RealGM Top 100 List #2

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

90sAllDecade
Starter
Posts: 2,264
And1: 818
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Clutch City, Texas
   

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 

Post#461 » by 90sAllDecade » Thu Jul 3, 2014 8:06 pm

Baller2014 wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:Fair enough. I'm curious to see how things turn out and I'm enjoying it so far.

Apologies, but I haven't had the time to wade through all 20 pages on this thread recently. I saw you earlier indicated you preferred Kareem. Did you go back and change your earlier vote, or are you still waiting for more discussion? I ask because I believe it's tied atm.


I was actually reading and analyzing the discussion. I'll address the arguments I was researching and wanted to hear Russell or KAJ advocates ideas.

Russell

1. His team impact is heavily weighted during his era. His ATG dominance cannot be denied, but while attempts to quantify it doesn't (or likely can't) have something that quantifies star team support, coaching and beneficial rule impact.

I have seen no statistical data on coaching impact or team support (I may attempt coaching later), but this surely impacts team dominance and plays in my consideration of individual players.

2. It was argued Russell is the historically most valuable player in his era, but Mikan is arguably better in comparison. I used this to point out Mikan's inflated dominance significantly benefited from the era and rules like Russell who also had GOAT team support and pace advantages, I never saw this disputed.
(although I still think Russell is the better individual player).

-Side question: It's interesting someone pointed out the Celtics team offense became more important to winning after 1964. I have seen that's the year the lane was widened. Did that make a small dent in Russell's defensive dominance? His rebounding takes a hit and his DWS number trend downward as well, was that strictly due to age or both?

1964-65
• Lane widened from 12 to 16 feet
Change primarily attributed to the dominance of Wilt Chamberlain

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

3. KAJ has a better combined two way impact with all context considered imo, GOAT level offense and 2nd tier or 3rd tier defense (I don't know if he was better than Duncan, KG, Wallace etc.) When KAJ was given good or great team support, although still not as good as Russell's for his career, he had team dominance even with better competition and modern rules. I value peak and longevity equally so that is a wash to me.

-Another side: ThaRegul8r brought up a good question about when single side dominance overcomes two way impact and what the thought process was. I try to consider all context and knowledge available, combined individual offensive/defensive impact, individual skill sets or weaknesses,how the player translates across eras, team support, competition and rule advantages as basics.

A good question is Russell vs Garnett. Garnett is a better two way player and a better offensive player with much better competition and much less team support.

But I would say Russell individually is better defensively with very good passing and brilliant basketball IQ. I envision a Ben Wallace/Garnett hybrid defensively with the IQ (which was very much enhanced/developed by Auerbach) and communication skills good enough to be a good NBA head coach.

When I get comparable players the tie breaker for me is mental toughness and how they perform under adverse circumstances, pressure and playoff performance. Russell is mentally stronger than Garnett imo (although KG is very high) dominates under pressure and improves in the playoffs.

An argument can be made KG improves defensively in the PO, so I'm actually still working this out and look forward to KG's case.

Kareem

Team support, competition and rules also affects KAJ too but to a lesser extent, although KAJ had less talent (but still a great amount) at his peak and his career.

KAJ's defensive impact started trending to a decrease as competition improved (the years after the merger and while some of it can be argued because of his age) after the three point line as well (his statstical two way dominance trends ironically becomes deflated as time goes on in his career, even in his prime). His efficiency became better with his time with Oscar, Magic and the three point line spacing.

PenBeast made a good argument about 60's vs 70's competition, Fpliii as well with regards to black players at the time; I agree pre merger 70s NBA may have had weaker competition as far as dilution. But the 60s also had less financial incentive to draw talent or sustain full time athletic training due to the average player working a part time job.

Personally I consider both as weaker competition to modern players after the merger with free agency, a salary cap, higher financial incentive and even the influence of international players.

Also despite the increases in black talent, Red Auerbach was an innovator and by far the best at drafting that talent. So this, along with no free agency aided Bill and hurt the Celtics competition. KAJ lacked that management and coaching advantage until his Laker years imo.

I still view Hakeem as better than both, but since mine as become a swing vote, has happens even in elections; I'll continue that discussion later.

So, since this has become a two player 24 hour run off I vote Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
NBA TV Clutch City Documentary Trailer:
https://vimeo.com/134215151
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,952
And1: 712
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 

Post#462 » by DQuinn1575 » Thu Jul 3, 2014 8:18 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:
So, since this has become a two player 24 hour run off I vote Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.



Ahoo - just counting down the last hour (or so)

Since Russell is starting Round 3 at a 48% plurality - can we cut the time for #3 to one day? Assuming he gets some support for Kareem voters?
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,745
And1: 5,724
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 -- 24 hour runoff! 

Post#463 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Jul 3, 2014 8:43 pm

MacGill wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
MacGill wrote:Luv it AUF playing the victim card already! If you're going to put anything in writing at any vote position, then anyone has the right extrapolate it into something it's not ;)

I have no need to play a "victim", and stand by the estimates on the scale. My whole point is that you're reading it wrong, especially when you extrapolated that I was discrediting Lebron, since I was actually giving him praise based on his overall rating. FYI, Magic is my favorite player ever, and he was given 10/4.


Wait...so now, in this post you 'STAND BY' your estimates? You just said that I took them the wrong way? :-? And your previous posts stated that they were just estimates as you were giving an example for another poster, hence why I quoted you....anyway, we don't need to continue this as we have all seen your LBJ thread posts of giving him praise.

So let me ask you a question to get back onto basketball. Why KAJ over Magic in your opinion?

What do you mean "now"? I never said I didn't stand by my estimates. I said YOU are extrapolating one sentence from it about Lebron, and making it an issue. Why, I have no idea considering I was giving Lebron praise in the comparisons. Just look at the overall ratings from my estimates. I gave Lebron a higher estiamted rating than Magic, and yet you bring up bias. Makes zero sense.

So let me ask you a question to get back onto basketball. Whay KAJ over Magic in your opinion?

Much the same reason i have him over Russell. KAJ had a higher overall imapct on court. Magic is the GOAT offensive player, but defensively I think his impact was just average. For most of KAJ's prime I have him at around a 9 on my offensive impact scale, and a 6 defensively. Hence the estimates of 10/4 for Magic, and 9/6 for KAJ. Add in longevity, and I think KAJ's edge grows a bit more.

kayess wrote:I can't believe some of the things he was saying.

His logic for the #2 vote was "let's look at who's the best player from each position; #2 has to come from one of them!" as if it were impossible that one position were so stacked, the next few in the list would come from them (Center!!)

And of course, when he lists them - Magic, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Kareem/Russell, it becomes obvious why he chose this line of reasoning.

Can't wait to hear all the "it's about skill and dominance" logic when Kobe time finally rolls around.

