RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #2 (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)

[LukaTheGOAT]

I mean, based on what actually happened, KG's impact profile is extremely comparable to Duncan's, if not slightly better. It's simply a more dramatic example of LeBron vs Jordan...actual statistics (including box score stats) once adjusted for the opponent and teammate quality, does not favor Duncan. Discussing stylistic points about Duncan's superior offense or defense doesn't actually bear out in the results.

I also think his 02 and 03 supporting casts are getting vastly underrated. These are teams that don't have specific teammates that stand out in an obvious way, but as a collective unit, they perfectly complemented Duncan and were superior to other supporting casts that may have more recognizable names. Especially with Popovich as the coach.

Duncan got old, and the Spurs did not have a single top 10 player in the league on the team, and yet they won the title in 2014...coaching and roster construction plays a huge part in being able to win, and Duncan was in pretty much the perfect situation his entire career. Obviously major props to him for delivering on that situation and winning multiple titles and being a clear MVP-level player for many years, but KG was also a clear MVP-level player for many years. The story of Duncan vs KG is a pretty clear example of how important the rest of the team is, because I don't see any obvious difference between the two in terms of how good they were as overall players. There are some things Duncan was better at, there are some things KG was better at, but overall, they made the same contributions towards winning from what I can see.

But obviously, I'm in the minority with that opinion...my question is mainly for the rest of that minority that view Duncan and KG as comparable players...what is separating the two of them for you in this conversation, where Duncan is in the GOAT tier and KG is not? IMO, both are on the same tier of player, and for me, both are one level below the tier 1 GOATs. And that seems to have been where the two of them ranked pretty consistently amongst the "KG is as good as Duncan" crowd. But recently, even amongst that group, Duncan has climbed the ranks it looks like...what is the difference that popped up after the two of them retired?

Eminence gave the reason that he takes team success into account with these rankings...I don't agree with that, but it's his criteria. Is that the case for the others that also think KG and Duncan are otherwise comparable (Doctor MJ and 70sFan are the two that come to mind)?

Can't speak for everyone but I have Duncan ahead of Garnett because I just straight think he is a better PS performer. All-in-one metrics support his peak being better. My eye does as. He simply had much more ability as a scorer and that makes the difference here.

In their era, isolation ball was pretty big, and the fact that Duncan could do it at such a higher level makes a difference.

[DQuinn1575]

Official vote


1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem


I'm towards the end of finishing up my framework using a championship added based model. Based on that, I voted LeBron 1st, with
MJ, Kareem, & Wilt fairly close right now. I'm working on adjusting for environment, and when that is finalized, Wilt will fall behind,
due to the lack of Blacks in the league in the early 60s; I'm not sure he will hold the 4th spot.

I'm fairly close between Jordan and Jabbar; again without the environment totally adjusted. I'm crediting playoffs for up to half of the
value in a season, with no penalty for missing the playoffs. The part that Jordan really stands out is in the playoffs; I've ranked each
year,with 95 his bottom. I only had Kareem being better than that in 77, 70, 80, 74, and 79 in the playoffs, with 71 slightly trailing,
and then a decent drop-off. Additionally, when I do finish, Jabbar will be downgraded more than Jordan in my environment model, as MJ's expansion is somewhat offset by population and the increase in Blacks vs early career Jabbar.

Right now I'm pretty good on Top 3; not sure how my model will go after that.

[therealbig3]

I mean, based on what actually happened, KG's impact profile is extremely comparable to Duncan's, if not slightly better. It's simply a more dramatic example of LeBron vs Jordan...actual statistics (including box score stats) once adjusted for the opponent and teammate quality, does not favor Duncan. Discussing stylistic points about Duncan's superior offense or defense doesn't actually bear out in the results.

I also think his 02 and 03 supporting casts are getting vastly underrated. These are teams that don't have specific teammates that stand out in an obvious way, but as a collective unit, they perfectly complemented Duncan and were superior to other supporting casts that may have more recognizable names. Especially with Popovich as the coach.

Duncan got old, and the Spurs did not have a single top 10 player in the league on the team, and yet they won the title in 2014...coaching and roster construction plays a huge part in being able to win, and Duncan was in pretty much the perfect situation his entire career. Obviously major props to him for delivering on that situation and winning multiple titles and being a clear MVP-level player for many years, but KG was also a clear MVP-level player for many years. The story of Duncan vs KG is a pretty clear example of how important the rest of the team is, because I don't see any obvious difference between the two in terms of how good they were as overall players. There are some things Duncan was better at, there are some things KG was better at, but overall, they made the same contributions towards winning from what I can see.

But obviously, I'm in the minority with that opinion...my question is mainly for the rest of that minority that view Duncan and KG as comparable players...what is separating the two of them for you in this conversation, where Duncan is in the GOAT tier and KG is not? IMO, both are on the same tier of player, and for me, both are one level below the tier 1 GOATs. And that seems to have been where the two of them ranked pretty consistently amongst the "KG is as good as Duncan" crowd. But recently, even amongst that group, Duncan has climbed the ranks it looks like...what is the difference that popped up after the two of them retired?

Eminence gave the reason that he takes team success into account with these rankings...I don't agree with that, but it's his criteria. Is that the case for the others that also think KG and Duncan are otherwise comparable (Doctor MJ and 70sFan are the two that come to mind)?

Can't speak for everyone but I have Duncan ahead of Garnett because I just straight think he is a better PS performer. All-in-one metrics support his peak being better. My eye does as. He simply had much more ability as a scorer and that makes the difference here.

In their era, isolation ball was pretty big, and the fact that Duncan could do it at such a higher level makes a difference.

The thing is, Duncan almost always had better teammates, especially on the perimeter that were able to create and generate easier looks for himself. He also has plenty of series where he DID NOT come through as a scorer.

If we look at Garnett and Duncan against similar opponents when they had similar help, or when they went head to head:

99 Garnett vs Spurs: 22 ppg on 49% TS
99 Duncan vs Wolves: 19 ppg on 52% TS...and keep in mind that he had David Robinson next to him as well

01 Garnett vs Spurs: 21 ppg on 57% TS
01 Duncan vs Wolves: 23 ppg on 51% TS...again, he still had David Robinson next to him

03 Garnett vs Lakers: 27 ppg on 54% TS
03 Duncan vs Lakers: 28 ppg on 58% TS

04 Garnett vs Lakers: 24 ppg on 52% TS
04 Duncan vs Lakers: 21 ppg on 53% TS

08 Garnett vs Lakers: 18 ppg on 47% TS
08 Duncan vs Lakers: 22 ppg on 47% TS

I don't see where Duncan is "much" better as a scorer, especially when accounting for the fact that he had better help in all of these series outside of what, 08? And Garnett has always been a much better passer and playmaker than Duncan, and his defense and rebounding are on the same level.

