RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #4 (Bill Russell)

[Mazter]

Aside from team success, what separates Duncan and Garnett to any meaningful degree in your opinion?

Where i struggle with in regards to Duncan vs. KG is the 'reality' versus 'potential' scenario.

In reality, Duncan had more success. But in comparison to Garnett, that was largely influenced by having a better front office, better mentorship, better coaching, and better teammates on aggregate. Not only did Duncan have an advantage in all those areas, but KG had some of the worst situations from 1998 to 2007 in those departments to boot.

In reality, Duncan looked like the better offensive player throughout most of their primes, especially in the Playoffs. But in contrast to Garnett, i believe the 98-2007 era lacked the foresight/knowledge and coaching ability to maximize a player like Garnett's skillset on offense, while the same wasn't true for Duncan, who's offensive strengths were closer to those Big men we've seen in the past.

If Duncan and KG came into the league 5 years ago, the outcome would very likely be different. Post scoring is not a methodology for yielding great offensive results in the modern era. Bigs are asked to bring shooting/spacing, passing, mobility, general versatility, and those are areas i believe KG has an advantage over Duncan.

Basically, KG was a victim of being ahead of his time in a sense. On top of that he rarely had sufficient perimeter talent on his teams, in his prime, to maybe facilitate a natural offensive progression of his skillset into something that more resembles a modern offense... Instead, he was relied on being the primary scorer, usually alongside another Big man who was offensively inept and was clogging the paint.

There are two moments in which I have to say that I find KG disappointing in the leadership/mentorship area. The 2003/04 season and the 2007-2012 era. The fact that Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewel had to come along to finally lift the T'Wolves to a good enough record and past the first round is telling. Also that it lasted for only 1 season. Seems to me they were the real leaders of the most most succesful season in T'Wolves history. The lack of leadership from KG eventually lead to the implosion of this semi "Big 3". Regarding the Celtics period, they had a big 3, who became a big 4 before fading back to a big 3 and eventually ended up as a Big None due to age and/or decline. The output nonetheless in those 5 seasons should have been better in my opinion. Despite winning 66 games they gritted and grinded with a record of 26 play off games to their only championship. They made the Finals on only one other occasion and had some disappointed losses. Him being the biggest of the 3/4 I think it's his lack of leadership that plays a big role in this.

Besides that, him making All NBA First Team 4 times against 10 for Duncan, really sets them apart.

[DQuinn1575]

You think KG will get more tractrion than Shaq and Hakeem? Last time I checked most people don't have KG as a top 10 guy let alone #5. I'm not saying it's a bad choice, because obviously that's personal for everyone, but I wonder if KG will really get in before Shaq and Hakeem.

My bad on Shaq, should have included him. He's definitely in consideration for 5th.


Just seen more comments on Garnett so far and figure it will continue; personally I have Hakeem ahead right now, but neither in the next few picks.

[Doctor MJ]

Aside from team success, what separates Duncan and Garnett to any meaningful degree in your opinion?

Where i struggle with in regards to Duncan vs. KG is the 'reality' versus 'potential' scenario.

In reality, Duncan had more success. But in comparison to Garnett, that was largely influenced by having a better front office, better mentorship, better coaching, and better teammates on aggregate. Not only did Duncan have an advantage in all those areas, but KG had some of the worst situations from 1998 to 2007 in those departments to boot.

In reality, Duncan looked like the better offensive player throughout most of their primes, especially in the Playoffs. But in contrast to Garnett, i believe the 98-2007 era lacked the foresight/knowledge and coaching ability to maximize a player like Garnett's skillset on offense, while the same wasn't true for Duncan, who's offensive strengths were closer to those Big men we've seen in the past.

If Duncan and KG came into the league 5 years ago, the outcome would very likely be different. Post scoring is not a methodology for yielding great offensive results in the modern era. Bigs are asked to bring shooting/spacing, passing, mobility, general versatility, and those are areas i believe KG has an advantage over Duncan.

Basically, KG was a victim of being ahead of his time in a sense. On top of that he rarely had sufficient perimeter talent on his teams, in his prime, to maybe facilitate a natural offensive progression of his skillset into something that more resembles a modern offense... Instead, he was relied on being the primary scorer, usually alongside another Big man who was offensively inept and was clogging the paint.

There are two moments in which I have to say that I find KG disappointing in the leadership/mentorship area. The 2003/04 season and the 2007-2012 era. The fact that Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewel had to come along to finally lift the T'Wolves to a good enough record and past the first round is telling. Also that it lasted for only 1 season. Seems to me they were the real leaders of the most most succesful season in T'Wolves history. The lack of leadership from KG eventually lead to the implosion of this semi "Big 3". Regarding the Celtics period, they had a big 3, who became a big 4 before fading back to a big 3 and eventually ended up as a Big None due to age and/or decline. The output nonetheless in those 5 seasons should have been better in my opinion. Despite winning 66 games they gritted and grinded with a record of 26 play off games to their only championship. They made the Finals on only one other occasion and had some disappointed losses. Him being the biggest of the 3/4 I think it's his lack of leadership that plays a big role in this.

Besides that, him making All NBA First Team 4 times against 10 for Duncan, really sets them apart.

So, from my perspective, Sam Cassell was a non-all-star who got lifted to all-star status once, by Garnett. He and Tweedledum then sabotaged the Timberwolves by causing a stink for money which then ruined the next year.

To me the fact that we're even talking about that '03-04 Timberwolves team as a disappointment when they beat the Spurs in between 2 Spurs championship runs, and then lost to a Laker super-team, when Minnesota only had one player worth talking about is crazy.

Re: Lack of leadership...Celtics? Garnett re-defined the entire culture of a franchise that had lost all trace of fight. To this day, this accomplishment by Garnett and Thibs remains the primary reason why people think Doc and Pierce were a lot better than they actually were. It's also crazy to think that given that no one in the world thought Boston would be winning titles with defense with that Big 3 that the guy who made the defense good managed to disappoint you.