Kinda amazing that I've written 10+ lengthy posts in this project discussing MJ/Russell/KAJ, even guys like Mikan, and yet this is all you've gotten out of it.

Second, nice misrepresentation of a pretty long post covering comparisons of 5 different centers. Let me repeat...I literally broke down 5 different centers in the very post you are misquoting.

Third, comparing players by positions is how I did it last time, and a sound way of parsing. It's much easier to compare players at the same position since they have the same fundamental role.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
MacGill
Veteran
Posts: 2,770
And1: 568
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: From Parts Unknown...
     

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 -- 24 hour runoff! 

Post#464 » by MacGill » Thu Jul 3, 2014 8:59 pm

penbeast0 wrote:MacGill, I'm sorry the PM system is not working for me right now and I have to post this here but knock it off. You were attacking another poster, rather than his argument. You get one warning on this issue and this is it. Feel free to call his arguments foolish or dead wrong; when you call him on "playing the victim card," that's making it about him.

And seriously, if that's what he's doing, do you really think it's likely to persuade anyone to side with him on an issue?


Alright...alright. my apologies, I didn't mean anything by it other than his argument was flip flopping in my opinion. I have no problem with AUF. FTR though, not sure why my quote that you put in your post constitutes as attacking him as I was generalizing my perceived view of his argument, the same as if I called them foolish? He is the poster making the statements and everything I stated was in response to what he stated in this thread and nothing about him as the poster personally, just so we're clear. I have said on more than one occasion that I enjoy him as a poster. AUF can even vouch for this. I just don't want you thinking there is any ill-will here and I certainly don't want to be removed from the project on something made out to be more than it was. :beer: But I will respect the opinion provided.
Image
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 

Post#465 » by Baller2014 » Thu Jul 3, 2014 9:14 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:
So, since this has become a two player 24 hour run off I vote Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.



Ahoo - just counting down the last hour (or so)

Since Russell is starting Round 3 at a 48% plurality - can we cut the time for #3 to one day? Assuming he gets some support for Kareem voters?


I'd prefer two. More time for good discussion to flow. Besides, other voters may want to come in and participate, and the Kareem voters may not want to vote for Russell.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,803
And1: 22,717
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#466 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Jul 3, 2014 9:17 pm

Last thought - while again making clear I think Kareem is amazing and a fine pick - I just notice how quick people are to add in "the Auerbach factor" without ever going into specifics, and I think people need to make sure they aren't satisfied with such generic presumed causes.

Now I can imagine someone seeing myself or others as simply falling prey to the same type of mystique but just for Russell. If that's you, we'll, good. Don't accept what I say either. Demand concrete satisfaction and drill down as far as you can to get it. Then share your insights with us.

I'll highlight though the distinction between two types of players: the guy whose impact can be transformed with proper coaching strategy, and the guy who simply knows how to max out his impact based on seeing the court.

in terms of my formative years I would say the classic examples would be Jordan vs Bird/Magic. Jordan's peak impact is superior but had he had not gotten Jackson & co I wouldn't have been shocked at all if he'd been stuck on a plateau with people lamenting that he was so unlucky to play with X just after X left his prime. Whereas Bird/Magic just made things work as the ball flew around the court.

As I've researched and come to understand Russell it's just clear to me he's one of the true spearheads. That is why he played differently from others from the beginning and why his coaches one after another all looked like innovators.

None if this means you should have to give Russell some kind of extra credit, but with "the Auerbach factor" it sure seems time like the opposite of an extra credit is occurring...And that's crazy!




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
magicmerl
Analyst
Posts: 3,226
And1: 831
Joined: Jul 11, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#467 » by magicmerl » Thu Jul 3, 2014 9:28 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Last thought - while again making clear I think Kareem is amazing and a fine pick - I just notice how quick people are to add in "the Auerbach factor" without ever going into specifics, and I think people need to make sure they aren't satisfied with such generic presumed causes.

Yeah, it bugs me a little that this is used as a way to detract from Russell when Jordan has the actual GOAT coach in his corner. Doesn't that mean that Jordan should lose some of his lustre if his coach assumes a chunk of credit for his coaching/system?

Sure, it's possible that 'Russell' the player wasn't responsible for the lions share of his team success. But it's also possible that he totally was, insofar as any individual can be responsible for success in a team game.

Being a team player, a great defender and being coachable (so that the coach has free reign to implement his system for the whole team because his star buys in to it) I think is ABSOLUTELY an attribute of the player and one which should be to his credit. In the same way, I give Tim Duncan a lot of the credit for the culture in San Antonio during his tenure. Sure, it was Pop's vision and he made it happen, but he could only make it happen because Duncan bought into his approach and supported him.

Moving aside from basketball a little, this is an interesting clip talking about how great 'leaders' aren't really anything unless someone buys into them and chooses to follow them:
http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_h ... a_movement
User avatar
fatal9
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,341
And1: 548
Joined: Sep 13, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#468 » by fatal9 » Thu Jul 3, 2014 9:57 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
So walk with me a minute.

In this thread, if you've read it all, you know that Russell had a complete turnover in his roster during his career. This resulted in Russell very much shifting his role and basically inventing the point enter position along the way while at times playing with entirely platooned teammates of a variety if different shapes and sizes. And if course he won titles with all of them

Meanwhile Kareem spent his entire career basically just doing the same thing.


"Complete turnover" of a roster over the course of a player's career doesn't necessarily mean there was much variance in the quality of support a player had. Turnover can mean rebuilding, major adjustments, periods of talent depletion sometimes, but it can also take place with the kind of sublime constancy we've seen with the Spurs over Duncan's career, where the loss of a contributor is made up by drafting well, acquiring and developing fresh talent. Duncan, KG, Kobe have all seen turnover in their rosters over the last 15 years, yet one of them clearly had more stability than the other two. Russell's Celtics actually did a very good job of this, when one player went out, they added a replacement who was often even better. When Sharman retired, Sam Jones emerged. The year Cousy retired, they drafted Havlicek and the next year got Seigfried who was a major defensive upgrade over Cousy. When Heinsohn retired, they added Nelson and then Howell the next year.

