RealGM

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:22 pm**

Rules: Vote for 1 player. You may change your vote as consensus emerges but if so, go back and EDIT YOUR ORIGINAL POST. Votes without analysis will not be counted. If, after 2 days, there is not a majority consensus, the top; 2 nominees will have a 1 day runoff election to determine the spot on our list. NBA/ABA only, no college, international play, ABL, NBL, BAA or other pre-NBA play considered.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:24 pm**

I'll be out of town on business for the next day or so, thus I may reply to posts late, however in the interim here's my vote and arguments for people to chew on.

Vote: Tim Duncan

I have Jordan and Kareem as my two clear best players. After them though I think Duncan, Shaq and (to a lesser extent) Magic are the players in the next tier (Bird doesn’t have enough longevity). A lot of people have been voting for Bill Russell as the GOAT. Tim Duncan is not the same type of player as Russell, he’s less athletic for one thing, but his career arc is similarly good to Russell and Jordan, where you look at it and think “yep, every year of this guy’s prime he either met or wildly exceeded expectations”. He’s also just a better player period. Russell has 11 rings and Duncan has 5, but that’s because of context; Russell played on stacked teams in a weak sauce league that pales to the modern NBA (something myself and others elaborated on in detail in the #1 and #2 vote thread), while Duncan played in a very tough NBA, with often less than ideal support casts. I could write a lot more on this, and I’m sure I will in response posts, but for my opening post I will explain why I think Duncan is the clear choice at #3, with particular reference to the guys he is competing with.

To summarise though: Duncan’s peak is better than Magic and comparable to Hakeem, his prime is longer than Bird’s and more consistent than Shaq or Hakeem, and his crazy longevity pushes him past them all. I have all those guys ahead of Russell, given the reservations I expressed about him in thread 1 + 2.

Year by year analysis of team outcomes
Duncan’s prime goes for 10 years, from 98-07. Over those 10 years his team meets or exceeds expectations every year.
1998- The Spurs win 56 games and lose in the 2nd round. Exceeded expectations.
1999- Spurs have the best record and win the title. Duncan is basically the MVP this year, and the RPOY project agrees with me. Massively overachieved.
2000- Spurs awesome again, but Duncan gets hurt a few games before the playoffs begins. The injury would only have kept Duncan out for a few weeks, and they debated playing him, but decided to play it safe. Clearly Duncan can’t be blamed for losing a series he couldn’t play in because of a fluke injury. Met expectations.
2001- Spurs make it to the WCFs despite Duncan’s weak support cast, then lose to the Lakers. Overachieved.
2002- Spurs win 58 games despite the worst support cast Duncan had ever had. Lose in 5 close games to the Lakers, but that’s not Duncan’s fault. He was the best player that series (see more below). Overachieved by far.
2003- Spurs win 60 games and the title with a poor support cast. Massive overachievement.
2004- Spurs win 57 games (60+ win pace in games Duncan played), lose in the playoffs to the stacked Lakers in a close series, despite Duncan’s support cast abandoning him (see below)
2005- Spurs win the title.
2006- Spurs win 63 games. Lose to the Mavs in 7 games in the playoffs due to a boneheaded Manu foul. Duncan put up berserk numbers and almost carried an overmatched team over the line (he had literally no big men to help him this series, he started with 3 wings and Tony Parker).
2007- Spurs win the title.

Sidenote: I elaborate on 01-03 a little later, but just to focus on 04 for a second. The Lakers had Karl Malone and Shaq, both of whom were constantly doubling Duncan. It was easy to do this because Rasho was useless on O, and the Spurs shooters couldn’t hit the side of a barn this series. They were embarrassingly bad (taking a ridiculous 124 threes in 6 games, and making only 38 of them. They were even worse in the close out games). In 06 Duncan put up 32-12-4 on 615TS%; hard to blame him for the 7 game series loss (with two OT defeats). Manu made a bad foul that cost them the series. It happens.

Peak impact- Duncan carrying garbage teams 01-03

The purest measure of your impact is how much better you singlehandedly can make a team. I’m not a fan of various APMs and the like, as I feel there are problems with them. Something I think is often a lot more accurate is how well a great player does with a bad support cast. When I want to find out who is a better weight lifter, I look to see how much they can lift consistently. Duncan lifted 1000 pounds 3/3 times, with no spotter. I don't know definitively if he could have lifted it more than 3 times, because he was only given 3 chances to do it over his 10 year prime. But when the chances came, he did it. To contrast this with someone like Hakeem; Hakeem had over half a dozen chances to do it prior to 93, and he basically lifted between 600 and 800 pounds each time, even though he had 2 spotters. He couldn't lift that much basically. Nobody is denying Duncan generally had better team mates than Hakeem, I agree that he did, and I don't blame Hakeem for not winning a title prior to 94. I blame him for leading his team to repeatedly crappy results multiple years, often with better help than Duncan had, and for being a locker room cancer while he was doing it.

2001- Worst backcourt on a contending ever?

His 01 team was the strongest of the 3 I named (probably), in the regular season anyway, but it was definitely bad. Firstly, Derek Anderson was hurt in the playoffs, so you can scrub him from being considered as a factor. The few games he tried to force himself to play a few minutes in the Laker series he looked so hobbled it was clear it'd been a mistake to even let him play (he averaged 2ppg, 2rpg on 0FG% when he played for 20mpg in 2 games). As a Spurs fan, I understand the myth fans built up of "oh, if we'd just had Derek Anderson, it would have gone differently!" Nothing would have gone differently, not least of all because Derek Anderson is not even a particularly good player. The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity. Derek Anderson was a middle of the pack shooting guard who shot poor percentages and wasn't good on D. He was no loss. His FG% that year was 416. and his career % was 402. The guy was a gunner who took many ill-advised shots, and was worse in the playoffs than the regular season. He could hit the open 3’s Duncan gave him mostly, but wasn’t a good offensive player overall. Derek Anderson padded numbers for good or desperate teams. His three highest seasons he averaged 16.9 padding for a Clippers, 15.5 gunning for the talent deficient Spurs backcourt, and 13.9 for the Blazers. His career average was 12ppg. If it wasn't for his 1 year on the Spurs nobody would even remember who Derek Anderson was. He just seemed good because of how bad the rest of the Spurs wings were. Let's go over that now.

Why was Anderson able to shine in the Spurs backcourt? Here's why. It consisted of:
- Antonio Daniels, a career back-up on a good team who was forced into a starting role
- 36 year old Avery Johnson, who was so washed up he basically became a player coach after this year (where he'd play stints of the season for various teams on the understanding he was trying to become a coach there after)
- 38 year old Terry Porter, so old he squeaked when he moved. All he could still do was shoot and throw an entry pass.
- 35 year old Dan Ferry's corpse. All he could do was shoot at this point.
- 33 year Sean Elliot, now crippled by kidney disease, who was so bad this year he promptly retired after it was over. How bad was Elliot? Here are his #’s in the WCFs; 19mpg, 1.3ppg, 1.7rpg, 111. FG%. Yikes.
-35 year old Steve Kerr, who couldn't do anything except shoot
That's maybe the worst backcourt I've ever seen on a contender. They couldn't defend anything, and there is not one guy who is a real starter there (maybe not even Anderson, who was hurt). Worse, they didn't even shoot well in the playoffs (the only thing they were meant to be good at). Terry Porter was 3-18 at the 3 in the Lakers series. Antonio Daniels, who the Spurs were forced to play an unbelievable 42mpg, was 3-17 that series. DA was 0-4, Elliot was 0-3, and while Ferry hit 4-9 threes, that hardly tipped the scale back (plus, Ferry sucked overall).

Malik Rose was a fan favourite, but he was a bench scrub who had no business getting serious minutes on a contender. He was a 6-6, overweight power forward with negligible skill who couldn't shoot. I liked the guy, a lot of Spurs fans did, he had a good attitude (mostly), but he was not a guy I wanted to see on the court more than 10mpg, and certainly not to guard the 7-1 Shaq (low centre of gravity or not).

In fairness, D.Rob sharply declined in 02, not so much in 01, where D.Rob was still a very serviceable, above average big man (though stamina was a big issue still, limiting him to 29mpg). I'll stop short of saying he was an all-star (he might have been in 01), but he was still good (unlike in 02 and especially in 03). But that's literally all they had. The rest of the squad was hot garbage, which is why I referred to the wings and backcourt as being the problem.

2002- Worst support cast for a contender ever?

