lorak wrote:... (and keep in mind, that Boston before 1957 basically every year was among the best offensive teams in the NBA, so it isn't like he had bad offensive supporting cast)....
Yes, but the best offensive team from 56 would be among the worst by 61. NBA offenses changed more than in any similar stretch in league history. Russell's defensive impact actually improved over that time, Cousy and Sharman didn't adapt to the changing league, they stayed 40% fg shooters (Sharman a little better, Cousy a little worse) . . . then add Cousy's ridiculously bad playoff shooting and it's hard to buy him as still an outstanding scorer.
Look at numbers from 57 - Russel affected offense in a negative way, so your explanation doesn't look plausible. However I do agree, that NBA evolved offensively at the time, but it doesn't change the fact, that Russell was negative on O. And BTW, even at the end of his career Cousy had positive impact on offense as Celtics without him in 1964 regressed a lot (r_ortg) despite increased role of Hondo.
Did you check the playoff numbers for the Russell/Cousy years? I think you will find those numbers reversed to some degree. I agree that Russell was not a good offensive player but considering his defensive impact, I think his overall impact is still clearly superior to anyone in NBA history (again, possible exception of Mikan who I haven't looked at as closely). Cousy had a positive on/off impact as the team's playmaker, especially when replaced by KC Jones, the Ben Wallace of point guards. And increasing KC's minutes plus adding Havlicek who was NOT a particularly good offensive player in 64 is not a recipe for offensive success.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Since I have Jordan third in my ATL, my votes remain the same as in the #1 thread.
Top vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, by a hair, due to his offensive ability and longevity Second vote: Bill Russell, the greatest winner and defensive force the NBA has ever seen
My criteria:
Spoiler:
For the most part, I've purposely avoiding all-time rankings up to this point. There are so many variables that can't be accounted for, like differences between eras and how to rate players I haven't seen play. Beyond the benefit of engaging in interesting discussions about the sport I love, this project has value for me because it forces me to establish criteria to reflect what I value in the game. It also has value to me and (I hope) everyone else who participates by educating ourselves about players we know little about and gaining new perspectives on players we know fairly well.
If I had the time, I'd put together a spreadsheet or database to quantify my criteria categories and come up with a total score for each player. However, I'm not going to sweat it because a) while I'd use statistics for part of my criteria, key aspects of my criteria are inherently subjective; and b) the weighting I would apply to each category would also be subjective. I use statistics to inform my rankings, but I don't adhere to a statistics-only approach.
I also love the idea promoted by several others that this is a ranking of individuals within a team game and that performance within the team concept is a foundational tenet of my ranking method. I know it is, and it seems sorta obvious, but yeah, that's worth repeating.
If I were to give a numerical ranking to each category, it would likely be from +5 to -5 rather than 0-10. I know that they can be considered essentially the same, but I using the +5/-5 scale in my head gives me clear separation between a player who benefits his team in a particular category versus a player who hurts his team in that category. Going with a 0-10 scale puts me more in a mindset of trying to measure benefit only.
So here are my criteria. Please note that these are not necessarily in order of how I would weigh them.
1. Offensive dominance. How dominant is the player relative to other players in his era? How much does the opposing defense gameplan to stop him? How much does the player open up opportunities for teammates? Guys like Wilt, Jordan, and Bird shine here for their individual ability, guys like Magic, Stockton, and LeBron for how they create for others, with some obviously doing well in both areas. A third or fourth scorer on a good team gets a reduced bump.
2. Defensive dominance. This includes both individual defensive play -- one on one, helping off the ball -- and the impact the player has within the team defensive scheme. How versatile is the player defensively? Russell is the gold standard, as are DPOY-level players, but I also look to recognize players like Bird who weren't necessarily intimidating defenders one on one but were smart and effective within the team concept. This is a challenging area to assess for players who were known primarily for their offense -- are they solid defenders, or are they traffic cones?
3. Playoff performance. The regular season matters, but the playoffs are when the truly great players separate themselves. Shrinkage in the playoffs can be a negative for a player. Lack of appearances in the playoffs can also be a negative because, over the course of a career, great players should get there, and someone who doesn't carries the implication that they didn't contribute to making a playoff-worthy team. Their playoff struggles may not be all their fault, but Tracy McGrady and Chris Paul take a hit for me here.
4. Longevity. Did the player exhibit elite performance levels over many years? Kareem and Karl Malone set the bar here. Players who were good but not elite and maintained that level over a long career like Robert Parish and Dikembe Mutumbo get a bump.
5. Peak performance. As we discussed in another thread, a guy like Bill Walton deserves recognition for achieving an exceptionally high peak even if his longevity was poor. Anyone who had an exceptional peak performance deserves a bonus bump in the ranking. Anyone who had an exceptional peak that lasted for years deserves a max bump.
6. Historical impact. Did the player affect the way the game is played? Guys like Mikan, Russell, and Wilt deserve credit here, but I temper it a bit for them because part of their impact was due to the fact that the game was still in its relative infancy and more easily impacted. An obvious more recent example is Steph Curry, who accelerated the onset of three-point centric offenses. This is really a minor consideration, maybe 1% in my overall thinking, but can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating players at similar spots in the rankings.