And even if you prefer Duncan's slightly better scoring here, it's obvious to me that he's no Kareem or Hakeem or Shaq in that department, not really all that close. For me, it's not so much that Garnett should be argued here as well, it's that I don't think Duncan quite belongs at this level. He's got too many limitations as a player compared to the true GOATs, and his longevity, while excellent, isn't otherworldly. He hasn't quite separated himself from the likes of a Kevin Garnett, who I don't seriously consider as being better than Shaq or Hakeem, let alone Kareem.

[70sFan]

And even if you prefer Duncan's slightly better scoring here, it's obvious to me that he's no Kareem or Hakeem or Shaq in that department, not really all that close.

Saying that Duncan isn't "really all that close" and "obviously" is worse than Hakeem as a scorer, while putting Hakeem in the same tier with Kareem and Shaq doesn't look that good. I don't think there are strong evidences suggesting Hakeem was closer to Kareem or Shaq as a scorer than to Duncan.

He's got too many limitations as a player compared to the true GOATs,

What these limitations are precisely?

[One_and_Done]

Duncan was a vastly superior scorer to Bill Russell, who is getting votes here, so it's a weird criticism given I think Duncan is the defensive GOAT anyway.

If we look at select samples of volume stats we can make alot of these guys look comparable. It doesn't mean they were. KG was never as good as Duncan.

[70sFan]

Duncan was a vastly superior scorer to Bill Russell, who is getting votes here, so it's a weird criticism given I think Duncan is the defensive GOAT anyway.

You think Duncan is the defensive GOAT, but you are in the minority here.

[One_and_Done]

How many of those who disagree are adjusting for era in the way I am? Alot of people here have Russell as defensive GOAT, but admit they don't necessarily think he would be in the modern game.

[therealbig3]

And even if you prefer Duncan's slightly better scoring here, it's obvious to me that he's no Kareem or Hakeem or Shaq in that department, not really all that close.

Saying that Duncan isn't "really all that close" and "obviously" is worse than Hakeem as a scorer, while putting Hakeem in the same tier with Kareem and Shaq doesn't look that good. I don't think there are strong evidences suggesting Hakeem was closer to Kareem or Shaq as a scorer than to Duncan.

He's got too many limitations as a player compared to the true GOATs,

What these limitations are precisely?

I think Duncan was capable of being targeted defensively, particularly in the PnR when he's drawn to the perimeter and has to move his feet. I think the Lakers took advantage of this multiple times and why they tended to have success against the Spurs. Kobe in particular was able to dominate them multiple times, because I think he was capable of attacking Duncan, as well as the Spurs overall scheme of giving up the midrange, which is where Kobe thrived. The Mavs with Dirk also punished Duncan's defense throughout the series in 06.

I think his abilities as an isolation scorer are also overrated and can be considered a weakness given his competition at this spot. I honestly think it was underwhelming for a player at his level, and that most of the time he faced a strong defense, he faltered rather than succeeded (as a scorer). He had some great series, don't get me wrong, like 99 Lakers, 03 Lakers, 06 Mavs (although I'm not impressed with what the Mavs had defensively). Offensively, he was ok vs the 02 Lakers and the 03 Nets, he was up and down. The 03 Nets also had an undersized front court especially with Mutombo being hurt and used sparingly. But he's also got series like 98 against the Jazz, 01/04 against the Lakers, 05 against the Pistons, 07 against the Cavs, 08 against the Lakers again. Should have been able to do more imo.

Furthermore, as an overall offensive player, I think his shooting is a weakness. I think he had a relatively inconsistent midrange jumper and was similarly inconsistent from the FT line. As a result, he didn't provide much spacing and wasn't much of a threat the further he was from the basket. And I think his passing ability was good...not great. I think relative to the other great big men that I mentioned, he's comparable to Shaq and Kareem and better than Hakeem.

All in all, I think Duncan was much easier to slow down as an offensive force relative to Kareem or Shaq or Hakeem, and even his defense could be targeted in certain matchups.

Hakeem as a scorer, specifically in the playoffs, was pretty consistently scaling up and scoring on both volume and efficiency. And even when he faced strong defensive front lines, he still played quite well as an offensive player, which is the biggest difference between him and Duncan.

For example, 93-96 he obviously was pretty dominant offensively and was anchoring some great playoff offenses. In particular, he went through some great front lines and still came through as a scorer in a way Duncan didn't when he went up against similar defense.

I think in terms of playoff offensive resiliency, Hakeem stands up closer to Shaq and Kareem than Duncan does.

[therealbig3]

Duncan was a vastly superior scorer to Bill Russell, who is getting votes here, so it's a weird criticism given I think Duncan is the defensive GOAT anyway.

If we look at select samples of volume stats we can make alot of these guys look comparable. It doesn't mean they were. KG was never as good as Duncan.

This is a weird take, because KG was literally an MVP and was making All-NBA 1st team throughout Duncan's prime. And he was absolutely considered the same tier of player. It was one of the biggest debates of the time, Duncan or KG?

We are retroactively elevating Duncan vs diminishing KG because we have to explain Duncan's superior success somehow, so whatever advantages Duncan has are super important, and whatever advantages KG has are not so important. It couldn't possibly actually be because one guy had a much more stable and competent roster and coaching staff than the other guy and that they're actually similar level players. Most of the impact metrics support this.

[therealbig3]

And even if you prefer Duncan's slightly better scoring here, it's obvious to me that he's no Kareem or Hakeem or Shaq in that department, not really all that close.

Saying that Duncan isn't "really all that close" and "obviously" is worse than Hakeem as a scorer, while putting Hakeem in the same tier with Kareem and Shaq doesn't look that good. I don't think there are strong evidences suggesting Hakeem was closer to Kareem or Shaq as a scorer than to Duncan.

He's got too many limitations as a player compared to the true GOATs,

What these limitations are precisely?

BTW, I know you're a Duncan fan, and you prefer him over Garnett, but I also know that you consider them quite close and don't mind if someone would rather have Garnett.

So how are you separating them yourself? Do you have Duncan on another tier relative to Garnett, and if so, why?

[One_and_Done]

Duncan was much more athletic in his prime, the perimeter D issue would be much reduced. I don't agree with what you said about Kobe. He went off in 2001 when the Spurs perimeter players were rubbish, but I don't attrubute that to Duncan. Indeed, it seems impossible to do so when Kobe's other performances during Duncan's 98-07 prime were generally subpar.

99: 21.3pog on 504 TS% (his RS TS% was 549.)
02: 26.2 ppg on a horrific 486 TS% (his RS TS% was 544.)
03: 32.3 ppg on 533 TS% (his regular season TS% was 550.)
04: 26.3 ppg on 534 TS% (his regular season TS% was 551.)

Hardly dominating was he. I have not put TDs stats because I don't want to create the impression they were matching up mono e mono. Kobe was Shaq's Robin after all. But rest assured, they were much better on the whole.

[ty 4191]

Hello Everyone,
I was invited by a veteran member here to participate in this. Unfortunately, I don't have the (several) hours at the moment to type out something so cogent, incisive, and comprehensive as the several posts I've read thus far. (Outstanding work, all, by the way)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My vote goes to Wilt Chamberlain.

