RealGM

Seems like these 3 got the best "impact", but how do they comp vs each other?

also should i add anyone else? was thinkin Mikan

May ruffle some feathers but I feel Kareem is last here.

Russell was far better defensively from my understanding, the accolades and team success speaks for themselves

I think Lebron is overall more impactful due to being a comparable scorer and a top 10 playmaker in nba history.

Much more knowledgeable people can explain his lack of success pre magic -post Oscar. But that’s the conclusion I’ve reached.

I can’t decide on Russell/Lebron.

Depends on how you define “impact,” but Kareem’s inclusion suggests a cumulative measure. In that case Russell looks like the odd man out almost by default.

If you do not mean cumulatively, then Kareem seems to make for a stranger inclusion, because as impressive as his profile is, and for as much as I like him, raw impact is not a unique calling card of his… At his peak (or usually assigned peak), Walton seems to comfortably lap him on that front. Which does not necessarily make Walton “better,” because health matters and not all teams are guaranteed to make better use of Walton than of Kareem, but that is somewhat distinct from “impact”.

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

AEnigma wrote:Depends on how you define “impact,” but Kareem’s inclusion suggests a cumulative measure. In that case Russell looks like the odd man out almost by default.

If you do not mean cumulatively, then Kareem seems to make for a stranger inclusion, because as impressive as his profile is, and for as much as I like him, raw impact is not a unique calling card of his… At his peak (or usually assigned peak), Walton seems to comfortably lap him on that front. Which does not necessarily make Walton “better,” because health matters and not all teams are guaranteed to make better use of Walton than of Kareem, but that is somewhat distinct from “impact”.

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

whats "raw impact". wowy? i thought kd said kareems w-stuff was crazy for like forever

also i was thinkin peak or prime "impact"

AEnigma wrote:Depends on how you define “impact,” but Kareem’s inclusion suggests a cumulative measure. In that case Russell looks like the odd man out almost by default.

If you do not mean cumulatively, then Kareem seems to make for a stranger inclusion, because as impressive as his profile is, and for as much as I like him, raw impact is not a unique calling card of his… At his peak (or usually assigned peak), Walton seems to comfortably lap him on that front. Which does not necessarily make Walton “better,” because health matters and not all teams are guaranteed to make better use of Walton than of Kareem, but that is somewhat distinct from “impact”.

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

I would generally agree with this and on the Walton point, I've generally believed that while yes, Walton may have had more raw impact than Kareem in 1977, they were in completely different situations. Walton was in close to an ideal ceiling-raiser situation while Kareem had a backcourt that couldn't reliably bring the ball over the half-court line.

I don't think Kareem could have as much impact as Walton in Portland, but he definitely could've stepped up his defensive effort, made more of an effort to facilitate, etc, and approximated a lot of it. I doubt Walton could've done a whole lot in Kareem's place, even his defense would be pushed to the limit considering who was around him and his passing would be less useful.

I was so confused until I realized we're not talking bout westbrook. I'd go Bill than honestly idk gun to my head Bron than Kareem
13 rings 2? as player coach same time hard to beat imo the impact data I've seen show Russel to be the main catalyst. Definitely open to have my mind changed

I know Bron and Kareem on the Celtics they would still be collecting rings, but don't think Russ could have won multiple MVPs in more modern nba.