7. Intangibles. Does a player make his teammates better, or is he a stat-grabbing anchor to team success? How does the player rank for selflessness, fitting within a system, leadership, clutchness, and other squishy factors?
8. Titles. Winning matters. It's not the only thing, but it makes a difference on where a player lands in the rankings.
9. Eyeball test. As if I don't have enough subjectivity in my criteria, but to say that I don't include this in my wetware ranking method would be disingenuous.
In short, my rankings are informed by statistics and include a diverse set of factors but are ultimately highly subjective. I haven't spent the time to develop a statistical formula like many others have, but even if I did, I wouldn't rely on a formulaic outcome exclusively because some important factors can't be distilled to a number (unless you subjectively assign a number), and the weighting of factors is also inherently subjective.
My reasoning from the #1 thread for choosing KAJ and Russell:
Note: I was tired when writing my arguments in favor of Kareem and felt like I did a poor job making his case. Unfortunately, I've been busy since then and haven't have the time to revise it. Others have done a better job presenting the numerical data, which is particularly important since his accumulation of statistics over such a long, productive career is so impressive. I'm amazed at how much time and effort posters are putting into this, both with the advance preparation and in responding to others in the thread. Thanks to everyone for that.
Kareem Before getting into my criteria categories, I want to point out what I consider to be a significant factor in people's assessment of Kareem for GOAT status, that he is mostly remembered as the player he was at the end of his career with the Lakers. This is partly a downside of such a long career, that his least productive and dominant years will be remembered most vividly because they were the most recent, but it's also a function of the fact that his Showtime Laker years are played frequently as classic NBA reruns. However, Kareem had 10 full seasons prior to Magic's arrival, and these are the years when he was at his most athletic and dominant. Kareem won five MVPs during those 10 years, with his sixth coming in 1979-80, Magic's rookie season.
Kareem also suffers in perception by spending four years on good but not great teams after being traded to LA, but he was the best player in the league during that time while playing in relative obscurity compared to the 80s,
Offensive dominance -- Kareem's height, length, skill, and athleticism combined to create the Sky Hook, the most unstoppable go-to shot in the history of the game. He had a variety of other moves, but his hook shot set him apart offensively. He could shoot it with either hand, he was adept at getting it off against single- or double-coverage with only a minimum of space to operate, and he shot it reliably out to 15 feet or more, if necessary. Kareem shooting the Sky Hook was a metronome of consistency that his team could go to all game long and down the stretch when they needed a bucket.
It remained effective into his latter playing days when he could shoot it on tiptoes, but the height he achieved on the release in his younger days was truly impressive.
Unlike many centers, Kareem was a good free throw shooter (72% career RS, 74% PO), which made him even more effective. He is 6th all time in RS FT attempts, 10th in RS FTs made, 9th in PO FT attempts, and 10th in PO FTs made.
He was also a willing and skilled passer. His assist percentages were excellent for a center, particularly in the first half of his career, when he was above 16% for nine straight seasons. That compares favorably with noted passers Bill Walton and Tim Duncan and is better than others like Dave Cowens, Hakeem, and Shaq.
Defensive dominance -- he wasn't in Russell's class, but he was a very good rim protector, individual defender, and help defender. He led the league in blocks four times and averaged 2.6 blocks for his career, but that doesn't include his first four seasons, which were before blocks were officially recorded. That trails Olajuwon (3.1) and Robinson (3.0) but compares favorably to Walton (2.2), Shaq (2.3), and Duncan (2.2).
He was a very good rebounder for the first half of his career and a good rebounder after that. He is fourth all-time in rebounds, trailing only Wilt, Russell, and Moses Malone. He's more than 2,000 ahead of Duncan, 3,000 ahead of Hakeem, and 4,000 ahead of Shaq.
Kareem was a cerebral player, and that was particularly true on the defensive end. He used his length and athleticism early in his career and became a smarter defender as his athleticism waned. He didn't have a dominant defensive mindset, but he was still very effective and a capable anchor for the defense even late into his career.
Playoff performance -- Kareem generally maintained his high RS levels of productivity in the playoffs, sometimes exceeding his RS performance and sometimes not, but was overall a very good playoff performer. He set numerous playoff and finals records in a variety of categories.
Longevity -- excellent productivity tapering off to very good productivity over a 20-year career. Simply outstanding longevity, as evidenced by his place in career statistics.
Peak performance -- he had a peak that lasted 12 years or more. He averaged 23.4 RS and 25.9 PO points in his 17th season. A remarkable combination of longevity and peak.
Historical impact -- didn't so much blaze the trail as extend the one set by Russell, Wilt, and the other great centers of the 60s.
Intangibles -- was a leader by example, the calm amid the storm during crunch time. As reliable as any player ever. Elevated his teammates play. Applied his exceptional individual talent and skill toward the achievement of team goals. A seamless teammate on championship teams, enhancing chemistry rather than causing drama.
Titles -- six in 10 finals appearances over his 20-year career.
