RealGM Top 100 List #3

[ardee]

I was hoping to be able to make my case for Wilt by now but unfortunately Russ still hasn't been voted in.

Kareem was a fine pick for no. 2, I think the top four are all as great as each other so it's no real insult to Russ.

I'll be voting Russ for reasons outlined in the previous threads. I'll address the Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem talk in a bit.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[andrewww]

Havent had the time to chime in here since the #1 spot due to an insane week at work, but either way with MJ and KAJ out of the way, the only real competition against Russell for sustained excellence and impact leading to direct results would be Magic.

Magic's impact in offense as quite possibly the greatest offensive player ever throughout the 80s deserves an argument against the impact that Russell had on defense, but at the end of the day the results that many have already stated put's Russell above all others.

Wilt is an interesting argument as his best comparison for me would be LeBron (stat sheet stuffer that can do everything but at the expense of not getting the most out of his teammates), so I can't put him over Russell when this project is about the greatest players ever, not necessarily the most talented.

I understand I don't have a vote as of yet for the mods keeping track (Penbeast, Dr MJ, etc) but my hypothetical vote is for Bill Russell. In a lot of ways, this is the closing of the very top tier that has been the general consensus thus far.

[lorak]

I see people are still voting for Russell, but no one explaind some key things and I would like Russell's supporters to do that:

- how do you explain Russell's first three seasons? why he didn't improve Celtics more than by ~1.5-2 SRS?

- how valuable were players like Joneses, Hondo, Sanders, Heinsohn or Howell? (it's important to understanting how much credit Russell should get for mid 60s Celtics teams)

- how do you explain that during last several years Celtics offense in the playoffs was as important as defense?

- what you think was Russell's offensive impact (and why you think so), especially in light of data presented by Colts (w/o Russell Boston's offense was very good), and thus what was his overall impact?

Im confused. The Celtics SRS prior to Russell was .72. The year before that it was negative His first year it was 4.79 and they won the title. Seems like an immediate and obvious impact and was maintained long term.

So you didn't even read my post in previous thread ;(, because if you did, you would have know, that Celtics in 1957 were already about 3.5 SRS team BEFORE Russell joined them. And it was so because of additions of Heinsohn and Phillips.

[/quote]Why don't you tell us how valuable they are. Seems like the onus should be on you to make the case that Russell wasnt the most important factor on those teams since its bothering you. [/quote]

I said that he was the most important. What i'm arguing is that his impact wasn't GOAT like.

How did you determine offense was just as important? Or is it just because you say so?

Again - you didn't read my or fplii's posts, when there was data presented.

[lorak]

I would agree that Iorak's tone " how do you explain ..." could be jarring, in terms of seeming to demand answers.

I'm sorry if my tone is offensive to anyone. I'm obviously not native speaker, so maybe that's the reason, because my intentions aren't to attack anyone. So please, anytime my tone seems rude or something like that - ignore it and focus on basketball related points made.

[therealbig3]

I think ElGee putting Russell in context (today, considering his BBIQ and his obsessiveness over the game, he would most likely be a Tyson Chandler on offense, maybe more of a Dwight Howard...and would clearly be the best defensive player of the last 35 years) really helped his case for me. That kind of player is definitely up there with KG and Duncan, and better than Robinson imo...not quite sure I'd take him over Hakeem and Shaq though.

IDK, I was thinking Shaq with my pick here. Great longevity, incredible peak, and I think his non-peak years are underrated just because he didn't care about the RS. Come playoff time, the guy was a FORCE. Defensively, he wasn't on the level of a lot of elite anchors, but he was still very good. Yes, he had issues with mobility where a lot of great offenses could exploit him in the PnR, but he was still an incredibly intimidating presence on defense, like a better version of Roy Hibbert, and he wasn't really ever that immobile. One of the greatest things about him was how quick he was for a guy his size. He had problems in a few years because he was sometimes out of shape, but younger Shaq in Orlando and peak Shaq in LA was quite a good defensive anchor. And offensively, I don't think any center ever matched up with prime Shaq. Him, Barkley, Kareem, and Dirk are the only big men that come to mind that are on my short list of offensive GOATs...I don't think anyone ever warped an opposing defense like Shaq tbh.