#2 Bill Russell

#3 Michael Jordan

I know this is an (extremely) unpopular position in 2023, especially here, but I'd be willing to discuss it further-or much further- with anyone open-minded, certainly.

Just a few sources/things I've read (or seen) in their entirety. Very strongly recommended reading/viewing:

1. https://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Than-Robert-Cherry-ebook/dp/B009N3585M/ref=sr_1_1?crid=31CK2MHQD4EVK&keywords=wilt+larger+than+life&qid=1688397079&sprefix=wilt+larger+than+life%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-1

2. https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball/dp/0812970306/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=wilt+russell+the+rivalry+book&qid=1688397133&sr=8-1

3. https://www.amazon.com/Wilt-1962-Night-Points-Dawn-ebook/dp/B003FCVDR4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2GIK3WVJV4HM0&keywords=wilt+1962+book&qid=1688397271&sprefix=wilt+1962+book%2Caps%2C122&sr=8-1

4. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFfDF7oCw7sVL7PzEg57E4g

Specific Videos of Note, at the WCA:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

And, for everyone who discounts the 1960'a and early 1970's as being "inferior or significantly inferior" to all subsequent eras:

Watch on YouTube

PS: Who here has read all of these books, and also, watched all of these videos? Just asking because I'm (very) curious.

PPS: #2 for me is likely Bill Russell. But, I could easily be swayed to vote for LeBron, MJ, or even Kareem.

Thank you, everyone!!

[OhayoKD]

I find their average prime floor raising performances fairly similar, but Kareem 'should' have the better results and the worse results (and he does) due to a much larger sample. You're looking at '87-'90 MJ here on the high side (as you state '90 is debatable, though I'd lean towards inclusion, and I'd probably exclude '87 seeing it as a solid step down from later MJ).

what worse results he got

'76.

Taking a sub-30-win team to .500 seems fine? What MJ years are we comparing that too? It's a higher with and lower without than 86-MJ with Kareem dropping big numbers while winning MVP. If that's a "low" then I would guess that Kareem's lows are also higher(i mean with everything covered, the only other year left is 1973 which was a great rs followed by a playoff-choke and 1980 where Magic got a co-star and capitalized with a dominant championship run. Fixating on how the years line-up with an expected trajectory is folly when dealing with someone who was arguably better by year 2.

an average center and a rookie point guard

They were a 30-win team before he arrived. "average" would be a significant loss. Losing the 2nd and 5th highest playing guys would logically lead to a significantly worse cast. This description is probably more fitting for the pre-90 Bulls.

The thing that’s hard for me to gauge with Kareem is that his floor raising ability basically has two separate stories that go in very different directions. First is that the Bucks instantly went from being a bad team to being a really good team in Kareem’s rookie year. This looks great for Kareem! Second is that Kareem didn’t do a whole lot with his teams in the latter half of the 1970s, even when a few of those teams actually had some really good players (albeit not usually in their absolute prime). This doesn’t look very good. The thing that makes this particularly weird to me is the chronology of this. We wouldn’t expect a player to have substantially better impact as a floor raiser (or otherwise) in their rookie year than they did in any year in a 5-year span in their peak years. It’s hard to conceptualize what was going on there.

Perhaps a part of it is that the pre-Kareem Bucks were better than they’d seem. They *did* add more than just Kareem between 1968-1969 and 1969-1970. Notably, they added Bob Dandridge—a future hall of famer. Flynn Robinson was a pretty good player (he was an all star in 1969-1970), and while he’d been there in 1968-1969, he’d only joined the team during the season, so he was probably better integrated when there for a full season a year later. Meanwhile, there were some other differences: For instance, Greg Smith was a key role player that was in his second season in 1969-1970 and played a fair bit better than he had in his rookie season. There’s also just the likely-quite-significant fact that the 1968-1969 season was the franchise’s first season, and that surely carries some unique growing pains as an organization in countless ways, such that we’d just generally expect a better second season once the organization has things figured out a bit more. So I don’t think we can attribute all of the team’s increase in quality to just Kareem—there’s a lot more going on there.

Even so, I do still find it confusing. Unless the first-year growing pains that the Bucks had were enormous (which is possible!), it’s still hard to reconcile what happened with the Bucks in Kareem’s rookie season with what happened with Kareem’s teams in the late 1970s. One thing I actually wonder is whether we should just conceptualize Kareem’s peak as being his first several years in the NBA. That’s not typical for a player, but then again it’s very atypical for a player to be as incredible and polished as Kareem was in college. Maybe he’s an example of a player who was so polished so early that his peak was early because he had that polish *and* his peak athleticism? To me, this would make sense, especially when I just think the most impressive things Kareem did were all in his first few years in the league (the floor raising in his rookie year; leading a team that’s on the shortlist for greatest team ever in 1970-1971; his statistical peak; etc.).

This criticism is based on the assumption that 1977-79 Lakers teams underperformed and were talented enough to do more. I question this assumption, because we have evidences that this Lakers team wasn't good at all when Kareem missed time and players didn't perform well in the postseason, even though Kareem played fantastic basketball in 95% of postseason games.

Could you give me some arguments behind your assumption? I am open to change my mind.

[/quote]
I'm guessing he's looking at names like Adrian Dantley who were only really marginal positives at that point. Uncannily similar comment to what Broussard argued against Jabbar

[One_and_Done]

Duncan was a vastly superior scorer to Bill Russell, who is getting votes here, so it's a weird criticism given I think Duncan is the defensive GOAT anyway.

If we look at select samples of volume stats we can make alot of these guys look comparable. It doesn't mean they were. KG was never as good as Duncan.

This is a weird take, because KG was literally an MVP and was making All-NBA 1st team throughout Duncan's prime. And he was absolutely considered the same tier of player. It was one of the biggest debates of the time, Duncan or KG?

We are retroactively elevating Duncan vs diminishing KG because we have to explain Duncan's superior success somehow, so whatever advantages Duncan has are super important, and whatever advantages KG has are not so important. It couldn't possibly actually be because one guy had a much more stable and competent roster and coaching staff than the other guy and that they're actually similar level players. Most of the impact metrics support this.

If one of us is retroactively changing the narrative, I don't think it's me.

During Duncan's prime here is how he and KG match up in the MVP voting:

1998: Duncan (5th), KG (no votes)
1999: Duncan (3rd), KG (10th)
2000: Duncan (5th), KG (2nd)
2001: Duncan (2nd), KG (5th)
2002: Duncan (1st), KG (12th)
2003: Duncan (1st), KG (2nd)
2004: Duncan (2nd*), KG (1st)
2005: Duncan (4th), KG (11th)
2006: Duncan (8th), KG (no votes)
2007: Duncan (4th), KG (9th)

*but as I noted Duncan missed 13 games with an injury, if he doesn't he likely wins MVP this year. His team was only 1 game behind the Wolves, and by SRS were a vastly better team.

Duncan beats KG 8/10 years, and the 2 years KG is ahead are years where Duncan missed 8 and 13 games respectively, while KG played all season those years. Plus these guys are the same age, so we are conparing like for like here, from ages 21 to 30. I realise KGs Wolves missed the playoffs (which I think reflects on him to some degree), but to get no voted at all is pretty damning.