2002 was also a bad support cast by any definition. Robinson was a well below average player in 02. He couldn't play for long stretches because of stamina issues, he ran stiffly and he had sharply declined. In the playoffs he basically didn't play, and was banged up when he did. The next year of course D.Rob was notably worse (while he played in the 03 Lakers series, he was such a non-factor outside of the first game, you could be forgiven for not noticing the impersonation of a ghost he performed over 20mpg).

Malik Rose, like I said, was still not good. He was being forced into a starter type role by the total lack of support on the team. Anyone can fill a stat sheet (to the extent Malik's stats "improved"), but whether that player is someone who should see the court in the first place is another matter. There are plenty of scrubs who get great per 36 minute stats, but there's a reason they're not getting 36 minutes. Check out Baynes per 36 stats this year.

As for Bruce Bowen, he shot worse than usual in 02 (389 FG%), played only 59 regular season games that year, and was a guy who most teams wouldn't have been able to start. That he could start for the Spurs was wholly due to Duncan being able to draw constant double teams, which in turn allowed Bowen to get his one shot (the wide open corner 3). While in recent years the Spurs have had a tonne of ball movement, back in 02 (and 03) the Spurs mostly just threw the ball into Duncan and expected him to make something happen, either by drawing a double and kicking it out, or just scoring. It was actually pretty painful to watch at times. Without a Duncan/Shaq like player who can constantly command a double team Bowen would have been unusable. He was not a holistically good player, no team was out there trying to offer good money to Bowen, because they knew this. He was a great wing defender though, it's just Duncan who made him usable. Steve Smith shot the best he had ever (thanks to Duncan getting him so many open looks), but much like Ferry he was at the point in his career where all he could do was shoot. He pretty much ceased to be an NBA player after this year (assuming he was one this year). Charles Smith was obviously a scrub, Daniels a frustrating bench player getting way too many minutes, and Tony Parker a raw rookie getting 9ppg. He wasn't Tony Parker as we know him until 04 at the earliest (when he started to become the Parker we know today)

2003- Weakest support cast on a title team in the modern era?

As for 03, I see a lot of weird arguments like “oh, but the Spurs were good on D” or “the Spurs were good, just inconsistent”. Whether you're consistent is a big part of whether you're good in the NBA. Parker was still very raw, he was losing minutes to Speedy Claxton in the finals, and Manu was a 20mpg player who caused the coach a lot of headaches with his wild play. S.Jax was not a good player at this point. He showed a few signs, but he was not S.Jax as we came to know him. Other teams didn't think he was either. In the offseason after turning down a modest offer from the Spurs for 2-3 mill a year, he discovered nobody was interested in signing him. He ended up settled for a 1 year, $1 million contract from the Hawks. Sometimes he hit shots, but not usually when it mattered, and certainly not consistently. In the Lakers series he shot 0/10 from the 3pt line in games the Spurs won.

Malik Rose was still a scrub. D.Rob was worse than he'd ever been, hurt in the regular season, mostly MIA in the playoffs. Bowen still had all the problems I alluded to earlier. Duncan made Bowen. Without him he wouldn't have been able to get on the court. Duncan got guys open shots, and sometimes they had "on" nights where they'd score, but that'll happen. From a holistic point of view the team was just not good though. The NBA is a star league, and the mere presence of Kobe and Shaq on the same team should have made all these meh players irrelevant. It certainly had the previous 3 years. That they won is a testament to Duncan's awesomeness, no more no less.

I see a lot of Laker fans blame it on Horry’s shooting. Horry's shooting is no excuse because Duncan was defending him mostly in 03. Saying "Duncan's man shot like crap" is a terrible excuse, because the chances are Duncan had a lot to do with that (just like KG did in the previous round when he guarded Horry). I've also broken up the Horry 3 pt misses, and they mostly don't matter when we look at the games the Spurs won; 0-3 in game 1 (Spurs won by 5, since Horry isn't a 66% 3 pt shooter I'm going to go ahead and say that wouldn't have changed the outcome), 0-2 in a 19 point loss in game 2 is clearly not a factor either, nor was his 0-3 three point shooting the deciding factor in game 6 when the Lakers lost by 28. It probably had an effect in game 5 when he was 0-6 in a close game, but then the Spurs won these 4 games with Stephen Jackson shooting 0-10 from the three point line, so it seems silly to whine about it. It's especially silly to use it as an excuse because Tim Duncan was his primary defender in 03, and we should be crediting Duncan with shutting him down, not using it against him!

If you want to talk about bad shooting costing a team, Duncan's been a far bigger victim in that regard. I already pointed out some of the horrendous shooting outings his "shooters" had in Laker series like 01. 02 was little different; in 02 S.Smith was 5-17 from the 3, Parker was 2-12, Ferry was 2-11, A.Daniels 2-8, Ferry 0-7. Bowen shot a good 50%, but that was it for the Spurs. And these were guys who, aside from Parker, were still on an NBA roster primarily for their shooting (except Daniels, who was a career back-up promoted due to desperation). It gets worse in 04. The Spurs took an absurd 124 threes in the 6 game series against the Lakers... and made only 38 of them. Their 3pt % was well under the Lakers (306 v 342), and doubly hurtful because they were relying on this shot so much more (the Lakers took 48 less 3's). That's why Duncan was able to get doubled so much by Shaq and Malone, because Rasho sucked and because his shooters couldn't hit the side of a barn. In the close out game the Spurs shooters were 3-24 from outside. Yikes. They were little better in game 5 at 6-23 from outside. It was Duncan's 21-21 games (plus an absurd, should have been game winning shot) that made that a 1 point game.

As for the “defensive all-star” nonsense that gets thrown about, that’s both untrue and a false dichotomy. Firstly, nobody on the Spurs support cast was a defensive all-star in 03 (or 02). A defensive all-star is someone who makes the all-star team on the back of their D (despite having no offensive game), like Mutumbo, Ben Wallace or Rodman. Secondly, it misunderstands player value. This isn’t about getting a scale and trying to balance D and O as 50% components of a player’s impact. Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Michael Curry is a good defensive player, but a bad player overall.

To use a hypothetical, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Dragonite is a jack of all trades, master of none. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but its huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable.

Duncan’s longevity- The Second Coming

Duncan slowly declined from 08-11 as his quickness and athleticism tapered off, and his body struggled to carry his 260 pound frame as easily. Duncan made the decision to slim down, trading off some of his weight for greater speed and stamina (less weight to carry). He also continued to improve his shooting range. This began in 2012, but it was in 2013 we really began to see the results. Duncan had a revival year, the best he’d played since 2007, made the all-nba first team, and almost led the Spurs to a historic title. Then next season Duncan was basically as good, and they won the title pretty decisively. It’s almost unheard of for a guy his age to be contributing this much, certainly among the guys Duncan is in competition with. This is the amazing thing, Duncan was voted a top 5 player in his rookie year in 98, and in 2013 he’s voted in the all-nba 1st team again, and has barely lost a step from 2013 to 2014 (he’s mostly just being played a few less minutes to rest him).

On that note, the “Duncan could not have held up playing more minutes” argument doesn’t really work against anyone not named Kareem or Karl Malone, because when you add up his playoff minutes as well you see he was playing more minutes than the Hakeem’s and KG’s of the NBA. I also think it’s silly to penalise Duncan for his coach choosing to rest him, especially when one of the reasons he can do that is Duncan is helping the Spurs blow their opponents out. Over Duncan’s 17 year career the Spurs win % gives them an average win season of 58 wins. That’s unrivalled, and Duncan’s obviously the #1 reason for that astonishing run. His longevity is a huge addition to his already magnificent 10 year prime.

