#3 Highest Peak of All Time (Russell '65 wins)

[ElGee]

I'm leaning toward 2012 LeBron over 2009 LeBron. I don't like a lot of what is being said about the 2009 team. To wit:

-The 2009 Cavs were one of the best 3-point shooting teams of all time.

Some of that needs to be credited to LeBron for creating so many open shots. But when we say "surround a creator with good shooters and the offense will be good," well, the "good" shooters still need to make the shots. And that team made shots at an incredibly high rate. The role players need to be credited for that.

Of the guys who shot at least 100 3's that year, Cleveland had 5 in the top 70 and 3 in the top-26. By comparison Steve Nash had 1 other guy (Barbosa, 76th), Paul had 3 of the top-84 (none in the top 50), Nelson in Orlando had 4 in the top-79 (none in the top 35), Calderon had 2 in the top-28 and another at 59. Williams had 2 in the top-60 in Utah.

In 2011 in Miami, LeBron had 2 in the top-79 (no starters)
In 2012 in Miami, LeBron had 3 in the top-40 (one starter) and Miller was 5th.

-Two 3-point shooting teams results in variance

Orlando shot like a flaming college team in their run through Boston and Cleveland. I'm not entirely sure how this should reflect on the Cavs, or LeBron (and find the argument that they lost to such a team tiring).

G1 Orl 9-20 Cle 8-25
G3 Orl 6-17 Cle 5-26
G4 Orl 17-38 Cle 6-22
G6 Orl 12-29 Cle 9-20

Orlando shot 42.3% on 26 attempts per game in those 4 wins! Cleveland 30.1%.

[colts18]

G1 Orl 9-20 Cle 8-25
G3 Orl 6-17 Cle 5-26
G4 Orl 17-38 Cle 6-22
G6 Orl 12-29 Cle 9-20

Orlando shot 42.3% on 26 attempts per game in those 4 wins! Cleveland 30.1%.

But Cleveland didn't rely on 3 point shots. They shot 30.1% yet they had a 112 O rating (+10.1) against the best defense in the league.

Here are some assist numbers for LeBron:

3 pointer assists per game:
09: 2.9 (39.5% of assists)
10: 2.4 (29.3% of assists)
11: 1.9 (27.4% of assists)
12: 1.5 (25.3% of assists)

2 points FG assists:
09: 4.4
10: 6.0
11: 5.1
12: 4.7

Interesting thing is that while LeBron increased his assists from 7.2 in 09 to 8.6 in 10, he had much fewer 3 point assists. He went from 2.1 assists at the rim in 09 to 4.0 in 10. So he did changeup in 2010.

[ElGee]

I really don't know what you're trying to say here when you say "they didn't rely on 3's." They took over 20 a game. They were one of the best 3-point shooting teams ever in the RS. They make a few more in the series and they are in the Finals and no one is droning on about this series for going on 3 year now.

A 112 ORtg is fine and dandy over 6 games, but it's not a 115 ORtg. Or a 120 ORtg. You're acting like, in a 6-game series, they aren't allowed to get shots at the rim, or more free throws, or have one of their guys on the team average 38 a game without being a 3-point shooter.

Variance is a LARGE PART of basketball. Team's with 115 ORtg's don't post 115 ORtg's every game! Or 116's and 114's. The 2009 Cavs standard deviation in ORtg was 9.9.

And I don't think the figures you show represent any change in LeBron necessarily, but the change in the guys around him.

[colts18]

I really don't know what you're trying to say here when you say "they didn't rely on 3's." They took over 20 a game. They were one of the best 3-point shooting teams ever in the RS. They make a few more in the series and they are in the Finals and no one is droning on about this series for going on 3 year now.

A 112 ORtg is fine and dandy over 6 games, but it's not a 115 ORtg. Or a 120 ORtg. You're acting like, in a 6-game series, they aren't allowed to get shots at the rim, or more free throws, or have one of their guys on the team average 38 a game without being a 3-point shooter.

Variance is a LARGE PART of basketball. Team's with 115 ORtg's don't post 115 ORtg's every game! Or 116's and 114's. The 2009 Cavs standard deviation in ORtg was 9.9.

And I don't think the figures you show represent any change in LeBron necessarily, but the change in the guys around him.

From 08-10, LeBron's teammates shot 39.8 3P% with LeBron on the court, and they shot 37.8 3P% without. Based on my math, that is worth 0.79 PPG. 0.79 PPG is worth about 4 extra wins solely from LeBron creating 3 pointers for his teammates.


If the Cavs offense shot their regular season average from 3 in that series, they would have added 27.2 Points. That would have put their O rating at 117.64 which is absurd. Even with the bad 3 point shooting, they were +10.7 in O rating. To put that into perspective, the 87 Lakers were +10.5 for the playoffs.

