RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't think people question Russell or Wilt's athletic ability. It's more the ability of other bigs of that era that's in question. A look at other C/PFs in the NBA from the late 50's to late 60's is pretty horrific. Along with a wider lane and no 3pt line.

[Doctor MJ]

WILT'S MISUSE
Regarding Wilt being misused: Wilt led the league in FG% 9 times in his 14 seasons. He led the league in FG% while averaging 44.8pts a game one season. That's insane.

Even taking into account his poor FT shooting, he was annually one of the very best in the league at TS%. He was 5th in 1961, 4th in 1962, 5th in 1963, 8th in 1964, 12th in 1965, 4th in 1966.

Here are his PPG, FG% and TS% ranks through those the first 7 years in which he led the league in scoring each season:
59-60 37.6pts -- FG%: 6th, TS%: 16th
60-61 38.4pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 5th
61-62 50.4pts -- FG%: 2nd, TS%: 4th
62-63 44.8pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 5th
63-64 36.9pts -- FG%: 3rd, TS%: 8th
64-65 34.7pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 12th
65-66 33.5pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 4th

So basically you get past his rookie season, and not only is Wilt the most prolific scorer in the NBA (and indeed in NBA history) for the next 7 years, he's just about the most efficient scorer too. And none of the handful of guys more efficient in a given year played for Wilt's teams. So how exactly is giving the ball to the most prolific and most efficient scorer, not only on your team, but even in the league, misuse? Who exactly would you rather have shooting those shots?

You're responding to me after I just got done talking about how all analysis involving Wilt need to deal with '67 by showcasing your infatuation for the years before then. My response to this is already included in my prior post.

I'm responding to you by showing how your argument against pre-1967 doesn't address Wilt's overwhelming efficiency/production combination.

Arguments that guys should shoot less typically center upon efficiency issues which were simply non-existent here. There almost were no more efficient shots for Wilt's teams (or any team) than feed it another time to Wilt. Even if a player is so special that you can turn him around, have him work as the first great passing post, and go out and win even more games, that hardly makes previous usage of the best FG% shooter in the game as the most productive scorer in the league inept. Its an obvious and entirely appropriate usage.

Okay so here's what we would expect in an ideal setting:

The more the alpha shoots, the easier it is for his teammates to shoot.
Thus, while the alpha's efficiency goes down, the teammates' efficiency goes up.
And were the alpha to shoot less, we'd expect his teammate's efficiency to go down.

If that was what happened in '67, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. What we found instead was:

When the alpha shot less, his teammates's efficiency went up. WAY up. The NON-Wilt '67 76ers shot a higher FG% than the '66 76ers did including Wilt.

And so that's what's important here along with considering why Hannum made the change he did.

This feeling you have that individual production essentially can't lie is misguided. This is not baseball.
In basketball the best player on the court can make his team worse if he gets in the way of their flow.

[ThaRegul8r]

1) Absurd athleticism. There is a possibility that Bill Russell wasn't just an absurd athlete for his time, but that he would be just as absurd of an athlete in today's game. Now, all of this can't be verified, but some of it can. The first is a quote that I saw attributed to Russell, presumably from one of his books, but I don't have the book and I can only site a message board for it (maybe someone like ThaRegul8r can verify, if they're familiar):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597

Leaping high had hooked me. Two years later, during the off-season at USF, some friends and I tested how high I could reach from a running start. I left chalk dust from my fingertips at a point fourteen feet above the floor—four feet above the basket and a foot above the top of the backboard. I loved jumping. It would have been easy for me to dunk the ball even in a twelve foot basket

Now, until verified, this is internet hear-say. And, even if shown to be an accurate quote, we'd have only Russell's word for it. But still..

I can verify the quote, yes.

It looks to be from Second Wind, which I own.

[Outside]

I don't think people question Russell or Wilt's athletic ability. It's more the ability of other bigs of that era that's in question. A look at other C/PFs in the NBA from the late 50's to late 60's is pretty horrific. Along with a wider lane and no 3pt line.

Actually, I've heard quite a few people question Russell and Wilt athletically, dismissing them by saying that the players in today's NBA are far better athletes. While there's no doubt that guys like LeBron and Westbrook are all-time great athletes, big men aren't generally looked at that way. Hakeem, early Shaq, KG, and early Dwight were great athletes, but they didn't have Russell's speed, and he could jump as well or better than them.

As for other big men in Russell's era, it was actually a peak age for big men -- Russell, Wilt, Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed, Clyde Lovelette, Neil Johnston, and Ed Macauley. Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes were rookies in Russell's last season. All of them are in the Hall of Fame. Chamberlain, Hayes, Lucas, Russell, Schayes, Thurmond, and Unseld are among the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History chosen in 1996 to commemorate the NBA's 50th anniversary. You could throw in guys like Bob Pettit, Zelmo Beaty, Red Kerr, and Wayne Embry. With only eight or nine teams in the league for most of Russell's career, that meant he played against top competition more often than not.

[Doctor MJ]

1) Absurd athleticism. There is a possibility that Bill Russell wasn't just an absurd athlete for his time, but that he would be just as absurd of an athlete in today's game. Now, all of this can't be verified, but some of it can. The first is a quote that I saw attributed to Russell, presumably from one of his books, but I don't have the book and I can only site a message board for it (maybe someone like ThaRegul8r can verify, if they're familiar):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597

Leaping high had hooked me. Two years later, during the off-season at USF, some friends and I tested how high I could reach from a running start. I left chalk dust from my fingertips at a point fourteen feet above the floor—four feet above the basket and a foot above the top of the backboard. I loved jumping. It would have been easy for me to dunk the ball even in a twelve foot basket

Now, until verified, this is internet hear-say. And, even if shown to be an accurate quote, we'd have only Russell's word for it. But still..