Here's the major in/out of roster personnel by year (relative D rating for year at end):

1957: Russell in (but misses 1/3 of season), Heinsohn in -4.9
1958: Sam Jones in -5.2
1959: KC Jones in (one of the best defensive guards of era) -5.7
1961: Satch Sanders in (one of the best defensive forwards of era, on film he is really impressive), Sharman retires -7.6 *Celts defense becomes nuts*
1962: -8.5
1963: Cousy out (retires), Havlicek in (one of the best defensive forwards of the era) -8.5
1964: Seigfried in (one of the best defensive guards in the league, known for his sticky ball defense and physicality). -10.8 *Celtics defense becomes really nuts* (expected as they got rid of their worst defender, and several key defensive players are probably peaking about now including Russell)
1965: -9.4
1966: Heinsohn out (retires), Don Nelson in -6.6
1967: Bailey Howell in (20 ppg on 56 TS% player…amazing for the 60s), Jones retires -5.1
1968: -4.4
1969: -6.4
1970: Russell out, Sam Jones out, Satch Sanders plays 25 less games, have no centre to replace Russell -.1
1971: Siegfried retires, Satch Sanders out basically all year

Seems to me Red did a remarkable job of tacking pieces on and replenishing talent (especially on the defensive end). When someone would retire, Red would have a replacement that very season, he plugged the holes right away. The team also seems stacked defensively, Russell was the prelude to many other great defensive additions that followed, it's like the Celtics had a monopoly on the best athletic black defensive specialists in the league (Red's willingness to draft black players?). The improvements or "leveling up" in their defense coincides really nicely with the addition of other great defensive pieces they were continually adding and also with the retirement of weaker defensive players (presumably also along with Russell peaking). Given the abundance of defensive talent on the perimeter, but no adequate replacement for Russell’s anchor role in many years, would we not expect a big change with Russell missing? The data and roster construction (along with common sense) suggests that Russell was the MVP of the Celtics by far and clearly had the most irreplaceable and central role. This does not however mean to me that he’s a “+9” GOAT player. We have historic defenses sure, but we also seem to have a historic collection of defensive talent here (especially relative to other teams in the league) that would be deadly around a great defensive anchor. I don’t think the abilities of his teammates, especially defensively, is something that’s just a footnote here. Russell is a rock, his consistency is to be admired, someone who seemed to understand the objective of the game from day 1. But it's really, really difficult for me to believe he was literally twice the defender of all the great bigs that came after him, for that to be true, he'd almost need superhuman qualities. League differences aside, I think year by year "historic defenses" here are possible with the other top tier defensive anchors due to the collection and complementarity of the defensive talent, as well as the timing with which they were added to the roster.
Baller2014
Banned User
Posts: 2,049
And1: 519
Joined: May 22, 2014
Location: No further than the thickness of a shadow
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#469 » by Baller2014 » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:03 pm

Well, it's past 5, and it looks like Kareem wins. Such a great discussion, can't wait to get to #3!
Basketballefan
Banned User
Posts: 2,170
And1: 583
Joined: Oct 14, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#470 » by Basketballefan » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:03 pm

So is this over now? Is there a definitive pick?
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 

Post#471 » by drza » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:11 pm

Mutnt wrote:
drza wrote:Portability doesn't mean that you make a player play in ways that are contrary to their nature (like your Russell shooting perimeter shots example). No, portability is closer to what you suggested...it's the concept of how many situations and on how many different (but realistic) types of teams can a player make a maximal impact.


It's funny cause you make it sound like having the ability to greatly impact the game in a variety of ways is a bad thing. The point isn't that Russell would've played 'contrary to his nature' if he had to be the primary scoring option on his team or a jump-shooting, spread-the-floor-like big man. The point is that Russell couldn't play that way because he didn't have the necessary skill to thrive in those scenarios.


FWIW, I think you entered this conversation at an awkward point because I don't think I said, what you think that I said. In the post you quoted a snippet of, I was replying directly to Mr. Westside's example. He was the one that used the example of forcing Russell to take jumpers as an example of poor strategy. I was agreeing that this would be poor strategy, and telling him that such a scenario wouldn't do anything to really gauge how good a player is at what he could do.

Now, if your point is that you think that Russell SHOULD have been able to knock down a jumper and you're using it as a point against him, that's a reasonable thing to discuss. But it doesn't really address or have anything to do with the quote of mine that you posted. That said...

Luckily for him, he played in an era where the type of role he had, the type of skillset he did possess, was MUCH MORE influential on the outcome of games than it would've been in pretty much any other era for example. That's not to say you can't win games or even championships by dominating on defense in current times of basketball, I think the Pistons proved that about a decade ago when they had two Finals appearances and won one chip in the process with a below average offense, but as good as Ben Wallace was on defense, it seemed like those Pistons were far more of a collective force than the actual feeling of Wallace carrying them such as Russell was doing for example. I mean, the Pistons were already dropping defensively with B.Wallace still playing starter minutes for them, and the drop of when he left was barely noticeable despite pretty much the same core. So did B.Wallace forgot how to guard his man as effectively in 2 years or is there something more behind this? Ok, Flip Saunders changed how the Pistons played (you can also use the verb improve) but since you are advocating that defensive ability is the most transcendent, the most portable, the most impactful, and the most inherently good quality an individual can have then he should have still been able to do his thing.


To the first underlined, I would say that I actually did (at least try) to address this concept with a player that was playing right in the heart of Kareem's run: Bill Walton. Walton's and Russell's games aren't twins, but there are a LOT of similarities. Neither were big scorers...both made the lionshare of their massive impact on defense...both played the type of horizontal defense that most of the all-time defensive anchors didn't with the exception of a few from modern years...both were excellent passers that helped facillitate their team's offenses with outlet passes and passes from the high post. I mean, there's a significant amount of overlap in skillsets between the two Bills. And as I pointed out before, Walton's impact seemed (to me) to be larger than Kareem's in that 1977 and 78 season period. Which would work directly against the assumption that Russell's skillset would not have allowed him to have a similar huge impact in later eras, such as the one that Kareem dominated.

To the second underlined, I'd say that I think you're overstating my position. Of your list of 4 "most"s, the only one that I actually said is that defense is IMO more portable than offense. I never said that the other 3 things. I think that for a big man, defense generally is more important than offense in making a huge impact. But I don't think in general that defense is the only way, or ...the other stuff you said. In this particular comparison, yes, I think that Russell's impact (due in large part to his defense) was more valuable than Kareem's. But on the flip side, I think that Michael Jordan's or Magic Johnson's transcendant offense was more valuable than David Robinson's defense. The way that you wrote it definitely overstates my opinion to the point of making it inaccurate.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,527
And1: 10,013
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#472 » by penbeast0 » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:17 pm

Thanks for voting 90sAllDecade, that gives us a winner! Kareem is #2 with 23 votes to 22 for Russell; on to #3.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,977
And1: 16,440
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#473 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:17 pm

I think Kareem wins because of 90sAllDecade vote

Re: Russell's impact. I think even if one accepts the on/off numbers, it still just means Russell was most important to his team. Which is crucial but as has been gone over with Nash and Walton before, it's not quite the same as "all time great in a vacuum" which I've always read to take into account other possible teams and scenarios
It's going to be a glorious day... I feel my luck could change
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,769
And1: 99,314
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#474 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:24 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
None if this means you should have to give Russell some kind of extra credit, but with "the Auerbach factor" it sure seems time like the opposite of an extra credit is occurring...And that's crazy!