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal

I'm open to changing my mind, even going with Russell...moreso if someone comes up with a convincing anti-Shaq argument here, where I could understand taking Russell, Duncan, Magic, Hakeem, Bird, or Wilt over him (or even KG...I'm one of the few that actually does see him on this level).

[lorak]

[ (...)

Could you elaborate on first point? I mean, my line of thinking is like that: Boston in 1957 was already about 3.5 SRS team before Russell joined them. With him they improved to about 5.0 and stayed more or less at the same level next two years. So my question is - what was Russell's impact during these three years and why you think so? Because IMO data indicates it wasn't nothing special, not above +2.5 to 3.0 SRS range.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

Well, I’m voting for Bill Russell. I thought Baller2014’s writeup of Duncan was sensational. It’s making me reconsider my votes at #4 and #5. And I’ve said why I like Russ in my posts for the #1 and #2 player. To me, it’s either Russell or Wilt or Magic (although, as I said, I’m thinking of pushing TD into the discussion more in the next round or two.)

As others have noted, Magic has the reverse Bill Russell impact—amazing offense. (Not so much on D.) Great leadership. Magic Johnson is my favorite NBA player of all-time. And I am left to wonder whether, if Karl Malone hadn’t been a complete ****, what would have happened to Magic with a bunch more seasons added to his legacy. But that didn’t happen—he “only” has the five rings. And, to be honest, Magic was a totally great—but not fully formed—player in his first 3-4 years. He and Kareem were pretty much1 and 1A in that period. I think Russell in his final 3-4 yerars was more valuable than Magic. That eliminates Magic for me. Well, that and the 11 rings.

That leaves Wilt. Figures.

I’m a Wilt fan. Always have been. And I think RealGM treats him more roughly than it should sometimes, for reasons beyond Wilt’s control. In the #1 thread, I noted that Russell has had a lot of luck go his way—the examples I noted were:

• A fortuitous goal tending call against the opposing team in the final minutes of game 7 of the EC Finals in 1962
• Havlicek’s steal (following Russell’s turnover!) in the final seconds of game 7 of the EC Finals in 1965
• The 1968 EC Finals which was just a clusterf%@# by and for the Sixers
• Butch Van Breda Kolff’s coaching miscues in Game 7 of the Finals.

Every one of those was against Wilt’s teams. The vast majority of these had nothing to directly do with Wilt or Russell. But the fact is that the prime beneficiary was Bill Russell, and the guy who took the hit was Wilt Chamberlain. I think that sucks. I think that makes us get more down on Wilt more than we should. Let’s say that Mendy Rudolph—who really was kind of a Boston homer—doesn’t make the bad goaltending call on Wilt in 1962. And Hal Greer throws a decent inbound pass in 1965 and somebody scores. Russell would still have 9 rings. Wilt would have 4. How much differently would we look at them? How would this alter the discourse? I think it would change things a lot. Wilt had 30 points (on 12-15 shooting) and 32 rebounds in the 1965 Game 7. The 1962 Celtics had a (far) better team than the Sixers, and Wilt would have led the upset. I really think we’d look at Wilt differently.

But that didn’t happen.

And even if it did—Wilt Chamberlain was the most self-destructive great player of all time. (Shaq is second.) I’ve said before that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest rebounder, greatest defender, and greatest scorer in history. But he was never more than one of those things at the same time. What strikes me about Wilt is that he needed to be told things. And when he did what he was told, and it didn’t work out, he took the blame. That is not the dnmic personality suited to big game basketball. In the 1968 EC finals, when his teammates weren’t doing anything, Wilt kept passing them the ball. Yes, Alex Hannum should have said something. But Wilt was on the court. And Wilt was passive. Wilt should have done something. In the 1974 NBA Finals Game 7, Heinsohn made the double teams of Kareem constant after Kareem had a 14 point first quarter. And Kareem was held scoreless in the second quarter. Kareem was doing what he was told to do; what every player is told to do in that situation. He was passing the ball to the open man—just what Wilt did in the 1968 EC Finals Game 7. The only other guy on the court for the Bucks that was really hitting was Mickey Davis, who was playing in place of the injured Lucius Allen. Mickey didn’t shoot much, but when he did, it went in in this game…he was 6-9 from the field. The other three starters were 8-28. The Celtics had a 15 point lead in the middle of the third quarter.