Relative to their environment? I'd probably go

Russell > (gap) > LeBron (> Jordan) > Kareem

Going by impact as generally looking at what happens when you add or take away a player from a team without going too much into how good their teammates were or how strong their era was, then I think the answer to "who had the most impact" is generally going to be Bill Russell. The Celtics went from +1.4 to -4.9 relative defensive rating with the addition of Russell, they peaked at an unprecedented -10.8 in 1964 and then went from -6.4 in Russell's final year to -0.1 the year after. If we're talking about who had the most impact on one side of the ball there isn't even a discussion, it's Russell and everyone else is miles behind. Therein does sit my one reservation about Russell's impact and that is his offense. I'm not as big on 2-way play as some others because I think it doesn't matter where impact comes from as long as it's there. However, with Russell it's the question whether he was "just" kind of neutral on offense without moving the needle much or a straight up negative that detracts from his defense. While the offense didn't get worse in 1970, that's mostly because they had a center-by-committee approach with a bunch of replacement level guys and the moment they added Cowens their offense improved right away (although only in 75 did they have a higher relative offensive rating than the offensive peak the Celtics had with Russell in 67). I do think this is especially notable considering Cowens is a defensive-minded center himself who led the Celtics to a -5.8 relative defensive rating in his 1973 MVP season. That's not peak Russell numbers but it stacks up pretty well with late 50s and late 60s pre/post-prime Russell's defensive impact, while looking better on offense in terms of impact. Compared to the early-mid 50s teams with Ed Macauley at the helm there is a pretty large negative swing as they never went below +1.9 (Russell's Celtics peaked at +1.4 in 1967) with a +5 peak in 54, which was 3 points higher than the next best offense.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the Celtics dynasty can elaborate on Russell's offensive impact because from the limited amount of 60s Celtics footage I've watched he didn't strike me as a particularly bad offensive player. It does seem possible that he was average to above average on offense but it still led to below average offensive team results due to the higher offensive potential for centers in his era, kind of similar to how Jokic is an above average defender nowadays but relative to his position it doesn't lead to above average defenses.

LeBron, Kareem and this unspecified 80s/90s shooting guard all had years where it's clear they had massive impact on their team's performance but not nearly as consistently as is the case with Russell.

Dutchball97 wrote:Going by impact as generally looking at what happens when you add or take away a player from a team without going too much into how good their teammates were or how strong their era was, then I think the answer to "who had the most impact" is generally going to be Bill Russell. The Celtics went from +1.4 to -4.9 relative defensive rating with the addition of Russell, they peaked at an unprecedented -10.8 in 1964 and then went from -6.4 in Russell's final year to -0.1 the year after. If we're talking about who had the most impact on one side of the ball there isn't even a discussion, it's Russell and everyone else is miles behind. Therein does sit my one reservation about Russell's impact and that is his offense. I'm not as big on 2-way play as some others because I think it doesn't matter where impact comes from as long as it's there. However, with Russell it's the question whether he was "just" kind of neutral on offense without moving the needle much or a straight up negative that detracts from his defense. While the offense didn't get worse in 1970, that's mostly because they had a center-by-committee approach with a bunch of replacement level guys and the moment they added Cowens their offense improved right away (although only in 75 did they have a higher relative offensive rating than the offensive peak the Celtics had with Russell in 67). I do think this is especially notable considering Cowens is a defensive-minded center himself who led the Celtics to a -5.8 relative defensive rating in his 1973 MVP season. That's not peak Russell numbers but it stacks up pretty well with late 50s and late 60s pre/post-prime Russell's defensive impact, while looking better on offense in terms of impact. Compared to the early-mid 50s teams with Ed Macauley at the helm there is a pretty large negative swing as they never went below +1.9 (Russell's Celtics peaked at +1.4 in 1967) with a +5 peak in 54, which was 3 points higher than the next best offense.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the Celtics dynasty can elaborate on Russell's offensive impact because from the limited amount of 60s Celtics footage I've watched he didn't strike me as a particularly bad offensive player. It does seem possible that he was average to above average on offense but it still led to below average offensive team results due to the higher offensive potential for centers in his era, kind of similar to how Jokic is an above average defender nowadays but relative to his position it doesn't lead to above average defenses.

There are suggestions that Russell was turnover prone, which combined with his average finishing ability could potentially make him a negative offensive player. Personally, I wouldn't go that far, but more data is necessary to draw a clear conclusion.