Eyeball test -- he was the focal point of the game for most of his career and an essential contributor even late into his career. The most reliable and unstoppable offensive force ever, even more so than Wilt's fadeaways and power moves and Shaq's bull rushes, because he could always, always get that shot away, no matter the defense. Had a great combination of skill, talent, size, and intellect, plus a deep-seated desire to put team first. His longevity had the downside of diminishing his early years. He was taken for granted.
Russell Offensive dominance -- generally a poor shooter who benefited greatly by having a diverse group of offensively capable teammates and an all-time great coach. However, he is too easily dismissed as poor offensively because he wasn't a good shooter, but he does have significant arguments in his favor offensively. He was all-time great at transition offense by igniting the fast break through his rebounding prowess, being a great shotblocker who had control and awareness to turn blocks into outlet passes, and using his world-class athleticism to outrun others and finish on the break. Considering that those Celtic teams relied on the fast break as much as any team in history, that makes his impact offensively huge.
Also, despite being limited offensively in a conventional sense, he consistently improved his production in the playoffs, was the leading playoff scorer in one championship season, second twice, and third in other seasons on teams that featured great scorers like Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. You can mitigate his scoring (15.1 RS, 16.2 PO) based on pace and minutes played -- pace for those Celtics was above 120 compared to low 100s for Showtime Lakers, around 100 for this year's Warriors, and low 90s for Jordan's Bulls -- but even so, he was significantly more productive than true defensive specialists like Ben Wallace (5.7 RS, 7.2 PO) and Dikembe Mutumbo (9.8 RS, 9.1 PO).
Defensive dominance -- unparalleled in this area. The concept of offensive gravity has emerged for players like Steph Curry and Shaq, but Russell exerted defensive gravity, creating a wide bubble around the basket where opponents had to be constantly aware of him. Great rebounder, which is essential to finish a defensive possession. He was a great shotblocker, but he had a greater impact getting into the opponents' heads, making them so concerned about him that they'd miss shots or not even take them. He used a combination of supreme athleticism, IQ, will, and ferocity to dominate the game defensively.
Playoff performance -- was in the playoffs every season. Changed the Celtics from a good team that lost in the first or second round to one that failed to reach the finals only once. Consistently upped his performance in the playoffs. Was the playoff leader in rebounds per game in seven seasons.
Longevity -- played 13 seasons, which is significantly fewer than guys who played around 20 like Kareem, Karl Malone, and Robert Parish, but was a long career by the standards of the day.
Peak performance -- his scoring declined in his last few seasons, but he otherwise maintained a high level of performance throughout his career. Averaged at least 10 points and 20 rebounds every postseason. In RS, averaged at least 12.9/21.0 in seasons 2-11, 14.7/19.6 his rookie season, and 12.5/18.6 and 9.9/19.3 his last two seasons.
Historical impact -- changed the role of center from floorbound plodder to athletic leaper. Essentially introduced the concept of a shotblocker. Changed the notion of how defense impacts the game. Set the standard for winning with 11 titles in 13 seasons. This is a small factor but still relevant.
Intangibles -- consistently elevated his teammates' performance, turning marginal role players into significant contributors and good players into even better ones. Whenever to opportunity arose, sacrificed individually for the betterment of team goals. Top marks in leadership, IQ, clutch play, and will to win.
Titles -- 11 in 13 seasons.
Eyeball test -- he and Hakeem were the best athletes to ever play the center position. Was the foundation of teams that were the epitome of how the game is played at its peak level, the central defensive anchor that allowed his teammates to extend defensive pressure outward, and part of a offense that mixed fast breaks with halfcourt offense that maximized effectiveness by utilizing everyone as a capable scorer.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Outside wrote:he and Hakeem were the best athletes to play at the center position
This is very interesting thought, since Wilt is considered one of the best athletes in terms of athleticism in basketball. If Russell/Hakeem are at the top, were do you put Wilt in that conversation?
Outside wrote:he and Hakeem were the best athletes to play at the center position
This is very interesting thought, since Wilt is considered one of the best athletes in terms of athleticism in basketball. If Russell/Hakeem are at the top, were do you put Wilt in that conversation?
I put Wilt a level below those two because he didn't maintain that elite level of athleticism throughout his career, while Russell and Hakeem did. If we look at peak athleticism, then I'd include Wilt, Russell, and Hakeem together, but once Wilt started to bulk up and get really big and strong, that came at a cost in agility, speed, and quickness. Shaq underwent a similar transformation.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
RSCD3_ wrote: Compared to the list of 2014 1. Michael Jordan 2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3. Bill Russell 4. Wilt Chamberlain 5. Tim Duncan 6. Shaquille O'Neal 7. LeBron James
It's crazy how these 3 years by LeBron may have only moved him up 1-2 spots
What do you mean? I think it's clear that he's going to be #3
Since the last project, LeBron has played 3 seasons where he was the best playoff player in each of those seasons. He averaged 30-10-8, 12 BPM, 28 PER in that span. He had 2 top 3 MVP finishes and likely a top 5 MVP this season. He's added basically the equivalent to 3 peak seasons since the last project. I can't see how Shaq, Duncan, or Wilt have an argument against LeBron anymore.