So Kareem simply started shooting again—whether he had a good shot or not. Whether he was double teamed or not. He saw that others weren’t getting it done, and he did what he had to do. Kareem scored 12 in his last 16 minutes of court time. The Bucks cut it to one early in the fourth quarter, but Boston went on a couple of runs and had it put away in the final minutes.

So what’s the point? Both guys lost—but the way they lost reflects very differently on each player. Kareem did what he had to do. There’s never been any indication that Larry Costello was going crazy setting up plays (that was not his style). Costello didn’t need to. Kareem saw what was going on and knew what he had to do. Wilt was not like that. When his teammates weren’t scoring in the 1968 Game 7, he kept passing them the ball. The guy who had led the league in FG% for the last four years and never averaged less than 24 points a game kept passing the ball. And the Sixers lost. It’s very different from the way the Bucks lost (and this is leaving out Richie Powers ignoring Dave Cowens’s fouls in the fourth quarter). One guy stepped in and made decisions to try and right a bad situation. The other did not.

At certain critical junctures of games, great players take over. Wilt had fewer of those games than any other great player. Part of is certainly bad coaching—which he had a lot of. And part of Wilt’s strength—that he could do so many things at a high level—might have hurt him. Nobody ever asked Shaq to cut his scoring by 50-70% and be the best defender in the league—it wouldn’t have worked. But Wilt was asked. He did what he was told. And, IMO, that attitude sometimes made him a passive participant in games that should have been won.

This is leaving out the ego, the focus on stats, stuff like that. I think that’s overblown. But I also think it’s true. I have personally asked Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to describe/talk about a year when he thought he was passing the ball well. “Hmmm. It’s hard to say,” was his response. Wilt would have known the years and assist numbers. He had a different focus, and that focus was not always on winning (or kept him from focusing on winning). Sometimes it was puzzling. Everyone remembers Willis Reed in the 1970 Finals Game 7. But Reed got hurt in the first quarter of Game 5—and the Knicks won that game. Wilt took a total of 12 shots—only nine after Reed went down. In Game 6, Wilt was dominant … with Reed out, he went 20-27 from the field and had 45 points and 27 boards. It was amazing. But that only highlighted the fact that he didn’t do that for the final 36 minutes of Game 5. Did it take a day off to realize his massive size advantage against DeBusschere? Really? Again, passivity. I simply cannot take a player like that over Bill Russell. The top 3 players, to me, are a substantial level above the next group. That, to me, is where Wilt is. Sorry.

I 100% believe that if Wilt had had good coaching for most of his career, he would have won more titles and been a “better” player. (And at times, even below average coaching would have been enough—Hello Butch!) So part of his problem is beyond his control. But I don’t know if Wilt ever would have been in the top 3. I think he lacked the killer instinct. In a way, that he was as good as he was, given his idiosyncratic personality and run of bad luck, is kind of amazing. I think he’s a top 5 player. But he’s not the #3 player

.

Compelling stuff. I realize it's to some degree conjecture and interpretation, but I feel some degree of truth in it. It has me waffling on my #3 pick (and reconsidering other individuals you mentioned). For now, I'll keep my #3 pick as Wilt, but I appreciate this well-thought post.

[MisterWestside]

But HOW do you "appropriately" rate something like that? To me, "rating" something connotes some type of quantification...you're evaluating on some type of scale that would allow you to rate one entity vs. another.

Right. But I'm not sure where I previously implied that I didn't quantify things. How else would I rank these players?

This sounds, to me, like a largely semantical argument that is sliding away from the point without really rebutting anything, and I don't understand your basis for rejecting the use of "value".

It's not semantics. The distinction between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about is quite clear.

And, for the record, I do use value (indeed, I keep two separate rankings for the purpose; Russell is the undisputed GOAT in my ranking of the most valuable players ever). Just not in a discussion of the game's best players.

Take your example. In most reasonable scenarios a player with an all-time great post game would measure out as a more impactful player than a "so-so player" who happens to be more versatile if all else were equal. If Player B is better, it should show up in his value over time. If, on the other hand, player B is an all-time great in the post as far as having outstanding moves but he's a black hole/ball-stopper that causes his team's offense to bog down and he also isn't very good on defense...while player A may be a so-so player as far as shooting and posting up but he's great at moving without the ball...