Duncan v.s Hakeem
Hakeem only had 3 years that really compare favourably to Duncan's prime, the rest doesn't. Even then, advanced per 40 pace adjusted stats show that Hakeem doesn't even really have an advantage over Duncan on stats. I was actually doing some reading on this the other day. Check out this table, which shows the negligible stat difference when you adjust for pace and make it per 40 minutes:

Code: Select all

olajuwon,  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
1995-96   27.4 11.1  3.6  1.6  2.9  3.5 .558 +.003 25.5
1994-95   27.4 10.6  3.5  1.8  3.3  3.2 .563 -.007 26.1
1993-94   25.7 11.2  3.4  1.5  3.5  3.2 .565 +.027 25.1
1992-93   25.3 12.8  3.5  1.8  4.1  3.1 .573 +.022 27.0
1991-92   22.2 12.4  2.3  1.9  4.5  2.7 .553 +.019 23.4
1990-91   21.1 13.7  2.3  2.2  3.9  3.1 .549 +.022 24.1
1989-90   23.0 13.3  2.7  2.0  4.3  3.6 .541 +.013 24.0
1988-89   24.1 13.1  1.8  2.5  3.3  3.3 .552 +.021 25.1
1987-88   23.0 12.2  2.1  2.1  2.7  3.1 .555 +.032 23.5
1986-87   23.3 11.4  2.9  1.9  3.4  3.0 .554 +.032 23.9
1985-86   22.9 11.2  2.0  1.9  3.3  2.8 .560 +.029 24.2
Total     24.2 12.1  2.7  1.9  3.6  3.2 .557 +.021 24.7

duncan,ti  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
2007-08   23.6 13.8  3.4  0.9  2.4  2.8 .546 +.004 24.2
2006-07   24.0 12.7  4.1  1.0  2.9  3.3 .579 +.022 25.9
2005-06   22.1 13.1  3.8  1.0  2.4  3.0 .523 -.029 22.9
2004-05   25.3 13.8  3.4  0.8  3.3  2.4 .540 +.007 27.0
2003-04   25.0 14.0  3.5  1.0  3.0  3.0 .534 +.029 26.8
2002-03   24.1 13.3  4.0  0.7  3.0  3.2 .564 +.030 26.6
2001-02   25.6 12.8  3.8  0.7  2.5  3.2 .576 +.049 26.9
2000-01   23.5 12.9  3.2  0.9  2.5  3.1 .536 -.006 23.6
1999-00   24.1 12.9  3.3  0.9  2.3  3.4 .555 +.025 24.6
1998-99   22.8 12.0  2.5  0.9  2.6  3.1 .541 +.023 22.9
1997-98   22.3 12.6  2.9  0.7  2.6  3.6 .577 +.058 22.3
Total     23.9 13.1  3.5  0.9  2.7  3.1 .553 +.020 24.9

So there goes Hakeem's big advantage (raw stats). Then look at how Duncan was better at carrying teams overall (some of the teams knocking out Hakeem before his late peak were mediocre in the extreme, he didn't even make the playoffs in 1992 despite having an all-star big man next to him). Duncan’s support casts in 01-03 were grossly inferior to the late 80’s, early 90’s Hakeem support casts, yet Duncan led them to far superior results. Duncan has much more longevity too of course, and he's a better man defender for mine. It seems like a straight forward choice. It would be tough to say if Hakeem had played throughout his career like he did in 93-95, but he didn't, and I rate guys off the careers they actually had, not a bunch of hypotheticals.

This is discussed in great depth on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328701

Duncan v.s Shaq
Shaq obviously peaked higher, for the 1-2 years it lasted anyway. Overall though I prefer Duncan. For one thing, Duncan’s D and effort is consistent, while Shaq started to take plays on D off a lot more as his career went on (and as his niggling injuries mounted), constantly failing to box out, jogging up the court, getting lazy on switches and such. I also think Duncan’s prime is probably better than Shaq’s, and his longevity significantly better, with no external negatives like Shaq. Shaq had years where he legitimately underachieved, and a lot of his career falls under the “what if” category. I can only imagine how good he could have been if he’d always been as focused and determined (and healthy) as he was in 00, but he wasn’t, and it goes a long way to explaining the Lakers constantly coming up short from 97-99, and Shaq’s teams sometimes underachieving.

Duncan and Shaq played each other in 5 playoff series, and surprisingly enough Duncan mostly was the better player. In 01 Shaq was obviously the best player on the court. In 02, 03 and 99 it was Duncan (and Duncan actually matched up with Shaq most of the time in 02, since D.Rob was hurt, the video is on youtube). In 04 it’s arguable either way. Shaq’s raw numbers are a little better, but his D wasn’t as consistent or impactful that series, and there are other factors I alluded to already (Malone and Shaq doubling him, no help inside, shooters couldn’t hit anything). Here are the 3 other series:

1999:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 10.8rpg, 3.3apg on 600TS%
Shaq put up 23.8ppg, 13rpg, 0.5apg on 506TS%
And this was a series where Shaq had all-NBA Kobe putting up 21-6.5-3.5 and Glen Rice averaging 18ppg. Sure, Glen Rice didn't score efficiently, but look at Duncan's 2nd best player this series. D.Rob was putting up 13ppg and 6.5rpg and playing only 28mpg.

2002:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg on 517TS%
Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg on 487TS%
Like I said, they were mostly matching up with each other, as seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEThyAvSi3k[/youtube]

2003:
Duncan put up 28ppg, 11.8rpg, 4.8apg on 575TS%
Shaq put up 25.3ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.7apg on 592TS%
Closer stats, but Duncan was clearly outplaying Shaq overall, on D especially, and was just flat out abusing Shaq when he was sent to guard him. Here's a video of him dominating the close out game:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_iN6qwvoS8[/youtube]

There are a lot of injury excuses by Shaq fans about these series, but that’s a bit silly because a) you judge guys on the careers they had, not “the ones they might have had if they’d been healthier”, and b) Shaq always had some niggling injuries in his later career, it was a product of his adding weight in order to become more dominant, but to argue it should be used as an excuse in these series is silly. Shaq had no problem dominating the 1st round in 02 as usual, and the very next round he put up 30-14 on the Kings on dominant efficiency. In the 02 finals he was even more dominant, putting up 36-12 on amazing efficiency. In 99 he put up 29-10-4-4 on great efficiency in the 1st round. So again, it's a case of injuries that are only ever invoked as having affected him in the Spurs series, and when it comes to all-time rankings I never hear Shaq fans say "well, we better take some points off Shaq for always being injured in the playoffs". Quite the opposite in fact. It's just a tired excuse to my mind. Shaq wasn't at his peak in 02, but he was still prime Shaq, and he still had no trouble destroying the non-Duncan opponents in his wake. There is no evidence whatever Shaq’s injuries unduly affected him in the Spurs series those years v.s the other series, indeed the commentary at the time indicates the opposite.

A lot of people say Duncan was blessed with a good organisation and team, and to some extent that’s very true (not always though). However, Duncan hasn’t played with support casts close to as good as what Duncan was blessed with over his career. He had legit superstars like Penny, Kobe and Wade on his team, big men to take the load off like Ho Grant or K.Malone, multiple all-stars in his early Laker years, good role players, top notch coaches mostly, and then got to spent his later years ring chasing on stacked teams (if it had been Duncan playing for those Celtics/Cavs/Suns teams, at Shaq’s age, those 3 teams would all have won titles).

Duncan v.s Magic

Magic was the offensive GOAT, but I feel like Duncan’s two way impact was better at his peak, and his longevity makes it a clear choice for Duncan. Then there’s the longevity. I see Lakers fans claim Magic’s prime started in 84. A big problem given he retired after 91. He has 12 years in the NBA in total, even if they were all prime years it’s pretty hard to see how it compares to Duncan’s 17 years of impact. Magic had a tonne more help than Duncan, and while other greats of that period like Bird did too, Magic’s teams underachieved some years in ways Duncan’s teams didn’t. Losses to the Rockets in 81 and 86 and a 4-1 a$$ kicking by the KJ Suns in 1990 all stand out as pretty hugely disappointing outcomes. I don’t think prime Duncan had any comparable fails like this.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:29 pm**

Bill Russell is my pick for reasons stated in the first and second threads. The defensive impact (which I do think would translate quite well, based on what we know about him physically/mentally) is too much to ignore, and the scoring, while a weakness obviously, isn't a huge deal for me because of Boston's offensive philosophy.

I'm sure Magic and Wilt will be both brought up in this thread. Things I'm looking to learn about for each guy:

1) I’ve been wondering about how big a deal the spacing was (or more aptly, lack thereof) during Wilt’s time in the league until he was traded to the Sixers (running a low-post isolation-heavy offense without shooters to space the floor limits room to operate)? Which of Wilt’s teammates throughout his career (though from 59-60 through 63-64 in particular) were good outside shooters?

2) How do we compare the two in terms of longevity?

3) It seems the consensus in threads #1 and #2 was that Russell had negative impact on offense. Do we feel the same way about Magic defensively? I'm also looking for some discussion on Wilt's "horizontal game" defensively. How does he compare to Kareem (particularly during his Bucks years) in that regard? How more mobile was Wilt before the injury in 69-70 compared to afterwards?

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:36 pm**

I'm voting for Shaq. Here is the case for him that I outlined in a previous thread

Prime:

Shaq's 6 year prime is right up there with MJ. 98-03, Shaq was the best player in the league every year of that span with the exception of 99.