70sFan wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Going by impact as generally looking at what happens when you add or take away a player from a team without going too much into how good their teammates were or how strong their era was, then I think the answer to "who had the most impact" is generally going to be Bill Russell. The Celtics went from +1.4 to -4.9 relative defensive rating with the addition of Russell, they peaked at an unprecedented -10.8 in 1964 and then went from -6.4 in Russell's final year to -0.1 the year after. If we're talking about who had the most impact on one side of the ball there isn't even a discussion, it's Russell and everyone else is miles behind. Therein does sit my one reservation about Russell's impact and that is his offense. I'm not as big on 2-way play as some others because I think it doesn't matter where impact comes from as long as it's there. However, with Russell it's the question whether he was "just" kind of neutral on offense without moving the needle much or a straight up negative that detracts from his defense. While the offense didn't get worse in 1970, that's mostly because they had a center-by-committee approach with a bunch of replacement level guys and the moment they added Cowens their offense improved right away (although only in 75 did they have a higher relative offensive rating than the offensive peak the Celtics had with Russell in 67). I do think this is especially notable considering Cowens is a defensive-minded center himself who led the Celtics to a -5.8 relative defensive rating in his 1973 MVP season. That's not peak Russell numbers but it stacks up pretty well with late 50s and late 60s pre/post-prime Russell's defensive impact, while looking better on offense in terms of impact. Compared to the early-mid 50s teams with Ed Macauley at the helm there is a pretty large negative swing as they never went below +1.9 (Russell's Celtics peaked at +1.4 in 1967) with a +5 peak in 54, which was 3 points higher than the next best offense.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the Celtics dynasty can elaborate on Russell's offensive impact because from the limited amount of 60s Celtics footage I've watched he didn't strike me as a particularly bad offensive player. It does seem possible that he was average to above average on offense but it still led to below average offensive team results due to the higher offensive potential for centers in his era, kind of similar to how Jokic is an above average defender nowadays but relative to his position it doesn't lead to above average defenses.

There are suggestions that Russell was turnover prone, which combined with his average finishing ability could potentially make him a negative offensive player. Personally, I wouldn't go that far, but more data is necessary to draw a clear conclusion.

Yeah I doubt Russell was a (significantly) negative player on the offensive side of the ball. Looking at 1964 when the Celtics were at their worst offensively I don't think there is any evidence to my theory that centers had disproportionate offensive value in the 60s, which would cause Russell's average offense to stand out more negatively than if he was an average offensive perimeter player. The top 3 offenses that year were Oscar's Royals, the Baylor/West Lakers and Pettit's Hawks. The only really high scoring centers that season were Bellamy on the Bullets (5th in offensive rating) and Wilt on the Warriors (7th in offensive rating).

Something interesting to look at might be their pace though as the Celtics had a 125 pace, while the rest of the league was between 111 and 119. Considering offensive and defensive ratings are calculated based on per 100 possessions this breakneck pace might be a reason for both ratings being lowered, leading to a worse looking offense and better looking defense than what was really the case.

ShaqAttac wrote:Seems like these 3 got the best "impact", but how do they comp vs each other?

also should i add anyone else? was thinkin Mikan

I'd add Wilt. Multiple solid most valuable peak ever cases (at least per a raw impact look) so he's a natural conclusion if you're looking at things from a peak lens. No opinion on Mikan tbh.

ShaqAttac wrote:

AEnigma wrote:Depends on how you define “impact,” but Kareem’s inclusion suggests a cumulative measure. In that case Russell looks like the odd man out almost by default.

If you do not mean cumulatively, then Kareem seems to make for a stranger inclusion, because as impressive as his profile is, and for as much as I like him, raw impact is not a unique calling card of his… At his peak (or usually assigned peak), Walton seems to comfortably lap him on that front. Which does not necessarily make Walton “better,” because health matters and not all teams are guaranteed to make better use of Walton than of Kareem, but that is somewhat distinct from “impact”.

Then there is also the perpetual question of how bigs should be valued: is their worth what happens when replaced with someone worse, or is their worth their absolute addition to a team in isolation? Because there is an innate defensive value to being tall which applies to even backup bigs, so whether that makes superstar bigs comparatively less valuable seems like a semantic distinction. Because in the absolute, Russell and Kareem are a more constant presence and thus can theoretically impact nearly every possession… but the same would be true of any equivalent big in their place.

whats "raw impact". wowy? i thought kd said kareems w-stuff was crazy for like forever

also i was thinkin peak or prime "impact"

Kareem stands out because of replication. Put another way,

70sFan wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

70sFan wrote:That's a very good point. People recently take such leaps as the representation for one player impact, but it's never that easy. Bird was a fantastic rookie, but I have no doubt he became a better player in 1984 or 1985, yet Celtics had weaker RS with comparable (maybe better?) rosters.