The reality is that if that core had gotten together at the beginning of their prime, rather than when they were old and injury prone, would have resulted in a dynasty in most eras.

I consider Garnett to be the best leader of his generation among the top tier talents, and I don't consider it to be close. He was not perfect. HIs ultra-intensity is what Boston needed to get their s--t together but also results in him being forever mad at Ray Allen going to the Heat which is not rational, but if you want a guy to galvanize your locker room and push everyone else to try on defense, Garnett's your man.

Re: All-NBA only 4 times. Well right, if you're going to make your decision based on the opinions of others you're going to underrate Garnett.

[DQuinn1575]

Luck aside the rings argument have already been covered in the first part of the post you quoted already. They were statistically expected to win several more titles simply from the playoffs format alone. It's like if an eating contest changed the format from six inch subways to footlongs. Eating 10 six inch subways is impressive but it's the same as eating 5 foolongs. Just because both are sandwichs does not mean they are the same difficulty and 10>5. The same goes for titles won over 2 series vs 4 series. I don't see Russell's ring count as being any more impressive than Duncan's. They are both massive winners at the end of the day.

So, a few things about the playoff series that Boston played:

1. In every single playoff series except for 1, Russell faced a Top 100 player from the last list. The one series he faced DeBusschere, who received the most honorable mentions. Every series he faced a great player.

2. You play with the rules of the day. If you win in a league with no 3 pointers, you can't fault Russell for not shooting 3 pointers. If you play in a league that allows what would have been carrying the ball in the 60s, you can't fault Steph Curry. The Celtics won the championships under the rules at the time.

3. Russell lost twice; once hurt, once to the best team other than his in those 13 years. 27-2 in Series if I counted correctly. So if he would have played more series against worse teams, you think they would have lost how many more? He's beating 2 or 3 teams with Top 100 player each year. Any added opponents would not have a Top 100 player on it. So even if he played 4 rounds he still would have won.

4. So if you assume Russell has to play 4 rounds, do you then assume he doesn't retire, plays 5 more years, and wins oh, say 2 titles? Or maybe give him 2 years to high jump for the 72 Olympics (baseball has already been done) and he comes back in 72 and wins 5 titles more in a row? World is full of what-ifs, and I cant evaluate someone on what might have happened.

[LA Bird]

(a) personal--if you look in Thread #3, you will find that I addressed several points in one of your long, well written posts. People are answering you and reading you.

My mistake, I have only been skimming through the thread because they are so long so I didn't see the bold font you had typed within my post in the last thread. I have added my replies below:

Spoiler:

A player's value is indeed both but there is no reason it can't be almost all defense like Russell or almost all offense like Nash. Looking at ratings like OWS and total WS helps but they don't always tell the whole story either. Maybe one team is more resilient in "clutch time" or wears opponents down so they do better at the end (this is how some Boston analysts explained Auerbach's fast paced but inefficient offenses)

I agree a player's value can be just from one end of the floor but that's not the point I was making. If you want to argue that the Russell Celtics consistently had a better clutch offense than their overall rating would suggest, that would require some supporting evidence and explanation as to how that is related to Russell's offensive value and not just the shotmaking ability of Sam Jones or whoever under pressure.

A player's whose impact is primarily HELP defense (like Russell) or mainly creating offense for other (like Nash) can indeed be credited with much more of a percentage of the team's performance at those particular ends. Neither should escape some of the blame for a weak performance on the other end but Russell was a much larger part of Boston'
s defensive schemes than he was of their offensive schemes and Nash was a much larger part of their offensive schemes than of Phoenix's defensive schemes.

Agree again. But you are taking into account the Celtics's weak offensive performance whereas others, by focusing on defense only and ignoring offense, are not.

However when you look at winning percentages for playoff series, no one is close to his winning percentages in the playoffs. This weakens the "only had to go through two rounds of playoffs" argument. There were a lot of close game 7's (and some close game 6s) and yes, Russell didn't hit the key shots. But he probably made an inordinate percentage of the key defensive stops since that was his impact role.

Sweeping a series with 20 point wins is a different level of dominance than winning G7 by 2 points though. It's still a 1-0 series win regardless but I don't feel very confident drawing conclusions based on whether a shot bounced in or out. This applies to other players as well but I think Russell won more of these super close series over his career than anyone else.

(2) Have you considered that the defensive dominance like the Celtics displayed may be more resilient at playoff time? More of the league's top defensive teams have won titles than the league's top offensive teams -- though this is skewed by the Celtics dominance.

I don't see why defensive dominance would be more resilient than offensive dominance when point 2 of my original post showed Magic, LeBron, Shaq led postseason offenses improving more in the playoffs than Russell led defenses did. Besides, whether a team won with its offense or defense doesn't really say much about it's resiliency on that end of the floor. People used this argument against Nash by claiming his lack of playoffs success was because his regular season gimmick offense couldn't hold up against playoffs defense when in reality, Nash's offenses were even better in the postseason.

(3) The Celtics style was to wear down teams with their pace and aggression; this may translate into better "clutch" stats and better last 2 minutes of the game performance. Also, both Bill Russell and Walt Frazier (different teams obviously) talked about setting players up -- they didn't go for every block or every steal but tried to push opponents into tendencies that could be exploited in key situations. That might have something to do with it also.

This could be a factor but some supporting evidence is needed because clutchness is a label that is given to every winner.

(4) The Celtics offensive woes strongly detract from the "Russell won because he had great teams around him argument. If you are the worst offense in the league, why do you give credit to Bob Cousy for being a great PG since he was producing woeful team efficiency, or to Tommy Heinsohn who was scoring a lot on shaky offensive efficiency (obviously better in the 50s where he had a possible case for Rookie of the Year if you exclude Russell who was only there a half a year). The Celtics of the 50s were strong offense, weak defense teams. They added Heinsohn (a weak defender), Ramsey (6th man, not known for defense) and Russell and became the strongest defensive team in the league while regressing on offense. Russell should get most of the credit for that defensive improvement; he should also get part of the blame for the offense regressing (though I blame Heinsohn more since he had the ball in his hands offensively a lot more early on -- Russell and his passing hub years came later when Cousy was no longer ball dominant and KC Jones was incompetent on the offensive end).