Not to cut you off, but let me step in here for a second. I'm not sure why you added to the example that I posed. This game is hard enough to figure out as it is. I kept the thought experiment simple for the sake of argument.

But either way, the way the player is able to translate their skill set into helping their team (and the ability to quantify that value) are crucial elements to determining that player's goodness. And I don't grasp yet where/why you disagree with that.

Because "translating skill set into helping a team" also depends on what that team needs or asks of its players. If those things vary, then the player's value to the team varies. And, if his value varies, then, by your definition, so does his goodness. That's nonsensical, especially since that player doesn't change, in essence.

Something I've hammered on before is that we have to look at realistic scenarios. Barring a sudden evolution in mankind or some type of huge scientific advancement, there will never be a league full of LeBron Jameses. He is at the absolute extreme end of the genetic genepool.

The example doesn't have to be "realistic" (taken in the sense here as the likelihood of an event, not as a logical impossibility) in order to demonstrate the point I was making. And that point still stands.

Looking at realistic scenarios where at least one starting big slot is open, I can't imagine a team that wouldn't be immensely helped by an ultra-athletic 6-10 or 6-11 monster defender and rebounder that could also help facilitate the offense with passing skills without requiring shots.

Well, I didn't say that he wouldn't help a team (bringing value back into the discussion here), and I made that clear before. It's the degree to which he'd help such a team thats in question here. Let's continue:

Not to mention that he's a basketball savant and coach on the floor. ESPECIALLY in this modern 3-point era where offenses can be more spread out and perimeter defenders have been neutered with the handcheck emphasis, a defensive big with the ability to cover huge amounts of space is vital, valuable and (still) a rare commodity. His best-in-the-game horizontal defense in conjunction with his other gifts would be a landscape changer these days. So yes, I think his portability would be intact in any era.

And that's the point of contention. Even though Russell had his "best-in-the-game" horizontal game, that was "best-in-the- game" in the '50-'60s, without a three-point shot, without precocious outside shooters, and without the refinement and specialization of offenses that take advantage of those outside shooters with larger floor-spacing, balanced by players who can score inside via the dribble-drive or post-up. You're asking Russell to cover much more ground over a 48-minute period today. You're also putting him in a league with more athletic defensive anchors (relative to the 50s-60s) who can more or less pull off those feats. While certain teams could still use Russell's talents, it would also be more taxing for him to employ his talents over a larger surface area of the court, the presence of superior-shooting perimeter players would (somewhat) offset those talents, and he wouldn't be the only player in the league with those talents. So no, his era and today's era is not the same, and that significantly deflates his modern value. Even for an athlete like Russell.

Do I think he'd be great in today's league, and among the league's elite defensive players? Yes. Would he be as portable? No. Do I think he'd be the same "landscape changer" that he was in his era? No. Do I think he was better than Abdul-Jabbar? No. However, do I rank Russell's basketball goodness up or down because of his context? No.

But - I think he'll get the #3 spot here. I also like Olajuwon, Chamberlain, Robertson, Johnson, O'Neal, Bird, James, and Duncan as candidates.

[ceiling raiser]

[ (...)

Could you elaborate on first point? I mean, my line of thinking is like that: Boston in 1957 was already about 3.5 SRS team before Russell joined them. With him they improved to about 5.0 and stayed more or less at the same level next two years. So my question is - what was Russell's impact during these three years and why you think so? Because IMO data indicates it wasn't nothing special, not above +2.5 to 3.0 SRS range.

(Year: SRS, Rel_ORtg, Rel_DRtg)
1956: +0.7, +1.9, +1.4
1957 without Russell: +3.6, +1.2, -2.7
1957 with Russell: +5.4, -1.3, -6.1
1958: +5.0, -0.8, -5.2
1959: -5.8, -0.7, -5.7

I'd guess that during those seasons, Russell was approximately a +4.5 or +5.0 player defensively, but I'm not sure how valuable he was on offense (if he's a negative, obviously his net SRS would be lower).

