Well let's begin. Quick recap: need 1st pick and a 2nd pick (argumentation for 1st pick required). Thread to be open ~48 hours (Sunday morning).
Speaking for myself, this spot is between Lebron and Tim Duncan. I'm fairly set on those two individuals, though I'm waffling on who I want 1st and who I want 2nd. Bill Russell is just outside of these two primarily on basis of the reservations I have regarding the strength/competitiveness of the late 50's and 60's. While the "talent concentration" is certainly valid, unlike penbeast0 I believe the expansion of player pool has MORE than matched that consideration (at least when considering players of the 2000's and 2010's). Playoff structure also somewhat "streamlined" as far as the path to a title in the 60's, too. With Wilt, I have some reservations regarding lack of substantial impact in some seasons (primarily '63, and '65 to a lesser degree), general lack of leadership qualities, as well as some of the same era considerations (though I feel his dominance is pretty era-portable, fwiw).
eminence wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
Colbini wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
SactoKingsFan wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
RSCS3_ wrote:.
BasketballFan7 wrote:.
micahclay wrote:.
PockyCandy wrote:.
ardee wrote:.
RCM88x wrote:.
Tesla wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
kayess wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
MisterHibachi wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
mischievous wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Bad Gatorade wrote:.
andrewww wrote:.
colts18 wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Cyrusman122000 wrote:.
Winsome Gerbil wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
wojoaderge wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
90sAllDecade wrote:.
Outside wrote:.
scabbarista wrote:.
janmagn wrote:.
Freighttrain wrote:.
Doormatt wrote:.
ZeppelinPage wrote:.
Wavy Q wrote:.
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:46 pm
by wojoaderge
trex_8063 wrote:While the "talent concentration" is certainly valid, unlike penbeast0 I believe the expansion of player pool has MORE than matched that consideration (at least when considering players of the 2000's and 2010's).
I'd like to comment on this. I think there's more scrubs on NBA rosters than there has been than at any time in NBA history. For example, you don't have an Eric Money, Slick Watts, Wilbur Holland, E.C. Coleman, Aaron James, etc. walking around jobless like you did the dawn of the 80s.
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:50 pm
by Outside
3. Bill Russell 4. Wilt Chamberlain
My criteria:
Spoiler:
For the most part, I've purposely avoiding all-time rankings up to this point. There are so many variables that can't be accounted for, like differences between eras and how to rate players I haven't seen play. Beyond the benefit of engaging in interesting discussions about the sport I love, this project has value for me because it forces me to establish criteria to reflect what I value in the game. It also has value to me and (I hope) everyone else who participates by educating ourselves about players we know little about and gaining new perspectives on players we know fairly well.
If I had the time, I'd put together a spreadsheet or database to quantify my criteria categories and come up with a total score for each player. However, I'm not going to sweat it because a) while I'd use statistics for part of my criteria, key aspects of my criteria are inherently subjective; and b) the weighting I would apply to each category would also be subjective. I use statistics to inform my rankings, but I don't adhere to a statistics-only approach.
I also love the idea promoted by several others that this is a ranking of individuals within a team game and that performance within the team concept is a foundational tenet of my ranking method. I know it is, and it seems sorta obvious, but yeah, that's worth repeating.
If I were to give a numerical ranking to each category, it would likely be from +5 to -5 rather than 0-10. I know that they can be considered essentially the same, but I using the +5/-5 scale in my head gives me clear separation between a player who benefits his team in a particular category versus a player who hurts his team in that category. Going with a 0-10 scale puts me more in a mindset of trying to measure benefit only.
So here are my criteria. Please note that these are not necessarily in order of how I would weigh them.
1. Offensive dominance. How dominant is the player relative to other players in his era? How much does the opposing defense gameplan to stop him? How much does the player open up opportunities for teammates? Guys like Wilt, Jordan, and Bird shine here for their individual ability, guys like Magic, Stockton, and LeBron for how they create for others, with some obviously doing well in both areas. A third or fourth scorer on a good team gets a reduced bump.