I personally don't use the "Russell won because he had great teammates" argument because it is heavily narrative driven. I care more about how he play than whether he won since the difference between winning and losing can sometimes come down to just a clutch shot from Sam Jones (or Ray Allen if you are LeBron).

In terms of Russell's impact on the Celtics, this has already been covered in part 1 of my original post - they were already a much better team without Russell in his rookie season. And with regards to Cousy producing woeful team offensive efficiency, he seemed to be doing great until Russell joined. This is the postseason adjusted ratings for the Celtics from 1952 to 1969 (positive defense is better on this y axis):



The Celtics were an elite playoffs offense with trash defense until Russell came along and then they became a poor playoffs offense with elite defense. There is a clear offense-defense tradeoff and while they certainly won that exchange, the offensive decline is not insignificant. If Russell was really mostly responsible for all that defensive improvement and not much of the blame for the offensive decline, he should be rating out with GOAT impact by far immediately upon his arrival but as we have seen from his rookie season WOWY (+1.5 MOV difference), this was not the case.

[PistolPeteJR]

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Tim Duncan

From thread about #3:

Bill Russell comes ahead of Wilt for me because him and the Celtics (I want to be careful not to say it was simply Russell despite him being the main reason) that stopped Wilt and his squads multiple times. There's no way that Russell can be slotted behind Wilt seeing how much success he had against him, and the sample size is not minuscule in the slightest.

I had a really hard time figuring out who I was going to slot at #5, but I'm going to go with Tim Duncan.

His peak was really, really stellar, but lacked the longevity on offense that guys like LeBron and Kareem have/had. His defense however was stellar and tops them without a shadow of a doubt. Does he benefit from Pop's coaching and having great guys next to him for his entire career? Sure, but he was definitely the leader of the group, and one could even argue that that was also the case way back in rookie season next to The Admiral.

Your case for Russell hinges on an assumption of Chamberlain as a strong candidate for 2nd on the ballot. You do not make this case. As such one could agree with it all and have Russell not on their ballot.

It's probably because my brain is quite fried due to work right now, but please rephrase that?

[70sFan]

People always say that KG was better suited to play in modern era, but he wasn't more impactful than Duncan in 2012-15.

People always say that Garnett fits better with good teams, but I don't find 2008 Garnett any more impressive than, say, 2007 Duncan. Even in 2008 the gap between them wasn't huge (and was likely caused by Duncan's health problems).

People act like Garnett was basketball genius while Duncan was old fashioned bruiser whose game became obsolete in modern era.

[Ambrose]

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Tim Duncan

From thread about #3:

Bill Russell comes ahead of Wilt for me because him and the Celtics (I want to be careful not to say it was simply Russell despite him being the main reason) that stopped Wilt and his squads multiple times. There's no way that Russell can be slotted behind Wilt seeing how much success he had against him, and the sample size is not minuscule in the slightest.

I had a really hard time figuring out who I was going to slot at #5, but I'm going to go with Tim Duncan.

His peak was really, really stellar, but lacked the longevity on offense that guys like LeBron and Kareem have/had. His defense however was stellar and tops them without a shadow of a doubt. Does he benefit from Pop's coaching and having great guys next to him for his entire career? Sure, but he was definitely the leader of the group, and one could even argue that that was also the case way back in rookie season next to The Admiral.

Your case for Russell hinges on an assumption of Chamberlain as a strong candidate for 2nd on the ballot. You do not make this case. As such one could agree with it all and have Russell not on their ballot.

It's probably because my brain is quite fried due to work right now, but please rephrase that?

He's saying your case for Russell is basically that he's better than Wilt. If someone were lower on Wilt they could agree with everything you said and still rank Russell like 8th.

[Blackmill]

Since we've got some outstanding posts about KG, I wouldn't be myself if I didn't try to make Duncan case here

A lot of people think that Duncan was less than ideal defender for pace and space era. I want to counter that with his performance in 2007 against Phoenix Suns - a team that played modern style of basketball over 10 years ago.

Spoiler:

One of the first possessions in the game - Stoudemire goes to the other side of the floor, but Oberto stays and collides with Duncan. Nash quickly realized that there is a breakdown on defense and tries to take advantage of it. Duncan reads this situation well though - he pushes Oberto to put him in front of Nash and he reads Nash pass to Stoudemire quick enough that he's already in position to contest Amar'e shot (he blocked it).

Notice Spurs P&R defense - Oberto stays on Nash, while Duncan helps on Amar'e. Nash finds Thomas, but Duncan is already there. Suns have to reset the action now.

Nash tries to take Duncan on P&R, but Duncan shows excellent way to defend in drop coverage - he's always in position to help on Nash and he quickly recovers on Thomas (which led to traveling violation). Notice how Duncan's length made Nash not even trying to shoot inside.

Another try from Nash, Duncan stays well on his feet against him but Bowen stays on powerful screen and Nash makes a nice pass that led to Oberto foul.

I won't show every P&R action Duncan defends well, but Nash trying to exploit Duncan didn't work in that game.

Nash tries to take advantage of unset Spurs defense, but Duncan blocks his shot with ease. Focus on how Duncan tried to keep blocked ball inbouds.

Look how during the drive Duncan forced Nash pass with his reaction - normally it'd be pass to Stoudemire, but Duncan made subtle move toward him, so Nash passed to "open" Thomas, but Duncan quickly came back and blocked his shot. These kind of plays are the kind of defensive manipulation Russell talked so much about.