Regular season:
28.1 PPG
11.8 Reb
3.1 AST
2.8 Turnovers
2.4 Blk
.577 FG%
.585 TS%
29.9 PER
.255 WS/48

He lead the league in PER and FG% every year from 98-02

Postseason:
29.3 PPG
13.7 Reb
3.0 AST
2.4 BLK
.554 FG%
.565 TS%
29.6 PER
.228 WS/48

During the 3peat years he averaged 30-15-3, .55 FG%, 29.3 PER (that's right, his PER was better outside the 3 peat years than during them)

Playoff prime

Shaq's playoff prime was amazing. From 95-04, Shaq averaged 27-13-3, 56 FG%. Amazing when you consider that according to ElGee, Shaq faced the toughest postseason defensive slate of any superstar of the past 25 years.

Peak:
In this thread I made the case for Shaq having the GOAT peak in 2000. 2000 was Shaq's defensive peak and possibly his best offensive year.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1236093

RAPM:
Shaq has not only dominated in box score stats, he also fares well in plus/minus stats especially on offense.
2001: 2nd (1st in offense)
2002: 1st (1st in offense, 4th in defense, ahead of Duncan and D-Rob)
2003: 3rd (1st in offense)
2004: 1st (1st in offense, 26th in defense)
2005: 3rd (5th in offense)
2006: 5th (5th in offense)

Missed games:
Shaq missed a lot of games in his prime, but the missed games did a lot to show his impact. His teams were consistently worse without him than with him. He has a big enough missed game sample size to accurately gauge his impact.

SRS

Code: Select all

Year   w/o   With    diff
1993   -12.02   1.52   13.54
1994   -2.24   3.75   5.99
1995   -2.85   6.72   9.57
1996   2.60   6.85   4.25
1997   1.63   4.41   2.78
1998   3.66   8.06   4.40
1999   -8.17   2.90   11.07
2000   -11.16   9.15   20.31
2001   2.59   3.86   1.28
2002   1.49   8.42   6.93
2003   -2.97   3.98   6.96
2004   3.34   4.58   1.23
2005   2.97   6.10   3.14
2006   -0.07   5.02   5.08

From 93-06, Shaq’s teams were a weighted 5.81 SRS in the games he played, and a 1.22 SRS in the games he missed for a total impact of 4.60 SRS. His teams were 97-78 (.554) in the games he missed. His teams played 45.5 win pace in the games he missed and a 59.8 win pace in the games he played (+14.4 win impact).

Kobe vs Shaq
The games that Shaq and Kobe missed from 1998-2004 showed which guy was more important to the success of the team. The Lakers were mediocre without Shaq, but in the games Kobe missed, they didn’t miss a beat.
Games Kobe missed and Shaq played in, 98-04:

28-6 (.824, 68 win pace)
5.90 SRS
Games Shaq missed, 98-04:
33-31 (.516, 42 win pace)
0.58 SRS

01-04 plus/minus stats:
Shaq/Kobe on court: +9.2 points per 100 possessions
Shaq, no Kobe: +5.2 per 100
Kobe, no Shaq: -2.9 per 100
No Shaq or Kobe: -7.3 per 100

Playoffs:
Shaq/Kobe on court: +7.9 per 100
Shaq, no Kobe: -3.7 per 100
Kobe, no Shaq: -13.4 per 100
No Shaq or Kobe: -10 per 100

Finals:

Shaq put up one of the most impressive stat ever in the finals. In the finals, Shaq had at least 25-10 and 52 FG% in every single game of his first 20 finals games. Shaq didn't average 25-10 and 52 FG% in that 20 game finals run, he put those numbers in every single finals game. He had 0 bad finals games until 2006. Here are his numbers in his first 20 finals games

34.2 PPG, 60.3 FG%, .601 TS%, 14.5 Reb, 4.0 AST, 2.8 BLK

In the finals during the 3peat years, he averaged 36-15-4, 3 blk, 60 FG%. He put 30-10 in 13 out of 15 3 peat finals games (including every game of Nets and Pacers series).

Shaq vs Elite centers

Shaq dominated every single great center he faced head to head. That includes Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Zo, Daughtery, and Ben Wallace.

Warning: long read in spoiler tags

Spoiler:

Defense

More on Shaq's Defense

Here are some facts from Hoopsstats.com. Here are the best opposing Center PPG and FG% defense since hoopsstats started collecting the stat (from 1998-2013)

Top opponent Center PPG defense from 98-13:
06 Heat: 12.8 PPG (Shaq)
04 Lakers: 12.9 PPG (Shaq)
06 Jazz: 12.9 PPG

Top opponent Center FG% defense from 98-13:
00 Lakers: 40.7 FG% (Shaq)
99 Spurs: 41.1 FG% (Duncan/Robinson)
99 Hawks: 41.9 FG% (Mutombo)
Shaq’s teams finished #1 in 00 and 05, #2 in 01, 02 and #3 in 98 and 06.

Spoiler:

Playoff Defense:

Shaq has also played really good man defense in the playoffs. He has quite a few notable series where he limits the efficiency of his opponents:

Spoiler:

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:38 pm**

I think Duncan is a worthy mention tbh sure and I will be voting for him soon enough in this project, but we still have Mr. William Russell as a more worthy candidate. And imo the only possible candidate left for this spot. I had Russ, Mike, and KAJ a clear top 3. Duncan, Shaq, Magic will have their day, but its not today.

Again so much Russell stuff has been done and I don't want a giant re-hash so just a few highlights:

1. greatest winner of all-time. Call it a smaller league, call his teams "stacked", call his coach GOAT, call his league "white bread", whatever. All he could do was show up and lead his team to victory and he did it again and again and again. His contemporaries all knew the reason they weren't beating the Celtics was primarily Bill.

2. Greatest defender of all-time. Again we can guess how he would do in this era compared to guys like Dream, Admiral and KG(tho I think he a rather poor comparison) or how they would do in his. All he could do was dominate defensively like no one before or since.

3. Arguably the greatest rebounder of all-time. Certainly in the mix. Between this and his defense he created extra possession for a rather mediocre offensive team.

4. They named the best trophy in the game after him. Yes I know this has nothing to do with his ability, but its a reflection of who best represents the idea of the best player on the best team in the most important part of the season--the playoffs

5. He is maybe the greatest leader ever. Winning titles as player-coach, leading the team as a player, dealing with all the racist nonsense he had to put up with.

6. He made the game so much easier for his teammates. A GOAT candidate should lift his teammates and allow the team to be greater than the sum of its parts. Russ did that as well as anyone ever.

7.. Looks like Morgan Freeman, the GOAT actor. Seriously what more could you want.

Vote: Mr. William Russell

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:39 pm**

My vote for #3 all time: Bill Russell

I voted for him as my #2, and with Jabbar getting that spot, Russell then falls to my vote for #3. Jabbar would have been my #3 had Russell won, so it isn't hugely disappointing to me the way it turned out.

I anticipated a clear top 3 of Jordan, Kareem and Russell. I see a slight drop off from there to the #4 spot. I think the #4 discussion should be very, very interesting.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:04 pm**

Well I'm committing to Duncan, Hakeem and KG being better than Russell because their offense is too much to make up. So right now my vote is probably between Hakeem and Duncan. Lebron is in consideration but I probably won't pull the trigger due to longevity.

I feel Hakeem is the more dynamic player/talent/peak. However Duncan has better leadership and he also gets a little more value tacked onto the end of his career. By their 15th seasons it's still pretty close to a draw, but Duncan's 16th and 17th seasons are a lot more valuable than Hakeem's 16th and 17th (his last two in Houston vs Duncan's last two) due to a combination of health, minutes per game along with just better production per minute. So to vote Hakeem over him I'd have to be especially sold on his peak being the more important thing. I'm undecided at the moment.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:20 pm**

Reserving this spot, I vote Hakeem and will go in-depth why he's a better combined overall individual two way player than anyone else considering team support, competition and all context.

When you hold a microscope to these players, Hakeem is actually the true GOAT center and big man all time imo despite these long held media influenced beliefs.

Short on time right now.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:23 pm**

Between Magic, Bird, LeBron, Shaq, Hakeem, Russell, Wilt and perhaps Duncan. This will be tough. I have to say Hakeem and Shaq probably lead that group. I want to hear as many arguments as possible first.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:28 pm**

I've just been playing around with the RAPM datasets we have a bit, thought I'd share these two tables with you guys (not sure how useful they are, but they're interesting to look at):

Offense Distribution:

Defense Distribution:

Nothing too fancy, just looked at the prior informed seasons worth of RAPM we have (98-00 come from acrossthecourt's site; 01 doesn't exist and 02 I omitted because from my understanding the season isn't complete; 03-07 come from colts18's site; 08-14 come from GotBuckets.com).