1) The 24 games before he arrived is a large enough sample that it's meaningful, but after Russell arrived I think they installed that fast break transition/equal opportunity offense. It's interesting to note that they were at least pretty good defensively before Russell arrived.
2) I don't know how valuable Heinsohn and Ramsey were defensively. The teams got better on defense when they joined, and got worse as they left. The problem is, those same seasons also correspond to Russell entering the league and declining post-prime.
3) Going into each of 58 and 59, there was major, major roster turnover. The rest of the seasons during the dynasty, there are far fewer substantial changes in the minutes distribution. This is just a guess, but I'd have to say that the lack of stability in rotations probably hurt their performance. Some of this is the Loscutoff injury, but I feel like, during these first few years, Auerbach was trying to assemble the roster he wanted to play the brand of basketball that Cousy/Russell enabled him to play.

[ceiling raiser]

Not to mention that he's a basketball savant and coach on the floor. ESPECIALLY in this modern 3-point era where offenses can be more spread out and perimeter defenders have been neutered with the handcheck emphasis, a defensive big with the ability to cover huge amounts of space is vital, valuable and (still) a rare commodity. His best-in-the-game horizontal defense in conjunction with his other gifts would be a landscape changer these days. So yes, I think his portability would be intact in any era.

And that's the point of contention. Even though Russell had his "best-in-the-game" horizontal game, that was "best-in-the- game" in the '50-'60s, without a three-point shot, without precocious outside shooters, and without the refinement and specialization of offenses that take advantage of those outside shooters with larger floor-spacing, balanced by players who can score inside via the dribble-drive or post-up. You're asking Russell to cover much more ground over a 48-minute period today. You're also putting him in a league with more athletic defensive anchors (relative to the 50s-60s) who can more or less pull off those feats. While certain teams could still use Russell's talents, it would also be more taxing for him to employ his talents over a larger surface area of the court, the presence of superior-shooting perimeter players would (somewhat) offset those talents, and he wouldn't be the only player in the league with those talents. So no, his era and today's era is not the same, and that significantly deflates his modern value. Even for an athlete like Russell.

Sorry to interrupt this exchange, but I have a couple of questions...

1) How are we judging Russell's defensive range? How do we know that he wasn't consistently covering substantial range already (not just for his era, but on an absolute scale)? It would be interesting to break down all of the available tape of Russell (there aren't too many available games, so it wouldn't be too difficult), and evaluate him in that regard based on all the defensive possessions we have available.

2) I agree that players by and large today are more athletic, but it still gives viewers/analysts pause when guys like KG recently or Anthony Davis now recover, cover large distances, and make incredible plays to alter shots. These guys aren't the norm, and most athletic defensive big men seem to spend a lot of their time under the basket. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that it would be a regular occurrence for Russ to run from one three-point line to the other purely on reaction, but how far off is he from that, and would any player be able to do that on a consistent basis?

Not really trying to put you on the spot (apologies if it came across that way), but I'm just wondering what your thinking is here.

[lorak]

[ (...)

Could you elaborate on first point? I mean, my line of thinking is like that: Boston in 1957 was already about 3.5 SRS team before Russell joined them. With him they improved to about 5.0 and stayed more or less at the same level next two years. So my question is - what was Russell's impact during these three years and why you think so? Because IMO data indicates it wasn't nothing special, not above +2.5 to 3.0 SRS range.

(Year: SRS, Rel_ORtg, Rel_DRtg)
1956: +0.7, +1.9, +1.4
1957 without Russell: +3.6, +1.2, -2.7
1957 with Russell: +5.4, -1.3, -6.1
1958: +5.0, -0.8, -5.2
1959: -5.8, -0.7, -5.7

I'd guess that during those seasons, Russell was approximately a +4.5 or +5.0 player defensively, but I'm not sure how valuable he was on offense (if he's a negative, obviously his net SRS would be lower).

How do you know how valuable he was on defense, but don't know what was his offensive impact?

2) I don't know how valuable Heinsohn and Ramsey were defensively. The teams got better on defense when they joined, and got worse as they left. The problem is, those same seasons also correspond to Russell entering the league and declining post-prime.