This is the kind of inside pressence that very few players could touch. Amar'e got a great position on Duncan, but Duncan almost blocked his shot anyway while not leaving the floor (he was soooo long). Then he contests Marion putback very well.

Another examples when Duncan's pressence alone made him successful inside. Even magishian like Nash and monster like Amar'e felt uncomfortable inside.

This time he defends drives from both Nash and Amar'e in the same action.

It's all from the first half, but you can see that (past physical prime) Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.

I like the film evidence! Hopefully there's most posts like this.

I watched some of those Spurs vs Suns games trying to decide when to vote for Duncan. One thing I walked away with was, although the Suns are credited for pioneering the space-and-pace offense, they still played very differently. One major difference is that Nash didn't take the open three against drop coverage defense as much as modern shooters do. The Suns also played a starting lineup with only one knockdown three-point shooter for Nash to pass to. I think the 2006 Mavericks have closer resemblance to modern teams and did more to challenge the Spurs' defense than the 2007 Suns.

So I tend to agree with your conclusion

Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.

But I also think Duncan having this type of impact would be much more difficult if the 2007 Suns actually played like a modern team rather than like a precursor to a modern team.

[limbo]

There are two moments in which I have to say that I find KG disappointing in the leadership/mentorship area. The 2003/04 season and the 2007-2012 era. The fact that Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewel had to come along to finally lift the T'Wolves to a good enough record and past the first round is telling. Also that it lasted for only 1 season. Seems to me they were the real leaders of the most most succesful season in T'Wolves history.

Wait... You didn't just mention KG's lack of leadership/mentorship and then went on to credit Latrell 'coach choker aka gotta feed my family' Sprewell as one of the leaders of the Wolves alleged locker room turnaround and chemistry revolution... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but i'm sure you mistyped there. Your fingers slipped over the keyboard.

I mean, i could have bought me some Sam Cassell stock, being the championship veteran that he was, though i believe the bigger hole he helped paper over in Minnesota was one of absolute lack in offensive talent moreso than a leadership standpoint, although from what i've read and seen about Cassell, i'm sure he was a positive character. But Sprewell? You missed me with that one.

As far as the 'going past the 1st round' bit... Well, when your best player before 2004 is Wally Szczerbiak, then you could hand pick me any player in NBA history to put in place of Garnett, and i would bet a pretty exorbitant sum of money that whoever you pick wouldn't be able to take any of those Wolves casts past the 1st round in a WC which features prime Shaq/Kobe, DRob/Duncan, and strong Blazers, Kings and Mavs teams... So i'm not sure how valid this criticism is. It was just not happening.

The lack of leadership from KG eventually lead to the implosion of this semi "Big 3". Regarding the Celtics period, they had a big 3, who became a big 4 before fading back to a big 3 and eventually ended up as a Big None due to age and/or decline.

From what i know about the situation in Boston, the issue stemmed from the dynamic between Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen. Not KG. Garnett was Boston's best player, Pierce was the 'homegrown' guy, and Allen initially had the '3rd spot' but with Rondo's rise in prominence over the years, there were disputes surrounding Rondo and Allen's roles on the team and what the organization was prepared to offer these two in terms of contracts... What do you want Garnett to do, march to the front office and start giving orders to his boss? The Celtics ultimately decided to prioritize a young, up-incoming Rondo, over a 36-year old Ray Allen, who was clearly on the downward slope and couldn't average more than 11 ppg in his last Playoff run with Boston... I think you would agree this was the best outcome in this scenario? Or should GM Garnett have made different moves and put more faith in a 36-year Allen?
Not that it would matter in anyway. Allen got his feelings hurt because the 'new guy' Rondo was more prized over him who was an original member of the Big 3, and he thought he was worth more than what the Celtics were willing to offer. So he was gone either way.

The output nonetheless in those 5 seasons should have been better in my opinion.

Disagree. That core was in its prime only in 2008, and they won that year with a convincing Finals performance. 2009 they missed KG, their best player, due to injury. They weren't winning without him. In 2010 Garnett was clearly past his prime and Perk got injured in Game 6 when they were up 3-2... They could've squeaked in another ring here, it wasn't impossible, but i don't think they were the favorites and they still almost managed to close the deal somehow. The Lakers took advantage of the lack of size and outrebounded them in a 4th quarter comeback...

In 2011 and 2012 they weren't better than the Heat... despite that, still put a good fight in 2012.

Despite winning 66 games they gritted and grinded with a record of 26 play off games to their only championship. They made the Finals on only one other occasion and had some disappointed losses. Him being the biggest of the 3/4 I think it's his lack of leadership that plays a big role in this.

They dropped a few too many games in the first and second round, but i don't think they were actually in danger in terms of being eliminated. The ECF and Finals they won pretty convincingly, imo.

What were the disappointing loses you speak of? 2009 vs. Orlando without KG? Game 7 vs. Lakers in 2010, the 2011 & 2012 series vs. Heat? They were clear underdogs in all of these series, and became clear underdogs once Perk went down in the 2010 Finals.

Besides that, him making All NBA First Team 4 times against 10 for Duncan, really sets them apart.

Well, it helped Duncan that his teams were usually good enough to win 55-60 games, which is kind of a pre-requisite for getting into a ALL-NBA 1st team...

In 2000, Duncan's team was able to be vaguely competitive against a 53-win, 5.24 SRS, Phoenix Suns team... despite Duncan being absent from the series. They lost 3-1, but the scoring margin was only 83 vs. 81.8 points across 4 games (92 ORtg vs.90.6 ORtg). So the series was actually pretty close. Again, without Duncan playing... Now imagine taking the Wolves roster, removing Garnett, and putting them against a team that performed like fringe Top 3 team during the RS, and them putting up a competitive fight over 4 games? Yeah, i think you get the picture.

[PistolPeteJR]

Your case for Russell hinges on an assumption of Chamberlain as a strong candidate for 2nd on the ballot. You do not make this case. As such one could agree with it all and have Russell not on their ballot.