What I did was, limit the list to players who had accumulated 5000 minutes (used this number because I recall J.E. stating on APBRmetrics that after 5000 minutes RAPM stabilizes/flattens out) over the regular season and playoffs combined in years n and (n-1), calculated the standard deviation of the off+def RAPM sums, and then divided the off/def splits by the SD (pools for 99,00,12,13 are small because of lockout seasons).

Anyhow, my thoughts...

1) I'm not sure if we can hand-wave and slot Magic and Russell consistently in the highest bucket in off and def respectively over the course of their careers, since those are extreme outliers. I wouldn't be surprised if they fell into that category once or more during their careers (and actually expect it, with regards to Russell), I just don't think we can call it the standard based on what we know now. So I'm fine calling Magic and Russell approximately +2.5 SD players in terms of their offense and defense respectively.

2) On the other end, I don't think we can call Magic and Russell negative outliers in def and off respectively. The distributions are different for offense and defense, so Magic could fall in one of the first two negative buckets (either a -0.5 or -1.5 guy, depending on how we feel about him on that end). There are no players worse than one SD below average in the sample offensively, so I don't think it would make much sense to call Russell the first (since that would make him the worst offensive player by far in the past 15 years or so). It's possible I suppose, but I don't see it.

3) So for Magic, we're looking at a +2.5/-0.5 or +2.5/-1.5 guy, and for Russell a +2.5/-0.5 guy. Which notable players do these resemble?

+2.5 off: 14 Chris Paul, 13 Chris Paul (Nash is also in this range most years)
-0.5 def: 14 Joe Johnson, 13 Klay Thompson, 13 Joe Johnson (Nash is also in this range most years)
-1.5 def: 14 Brandon Jennings, 13 Brandon Jennings

+2.5 def: 08-09, 11-12 Kevin Garnett are the closest matches recently, though they're around +2.0
-0.5 off: 14 Marc Gasol, 13 Marc Gasol

---

Again, just playing around with numbers here, but Magic could be a CP3 with Nash's defense (or just a Nash on both ends), or a Nash/CP3 on offense and a Jennings on defense. Russell seems to resemble KG defensively, and matches up pretty well with Marc Gasol on offense based on the assumptions about where he'd fall.

Again, it's also possible (and perhaps likely) that either or both guys could be extreme outliers positively/negatively, but I think it's more likely they fall into one of the more populated buckets based on the distributions above.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:30 pm**

I'll put it out there that my present intention is voting Wilt. Don't have time for much reasoning now, I should revisit later but

- Broke the boxscore on the Warriors (posting the 2 highest PERs ever, and a third in 6th place)

- Obvious impact on arrival in the NBA (with no other major simulataneous arrivals) and his departure (West missing much of the campaign injured).

- A lead in accolades over Russell (sportswriters MVPs, all-NBA Teams and nearly matching him in MVP shares in the period both were active, despite collaring less votes than Johnny Kerr in a season when he put up a PER of 31.82, the highest ever)

- Centerpiece of two historically elite teams with two different roles (and different again from his Warriors days)

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:33 pm**

Owly wrote:I'll put it out there that my present intention is voting Wilt. Don't have time for much reasoning now, I should revisit later but

- Broke the boxscore on the Warriors (posting the 2 highest PERs ever, and a third in 6th place)

- Obvious impact on arrival in the NBA (with no other major simulataneous arrivals) and his departure (West missing much of the campaign injured).

- A lead in accolades over Russell (sportswriters MVPs, all-NBA Teams and nearly matching him in MVP shares in the period both were active, despite collaring less votes than Johnny Kerr in a season when he put up a PER of 31.82, the highest ever)

- Centerpiece of two historically elite teams with two different roles (and different again from his Warriors days)

Just a note, PER doesn't exist prior to 77-78:

Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA
1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA
1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA

The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statistics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:

Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.

source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

If it did exist prior to 77-78, Wilt would probably own the top half dozen or so PER marks in league history.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:46 pm**

My vote goes to Bill Russell. I voted for him for #1 and #2 and see no reason to deviate here.

My primary reason for choosing him here is because I evaluate players based on the 'tier' system in the same way that general managers evaluate draft talent. I see all of the top 3 picks in the same tier, but between 3 and 4 is the start of the next tier.

For the people who think that rings are the beginning and the end of an arguement, Russell is the clear favourite. For the people who think that defense wins championships, Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defender in history.

The fact that he won so many elimination games indicates to me that either he was exceptionally lucky, or the celtics (and Russell in particular) had an additional gear they could pull out when needed vs competition they were superior to.

Most of the other candidates that will be filling the top10 (Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan/Magic/LeBron/Wilt/Bird) I will honestly struggle to place in an order. But I don't see any of them having a real arguement over Russell.

vs Shaq - Shaq is like a Kareem-lite, in the sense that he is a dominant offensive center. But I think he's hands down worse than Kareem, and given how close Kareem and Russell turned out, I can't rank Shaq above Russell. I think that the people who do are excessively overrating offensive ability relative to defensive ability.

vs Hakeem - There was a thread just yesterday hypothesising about swapping these two players across team and era. My conclusion was that because both teams were built around the player they had, without changing rosters at all, both swaps would be negative for their team. I put Olajuwon on winning 4 fewer championships in Russells place on the Celtics, and Russell winning 2 fewer championships for the Rockets.

vs Duncan - It's eerie to me the similarities between these two. Both are primarily defensive centers, that have played for the same team their whole career, enjoyed sustained brilliance from the day they entered the league until their left, plus their character infused the whole team so that everybody was about winning. I'd be fascinated by the outcome of a similar swap between Duncan and Russell as was done between Hakeem and Russell.

vs Magic - I think that the emergence of LeBron has diminished Magic's aura to an extent, because he is no longer so unique in the NBA pantheon. His defensive deficiencies become more glaring over time, and I don't think that there's a realistic way he can move up to #3, or even really #4.

vs LeBron - If his career ended tomorrow, I think he'd be lucky to crack the top10. But I can see an eventual ranking in the #3-#5 range if his next four years are played at the level of his last 4. It's hard to evaluate bigs and wings directly in a head to head battle, so I think most of the relevant rankings for him will be around his placing relative to magic.

vs Wilt - Years ago I had wilt in the 3-4 range, but I've gone increasingly sour on him due to an increased awareness of how his impressive individual stats didn't contribute to winning. Racking up most of your box score in a blowout loss is just junk stats, and I would discount them as being relevant.

vs Bird - Bird I think has already been compared to LeBron and found wanting, so I think he's a fringe top10 pick and not a serious candidate for the #3 slot. I don't think anybody but Boston homers can seriously consider him here given how his career was curtailed by injuries.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:47 pm**

Moved here because no one's going to go in the other thread anymore:

ThaRegul8r wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:As for a floor? Well, Shaq/Hakeem/KAJ/Wilt are there. That's about it. I'll mention Tim Duncan, too. He's my gate-keeper to the Top-10 anyway, but I've never really included him in the Big5Centers/MJ/Magic/Bird/LeBron level because I feel his peak was inferior to those players. That said, my valuation of how important peak is to an all-time rank will perhaps shift as I learn more in this project, so I'll leave open that Duncan may surpass Russell or others in that list of 9 as well.

As for KG...it's really based on how similar their defensive games are. Garnett is really the one who plays like a modern-day Russell on defense, combining the horizontal and vertical defensive games, and while I think Russell gets underrated offensively, KG is clearly superior on offense. Trying to figure out just how good KG is on defense in relation to Russell is difficult. KG does pretty much everything right on defense except, as I said, rebound and block shots like Russell...

The second question doesn't apply to me because all I care about is how good you are as a player. The offense of Howard/Robinson doesn't impress me anyway. Ewing's offense I see clearly below KG, and if KG vs. Russell isn't clear to me and Russell is getting the edge anyway, no way does Ewing go ahead.

Thank you for your response. I see the runoff is over, but I'm more interested in discussion not the rankings, and I would like to continue this because I want to sink my teeth into this. If necessary, I can copy this into the next thread.

I've kept track of the various "next Russells," which was why I named both Ewing and Robinson, who both received the tag. Regarding the latter, in 1999, Sam Smith wrote:

With Strong Supporting Cast, Robinson Has Look Of Russell

June 15, 1999 | By Sam Smith.

What does one associate with Bill Russell?

Winning. Eleven championships in 13 years, voted the greatest player in NBA history before Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan came into the league. Perhaps the greatest winner ever in pro team sports.

And what does one associate with David Robinson?

Talented, but not tough? An MVP, but never a champion.