But in 1957 Celtics got better even before Russell, so "Russell enterning the league" doesn't seem like right explanation here.
I also disagree that in 1966 Russell was past prime (or I misunderstood something?).

[ceiling raiser]

Could you elaborate on first point? I mean, my line of thinking is like that: Boston in 1957 was already about 3.5 SRS team before Russell joined them. With him they improved to about 5.0 and stayed more or less at the same level next two years. So my question is - what was Russell's impact during these three years and why you think so? Because IMO data indicates it wasn't nothing special, not above +2.5 to 3.0 SRS range.

(Year: SRS, Rel_ORtg, Rel_DRtg)
1956: +0.7, +1.9, +1.4
1957 without Russell: +3.6, +1.2, -2.7
1957 with Russell: +5.4, -1.3, -6.1
1958: +5.0, -0.8, -5.2
1959: -5.8, -0.7, -5.7

I'd guess that during those seasons, Russell was approximately a +4.5 or +5.0 player defensively, but I'm not sure how valuable he was on offense (if he's a negative, obviously his net SRS would be lower).

How do you know how valuable he was on defense, but don't know what was his offensive impact?

2) I don't know how valuable Heinsohn and Ramsey were defensively. The teams got better on defense when they joined, and got worse as they left. The problem is, those same seasons also correspond to Russell entering the league and declining post-prime.

But in 1957 Celtics got better even before Russell, so "Russell enterning the league" doesn't seem like right explanation here.
I also disagree that in 1966 Russell was past prime (or I misunderstood something?).

1) We don't necessarily, but I don't think it's possible to judge his offense, or any others' on the team based on Boston's apparent offensive philosophy (their defense seemed independent of this, but they seemed to play offense through their defense).
2) They got somewhat better, but when Russell game in, he allowed them to play their fast break style, so they were playing like a completely different team. Now, if we can determine that there was no substantial playstyle change when Russell arrived after 24 games, that would be very telling.

Apologies, I should've said post-peak. I think Russell was still in his prime in 65 and 66 after peaking in 64.

[lorak]

1) We don't necessarily, but I don't think it's possible to judge his offense, or any others' on the team based on Boston's apparent offensive philosophy (their defense seemed independent of this, but they seemed to play offense through their defense).

I don't understand. if their offense was result of defensive philosophy, then what it really changes? I mean, net impact matters, so if they sacrifaced some offense, to got better on defense, then why should we give them credit for defense, but at the same time don't penalize them for offense? SRS does exactly that, so why we can't?

2) They got somewhat better, but when Russell game in, he allowed them to play their fast break style, so they were playing like a completely different team. Now, if we can determine that there was no substantial playstyle change when Russell arrived after 24 games, that would be very telling.

How do you know they didn't play fastbreak style in '57 before Russell's arrival? Celtics pace improved with him, but without Russell they still were clearly the fastest team in the league. So it doesn't seem like drastic change in style, if anything they just improved that aspect of their game - but what's interesting, that more fast breaks didn't led to better offense.

Besides even if they played like completly different team (what still needs to be proven first) why it matters that much? I mean, the point is that this particular Celtics roster was able to play at around 3.5 SRS level without Bill, and with him improvement was still by only about 1.5 SRS. So if they've changed style to better use Russell's ablities and still improved relatively low, then doesn't it actually show, that Bill's overall impact that season was quite small?

[RSCD3_]

I will be voting for Russell because of his complete impact on the defensive end. As this finals proved having a dominant big defender can be worth more than a all time great wing defender, and Russell was the best in the category. His offense wasn't amazing but considering he played at such a fast pace designed to score as quickly as possible of course his shooting will appear worse. From all accounts he was a gifted passer and skilled at deflecting shots to teammates, this leads me to believe he had at the very least a good touch around the rim and when you combine that with his speed and athleticism you get a rich man's Tyson chandler with more passing ability.

[ceiling raiser]

I don't understand. if their offense was result of defensive philosophy, then what it really changes? I mean, net impact matters, so if they sacrifaced some offense, to got better on defense, then why should we give them credit for defense, but at the same time don't penalize them for offense? SRS does exactly that, so why we can't?

That's the thing though, I disagree that their offense was a result of their defense philosophy, and don't believe they sacrificed offense for defense.