2. Defensive dominance. This includes both individual defensive play -- one on one, helping off the ball -- and the impact the player has within the team defensive scheme. How versatile is the player defensively? Russell is the gold standard, as are DPOY-level players, but I also look to recognize players like Bird who weren't necessarily intimidating defenders one on one but were smart and effective within the team concept. This is a challenging area to assess for players who were known primarily for their offense -- are they solid defenders, or are they traffic cones?
3. Playoff performance. The regular season matters, but the playoffs are when the truly great players separate themselves. Shrinkage in the playoffs can be a negative for a player. Lack of appearances in the playoffs can also be a negative because, over the course of a career, great players should get there, and someone who doesn't carries the implication that they didn't contribute to making a playoff-worthy team. Their playoff struggles may not be all their fault, but Tracy McGrady and Chris Paul take a hit for me here.
4. Longevity. Did the player exhibit elite performance levels over many years? Kareem and Karl Malone set the bar here. Players who were good but not elite and maintained that level over a long career like Robert Parish and Dikembe Mutumbo get a bump.
5. Peak performance. As we discussed in another thread, a guy like Bill Walton deserves recognition for achieving an exceptionally high peak even if his longevity was poor. Anyone who had an exceptional peak performance deserves a bonus bump in the ranking. Anyone who had an exceptional peak that lasted for years deserves a max bump.
6. Historical impact. Did the player affect the way the game is played? Guys like Mikan, Russell, and Wilt deserve credit here, but I temper it a bit for them because part of their impact was due to the fact that the game was still in its relative infancy and more easily impacted. An obvious more recent example is Steph Curry, who accelerated the onset of three-point centric offenses. This is really a minor consideration, maybe 1% in my overall thinking, but can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating players at similar spots in the rankings.
7. Intangibles. Does a player make his teammates better, or is he a stat-grabbing anchor to team success? How does the player rank for selflessness, fitting within a system, leadership, clutchness, and other squishy factors?
8. Titles. Winning matters. It's not the only thing, but it makes a difference on where a player lands in the rankings.
9. Eyeball test. As if I don't have enough subjectivity in my criteria, but to say that I don't include this in my wetware ranking method would be disingenuous.
In short, my rankings are informed by statistics and include a diverse set of factors but are ultimately highly subjective. I haven't spent the time to develop a statistical formula like many others have, but even if I did, I wouldn't rely on a formulaic outcome exclusively because some important factors can't be distilled to a number (unless you subjectively assign a number), and the weighting of factors is also inherently subjective.
For Russell, here's the information I included in the threads for spots 1 and 2.
Spoiler:
Offensive dominance -- generally a poor shooter who benefited greatly by having a diverse group of offensively capable teammates and an all-time great coach. However, he is too easily dismissed as poor offensively because he wasn't a good shooter, but he does have significant arguments in his favor offensively. He was all-time great at transition offense by igniting the fast break through his rebounding prowess, being a great shotblocker who had control and awareness to turn blocks into outlet passes, and using his world-class athleticism to outrun others and finish on the break. Considering that those Celtic teams relied on the fast break as much as any team in history, that makes his impact offensively huge.
Also, despite being limited offensively in a conventional sense, he consistently improved his production in the playoffs, was the leading playoff scorer in one championship season, second twice, and third in other seasons on teams that featured great scorers like Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. You can mitigate his scoring (15.1 RS, 16.2 PO) based on pace and minutes played -- pace for those Celtics was above 120 compared to low 100s for Showtime Lakers, around 100 for this year's Warriors, and low 90s for Jordan's Bulls -- but even so, he was significantly more productive than true defensive specialists like Ben Wallace (5.7 RS, 7.2 PO) and Dikembe Mutumbo (9.8 RS, 9.1 PO).
Defensive dominance -- unparalleled in this area. The concept of offensive gravity has emerged for players like Steph Curry and Shaq, but Russell exerted defensive gravity, creating a wide bubble around the basket where opponents had to be constantly aware of him. Great rebounder, which is essential to finish a defensive possession. He was a great shotblocker, but he had a greater impact getting into the opponents' heads, making them so concerned about him that they'd miss shots or not even take them. He used a combination of supreme athleticism, IQ, will, and ferocity to dominate the game defensively.
Playoff performance -- was in the playoffs every season. Changed the Celtics from a good team that lost in the first or second round to one that failed to reach the finals only once. Consistently upped his performance in the playoffs. Was the playoff leader in rebounds per game in seven seasons.
Longevity -- played 13 seasons, which is significantly fewer than guys who played around 20 like Kareem, Karl Malone, and Robert Parish, but was a long career by the standards of the day.
Peak performance -- his scoring declined in his last few seasons, but he otherwise maintained a high level of performance throughout his career. Averaged at least 10 points and 20 rebounds every postseason. In RS, averaged at least 12.9/21.0 in seasons 2-11, 14.7/19.6 his rookie season, and 12.5/18.6 and 9.9/19.3 his last two seasons.
Historical impact -- changed the role of center from floorbound plodder to athletic leaper. Essentially introduced the concept of a shotblocker. Changed the notion of how defense impacts the game. Set the standard for winning with 11 titles in 13 seasons. This is a small factor but still relevant.
Intangibles -- consistently elevated his teammates' performance, turning marginal role players into significant contributors and good players into even better ones. Whenever to opportunity arose, sacrificed individually for the betterment of team goals. Top marks in leadership, IQ, clutch play, and will to win.
Titles -- 11 in 13 seasons.
Eyeball test -- he and Hakeem were the best athletes to ever play the center position. Was the foundation of teams that were the epitome of how the game is played at its peak level, the central defensive anchor that allowed his teammates to extend defensive pressure outward, and part of a offense that mixed fast breaks with halfcourt offense that maximized effectiveness by utilizing everyone as a capable scorer.
Russell earns the tiebreaker between the two because he's the ultimate winner and defensive presence, while I downgrade Wilt a bit because he let his ego get in the way of team goals, most noticeably in the 1968-69 season in his conflict with coach Butch Van Breda Kolff. Van Breda Kolff takes a larger share of the blame in that instance -- it's the coach's job to mitigate issues for the betterment of the team -- but Wilt was part of the problem. Russell had a prickly personality also, and he benefited from the stability of having either Red Auerbach or himself as coach throughout his entire career, but there's also no doubt that Russell was all about the team.
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:08 pm
by trex_8063
wojoaderge wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:While the "talent concentration" is certainly valid, unlike penbeast0 I believe the expansion of player pool has MORE than matched that consideration (at least when considering players of the 2000's and 2010's).
I'd like to comment on this. I think there's more scrubs on NBA rosters than there has been than at any time in NBA history. For example, you don't have an Eric Money, Slick Watts, Wilbur Holland, E.C. Coleman, Aaron James, etc. walking around jobless like you did the dawn of the 80s.
I disagree that there are more scrubs now than ever before. Vs the 80's, you might have a case. With the merger, the additions of Bird/Magic, the great crop of SF's who entered the league in the late 70's who were now entering their primes (Moses and Parish reaching their peaks, too), and especially getting on toward the mid-80's as guys like Moncrief, Zeke, Drexler, Wilkins, Buck Williams, McHale, and then over course Jordan/Hakeem/Barkley/Ewing, etc came along......I do think that was wicked tough era.
But in Russell's day (and particularly the early 60's, and the late 50's)......the league doesn't even cross the 50/50 mark of integration until I think '68; the sport had been struggling to even survive (in the sense of being a viable professional sport) near the start of Russell's career, had really only attained some degree of security by about the halfway mark of his career; etc etc......those things speak to a fairly limited player pool at the time.
And mathematically speaking, attaining a title was "easier" even in a time of greater parity than the present league, simply because there are so many fewer rounds to get thru (someone briefly addressed this I think in the #1 thread, though I didn't exactly agree with the exact probabilities he cited for his example).
Not to derail, but wrt some of those guys you mentioned: what the heck happened? With E.C.Coleman there was an injury involved, no? But with the others I don't think there was any injury, and they were all in their mid-late 20's. Do you happen to know if drugs were involved in the decline for any of them? circa-1980 is when drug problems in the NBA were really bad (I'd heard one [I'm pretty sure exaggerated] estimate that upwards of 30% of NBA players were doing cocaine or crack around that time period). Could that have played a role for any of them?
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:23 pm
by trex_8063
Question to any/all:
Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?
I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.
But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him. Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?
Thoughts on this?
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:32 pm
by wojoaderge
trex_8063 wrote:
wojoaderge wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:While the "talent concentration" is certainly valid, unlike penbeast0 I believe the expansion of player pool has MORE than matched that consideration (at least when considering players of the 2000's and 2010's).
I'd like to comment on this. I think there's more scrubs on NBA rosters than there has been than at any time in NBA history. For example, you don't have an Eric Money, Slick Watts, Wilbur Holland, E.C. Coleman, Aaron James, etc. walking around jobless like you did the dawn of the 80s.
I disagree that there are more scrubs now than ever before. Vs the 80's, you might have a case. With the merger, the additions of Bird/Magic, the great crop of SF's who entered the league in the late 70's who were now entering their primes (Moses and Parish reaching their peaks, too), and especially getting on toward the mid-80's as guys like Moncrief, Zeke, Drexler, Wilkins, Buck Williams, McHale, and then over course Jordan/Hakeem/Barkley/Ewing, etc came along......I do think that was wicked tough era.
But in Russell's day (and particularly the early 60's, and the late 50's)......the league doesn't even cross the 50/50 mark of integration until I think '68; the sport had been struggling to even survive (in the sense of being a viable professional sport) near the start of Russell's career, had really only attained some degree of security by about the halfway mark of his career; etc etc......those things speak to a fairly limited player pool at the time.
And mathematically speaking, attaining a title was "easier" even in a time of greater parity than the present league, simply because there are so many fewer rounds to get thru (someone briefly addressed this I think in the #1 thread, though I didn't exactly agree with the exact probabilities he cited for his example).
Not to derail, but wrt some of those guys you mentioned: what the heck happened? With E.C.Coleman there was an injury involved, no? But with the others I don't think there was any injury, and they were all in their mid-late 20's. Do you happen to know if drugs were involved in the decline for any of them? circa-1980 is when drug problems in the NBA were really bad (I'd heard one [I'm pretty sure exaggerated] estimate that upwards of 30% of NBA players were doing cocaine or crack around that time period). Could that have played a role for any of them?
Good answer. Regarding those guys, that's a question i've been wondering about for at least 20 years. It's one of my greatest basketball mysteries, right there up with whether a strip is counted as a block or a steal. I've never heard anything about an E.C. Coleman injury. The rest of them, I have no idea . . .
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:34 pm
by wojoaderge
trex_8063 wrote:Question to any/all:
Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?
I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.
But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him. Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?
Thoughts on this?
I say it's on them. I mean, he's not out there . . .
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:41 pm
by Jaivl
Kareem at #2 is terrible! I'm leaving the project!!
A different take on LeBron vs Russell:
Spoiler:
Why LeBron over Russell: It's not only the fact that at this point he has more longevity, or that his game is more between portable between different contexts/eras.
I think LeBron has superior impact, each on their own era.
"LeBron has never lead a team as good as xxxxx" This year's Cavs topped as one the best offenses of all time in the playoffs. Remember how good they looked when LeBron sit? Yeah, not very much. That team had a -5 relative ORtg without LeBron on court (on the RS). And on the Playoffs... We've seen it! Like a week ago. Those stretches of bad play when LeBron was out. A FINALS GAME lost because LeBron had to rest for 2 minutes. And some people have the nerve of calling this a superteam.
LeBron offensive plus/minus +19.9 Irving/Love offensive plus/minus +2.1/+1.5 (and those are the second and third best players!)
His total +/- in the postseason tops +30, +17 on the regular season. That's on an offensive ATG team, +12 SRS on the playoffs. That's higher quality than any of Russell's teams. And when that load isn't supported on LeBron's shoulders, it falls to the ground, badly. The same happened in the last years of the Heat, by the way.