I can verify the quote, yes.

It looks to be from Second Wind, which I own.

I don't know what to make with claims like this other than to label it ridiculous hyperbole.

In this age of hyper-athleticism and far superior shoes we've still yet to get any NBA players who can touch the top of the backboard, and Russell says he could go a foot beyond that?

Russell's my GOAT, but stuff like that makes me feel like a mark.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Okay so here's what we would expect in an ideal setting:

The more the alpha shoots, the easier it is for his teammates to shoot.
Thus, while the alpha's efficiency goes down, the teammates' efficiency goes up.
And were the alpha to shoot less, we'd expect his teammate's efficiency to go down.

If that was what happened in '67, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. What we found instead was:

When the alpha shot less, his teammates's efficiency went up. WAY up. The NON-Wilt '67 76ers shot a higher FG% than the '66 76ers did including Wilt.

And so that's what's important here along with considering why Hannum made the change he did.

This feeling you have that individual production essentially can't lie is misguided. This is not baseball.
In basketball the best player on the court can make his team worse if he gets in the way of their flow.

Wilt's teammate efficiency went up because he went from up 5.2 to 7.8 apg though in 67'. He had to carry the 1st option role, and playmaker duties that season. Why penalize him for adapting his game to improve his team? He had to take more shots in 66' because Cunningham was a rookie, and Jackson/Jones were both in their 2nd year. In 1967 the young guys took more of the scoring load and Wilt had more help so he played more of a facilitator role.

Conversely, Russell never was leading Boston's offense, and had his teammates carrying the offense throughout his career. If Wilt had guys like Cousy, Sam Jones, or Hondo most of his career, then he wouldn't have needed to score nearly as much. Once he finally got some scoring help he did adjust his game.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't think people question Russell or Wilt's athletic ability. It's more the ability of other bigs of that era that's in question. A look at other C/PFs in the NBA from the late 50's to late 60's is pretty horrific. Along with a wider lane and no 3pt line.

Actually, I've heard quite a few people question Russell and Wilt athletically, dismissing them by saying that the players in today's NBA are far better athletes.

Yeah, I was going to say that it depends on the board. Because there have definitely been people who've questioned their athletic ability due to the era they played.

[ThaRegul8r]

I can verify the quote, yes.

It looks to be from Second Wind, which I own.

I don't know what to make with claims like this other than to label it ridiculous hyperbole.

In this age of hyper-athleticism and far superior shoes we've still yet to get any NBA players who can touch the top of the backboard, and Russell says he could go a foot beyond that?

Russell's my GOAT, but stuff like that makes me feel like a mark.

It's not something I would have used, I see it originated from the other board.

My quotes from Russell in my file have to do with his insight/how he played/approached the game. Stuff you can't get from watching the game, only from a first-hand account.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't think people question Russell or Wilt's athletic ability. It's more the ability of other bigs of that era that's in question. A look at other C/PFs in the NBA from the late 50's to late 60's is pretty horrific. Along with a wider lane and no 3pt line.

Actually, I've heard quite a few people question Russell and Wilt athletically, dismissing them by saying that the players in today's NBA are far better athletes. While there's no doubt that guys like LeBron and Westbrook are all-time great athletes, big men aren't generally looked at that way. Hakeem, early Shaq, KG, and early Dwight were great athletes, but they didn't have Russell's speed, and he could jump as well or better than them.

As for other big men in Russell's era, it was actually a peak age for big men -- Russell, Wilt, Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed, Clyde Lovelette, Neil Johnston, and Ed Macauley. Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes were rookies in Russell's last season. All of them are in the Hall of Fame. Chamberlain, Hayes, Lucas, Russell, Schayes, Thurmond, and Unseld are among the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History chosen in 1996 to commemorate the NBA's 50th anniversary. You could throw in guys like Bob Pettit, Zelmo Beaty, Red Kerr, and Wayne Embry. With only eight or nine teams in the league for most of Russell's career, that meant he played against top competition more often than not.

Hold on a sec, that's a wide berth when we go from Dolph Schayes to Elvin Hayes. Elvin's rookie season was Russell's final season, so we can't really count him into things, can we? Schayes was done by 61', though the fact he was consistent from the 40's to 60's speaks volumes about how underrated Mikan is. I'll give you Reed, he was one I did count along with THurmond, though both came about toward the final years for Russell's career. Their primes didn't really overlap much at all with Russell's career. Lovelette really wasn't all that good during Russell's years, Johnston was done by the time Russell entered the league, Unseld's rookie season was Russell's final season.

So its actually worse than I thought when you look further. . You really have to look at Petit who like nearly all named was a PF.

But back to Shayes and even Pettit. Sicne Mikan was the clear dominant player of the 50's, and these other players still were great well into Russell's era, why do we discount Mikan? In 53' Dolph was 18/13, but in 61' he was 24/12. Considering Mikan's post game there's no reason to think he wouldn't have been a 30+ ppg scorer, and a great rebounder/defender in the 60's.

[drza]

1) Absurd athleticism. There is a possibility that Bill Russell wasn't just an absurd athlete for his time, but that he would be just as absurd of an athlete in today's game. Now, all of this can't be verified, but some of it can. The first is a quote that I saw attributed to Russell, presumably from one of his books, but I don't have the book and I can only site a message board for it (maybe someone like ThaRegul8r can verify, if they're familiar):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597


Now, until verified, this is internet hear-say. And, even if shown to be an accurate quote, we'd have only Russell's word for it. But still..

I can verify the quote, yes.

It looks to be from Second Wind, which I own.

I don't know what to make with claims like this other than to label it ridiculous hyperbole.

In this age of hyper-athleticism and far superior shoes we've still yet to get any NBA players who can touch the top of the backboard, and Russell says he could go a foot beyond that?