OK, consider this: Bill Russell comes into the NBA in 1989 and joins a team without a starter beside him who ever will play in an All-Star Game again, and in the next decade plays with just one player, Sean Elliott, who even makes an All-Star team with him. And even though he is a defensive specialist, he is surrounded with poor offensive players, poor or limited-range shooters such as Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro, a rebounding star in Dennis Rodman who cannot make simple layups.

Now, how about this: David Robinson comes into the NBA in 1956, an angular, athletic, bright young man who is asked to do two things, rebound and block shots. He is teamed with three of the great offensive players of the era, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman and Tom Heinsohn, who will make All-Star teams for years to come, as well as the Hall of Fame. The next season, he gets Sam Jones, another Hall of Famer, who would become one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA.

Who do you think would have the 11 championships?

Not Bill Russell. We would be calling David Robinson one of the great players in NBA history. Robinson was supposed to be Bill Russell with a better shot.

Does anyone remember Russell trying to shoot?

It was painful, something of a cross between Chris Dudley and Eric Montross.

Russell barely shot beyond six feet from the basket and averaged 44 percent in his career. And he was Shaq-like at the free throw line, averaging 56 percent in his career. Heck, he won a championship one season when he shot 49.2 percent on free throws.

So, get off Shaq's back!

Get off David Robinson's back!

David Robinson was supposed to be Bill Russell. He could chase down players and block the ball from behind, recover from the weak side to block the ball and rebound. He has led the league twice each in blocks and steals. But he also had to lead the league in scoring because he came to a team without an offensive star and it became progressively poorer on offense.

He had no postup game, but he had to score against the great centers of the era: Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and Patrick Ewing, all among the 50 greatest players. And then he had to keep them from scoring and lead the fast break. He was voted the leaque's best defensive player and won a scoring title.

But he wasn't a scorer.

"I'm not a Michael Jordan-type player," admits Robinson. "I don't handle the ball. I can't go out there and take 30 shots a game. That's not my style. I had to figure out what is my style. That's part of what's great about being where we are right now."

Which is four victories from Robinson's first NBA championship.

Robinson and the Spurs are overwhelming favorites over the New York Knicks in the NBA Finals starting Wednesday in San Antonio. While the Knicks stunned everyone coming out of the eighth seed in the Eastern Conference to land a spot to the Finals, the Spurs methodically mowed down Minnesota, Los Angeles and Portland with an 11-1 record, sweeping the last two series.

"Four more games and I will have vindication," says Robinson.

It perhaps is no coincidence that in his second season ever with the first all-NBA player Robinson has played with, Robinson is going to the NBA Finals as a favorite.

All it took was adding Tim Duncan, to whom Robinson ceded the principal offensive role this season. Robinson finally was able to be a defensive specialist and opportunistic offensive player.

OK, who said this, Red Auerbach or Gregg Popovich?

"Defensively, he's just a monster. Weak-side defense, off-ball defense, power forward guarding, blocking shots, rebounding. We really feed off him."

That, of course, was Spurs coach Popovich talking about Robinson after Duncan went out of Game 3 of the conference finals against Portland and Robinson dominated with a playoff-high seven blocks.

Gee, that sounds Russell-like.

"When I first came in," offers Robinson, "all I heard was, `You're great, you're great. You (media) tear a guy down and build him back up again. I'm not as good as when they're saying nice things about me. I'm not as bad as when they're saying bad things about me."

And Robinson, like Russell, like all the greats really, is only as good as the teammates that surround him and the role he is asked to play. How many titles did Jordan have with Brad Sellers and Sam Vincent? David Robinson, for the first time this year, was asked to play like Bill Russell. And the Spurs are on the way to one of the best seasons in NBA history.

Yes, David Robinson is a winner.

Though Russell has the competitive edge―as well as the big-game performances that Robinson was criticized for lacking, Robinson was someone I'd wanted to get some people's thoughts on.

Among current players, Duncan and Garnett were two I've been drawing parallels to in my notes, the former for his team-centric approach to the game, anchoring the second-greatest defensive dynasty to Russell's Celtics, and the Duncan/Popovich relationship has drawn comparisons to Russell/Auerbach. The latter, though, was a better stylistic comparison defensively, though Duncan keeps shots in bounds like Russell as a study showed.

I confess I started paying more attention to Garnett in Boston than in Minnesota, because I wanted to see how he played. Mike Fratello said of Garnett, “If he wanted to be known as a defensive specialist—à la Bill Russell or Dennis Rodman—he would have to concentrate on that part of his game. He cannot do that. He has to play center sometimes. Sometimes he plays power forward. He’s in a tough situation. Rodman always had the teammates to have the luxury to concentrate on defense. Russell too, although he was mainly a shot blocker. He could be the best defensive player in the game, but it would hurt his team.” So in Boston, with Pierce and Allen as his Havlicek and Jones, I was curious to see how he'd do.

In 2008, he won Defensive Player of the Year, and grabbed 16.8 percent of available rebounds and 25.1 percent of available defensive rebounds in his first season there, as opposed to 19.5 percent of available rebounds and a league-leading 30.8 percent of available defensive rebounds the year before. In his prime in Minnesota, Garnett won four consecutive rebounding titles from 2003-04 to 2006-07, with averages of 13.9, 13.5, 12.7, and 12.8, grabbing 20.1, 20.3, 19.6 and 19.5 percent of all available rebounds. Garnett led the league in defensive rebounds for five consecutive years from 2002-03 to 2006-07, grabbing 858, 894, 861, 752, and 792, grabbing 28.5, 30.0, 30.2, 29.7 and 30.8 percent. So Garnett was able to focus on defense, but he didn't rebound like he himself did prior to that, with more responsibilities. In the postseason, he did up it to 17.5 percent of available rebounds and 25.3 percent of available defensive rebounds, but that's below his own standard.

In the 2013 postseason, Garnett grabbed 23.2 percent of available rebounds and 37.9 percent of available defensive rebounds in 35.3 minutes per game in six games, averaging a playoff-leading 13.7 rebounds per game with a playoff-leading 90 defensive rating, while averaging 12.7 points a game on 56.3 percent true shooting and 3.5 assists. That's better, as Russell grabbed 23.3 percent of all available rebounds in the '64 postseason. But Russell also had shotblocking in addition to the horizontal game. In ’03-04, Garnett had a 4.0 block percentage as he blocked 2.17 shots per game to go with his 20.1 percent rebound rate and 30.0 percent defensive rebound, but that was his career high.

I once posted this:

Assessing KG: The low-impact defender
by Dennis Hans / February 7, 2005

Kevin Garnett reminds me of my Aunt Mildred’s aerobics class: low impact.

“Low impact” is a good thing for little old ladies looking to minimize the risk of injury when working out. It’s not such a good thing if you’re supposed to be an NBA superstar.

KG is a great player, but he’s not special. Perhaps coach Flip Saunders doesn’t demand enough of him, or perhaps he’s evolved into a too-cautious player to ensure that he never gets in foul trouble and thus is there for his teammates 40 minutes every game, including every second of crunch time. Maybe he lacks the killer instinct of a Bird, Magic, Jordan, Isiah, Iverson, Kobe or Shaq.

It’s also possible that he’s playing up to his potential and simply doesn’t have the raw talent to be a high-impact stud. Maybe the reason he doesn’t play like Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan and David Robinson (at both ends of the court) or Bill Russell, Ben Wallace or Dikembe Mutombo (at the defensive end) is that he can’t.

Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, KG rarely dominates. Consistency is his hallmark; most every night, he merits a grade of “very good.” He puts up numbers and plays a well-rounded game. But it seems to me that he’s not being all that he can be.

What makes the six centers or center/forwards listed above special is that all five on-court members of the opposing team are (or were) aware of the stopper’s presence. Russell revolutionized the NBA game with his defensive prowess. He would shut down his own man (unless that man was named Wilt Chamberlain) while serving as a constant nuisance to the other four foes. Russell was forever in the head of every opposing player.

That’s not the case with KG. Generally, the four guys on the other team who aren’t being guarded by KG aren’t hearing – or imagining – his footsteps. If one of those guys takes it to the hoop or shoots a runner in the lane, KG is more likely to be carving out rebounding position in the event of a miss than taking action to make the guy miss.