Ar any rate, the idea they were seen by voters as equals is clearly wrong.

[f4p]

I want to start that this is a very good, but also a long post, so I will only touch on parts I disagree (don't feel like it's an attack, but the invitation for the further discussion).

Now certainly, the returns were great. But no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure, for more years than Tim Duncan. Most generational #1 picks are greeted by a smoldering crater of a franchise and asked to build it from the ground up. The Spurs had spent the better part of a decade winning 50 and 60 games, before tanking due to injuries for one season, and then bringing the best parts of that core back. And, oh yeah, adding possibly the greatest coach of all time. Was David Robinson quite peak David Robinson any more? No. But it's hard to imagine a much better situation for a #1 overall pick. Other than maybe Magic with Kareem and then James Worthy with Magic and Kareem, I don't know who had it better.

There is no question that Duncan enjoyed a lot of luck with the organization he got drafted, but I am not sure I can agree that "no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure":

1. You already mentioned Magic and it's hard to make an argument against him in this case. Do you think there are any reasons to believe that Magic was "less lucky" than Duncan?
2. Another 1980s great with a comparable situation is Larry Bird. Did Bird play with someone as good as Robinson as a rookie? No, not really. Did 1970s Celtics infrastructure was better than 1990s SAS? Almost certainly. The Celtics were way ahead of their time from that perspective, they had an extremely resillient organization run by basketball legends. They built contending team around Bird very quickly. I think it's fair to say that Duncan had arguably a bigger impact on how Spurs organization changed throughout the years than Bird did.
3. Another one is Bill Russell, who finished in one of the best teams in the league with a lot of talent and the best organization in the league.
4. There is also Kobe, who isn't in the conversation but it's not hard to argue for him as well.

so the key point in making my statement is:

But no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure, for more years than Tim Duncan.

duncan had a good situation, and it was good for 19 years. now some of that is being able to be around for 19 years, but its seemingly even more remarkable for the franchise to have basically no off-years for 19 seasons. as mentioned, he retired with his most talented cast ever, winning 67 games as a role player. i'd say Magic had a better "per year" situation, but he also managed to get the same number of titles in 12 years. bird could also be argued and i might give him the per year advantage, but the celtics seemed set for an early 90's decline whether bird kept going or not (some obviously due to len bias and reggie lewis). and russell, when figuring in how terrible the rest of the nba was for the first half of his career, had arguably the best league-relative "per year" franchise advantge. but duncan got that great situation for 19 years. even great longevity guys like lebron and kareem had plenty of down years to try to work their way through. 19 chances at contention is a huge advantage over other guys.

Also, for a bolded part - it's true that the Spurs enjoyed a decent amount of RS success in the 1990s (though they only won 60+ games once), but they also made the WCF only once and never got to the finals. Duncan got drafted by a good team that was never a contender at any point of the 1990s and had no history of significant success before Duncan. I wouldn't call such organization the best you can imagine. I think you use 2000s and 2010s Spurs to contextualize 1990s Spurs process, but I am afraid that you may miss a significant role that Duncan played in creating the standards.

i would say 1995 was a contender. even with hakeem stomping robinson, they were a late jumper by horry from going to game 7 against the eventual champs. and yes, the pre-Pop spurs were not The Borg they would become, and duncan certainly helped cement what Pop was doing into a top-down organizational ethos that was hard to stop once it got going. but magic was drafted onto a lakers team that had done even less with kareem and i would still say it was an amazing situation for magic. Red put a bunch of talent around bird, but bird showed up to a team that hadn't done much for several years. the spurs were a core of high end talent that needed a true superstar for the playoffs and they not only got that, they got a GOAT candidate coach at the exact same time. now if duncan had showed up to that situation and then it eventually aged out and he had to spend 3 years rebuilding that would be one thing. or if he had even gotten parker and ginobili but then basically aged out with them like bird/mchale/parish, that would be another. but to get one of the best ever starting situations, get blessed with one of the most overlapping star trios in the middle, and then somehow get to play with even more talent at the end. that may never be replicated for any player.

Duncan gets to immediately leap in with the core of a previous 59 win team with the GOAT coach in tow.

I certainly wouldn't call sophomore Pop a GOAT coach. It's another example of using future standards for different times.

ok, but then sophomore phil jackson wouldn't seem to be a GOAT coach either. but they're certainly already showing promise and are better than getting stuck with whatever KG or Hakeem or Lebron or Wilt or others were getting at points early in their careers.

Not when the front office adds Danny Green and Tiago Splitter and Boris Diaw and Patty Mills and, umm, who am I forgetting? Oh, it's future hall of fame, future multiple time Finals MVP, #42 on the previous Top 100 and only that low because he can't stay healthy, it's playoff performer extraordinaire Kawhi Leonard. That looks like a good team in and of itself, much less added to a hall of fame trio. Especially when the coach can seamlessly shift from defensive guru to "beautiful game" coach like it's nothing. Now Tim Duncan is free to gracefully end his career, never asked to do too much on his super deep, super well-coached team. It helps him maintain value and play on winning teams all the way to the end. By the time he is ready to exit the stage in year 19, they have even added another likely hall of famer in LaMarcus Aldridge. Giving the Spurs an all-HOF closing lineup. Duncan can play 25 mpg and only 60 games for the season and still see his team win 67 games and actually finish with a better net rating than the 73-win Warriors.

Is there any reason to bring up post-2013 career in this discussion? I don't really think anyone considers Duncan for a high spot because of these years. Yeah, Duncan ended his career on a stacked team. I don't understand how it should influence our views on his prime years though.

i can't speak for all rankings, but i'm certain duncan winning the 2014 title has been factored into his ranking quite frequently in things i have read on here. and his impact numbers and the spurs being really good in 2015 i feel like certainly comes up. it's those years looking good that seems to get him quite a longevity boost. otherwise by 2013 he's just at 16 years like some other people, which wouldn't be that crazy for longevity.

Tim Duncan won 4 of his 5 titles as the #1 SRS team. No problem with that. After all, it is 5 of 6 for Jordan. But even Duncan's 1 win as the #3 SRS team (2003) comes with the caveat that #1/#2 (DAL/SAC) faced off against each other in the second round, and then Dirk got hurt and missed half of the conference finals so it's not clear the Spurs weren't the favorite anyway (though they were up 2-1 with Dirk playing). But in 2001, the Spurs were #1 in SRS and lost. Swept in fact. Bludgeoned by 29 and 39 in the final 2 games. Has a #1 SRS team been beaten in worse fashion? In 2004, they were #1 in SRS once again and lost after taking a 2-0 lead. In 2006, #1 in SRS again and lost in the 2nd round. 2012, #2 in SRS but after Rose's injury, effectively the #1 SRS team and lost 4 straight in the WCF after winning their first 10 games of the playoffs. 2011, #1 seed and lost to an 8th seed. That's a lot of losing as a favorite if you want to be put up there with Jordan.