The style of defense they played enabled them to play an up-and-down tempo game, but it didn't force them to do so.

Two other teams for example that played pressure defense were the Holzman Knicks and the Chicago Bulls. Their press probably wasn't identical to the Celtics, but they also looked to execute in the half court. By the admission of Heinsohn and Havlicek (I linked the quotes earlier in this thread), Boston didn't care about their offensive efficiency because they had more possessions offensively than did their opponents. But, just because they chose to play that style (and it worked), doesn't mean they were pigeonholed into doing so.

SRS does penalize them, and rightfully so, because it gives us an idea of their level of play. But I do believe that their offensive philosophy marginalized their offensive talent, and did so independently of their defense.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but this is my thinking.

How do you know they didn't play fastbreak style in '57 before Russell's arrival? Celtics pace improved with him, but without Russell they still were clearly the fastest team in the league. So it doesn't seem like drastic change in style, if anything they just improved that aspect of their game - but what's interesting, that more fast breaks didn't led to better offense.

Besides even if they played like completly different team (what still needs to be proven first) why it matters that much? I mean, the point is that this particular Celtics roster was able to play at around 3.5 SRS level without Bill, and with him improvement was still by only about 1.5 SRS. So if they've changed style to better use Russell's ablities and still improved relatively low, then doesn't it actually show, that Bill's overall impact that season was quite small?

Good point, we don't know that. They probably did play the fast break extensively, though Russell's rebounding/outlet passing perhaps enabled them to do so more. I can't say anything definitively here though, without evidence. I'll have to see if I can find anything (or maybe someone else has quotes) on how their fastbreak ran pre-Russell (which would probably be similar 57 before Russell played, unless Macauley was integral to their running of it).

On the second point here, I don't know if they changed the style to better utilize Russell's abilities. It would depend on what we know about their fast break before Russell. It indeed could mean his impact the first season was small or that either Russell or his teammates were less portable during that season. But if they did indeed modify the fastbreak, and intentionally go to a quantity-over-quality approach on offense, I don't think an intentional subversion of offensive efficiency would reflect negatively on Russell, because as I said above, it doesn't seem to me that playing pressure defense forced them to play that style of offense.

[ElGee]

[ (...)

Could you elaborate on first point? I mean, my line of thinking is like that: Boston in 1957 was already about 3.5 SRS team before Russell joined them. With him they improved to about 5.0 and stayed more or less at the same level next two years. So my question is - what was Russell's impact during these three years and why you think so? Because IMO data indicates it wasn't nothing special, not above +2.5 to 3.0 SRS range.

(Year: SRS, Rel_ORtg, Rel_DRtg)
1956: +0.7, +1.9, +1.4
1957 without Russell: +3.6, +1.2, -2.7
1957 with Russell: +5.4, -1.3, -6.1
1958: +5.0, -0.8, -5.2
1959: -5.8, -0.7, -5.7

I'd guess that during those seasons, Russell was approximately a +4.5 or +5.0 player defensively, but I'm not sure how valuable he was on offense (if he's a negative, obviously his net SRS would be lower).

1) The 24 games before he arrived is a large enough sample that it's meaningful, but after Russell arrived I think they installed that fast break transition/equal opportunity offense. It's interesting to note that they were at least pretty good defensively before Russell arrived.
2) I don't know how valuable Heinsohn and Ramsey were defensively. The teams got better on defense when they joined, and got worse as they left. The problem is, those same seasons also correspond to Russell entering the league and declining post-prime.
3) Going into each of 58 and 59, there was major, major roster turnover. The rest of the seasons during the dynasty, there are far fewer substantial changes in the minutes distribution. This is just a guess, but I'd have to say that the lack of stability in rotations probably hurt their performance. Some of this is the Loscutoff injury, but I feel like, during these first few years, Auerbach was trying to assemble the roster he wanted to play the brand of basketball that Cousy/Russell enabled him to play.

If you dig deeper into Russell's rookie season, you'll see the following:

Cousy-Sharman-Heinsohn-Luscatoff: +5.8 SRS in 19g
Cousy-Sharman-Heinsohn-Luscatoff-Russell: +6.3 SRS in 48g

Sharman misses 5 games right before Russell arrives and they were -4.7 in those games. Cousy misses 8 games later in the season (with Russell in tact this time) and they were +2.4.