I agree with you, but Why are you saying "It's crazy how these 3 years by LeBron may have only moved him up 1-2 spots"? Judging by the stuff I'm reading he's going to be #3
pelifan wrote:I dont have a vote but my mount Rushmore of the NBA is Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Lebron, Wilt in that order.
I'd love to hear more about Wilt when his name finally comes around. Some of the numbers around him on and off the court (gross, I mean his track and field numbers) are insane. 6-6 high jump 10.9 100 meters 40 inch vertical 4.6 40, grabbing coins off the top of the backboard, shotput 53 feet . Arguably the greatest athlete who ever lived, just maybe not the best basketball player. I'd like to see all the best clips and stories.
I did a comparison of Wilt and Russell a few years ago that has stories, quotes, and that kind of thing that may be of interest to you. I'll post it in a separate thread on the PC forum. I'll need to do some minor editing, but I'll post it as soon as I can.
I have a whole writhing collection of thoughts bouncing around my head, and I don't have the time in this thread to organize and research them the way I'd like to before the deadline. So I'm just going to spill some of them out here in a somewhat rambling, hopefully not too incoherent way.....
On Kareem and Duncan (and others) and Impact drza always presents some really intriguing and well-researched views, and once again he's nearly convinced me to make a wholesale change to the very foundation of my criteria, switching it to something that is almost entirely impact-based.
But then I think on it and still have some reservations about throwing all my eggs into that basket: 1) That basket has a few holes. Even the best of impact metrics (RAPM, generally PI for a guy in the middle of his prime) still has noise and the occasional questionable result, though obviously still [clearly, imo] the best pure indicator of on-court impact. Problem is going back in time (to pre-databall era players), the means we have of evaluating this get smaller and smaller (and more and more flawed, too); so any conclusions we draw from them are more and more questionable. Not saying we shouldn't use them; not at all. I use them myself; just cautious about taking them at face-value (especially with the tiny samples often involved in things like WOWY, and the significant line-up noise considerations inherent).
2) There are other baskets; why should elevate the importance of the "impact basket" so high as to make the others near-negligible? I know most people say that winning is the only thing that matters, and how much a player contributes to his team's winning potential should therefore be our sole consideration. But I'm gonna play devil's advocate (because tbh, I DO feel this way to a small degree), and suggest that maybe winning isn't the only thing that matters. There is something to be said for guys that "fill up the boxscore" (particularly scoring), because (for the most part) those are the guys that drive the popularity of the game (especially if they're flashing perimeter scorers). Those are the guys that sell tickets, that sell merchandise, that kids imitate on courts all over the world, etc. The vastly expanded global popularity (and thus, player pool), which has resulted in the high player quality we enjoy today is a direct result of these "marketable" players. The Cousy's, Jordan's, Kobe's, Iverson's, Melo's, Curry's, even Cousins's of the game push the popularity to new generations of fans much more than the Thurmond's, DeBusschere's, Mutombo's, Big Ben's, Gobert's, or [sadly] even the Duncan's of the game. Not saying it's fair or right.....but it's true. And if the game isn't serially popular, the game doesn't evolve to the degree that it has. fwiw, These "box-stuffers" are also the first players burgeoning fans are going to learn about (because they're populating the top spots in all-time leaderboards).
3) Is this "impact basket" telling me what I think it is? I'm referring to how well "impact" correlates with "player goodness". I'm going to use Ben Wallace as an example. Big Ben, most of would probably agree, is on the shortlist for worst offensive players EVER to get significant playing time. And yet if he's so terrible on offense, why is his ORAPM in his prime typically more or less neutral (rarely even a tiny positive) or a small negative? It's because all that was asked of him on that end was to hit the offense glass a bit, maybe run the floor in transition if the opportunity arose, and otherwise just don't do anything stupid like turn the ball over or [generally] shoot it at all. And they had the cast to put on the court with him who could bear the burden of the offense more or less without him. In other words, they managed to pretty well neutralize his offensive deficiencies. Now let's take a really exaggerated hypothetical scenario in which Wallace is asked to shoulder 30+% usage. They say "we're basically gonna run our offense thru you, and give you the ball in low-post isolation as often as we can, and we want you to try and make something happen"........What do we think would happen to his impact metrics in this scenario? I'm guessing his ORAPM would fall to a [perhaps never before seen] ridiculously negative figure. And the added rub is: his DRAPM is likely to fall, too--->he's likely to be distracted (and in his case, frustrated) by his offensive responsibilities leaving him significantly less focused on defense; he's likely to be more fatigued due to his offensive responsibilities, leaving him less fresh on the defensive end; his offensive mishaps may lead to increased transition opportunities for the opponent which will be reflected in lowering the on-court DRtg; he might occasionally be late in getting back on transition D (due to making camp in the low-post on offense). All of these things may result in a 25-50% decrease (perhaps substantially more???) in his DRAPM. So we've taken a guy who consistently had good [sporadically elite] impact as measured by RAPM, and turned him into a player who is a significant negative in on-court impact.