By SRS, Duncan's average playoff series loss was actually as a 0.86 SRS favorite. That's incredible. Only Bill Russell with an average loss of +1.47 SRS is worse, and that comes with the caveat that he only lost twice and the time he lost as a huge +4.2 favorite he missed a few games in the series (though Boston doesn't really appear to have played worse without him). Larry Bird, not exactly a great playoff riser, is next at +0.73 and Chris Paul and David Robinson also find themselves on the wrong side of 0. Hakeem is at -3.2 and Jordan is by far the biggest underdog (of the 40 or so top players I looked at) at -5.0, an enormous underdog when he lost. In fact, Hakeem's average playoff series WIN was as a -0.8 SRS underdog, which is crazy. That's the difference in having to drag a franchise around for 18 years and having one of the best situations ever.

I wonder, isn't it basically holding RS success against Duncan, because basically no other player anchored his team to the same amount of #1 SRS in the RS? I think it would be also important to point out how Duncan played in these loses, because I have no idea how anyone could hold 2006 against Duncan for example.

it could be, but i'm not sure what the alternative is? how else do we come up with a baseline for a team's talent level if not the 82 game regular season? there's travel, back-to-backs, you can't gameplan for every team. it would seem to give us a good look at a team's intrinsic talent level. otherwise, every time there's a playoff upset, we just say that actually the winning team was secretly better so it wasn't an upset and that seems even more off-base. we certainly talk about playoff risers/decliners on an individual level so i don't see why it wouldn't apply to teams. is it fair to david robinson and james harden to call them playoff decliners by penalizing them for being so good in the regular season? i don't know, but we certainly do.

i think it's difficult to say the spurs were #1 so many times without having an incredible team. which is what gets you in the mix as a contender. and converting those opportunities is a big part of the game. did duncan convert quite a few? yeah. was he converting like a hakeem or jordan or russell seemed to? not really. more like kareem. and by the same token, if duncan is going to be so heavily praised for his run of amazing regular seasons, for having the best winning percentage in north american sports history, 50+ wins every year, it can't also be that those records don't really mean the spurs were that good, so losing in the playoffs can't be held against him.

as for pointing out how duncan played. that's what i tried to do. he didn't just lose as an SRS favorite in 2004, but as an SRS favorite with a 2-0 series lead. while he scored 17.5 ppg on 38% shooting over the final 4 games. that's a significant stretch of significantly underperforming play for the offensive anchor of a team as they lose 4 straight playoff games. if the 2004 lakers just whooped them 4 straight, or went on to beat the 2004 pistons, maybe i could just chalk it up to the lakers being that good. but the spurs were obviously good enough to get a 2-0 lead. to have a better regular season SRS. it took the lakers just as many games to beat the wolves without cassell. and this is one year removed from duncan's best playoff run ever. so it's not like i'm taking a shot at old duncan or anything.

we see him struggle big time when guarded by shaq in 2002. we see him narrowly avoid defeat while struggling offensively against the pistons. hakeem against a similar legendary frontline in the 1994 knicks was scoring 27 ppg on 50% shooting and it took every one of those points to eke it out. how does the 2008 WCF go if duncan is scoring like hakeem almost certainly would have against pau. if duncan turns it up against memphis in 2011, do the spurs with the league's 2nd best record survive against memphis like they did against dallas in 2014 and go on a title run?

was he great in 2006? yeah. and can i expect him to win every single series as a #1 SRS team when he played so many. probably not. and if i'm comparing him to karl malone, then these are blips on the radar of a dominant case over the mailman. but he's going against hakeem. who fought and scrounged and crawled through the desert for one peek at a chance at contending. and when he got it, it was just a sliver. but he was electric and capitalized. then came back the next year and was maybe more electric. after swatting away Showtime as a 2nd year player. while putting up record breaking 1st rounds on bad teams. while even putting up a huge age 34 playoffs on his one other tiny chance at contending, while his 2 best teammates were hampered by injuries. with all of his career playoff losses basically only being in mid-offs or as a huge underdog. just to be above hakeem, i need more than "it's tough to always win when you're team is really good", but i certainly need more for a #2 vote.

look at the standards this board puts on jordan. the unquestioned best player on the best 6 year run in league history. and we've got people trying to knock him down to 5th and 6th. there's longevity problems. or "lift" concerns. or attitude concerns. and that's a guy who arguably only played on 6 contenders or, if we're being, generous, he played on 8. and won 6. with no bad series as a favorite. the 1993 bulls, seemingly tired from trying to 3-peat, themselves only a 6.2 SRS team that year, had to beat a 6.3, 5.9, and 6.3 team in the 2nd round, ECF, and finals, including a historic defense in the knicks. and they went 12-4. even coming back from 0-2 against the knicks. that could have easily been a "what, are we supposed to win every single time?" moment. or in 1998, when a bulls team running on fumes, playing 6.3 and 5.7 SRS teams in the ECF and Finals. the bulls only 1 and 1.5 SRS favorites, with a hobbled pippen and rapidly aging rodman. this was the time to get them. even vegas was barely sure in the finals. but jordan got to 25-0 as a favorite. the drive and ability to deal with the pressure of being the favorite and to always come through is just incredible.

2002 - Spurs and Lakers near SRS parity. Duncan puts up fantastic series numbers, but the Spurs are outscored in every 4th quarter and Duncan goes 11-29 with 9 turnovers in the five 4th quarters of the series. Losing a series they led after 3 quarters in 3 of 5 games.

Yeah, that happens when your 2nd best player is hurt and misses time and you have to play 45 mpg and everything on both ends of the floor is on your shoulders. Duncan carried an absurd load on both ends of the floor and I agree that he wasn't able to do that on consistent basis - now, I'd like to see what player in the league history did better under such circumstances.

perhaps no one could have. i think the image of those years is always that shaq got put on duncan in the 4th quarter/2nd half and then that was that. and it happened in that game 5 i watched. duncan put up an incredible 34/25. but in the 2nd half, i recall counting every possession where shaq was duncan's primary defender and duncan was i believe 2/9. and 1 of those 2 was a shot that shaq blocked but it bounced right back to duncan and he got an uncontested layup. among a total of 3 times shaq blocked duncan straight up. that's part of why 2003 felt different right away. because duncan stopped getting stymied so much by shaq.

Duncan guarding Shaq in 2002 was mentioned. Maybe it happened, but I watched game 5 a few months ago. He didn't guard him in the 1st quarter, the youtube video (in spanish) skipped the 2nd quarter, but he didn't guard him for the first half of the 3rd so he probably didn't guard him in the 2nd quarter. Then he guarded him once in the 3rd and picked up a foul. One possession later he guarded him again and picked up a foul. Strategy put on hold. In the 4th he guarded Shaq a 3rd time and picked up a foul. This did not appear to be 1999 36 year old Hakeem being led to slaughter guarding prime Shaq from the tip. it was selective guarding. And not too good in game 5.