Get ready for when we discuss Duncan which is really really soon. The "Pop factor" may be worse.

When we have plenty of evidence that shows Russell was already doing his thing, taking credit away from him to give it to Red for simply being smart enough not to mess with what Russell was already doing really doesnt make any sense.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,769
And1: 99,314
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 

Post#475 » by Texas Chuck » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:27 pm

1. Mike
2. KAJ

Hard to have much problem with that even tho I voted for neither guy. Kareem was the guy I was most looking forward to in this project and I want to thank everyone for all their contributions on him specifically. Some really insightful stuff.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
MisterWestside
Starter
Posts: 2,449
And1: 596
Joined: May 25, 2012

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 -- 2 hours left or I call it a ti 

Post#476 » by MisterWestside » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:32 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:As I've researched and come to understand Russell it's just clear to me he's one of the true spearheads. That is why he played differently from others from the beginning and why his coaches one after another all looked like innovators.

None if this means you should have to give Russell some kind of extra credit, but with "the Auerbach factor" it sure seems time like the opposite of an extra credit is occurring...And that's crazy!


Question: Is it a coach's job only to innovate? Let it be given that Russell innovated every strategy in the book for his team during the 60s. Let the entirety of the due credit be given to him for that. (In my book, that aspect of his inherent player goodness is accounted for.) Checkmark for Russell. There you go.

Who helped to foster the culture? Who kept things going smoothly? Who "LET" Russell do his thing? Who saw to it that the team was specifically built around Russell, for Russell? Who was it? Even when Auerbach left the team, the decade-long's work of building up that franchise was firmly in place, around Russell, around the cog that was at the center of the team's success. But could anyone just step in and do that for a franchise? Nope.

"Hey Red, I'm a fantastic defender, and I know all the strategies that it takes to win!"
"Win? What do you know about winning? College doesn't count. No, let's do this my way. Get in the post and score."

Either Russell obliges, and does what the coach tells him to do (crappy strategy for winning in that era), or he clashes with Auerbach (lack of team unity). Either way, impact isn't maximized, the same impact that some poster want from players. And then someone doesn't rank Russell as highly because of it. And it would be no fault of Russell's.

I'll say this again. It would be no fault of Russell's.

And no, this isn't "automatic" for every great? Hey Mike, where's your impact like Russell's? Oh, you didn't get the roster to fit you like a glove from day one like Russell? Oh, Jackson and Winters aren't in your corner to put the proper culture in place like Russell? Shame you can't impact your team like Russell did, then. You ain't no Russell, kid. ;)

Impact bias is new winning bias. It is.
90sAllDecade
Starter
Posts: 2,264
And1: 818
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Clutch City, Texas
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 

Post#477 » by 90sAllDecade » Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:59 pm

I'm going to repost my post on Red Auerbach's and free agencies impact helping Russell, as I think it got lost in the fold.

The thing is, Red was brilliant and innovative as a GM before, during and after Russell. He drafted the first black player in NBA history in 1950, seven years before Bill. Do you know how much courage & innovation that takes in that era as a coach/GM to be the first ever to pull the trigger?

Since he was the first, he was ahead of the learning curve and was already the best at acquiring talent (see the HOF players he picked up before Russell.) He built the team and installed Bill as the perfect fit, Red mentored Bill, named him the head coach (again pulling the trigger on the first black NBA head coach).

But what totally convinced me, was him masterminding the Celtics after Bill wasn't even there. He brought in Bird (change his rules to make Larry the highest paid Rookie to keep him) and had "The Steal of The Century" getting McHale and Parish as well. The man was an indisputable genius at the coaching and GM level imo.

He's clearly a top 4 coach and that greatly aided Bill's team support and dominance imo.

Spoiler:
I wanted to share some more ideas for consideration with devoting heavy weighting on Russell's team impact & era.

Red Auerbach & Free Agency's beneficial impact aiding Russell and the Celtic's Dynasty

Another highly impact change that affected those Mikan and Russell teams doing something that hasn't been seen since is free agency arrived after thier era.

1976: Players and owners sign the landmark "Robertson Agreement", eliminating the oppresive "reserve" or "option" clauses that bound a player to his team even after his contract would expire. Other advances are made, including limitations on the college draft. The average salary approaches $200,000. Bob Lanier becomes the fifth president in 1980.

http://www.louridas.net/products/sports ... e-NBPA.pdf

As a merger drew near in 1970, the players filed the "Oscar Robertson Suit", an antitrust suit to block any merger; do away with the option clause which bound a player to a team in perpetuity; the college draft, which limited the player to negotiating with one club; and restrictions on free agent signings; and seeking compensation for damages incurred in the past due to the option clause.

http://apbr.org/labor.html

This was just as huge a change as the three point line or a similar major rule change imo, because for the first time player could change teams after their contract. The rich would likely always stay rich unless they got fortunate with the draft, Red Auerbach seemed to be head and shoulders in this respect over the competition, which aided Russell.

Red's education:
Red Auerbach: Architect of a Dynasty

Auerbach longed to be a teacher and coach. After a year at Seth Low Junior College, the Brooklyn arm of Columbia University, he transferred to George Washington University, where he was a standout basketball player. Auerbach left George Washington in 1941 with an M.A., to go with the bachelor's degree he had earned earlier at the school.

http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/auerbach_tribute.html

He was the first to draft and actually use black players in his roster (a huge advantage for expanding Russell's potential talent pool for team composition) and was brilliant. Red was huge for Russell's career and the Celtics dynasty. He may have been as impactful as any of the HOF players next to Russell.

Has anyone done a statistical study on coaching team impact? Red had already had quality teams winning two BAA division titles (which would become the NBA) without Bill Russell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball ... of_America

That year, Auerbach began his coaching career in the BAA with the Washington Capitals and led them to the 1947 and 1949 division titles. In 1950, Auerbach became head coach of the Boston Celtics.

One of Auerbach’s most notable attributes was that he was colorblind. He didn't see black or white players on the court; he just saw players who could help him win. In 1950, he became the first to draft an African-American: Chuck Cooper, a second-team All-American from Duquesne, in the second round.