Russell took a team that without him was around a -2 defensively (1957) and took them to -4... and even to -10 GOAT defenses. That's massive: a team built mostly on his shoulders (I'm not gonna enter the narrative of "Russell was surrounded by HOF's!!" because I don't buy it: most of those are HOF's because of Russell). But... that's not enough when you compete against something that just made more with less.
LeBron "doesn't work well with other stars":
Spoiler:
If you have LeBron and Wade in the same team (similar roles), you play through LeBron (the better player) and Wade has to adapt to another role. Just like if you had Russell and Ben Wallace in the same team... yeah, Wallace better start learning to shoot 3s or something, because he is not gonna play center.
Love isn't worse than before: Love has changed his role. In fact he is better with LeBron, he just shoots less:
Love with LeBron 6402 2811 3209 15.81 18.04 1.142 Love w/o LeBron 1726 968 1026 20.19 21.40 1.060
Boxscore numbers don't make you a better player.
Vote: LeBron James
And since I have him in my top 5 anyway and I don't mind being "that guy": Second vote: Kevin Garnett
The case for Kevin Garnett over Bill Russell:
Spoiler:
-Around 15 years of proven superstar impact (Russell: 12 years) + additional years as a solid piece.
-Proven impact on both ends, on different roles: *Played as a 4 and as a 5, maybe even the 3 at some point. *Played as a jack-off-all-trades on offense, horizontal defender (mid-decade Wolves), with worse-O-better-D quasi LeBron levels of impact (average around +7, peaked as +10 -higher than Bron-). <- outside of LeBron, probably the better scrub-carrier of all time *Played as a defensive anchor and secondary/tertiary scorer (Celtics) on a contender, with Mutombo/Russell-esque levels of impact, considering era (+0 off +6 def) - and arguably outside his prime! *At close to 40-years old, still a valuable contributor off the bench on defensive duties with a reduced offensive role.
-Has the physical qualities and IQ to quasi-replicate the impact of Russell in his era (similar mobility, greater length but worse verticality, top-tier defensive instincts, nightmare on switches) while Russell doesn't have the additional tools KG has (better finishing, mid-range proficiency, better offensive orchestrator).
-Doesn't have the GOAT-tier leadership of Bill, but it's one of the ones that are closer.
The case for Tim Duncan over Bill Russell:
Spoiler:
tomorrow if I have time
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:56 pm
by Joao Saraiva
1st vote LeBron James
2nd vote Wilt Chamberlain
LeBron already has it all. Great peak (for me 09), great prime and extended one and the longevity (starting to compete with all time greats at this point).
This guy is playing at superstar level since 2005. He has 12 finishes in the top 5 of the MVP run (not counting this year).
He's definitely a great floor raiser - we saw what he did in 07 with that poor cast, taking them to the finals. In 08 he took the Celtics to 7 games (I know the 1st two were bad games, but he played a lot better as the series went by, ending up with a chance of getting the upset in game 7 on the road).
In 09 and 10 those Cavs team had clearly no business winning 60+ games. I don't think anyone else could replicate what he did with those casts.
In his great teams (the Heatles and now with the Cavs) LeBron has shown he is a great leader and teammate. He's able to carry the scoring load, playmaking role and doing the dirty work on a consistent basis (rebounding, defending).
He's able to defend guards (11 Rose is a great example) and any type of forward effectively. He also plays the role of rim protector really well for a SF - I'd say he's in contention for the best perimeter player ever in that role.
What gives LeBron the edge over Russell? As a floor raiser Russell doesn't have enough offensive impact to lift his teams as LeBron, and it's not really close. (This is my opinion of course, since we never really saw Russell in that position).
Prime/peak - just a great two way player and one of the best offensive players ever while being a tremendous defender, especially if you consider his position.
Versatility - this guy can do so much at elite level in a basketball game that it's hard to imagine many situations where he can't perform well.
What gives LeBron the edge over Duncan? Definitely peak and prime. Especially prime, if I can see a case for 03 Duncan vs peak James (don't agree but can see the case) if you look at their best 5 years I don't really see Duncan in the same page as LeBron. If we extend it to 7, 10 years... I think the margin is too big for Duncan to overcome it with longevity.