I also rewatched this series not long ago and I counted Shaq numbers when he was guarded by Duncan:

Game 1: 4/11 FG, 3/4 FT, 1 ast, 1 tov
Game 2: 5/9 FG, 3/6 FT, 3 ast, 1 tov
Game 3: 5/8 FG, 2/2 FT, 1 ast
Game 4: 2/3 FG, 1 ast
Game 5: 3/8 FG, 4/6 FT, 1 tov

So, overall Shaq went 19/39 from the field (48.7 FG%) and 13/18 (72.2 FT%) from the line against Duncan. He scored 10.2 ppg on 54.3 TS% and his efficiency is inflated by unusually high FT%. 39 FGA is also over 40% of Shaq total attempts in the series.

From watching the series, it was clear that the Spurs tried to use Duncan on Shaq less once Robinson came back (though David wasn't effective) and the only game he wasn't arguably the main Shaq defender was game 4 when Robinson played significant minutes.

I also agree that game 5 wasn't the best game in terms of Shaq defense from that series, that's why we should watch more than parts of one game.

i would love to watch more of these games. but youtube is limited in available games and time is limited when youtube isn't limited. for now, i will mostly have to rely on having seen them live and occasionally watching more and more. also, is this counting any time duncan came over on shaq or only primary defender? i didn't get duncan defending anywhere near 8 shots against shaq in game 5. maybe a bunch happened in the 2nd quarter that the video skipped, but all i had was 3 possessions and 3 fouls as of the mid 4th. then duncan did make shaq miss a shot and maybe there was one more. but certainly duncan was around on help against a decent number of shaq shots.

2004 - The Spurs, significant SRS favorites on the Lakers, go up 2-0. Note that neither Jordan nor Hakeem has ever lost a 2 game lead. Over the final 4 games, Duncan averages 17.5 ppg on 38 FG% with 4.3 TOpg. While mostly being guarded by a 40 year old Mailman who I don't recall guarding Hakeem much even when Malone was younger. This seems to be a highly winnable series if Duncan plays better.

This is true, Duncan underperformed in that series.

i disagre...oh wait, we agreed. good.

2005 - The Spurs do manage to win in 7 against the Pistons, but Duncan, still only 28 years old, struggles mightily to score on the Wallace Bros, shooting 41.9% for the series. My recollection is that it was a lot of single coverage. And almost losing game 5 at the line before Horry went crazy. Manu could have been Finals MVP.

My recollection is that Duncan absorbed an absurd amount of defensive attention, so I think it would be nice if you bring up some evidences that it was mostly against single coverages.

well, it was a while ago, but i remember it as part of the post-2003 trend for duncan (except 2006). guys with standing reach length like the wallaces, pau, and tyson chandler gave duncan a lot of trouble and teams were mostly willing to live with straight up defense instead of giving up 3's. because that was duncan's big advantage over most people in the post. being taller than everyone with long arms. that's why i never got why people where so amazed he could do things "without being athletic". the post isn't about that. standing reach is a huge factor. when duncan got presented with the occasional guy who could match him, then he didn't necessarily have the quickness to make more happen.

[AEnigma]

In this sampling of years, Kareem won six MVPs, missed the playoffs twice, and led his teams to a 2-1 Finals record while being a slight secondary figure in two more Finals losses. Wilt won four MVPs, missed the playoffs once, and led his teams to a 2-1 Finals record while being a slight secondary figure in two more Finals losses. Overall I would lean toward Kareem here, but there is some argument that Wilt established a stronger postseason résumé and suffered some brutal luck to not come across as far more successful within this sample.

Thank you for doing this, AEnigma. I have Wilt and Kareem at the top of my list, so this is certainly an intriguing thought experiment. You aptly point out Wilt's strong postseasons and brutal luck, which is important to acknowledge when evaluating his career. Hard to fault anyone for valuing Kareem so highly, and I believe everyone's criteria is valid. Here's some extra details I wanted to add for some of these comparisons:

1962 : 1977
All-time gaudy numbers puts this in discussion for greatest box score season ever, although some question whether commiserate impact is produced relative to the player who beats them in the semifinals en route to a title.
(Probably lean Kareem here. Wilt was closer to a title, but the Blazers were a more advantaged opponent.)

Let's consider a few points on Wilt's side, focusing on the playoffs while setting aside his impressive regular-season numbers:

-He averaged 35 PPG in the playoffs--37 PPG against the Nationals, and 33.6 against the Celtics.
-He scored 56 points and had 35 rebounds in the elimination game against the Nationals.
-He led the playoffs in rebounds, even out-rebounding Russell.
-He finished 2nd on his team in APG during the playoffs.
-Despite Tom Gola only playing four games and 107 minutes, Wilt brought the Celtics, with an 8.25 SRS, to seven games, eventually losing off a Sam Jones buzzer.

Considering all of these points, I give Wilt the edge here. Of course, Kareem was fantastic. However, while he was swept, Wilt nearly toppled the highest SRS team in the entire Celtics dynasty. Losing Tom Gola, second on the team in minutes, rebounds, and assists, and an impactful defender, was a significant blow. His minutes per game dropped from 41 in the regular season to 26.8 in that Celtics series. Nearly winning with Gola injured the entire series is quite the feat and shows the level of play Wilt was playing at on both offense and defense.

Pretty fair argument. It has become popular to rip on 1962 Wilt but he really was closer to a title than you would expect.

That said, letting opponents get close to an upset is a common refrain for Russell’s teams, and even in that specific year. And I will not be pushing Jerry West ahead of Kobe just because he pushed the favoured Celtics so many times.

1963 : 1976
Gaudiest production in the league, but team is in such bleak shape that is not enough to reach the postseason without replicating the heights of the above adjacent year.
(Lean Kareem; weird MVP, but not undeserved, and would have been a playoff team if divisions/conferences were not in play.)

I can see both sides. The Lakers won more games, so that could definitely be a valid argument for ranking Kareem higher. But Wilt does average more points, rebounds, and field goal attempts with the same TS+.

I do have to point out how ludicrous it is that Wilt finished with 374.9 in TS Add, yet his team finishes with -60.3 in total. In contrast, Kareem finished with 252.2, and his team ended with +160 in total. Absolutely brutal scoring around Wilt, and I can't imagine players like Guy Rodgers, Gary Phillips, or Wayne Hightower contributing significantly on offense in any scenario, as they had poor offensive careers.

Yep, all fair

1964 : 1974
Sneaky third choice for true peak season. Limited roster is brought to the Finals via an elevated defensive and playmaking campaign, but lose to the Celtics.
(Wash.)