He was also the first to start five blacks and first to hire a black coach (Bill Russell, 1966) in the NBA. He also hired two other African-American coaches after Russell stepped down -- Satch Sanders and K.C. Jones, both former Celtics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Auerbach

Red's incredible drafting ability of HOF talent:
In the following 1951–52 NBA season, Auerbach made a remarkable draft pick of future Hall-of-Fame guard Bill Sharman. With the high-scoring Macauley, elite passer Cousy, and new prodigy Sharman, Auerbach had a core that provided high-octane fast-break basketball. Other notable players who joined the Celtics were forwards Frank Ramsey and Jim Loscutoff.[/size] In the next years until 1956, the Celtics would make the playoffs every year, but never won the title. In fact, the Celtics often choked in the playoffs, going a mere 10–17 in the postseason from 1951 through 1956.[5] As Cousy put it: "We would get tired in the end and could not get the ball."[7] As a result, Auerbach sought a defensive big man who could both get easy rebounds, initiate fast breaks, and close out games.[2]

The dynasty (1956–66)[edit]
Before the 1956 NBA Draft, Auerbach had already set his sights on defensive rebounding center Bill Russell. Via a draft-day trade that sent Macauley and rookie Cliff Hagan to the rival St. Louis Hawks, he acquired a center in Russell, who would go on to become one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

In the same draft, Auerbach picked up forward Tom Heinsohn and guard K.C. Jones, also two future Hall-of-Famers. Emphasizing team play rather than individual performances, and stressing that defense was more important than offense, Auerbach drilled his players to play tough defense and force opposing turnovers for easy fast-break points. Forward Tom Sanders recalled that the teams were also regularly among the best-conditioned and toughest squads.[7]


Red Auerbach's later years in Russells term and how he kept HOF talent around Bill:
General manager (1966–84)

Prior to the 1966–67 NBA season, Auerbach announced his retirement as a coach and named his successor, Bill Russell. Russell took over as a player-coach and so became the first African-American coach in the NBA.[2] While his pupil led the Celtics to two further titles in 1968 and 1969, Auerbach rebuilt the aging Celtics with shrewd draft picks, among them Jo Jo White and future Hall-of-Famers Dave Cowens, Paul Westphal, and Don Chaney. With his ex-player Tom Heinsohn coaching the Celtics and led by former sixth man John Havlicek, Auerbach's new recruits won the Atlantic Division every year from 1972 to 1976, winning the NBA title in 1974 and 1976. Further notable Auerbach signings were veteran forward/center Paul Silas and ex-ABA star Charlie Scott.[5]


And finally Red's brillance post Russell:
However, Auerbach could not prevent the Celtics from going into a slump at the end of the 1970s. He traded away both Silas and Westphal because they wanted salary increases that would have made them higher earners than the best player on the Celtics (Cowens), which was not acceptable to Auerbach, even though Cowens personally begged him to give Silas a new deal. When scoring champion Havlicek retired in 1978, the Celtics went 61–103 in two seasons.[5] But in 1979, Boston's fortunes changed when Auerbach set his eyes on talented college player Larry Bird. Despite knowing that Bird had a year of college eligibility remaining, he drafted Bird in the 1978 NBA Draft and waited for a year until the future Hall-of-Fame forward Bird arrived, finally setting aside his team salary rules when it became clear that his choices were paying Bird a record-setting rookie salary or watch him simply re-enter the 1980 draft. Bird then became the highest-paid Celtic as a rookie, with a $650,000-per year deal. Auerbach immediately sensed that the brilliant, hardworking Bird would be the cornerstone of a new Celtics generation.[2]

In 1980, Auerbach achieved another great coup. Dubbed "The Steal of The Century",[9] He convinced the Golden State Warriors to trade him a #3 overall pick and future Hall-of-Fame center Robert Parish in exchange for two picks in the 1980 NBA Draft: #1 overall Joe Barry Carroll, who went on to have an unremarkable career, and the #13 pick Rickey Brown. With the #3 pick, Auerbach selected the player he most wanted in the draft, Kevin McHale, who would also be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The frontcourt of Parish-McHale-Bird became one of the greatest front lines in NBA history. Auerbach hired head coach Bill Fitch who led the revamped Celtics to the 1981 title.


Other info how those Celtics benefitted from no three point line on defense.

Anchored by defensive stalwart Russell, the tough Celtics forced their opponents to take low-percentage shots from farther distances (there was no three-point arc at the time);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Auerbach
NBA TV Clutch City Documentary Trailer:
https://vimeo.com/134215151
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,745
And1: 5,724
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 -- 24 hour runoff! 

Post#478 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:01 pm

MacGill wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:MacGill, I'm sorry the PM system is not working for me right now and I have to post this here but knock it off. You were attacking another poster, rather than his argument. You get one warning on this issue and this is it. Feel free to call his arguments foolish or dead wrong; when you call him on "playing the victim card," that's making it about him.

And seriously, if that's what he's doing, do you really think it's likely to persuade anyone to side with him on an issue?


Alright...alright. my apologies, I didn't mean anything by it other than his argument was flip flopping in my opinion. I have no problem with AUF. FTR though, not sure why my quote that you put in your post constitutes as attacking him as I was generalizing my perceived view of his argument, the same as if I called them foolish? He is the poster making the statements and everything I stated was in response to what he stated in this thread and nothing about him as the poster personally, just so we're clear. I have said on more than one occasion that I enjoy him as a poster. AUF can even vouch for this. I just don't want you thinking there is any ill-will here and I certainly don't want to be removed from the project on something made out to be more than it was. :beer: But I will respect the opinion provided.

Yeh, me and MacGill are cool with each other. Definitely no ill will on his part. We go back & forth every once in a while, but its all friendly.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
90sAllDecade
Starter
Posts: 2,264
And1: 818
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Clutch City, Texas
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #2 

Post#479 » by 90sAllDecade » Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:07 pm

I understand people wanting the same scrutiny applied to Jordan and others, I'll do my best to make a comparison. I hope others will take this new perspective and create their own analysis so we have something to build on.

If folks want to learn something new, analyzing coaching, team support and rule change impact will be an interesting new avenue imo.

Checking league changes or player trends before and after rules (I think stat guys like Fpliii have tried? not sure though), coaching impact by years, Fatal9's interesting roster change analysis etc. People could even study Mikan's team impact with the same methods.
NBA TV Clutch City Documentary Trailer:
https://vimeo.com/134215151
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RealGM NBA Top 100 List -- #2 -- 24 hour runoff! 

Post#480 » by ThaRegul8r » Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:32 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:As for a floor? Well, Shaq/Hakeem/KAJ/Wilt are there. That's about it. I'll mention Tim Duncan, too. He's my gate-keeper to the Top-10 anyway, but I've never really included him in the Big5Centers/MJ/Magic/Bird/LeBron level because I feel his peak was inferior to those players. That said, my valuation of how important peak is to an all-time rank will perhaps shift as I learn more in this project, so I'll leave open that Duncan may surpass Russell or others in that list of 9 as well.

As for KG...it's really based on how similar their defensive games are. Garnett is really the one who plays like a modern-day Russell on defense, combining the horizontal and vertical defensive games, and while I think Russell gets underrated offensively, KG is clearly superior on offense. Trying to figure out just how good KG is on defense in relation to Russell is difficult. KG does pretty much everything right on defense except, as I said, rebound and block shots like Russell...