What gives LeBron the edge over Chamberlain? Better floor raiser. Probably a better leader too. More prime years (12) than Wilt (11).
I'm still not entirely convinced on LeBron over Wilt, but I feel much more confident with voting for him (maybe since I saw a lot more from him than from Chamberlain). Against Russell or Duncan, I definitely think he's ahead to a point I can say (according to what I feel is important) LeBron has a clear edge.
I'd also like to add that this guy has some serious playoff moments among the greatest of all time. 07 game 5 vs Pistons, 12 game 6 vs Boston, 13 game 7 vs Spurs, 16 games 5 and 6 of the NBA finals. I think it's pretty hard to compete with him for top 5 performances in playoff history.
I don't believe in this project many people will come up with the 11 finals as an excuse to not vote for him or to eliminate him from GOAT contention but even tough he didn't play well, LeBron has been really consistent as a playoff performer in his career. 11 finals for sure, and maybe something can be said about his 10 2nd round vs Celtics (3 last games) even tough I don't really give him much blame for the 10 less. Besides that, he has played all time great competition like the 08 Celtics, 12 OKC, 13 and 14 Spurs, 15, 16 and 17 Warriors and always played at really high level. I'd say I've only seen MJ being more consistent than LeBron as a playoff performer, since he has the most perfect career in that regard.
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:02 pm
by kayess
Re-posted this
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:27 pm
by trex_8063
kayess wrote: Vote: Who deserves the #3 spot? My contenders:
Kareem: I would need to be convinced that his impact simply wasn't that good. I think we can say it's been established that he could do most of what Walton was doing - which begs the question why he didn't do it more often. Was it suboptimal given his supporting cast? The lack of a great coach? I don't know, at the moment, because this is the prong that I feel the past cases built on WOWY haven't touched on yet.
Duncan: Again - the L5 leader stuff sounds... kooky, but if it holds true, that would mean his expected championship count continues to accumulate even after he's done playing. On top of his already ridiculous longevity and great peak, what else is there? Maybe the GOAT career value, even if not the GOAT player.
LeBron: His case is based on his amazing impact across vastly different team contexts, and the recent run has smoked any "why does he marginalize Love like he did with Bosh" talks. So I would have to believe his impact at peak level isn't good enough, he doesn't have enough high level minutes (He's at ~55k... but how much was pre June 2 2008
Did you catch that Kareem has already been voted in at #2?
Well let's begin. Quick recap: need 1st pick and a 2nd pick (argumentation for 1st pick required). Thread to be open ~48 hours (Sunday morning).
Speaking for myself, this spot is between Lebron and Tim Duncan. I'm fairly set on those two individuals, though I'm waffling on who I want 1st and who I want 2nd. Bill Russell is just outside of these two primarily on basis of the reservations I have regarding the strength/competitiveness of the late 50's and 60's. While the "talent concentration" is certainly valid, unlike penbeast0 I believe the expansion of player pool has MORE than matched that consideration (at least when considering players of the 2000's and 2010's). Playoff structure also somewhat "streamlined" as far as the path to a title in the 60's, too. With Wilt, I have some reservations regarding lack of substantial impact in some seasons (primarily '63, and '65 to a lesser degree), general lack of leadership qualities, as well as some of the same era considerations (though I feel his dominance is pretty era-portable, fwiw).
I agree that the talent from Euro and world talent has more than outmatched the expansion of the NBA as I've said; what I don't agree with it the idea that it did in the 70s/80s/90s. The idea that the 60s are like the 50s interms of lesser talent on each team is just plain wrong. As for shortened playoffs, I am not just counting rings, look at the degree of team dominance and win % in playoff series (rather than at titles) and you still end up with Bill Russell being clearly the most dominant player in his era in the history of the NBA (again, with the possible exception of Mikan who I have not studied in enough depth to make this statement).