Russell's my GOAT, but stuff like that makes me feel like a mark.

Is it that ridiculous, though? We've seen people dunk on 12-foot rims in slam dunk contests recently. That means that people like Dwight Howard could get their hand up to at least 12'6" or so, at the minimum. If the top of the backboard is 13 feet, is it ridiculous to think that a slightly taller man who is thinner, faster, and a trained Olympic-caliber high jumper couldn't get the extra 6 inches?

Said another way, if Russell is 6'11 in shoes with a 7-4 wingspan, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have a standing reach over 9 feet? If he has a 9-foot standing reach, then to get to 13 would only require that he get 48 inches off the ground. Presumably his standing vertical leap was somewhere in the 40s (for comparison, in college mine was measured at 37.5" and I wasn't a high jumper, I was a sprinter). Off a run, him touching the top of a backboard doesn't seem remotely unreasonable to me. The 14'-foot would be wilder, but still not out of the realm of reasonable possibility based on the information at hand.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay so here's what we would expect in an ideal setting:

The more the alpha shoots, the easier it is for his teammates to shoot.
Thus, while the alpha's efficiency goes down, the teammates' efficiency goes up.
And were the alpha to shoot less, we'd expect his teammate's efficiency to go down.

If that was what happened in '67, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. What we found instead was:

When the alpha shot less, his teammates's efficiency went up. WAY up. The NON-Wilt '67 76ers shot a higher FG% than the '66 76ers did including Wilt.

And so that's what's important here along with considering why Hannum made the change he did.

This feeling you have that individual production essentially can't lie is misguided. This is not baseball.
In basketball the best player on the court can make his team worse if he gets in the way of their flow.

Wilt's teammate efficiency went up because he went from up 5.2 to 7.8 apg though in 67'. He had to carry the 1st option role, and playmaker duties that season. Why penalize him for adapting his game to improve his team? He had to take more shots in 66' because Cunningham was a rookie, and Jackson/Jones were both in their 2nd year. In 1967 the young guys took more of the scoring load and Wilt had more help so he played more of a facilitator role.

Conversely, Russell never was leading Boston's offense, and had his teammates carrying the offense throughout his career. If Wilt had guys like Cousy, Sam Jones, or Hondo most of his career, then he wouldn't have needed to score nearly as much. Once he finally got some scoring help he did adjust his game.

That's not a causal explanation. The entire system didn't change because Wilt got more assists. Quite clearly it was the opposite.

Wilt also was not primary option by any definition that does not include passing. He shot less per minute played than his teammates did. That's not a criticism, just being making sure we're all talking about the same things with standards that can be more than just rhetoric.

Why penalize him for adapting to improve his team? That's not remotely what's happening here, but I think I can imagine where a thought like that would come from. Because I use an existing fact to form a conclusion than calls into question the basis for most people's opinion on Wilt, you see that as penalizing him because without my conclusion there would be less ammunition against Wilt.

But none of that is real. All of that has to do with a network of interacting opinions wrestling with each other. It has nothing to do with how Wilt actually played.

How Wilt actually played, the evidence tells us, was much more effective when he shot less. If you choose to use that conclusion to say that Wilt was the GOAT scorer and therefore he must have been a super-GOAT passer, that's at least coherent with that we see. To form an opinion though that sidesteps all of it in the name of "new good things shouldn't ever be used to evaluate the less good things that came before". It's not rational.

Re: If Wilt had had those teammates... Nah man, both Wilt & Russ began their NBA careers basically playing THEIR way. They took some input sure but each had a style and their teams adapted to them...up until Wilt in '67 at least. Russell approached the game that people didn't think would work and it led to a dynasty that eclipsed all others in history. Wilt did not.

[ThaRegul8r]

Same argument for me. I'm a bit disappointed that Russell is going to drop so far. I disagree with that, clearly.

You haven't been here that long, so you wouldn't know, but that was obvious.

Two projects ago, he peaked at #2. I said in some predictions I made prior to the 2014 Top 100 that #2 was the highest he could go, and that he'd fall behind Kareem, which was correct. Now for this project, there are people who supported Russell in the past who have done a 180, so he lost those voters, some of whom have been outspoken in their opposition of Russell's ranking from the last project. And now LeBron is the current next GOAT, and this project comes after averaging a triple double in the Finals this year, and one year after leading the first comeback from a 1-3 deficit in Finals history, against the winningest single-season team in NBA history. So it was predictable that he'd fall farther.

[Doctor MJ]

I can verify the quote, yes.

It looks to be from Second Wind, which I own.

I don't know what to make with claims like this other than to label it ridiculous hyperbole.

In this age of hyper-athleticism and far superior shoes we've still yet to get any NBA players who can touch the top of the backboard, and Russell says he could go a foot beyond that?

Russell's my GOAT, but stuff like that makes me feel like a mark.

Is it that ridiculous, though? We've seen people dunk on 12-foot rims in slam dunk contests recently. That means that people like Dwight Howard could get their hand up to at least 12'6" or so, at the minimum. If the top of the backboard is 13 feet, is it ridiculous to think that a slightly taller man who is thinner, faster, and a trained Olympic-caliber high jumper couldn't get the extra 6 inches?

Said another way, if Russell is 6'11 in shoes with a 7-4 wingspan, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have a standing reach over 9 feet? If he has a 9-foot standing reach, then to get to 13 would only require that he get 48 inches off the ground. Presumably his standing vertical leap was somewhere in the 40s (for comparison, in college mine was measured at 37.5" and I wasn't a high jumper, I was a sprinter). Off a run, him touching the top of a backboard doesn't seem remotely unreasonable to me. The 14'-foot would be wilder, but still not out of the realm of reasonable possibility based on the information at hand.

Well the total ridiculous part of it is the 14 foot part. Him claiming to reach 14 feet doesn't make me assume he means something a bit less, it makes me lump him in with all the other guys in history who were supposedly able to make change off the top of the backboard.

Maybe I'm harsh, but claiming to reach 18 inches higher than I've seen any NBA player actually be able to do even in the most artificial of settings makes him lose credibility.

[ThaRegul8r]

I can verify the quote, yes.

It looks to be from Second Wind, which I own.

I don't know what to make with claims like this other than to label it ridiculous hyperbole.

In this age of hyper-athleticism and far superior shoes we've still yet to get any NBA players who can touch the top of the backboard, and Russell says he could go a foot beyond that?

Russell's my GOAT, but stuff like that makes me feel like a mark.

Is it that ridiculous, though? We've seen people dunk on 12-foot rims in slam dunk contests recently. That means that people like Dwight Howard could get their hand up to at least 12'6" or so, at the minimum. If the top of the backboard is 13 feet, is it ridiculous to think that a slightly taller man who is thinner, faster, and a trained Olympic-caliber high jumper couldn't get the extra 6 inches?

Said another way, if Russell is 6'11 in shoes with a 7-4 wingspan, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have a standing reach over 9 feet? If he has a 9-foot standing reach, then to get to 13 would only require that he get 48 inches off the ground. Presumably his standing vertical leap was somewhere in the 40s (for comparison, in college mine was measured at 37.5" and I wasn't a high jumper, I was a sprinter). Off a run, him touching the top of a backboard doesn't seem remotely unreasonable to me. The 14'-foot would be wilder, but still not out of the realm of reasonable possibility based on the information at hand.

But whether people can touch the top of a backboard or not, it's irrelevant to an NBA game. No one in an NBA game will ever have any need to touch the top of the backboard, so I'm not sure how any of those claims have any relevance to what goes on in an actual 5-on-5 game of professional basketball.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know what to make with claims like this other than to label it ridiculous hyperbole.

In this age of hyper-athleticism and far superior shoes we've still yet to get any NBA players who can touch the top of the backboard, and Russell says he could go a foot beyond that?

Russell's my GOAT, but stuff like that makes me feel like a mark.

Is it that ridiculous, though? We've seen people dunk on 12-foot rims in slam dunk contests recently. That means that people like Dwight Howard could get their hand up to at least 12'6" or so, at the minimum. If the top of the backboard is 13 feet, is it ridiculous to think that a slightly taller man who is thinner, faster, and a trained Olympic-caliber high jumper couldn't get the extra 6 inches?

Said another way, if Russell is 6'11 in shoes with a 7-4 wingspan, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have a standing reach over 9 feet? If he has a 9-foot standing reach, then to get to 13 would only require that he get 48 inches off the ground. Presumably his standing vertical leap was somewhere in the 40s (for comparison, in college mine was measured at 37.5" and I wasn't a high jumper, I was a sprinter). Off a run, him touching the top of a backboard doesn't seem remotely unreasonable to me. The 14'-foot would be wilder, but still not out of the realm of reasonable possibility based on the information at hand.

But whether people can touch the top of a backboard or not, it's irrelevant to an NBA game. No one in an NBA game will ever have any need to touch the top of the backboard, so I'm not sure how any of those claims have any relevance to what goes on in an actual 5-on-5 game of professional basketball.

When a person exaggerates badly enough it makes you feel you need to reconsider other things you've heard from them. You can be a ridiculous braggart and also be the GOAT, but I need to make sure that falling for the former is not leading me to conclude the latter.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Okay so here's what we would expect in an ideal setting:

The more the alpha shoots, the easier it is for his teammates to shoot.
Thus, while the alpha's efficiency goes down, the teammates' efficiency goes up.
And were the alpha to shoot less, we'd expect his teammate's efficiency to go down.

If that was what happened in '67, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. What we found instead was:

When the alpha shot less, his teammates's efficiency went up. WAY up. The NON-Wilt '67 76ers shot a higher FG% than the '66 76ers did including Wilt.

And so that's what's important here along with considering why Hannum made the change he did.

This feeling you have that individual production essentially can't lie is misguided. This is not baseball.
In basketball the best player on the court can make his team worse if he gets in the way of their flow.

Wilt's teammate efficiency went up because he went from up 5.2 to 7.8 apg though in 67'. He had to carry the 1st option role, and playmaker duties that season. Why penalize him for adapting his game to improve his team? He had to take more shots in 66' because Cunningham was a rookie, and Jackson/Jones were both in their 2nd year. In 1967 the young guys took more of the scoring load and Wilt had more help so he played more of a facilitator role.

Conversely, Russell never was leading Boston's offense, and had his teammates carrying the offense throughout his career. If Wilt had guys like Cousy, Sam Jones, or Hondo most of his career, then he wouldn't have needed to score nearly as much. Once he finally got some scoring help he did adjust his game.

That's not a causal explanation. The entire system didn't change because Wilt got more assists. Quite clearly it was the opposite.

Wilt also was not primary option by any definition that does not include passing. He shot less per minute played than his teammates did. That's not a criticism, just being making sure we're all talking about the same things with standards that can be more than just rhetoric.

How was Wilt not the primary option?

He shot 14.2 FGA which was 2nd behind Greer's 19.1, but also 10.8 FTA/game, which speaks volumes about how he was still the focus on offense. Then you add his 7.8 apg on top of that. Can't think of a player who gets penalized for having his young guys improve and adapting to a better roster. No way could Wilt shoot less and still have success like in 67's simply because the offense firepower didn't exist on his previous rosters.

Why penalize him for adapting to improve his team? That's not remotely what's happening here, but I think I can imagine where a thought like that would come from. Because I use an existing fact to form a conclusion than calls into question the basis for most people's opinion on Wilt, you see that as penalizing him because without my conclusion there would be less ammunition against Wilt.

But none of that is real. All of that has to do with a network of interacting opinions wrestling with each other. It has nothing to do with how Wilt actually played.

How Wilt actually played, the evidence tells us, was much more effective when he shot less. If you choose to use that conclusion to say that Wilt was the GOAT scorer and therefore he must have been a super-GOAT passer, that's at least coherent with that we see. To form an opinion though that sidesteps all of it in the name of "new good things shouldn't ever be used to evaluate the less good things that came before". It's not rational.

Well help me understand then. Wilt's rosters were thin in the early 60's.....they improve in the late 60's and Wilt adapts...but then gets called out for not player in his early days like he did in his later ones where he actually had help. Lebron went higher than Wilt and we can actually see drops in players when they play next to him due to his ball domination, but I don't remember this argument used against him at all, which is odd considering that I think it's the major reason why he's lost so many disappointing playoff series through the years. KAJ won 5 with Magic scoring much less, and one with Oscar early in his career. In his prime he didn't win a thing and even missed the playoffs, so what are we to think of the all-time NBA scorer? I personally don't agree that the scoring of KAJ is the reason his prime year teams failed, but I scratch my head at why Wilt is singled out for actually adapting his game to a better roster and droping 7.8 apg as a center.

BTW, I definitely don't think Wilt is the GOAT scorer, just that he was clearly the best of his era. Russell gets all the praise for Boston's team defense, but Wilt is getting a bit of shade for not scoring...less? on his early teams that had little offesnive firepower? You can see why I'm having a tough time swallowing this premise.

Re: If Wilt had had those teammates... Nah man, both Wilt & Russ began their NBA careers basically playing THEIR way. They took some input sure but each had a style and their teams adapted to them...up until Wilt in '67 at least. Russell approached the game that people didn't think would work and it led to a dynasty that eclipsed all others in history. Wilt did not.

Pretty sure Russell came in and played Red's way. The Celtics super team racked up more titles than any other team, but Mikan had already led the first defensive NBA dynasty in the 50's. The Celtics did improve 5 games when they added Russell, but Wilt added 17 games his rookie season. Russell took a good team and made them great, Wilt took a bad one and made them contenders. The Warriors were 32-40 in 1959. Wilt comes into the NBA in 1960 and the Warriors go 49-26 with 37.6 ppg. He had to score that much to lift a bad team into a contender, and didn't have a roster he could rely on to score outside of 30+ year old Arizin who got 19 FGA/game. Clearly his scoring volume was needed since the offensive talent around him was paper thin.

[ardee]

Okay so here's what we would expect in an ideal setting:

The more the alpha shoots, the easier it is for his teammates to shoot.
Thus, while the alpha's efficiency goes down, the teammates' efficiency goes up.
And were the alpha to shoot less, we'd expect his teammate's efficiency to go down.

If that was what happened in '67, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. What we found instead was:

When the alpha shot less, his teammates's efficiency went up. WAY up. The NON-Wilt '67 76ers shot a higher FG% than the '66 76ers did including Wilt.

And so that's what's important here along with considering why Hannum made the change he did.

This feeling you have that individual production essentially can't lie is misguided. This is not baseball.
In basketball the best player on the court can make his team worse if he gets in the way of their flow.

Wilt's teammate efficiency went up because he went from up 5.2 to 7.8 apg though in 67'. He had to carry the 1st option role, and playmaker duties that season. Why penalize him for adapting his game to improve his team? He had to take more shots in 66' because Cunningham was a rookie, and Jackson/Jones were both in their 2nd year. In 1967 the young guys took more of the scoring load and Wilt had more help so he played more of a facilitator role.

Conversely, Russell never was leading Boston's offense, and had his teammates carrying the offense throughout his career. If Wilt had guys like Cousy, Sam Jones, or Hondo most of his career, then he wouldn't have needed to score nearly as much. Once he finally got some scoring help he did adjust his game.

That's not a causal explanation. The entire system didn't change because Wilt got more assists. Quite clearly it was the opposite.

Wilt also was not primary option by any definition that does not include passing. He shot less per minute played than his teammates did. That's not a criticism, just being making sure we're all talking about the same things with standards that can be more than just rhetoric.

Why penalize him for adapting to improve his team? That's not remotely what's happening here, but I think I can imagine where a thought like that would come from. Because I use an existing fact to form a conclusion than calls into question the basis for most people's opinion on Wilt, you see that as penalizing him because without my conclusion there would be less ammunition against Wilt.

But none of that is real. All of that has to do with a network of interacting opinions wrestling with each other. It has nothing to do with how Wilt actually played.

How Wilt actually played, the evidence tells us, was much more effective when he shot less. If you choose to use that conclusion to say that Wilt was the GOAT scorer and therefore he must have been a super-GOAT passer, that's at least coherent with that we see. To form an opinion though that sidesteps all of it in the name of "new good things shouldn't ever be used to evaluate the less good things that came before". It's not rational.

Re: If Wilt had had those teammates... Nah man, both Wilt & Russ began their NBA careers basically playing THEIR way. They took some input sure but each had a style and their teams adapted to them...up until Wilt in '67 at least. Russell approached the game that people didn't think would work and it led to a dynasty that eclipsed all others in history. Wilt did not.

I am voting Russell here but I still do not understand this thing that people put forward about Wilt's earlier years, as if we're supposed to ignore that:

1962: They came within a game 7 buzzer beater of beating Boston
1964: They made the Finals
1965: Havlicek stole the ball.

It's not as if his style of play made it impossible for them to win. Acting as if Wilt's teams those years were so definitively inferior to the Celtics is acting like the 2013 Spurs were definitively inferior to the 2013 Heat.

If Ray Allen misses that shot, you still give LeBron the same credit right? So because Jones made that shot or Hondo made that lucky steal, why are those singular plays taking Wilt's credit?