It's probably because my brain is quite fried due to work right now, but please rephrase that?

He's saying your case for Russell is basically that he's better than Wilt. If someone were lower on Wilt they could agree with everything you said and still rank Russell like 8th.

That's not simply my case. That's the crux of why I put him over Wilt specifically.

[Doctor MJ]

The Celtics were an elite playoffs offense with trash defense until Russell came along and then they became a poor playoffs offense with elite defense. There is a clear offense-defense tradeoff and while they certainly won that exchange, the offensive decline is not insignificant. If Russell was really mostly responsible for all that defensive improvement and not much of the blame for the offensive decline, he should be rating out with GOAT impact by far immediately upon his arrival but as we have seen from his rookie season WOWY (+1.5 MOV difference), this was not the case.

I do want to point out that the Celtics traded away Ed Macauley to get Russell.

Macauley can be argued to have been the Celtics best offensive player, and was certainly an essential part of the Celtics' offensive dynasty.

Worth noting also Macauley played center for the Celtics. So when you think of Russell "hurting the offense", make sure to put the caveat "hurting the offense in comparison to one of the great offensive 5's of the era". The fact that people would even say that rookie Russell matched Macauley overall would by itself be kind of an amazing success. The fact that everyone thinks the team got considerably better with Russell is of course a much bigger deal still.

Edit to add a bkref link:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1956_adj_shooting.html

That's the leader board for TS Add in '55-56. You'll see that Macauley ranks 6th in the league just behind teammate Sharman. Go back to previous years and Macauley is even stronger - which granted you could argue he was on the back half of his career, but just saying Macauley was a big deal.

[trex_8063]

As there's been some on-going discussion regarding the relative dominance of Russell teams vs Duncan teams, one poster cautioning against cherry-picking ONLY the defensive dominance; and 70sFan has cautioned against using raw SRS across eras.......I decided to make a scaled SRS model (based on year-to-year standard deviation); I can try to do the same with net rating soon, though it should read much the same, I would think.

Anyway, below are the top 20 [rs] scaled SRS seasons between Russell/Duncan, in order (scaled SRS value in parentheses); the difference is sometimes in the 3rd decimal place. I'll let you all decide how you feel about the era in which they occur....

1. '57 Celtics (+9.771)
2. '07 Spurs (+9.767)
3. '16 Spurs (+9.247)
4. '65 Celtics (+8.752)
5. '05 Spurs (+8.584)
6. '62 Celtics (+8.275)
7. '04 Spurs (+8.258)
8. '06 Spurs (+7.955)
9. '01 Spurs (+7.914)
10. '60 Celtics (+7.849)
11. '14 Spurs (+7.402)
12. '63 Celtics (+7.321)
13. '99 Spurs (+7.269)
14. '58 Celtics (+7.207)
15. '67 Celtics (+6.845)
16. '02 Spurs (+6.797)
17. '12 Spurs (+6.783)
18. '61 Celtics (+6.751)
19. '64 Celtics (+6.611)
20. '13 Spurs (+6.550)


So a Russell Celtics team holds the top spot, though barely (and it's from the 50's), but a Tim Duncan team holds 11 of the top 20 (and 6 of the top 9).
Given the "Cousy left, and the Celtics got better" rhetoric is something that is frequently tossed around here, imo it's an interesting finding that SIX of the nine Russell teams that appear in this top 20 [including the best one, and 5 of their top 6] were teams from when Cousy was still around ('59 is the ONLY Cousy year that does not appear here). That was an unexpected finding.

[70sFan]

Since we've got some outstanding posts about KG, I wouldn't be myself if I didn't try to make Duncan case here

A lot of people think that Duncan was less than ideal defender for pace and space era. I want to counter that with his performance in 2007 against Phoenix Suns - a team that played modern style of basketball over 10 years ago.

Spoiler:

One of the first possessions in the game - Stoudemire goes to the other side of the floor, but Oberto stays and collides with Duncan. Nash quickly realized that there is a breakdown on defense and tries to take advantage of it. Duncan reads this situation well though - he pushes Oberto to put him in front of Nash and he reads Nash pass to Stoudemire quick enough that he's already in position to contest Amar'e shot (he blocked it).

Notice Spurs P&R defense - Oberto stays on Nash, while Duncan helps on Amar'e. Nash finds Thomas, but Duncan is already there. Suns have to reset the action now.

Nash tries to take Duncan on P&R, but Duncan shows excellent way to defend in drop coverage - he's always in position to help on Nash and he quickly recovers on Thomas (which led to traveling violation). Notice how Duncan's length made Nash not even trying to shoot inside.

Another try from Nash, Duncan stays well on his feet against him but Bowen stays on powerful screen and Nash makes a nice pass that led to Oberto foul.

I won't show every P&R action Duncan defends well, but Nash trying to exploit Duncan didn't work in that game.

Nash tries to take advantage of unset Spurs defense, but Duncan blocks his shot with ease. Focus on how Duncan tried to keep blocked ball inbouds.

Look how during the drive Duncan forced Nash pass with his reaction - normally it'd be pass to Stoudemire, but Duncan made subtle move toward him, so Nash passed to "open" Thomas, but Duncan quickly came back and blocked his shot. These kind of plays are the kind of defensive manipulation Russell talked so much about.

This is the kind of inside pressence that very few players could touch. Amar'e got a great position on Duncan, but Duncan almost blocked his shot anyway while not leaving the floor (he was soooo long). Then he contests Marion putback very well.

Another examples when Duncan's pressence alone made him successful inside. Even magishian like Nash and monster like Amar'e felt uncomfortable inside.

This time he defends drives from both Nash and Amar'e in the same action.

It's all from the first half, but you can see that (past physical prime) Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.

I like the film evidence! Hopefully there's most posts like this.