With Wilt, I agree. And, against Russell he consistently came up short whether with lesser, equal, or even greater talent. However, he is so individually dominant, like prime Shaq but for appreciably longer despite an era where careers were shorter, that I think he has to be in the mix. Again, my focus is on impact in era modified by some degree of strength of era calculation. For a decade, the NBA was basically Russell v. Wilt, the greatest impact player of all time v. the greatest statistical player of all time, this despite the presence of great players like Oscar, West, Pettit, and Baylor. They were that dominant that anyone else even challenging them seriously was a shock.
CHOICE: Bill Russell 2nd: Wilt Chamberlain (though open to changing to LeBron or Mikan if strong arguments convince me)
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:13 pm
by Blackmill
I don't know if this should be posted here, since Kareem has been voted in, but last time I posted in the old voting thread my post was moved. And, after all, it's discussion which everyone might be interested in.
drza wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Real quick:
Someone made a statement implying that Kareem's impact could be approximated by Shaqs impact. I disagree.
Shaqs attacks are rapid. The defense must prepare before he gets the ball because afterward there's little to be done. This fact is what gives him gravity, and it is a gravity optimized for giving space to perimeter teammates.
Kareem is methodical. The defense has time to adjust optimally regardless of their set up before he gets the ball. He probably has more in common with Dantley than Shaq in terms of the shape of his impact.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
You just made the same point I did, but in a much quicker, more concise method. And to reiterate, I agree...Kareem didn't have Shaq's gravity. If he did, his impact would have been larger than it was
If you don't mind, I'll also disagree. Shaq attacked quickly because he needed to. He's only allowed three seconds in the paint, and unlike Kareem, his shots from 3-10 feet were not good enough to carry an offense.
If you read my earlier post, one of the reasons I chose Kareem was that he could get a great shot, despite being methodical and the defense being set up. And this did manifest itself in a very noticeable gravity, because once Kareem got the ball, knowing what he'd do didn't matter nearly so much as for other players. As such, a second defender often fronted him, to the point of giving up the drive baseline or an open jumper. In 1984, when Magic developed an outside shot, the majority (yes, I'm betting over half) of his open jumpers were because of Kareem's gravity. And this is well past his offensive peak.
If there's a reason this didn't produce more impact, it's because many of his teammates weren't great shooters, or the weakside spacing was too poor for the baseline drive to be attempted. But this has less to do with Kareem than the personnel surrounding him and the coaching.
Here's some videos of open drives and jumpers resulting from Kareem's gravity:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Much of Kareem's attacks came a bit further away from the rim. If you had a solid post defender you could keep him from being close and thus "collapse" didn't mean the perimeter was open.
In the case of the classic series against Portland the Blazers just put Walton on him and let the rest of the offensive players just do nothing as Kareem spent many second working to get his shot.
Collapsing the defense further isn't necessarily better. As I've mentioned above, fronting Kareem often gave up the open baseline drive, which wouldn't be available if Kareem operated closer to the basket. And he did generate plenty of open jumpers once he had shooters comfortable taking shots from further out.
About the Portland series, I don't think your assessment is fair, since Kareem's teammates consistently struggled to advance the ball past half court. They couldn't dribble against Portland's ball pressure and they weren't good enough shooters to regularly exploit the times Kareem was doubled. A lot of players won't do anything offensively in a series if they can't dribble or shoot well from distance. Kareem did receive off-ball doubles during the series so saying he was played only by Walton is not entirely true.
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:18 pm
by penbeast0
moved to new thread . . .
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:29 pm
by TrueLAfan
Vote: Bill Russell
Plenty of other people have commented on his value on the defensive end, so here’s my Bill Russell story. A few years back, I was looking at DWS/48 for great defensive players during their 10 year (nice, long) peak. Don’t misunderstand me—I don’t think DWS/48 (or almost any analytic tool) is definitive, or provides end-all-be-all information. But, in this case, it showed something pretty interesting.
Russell .1642 Duncan .1138 Hakeem .1124 DRob .1122 Ben Wallace .1118 Ewing .1023 Wilt .0993 Howard .0970 Rodman .0936 Kareem .0933 Garnett .0919 Cowens .0910 Mutombo .0905 Unseld .0898 Zo .0894 Artis .0893 Hayes .0892 Walton .0891 (Career) Mel Daniels .0880 (Career) Dr. J .0872 Bobby Jones .0846 Sikma .0842 Thurmond .0837 Parish .0825 MJ .0820 Shaq .0796 LeBron .0778 Laimbeer .0745 Moses .0626
An average player is somewhere around .045.