As far as offensive variance for the Cavs, the offense was fairly consistent in that series. They had 4 games over 110 O rating which should be easy wins, 3 over 120 (1-2 in those games). 5 of the 6 games were above the Magic defensive average.

[therealbig3]

I do kind of buy the argument that LeBron is not physically what he was in 09 anymore. I think the decline is very overexaggerated, but I do think he was able to get into the lane so effortlessly in 09, and it's not quite the same in 12. And for that reason, i think his ability to create for others was even better in 09. He compensated quite nicely with a much better post game in 12, but overall, I think as an offensive threat, I'd go with 09. And I think defensively, it's about a wash, but might side with 09 barely there too.

I just think LeBron did everything outside of posting up just a bit better in 09 than in 12.

[lorak]

*I wasn't talking 30 year old KG...I'm talking 32 - 35 year old KG. Even if we put some sort of ceiling on what a player's defensive impact can be in modern days, Russell was WAY, WAY better as a rebounder and shotblocker at his peak than KG was in his 30s.

It's impossible to judge shotblocking, besides it''s again affected by era (not only pace, but poor competition), but what exactly Russell's DRB% looks like? Even in weaker era it's really way, way better than 30+ year old KG?

*As you allude to, KG's +/- scores on DEFENSE ALONE were top-10 and within shouting distance of LeBron's. Give that a major upgrade, as pointed out in the previous bullet, and I could easily see that +6.4 defensive impact moving into the 9 - 10 range. Yes, even in the modern game.

That's your stance and ok, but I strongly disagree. 3 point shot alone makes big difference and lowers big men defensive value. Better overall players and offensive preparation on team level than during 60s - and again, it's harder to have bigger impact defensively than guys like KG, Duncan, Wallace or Dwight. I really think it's impossible in modern game when you are 35-40 mpg player. Maybe as role player in perfect circumstances it's possible, but not as full time starter.

*But the thing about modernizing Russell's game that you don't do, is that you don't modernize his offense. A player with that type of length, speed, IQ and passing ability is much better suited to the modern offensive game than the 50s/60s. As such, I don't see how we can downgrade Russell's defensive impact (from what...infinite? down to "merely" +10 range) without accounting for the fact that he'd very likely be a plus offensive player if he were to have come along in this era.

I again disagree. I mean, he probably would be slightly + offensive player (in terms of RAPM), but that's not big deal. I don't know if you realize how difficult for big man it's to be positive on offense, especially with limited scoring skills. And BTW, from tape I saw, Russell's passing is WAY overrated.

but I do think that their physical ability and basketball instincts would have allowed them to make a similar impact in this era as they did in their own.

It's impossible, because even if we assume they would be as good now as they were during 60s, we still have to adjust for better competition. And competition is much better, thus overall Russell's or Wilt's impact would be lower.

[colts18]

I do kind of buy the argument that LeBron is not physically what he was in 09 anymore. I think the decline is very overexaggerated, but I do think he was able to get into the lane so effortlessly in 09, and it's not quite the same in 12. And for that reason, i think his ability to create for others was even better in 09. He compensated quite nicely with a much better post game in 12, but overall, I think as an offensive threat, I'd go with 09. And I think defensively, it's about a wash, but might side with 09 barely there too.

I just think LeBron did everything outside of posting up just a bit better in 09 than in 12.

Some interesting stats:

At rim:
09: 6.6 FGA, 72 FG%, 37.4 Assisted%
12: 6.6 FGA, 75.4 FG%, 47.2 Assisted%

16-23 feet:
09: 5.5 FGA, 40%
12: 5.6 FGA, 39%

3 pointers:
09: 4.7 3PA, 34.4%
12: 2.4 3PA, 36.2%

So they are similar players at the rim and on jumpers, but the difference is that 12 LeBron cutout on the reckless 3pointers which is the reason why his FG% went from 48.9 FG% to 53.1 FG%.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc - while you're here, thoughts on Magic's peak in relation to what we talked about with LeBron, Nash, or any ball-dominant PG having to replace other ball-dominant PG's...Sell me on his peak, I'm struggling with it right now.

Hmm. Trying to think my way to the crux of your train of thought. You already know all the stuff I'd typically say, both past stuff and strong posts in this project.

I guess I'll respond in chunks...

1. Is it really that beneficial to have a ball dominant PG if he's really good at his job? Certainly, we see plenty of evidence that the best offenses are quite often run by one team-minded brain on the court in the data. More than that we see how easy it is for NBA offenses to grind to a halt and seemingly forget 1, 2, 3, or even 4 teammates are also on the court, and also have 1 in 10K+ talent.

Now even beyond that, in the Nash era of point guards, we've found that it's really easy to find guys who can hit 3's, which has made distributors even more important.