[kayess]

How come you're not considering Wilt here? He has as good a peak as any of them, maybe better. And it's not like he's Walton with his longevity.

Essentially: why no Wilt, Russell, Bird and Magic?

Russell first: Agreed that he's by far the GOAT when we don't account for era (and as stated before - my stance on era is in flux), and fair enough on the point about his culture. I do think you can only beat who was in front of you, that saying "basketball was a different game then" is a dangerous game to play (otherwise, you'd have to adjust for every era), but that it was sufficiently different then that using our normal comparative logic is just going to result in Russell, by far the GOAT conclusions no matter how you slice it (although lorak's analysis is interesting - suggesting that Russell wasn't as impactful as we thought he was.)

So then when I decide to account for era - I realize that ties into Wilt as well - I either have to leave him out or proclaim him such an outlier that he's essentially like top 0 - inarguably the best, so let's just see who's playing for second. So for now, unless someone proposes a fair way of comparing across eras, Russell is out because he's way better than anyone else ever, and Wilt, while not on that same level, can't be evaluated as well, so I can't rank him.

As penbeast stated, I'm going to ask that you [quickly] find some way to come to terms with considering these individuals. I specifically stated in the OP of the sign-up/metathinking thread for this project that this is to be best of "all of BAA/NBA/ABA history", and further even asked that IF you are NOT comfortable ranking players from certain eras, that you be up front about that and abstain from joining the voter panel.

While I'm not dictating criteria to participants, I did/do ask that we at least have the internal consistency of everyone voting for the players of the same eras.

Sure - I did have Russell originally in one of my earlier votes, but the discussion on era has swayed me. But as rules are rules, will change my earlier vote

[ThaRegul8r]

Duncan has always seemed to benefit from 2003, much like Hakeem benefited from 1994(far too much so for both players).

Hakeem is interesting to me. I'll put this in spoilers though, because this isn't my main point.

Spoiler:

As everyone knows (or should) by now, I record things as they happen, at the time they happen. I was posting things in this year's NBA Finals thread and the LeBron thread that I came across as I was recording the Finals that other people might be interested in. I've said this before, but this is what was being said at the time:

ORLANDO — It’s easier to explain rocket science this morning than how the Houston Rockets will win back-to-back NBA titles.

Less messy, too.

But after Houston’s 117-106 win against Orlando Friday put the Rockets up 2-0 in the NBA Finals, the curtain began rising and debate began starting on why the Rockets are again the team no one could beat.

Most theories center on Team Chemistry. That’s usually the case when there’s little Team Biology.

Based on talent alone, Houston doesn’t even rank among the top five teams in the league. There’s Phoenix. Seattle. Chicago (when Michael Jordan returned). San Antonio (when Dennis Rodman played). Orlando is in this elite group, of course, and then way down there, somewhere among the Utahs and Indianas, sits Houston.

The Rockets have no power forward. They have no point guard to speak of unless the subject is Anfernee Hardaway’s highlight film. Houston starts Kenny Smith and Mario Elie because the rules say they must start five.

I mean, who else is there? Look at the bench. Sam Cassell aside, it’s strictly practice fodder, guys who carry shovels behind the elephants.

The Rockets’ big trade got nationally lampooned this season, their lineup wasn’t set until three games ago – yes, Game 5 of the San Antonio series – and their coach still remains known more for having his face punched out by Kermit Washington.

Oh, one more thing:

Houston has Hakeem Olajuwon and no one else does.

When was this?

This was 1995. It was written after the Rockets took a 2-0 lead over the Magic.

Hakeem was my favorite big man in the league back then, and—as I've said before—people were talking about him in a historical sense during the '95 playoffs. But years after the fact, people talk about '94 as the "carry job" because they went to Basketball-Reference and saw Clyde Drexler played for the Rockets the second year. Oh yeah, he also won MVP and DPOY in '94, so since people are big on awards and accolades, that gives people another retroactive reason to say '94 was the carry job even though people were actually talking that way in '95. (And if the Knicks won in '94 because Hakeem didn't get to Starks' shot, people would be talking about Ewing now) I have other articles saved from then, but this isn't my main point.

I saw someone say on another basketball forum I post on (under a different name) that in 20 years, no one remembers the details. That's absolutely correct, because I keep track of the details, and 20 years later, people don't actually accurately said what happened. They go to Basketball-Reference and call it a wrap. Maybe they'll do a quick Google search to pull up something, but it isn't the same as recording everything at the time it happened.

Someone like Wilt or Shaq gets dissected left and right.

Wilt and Shaq had glaring flaws. Ones that don't have anything to do with things they didn't have control over. That's actually a bigger gripe of mine, how many people simply don't want to be accountable for things they're in control of, or take responsibility for their actions/decisions. But that's an entirely different discussion.

The Spurs getting swept with HCA to LA in 2001 is overlooked. The Spurs losing in 5 to LA in 2002 is overlooked. The Spurs failing again to repeat in 2004 is overlooked. The 06 Spurs not repeating. In fact, if you bring up the 2008 Spurs getting run off the court by LA, people say TD was past-prime...but then what's his longevity? If team success is brought up for 60-win seasons or a 03 title, then team shortcomings should factor in as well, and for TD its pretty numerous for his era.

To preface with my criterion:

9. Individual Contribution. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly

To me, this is what everyone should be doing win or lose. I've voiced on numerous occasions my opposition to hypotheticals where players are handwaved titles without any discussion of how they actually played. And I remember at least one poster who was arguing that perception would be different, and didn't change the player in question's performance at all. He was simply handwaved a ring without having to better his subpar performance in actuality, which contributed to the team's loss.