This is close as Kareem has an incredible season here. Although I find Wilt's roster to be the worst supporting cast to ever make the Finals, with rookie Nate Thurmond and Tom Meschery as the top players around him. Also, I want to mention team TS Add again:

'74 Bucks: +387
'64 Warriors: -133

Wilt finished with a higher (286.1) TS Add than Kareem (234.2) yet his team finished below the Lakers by 520 points total! The playoff performances on both sides are remarkable; however, Wilt, despite his already weak supporting cast suffering from injuries, demolishes the Hawks, scoring 50 in Game 5. During the Finals, he averages 29 PPG on a 2.4 rTS% against the greatest defensive team ever by relDRtg (-10.8). These performances, combined with Wilt's rebounding ability and an outstanding defensive season, likely put him ahead for me. He was significantly stepping up defensively in both the regular season and playoffs:

Spoiler:

Hannum on how Wilt must play for the team to win:
[spoiler]

Hannum on Wilt's defense in 50-point performance against the Hawks:

Spoiler:

Wilt scores 39, blocks a dozen shots in Game 7 against the Hawks:

Spoiler:

Agreed, incredible season. If I were the type of guy who felt players varied more wildly season-to-season, this could be in discussion for a top three peak — but if I did that then I would end up lower on surrounding Wilt seasons which I tend to curve up a bit.

1965 : 1975
Injured season portends a trade as roster of prior Finals year collapses in on itself and misses the postseason.
(Uhhhh Kareem for the regular season but Wilt had a decent postseason, so wash.)

I'm surprised by this! Kareem edges out Wilt 110 to 107 in TS+ and fails to make the playoffs. Wilt also has far from a decent postseason, in my opinion. Takes on the '65 Celtics (-9.4 relDRtg) and averages 30.1 PPG on an insane +9.6(!) rTS%. That series is probably Wilt's best performance against the Celtics ever. It's a close series where Larry Costello is injured and averages only 5.5 PPG, and the 76ers go on to lose off the Havlicek steal.
Yeah that was my bad, how Wilt specifically performs against the Celtics in any given series blends together in my memory, so “decent” was an undersell. Again we get into questions of variance though: am I confident this was legitimately Wilt at his postseason best (rather than just unusually successful), no, not really. But it could be, and anyone who sees it that way would definitely be high enough on this season to raise it quite a ways higher.

[quite]1969 : 1984
Woaaah curve-ball! Yes, we broke ordering a bit, but needed to highlight how, no longer the best player on the team, a lacklustre regular season campaign is met with a painful Game 7 loss against the arch-rival Celtics.
(Lean Kareem for playoff performance.)

Hard to argue against someone taking Kareem here, I can certainly understand it. I would add, though, that Wilt was impressive in the post-season, especially on defense, as he led all players in rebounding while the Lakers finished with the highest DRtg at 89.6.

That is a product of competition. Six games against the Warriors and four without their best (and only high calibre) scorer, and seven games against the Celtics? While the Celtics deal with the 76ers and Knicks? The Lakers better have the best raw postseason defensive rating!
For me the key difference here is that Kareem was led down by his team, while in 1969 West was let down by his team

1970w : 1978
Barely a regular season for Wilt, but it is the other main injury season of Kareem’s career, and both struggle to produce in the postseason.
(Advantage to Kareem for time played, but respect to Wilt for rushing his return from injury to give the Lakers a chance at a title they otherwise would not have.)

It's a fair point that Kareem had a more robust regular season and giving Kareem an advantage here makes sense. But I actually do think Wilt played exceptional in the playoffs, especially considering he was coming off a knee injury. He returned early and led the Lakers past the Suns after going down 3-1. In the Finals, he averaged 23/24 on a 62% FG, including a 45-point performance in Game 6 to stave off elimination.

Yeah, Wilt was a lot gutsier here and far more impressive than Kareem getting worked by Jack Sikma. He also potentially could have cost his team a postseason outright, but instead they performed like the best team in the (weak) conference.

Appreciate the reply and discussion though, and definitely weighs a bit on my postseason assessments. Wilt lost to the eventual champion 10 times in 14 years. He only broke through twice, but I agree it means something that he could consistently come close.

[One_and_Done]

Tonnes of players had better situations than Duncan over their careers; Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, etc. Russell joined the best team in the league with the best organisation! This idea he had uniquely good situation is not borne out by reality. He certainly didn't have the superstar team mates some of the guys I mentioned did. Even 99 D.Rob was a big step down from guys like 1980 Kareem or Penny Hardaway.

[lessthanjake]

This isn’t a topic I feel super strongly about to be honest, nor something I’m going to be the most knowledgeable about (I wasn’t alive to watch 1970s basketball live!). That said, my inclination here is based to a significant extent on the talent I see on the rosters. Guys like Dantley, Nixon, Wilkes, Goodrich, Cassie Russell, Lucius Allen, etc. are good players, even if most of them (and especially the better ones listed) weren’t necessarily in their primes yet/anymore. Meanwhile, we don’t really have much information regarding how the Lakers would’ve done without Kareem, but I don’t think that what we do have really suggests they were a terrible team. The only season in question where he missed any meaningful amount of time was 1977-1978, and by my count the team went 8-12 without him. Which isn’t great of course, but when it comes to how a team does in games when they’re unexpectedly missing their main star that they’re built around, I don’t think that’s bad at all.

As I mentioned in the previous post, this is what we know.

The only WOWY sample we have for this period shows us these things:

- Lakers went 37-25 with Kareem (49 wins pace),
- Lakers went 10-12 without Kareem (37 wins pace),
- Lakers had +4.1 SRS with Kareem, giving them 53 wins pace (per Ben's article),
- Lakers had -1.7 SRS without Kareem (36 wins pace).

I don't think it shows that the Lakers were title contenders or that you should expect them to win the title. Especially considering a poor fit of most of these players to Kareem.

I’m not really saying I’d expect them to win a title. Notice I’m saying I’m impressed by Kareem’s first season with the Bucks, and they didn’t win the title that year! It does feel like, compared to that, he did less with more in those late 1970’s Lakers years. My conclusion from this and other data is in part that he probably was just better in his earlier years (along with perhaps a decent bit of that Bucks lift being natural organizational improvement after the first expansion year).

I’d also say that I really don’t think a 37-win pace in random games a star missed is particularly bad. Again, the KD Warriors played around .500 in the regular season in a bunch of games without Steph! A team is likely to play less well in random games a star misses than they would if the star wasn’t there the whole season or virtually all of it, since the latter situation will typically induce the team to adjust better, so looking at the team’s record in games the star randomly missed will typically underrate how good the supporting cast was.

Let’s remember that even a team as good as the KD Warriors had a losing record in regular season games without Steph Curry—it’s hard to win when the central figure of your team is randomly out.

If you are talking about 2018/19, then keep in mind that almost all of the games Curry missed happened in November, when Green also missed almost all of the games. I think the Warriors without Green and Curry weren't anything to rave about and I wouldn't be surprised if they hover around 50%.

The overlap of Draymond’s and Steph’s missed games in November of the 2018-2019 season was only 9 games, and the Warriors actually went 5-4 in those games. That’s not what’s driving the numbers. And I’m talking about the whole time period: Steph missed 47 regular season games in the Durant years, and by my count the Warriors went just 24-23 in those games.

And before Kareem joined, the team had 30 wins despite some very significant availability issues and turnover (they only had 3 players that played 70+ games—which was very very low in that era, and the next year they had 7 players that did that and had Kareem and only won 10 more games). It wasn’t good, of course, but 30 wins when your team is an abnormal shambles is not *that* bad, and it’s surprising for them to only win 10 more games when they got Kareem and had a year with much more roster stability.