It's the same exact player. We've only changed his role/circumstance.
Now obviously this is a hyperbolic example. Rarely, if ever, has an NBA player been so misused. But make no mistake, other players (I daresay most players) are being misused to some degree: utilized in such a way that is NOT maximizing their player attributes, and/or they do not have teammates who can neutralize their short-comings.......and those more micro misuses will leave smaller negative imprints on our perception of their impact.
That is, imo, a really under-recognized reality when reviewing and comparing individuals based on impact indicators.
Now to Timmy's credit, I do believe he has a tremendous amount of portability (and I'd absolutely say it's superior to Kareem's); Walton's probably more portable, too. But when we're comparing Kareem and Walton in terms of perceived impact, it's only fair to look at the circumstance. Ramsay orchestrated a great team philosophy and offensive scheme. Walton's a very good scorer, but not necessarily a great one. But he's great at getting defensive stops and an excellent outlet passer, so Ramsay makes use of the fastest backcourt in the league that he has alongside him to ignite the transition game. This backcourt also includes some capable perimeter scorers in Hollins and Gross and fantastic [though low-volume] finishing and mid-range shooting guard in Twardzik, scoring depth in the backcourt with Steele, Gilliam, and Davis; so no one ever plays tired and they lose almost nothing in going to their bench. Also have a capable scorer at the PF in Lucas, who takes some criticism for shooting too many mid-range jumpers (same as later Blazer PF, LMA); but it's his willingness and ability to shoot out there if needed that opens up the paint for the quick cutting guards that Walton is hitting with passes from the pivot or elbow or low block. A lot of what they were doing in taking advantage of Walton's GOAT-level big man passing is actually dependent on Lucas having a bit more outside game.
This team is built almost perfect for a player like Walton. Maximizes his impact, imo (and on the flip-side, kinda sets them up to fail when he's NOT around).
How would you compare that to the '77 Lakers as constructed around Kareem? Cazzie Russell, Lucius Allen, and a streaky shooting rookie Earl Tatum are the only other even remotely capable scorers on that roster (none of them exactly "scaring" the other team), and Don Chaney was terrible on offense. They had no relevant play-maker, limited outside shooting (to give Kareem a bit more space to work on the block or have reliable shooters to kick to) except for Tatum, no stretch four to open up the paint, and a fairly unsophisticated offensive philosophy. Outside of Kermit Washington (who missed a third of the season) and Don Chaney, they weren't a good defensive supporting cast either.
An interesting question to ask is how do we feel they'd do if their roles were reversed? Personally, do I think Kareem could have done as well as Walton if playing in Walton's shoes in Portland that year? As far as on-court per minute impact, no, not quite. I don't see him as quite as good a defensive anchor, and marginally lesser passer, too (though obviously better scorer). otoh, Kareem isn't going to miss 17 rs games, and can provide provide more like 36+ mpg as opposed to the 32-34 mpg Walton was limited to (I speculate in part due to his sore knees). So in terms of PER GAME impact?......maybe. Per SEASON impact?.......yes, possibly even more overall impact in the rs (I think they top 50 wins with Kareem). In the playoffs (where Walton was healthy and playing large minutes), I don't think Kareem can do quite as well as Walton did for them; but I still see them as potential favorites for the title.
Would Walton do as well with the '77 Lakers? Personally, I don't think so. He doesn't have the quickness, transition game, or scoring capability in the backcourt that he had at his disposal in Portland, he doesn't have a PF who can open up the paint either. He would have to become the classic back-to-the-basket big and just sort of do the best he could, and I don't think he can do that as well as Kareem (to sort of single-handedly carry them to a top 5 offense). And while I can't prove it ('cause Kareem didn't miss a game), I suspect this lackluster cast falls the hell apart in the 17 games Walton misses. Honestly, I could see this team missing the playoffs with Walton at the helm.
So anyway.....just so much context to impact, is what I'm saying.
'Dat Longevity! Where impact is concerned in the Kareem vs Duncan debate...... Let's say Duncan is a roughly +6 per 100 possessions for his team over the course of his career, and we magically got some RAPM for Kareem which showed him to be an average of +4.8 per 100 over his career. Even going primarily by impact data, one could still perhaps side with Kareem by a hair. Due to the increased minutes, fewer missed games, and (since this is per possession) faster pace (resulting in more possessions per game), Kareem still comes out slightly on top in total career pt differential created: he played 21.3% MORE rs minutes than Duncan (which could amount to ~30+% more possessions played, due to faster pace).
Scarcity, Scaleability, and Additive-ness I must admit these considerations are swaying me a bit on Duncan (and Russell). Don't think it's going to be enough to shift things for Russell on my ATL, but I am considering moving Duncan ahead of Lebron as my 2ndary pick here. Reconsidering all he's done as an off-court leader is playing a role in this, too.
There's a bunch more I wanted to discuss wrt Lebron and others, but I'm just out of time now.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
kayess wrote:This KAJ vs TD debate feels like a prelude to a "KG better than both" hammer drop. Not that it can't be true - but I feel like allowances are being made in those two's favor that isn't being made for Kareem.