This is not perfect or close to perfect (Tom Boerwinkle scores super high on this, for instance)—but almost everyone who is great scores well and is kinda grouped together. Duncan, Hakeem, DRob, and Wallace over .11. Mutombo, Cowens, Garnett, Kareem, Rodman, Howard and Wilt between .09 and .10. Those are all great defensive players. Are those groupings 100% accurate or correct? No. But this does seem to identify and, to some extent, quantify, excellent defensive players.
Now look at Bill Russell. Jesus. If you’re thinking that this has something to do with pace or possessions—no. No player from the 1950s or 1960s is close to Russell. No player in history is close to Russell. The difference between Russell and Tim Duncan is as great as the difference between Duncan and Moses. Moses was not a great defender, but he tried hard within his limitations and had a couple of good years.
It’s hard to comprehend that level of defensive play—but you look at the results and you have to kind of say, yeah, I get it. The Celtics were not a particularly good offensive team. They didn‘t shoot that well. They didn’t score all that much even though they were a running team. (Okay, they scored well in the Cousy years. But after 1960—no.) They won with D—and they won 70% of their games while Russell was there. And that means they won because of Bill Russell. And they won and won and won.
#2 Vote: LeBron James
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:53 pm
by trex_8063
TrueLAfan wrote:#2 Vote: LeBron James
If you have the time, I kind of want to hear your reasons for Lebron as your second pick (as opposed to other candidates like Duncan or Wilt).
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:19 pm
by JordansBulls
Bill Russell had 5 MVPs, 11 championships. 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)
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.
However hardly ever was upset in any playoff series and when it happened it was due to injury. Tied for the 2nd most MVP's in History and has the most titles (albeit 8 of those came due to playing only 2 series, so that doesn't equate the same nowadays from the 80's forward when you needed to win 4 series to get 1 title.)
1st Vote: Bill Russell 2nd Vote: Lebron James
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:40 pm
by THKNKG
I want to post a few +/- stats, as well as a few others comparing the modern players in contention, just for the sake of reference/discussion. All RAPM in this post is from Doc's scaled sheets, and only goes to 2012 (note: is there any way to update the scaled/sd sheets with numbers from 2013-2017? Has it been done?)
These kinda run the gamut of stat types - box score based, +/-, and with/without.
Any thoughts?
Re: RE: Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:43 pm
by janmagn
trex_8063 wrote:Question to any/all:
Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?
I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.
But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him. Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?
Thoughts on this?
No in my opinion. LeBron is so good that even good lineups without him looks bad. Other thing is that maybe Kyrie and KLove aren't THAT good, they aren't able to carry a team
Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla
Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:46 pm
by THKNKG
trex_8063 wrote:Question to any/all:
Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?
I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.
But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him. Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?
Thoughts on this?
He's never had a Bulls/Spurs/Warriors environment, where the team can "survive" without him. I would almost go so far as to say that, counting talent + fit, he has never been on a team as good as Jordan's 90's supporting casts. Part of it is due to his playstyle being so ball-dominant, but a plethora of superstars have been ball dominant, and didn't have that issue. It's a yes and no type answer I feel.
One other perspective is that he is one of a few players ever who has to play both "main presence" and "glue guy" in multiple areas (KG and Russell are two other examples of this). What I mean is that the team looks to him as the primary playmaker, scorer, and defender. However, they can't just fill in that gap when he's out because he's simultaneously being defensive qb, offensive coach, pseudo rim-protector, etc. That's part of what makes him so special, and why just having enough star power and depth doesn't remove the problem. He does *so* much for his teams, arguably more than anyone, ever. He hasn't had the liberty to be on a truly "stacked team" (Bulls/Warriors level of talent/fit), so we haven't seen him much in a role where he can just do his thing without being glue guy too (maybe somewhere in the 12-14 years at times, but that'd be it).