The main thing missed here is that 1975 Lakers and 1976 Lakers are not the same teams + Kareem and more roster stability. They missed most of the significant players from the previous season. +4 SRS lift isn't an all-time great performance, but it is quite significant under those circumstances.

I don’t feel *super* strongly about this era of Kareem’s career, but it does seem perplexing to me to see what Kareem did with the Bucks in his rookie year and then to contrast that with what he was able to do in the latter half of the 1970s. I’m more concerned with ceiling raising, so it’s not an *enormous* blemish to me, to be honest, but it’s definitely perplexing. The tentative conclusion I’ve come to is that Kareem was just a better player in his first few years than he was in the latter half of the 1970s—and I do think there’s pretty good backing for that conclusion actually.

It is a reasonable opinion, though I don't think I'd agree with that - certainly not with 1970 Kareem over 1978 Kareem.

Then we have to remember that we have another WOWY sample from 1974/75 season suggesting that Kareem had an all-time level floor raising ability:

- Bucks went 35-30 with Kareem (44 wins pace),
- Bucks went 3-14 without Kareem (14 wins pace),
- Bucks had +2.6 SRS with Kareem, giving them 49 wins pace (per Ben's article),
- Bucks had -4.5 SRS without Kareem (28 wins pace).

That’s some good info, and I was aware of them going 3-14 without Kareem that year, and I do think that that info ameliorates concerns about that season to at least some degree (though a 17-game sample size isn’t super large, and the Bucks did win 38 games the next season—albeit with a different enough roster that I don’t know how relevant it is).

I should emphasize by the way, that I’m not actually *that* troubled by this with Kareem. It’s a bit of a blemish, but I rate what he did with the Bucks *very highly,* both in terms of floor raising that first year and ceiling raising once they got Oscar Robertson (particularly that 1970-1971 season, which I think is on the shortlist of best teams ever). And of course the 1980’s Lakers years involved really impressive longevity and achievement. To me, Kareem is the clear #3, and I think if I was more troubled by the late 1970’s Lakers stuff that might not be the case.

[ZeppelinPage]

So, to sum up based on all of that: my view is that Russell was a great defender, possibly the best defender in the history of the league, almost certainly the best defender in era-relative terms. And I believe that he was a great winner and teammate. He was the cornerstone and best player on some incredibly dominant teams that won as much as a team was capable of winning. But I don't think his team dominance is to such an extent that he stands out compared to other GOAT candidates. It's more or less what you would expect from a GOAT-level defensive force, playing in a relatively weak era, with consistently strong supporting casts. I don't think that there's a huge gap between Russell and other playoff dynasty centerpieces in NBA history - I think Russell and Jordan were both about as dominant as was reasonably possible under the conditions they were in. And Russell has serious weaknesses as a player that other GOAT candidates just really don't have.

I agree with the entirety of your post from the #1 thread, and I wanted to expand off this specific point and into my own thoughts.

My criteria is based heavily on overall impact of a player, rather than winning, awards, or most things intangible. I personally place an extra value on defensive ability because I believe the consistency of it leads to championships more often than offense does. However, this means Russell would need to significantly outperform players like Kareem, Hakeem, Duncan, and Wilt on defense to compensate for the broad gap in their offensive capabilities. Now, to me, Russell isn't doing anything substantially better than the others mentioned to make up for this gulf between offense and defense that exists for him. For some, he won so much that any deficiencies he had on offense are counteracted as a result of this, his rings are the evidence of his true value. There is also the thought process that defense was so valuable in Russell's era that it skyrocketed his impact over all other players in history, and it's definitely true that defense reigned king in Russell's time. Overall, it's important to remember that everyone has different criteria, making this a fair viewpoint.

What I do firmly believe is that, regardless of criteria, the rest of the Celtics and their abilities should not be forgotten. While researching the 1950s and 1960s, combing through thousands of newspapers and dozens of books, I have realized how certain players' attributes have been lost to time.

Take Sam Jones in his early years, for example. He was an adept defender, quick on his feet, and praised for his defensive capabilities in the early 60s by teammates and coaches.

The Celtics had Frank Ramsey defending guys like Elgin Baylor and Dolph Schayes in the playoffs! Ramsey was playing Schayes so tight that he was driven to state that Ramsey "dogs him" and that he was "the only guy in the league his size who plays me," after scoring only a single basket against him. Ramsey's defensive prowess is frequently cited, and from what I've read, he was an all-defense level player.

Andy Phillip, who was a backup for the '57 and '58 Celtics, was once deemed the league's best defensive player by the former defensive-demon, George "The Human Handcuff" Senesky.

I've previously posted about Tom Heinsohn here. He looks very good, and he's been praised for his defensive skills by figures such as George Yardley and Red Auerbach.

Bob Cousy presents an interesting case. He was an exceptional pass stealer and could also utilize his long arms to swipe and disrupt an opposing player's dribble. He was likely among the league leaders, if not outright leading, in steals for many years. While he was celebrated for his defense at times, he was also criticized, something that some, like Slater Martin, believe stemmed from the strain of his heavy offensive responsibilities that resulted in a lack of energy. Despite initially criticizing Cousy for poor defense, Red Auerbach eventually admitted that Cousy had learned how to play defense by 1953, even listing him among the "former great defensive backcourt men" in his book Basketball For The Player, The Fan, and the Coach.

The defensive abilities of players like Havlicek, Sharman, Loscutoff, Sanders, and K.C. Jones are still being talked about to this day.

As you state, Russell was undoubtedly the cornerstone of all these championship teams, but you still need a team to consistently win. I view the Celtics as an almost symbiotic relationship--Russell kept teams from scoring and hauled down boards, while players like Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, and Ramsey focused more on scoring points and fastbreaking so Russell didn't have to as often:

"I told Bill that I didn't care how many points he scored. What I wanted him to do was get me the ball--rebounds, block shots. Then get the ball to our shooters: Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey. These guys can put the ball in the basket. Just do what you do best." -- Red Auerbach in Tall Tales By Terry Pluto

The fact that no team has ever gone on a string of championships like that again testifies to the difficulty of assembling such exceptional players over the span of a decade. While I respect the perspective that Russell is the "Greatest of All Time," I don't subscribe to the notion that his teammates weren't actually as talented as perceived in their era. The brilliance of Russell and his teammates shouldn't be viewed as mutually exclusive--both can be true, because that's how, in my mind, a team wins 11 championships.

[ShaqAttac]

Tonnes of players had better situations than Duncan over their careers; Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe, etc. Russell joined the best team in the league with the best organisation! This idea he had uniquely good situation is not borne out by reality. He certainly didn't have the superstar team mates some of the guys I mentioned did. Even 99 D.Rob was a big step down from guys like 1980 Kareem or Penny Hardaway.

using duncan winnin more against him is sus not gonna lie. are we now gonna crap on mj coz his team won 70+ games?