2. How big is the gap between the very best distributors and the merely very good ones? Well we've seen the +/- data where Nash has an Offensive RAPM just about doubling other any other point guard not named Paul. There is clearly a "magical" class beyond the typical class of the league.

3. What does that say about Magic vs LeBron? Simply put, I don't see any reason to argue that LeBron is in the magical class, in terms of someone who can seemingly perform miracles in making use of his teammates like Magic can. What he is, is a guy who is a tremendous threat as a scorer, who thus naturally then has a gravitational pull on the defense, combine with both having the ability to make a good pass and perspective of someone who is not too self-centered to miss a great passing opportunity.

Some might say: Isn't that what magical distributors do except with a higher ceiling on the passing difficulty they can make use of? Well the very best distributors know all the details about where each guys is most comfortable, and are actively manipulating the defense to create the most useful openings without getting bogged down as they do this read - they can take it all in in real time, no lag. And to me it appears that this ability is such a big deal that it makes other players better offensive players than LeBron despite LeBron being a much more potent volume scoring threat AND being a "very good" passer.

In short: I think it's a big deal.

4. What about Magic vs Nash? Well, I hinted at this before, but I think there is a case to be made that Nash's offensive impact matched Magic's, with an asterisk: Team 3 point shooting makes distributors more valuable and volume scorers less valuable. (Kind of stunning given that we know that historically, people already overvalued volume scorers, but truly, there has been a shift further away from them and I don't think most have realized this.)

On a related note, because 3-point shooting is more valuable, obviously Nash's 3-point shooting ability is a lot more valuable now that it would have been back in Magic's time, presuming he conformed with the strategies of the day (Of course, if he just kept doing his thing, his 3-point shooting would have left the league absolutely dumbstruck.)

However, distribution-wise I see no reason to say Magic couldn't adjust to modern strategy (the very idea of doubting this seems absurd). And scoring-wise, Magic has given us FAR more proof that he can scale than Nash. As much as I suppose I knock scoring next to distribution, I most definitely value the heck out of someone who can go from scoring in the teens to the 20s when called to do so (or even the 30s over stretches with teammat injuries in Magic's case). Simply put, when Magic's scoring that much, I have faith, he's doing it in the flow of things. If there were better options, he'd be using them. He's calling his own number, because he's a damn good option, not because he thinks that's what a star should always do.

I'm not going to claim I think Magic's edge over Nash is monstrous...but I think you know how much I respect Nash. Literally, I don't know if anyone has had the per minute offensive impact Nash did in his best times, and let's remember that the dude stepped it up to 40 MPG in the '05 playoffs. He is not far away from being on my mind right now...but I look at Magic's uncanny ability to transform into the exact volume scorer people say he's not along with his top of the line field marshallship, and the choice between Magic & Nash is pretty clear.

Of course, with all of this I haven't really talked about other aspects of the game. In all honesty I don't have a lot to say there. I'm not going to trumpet Magic's rebounding that much simply because to me that's part of what he needs to do if he's going to be a big guy on the floor. Similarly I'm not going to knock his non-point guard-ish defense, because you obviously need to get somebody else for that role, and because you need one less rebounder on the floor given Magic's play there, you can afford to have someone else.

I do find it hard to compare a player whose impact is so far in one direction with a more well rounded player in LeBron. I'd love to have more detailed data there. What I will say is that if you think the peak value-added they'd typically give is close, I'd give any tiebreakers to Magic on the portability factor. It is of course true that for Magic to really do his thing, that still means more time with the ball in his hands and less in someone else's hands, but clearly Magic is be ideal for truly making things easier for that other guy when you do this.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: LeBron '09 vs '12. I think it's a good question.

Do we all agree that LeBron was more valuable in '09 than in '12? Cool.
Do we all agree that LeBron has matured and clearly learned new things since '09? Cool.

So then what?

I'll listen to arguments, but I think a key point lies in why we're talking about '09 vs '10. Simply put: LeBron in the '09 playoffs was out of this world. The numbers he put up, NOBODY does that, and those numbers were not empty, he was dragging a bunch of hobbits with him. '09 vs '10, I don't really think that there was some major change to the negative in what LeBron was, it's just that he was really, really grooving in '09.

With that in mind, do people really see him "grooving" out of his head in '12? I mean, do you think there's no way he could match that again in '13 or '14? Okay, now what about '09 if he were somehow presented with a Cleveland-like opportunity again? '12 seems far more in reach to me than '09, and that makes me want to side with '09.

However, I feel like that gets into philosophy territory to a degree. If one simply feels that he got "hot" in the '09 playoffs in a way that players tend to get sometimes, and you feel that's not as meaningful as the growth in his game he's developed as of '12 to work around a very different supporting cast, I get you siding with '12.