The second question doesn't apply to me because all I care about is how good you are as a player. The offense of Howard/Robinson doesn't impress me anyway. Ewing's offense I see clearly below KG, and if KG vs. Russell isn't clear to me and Russell is getting the edge anyway, no way does Ewing go ahead.


Thank you for your response. I see the runoff is over, but I'm more interested in discussion not the rankings, and I would like to continue this because I want to sink my teeth into this. If necessary, I can copy this into the next thread.

I've kept track of the various "next Russells," which was why I named both Ewing and Robinson, who both received the tag. Regarding the latter, in 1999, Sam Smith wrote:

With Strong Supporting Cast, Robinson Has Look Of Russell

June 15, 1999 | By Sam Smith.

What does one associate with Bill Russell?

Winning. Eleven championships in 13 years, voted the greatest player in NBA history before Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan came into the league. Perhaps the greatest winner ever in pro team sports.

And what does one associate with David Robinson?

Talented, but not tough? An MVP, but never a champion.

OK, consider this: Bill Russell comes into the NBA in 1989 and joins a team without a starter beside him who ever will play in an All-Star Game again, and in the next decade plays with just one player, Sean Elliott, who even makes an All-Star team with him. And even though he is a defensive specialist, he is surrounded with poor offensive players, poor or limited-range shooters such as Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro, a rebounding star in Dennis Rodman who cannot make simple layups.

Now, how about this: David Robinson comes into the NBA in 1956, an angular, athletic, bright young man who is asked to do two things, rebound and block shots. He is teamed with three of the great offensive players of the era, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman and Tom Heinsohn, who will make All-Star teams for years to come, as well as the Hall of Fame. The next season, he gets Sam Jones, another Hall of Famer, who would become one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA.

Who do you think would have the 11 championships?

Not Bill Russell. We would be calling David Robinson one of the great players in NBA history. Robinson was supposed to be Bill Russell with a better shot.

Does anyone remember Russell trying to shoot?

It was painful, something of a cross between Chris Dudley and Eric Montross.

Russell barely shot beyond six feet from the basket and averaged 44 percent in his career. And he was Shaq-like at the free throw line, averaging 56 percent in his career. Heck, he won a championship one season when he shot 49.2 percent on free throws.

So, get off Shaq's back!

Get off David Robinson's back!

David Robinson was supposed to be Bill Russell. He could chase down players and block the ball from behind, recover from the weak side to block the ball and rebound. He has led the league twice each in blocks and steals. But he also had to lead the league in scoring because he came to a team without an offensive star and it became progressively poorer on offense.

He had no postup game, but he had to score against the great centers of the era: Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and Patrick Ewing, all among the 50 greatest players. And then he had to keep them from scoring and lead the fast break. He was voted the leaque's best defensive player and won a scoring title.

But he wasn't a scorer.

"I'm not a Michael Jordan-type player," admits Robinson. "I don't handle the ball. I can't go out there and take 30 shots a game. That's not my style. I had to figure out what is my style. That's part of what's great about being where we are right now."

Which is four victories from Robinson's first NBA championship.

Robinson and the Spurs are overwhelming favorites over the New York Knicks in the NBA Finals starting Wednesday in San Antonio. While the Knicks stunned everyone coming out of the eighth seed in the Eastern Conference to land a spot to the Finals, the Spurs methodically mowed down Minnesota, Los Angeles and Portland with an 11-1 record, sweeping the last two series.

"Four more games and I will have vindication," says Robinson.

It perhaps is no coincidence that in his second season ever with the first all-NBA player Robinson has played with, Robinson is going to the NBA Finals as a favorite.

All it took was adding Tim Duncan, to whom Robinson ceded the principal offensive role this season. Robinson finally was able to be a defensive specialist and opportunistic offensive player.

OK, who said this, Red Auerbach or Gregg Popovich?

"Defensively, he's just a monster. Weak-side defense, off-ball defense, power forward guarding, blocking shots, rebounding. We really feed off him."

That, of course, was Spurs coach Popovich talking about Robinson after Duncan went out of Game 3 of the conference finals against Portland and Robinson dominated with a playoff-high seven blocks.

Gee, that sounds Russell-like.

"When I first came in," offers Robinson, "all I heard was, `You're great, you're great. You (media) tear a guy down and build him back up again. I'm not as good as when they're saying nice things about me. I'm not as bad as when they're saying bad things about me."

And Robinson, like Russell, like all the greats really, is only as good as the teammates that surround him and the role he is asked to play. How many titles did Jordan have with Brad Sellers and Sam Vincent? David Robinson, for the first time this year, was asked to play like Bill Russell. And the Spurs are on the way to one of the best seasons in NBA history.

Yes, David Robinson is a winner.


Though Russell has the competitive edge―as well as the big-game performances that Robinson was criticized for lacking, Robinson was someone I'd wanted to get some people's thoughts on.

Among current players, Duncan and Garnett were two I've been drawing parallels to in my notes, the former for his team-centric approach to the game, anchoring the second-greatest defensive dynasty to Russell's Celtics, and the Duncan/Popovich relationship has drawn comparisons to Russell/Auerbach. The latter, though, was a better stylistic comparison defensively, though Duncan keeps shots in bounds like Russell as a study showed.

I confess I started paying more attention to Garnett in Boston than in Minnesota, because I wanted to see how he played. Mike Fratello said of Garnett, “If he wanted to be known as a defensive specialist—à la Bill Russell or Dennis Rodman—he would have to concentrate on that part of his game. He cannot do that. He has to play center sometimes. Sometimes he plays power forward. He’s in a tough situation. Rodman always had the teammates to have the luxury to concentrate on defense. Russell too, although he was mainly a shot blocker. He could be the best defensive player in the game, but it would hurt his team.” So in Boston, with Pierce and Allen as his Havlicek and Jones, I was curious to see how he'd do.

In 2008, he won Defensive Player of the Year, and grabbed 16.8 percent of available rebounds and 25.1 percent of available defensive rebounds in his first season there, as opposed to 19.5 percent of available rebounds and a league-leading 30.8 percent of available defensive rebounds the year before. In his prime in Minnesota, Garnett won four consecutive rebounding titles from 2003-04 to 2006-07, with averages of 13.9, 13.5, 12.7, and 12.8, grabbing 20.1, 20.3, 19.6 and 19.5 percent of all available rebounds. Garnett led the league in defensive rebounds for five consecutive years from 2002-03 to 2006-07, grabbing 858, 894, 861, 752, and 792, grabbing 28.5, 30.0, 30.2, 29.7 and 30.8 percent. So Garnett was able to focus on defense, but he didn't rebound like he himself did prior to that, with more responsibilities. In the postseason, he did up it to 17.5 percent of available rebounds and 25.3 percent of available defensive rebounds, but that's below his own standard.