I watched some of those Spurs vs Suns games trying to decide when to vote for Duncan. One thing I walked away with was, although the Suns are credited for pioneering the space-and-pace offense, they still played very differently. One major difference is that Nash didn't take the open three against drop coverage defense as much as modern shooters do. The Suns also played a starting lineup with only one knockdown three-point shooter for Nash to pass to. I think the 2006 Mavericks have closer resemblance to modern teams and did more to challenge the Spurs' defense than the 2007 Suns.

So I tend to agree with your conclusion

Duncan had huge value on defensive side of the floor, even against someone like Nash.

But I also think Duncan having this type of impact would be much more difficult if the 2007 Suns actually played like a modern team rather than like a precursor to a modern team.

You are right, my point was more about Duncan's P&R defense and his laterall quickness (mind you, when he was past his physical prime). We have to remember that Duncan was more than capable against a team like Suns and at the same time, he was strong enough to deal with Shaq in the post. He was quite unique defender, I've never seen anyone like him before or since.

I also thought about Dallas series, but to be fair Duncan wasn't healthy throughout this season and I always viewed 2006 version as significantly less mobile.

By the way, how about early Dallas battles? I mean - 2001 and 2003 Mavs teams were also quite unique at that time. I don't remember these series too well, have you watched them recently? If not, are they worth re-watching in terms of scouting Duncan's defense?

[Texas Chuck]

I think the 2006 Mavericks have closer resemblance to modern teams

Would love for you to expand on that. Dallas surrounded Dirk that year with 2 very traditional big bodied centers in Damp/Diop. Teams today rarely play one of these types of centers much less two. Neither was a rim runner and neither spaced the floor. Now they did play some with Van Horn and Dirk together which is modern, but they didn't go to that a lot. Beyond that Howard was in some ways a modern wing with his ability to play both forward spots, but he lived in the mid-range and took 1 3 a game. Beyond that Griffin, Harris, Daniels and Stackhouse played nothing like modern wings or perimeter players.

And finally of course Avery Johnson ran really basic stuff that only worked because Dirk is at the peak of his physical powers making all that somehow work. I have that very much an old school team playing old school basketball with a freak in Dirk who let them get away with that.

This is also an example of a Dirk roster that gets called "stacked" but when you really look at its remarkable this core won over 60 games in b2b years and went to the Finals. To me it shows just how underrated Dirk gets as a guy who who we all know sets a very high floor, but also can take a team to the highest of ceilings with relatively underwhelming talent. Dallas didn't have so much as a real all-star next to him in this time frame.

[Hal14]

Duncan has a clear edge with comfortable separation from Russell as an offensive player.

Not sure about Duncan being a better offensive player. Sure, Duncan might be a better SCORER, but a) Russell didn't look to score all of the time by design. He was more focused on winning than scoring. Russell knew that it didn't matter what benefited HIM more - what mattered was what benefitted the TEAM more. That's why he focused less on scoring and more on getting the ball to his teammates, maximizing his teammates abilities and helping them to be in positions where THEY could score. As Russell was quoted as saying, "Wilt's teammates fed him the ball...I fed my teammates" and b) When Russell had to score, he could. If you watch film of him, you'll see him effortlessly make tough running hook shots across the lane - with either hand. You'll see him hit turnaround jumpers from 15-18 feet away, you'll see him finish on the break. Sprinting like a deer up court on the break to beat his man down the court so he could finish in transition is one facet of offense where Russell was clearly better than Duncan. Russell finishing on the break and starting the break (with his blocks, steals or rebounds and lightning quick and accurate outlet passes) is what usually started the Celtics fast break which is also part of being an offensive player. Again, Russell can score when the team needed him to, like in game 7 of the 1962 NBA finals where he scored 30 points - and had 40 rebounds!

Even if after all of that you still think Duncan was a better offensive player, the gap can't be very large. And I'd argue that Russell has the edge in passing, rebounding and defense. Those are 3 pretty darn important facets of the game if we're talking about big men.

And most important is their impact on winning. Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games. He won back to back titles in his last 2 high school seasons, he won back to back titles in his last 2 college seasons, he won an Olympic gold medal and:

Russell
11 titles in 13 seasons (85%)
5 MVPs in 13 seasons (38%)
9 Finals MVPs in 13 seasons (69%) I am saying that 1957 Cousy would have barely edged out Russell for Finals MVP, of course West won it in 1969 but I am saying that Russell would have likely been finals MVP during each of the other 9 seasons he won a title which is a safe bet.

Duncan
5 titles in 19 seasons (26%)
2 MVPs in 19 seasons (11%)
3 Finals MVPs in 19 seasons (16%)

So Russell was more than 3x more likely to win the title, he was more than 3x more likely to win MVP and he was more than 4x more likely to win finals MVP. It's not even close!

Also, if you look at how much better the Celtics got once they added Russell vs how much better the Spurs got once they added Duncan, that also favors Russell. Let's of course through out the 96-97 season for the Spurs, which is of course an anomaly since Robinson missed virtually the whole season to injury.

So we're now considering 95-96 to be the last season for the Spurs before Duncan. They went 59-23 that year, falling in 6 games to the Jazz in the western conference semi-finals. In Duncan's rookie year in 97-98, the Spurs actually got worse - they went 56-26 and lost in only 5 games to the Jazz in the western conference semi-finals.

Meanwhile, the Celtics in the last season before Russell only went 39-33, losing in the eastern division semi-finals. Then in Russell's rookie year, they went 44-28 (so they went from 6 games over .500 to 16 games over .500) and won the NBA title. So clearly Russell made a huge difference.

Duncan also has a longevity edge. It's not real large, but it's there.

When looking at longevity, either:

a) it should only factor in when comparing players from the same era. There's so many factors (advances in equipment, proper footwear, proper padding, taping of the ankles, strength and conditioning, weight training, nutrition, facilities, rule changes which eliminated hard fouls / hand checking, etc), all of which make it easier for a 60s player to have a longer career than a 50s player, a 70s player to have a longer career than a 60s player, etc.