For his career, KG averages an anemic 1.8 blocks per game in 38 minutes. This season, in his physical prime at age 28, he’s averaging a truly pathetic 1.38 blocks in 39 minutes. Through games of Feb. 6, he’s the 30th best shot blocker in the league right behind a converted small forward (Shawn Marion), two guys who play about half as many minutes as KG (Dan Gadzuric and Chris Andersen) and one guy who puts in one-third the minutes (Steven Hunter). Tim Duncan is blocking twice as many shots as KG despite playing just 35 minutes per game. Andrei Kirilenko blocks a shot every 8 minutes; KG blocks one every 28 minutes. Even Yao Ming swats more shots than KG.

David Robinson in his 30-and-younger seasons averaged anywhere between a low of 3.2 blocks and a high of 4.5. Hakeem Olajuwon’s prime seasons featured 3 or 4 blocks per night. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar blocked 4 a game in the season that he turned 32. Russell, with the same frame as KG but listed an inch shorter, played before blocks became an official NBA stat. Given the fear he instilled, he likely averaged at least 4 blocks for his career.

Ben Wallace, who might not even be the 6-9 he’s officially listed as, blocked 3.5 and 3.2 shots per night in his two Defensive Player of the Year seasons. Also, Ben usually accumulates at least as many steals as KG. Hakeem averaged many more steals in his prime seasons than either Ben or KG.

There’s a reason why smart people rarely think of KG as a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year: They sense the absence of his defensive “presence.”

Now here’s what I’m not sure about: Is KG physically incapable of being a defensive monster, a guy who causes nightmares for players because he’s seemingly everywhere, so that even if he doesn’t get your shot you nevertheless think he will and so you shoot too soon or overdo the arc?

Considering that KG is 6-11 with very long arms, great coordination and excellent timing, and considering that he’s a good jumper who is quick off his feet and has long, effortless strides that allow him to cover ground in a hurry, he would seem to have the ingredients to be a standout swatter. He should be able to average 3 blocks a game and still be a good man-on-man defender and passing-lane hawk, a la Russell, Big Ben and Hakeem.

Two related attributes of great shot blockers are (1) they don’t have to gather before jumping, and (2) they get off the floor incredibly quickly. KG’s teammate Eddie Griffin barely gets off the ground, but the combination of his length, timing and lightning-quick but low-altitude jumps make him a terrific swatter (1.7 in only 22 minutes a night, which would be 3.0 a night if he played KG’s minutes and maintained his pace). Although KG appears to me to get off the floor in non-gathering situations pretty quickly, it’s possible he lacks the blinding reflex-jumping quickness of a Kirilenko, Russell or young Mutombo.

Thus, it’s possible KG’s swat potential is, say, 2.4 per game rather than 4.2, and if he tried to lead the league he’d hurt his team by continually taking himself out of rebounding position while blocking or changing relatively few shots. But it’s hard for me to believe that he’s helping the Wolves as much as he can at 1.4 per game.

There’s only one way to find out if KG’s anemic swatting numbers are primarily the product of physical limitations or KG’s lack of a swatter’s mentality and the failure of Flip Saunders to help him develop one: Saunders must challenge KG to be a defender in the style of Russell, Big Ben, Mutombo and Hakeem.

In this two-month-long experiment, KG will assume the identity of “The Wolfman” and go after enough shots that opposing players become keenly aware of his presence. After two months, KG and the Wolves braintrust can assess the results and adjust his swatting mindset to whatever is best for the Wolves. If he’s a dismal failure as Wolfman, he’ll have to dial back his approach, though maybe not all the way back to what we’ve seen so far this season. If Wolfman is a howling success, then there’s nothing to change.

More than likely, he’ll probably have to tone things down at least a tad, reserving 100-percent Wolfman for full moons. But the experiment is an absolute necessity to establish how much of a defensive force KG is capable of being. Because right now, the answer is a disappointing “Not much.”

And your response was:

ronnymac2 wrote:I need to respectfully disagree with this article. Simply looking at KG’s blocked shot averages ignores context. He isn’t a traditional interior anchor, but a hybrid interior-perimeter anchor. His strength is disrupting connecting parts of an offense, of altering offensive plays and covering for his teammates. In this last regard, he is very Russell-like imo, right down to that effect not showing up in the stat sheet.

Now, Russell himself said:

Bill Russell wrote:Good defense sometimes does not result in a turnover or blocked shot or steal or anything. Good defense will get the offensive team out of a rhythm and one of the keys to shooting is rhythm. That is why you see guys with open shots not make them. Well, good defense makes you shoot before you want to shoot or after you want to shoot, not when you want to shoot. Defense can sometimes be deceptive and you’ll say, well, they’re not shooting well and they had open shots. Well those shots aren’t open. A guy is standing there by himself, but he has to shoot the ball before the defense gets there or fake and shoot after he leaves. So he isn’t shooting when he wants to shoot and that will throw your rhythm off. What looks like a good shot is not really a good shot.

Though, vis-a-vis Russell, Russell does had that block shot element, adding an intimidation factor, as Russell himself said it's more the threat of the block than the block itself. TMACFORMVP once said:

One aspect of Russell's game that I just marvel at is his speed. We talk about the torrid pace they played at in the 60's to downgrade their stats (and rightfully so), but we fail to appreciate how well conditioned these athletes must have been to play large minutes at such a fast pace, especially Russell. This guy was all over the place, quick enough to come out on the pick and roll, and then recover fast enough to block the shot. He ran the fast break, fought for every rebound, competed on every possession, and played over 40 MPG nearly every season of his career.

Someone asked, what's the difference between Garnett and Russell, and I'd point to their defense. I'm probably alone in this mind-set, but I think Garnett has been slightly overrated defensively; not neccessarily his impact with Boston, but his years in Minnesota. Don't get me wrong, Garnett is an all time great defender, and one of the best the league has seen, but recently, I've started to notice that people are equating Garnett with automatically anchoring a top 5 sort defense, and on the same caliber with guys like Hakeem, Russell, or D-Rob. I think what made them all such terrifying defenders was because of their same ability to rotate, much like Garnett, but also be the best shot blocking threats in the league, something Garnett really hasn't/wasn't been for his career.

Granted so much goes into team defense, it's unfair to completely judge Garnett's Minnesota teams defensively (when afterall, his supporting cast sucked), but his Minnesota teams were generally average defensively, barring his one year in 03-04. And again, I understand shot blocking isn't a one and all metric for defense, but those three players had similar capability in rotating and defending the pick and roll that KG did, but they were also far more intimidating factors in the paint. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Timberwolves best defensive season came when KG was most intimidating at the rim. I understand he hasn't been any better a shot blocker with Boston, so how do we explain that, but there are more factors as mentioned with coaching, and better personnel.

I just think it's slightly overrating Garnett, when I've seen many people claim Garnett has anchored elite defenses ever since he came into the league and became an established player (and that's the part I'm saying is overrated, because otherwise, no one has had real more defensive impact in the league when Garnett finally got some personnel and coaching, the only other with an argument being Howard.

*First column is team DTRG, then opponents points, and finally opponent FG%.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Code: Select all
84-85: 4th - (10th in points, 6th in FG%)
85-86: 14th - (13th in points, 13th in FG%)
86-87: 3rd - (3rd in points, 6th in FG%)
87-88: 4rd - (13th in points, 2nd in FG%)
88-89: 4th - (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
89-90: 1st - (9th in points, 5th in FG%)
90-91: 2nd (6th in points, 5th in FG%)
91-92: 10th - (11th in points, 10th in FG%)
92-93: 3rd - (3rd in points, 3rd in FG%)
93-94: 2nd - (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
94-95: 12th - (14th in points, 2nd in FG%)
95-96: 14th - (17th in points, 14th in FG%)

Total: 6.08 (9.5 in points, 6.3 in FG%)

David Robinson

Code: Select all
89-90: 3rd (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
90-91: 1st - (5th in points, 1st in FG%)
91-92: 1st - (3rd in points, 1st in FG%)
92-93: 10th - (8th in points, 4th in FG%)
93-94: 9th - (2nd in points, 4th in FG%)
94-95: 5th - (12th in points, 7th in FG%)
95-96: 3rd - (10th in points, 3rd in FG%)

Total: 4.57 (6.4 in points, 3.8 in FG%)

Obviously Robinson has had better coaching, but it's interesting to note that they were a slightly worse defensive team relative to the year with Rodman, opposed to the previous seasons without. Nonetheless, I'd say both had better supporting casts than Garnett, but both Robinson and Hakeem faced fluctuations with their roster as well, and no one else of real significance of All-NBA defensive caliber either, yet for the most part, they anchored top 10 - near top 5 defenses every year of their career.