[Doctor MJ]

Why do you rank Bird over Magic?

It's never been clear to me, but I'm definitely leaning toward it in the is project based on:

-Bird's defense is better
-Magic's offensive advantage might not be enough to make up for it

-Even if the offensive advantage makes up for the defense, I think Bird scales better to all kinds of different teams on offense. Magic is a "replace the PG and give him the keys" guy. Bird can seemingly go to any kind of offense and play a multitude of positions and still maintain an enormous impact. That would be my "tie-breaker." Would love to hear some out-of-the-box Magic arguments (ahem Doc MJ).

I think you've given some good analysis definitely.

My first question though would be (and apologies if I missed this): What's your analysis of the scale of Bird's superiority on defense? I am hesitant to use defense as a major factor for players who aren't superstars on that front, but yes, clearly if Bird has a big enough edge here, he should get the nod.

Seems to me you make a great case that from their rookie year up through Bird's peak, Bird's teams would have suffered significantly more without him than Magic's, but we kinda already know that. Then Magic really gets the reins, and there's really not much data to work with from an in/out perspective.

I have to confess that when I watch these guys, I slot them both in the "transcendant field intelligence" category, and have a tough time really breaking it down more finely than that. It is quite noteworthy though that you're giving Bird the portability edge here when to me that's always been Magic territory.

You're focused on Bird being more capable of moving off ball, and I see your point. I suppose though I feel like with players of this scale, it's simply not a very realistic scenario to dwell as far as having someone else so good that you'd have any qualms about having Magic have the ball. Kind of a "Yes I suppose it couldn't hurt if Shaq had 3-point range, but who are you and what have you done with the head scout?" contingency.

Working then within the realms of probability, I feel like it makes a lot more sense to ask how gracefully these guys shift gears depending on who is on the court and what the defense is giving. I find Magic jawdropping from this perspective, whereas Bird seems much more stuck. Perhaps that's what he was told to do and he was being the good soldier, but it's enough to give me cause for just a touch of concern.

[Doctor MJ]

I feel like I should say something on Wilt here beyond the negative I said earlier.

I am very much considering '67 Wilt, but as I tend to be with him, there are things that disturb me.

Acknowledging up front that I don't think it really makes sense to say that the '67 Wilt offensive model makes very much sense as an Offensive MVP candidate in the NBA game I know, it has to be pointed out that it didn't exactly make sense to people back then either. The results just spoke for themselves. And now we have more data than they had back then, and instead of contradicting the conclusions of the time, here they resonate perfectly with them. This 76er offense was easily the best offense anyone had ever seen up through that time, and it's hard to imagine any other player playing Wilt's role more effectively than Wilt did. Makes it hard for me to dismiss.

In the other direction, something I will admit is that with Wilt, and some other players, I at times get comfortable slotting him in a "lower than everyone else thinks but still undeniably good" place which if I'm honest relates to me wanting to push people in the 'right' direction while fearing that too extreme of a position will make them tune out. Rhetorically, this is very effective, but the problem is that I'm not actually purposefully being dishonest. I end up fooling myself, and regressing my opinion back toward the mean.

Point being: It's quite comforting to be able to say "Look, I rate Wilt's career way lower than most, but it's because of X, Y, and Z, I'm not saying that when he was on, he wasn't better than Russell.", but that may or may not stand up to further soul searching.

I will say though, that when people point to the great teammates on the 76ers and compare them favorably to Russell's teammates, for all my knocking of his teammates, I get uncomfortable there. I don't think it's right to deify Bob Cousy for running terrible offenses on a defensive dynasty, but I can't say I believe that those offenses were inevitably going to be terrible no matter the strategy. The Celtics clearly prioritized defense in their strategy a great deal. And so while I think people severely overrate the importance of Havlicek's scoring when he would score 40 points inefficiently as Russell's teammate, I do have to acknowledge that Havlicek probably could have done his more impressive '70s stuff earlier, if that had been in the best interest of the team.

So with all that said, I don't totally buy the Russell arguments here, but on the other hand, it's tough to feel strongly about peak Wilt over peak Russell here either. There's the tendency to think the Celtics stayed in place and the 76ers skyrocketed past them, when in reality it was as much the Celtics falling as it was the 76ers rising. Individually, You can't look at Wilt as a supe'd up Russell in this role by any means, first and foremost because in this year it's not like the 76er defense was dominating.

So peak vs peak, I'm left with two teams, about as good, two supporting cast, that that far apart from each other, and two stars doing things the other one couldn't do. One star taking on more responsibility than ever before (starting the season prior, but still) while the other makes a role change so sharp in its angle I don't think we've anything remotely close to it in a major sport since perhaps Babe Ruth. Photo finish. Still leaning Wilt, but a stiff breeze might change that.

[Doctor MJ]

Getting back to other players, we've got:

Magic vs Bird
Julius vs LeBron

To go along with Wilt vs Russell
Pick your winners, and those guys should probably be in the conversation now.

I suppose right now I'd lean Magic, LeBron, Wilt among those debates. Magic's lack of D makes me tend to put Wilt ahead of him. LeBron vs Magic I have problems with, but since Magic's below Wilt at the moment, I guess that puts me with Wilt vs LeBron.

I'm thinking a lot about the '09 playoffs. If that was a total fluke, something akin to Kobe mid-'05-06 but at a much more meaningful time, then that makes me thing I shouldn't get carried away by it. But damn was that something.

One guy I'm not seeing talked about much though: Hakeem. I always have a tough time getting a handle on him, and there's a part of me that feels I shouldn't be talking about peak Russell without spending about as much time talking about peak Hakeem. Thoughts?

[PTB Fan]

Vote: '67 Wilt Chamberlain

All the reasons were stated in the previous threads.

[GSP]

Getting back to other players, we've got:

Magic vs Bird
Julius vs LeBron

To go along with Wilt vs Russell
Pick your winners, and those guys should probably be in the conversation now.

I suppose right now I'd lean Magic, LeBron, Wilt among those debates. Magic's lack of D makes me tend to put Wilt ahead of him. LeBron vs Magic I have problems with, but since Magic's below Wilt at the moment, I guess that puts me with Wilt vs LeBron.

I'm thinking a lot about the '09 playoffs. If that was a total fluke, something akin to Kobe mid-'05-06 but at a much more meaningful time, then that makes me thing I shouldn't get carried away by it. But damn was that something.

One guy I'm not seeing talked about much though: Hakeem. I always have a tough time getting a handle on him, and there's a part of me that feels I shouldn't be talking about peak Russell without spending about as much time talking about peak Hakeem. Thoughts?

What makes peak Hakeem a better thought of discussion over peak Duncan and peak Garnett?

The way I see it at their peaks (03 and 04) Duncan and Garnett were better defenders than Hakeem while Hakeem was a better offensive player than Garnett due to his post/iso game effect vs Garnetts faceup. I dont know why Hakeem should be getting the nod over 03 Duncan. The only thing I can really see honestly is about injuries to key players during that season like Dirk (Duncan still outplayed and won majority of games when they were both healthy).

Then theres Duncans historic 24/17/5/5 finals and he never got outplayed in a series like Hakeem did against Shaq in the finals (Hakeems teammates hitting the shots at alltime efficiencies is what won them the series as well as Hakeems better ability to pass out of doubles at the time).

[Lukeem]

Haha my bad

Apologies

Russel was a better defender but I believe the gap is nowhere near as large as most will admitt. Russell was a perfect piece in a perfect system and symbolized as well as anchored a great team defense. Again I reiterate that I believe Russell was the better defender before posters start misreading and leading this discussion somewhere far away from the point.

The key problem with what you're arguing here is that Russell WAS the system. Credit Red for seeing Russell's potential, and giving the team defense over to it, but the defense was largely the same as what Russell's college team did once they got Russell. It seems it was pretty clear for Russell's coaches once they got over the fact that Russell did things you weren't supposed to do - Russell's talent and instincts made it clear that you let him do his thing, and you just used the other pieces as satellites.

But wilt did single handled dramatically change teams offensive approach while being able to stay in the game and dominate both ends and the boards. Something that is greatly over looked with wilt is his work ethic since his demeanor suggests otherwise, but this is a man that carried dumbells in suitcases so he could work out on the road. At the same time he greatly exagerated stories of his drinking and sleeping around according to teammates in order to promote his night club. Those that have not really read up on wilt and take his persona at face value have not scratched the surface of easily one of if not the greatest athlete of all time

Various things here:

-Wilt's stamina was certainly a huge positive, although it is pretty clear that coaches wanted him to play less simply because they could see when he became tired and they could see when he took possessions off.

-To your notion of all around domination, I'd encourage you to read a lot more on the subject on this forum, particularly this and past projects. I understand that some of the statements you're seeing in this thread are so far away from what you expect to find in casual basketball conversation that you wonder if people here are crazy, but it's pretty much a given that there's a ton of research that has been done here, both quantitative and qualitative, that you've never seen before. The gist:

Wilt as a scorer typically didn't have great impact, simply because the offense became very predictable and his teammates became passive. It's possible that in the modern era this wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem, but it is really not disputable that if you think that Wilt scoring 50 PPG meant that the defenses he went up against were getting destroyed you are wrong.

Wilt as a defender sometimes had very strong impact, and other times he coasted. It is unfortunate that unlike Russell who had a natural instinct for how to make the most impact with his abilities, Wilt tended to gravitate more toward what he thought would give him the most attention, which is actually pretty common for athletes (Russell is the abnormal one on this front).

However when we talk about Wilt playing great defense, it's important to realize that these guys had two very different bodies, and so when people talking about Wilt playing a defensive role that approximated Russell in certain years, you need to understand that that language is being used for the benefit of people who wouldn't have understood the details. The reality is that while Wilt was stronger and could reach a higher max height, he was never as agile as Russell and he could never read the court like Russell. While Wilt could be one hell of a deterrent to anyone trying to get a shot close to the net, he was not able to cover the large swaths of court space Russell was.

-Re: work ethic, demeanor, lying about nightlife. You need to put these things together to get a holistic picture of the man. Fundamentally, Wilt cared about what the public thought of him excessively, and so he would do things that he thought would add to his legend. He lifted weights a ton, because he wanted to emphasize how strong he was, but basketball-wise, he was already stronger than anyone else so there were definitely far better things he could have done with his time.

Then there's things like his chase of high FG% & assists after he'd become known already as the volume scoring key. In theory these are wonderful things, but when you all but refuse to shoot against Nate Thurmond because you don't want to risk lowering your FG%, and when you avoid making passes to players who drive because even if they score you won't get credited with an assist, you chip away substantially at your impact.

Most tragically in my mind, you have him so badly not wanting to be seen as a brute, that he'd focus on adding finesse to his game, even when that was clearly not good for his team. Wilt had a beautiful looking finger roll that was far more likely to miss than a typical lay up. He used Globetrotter like stuff moving the ball all around theoretically to confuse his man, but in reality he just made it easier for another defender to steal the ball. If he had not been so insecure, and perhaps if he had seen winning at basketball as something more important than he did, he would not have been doing these things.

But of course, basketball in the end, isn't that important. It is just a game, and especially back then, it was a very minor sport compared to today and Wilt understandably saw himself as the greatest physical specimen in humanity. In some ways it's quite understandable why Wilt would have priorities very different from what we basketball nuts would have liked, but here we are, judging basketball, and so it matters not whether he slept with more women than Genghis Kahn or whether he was the best beach volleyball player in the world, or whether he could lift 1000 lbs in this context.

I'm on my phone so sorry I can't break this down and respond one point at a time

1) yes russel was the system yes Russell covered more space and yes Russell was the better defender
But wilt had aspects of his defense that were better dominace at the rim being able to completely shut down every other center at the rim in one on one defense. But due to strength vertical and size wilt out rebounded Russell and has the advantage over russell here and if we are going to ignore wilt being the most dominate scorer ever and Russell being a .420 shooter with low usage rate then we are not having a full conversation about each individual players impact on each game

2) I am really not buying the obsession with stats as much as his obsession with dominance, which became centered on winning. His stats took a major dive when he bought into hanums system and they beat and celtics team loaded with hall of famers in 67. Also you'll see a similar impact with the lakers although at first the ego of Elgin Baylor basically froze out wilt, he continued to pound away and bring them a championship when Baylor was done ( their first in that era ) wilt having no problem diverting to Gail Goodrich and Kerry west without looking for stats by continuing to dominate defensively and on the boards and overall against Kareem. In the series on the way to his second ring. He also in those two years did it all playing through horrible knees and broken hand

3) wilt is not my favorite player. I hate him and the fact that he represents basically the start of players caring way too much about their brand. And all of that always makes me think how much better they could be if they would shut up and just put up ala Larry bird, Tim Duncan, and what I believe grant hill would of been..... However if a players impact on the game was worth 97/100 and could of been 100/100 a player like let's say Michael Jordan had an impact of 95/100 and could of been 96/100 the 97 is still higher,
Wasted potential is probably the most infuriating thing to watch but it still doesn't count against the reality of what they did... For example if Jordan would have had more a complete impact on the game maybe he would not have always lost to the dominate teams in the 80s and had to wait until the 90s to get his wins. If Jordan would have not retired maybe he could have challenged Russell's championships. Neither of those change the fact that he was the second greatest player of all time IMO

4) everybody loves to hate goaliath and people can use advanced statistics to prove or discredit wilt being the greatest ever, but whenever stats are used to support wilt it becomes " he was all about the stats " which considering the fact that he opposition believed wilt would easily crush blocks records and no one recorded blocks is a bit silly
Bottom line is watching wilt full games in his prime unavoidable if you want to be in this conversation ( not saying ou haven't but assuring you that lots haven't ) and if you watch wilts full games there has never been a player to dominate an entire game like wilt the percentage of baskets he is both directly and indirectly scoring, the amount of baskets he was both directly and indirectly preventing are unparralled ever, then of course the rebounds... Jordan may have had more impact on offense ( highly debateable ) but doesn't even come close anywhere else in terms of impact... Russell surpasses wilt in defense and is very comparable in rebounds but offense is a landslide and without great offensive teammates Russell's legend would be a lot lower ( big reason why I believe hakeem and Russell should be debated)

[lorak]

Re: LeBron '09 vs '12. I think it's a good question.