Impact's the thang, but if a player has the skill-set for it and is unable to express the impact it would, we shouldn't be so quick to conclude that he didn't because he couldn't - his environment obviously plays a huge role into that as well.
Can we get opponent O/DRTG adjusted WOWY numbers for those KAJ stretches? Blackmill's analysis was great, but it does feel like a SSS - TheRegulator, do you have some articles that will illuminate what KAJ's defense was truly like?
I searched for all news articles about Kareem written prior to the 1978 NBA season. I found just one SI article from the 1971 season. Here's some quotes:
Although he was the Bucks' high scorer, Alcindor's most valuable work was on defense. Bullet Forward Gus Johnson missed two games because of sore knees and was unable to perform with anything near his usual effectiveness on Baltimore's offensive boards when he did play, so Alcindor was free to control the defensive rebounding for Milwaukee and a large part of Baltimore's favorite shooting territory from his zone under the basket.
This reinforces the idea that Kareem became a more active help defender when he didn't have to worry as much about the defensive board. With Gus Johnson unable to rebound like usual, Kareem had the freedom to lock down the paint.
The frustration of facing Alcindor's interior, roving defense spilled over into the crowd during the second game, which Baltimore lost, at home, 102-83. Marvin Cooper, the free-form rock dancer who was the best single performer for Baltimore during the series, stopped tripping lightly after he observed what Alcindor did to his team in the second and third periods, when the Bullets scored only 35 points.
Again, we have indication that Kareem was an active, "roving" help defender. And that his defense had great effect.
"They just stopped us from getting the layup," Marin said of the Milwaukee defense. "You look up there and see that Afro up by the rim, and you just don't figure out what to do about it. They gave me a lane to the basket all night. I took it once, I took it again, and then I said forget about it. It's like taking a golf shot through a tree; it's supposed to be 90% air, but you always seem to hit a twig..."
So the Buck's defensive strategy was for perimeter players to give up the lane and rely on Kareem's help defense when the offense took advantage. In Marin's case, he just stopped going to the rim, because he couldn't get a shot off with Kareem nearby.
"You've got to give Lew all the credit," added Kevin Loughery. "He may only block one shot here or there, but guys have to change their shots because of him. He's the greatest defensive player I've seen since Bill Russell."
Finally, we have an Loughery (who played for the Bullets) comparing Kareem to Bill Russell, who could be considered the ideal help defender.
trex_8063 wrote: On Kareem and Duncan (and others) and Impact drza always presents some really intriguing and well-researched views, and once again he's nearly convinced me to make a wholesale change to the very foundation of my criteria, switching it to something that is almost entirely impact-based.
But then I think on it and still have some reservations about throwing all my eggs into that basket: 1) That basket has a few holes. Even the best of impact metrics (RAPM, generally PI for a guy in the middle of his prime) still has noise and the occasional questionable result, though obviously still [clearly, imo] the best pure indicator of on-court impact. Problem is going back in time (to pre-databall era players), the means we have of evaluating this get smaller and smaller (and more and more flawed, too); so any conclusions we draw from them are more and more questionable. Not saying we shouldn't use them; not at all. I use them myself; just cautious about taking them at face-value (especially with the tiny samples often involved in things like WOWY, and the significant line-up noise considerations inherent).
2) There are other baskets; why should elevate the importance of the "impact basket" so high as to make the others near-negligible? I know most people say that winning is the only thing that matters, and how much a player contributes to his team's winning potential should therefore be our sole consideration. But I'm gonna play devil's advocate (because tbh, I DO feel this way to a small degree), and suggest that maybe winning isn't the only thing that matters. There is something to be said for guys that "fill up the boxscore" (particularly scoring), because (for the most part) those are the guys that drive the popularity of the game (especially if they're flashing perimeter scorers). Those are the guys that sell tickets, that sell merchandise, that kids imitate on courts all over the world, etc. The vastly expanded global popularity (and thus, player pool), which has resulted in the high player quality we enjoy today is a direct result of these "marketable" players. The Cousy's, Jordan's, Kobe's, Iverson's, Melo's, Curry's, even Cousins's of the game push the popularity to new generations of fans much more than the Thurmond's, DeBusschere's, Mutombo's, Big Ben's, Gobert's, or [sadly] even the Duncan's of the game. Not saying it's fair or right.....but it's true. And if the game isn't serially popular, the game doesn't evolve to the degree that it has. fwiw, These "box-stuffers" are also the first players burgeoning fans are going to learn about (because they're populating the top spots in all-time leaderboards).
Now to Timmy's credit, I do believe he has a tremendous amount of portability (and I'd absolutely say it's superior to Kareem's); Walton's probably more portable, too.