Garnett on the other hand, in his Minnesota years:

Kevin Garnett

Code: Select all
98-99: 11th (16th in points, 15th in FG%)
99-00: 12th (11th in points, 9th in FG%)
00-01: 16th (14th in points, 22nd in FG%)
01-02: 15th (16th in points, 13th in FG%)
02-03: 16th (18th in points, 10th in FG%)
03-04: 6th (7th in points, 4th in FG%)
04-05: 15th (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
05-06: 10th (8th in points, 9th in FG%)
06-07: 21st (19th in points, 15th in FG%)

Total: 13.5 (13.1 in points, 11.5 in FG%)

Again, I feel I have to clearly explain what I'm trying to say; in no way am I saying that Garnett isn't an elite defender, but I'm not completely sold he's as good an anchor as guys like Hakeem, or Robinson, and especially Russell. Garnett's strengths defensively lie within his impeccable rotation and pick and roll defense, arguably in that regard having a case for top three all-time. He's a terrific vocal leader on the court, and his passion inspires teammates to play to the best of their ability. BUT, I think those I've mentioned, provide the same impeccable rotations, while being a double threat with all time great shot blocking, something Garnett lacks compared to his peers. And Russell especially even exceeds the leadership Garnett displays on the court.

Garnett does everything exceptional, but Russell did all those same things at the absolute best one could possibly do it - including shot blocking, where the big difference lies.

Garnett is an all time great defender, and the prototypical player at the PF position, along with Duncan, BUT I still think he's not in the same tier as Russell, or the other aforementioned centers defensively. Similar versatility on pick and rolls and rotations, but Russell possesses even greater leadership (again, player coach for two seasons), with far greater intimidation.

So, in comparison with Russell, Russell has the horizontal game plus shotblocking that Garnett never did, and rebounded at a level that Garnett didn't do in Boston where he could concentrate on defense. This is something you mention as well. So Garnett's a better two-way player, but when he was in a situation where he could play like Russell, he didn't rebound like him or block shots like him. So if Garnett is the floor, it's something to ponder. Additionally―rightly or wrongly―Garnett's "clutchness" was questioned during the title run, while Russell was regarded as clutch when he played, and Russell was actually a name I saw brought up against Garnett in a couple of articles as someone who possessed the "clutchness" Garnett didn't.

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:49 pm**

I'm considering Wilt, Russell and Shaq for the #3 spot. I'll add my vote and analysis tomorrow.

--EDIT--

VOTE: Bill Russell

I explained why I voted for Russell in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=40398159#p40398159

Posted: **Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:51 pm**

Additionally, here's ElGee's championship odds indicator (which he takes pains to point out is not his top10 ranking)

It shortchanges careers which are currently in progress (Duncan, LeBron) but otherwise seems to pass the sniff test.

Edit: Looking at that makes you feel bad for Bird and the injuries that derailed his prime.

Posted: **Fri Jul 4, 2014 12:13 am**

Congrats to Kareem!

Vote: Bill Russell

Can't believe how sucked in I got to that last thread. Im in Hawaii and my wife is looking at me bemused so I'm going to try to unplug

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Posted: **Fri Jul 4, 2014 12:13 am**

VOTE : Shaq
I know Shaq probably won't get voted in just yet (Russell will presumably) but I believe he is worthy of this ranking.

-Shaq was quite arguably the 2nd best playoff performer ever after Jordan.
-arguably the GOAT Finals performer.
-only guy outside of Russ or Jordan to lead his team to a 3peat.

-was one of the ATG offensive anchors (Top 3 in my opinion) with the ability to put up 25-30ppg on high efficiency VS almost any opponent or team defense while also drawing more defensive attention then any other ATG.
-also an excellent passer with great vision who had strong handles & huge, incredibly strong hands which made it tough for opposing defenders/defenses to strip the ball from him even in a double/triple team scenarios. He rarely turned the ball over.
-also an excellent offensive rebounder (has some playoff records) and was always very quick and decisive when it came to actually executing a move once he caught the ball in the post which made it harder for defenses to adjust, recover or contain him by trying to trap him with multiple defenders.

Defensively he is underrated.
Never excelled at perimeter based defense but he was elite when it came to post defense, rim protection and m2m defense.
Overall he was a great and very valuable defensive anchor only one tier below a guy like Duncan.

As a rebounder he is also elite. He is certainly not in the GOAT rebounding tier with Wilt, Russell or Rodman but his career TRB% in the playoffs is 18 which stacks up well with Kareem, Duncan and other elite rebounders who weren't quite on that top tier.
He is 4th All-Time in playoff rebounds.

His first 4 Finals were all master pieces or near master pieces
When his teams lost he usually put up good or great performances (94, 95, 96, 98, 03, 04, 05).
Was rare for him to have a down playoff series (in relative terms) even in defeat.
It only really happened in 97 & 99.

His average playoff PER over his best 5 years, 7 years, 10 years and 13 years is only slightly below Jordan's and is noticeably above everyone else not named Lebron (who is still noticeably worse due to inconsistency)

For me Shaq is the best C ever when looking at Prime & Peak. I rank Kareem ahead due to longevitiy.

Shaq VS other candidates

Russell -
I currently rank him below Shaq for the same reason I rank him below Kareem.
While many posters have made excellent and compelling arguments regarding his impact (and I don't doubt how great his impact was back in his own era) I still don't have a firm enough mental grasp on how good I think he would be in a more modern era.
I do think he would be quite dominant but perhaps not more then Kareem or Shaq were.
My view and ranking for Russell are still very much up for change.

Magic -
Worse longevity.
Comparable but not superior Prime (Shaq's defensive edge gives him the overall edge in impact) and a lesser Peak.

Hakeem -
Defensively he was better then any of these other top candidates sans Russell and his scoring numbers over his playoff Prime stack up well with Shaq & Kareem.
He gets critiqued for team success but by many accounts he had bad casts and quirky coaching during many of his younger years. He did achieve success both early and late in his career plus winning 2 titles as the man is not bad at all unless you are comparing him to Jordan or Russ.
Currently I hold him back because I lack a firm enough grasp on how good & skilled I think he was individually in his younger years.
I could very well bump him up my GOAT list later on.
He may very well be one of the most underrated of the ATG's.

Duncan -
Shaq had the better Prime & the better Peak.
While Duncan was a solid tier above Shaq defensively O'neal was more then a single tier above Duncan offensively and he brought greater overall production.
Their longevity is comparable (similar number of quality years).
I just think that Shaq was the more dominant & impactful player overall (offense + defense) and he was more productive.

Wilt -
My current views are that he was inferior to both Shaq & Kareem when it came to scoring & anchoring an offense.
I know there are arguments for why he might be better or more effective/efficient today and I certainly have not yet discounted them but my current views do not align with them.
So... with that aside his p42 scoring stats in his playoff scoring Prime were 29ppg on 50%FG / 52%TS.
That is well below what you'd get from Prime Shaq or Kareem.
Then we have defense.
Defensively I don't think he was significantly better then either Shaq or Kareem.
Like Shaq he was a great post defender & man defender but had issues with perimeter defense and had issues with consistency over his career.
His unique rebounding ability is a clear point in his favor but it isn't enough for me to sway my vote back in his favor.

Posted: **Fri Jul 4, 2014 12:25 am**

I'm gonna go out on a limb and vote Magic Johnson. Will provide reasoning when i get some time.

Arguably the greatest offensive player of all time, great leader, great winner etc. I'm not going to go any more in depth as Russell is clearly going to win this going away. I'll provide a better explanation for the next slot that i will vote him in.

Posted: **Fri Jul 4, 2014 12:51 am**

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two and then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. My problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was.

Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times where I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

Bill Russell had similar success, with 5 MVPs, 11 championships (and he would have had countless Finals MVPs)... We could assume that he would have had 12 or 13 All Defensive first teams had the award been around back then also

He led the league in defensive win shares 11 times and is the all time leader in defensive win shares.

5 x rebound leader
4 x was top 7 in assists
4 x was top 5 in FG%
(may have led league in blocks several times)

BUT Russell was a bigger liability on offense than Jordan was on defense. Jordan was consistently in the top 6 in defensive win shares and the top 2 in offensive win shares (usually #1) while Russell was consistently in the top 3 in defensive win shares (usually #1) while he did never placed in the top 10 in offensive win shares during his entire career.

Also, you have to note that his championships came, at times, with as many as 7 hall of famers on his roster. There were only 8 teams, and he usually only had to play 2 rounds in the playoffs. His teammate Bob Cousy won an MVP while playing with Russell.

Also he only made 3 All-NBA first teams, usually placing behind Wilt. So he generally was not even the best individual Center in his league...

Vote: Bill Russell

RealGM

RealGM Top 100 List #3

RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #3