Most Overrated Player in the Top 10

[Whateva]

The only one that really stands out is the #4

[f4p]

I'm not high on Russell, but like factually speaking ignoring era transport, I don't think you can make a convincing argument Jordan was even close to a comparable winner to Russell. And Russell's overall win percentage would probably be helped by the expansion of the playoffs, and you're also saying that their win percentage was comparable if you take the best 8 years of MJ, not his whole career. IDK, this seems like a stretch to me on many levels. (And I have MJ over Russell)

If this was how it worked dynasties would be MORE common after league expansion across sports not less. The same way I value the modern Patriots over the 60s Packers is the same way I see the 90s Bulls and 60s Celtics as equally accomplished.

The Celtics were playing teams with losing records in the Finals some years, he wasn't hurt by there being less rounds that's ludicrous.

Also I did take MJ's whole career. Did you read the part of my post where I listed the 5 players with a better postseason record than Russell?

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

[hauntedcomputer]

Olajuwon is the first guy I'd take out of this top 10, though his two-year peak might be a top-five peak.

You honestly don't believe that Hakeem >>> Bill Russell in the 60s and 90s

I think Russell is the most overrated because of the very skewed 13 rings. Ya'll really think Russell would have won a ring on a team other than the Celtics?

Yes. Yes I do.
He was the thread between the Cousy/Sharman Celtics and the Havlicek/Jones Celtics.
He won two state titles in high school, two national titles in college, and captain for a gold medal in the Olympics. 11 NBA rings to decorate the cake.
They won because of Russell. He wasn't a hitchhiker.

Greatest winner of all time. I don't see how that could be overrated, but some guys just like stats and plumber jokes.

[iggymcfrack]

The only thing about putting Curry in the top 10 is he only has 2 fmvps awards, not that that is a huge knock on him but Durant was just so good in the 2017 and 2018 finals. Hakeem didnt have anything near the supporting cast that Curry has had. That and Hakeem was dominate defensively.

He actually only has one FMVP. Iguodala won in 2015. I wouldn’t really hold that against him though.

why not? is he special in all of nba history in not needing to win those?

No, I have KG ahead of him with only one Finals MVP and I have David Robinson at #10 two spots behind Steph with zero. Finals MVP is a real weird hill to die on when the Cavs were so overmatched the Ws probably could have still won the series even if KD didn't play at all. Why are the 4 or 5 games from those walkovers so crucial?

He was clearly much more valuable than KD over the championship runs as shown by on/off, impact stats, and team record when he or KD missed games.

in 2016, KD missed all of the warriors games and they went 15-9 in the playoffs. KD then played in the warriors 2017 playoff games and they went 16-1. that feels more relevant than some line-up specific data where curry played in his favorite, custom-tailored-to-his-talents system and KD had to make a go of fitting in. they brought him in for the playoffs, where the warriors notably struggled. then they didn't. see also getting beat 4-1 in the 2019 finals in games without KD after winning 2 straight titles.

Yeah, you've shown that Kevin Durant's significantly better than Harrison Barnes. Congratulations. If Rodman joins the Bulls after they lost in the second round and they go 72-10 to cruise to the title next year, does that mean Rodman's better than Jordan all of a sudden? Of course not. If KD and Steph played with exactly the same teammates and Steph performed better, that means he's more valuable, end of story. When Wade outperformed LeBron in the 2011 Finals were people like "well sure Wade was better but that's not fair because it's Wade's team, and since it's hard to adjust to a new team should we just give LeBron credit as playing better than Wade in the Finals anyway and blame Wade for the loss"? That's the level of mental gymnastics you're performing here.

Furthermore, both series with Cleveland were short series against a clearly overmatched opponent.

the 2016 cavs were an overmatched team as well. until lebron did his thing and steph struggled even more than 2015. it's why draymond was in the parking lot begging KD to come help them. they had no answer for lebron. KD putting up 35 ppg on 70% TS in the finals (insane numbers) was their answer and is how you make an opponent overmatched. significantly better numbers than curry put up in those finals.

The only real competitive series in those 2 championship runs was the WCF against Houston in 2018. Steph was +56 in that series while KD was only +39 with similar box numbers. So KD might have played better in the Finals, but Steph played better in the only series that actually mattered.

yeah +56 to +39 is not exactly a statistically significant difference over 7 games and literally all of the difference comes from the game 6 blowout once the cp3 injury made the rockets just another overmatched team (+33 to +13 in that game). speaking of the first 5 games when cp3 was around:

curry: 23.8/6.4/4.8 on 56.0% TS
KD: 31.2/5.6/2 on 59.9% TS

steph was scoring under 25 ppg and was at something like 22 ppg in the 3 losses. not exactly outperforming KD.

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that Steph only had better numbers in the one series that mattered because he had huge performances in Games 6 and 7 when the Warriors were down 3-2..... and you think this is a bad thing? You've got to be kidding.

[f4p]

He actually only has one FMVP. Iguodala won in 2015. I wouldn’t really hold that against him though.

why not? is he special in all of nba history in not needing to win those?

No, I have KG ahead of him with only one Finals MVP and I have David Robinson at #10 two spots behind Steph with zero. Finals MVP is a real weird hill to die on when the Cavs were so overmatched the Ws probably could have still won the series even if KD didn't play at all. Why are the 4 or 5 games from those walkovers so crucial?

in 2018, it's not just 4 or 5 games. steph missed the first 6 games of the playoffs and the warriors went 5-1, barely even missing him. their first round opponent was a pretty decent 48 win, #3 defense spurs team so not just a walkover for most teams missing a great player.

then steph proceeded to have one of the largest statistical dropoffs for a top 50-ish player in a finals run ever (8th worst out of 178 playoff runs that i looked at). then had a fairly unimpressive finals against a terrible cavs defense. after being fairly mediocre in the 5 games he played the rockets at full strength where his massively talented team that was basically considered unfair was actually losing 3-2 while he played poorly and only won when the other team got injured. how much more underwhelming does this playoff run need to be? it's not just the finals. him being "playoff mvp", which seems to be your argument, is probably a worse argument than finals mvp.

He was clearly much more valuable than KD over the championship runs as shown by on/off, impact stats, and team record when he or KD missed games.

in 2016, KD missed all of the warriors games and they went 15-9 in the playoffs. KD then played in the warriors 2017 playoff games and they went 16-1. that feels more relevant than some line-up specific data where curry played in his favorite, custom-tailored-to-his-talents system and KD had to make a go of fitting in. they brought him in for the playoffs, where the warriors notably struggled. then they didn't. see also getting beat 4-1 in the 2019 finals in games without KD after winning 2 straight titles.

Yeah, you've shown that Kevin Durant's significantly better than Harrison Barnes. Congratulations. If Rodman joins the Bulls after they lost in the second round and they go 72-10 to cruise to the title next year, does that mean Rodman's better than Jordan all of a sudden? Of course not. If KD and Steph played with exactly the same teammates and Steph performed better, that means he's more valuable, end of story. When Wade outperformed LeBron in the 2011 Finals were people like "well sure Wade was better but that's not fair because it's Wade's team, and since it's hard to adjust to a new team should we just give LeBron credit as playing better than Wade in the Finals anyway and blame Wade for the loss"? That's the level of mental gymnastics you're performing here.

but he really didn't play better.

Furthermore, both series with Cleveland were short series against a clearly overmatched opponent.

the 2016 cavs were an overmatched team as well. until lebron did his thing and steph struggled even more than 2015. it's why draymond was in the parking lot begging KD to come help them. they had no answer for lebron. KD putting up 35 ppg on 70% TS in the finals (insane numbers) was their answer and is how you make an opponent overmatched. significantly better numbers than curry put up in those finals.

