, he is taking "awful" supporting offensive casts and making them into very good to great offenses (consistently top 5). At the same time, he is taking average offensive supporting casts and turning them into great offenses.

Here is a graph of the phenomena.



All in all, Kevin Garnett leaves a footprint on an NBA game in more ways than any player in NBA History. He wasn't the interior force that Shaq was, he isn't the rim protector that Bill Russell was, and he wasn't the shooter that Dirk was. However, his ability to still be elite in all those categories, while being an elite playmaker, makes him a shoe-in for a top 10 player of all-time. Ironically, Garnett's biggest strengths are what kept Minnesota from being a title contender. Garnett was able to fill in so many gaps for the team that the front office rarely added any all-star level talents to play with Garnett, even though they would have fit marvelously (any all-star fits marvelously with Garnett).

[penbeast0]

But they fall short of the all time great teams in overall two way performance so the argument is always framed in such a way to exclude the one end of the floor where they were a huge negative in.

(a) personal--if you look in Thread #3, you will find that I addressed several points in one of your long, well written posts. People are answering you and reading you.

(2) Have you considered that the defensive dominance like the Celtics displayed may be more resilient at playoff time? More of the league's top defensive teams have won titles than the league's top offensive teams -- though this is skewed by the Celtics dominance.

(3) The Celtics style was to wear down teams with their pace and aggression; this may translate into better "clutch" stats and better last 2 minutes of the game performance. Also, both Bill Russell and Walt Frazier (different teams obviously) talked about setting players up -- they didn't go for every block or every steal but tried to push opponents into tendencies that could be exploited in key situations. That might have something to do with it also.

(4) The Celtics offensive woes strongly detract from the "Russell won because he had great teams around him argument. If you are the worst offense in the league, why do you give credit to Bob Cousy for being a great PG since he was producing woeful team efficiency, or to Tommy Heinsohn who was scoring a lot on shaky offensive efficiency (obviously better in the 50s where he had a possible case for Rookie of the Year if you exclude Russell who was only there a half a year). The Celtics of the 50s were strong offense, weak defense teams. They added Heinsohn (a weak defender), Ramsey (6th man, not known for defense) and Russell and became the strongest defensive team in the league while regressing on offense. Russell should get most of the credit for that defensive improvement; he should also get part of the blame for the offense regressing (though I blame Heinsohn more since he had the ball in his hands offensively a lot more early on -- Russell and his passing hub years came later when Cousy was no longer ball dominant and KC Jones was incompetent on the offensive end).

[limbo]

How much time until voting closes? I'm still unsure about my pick. Russell, Duncan and KG all have great cases.

[homecourtloss]

Just wanted to drop in and say Elgee mentioned this thread on his last podcast. Carry on, gents

RealGM top 100 projects is peak RealGM. So much good stuff in the first 4 already, so many different angles to look at. Also, it’s interesting to see how rationales have evolved over the years with of course elgee having a large part in how players are evaluated.