In the 2013 postseason, Garnett grabbed 23.2 percent of available rebounds and 37.9 percent of available defensive rebounds in 35.3 minutes per game in six games, averaging a playoff-leading 13.7 rebounds per game with a playoff-leading 90 defensive rating, while averaging 12.7 points a game on 56.3 percent true shooting and 3.5 assists. That's better, as Russell grabbed 23.3 percent of all available rebounds in the '64 postseason. But Russell also had shotblocking in addition to the horizontal game. In ’03-04, Garnett had a 4.0 block percentage as he blocked 2.17 shots per game to go with his 20.1 percent rebound rate and 30.0 percent defensive rebound, but that was his career high.

I once posted this:

Assessing KG: The low-impact defender
by Dennis Hans / February 7, 2005

Kevin Garnett reminds me of my Aunt Mildred’s aerobics class: low impact.

“Low impact” is a good thing for little old ladies looking to minimize the risk of injury when working out. It’s not such a good thing if you’re supposed to be an NBA superstar.

KG is a great player, but he’s not special. Perhaps coach Flip Saunders doesn’t demand enough of him, or perhaps he’s evolved into a too-cautious player to ensure that he never gets in foul trouble and thus is there for his teammates 40 minutes every game, including every second of crunch time. Maybe he lacks the killer instinct of a Bird, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Iverson, Kobe or Shaq.

It’s also possible that he’s playing up to his potential and simply doesn’t have the raw talent to be a high-impact stud. Maybe the reason he doesn’t play like Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan and David Robinson (at both ends of the court) or Bill Russell, Ben Wallace or Dikembe Mutombo (at the defensive end) is that he can’t.

Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, KG rarely dominates. Consistency is his hallmark; most every night, he merits a grade of “very good.” He puts up numbers and plays a well-rounded game. But it seems to me that he’s not being all that he can be.

What makes the six centers or center/forwards listed above special is that all five on-court members of the opposing team are (or were) aware of the stopper’s presence. Russell revolutionized the NBA game with his defensive prowess. He would shut down his own man (unless that man was named Wilt Chamberlain) while serving as a constant nuisance to the other four foes. Russell was forever in the head of every opposing player.

That’s not the case with KG. Generally, the four guys on the other team who aren’t being guarded by KG aren’t hearing – or imagining – his footsteps. If one of those guys takes it to the hoop or shoots a runner in the lane, KG is more likely to be carving out rebounding position in the event of a miss than taking action to make the guy miss.

For his career, KG averages an anemic 1.8 blocks per game in 38 minutes. This season, in his physical prime at age 28, he’s averaging a truly pathetic 1.38 blocks in 39 minutes. Through games of Feb. 6, he’s the 30th best shot blocker in the league right behind a converted small forward (Shawn Marion), two guys who play about half as many minutes as KG (Dan Gadzuric and Chris Andersen) and one guy who puts in one-third the minutes (Steven Hunter). Tim Duncan is blocking twice as many shots as KG despite playing just 35 minutes per game. Andrei Kirilenko blocks a shot every 8 minutes; KG blocks one every 28 minutes. Even Yao Ming swats more shots than KG.

David Robinson in his 30-and-younger seasons averaged anywhere between a low of 3.2 blocks and a high of 4.5. Hakeem Olajuwon’s prime seasons featured 3 or 4 blocks per night. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar blocked 4 a game in the season that he turned 32. Russell, with the same frame as KG but listed an inch shorter, played before blocks became an official NBA stat. Given the fear he instilled, he likely averaged at least 4 blocks for his career.

Ben Wallace, who might not even be the 6-9 he’s officially listed as, blocked 3.5 and 3.2 shots per night in his two Defensive Player of the Year seasons. Also, Ben usually accumulates at least as many steals as KG. Hakeem averaged many more steals in his prime seasons than either Ben or KG.

There’s a reason why smart people rarely think of KG as a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year: They sense the absence of his defensive “presence.”

Now here’s what I’m not sure about: Is KG physically incapable of being a defensive monster, a guy who causes nightmares for players because he’s seemingly everywhere, so that even if he doesn’t get your shot you nevertheless think he will and so you shoot too soon or overdo the arc?

Considering that KG is 6-11 with very long arms, great coordination and excellent timing, and considering that he’s a good jumper who is quick off his feet and has long, effortless strides that allow him to cover ground in a hurry, he would seem to have the ingredients to be a standout swatter. He should be able to average 3 blocks a game and still be a good man-on-man defender and passing-lane hawk, a la Russell, Big Ben and Hakeem.

Two related attributes of great shot blockers are (1) they don’t have to gather before jumping, and (2) they get off the floor incredibly quickly. KG’s teammate Eddie Griffin barely gets off the ground, but the combination of his length, timing and lightning-quick but low-altitude jumps make him a terrific swatter (1.7 in only 22 minutes a night, which would be 3.0 a night if he played KG’s minutes and maintained his pace). Although KG appears to me to get off the floor in non-gathering situations pretty quickly, it’s possible he lacks the blinding reflex-jumping quickness of a Kirilenko, Russell or young Mutombo.

Thus, it’s possible KG’s swat potential is, say, 2.4 per game rather than 4.2, and if he tried to lead the league he’d hurt his team by continually taking himself out of rebounding position while blocking or changing relatively few shots. But it’s hard for me to believe that he’s helping the Wolves as much as he can at 1.4 per game.

There’s only one way to find out if KG’s anemic swatting numbers are primarily the product of physical limitations or KG’s lack of a swatter’s mentality and the failure of Flip Saunders to help him develop one: Saunders must challenge KG to be a defender in the style of Russell, Big Ben, Mutombo and Hakeem.

In this two-month-long experiment, KG will assume the identity of “The Wolfman” and go after enough shots that opposing players become keenly aware of his presence. After two months, KG and the Wolves braintrust can assess the results and adjust his swatting mindset to whatever is best for the Wolves. If he’s a dismal failure as Wolfman, he’ll have to dial back his approach, though maybe not all the way back to what we’ve seen so far this season. If Wolfman is a howling success, then there’s nothing to change.

More than likely, he’ll probably have to tone things down at least a tad, reserving 100-percent Wolfman for full moons. But the experiment is an absolute necessity to establish how much of a defensive force KG is capable of being. Because right now, the answer is a disappointing “Not much.”


And your response was:

ronnymac2 wrote:I need to respectfully disagree with this article. Simply looking at KG’s blocked shot averages ignores context. He isn’t a traditional interior anchor, but a hybrid interior-perimeter anchor. His strength is disrupting connecting parts of an offense, of altering offensive plays and covering for his teammates. In this last regard, he is very Russell-like imo, right down to that effect not showing up in the stat sheet.