But, back to the subject, I've followed and chronicled Duncan's entire career, the record of which exceeds 1,200 pages. I know with 100% certainty that no one else on any basketball forum has done that, because no one does that for something they watch for entertainment (and I've either been a registered member or lurked on the others). And if someone didn't do it, it's too late now, because it took years to compile, and a lot of stuff isn't even accessible at those links anymore so it's literally impossible to re-find now. I have no need to look anything up or go on Basketball-Reference because I wrote everything down when it happened. So...

2001: After the first two games, the Spurs were down 0-2, and Duncan averaged 34 points on 55.6 percent shooting from the floor, 85 percent shooting from the line and 63.2 percent true shooting, 14.5 rebounds, 4.5 assists and 4.5 blocks. He was volume scoring, efficient, making free throws, rebounding, passing, blocking shots, if that wasn't enough to help his team win a single game, what more could he have done? Since I have the articles from the time, they're both talking about Duncan's lack of help.

Now, Duncan didn't play well when the series went to LA. But as I said, if the way he played in the first two games in San Antonio wasn't enough for a single win, what else was he supposed to do? So it's split, in a four-game series, he played excellently the first two games at home, didn't play well on the road, and the Lakers steamrolled through everyone that postseason.

2002: I've posted this before: Duncan both scored at a higher volume (29 ppg) than either Kobe (26.2) or Shaq (21.4), and was also more efficient than either: 51.7% TS to 48.6% for Kobe and 48.7% for Shaq. And people like scoring numbers. And had 17.2 rebounds, 4.6 assists and 3.2 blocked shots to boot. From the time:

It is May, and it has become Duncan's destiny to perform brilliantly in May, but not brilliantly enough to get his Spurs past the Lakers, who took a 3-1 lead in the Western Conference semifinal series with an 87-85 victory. What Duncan really needed was a more effective posse on the court. [...] Duncan must have felt, metaphorically speaking, as if he were on an island, so futile were his teammates' efforts to provide assistance.

Not revisionism 15 years later. In the closeout game, which LA won 98-87:

League MVP Tim Duncan gave all he had — 34 points, 25 rebounds — but again was bested by the Lakers in the fourth quarter. Duncan got little help. Two Spurs starters — David Robinson and Steve Smith — failed to score a point.

Apart from Duncan, the the Spurs shot 39.0 percent and had a true shooting percentage of 47.4 percent. The Lakers outside of Kobe and Shaq shot 42.6 percent and a true shooting percentage of 52.6 percent. Duncan's efficiency was above the rest of the team's, while both Kobe and Shaq's were below the rest of their team. But Kobe and Shaq had each other, while the accounts from the time comment on the assistance Duncan wasn't getting.

Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty.

2004: Looking through the record, played well first two games as Spurs take 2-0 lead. Didn't play well Game 3, had 19 points (5-13 FG, 9-12 FT), 10 rebounds and eight assists in Game 4. Game 5 had 21 points and game highs of 21 rebounds and four blocks and hit a clutch shot over Shaq to put the Spurs up one with 0.4 seconds left, then Derek Fisher happened. Fisher's shot doesn't negate Duncan's performance or shot. It did negate it as far as the game-winner, but since I have the full record, I can see he wasn't the reason they lost. Was the leading scorer for the Spurs in Game 6, but didn't shoot well. So he can be legitimately criticized for his performance after the first two games, with the exception of Game 5, when he played well and seemingly hit the game-winner.

2006: This is bizarre. 32.3 points on 55.6 percent shooting and 61.5 percent true shooting, 11.7 rebounds, 3.7 assists and 2.57 blocks.

Duncan has looked like three-time Finals MVP Tim Duncan thus far, putting together his best back-to-back games all season.

Showing no signs of the plantar fasciitis that limited him to career-lows in most categories, Duncan scored 31 points in the opener and 28 in Game 2. The rout overshadowed a terrific scoring line (8-of-10 from the field, 12-of-14 from the line) and the fact he’s made Dallas’ center rotation look like the same old, same old.

The key for the Mavericks is that they’ve contained – and frustrated – Parker and Ginobili.

“They’re doing a good job of not letting us find the open shooters,” Ginobili said. “Sooner or later, they’ll have to go (at Duncan) more aggressively, and that’s where we have to be smarter to find the open shooters.”

Parker is averaging 17 points per game and Ginobili 14, but they’re shooting a combined 22-of-57, or 39 percent. Should either or both regain their touch, the Spurs could easily regain momentum and home-court advantage.

Mavericks take 3-1 lead. Dallas coach Avery Johnson:

We’ve had no answer for (Duncan) all series.

Facing elimination, Duncan had game highs of 36 points (13-19 FG, 10-15 FT) and 12 rebounds, four assists and a game-high three blocked shots to lead the Spurs to a 98-97 win in Game 5.

Duncan tied an NBA playoff record by hitting his first 12 shots, a bit of trivia I'm fairly certain no one on this board knows unless I posted this before. (Oddly enough, no one at the time actually said whose record he tied. I looked, because I was curious, but everyone only said he tied a record, including ESPN.com. And since no one said it then, it's too late to find out now.)

In the deciding Game 7, Duncan had 41/15/6/3. Fouled out two guys trying to defend him. Only Elgin Baylor and Charles Barkley had 41 and 15 in a deciding Game 7 of an NBA playoff series.

He's unbelievable and unguardable. He was amazing all series. We could never find an answer for him.

Like I said, it's bizarre to me. Duncan's the reason they didn't three-peat from 2005 to 2007? It's more evidence that people don't actually care about how a player played, they only know what the result was.