Do we all agree that LeBron was more valuable in '09 than in '12? Cool.
Do we all agree that LeBron has matured and clearly learned new things since '09? Cool.

So then what?

I'll listen to arguments, but I think a key point lies in why we're talking about '09 vs '10. Simply put: LeBron in the '09 playoffs was out of this world. The numbers he put up, NOBODY does that, and those numbers were not empty, he was dragging a bunch of hobbits with him.

I like it!

[lorak]

One guy I'm not seeing talked about much though: Hakeem. I always have a tough time getting a handle on him, and there's a part of me that feels I shouldn't be talking about peak Russell without spending about as much time talking about peak Hakeem. Thoughts?

Yeh, was '94 Hakeem really much worse defensively than Russell? IMO he was GOAT level defender at the time and of course he also played at very high level on offense. So I don't understand why nobody is talking about him.

[ronnymac2]

What makes peak Hakeem a better thought of discussion over peak Duncan and peak Garnett?

The way I see it at their peaks (03 and 04) Duncan and Garnett were better defenders than Hakeem while Hakeem was a better offensive player than Garnett due to his post/iso game effect vs Garnetts faceup. I dont know why Hakeem should be getting the nod over 03 Duncan. The only thing I can really see honestly is about injuries to key players during that season like Dirk (Duncan still outplayed and won majority of games when they were both healthy).

Then theres Duncans historic 24/17/5/5 finals and he never got outplayed in a series like Hakeem did against Shaq in the finals (Hakeems teammates hitting the shots at alltime efficiencies is what won them the series as well as Hakeems better ability to pass out of doubles at the time).

You're wildy off here.

Hakeem did outplay Shaq. I'm one of Shaq's biggest fans, but I'm a bigger fan accuracy. Olajuwon got the better of O'Neal in that '95 Finals. Not by a lot. But by a clear margin.


Hakeem's critics accurately point to that fact that Hakeem wasn't actually at his offensive peak and defensive peak at the same time for the majority of his career. But throughout the 1993 and 1994 seasons and postseasons, he was incredibly close to being at his peak level of both ends. '95 was actually the beginning of a defensive decline (still very good though).

He was arguably the best defensive player in the league in '93 and '94 (only peak David Robinson has an argument against him), and one of the most dominant back-to-the-basket low-post scorers/passing hubs ever on offense.

Sick peak player who most definitely should be getting consideration here. His game isn't ringing on these threads enough.

[ardee]

Getting back to other players, we've got:

Magic vs Bird
Julius vs LeBron

To go along with Wilt vs Russell
Pick your winners, and those guys should probably be in the conversation now.

I suppose right now I'd lean Magic, LeBron, Wilt among those debates. Magic's lack of D makes me tend to put Wilt ahead of him. LeBron vs Magic I have problems with, but since Magic's below Wilt at the moment, I guess that puts me with Wilt vs LeBron.

I'm thinking a lot about the '09 playoffs. If that was a total fluke, something akin to Kobe mid-'05-06 but at a much more meaningful time, then that makes me thing I shouldn't get carried away by it. But damn was that something.

One guy I'm not seeing talked about much though: Hakeem. I always have a tough time getting a handle on him, and there's a part of me that feels I shouldn't be talking about peak Russell without spending about as much time talking about peak Hakeem. Thoughts?

What makes peak Hakeem a better thought of discussion over peak Duncan and peak Garnett?

The way I see it at their peaks (03 and 04) Duncan and Garnett were better defenders than Hakeem while Hakeem was a better offensive player than Garnett due to his post/iso game effect vs Garnetts faceup. I dont know why Hakeem should be getting the nod over 03 Duncan. The only thing I can really see honestly is about injuries to key players during that season like Dirk (Duncan still outplayed and won majority of games when they were both healthy).

Then theres Duncans historic 24/17/5/5 finals and he never got outplayed in a series like Hakeem did against Shaq in the finals (Hakeems teammates hitting the shots at alltime efficiencies is what won them the series as well as Hakeems better ability to pass out of doubles at the time).

Mainly because Hakeem is a vastly better scorer than those two and is probably on about the same level on defense.

It's hard to objectively judge a defender's level unless there's a major apparent difference. That's why I would agree Russell is no. 1 all time, and then it's hard to separate the Garnetts, Duncans, Hakeems and Robinsons of the world.