Now, Russell himself said:

Bill Russell wrote:Good defense sometimes does not result in a turnover or blocked shot or steal or anything. Good defense will get the offensive team out of a rhythm and one of the keys to shooting is rhythm. That is why you see guys with open shots not make them. Well, good defense makes you shoot before you want to shoot or after you want to shoot, not when you want to shoot. Defense can sometimes be deceptive and you’ll say, well, they’re not shooting well and they had open shots. Well those shots aren’t open. A guy is standing there by himself, but he has to shoot the ball before the defense gets there or fake and shoot after he leaves. So he isn’t shooting when he wants to shoot and that will throw your rhythm off. What looks like a good shot is not really a good shot.


Though, vis-a-vis Russell, Russell does had that block shot element, adding an intimidation factor, as Russell himself said it's more the threat of the block than the block itself. TMACFORMVP once said:

One aspect of Russell's game that I just marvel at is his speed. We talk about the torrid pace they played at in the 60's to downgrade their stats (and rightfully so), but we fail to appreciate how well conditioned these athletes must have been to play large minutes at such a fast pace, especially Russell. This guy was all over the place, quick enough to come out on the pick and roll, and then recover fast enough to block the shot. He ran the fast break, fought for every rebound, competed on every possession, and played over 40 MPG nearly every season of his career.

Someone asked, what's the difference between Garnett and Russell, and I'd point to their defense. I'm probably alone in this mind-set, but I think Garnett has been slightly overrated defensively; not neccessarily his impact with Boston, but his years in Minnesota. Don't get me wrong, Garnett is an all time great defender, and one of the best the league has seen, but recently, I've started to notice that people are equating Garnett with automatically anchoring a top 5 sort defense, and on the same caliber with guys like Hakeem, Russell, or D-Rob. I think what made them all such terrifying defenders was because of their same ability to rotate, much like Garnett, but also be the best shot blocking threats in the league, something Garnett really hasn't/wasn't been for his career.

Granted so much goes into team defense, it's unfair to completely judge Garnett's Minnesota teams defensively (when afterall, his supporting cast sucked), but his Minnesota teams were generally average defensively, barring his one year in 03-04. And again, I understand shot blocking isn't a one and all metric for defense, but those three players had similar capability in rotating and defending the pick and roll that KG did, but they were also far more intimidating factors in the paint. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Timberwolves best defensive season came when KG was most intimidating at the rim. I understand he hasn't been any better a shot blocker with Boston, so how do we explain that, but there are more factors as mentioned with coaching, and better personnel.

I just think it's slightly overrating Garnett, when I've seen many people claim Garnett has anchored elite defenses ever since he came into the league and became an established player (and that's the part I'm saying is overrated, because otherwise, no one has had real more defensive impact in the league when Garnett finally got some personnel and coaching, the only other with an argument being Howard.

*First column is team DTRG, then opponents points, and finally opponent FG%.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Code: Select all
84-85: 4th - (10th in points, 6th in FG%)
85-86: 14th - (13th in points, 13th in FG%)
86-87: 3rd - (3rd in points, 6th in FG%)
87-88: 4rd - (13th in points, 2nd in FG%)
88-89: 4th - (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
89-90: 1st - (9th in points, 5th in FG%)
90-91: 2nd (6th in points, 5th in FG%)
91-92: 10th - (11th in points, 10th in FG%)
92-93: 3rd - (3rd in points, 3rd in FG%)
93-94: 2nd - (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
94-95: 12th - (14th in points, 2nd in FG%)
95-96: 14th - (17th in points, 14th in FG%)


Total: 6.08 (9.5 in points, 6.3 in FG%)

David Robinson

Code: Select all
89-90: 3rd (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
90-91: 1st - (5th in points, 1st in FG%)
91-92: 1st - (3rd in points, 1st in FG%)
92-93: 10th - (8th in points, 4th in FG%)
93-94: 9th - (2nd in points, 4th in FG%)
94-95: 5th - (12th in points, 7th in FG%)
95-96: 3rd - (10th in points, 3rd in FG%)


Total: 4.57 (6.4 in points, 3.8 in FG%)

Obviously Robinson has had better coaching, but it's interesting to note that they were a slightly worse defensive team relative to the year with Rodman, opposed to the previous seasons without. Nonetheless, I'd say both had better supporting casts than Garnett, but both Robinson and Hakeem faced fluctuations with their roster as well, and no one else of real significance of All-NBA defensive caliber either, yet for the most part, they anchored top 10 - near top 5 defenses every year of their career.

Garnett on the other hand, in his Minnesota years:

Kevin Garnett

Code: Select all
98-99: 11th (16th in points, 15th in FG%)
99-00: 12th (11th in points, 9th in FG%)
00-01: 16th (14th in points, 22nd in FG%)
01-02: 15th (16th in points, 13th in FG%)
02-03: 16th (18th in points, 10th in FG%)
03-04: 6th (7th in points, 4th in FG%)
04-05: 15th (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
05-06: 10th (8th in points, 9th in FG%)
06-07: 21st (19th in points, 15th in FG%)



Total: 13.5 (13.1 in points, 11.5 in FG%)

Again, I feel I have to clearly explain what I'm trying to say; in no way am I saying that Garnett isn't an elite defender, but I'm not completely sold he's as good an anchor as guys like Hakeem, or Robinson, and especially Russell. Garnett's strengths defensively lie within his impeccable rotation and pick and roll defense, arguably in that regard having a case for top three all-time. He's a terrific vocal leader on the court, and his passion inspires teammates to play to the best of their ability. BUT, I think those I've mentioned, provide the same impeccable rotations, while being a double threat with all time great shot blocking, something Garnett lacks compared to his peers. And Russell especially even exceeds the leadership Garnett displays on the court.

Garnett does everything exceptional, but Russell did all those same things at the absolute best one could possibly do it - including shot blocking, where the big difference lies.

Garnett is an all time great defender, and the prototypical player at the PF position, along with Duncan, BUT I still think he's not in the same tier as Russell, or the other aforementioned centers defensively. Similar versatility on pick and rolls and rotations, but Russell possesses even greater leadership (again, player coach for two seasons), with far greater intimidation.


So, in comparison with Russell, Russell has the horizontal game plus shotblocking that Garnett never did, and rebounded at a level that Garnett didn't do in Boston where he could concentrate on defense. This is something you mention as well. So Garnett's a better two-way player, but when he was in a situation where he could play like Russell, he didn't rebound like him or block shots like him. So if Garnett is the floor, it's something to ponder. Additionally―rightly or wrongly―Garnett's "clutchness" was questioned during the title run, while Russell was regarded as clutch when he played, and Russell was actually a name I saw brought up against Garnett in a couple of articles as someone who possessed the "clutchness" Garnett didn't.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown

Return to Player Comparisons