2008: I remember this was the series Manu Ginóbili averaged 12.6 points on 35.8 percent shooting, 3.2 rebounds and 3.2 assists after averaging 21.3 points on 43.5 percent shooting from the floor and 38.6 percent shooting from beyond the arc, 4.1 rebounds and 6 assists in the Western Conference Semifinals against New Orleans. I specifically noted that in the file. The lone win of the series Ginóbili had 30 points on 9-for-15 shooting from the floor, 5-for-7 from beyond the arc, and 7 of 7 from the line, and Duncan had 22 points, 21 rebounds and five assists.

Aside from the 30-point Game 3, Ginóbili averaged 8.3 points on 26.3 percent shooting in the Western Conference Finals.

I'm not sure why people don't talk about Ginóbili's performance, unless they don't remember it since it was almost 10 years ago.

San Antonio’s elimination might signal the end of its era of dominance. With Duncan leading the way, the Spurs won championships in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007, but with a rotation made up solely of 30-something players except for the 26-year old Parker, the future seems uncertain. Meanwhile, starting guard Derek Fisher and seldom-used reserve Ira Newbie are the only players on the Los Angeles roster over 30. Ultimately, it was the Lakers’ youth, quickness, and athleticism that determined this series.

The Spurs' normally excellent role players -- Robert Horry, Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry -- took turns being really, really cold when it mattered.

But Duncan didn't shoot well, so you could criticize him for that. I'm reading the notes I wrote at the time about his efficiency.

But people need to actually look at how a player played. It's like when people always talk about Malone not having a title because he faced Jordan, but those people never talk about how Malone played. If he'd played like an MVP, the Jazz could have won the first one. The two games the Jazz won, Malone played like an MVP. The four games they lost, he didn't. Playing Jordan doesn't excuse that.

People need to look at what the player in question has to do with whatever the result was. Generally, most of the time on basketball forums people only do that when it suits their agenda to do so.

[ThaRegul8r]

I am voting Russell here but I still do not understand this thing that people put forward about Wilt's earlier years, as if we're supposed to ignore that:

1962: They came within a game 7 buzzer beater of beating Boston
1964: They made the Finals
1965: Havlicek stole the ball.

'65 is interesting, because everyone talks about Havlicek stealing the ball, but I only recall one poster on RealGM (aside from me, who posted it here in the first place seven years ago during the Retro Player of the Year project) talking about this that happened that same series:

BOSTON (AP) — Boston Coach Red Auerbach, fuming over what he called a long count basket which evened the series, has guaranteed the Celtics will beat Philadelphia for their ninth straight Easten Division play-off crown.

The vow implies an assurance of a Celtic victory Sunday in the televised National Basketball Association game at Boston Garden. The best-of-seven set is knotted 2-2 after the 76ers won a 134-131 overtime thriller Friday night.

“We will win this thing, I’ll guarantee that,” Auerbach said. “I’m not worried about Philadelphia. They have come about as far as they can go.

“We had the game won Friday night and they took it away from us.”

The controversial 35-foot shot by Hal Greer came off an out of bounds play with one second of play remaining. It tied the score and forced the extra play during which Wilt Chamberlain scored six of his 34 points. He also had 34 rebounds in the game.

Auerbach said it was impossible for Greer to take a pass, turn around, dribble the ball and get off a shot in one second.

“I’m not saying the timer was dish0nest, but I guess rooting for the home team he might hesitate,” said the Boston coach.

The Celtics were divided in their opinions as to whether Greer actually bounced the ball or not.

Dolph Schayes, Philadelphia coach, called the Boston beef sour grapes but admitted his club was lucky.

In effect, it now is a best two-of-three situation with Boston still holding the home court edge. This has been strictly a home court series to date.

People always act like luck only ever went one way. Greer doesn't hit that shot and the 76ers lose in five and there isn't even any need for Havlicek to steal the ball. Probably most people who talk about Havlicek's steal don't even know about Greer's shot because that isn't the moment shown over and over since his team lost the series, and most basketball fans don't know much about that period of time (Wilt scored 100 in a game and averaged 50 for a season, Oscar averaged a triple double, Russell won 11 rings, and West went 1-8 in the Finals).

Fatal9, by the way, is the poster I was referring to who actually mentioned that.

The what-ifs go both ways.

A. What if Hal Greer doesn't make a miracle 35 footer to send the game 4 in to overtime (Sixers won)? What if that doesn't happen? Sixers likely lose in 5. Havlicek stole the ball in game 7, but the Sixers got their own miracle earlier in the series for them to even get to that point.

I mean, that's the very same series. And I originally posted it during the Retro Player of the Year project, so it isn't as if the information wasn't there.

Philadelphia won Game 4 134-131 in overtime, after Hal Greer’s 35-foot shot at the buzzer tied the game at 118-118 at the end of regulation. “It was a play set up by Dolph,” said Greer. “It went perfect. I didn’t throw it. It was a shot that went right in, like it should” (Eugene Register-Guard, Apr. 10, 1965). “The 76ers opened a five-point lead in the overtime and stayed on top after breaking a 123-123 tie on Lucious Jackson’s shot from the side” (Kentucky New Era, Apr. 10, 1965). Wilt Chamberlain led Philadelphia with 34 points, 34 rebounds and three assists. Chet Walker had 31, and Hal Greer had 27. Sam Jones led Boston with a game-high 36 points. Tom Heinsohn had 19, John Havlicek and Bill Russell had 18 each—Russell with 25 rebounds, and Satch Sanders had 15.

[On an aside, why do we never hear about Greer's shot? Everyone's seen Jerry West's, and while it would have won the game had a three-pointer existed, and they lost in overtime, Greer's team won the game, so whether there was a three-pointer or not, Game 4 would have ended in a Philly win.]

Does Greer deserve no credit? As I said back then, Jerry West gets credit for his shot against the Knicks even though they ultimately lost the game because the three-pointer didn't exist yet, but Greer gets absolutely no credit—except from fatal9—for keeping the Sixers from falling into a 1-3 deficit.