Well this is why looking for replication is important. If a player only does it once, it might just be noise. If a player does it several times over a variety of contexts, it probably isn't

Sure, the bigger sample is, the more likely it is to be the signal. Even then, it is important to keep in mind that such reductionism has limitations, although it can be very valuable.

In this case, I think we can say quite clearly that Bird had a massive impact on Celtics team, but raw number of wins added overstate it.

Bird has a crazy "raw" signal as a rookie, but he never seems to be able to replicate that influence:

AEnigma wrote:How about, “But that 1980 team was somehow the second best regular season of Bird’s career.”

Kareem is special because, besides Lebron, no one else really has his track record of repeatedly offering that level of influence:

OhayoKD wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Kareem's "trials" also give us the oppurtunity to seem him speedrun a bunch of different feats and he's seemingly doing this with less or less extra steps(triangle-> srs explosion -> defense increase from 90 to 91). Immediate contention -> GOAT-Team with a co-star you can play 60+ ball without -> 30 win lift on bad team(21 win per SRS tbf) -> stays very good when co-stars diminish -> mantains 20ish win lift post-expansion and post-trade -> consistent wowy(applying the "strict" defintion of that term) advantage throughout(70's corrected ben's stuff). Postseason to postseason there maybe be shifts(Kareem does do the best vs elite defenses though, and i think the blips are pretty rare, and 1977 is an elite elevation example), but the base just looks better broadly and i don't see much reason to be skeptical(center d -> wing d -> guard d is historically supported whether you examine archetype track-records(yes, even applying a "won a dpoy" filter to the guards) or the players at the center of team defenses of varying quality).

consistently behind Kareem throughout the 70's(30 win lift in 75, a 29 win improvement with a player similar to oakley as a rookie, 62 wins without his co-star, and takes the depleted remnants of a 30 win team to 45 wins in 77)

Of everyone else, really the best you get are a couple flashes of this level of influence(am applying a >10 game filter fwiw). But Kareem is doing it near constantly and far more frequently than anyone else we have this stuff for besides Lebron. To an extent it's a reflection of nigh unrivalled(as in russell, lebron. and that's pretty much it) consistency, but it's also a matter of uncertainity. Kareem has a very well established "base". So even from a "peak" standpoint, when he's fluctuating up, he's going to be reaching higher heights, and when he's fluctuating down, he's going to be within reach. We can be reasonably confident trusting his high-end/ stuff in a way we really aren't with your birds, mj's, hakeem's, duncan's, walton's, and robinsons's. To get deeper into the post-expansion/Lakers period:

1993Playoffs wrote:May ruffle some feathers but I feel Kareem is last here.

Russell was far better defensively from my understanding, the accolades and team success speaks for themselves

I think Lebron is overall more impactful due to being a comparable scorer and a top 10 playmaker in nba history.

Much more knowledgeable people can explain his lack of success pre magic -post Oscar. But that’s the conclusion I’ve reached.

I can’t decide on Russell/Lebron.

Besides what I referenced above, it's worth considering what is happening when he is moving to LA. The Lakers are a 30-win team without Kareem. Then they lose all these pieces to acquire him:

I think they would be definitely worse, the Lakers lost a lot of valuable pieces that made their depth a little better - Happy Hairston was still a very nice contributor, they had veterans like Zelmo Beaty, Connie Hawkins and of course Elmore Smith was a decent center. Then you have to take into account that Gail Goodrich regressed from 1975 year as well. With Kermit injury, the Lakers didn't have any solid bigman outside of Kareem and it was important to have good bigman rotation back then.