'Dat Longevity! Where impact is concerned in the Kareem vs Duncan debate...... Let's say Duncan is a roughly +6 per 100 possessions for his team over the course of his career, and we magically got some RAPM for Kareem which showed him to be an average of +4.8 per 100 over his career. Even going primarily by impact data, one could still perhaps side with Kareem by a hair. Due to the increased minutes, fewer missed games, and (since this is per possession) faster pace (resulting in more possessions per game), Kareem still comes out slightly on top in total career pt differential created: he played 21.3% MORE rs minutes than Duncan (which could amount to ~30+% more possessions played, due to faster pace).
Scarcity and Additive-ness I must admit these considerations are swaying me a bit on Duncan (and Russell). Don't think it's going to be enough to shift things for Russell on my ATL, but I am considering moving Duncan ahead of Lebron as my 2ndary pick here. Reconsidering all he's done as an off-court leader is playing a role in this, too.
There's a bunch more I wanted to discuss wrt Lebron and others, but I'm just out of time now.
I agree that popularity and influence are a part of being a basketball player, though not a part that's relevant in this discussion. That sort of criteria *is* how the casual fan views things, which tends to produce narratives,, which is why it doesn't affect my rankings much (like, MJ doesn't get bonus points for being the mythological MJ). I know that's not what you're saying, but my point is that in this particular context of discussion for greatness, you yourself will not be swayed by a popularity argument, nor most of us either. People are typically in 3 camps here - impact in some form, box score in some form, and best career in some form. I would say all of those things are portions of defining goodness and greatness - how impactful a player is.
Wrt KAJ/Duncan/Walton, I think Walton's shortness of career and even shortness of peak season make Kareem the de facto leader. I don't find those arguments as compelling, because as you said, we have only seen peak/prime Walton in an ideal situation - we don't know how he would have done in a situation like 77 Kareem or 05-07 KG, for example. However, with Duncan that's not the case. Duncan could be a case study of his own on shifting team dynamics/portability/scalability/etc. He played as co-defensive anchor, defensive anchor, offensive and defensive centerpiece, old man anchor, etc. This was with garbage teams, phenomenal teams, mediocre, etc. My point is, it's not unknown with him as it is with Walton. IMO, he demonstrated clearer impact than Kareem (even though Kareem was probably more skilled/dominant overall), and was able to produce greater "lift" in most comparable situations than Kareem. That's why I say his longevity (and maybe even his prime) were more meaningful. With Walton, we can't know how he would have been in a non-ideal situation. With Duncan, we do, and what we saw leads me to find him more valuable.
I hope to write on that in the next few hours. I'm torn b/t Russell/KAJ at my 2nd choice.
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
lebron3-14-3 wrote:Great discussion, but since there are not enough posts I propose to make my vote count
Provide some content and I just might.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Vote: Kareem. I made my points in Post #1 last time. I'll also add what I noted years ago--there's not much of a correlation between the top league scorers and pace, so using possessions to compare between eras is always going to favor players from teams/seasons/eras with slow(er) pace. The very top scorers don’t score a whole lot more or less than they did 40 or 50 years ago (taking out Wilt as an outlier). It sounds simplistic but--Kareem was a great/elite scorer because he was a great elite scorer. He was in the top 4 of scoring 10 times. Tim Duncan was never in the top 4. He was fifth in scoring in 2002. TD scored 25.5 a game that year. Kareem averaged 25.8 and 26.2—a little more—in the years he finished fourth. He averaged 24.8 and 23.9—a little less—in two years where he finished sixth in scoring. Love Duncan, will be voting for him soon, recognize his D and its value, only have him a bit lower. But he's not as good of a scorer as Kareem.
2nd Place: Russell. People have been saying it, so I won't add much/anything. His defensive impact was singular and extraordinary.
What do you mean? I think it's clear that he's going to be #3
Since the last project, LeBron has played 3 seasons where he was the best playoff player in each of those seasons. He averaged 30-10-8, 12 BPM, 28 PER in that span. He had 2 top 3 MVP finishes and likely a top 5 MVP this season. He's added basically the equivalent to 3 peak seasons since the last project. I can't see how Shaq, Duncan, or Wilt have an argument against LeBron anymore.
I agree with you, but Why are you saying "It's crazy how these 3 years by LeBron may have only moved him up 1-2 spots"? Judging by the stuff I'm reading he's going to be #3
If KAJ wins the #2 I'm definitely voting for LeBron at #3.
Also going up those spots within 3 years is not that short... remember, passing the guys at the top should happen at a very slow pace. Jumping to #3 in 3 years is actually incredible if it happens. That's a hell of a jump.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
lebron3-14-3 wrote:Great discussion, but since there are not enough posts I propose to make my vote count
Why weren't you voting since the begining? This is a good question for you to understand if you should or not vote.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Completely fine with Jordan at the no. 1 spot, a truly amazing player and may well be the GOAT athlete. Nothing changes for me. Voting Russell here.
Here's the thing about Russ now. There's this notion that people have that a guy can't be as impactful on defense as guys like Jordan/Magic/Bird are on offense. This notion is wrong. The AVERAGE player's defense is not on par with the average player's offense, but in RUSSELL'S case, his defense is even MORE impactful than the GOAT offensive player (Jordan/Magic/Bird to me). The case for Russ built around his defense, really, is that his gap over the second best defender is SO MUCH BIGGER than the GOAT offensive player's gap over the second best offensive player (it's actually so close I can't even decide an order between those two).