[ElGee]

My first question though would be (and apologies if I missed this): What's your analysis of the scale of Bird's superiority on defense? I am hesitant to use defense as a major factor for players who aren't superstars on that front, but yes, clearly if Bird has a big enough edge here, he should get the nod.

Trying to put in all on the numerical scale in SRS terms...

Magic is a +8 on offense. This is the best offensive player in NBA history.
Bird is a +7.5 on offense. This is the second best offensive player in NBA history.

I have Bird having 0.5-1.0 edge on defense.

Let's put the actually number on hold for a second. I've done enough analysis and seen enough basketball that I'm fairly comfortable calling these guys the two best offensive players ever. (Nash and Jordan would be the only contenders to me, and I've seen enough of them to also feel comfortable slotting them back...although the 3-point line and whatnot makes it interesting for Nash, and the lack thereof makes it interesting for West/Oscar. I digress...)

Defensively, Bird in 86 is going to be above a replacement player. And depending on which forward position he plays he's having positive impact with his help, positioning and rebounding. (Without McHale, Bird posted "defensive stats" matched by these 7 players http://bkref.com/tiny/NTVwa) Magic's defense seems like a minor negative, while I view Bird's defense as a minor positive. I'm not sure most people realize early Bird was actual quite a good defender.

So the real question is how far apart are they in offensive impact? Is it as close as I imagine? Clearly if Magic is out on an island, you can give the nod to Magic 87 over Bird 86. Well...

ORtg
Bos 85 +4.9 (+3.2)
Bos 86 +4.6 (+8.2 PS)
Bos 87 +5.2 (+8.5 PS)
Bos 88 +7.3 (+3.6 PS) (+7.9 after first 2 rounds)
Bos 89 (no Bird) +3.0 (-7.3 PS)

That's 3g in 89 against Detroit. In 88, the PS ORtg in the first two rounds was +7.9 before bone spurs started to hamper Bird in the Detroit series, and the offense went with him (-4.3 against Detroit).

ORtg
LAL 85 +6.2 (+9.8)
LAL 86 +6.1 (+6.4)
LAL 87 +7.3 (+10.5)
LAL 88 +5.0 (+7.8)
LAL 89 +6.0 (+9.1)

I'm posting these just so people realize how good both these teams were on offense, and to also note the 87 Lakers go higher than the best Celtic team.

But then again, how much of that is due to a desire to run/offensive strategy on LA's part? How much of that is due to teammate differences? For instance, the 87 Celtics were last in OREB% by a mile...suggesting a major emphasis on transition D. (Unless you want to find a way to make the argument that McHale-Parish-Bird are all-time bad OREB in that year.)

This broad perspective above clearly isn't enough to answer "how much better is Magic on offense," but I just want everyone to see how close these teams performed on this side of the ball across the peak years for these guys. I think it's clear the in/out numbers are evidence in Bird's favor on this front. And responding to my point 2 graphs above...the 88 Celtics with healthy McHale and Bird essentially peak higher on offense than any team in NBA history:

+9.4 ORtg -- would be 1st all-time
59.6% TS -- would be 1st all-time by 0.6%!
68.7% AST% -- 4th among 111+ offenses, behind *ahem assist inflation ahem* 3 Utah teams

And they do it with horrific OREB% and without surrounding Bird with 3-point shooters. I find this as impressive as anything Magic ever accomplished, and it's one of the pillars of evidence for trumpeting Bird's offense-savant portability.

So, I guess if you think you can drop Magic on any team and get a +8 to _9 offense without sacrificing much on defense, his portability isn't really an issue. OTOH, if you replace every PG ever and end up with something between +5 and +7 on offenses on the capable teams, you aren't having the same lift when he replaces good PG's.

Bird never really "replaces" anyone, since he can play so many different roles and play either forward position and his off-ball play is GOAT-like. So Bird can go to those good offenses, "replace" either forward (not many good offenses have 2 pivotal performing forwards, eh?), he gives you an upgrade over nearly every shooting 3, a massive spacing upgrade over every non-German 4 basically, and his passing would create GOAT-level ball movement and facilitate any kind of offense with the current PG. Much like I see Reggie Miller's amazing ability to help good offenses (something, sadly, we only saw from Reggie himself in International play, but have seen from similar off-ball Spacers), I think Bird is taking all the teams past the "Magical ceiling" if you will, and that matters to me a good deal because in trying to build dominant teams I care way more about how you perform on good teams than what you can salvage from bad ones. (Yes, in this case I'm calling 4-5 SRS teams "salvaged" bc/ they don't win many titles.)

None of that is enough for me to say "Bird = Magic on offense" (although frankly, how is that not a fair question??), but is it not enough to say how could Magic's offensive advantage be large enough to offset Bird's defensive advantage?