Or

b) You factor in longevity, even when comparing players of different eras, but you must for the difference in eras by strictly looking at the strength of each player's longevity in relation to other players of their same era.

So for example, Duncan played from 97 to 2016. 19 seasons, which is really good, but not as difficult to play 19 seasons in his era. Also consider that he hung around a few extra seasons well past his prime, when he kept playing despite being a glorified role player at that point. Still, gotta give him credit because even in year 17 he was a pretty good reason why they won the title over the Heat.

Now, you compare that with Russell. Literally ever season of his career he was a highly effective player. By his 13th season, Duncan was down to only 31 minutes a game. In his 13th (and final) season, Russell was still going strong, averaging 43 minutes per game to go along with 19 rebounds, nearly doubling Duncan's total of 10 rebounds per game.

Looking just at their longevity relative to others in their era, what other players back in Russell's era were playing for 13 seasons and averaging over 42 minutes a game for their career AND playing in as many playoff games as he did? Relative to others in his era, Russell's longevity was EXTREMELY high. One could argue he had better longevity relative to his era than Duncan. After all, one could rather easily rattle off a few names of dudes who can have an argument for better longevity than Duncan from his era (LeBron, Melo, Vince Carter, maybe even Kobe, etc.) of course there's also many more teams/players in Duncan's era so more dudes who have the chance to play a long time.

With all that said, I think at least in the longevity department, Russell and Duncan are a wash.

Look, I like Duncan. Definitely top 8 all-time, maybe higher. But, I've got Russell no. 2 all time so for the reasons listed here, Duncan is just not quite as great as Russell was. And let's face it, the top 8 are all pretty debatable, with each guy having a case. Hence, why the Youtube series "Making The Case" was so good.

[70sFan]

As there's been some on-going discussion regarding the relative dominance of Russell teams vs Duncan teams, one poster cautioning against cherry-picking ONLY the defensive dominance; and 70sFan has cautioned against using raw SRS across eras.......I decided to make a scaled SRS model (based on year-to-year standard deviation); I can try to do the same with net rating soon, though it should read much the same, I would think.

Anyway, below are the top 20 [rs] scaled SRS seasons between Russell/Duncan, in order (scaled SRS value in parentheses); the difference is sometimes in the 3rd decimal place. I'll let you all decide how you feel about the era in which they occur....

1. '57 Celtics (+9.771)
2. '07 Spurs (+9.767)
3. '16 Spurs (+9.247)
4. '65 Celtics (+8.752)
5. '05 Spurs (+8.584)
6. '62 Celtics (+8.275)
7. '04 Spurs (+8.258)
8. '06 Spurs (+7.955)
9. '01 Spurs (+7.914)
10. '60 Celtics (+7.849)
11. '14 Spurs (+7.402)
12. '63 Celtics (+7.321)
13. '99 Spurs (+7.269)
14. '58 Celtics (+7.207)
15. '67 Celtics (+6.845)
16. '02 Spurs (+6.797)
17. '12 Spurs (+6.783)
18. '61 Celtics (+6.751)
19. '64 Celtics (+6.611)
20. '13 Spurs (+6.550)


So a Russell Celtics team holds the top spot, though barely (and it's from the 50's), but a Tim Duncan team holds 11 of the top 20 (and 6 of the top 9).
Given the "Cousy left, and the Celtics got better" rhetoric is something that is frequently tossed around here, imo it's an interesting finding that SIX of the nine Russell teams that appear in this top 20 [including the best one, and 5 of their top 6] were teams from when Cousy was still around ('59 is the ONLY Cousy year that does not appear here). That was an unexpected finding.

Thank you, this is something I wanted to see.

As for 6 of 10 Spurs teams inside top 10 - well, it includes 2016 Spurs and as much as I love Duncan - he wasn't a driving forcr behind this team (not even close actually, even though he was still impactful player). At 11th and 12th spot we have 2014 Spurs and 1963 Celtics with the slimmest margin between them.

I think this shows that there isn't big margin in either way in terms of RS dominance.

As far as which Russell team was the best overall - I was always a fan of 1962 version and I think 1960 and 1961 were also stronger than these mid-60s ones. Cousy added an offensive dimension to these teams that later teams didn't have and he wasn't high usage player anymore at the same time. Sam Jones had a breakthrough season and Heinsohn was still relevant. They didn't have Hondo, but they had Ramsey and better bench overall. I like Naulls addition in 1964 though.

[70sFan]

I think the 2006 Mavericks have closer resemblance to modern teams

Would love for you to expand on that. Dallas surrounded Dirk that year with 2 very traditional big bodied centers in Damp/Diop. Teams today rarely play one of these types of centers much less two. Neither was a rim runner and neither spaced the floor. Now they did play some with Van Horn and Dirk together which is modern, but they didn't go to that a lot. Beyond that Howard was in some ways a modern wing with his ability to play both forward spots, but he lived in the mid-range and took 1 3 a game. Beyond that Griffin, Harris, Daniels and Stackhouse played nothing like modern wings or perimeter players.

And finally of course Avery Johnson ran really basic stuff that only worked because Dirk is at the peak of his physical powers making all that somehow work. I have that very much an old school team playing old school basketball with a freak in Dirk who let them get away with that.

This is also an example of a Dirk roster that gets called "stacked" but when you really look at its remarkable this core won over 60 games in b2b years and went to the Finals. To me it shows just how underrated Dirk gets as a guy who who we all know sets a very high floor, but also can take a team to the highest of ceilings with relatively underwhelming talent. Dallas didn't have so much as a real all-star next to him in this time frame.

What is your take on 2001 and 2003 Dallas teams through "modern lenses"?

[Doctor MJ]

People always say that KG was better suited to play in modern era, but he wasn't more impactful than Duncan in 2012-15.