Lorak, I'd say most of what you're getting at is interpreting WOWY and SRS. This also plugs into Westside's exchange with drza about goodness versus situational value. I care about goodness.

That said, a 19g sample is a strong sample to suggest the 57 Celtics were pretty darn good. +5. +3. Doesn't matter much to me. I've always been preferential to Sharman and I think they would have been a far weaker team without him. Adding Heinsohn helped too. The rest of the league that year was completely jammed together. It's a lot like 75-76. On one hand, I can see the Celtics winning the title that year without Russell. OTOH, that's one data point...and Russell's just a rookie. I can still view him a +3 or +4 player while still thinking he only maybe brought an additional 1-point boost or so to a top-shelf team.

Of course, after Christmas 1956 through Jan. 29, 1957, Boston played 18 games at +10.3 SRS against that parity-heavy league before Luscatoff missed two games, ending the run. They cranked out +3.7 play with 10 of the next 14 away from the Boston Garden before Cousy was injured and the season ended. I don't have to give too much weight to one data point while still giving Russell credit for a good rookie -- and giving Boston an extra gear. Of course, I can also believe Russell improves in the next few years, and he does this while the quality of the league clearly improves.

[microfib4thewin]

I don't think Russell will need to expand his area of defense if he had to play today. It's not like Duncan stray away from the paint either. However, I do believe that Russell won't have the same influence as the 60s because of the 3 pointer. A rim protector can only do so much to disrupt the flow of an opposing offense when there are much more ball and player movements that are outside 10 feet from the basket.

[Texas Chuck]

So you didn't even read my post in previous thread ;(, because if you did, you would have know, that Celtics in 1957 were already about 3.5 SRS team BEFORE Russell joined them. And it was so because of additions of Heinsohn and Phillips.

.

No I did read it. Did you read where I pointed out that the SRS the previous 2 full seasons showed the team to be considerably worse than with Russell? Do you really expect everyone to just automatically agree that your very small sample to start his rookie year is more telling than what happened over a much more meaningful period of time.

[MisterWestside]

Not really trying to put you on the spot (apologies if it came across that way), but I'm just wondering what your thinking is here.

No need for that, fpliii

I rewatched and studied a bunch of the available game footage on Russell and some other modern defensive greats (Garnett, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutumbo, Ewing, etc.). With respect to Russell, I'm not buying for one second that he'd be head-and-shoulders, blow the competition away better than those guys, if he's even better at all. I'll say that Russell, while mobile, was more of a classic rim protector; that was his best strength. But the game then and 20 years ago (much less now)? Playing defense is a bit of a different animal.

Russell stays in my top 10, but I remain leery of that entire era. Not just Russell, but his other contemporaries such as Chamberlain, West, Robertson, etc.

[ceiling raiser]

Not really trying to put you on the spot (apologies if it came across that way), but I'm just wondering what your thinking is here.

No need for that, fpliii

I rewatched and studied a bunch of the available game footage on Russell and some other modern defensive greats (Garnett, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutumbo, Ewing, etc.). With respect to Russell, I'm not buying for one second that he'd be head-and-shoulders, blow the competition away better than those guys, if he's even better at all. I'll say that Russell, while mobile, was more of a classic rim protector; that was his best strength. But the game then and 20 years ago (much less now)? Playing defense is a bit of a different animal.

Russell stays in my top 10, but I remain leery of that entire era. Not just Russell, but his other contemporaries such as Chamberlain, West, Robertson, etc.

Thanks for the response.

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose about his mobility (I do think it was perhaps a greater asset for him than his rim protection, from what I've watched/read). In terms of comparisons to other all-time great defenders, I can definitely respect your opinion.

I'm a big skillset guy, and happen to think very highly of some guys from the era (have Russ as my GOAT, don't have a top 10 list really but I have Wilt as the best player after Russell and MJ, and Oscar as the GOAT PG), but do have an issue with some other other stars. But some players from that era do give me pause (and there are guys from any period prior to the present who give me pause as well). It's a tough balance though, I don't want to be inconsistent, and also am not incredibly confident in my scouting ability. But it's definitely fun and interesting to think about.