Think 20ish wins is a reasonable ball-park for this cast and in that light, the results in Kareem's first two years with the lakers are actually very impressive, even on an all-time scale.

As Enigma alluded to, one could argue, that Kareem is actually undervalued as a big-man if one weighs "absolute value" as opposed to "value over replacement". History also suggests primary paint-protectors(like Kareem) are the easiest archetype to stack(at least in comparison to "scoring wings" or "helios"). Indvidual player data is always noisy, but Kareem looks really really good, and he's arguably the guy whose impact we should have the least questions about(besides maybe Lebron based on all the metrics available in the data-ball era)

Yea that 76 Lakers team was complete trash lmao, someone on here once tried to come up with modern equivalents to Kareem's teammates in 76, and it was not pretty. I would guess they were a 25-win team at best without Kareem and I think 15-20 is more realistic.
I would also say that basically no matter what Kareem had an incredibly high baseline of impact as OhayoKD just illustrated. He lost athleticism and motor but made up for it with improved passing, strength and scoring skill. And he could min-max his skillset based on what his team needed, if they needed defense and rebounding, he could do that.

Jaivl wrote:Relative to their environment? I'd probably go

Russell > (gap) > LeBron (> Jordan) > Kareem

no need to drag Jordan in with that tiny snab especially relative to their environment.

Jordan dominated the 90s and made several all-time greats ringless, Ewing, KMalone, Barkley... LeBron elevated many players legacies (Dirk, Duncan twice, Kawhi, Curry, KD...).

1. How do we define impact?

2. How do we make sure impact isn’t misallocated (over or under)?

Once those are hit home upon (harder to do so as two of these players are pre data-ball), we could get a ranking.

dygaction wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Relative to their environment? I'd probably go

Russell > (gap) > LeBron (> Jordan) > Kareem

no need to drag Jordan in with that tiny snab especially relative to their environment.

Jordan dominated the 90s and made several all-time greats ringless, Ewing, KMalone, Barkley... LeBron elevated many players legacies (Dirk, Duncan twice, Kawhi, Curry, KD...).

Eh I put Jordan in cause he is the only one missing from the usual GOAT contenders.

Jaivl wrote:

dygaction wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Relative to their environment? I'd probably go

Russell > (gap) > LeBron (> Jordan) > Kareem

no need to drag Jordan in with that tiny snab especially relative to their environment.

Jordan dominated the 90s and made several all-time greats ringless, Ewing, KMalone, Barkley... LeBron elevated many players legacies (Dirk, Duncan twice, Kawhi, Curry, KD...).

Eh I put Jordan in cause he is the only one missing from the usual GOAT contenders.

I know but maybe it would have not been a contest if Jordan was in the mix

dygaction wrote:

Jaivl wrote:

dygaction wrote:

no need to drag Jordan in with that tiny snab especially relative to their environment.

Jordan dominated the 90s and made several all-time greats ringless, Ewing, KMalone, Barkley... LeBron elevated many players legacies (Dirk, Duncan twice, Kawhi, Curry, KD...).

Eh I put Jordan in cause he is the only one missing from the usual GOAT contenders.

I know but maybe it would have not been a contest if Jordan was in the mix

“He got me,” Jaivl said of dygaction's reply to him. "That f***ing dygaction boomed me."

Jaivl added, “He’s so good,” repeating it four times.

Jaivl then said he wanted to add dygaction to the list of posters he works out with this summer.

dygaction wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Relative to their environment? I'd probably go

Russell > (gap) > LeBron (> Jordan) > Kareem

no need to drag Jordan in with that tiny snab especially relative to their environment.

Jordan dominated the 90s and made several all-time greats ringless, Ewing, KMalone, Barkley... LeBron elevated many players legacies (Dirk, Duncan twice, Kawhi, Curry, KD...).

I don’t put stock into the higher level Jordan vs. James debate points, including this one.

I will say though, Jordan’s presence did quite some elevating for the legacies of Penny Hardaway, Shaq, Isiah & the late 80s Pistons, and Birds’ Celtics.

If by Russ you mean Westbrook, I pick him.