People always say that Garnett fits better with good teams, but I don't find 2008 Garnett any more impressive than, say, 2007 Duncan. Even in 2008 the gap between them wasn't huge (and was likely caused by Duncan's health problems).

People act like Garnett was basketball genius while Duncan was old fashioned bruiser whose game became obsolete in modern era.

You really going to judge these guys based primarily on what happened in their late 30s with one guy going to a new team while the other guy got to stay on in a system built to cater to him?

Re: Don't find 2008 KG more impressive than 2007 TD. I really think that's fine because Duncan was great in 2007. I will say though KG's year is particularly noteworthy in that he 1) revolutionized NBA defense that year in a way Duncan never did, 2) created a fantastic culture out of absolute head-hanging crap which Duncan never did, and 3) led perhaps the most remarkable all around turnaround of a team in NBA history - I doubt there's any performance in history where a team improved that much (+13) to an SRS (>9) that high.

Re: People act like Garnett was smarter than Duncan. Because he was. Duncan was definitely smart though.

Re: game obsolete in modern era. I think Duncan would be quite good today, but do you really want to run your offense around a volume post scorer hitting a TS of 55%?

Duncan had a slight volume scoring edge on Garnett, which I think would be less important today.
Duncan was also a better defender against big post up scorers, which would be less important today.

Garnett was a better playmaker than Duncan, which would be more important today.
Garnett was a better outside shooter than Duncan, which would be more important today.
Garnett was a better horizontal defender, which would be more important today.
Garnett was a better defensive quarterback which would be more important today.

What of that do you disagree with?

[Ambrose]

Duncan has a clear edge with comfortable separation from Russell as an offensive player.

Not sure about Duncan being a better offensive player. Sure, Duncan might be a better SCORER, but a) Russell didn't look to score all of the time by design. He was more focused on winning than scoring. Russell knew that it didn't matter what benefited HIM more - what mattered was what benefitted the TEAM more. That's why he focused less on scoring and more on getting the ball to his teammates, maximizing his teammates abilities and helping them to be in positions where THEY could score. As Russell was quoted as saying, "Wilt's teammates fed him the ball...I fed my teammates" and b) When Russell had to score, he could. If you watch film of him, you'll see him effortlessly make tough running hook shots across the lane - with either hand. You'll see him hit turnaround jumpers from 15-18 feet away, you'll see him finish on the break. Sprinting like a deer up court on the break to beat his man down the court so he could finish in transition is one facet of offense where Russell was clearly better than Duncan. Russell finishing on the break and starting the break (with his blocks, steals or rebounds and lightning quick and accurate outlet passes) is what usually started the Celtics fast break which is also part of being an offensive player. Again, Russell can score when the team needed him to, like in game 7 of the 1962 NBA finals where he scored 30 points - and had 40 rebounds!

Even if after all of that you still think Duncan was a better offensive player, the gap can't be very large. And I'd argue that Russell has the edge in passing, rebounding and defense. Those are 3 pretty darn important facets of the game if we're talking about big men.

And most important is their impact on winning. Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games. He won back to back titles in his last 2 high school seasons, he won back to back titles in his last 2 college seasons, he won an Olympic gold medal and:

Russell
11 titles in 13 seasons (85%)
5 MVPs in 13 seasons (38%)
9 Finals MVPs in 13 seasons (69%) I am saying that 1957 Cousy would have barely edged out Russell for Finals MVP, of course West won it in 1969 but I am saying that Russell would have likely been finals MVP during each of the other 9 seasons he won a title which is a safe bet.

Duncan
5 titles in 19 seasons (26%)
2 MVPs in 19 seasons (11%)
3 Finals MVPs in 19 seasons (16%)

So Russell was more than 3x more likely to win the title, he was more than 3x more likely to win MVP and he was more than 4x more likely to win finals MVP. It's not even close!

Also, if you look at how much better the Celtics got once they added Russell vs how much better the Spurs got once they added Duncan, that also favors Russell. Let's of course through out the 96-97 season for the Spurs, which is of course an anomaly since Robinson missed virtually the whole season to injury.

So we're now considering 95-96 to be the last season for the Spurs before Duncan. They went 59-23 that year, falling in 6 games to the Jazz in the western conference semi-finals. In Duncan's rookie year in 97-98, the Spurs actually got worse - they went 56-26 and lost in only 5 games to the Jazz in the western conference semi-finals.

Meanwhile, the Celtics in the last season before Russell only went 39-33, losing in the eastern division semi-finals. Then in Russell's rookie year, they went 44-28 (so they went from 6 games over .500 to 16 games over .500) and won the NBA title. So clearly Russell made a huge difference.

Duncan also has a longevity edge. It's not real large, but it's there.

When looking at longevity, either:

a) it should only factor in when comparing players from the same era. There's so many factors (advances in equipment, proper footwear, proper padding, taping of the ankles, strength and conditioning, weight training, nutrition, facilities, rule changes which eliminated hard fouls / hand checking, etc), all of which make it easier for a 60s player to have a longer career than a 50s player, a 70s player to have a longer career than a 60s player, etc.

Or

b) You factor in longevity, even when comparing players of different eras, but you must for the difference in eras by strictly looking at the strength of each player's longevity in relation to other players of their same era.

So for example, Duncan played from 97 to 2016. 19 seasons, which is really good, but not as difficult to play 19 seasons in his era. Also consider that he hung around a few extra seasons well past his prime, when he kept playing despite being a glorified role player at that point. Still, gotta give him credit because even in year 17 he was a pretty good reason why they won the title over the Heat.

Now, you compare that with Russell. Literally ever season of his career he was a highly effective player. By his 13th season, Duncan was down to only 31 minutes a game. In his 13th (and final) season, Russell was still going strong, averaging 43 minutes per game to go along with 19 rebounds, nearly doubling Duncan's total of 10 rebounds per game.

Why do you think Russell is a better passer/creator for others than Duncan?