If I had to rank it SRS wise for their primes I'd go:
Defense
Russell: 10 Hakeem: 5 Robinson: 5 Duncan: 4-4.5
Offense
Jordan/Magic/Bird: 9-9.5 LeBron: 8.5 or so Kobe/Barkley/Oscar: 7.5-8 Shaq/Dirk/Kareem: 7
It's a real cluster*** on offense, with defense it's SO clear that Russ is the GOAT it's not even funny.
And honestly I don't see why Russell's impact would not translate. Not to the 60s level of course but at least 85% of it would be there, other than the 3 point line. He moved horizontally like KG, covered ground as well as someone regarded the GOAT modern defensive mover, and blocked shots better than anyone. It's the complete package, perfect storm. Someone who competed in Olypmic level athletics definitely has the hops to dominate today.
And people who knock on Russell's offense: well, it doesn't matter! The thing about Russ was that he was SO DOMINANT on defense, that offense didn't even matter. The numbers don't lie. The Cs were last on offense most years of Russ's prime, but they were SO GOOD on defense that the results spoke for themselves. The gap between the Cs on defense and the no. 2 defense was greater than no. 2 and no. 10! In retrospect, you HAVE to have such crazy outlier results to win 11 titles.
On the topic of Kareem vs Duncan, and people saying that if Kareem is being considered, so should Duncan, because they have similar longevity, I agree that maybe 12-15 Duncan is roughly equal to mid 80s Kareem, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1970-1981 Duncan is well superior to 1998-2009 Duncan.
To the Duncan supporters, answer me this. In the top 10 seasons between the two, how many would Duncan have.
As a matter of fact, I have two more guys above Kareem, who are LeBron James and Wilt Chamberlain. With those two as well, how many of the top 10 combined years would TD have?
ardee wrote:On the topic of Kareem vs Duncan, and people saying that if Kareem is being considered, so should Duncan, because they have similar longevity, I agree that maybe 12-15 Duncan is roughly equal to mid 80s Kareem, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1970-1981 Duncan is well superior to 1998-2009 Duncan.
To the Duncan supporters, answer me this. In the top 10 seasons between the two, how many would Duncan have.
As a matter of fact, I have two more guys above Kareem, who are LeBron James and Wilt Chamberlain. With those two as well, how many of the top 10 combined years would TD have?
According to my formula Duncan is really high on longevity, but KAJ crushes him. 1. KAJ 4589,78028 2. Tim Duncan 4113,066923 3. Karl Malone 3945,356195 4. John Stockton 3700,152378 5. Shaquille O'Neal 3678,205427 6. Hakeem Olajuwon 3555,365405 7. LeBron James 3483,452121 8. Michael Jordan 3437,746347 9. Dirk Nowitzki 3401,52993 10. Kevin Garnett 3316,776538 11. Kobe Bryant 3286,03919
(Still haven't put 2017 year except on LeBron) This is just the list of the players I had after 2016, I've added some more since then but no all are in there... it's just for people to understand the type of value it generates.
I understand it isn't perfect and especially before 1980 there are some holes but I don't see a major problem with it.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
ardee wrote:On the topic of Kareem vs Duncan, and people saying that if Kareem is being considered, so should Duncan, because they have similar longevity, I agree that maybe 12-15 Duncan is roughly equal to mid 80s Kareem, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1970-1981 Duncan is well superior to 1998-2009 Duncan.
To the Duncan supporters, answer me this. In the top 10 seasons between the two, how many would Duncan have.
As a matter of fact, I have two more guys above Kareem, who are LeBron James and Wilt Chamberlain. With those two as well, how many of the top 10 combined years would TD have?
Can I counter this question with how many Russell seasons you would have in the top 10 in those comparisons?
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
ardee wrote:On the topic of Kareem vs Duncan, and people saying that if Kareem is being considered, so should Duncan, because they have similar longevity, I agree that maybe 12-15 Duncan is roughly equal to mid 80s Kareem, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1970-1981 Duncan is well superior to 1998-2009 Duncan.
To the Duncan supporters, answer me this. In the top 10 seasons between the two, how many would Duncan have.
As a matter of fact, I have two more guys above Kareem, who are LeBron James and Wilt Chamberlain. With those two as well, how many of the top 10 combined years would TD have?
Can I counter this question with how many Russell seasons you would have in the top 10 in those comparisons?
5ish with each I think. For example with Wilt, I think Russell was better in 1960, 61, 63, 65 and 69. Then his early years are better than Wilt's late years.
Since I don't when the voting will end I'll go on the record. My vote is the same as last time and for the same reasons:
First Vote: Kareem Second Vote: Duncan
I am currently working on a regression that will hopefully give some more reliable impact data around Kareem's prime. Otherwise, I would be saying a bit more about the comparison between Duncan and Kareem, I just don't have the time right now.
. Arguably the greatest athlete who ever lived, just maybe not the best basketball player. I'd like to see all the best clips and stories.