The only real competitive series in those 2 championship runs was the WCF against Houston in 2018. Steph was +56 in that series while KD was only +39 with similar box numbers. So KD might have played better in the Finals, but Steph played better in the only series that actually mattered.

yeah +56 to +39 is not exactly a statistically significant difference over 7 games and literally all of the difference comes from the game 6 blowout once the cp3 injury made the rockets just another overmatched team (+33 to +13 in that game). speaking of the first 5 games when cp3 was around:

curry: 23.8/6.4/4.8 on 56.0% TS
KD: 31.2/5.6/2 on 59.9% TS

steph was scoring under 25 ppg and was at something like 22 ppg in the 3 losses. not exactly outperforming KD.

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that Steph only had better numbers in the one series that mattered because he had huge performances in Games 6 and 7 when the Warriors were down 3-2..... and you think this is a bad thing? You've got to be kidding.

so let me get this straight, steph struggles for 5 games when the series is evenly matched and cp3 is playing, then when his HOF, all-defensive-level point guard counterpart gets injured and his team's talent advantage is too massive to be overcome, steph has some good games when the pressure is relieved and that's a clutch performance?

[WarriorGM]

so let me get this straight, steph struggles for 5 games when the series is evenly matched and cp3 is playing, then when his HOF, all-defensive-level point guard counterpart gets injured and his team's talent advantage is too massive to be overcome, steph has some good games when the pressure is relieved and that's a clutch performance?

So let me get this straight, the pressure is relieved in elimination games 6 and 7 when your team is down by double digits at the half? Because that's the situation the Warriors found themselves in both. Maybe you'd remember if you actually paid attention to the games.

[ShaqAttac]

I'm not high on Russell, but like factually speaking ignoring era transport, I don't think you can make a convincing argument Jordan was even close to a comparable winner to Russell. And Russell's overall win percentage would probably be helped by the expansion of the playoffs, and you're also saying that their win percentage was comparable if you take the best 8 years of MJ, not his whole career. IDK, this seems like a stretch to me on many levels. (And I have MJ over Russell)

If this was how it worked dynasties would be MORE common after league expansion across sports not less. The same way I value the modern Patriots over the 60s Packers is the same way I see the 90s Bulls and 60s Celtics as equally accomplished.

The Celtics were playing teams with losing records in the Finals some years, he wasn't hurt by there being less rounds that's ludicrous.

Also I did take MJ's whole career. Did you read the part of my post where I listed the 5 players with a better postseason record than Russell?

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

lolll mj bros stay copin

[E-Balla]

lolll mj bros stay copin

Great argument bro. What's the point here discussion or endless bashing of players you personally don't like?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

The belief that people think there's a consensus 10 players (at different postions with radically different roles on teams) etched in stone that stand above the other 1000s of players that graced the hardwood is what's overrated.

[capfan33]

I'm not high on Russell, but like factually speaking ignoring era transport, I don't think you can make a convincing argument Jordan was even close to a comparable winner to Russell. And Russell's overall win percentage would probably be helped by the expansion of the playoffs, and you're also saying that their win percentage was comparable if you take the best 8 years of MJ, not his whole career. IDK, this seems like a stretch to me on many levels. (And I have MJ over Russell)

If this was how it worked dynasties would be MORE common after league expansion across sports not less. The same way I value the modern Patriots over the 60s Packers is the same way I see the 90s Bulls and 60s Celtics as equally accomplished.

The Celtics were playing teams with losing records in the Finals some years, he wasn't hurt by there being less rounds that's ludicrous.

Also I did take MJ's whole career. Did you read the part of my post where I listed the 5 players with a better postseason record than Russell?

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

[E-Balla]

If this was how it worked dynasties would be MORE common after league expansion across sports not less. The same way I value the modern Patriots over the 60s Packers is the same way I see the 90s Bulls and 60s Celtics as equally accomplished.

The Celtics were playing teams with losing records in the Finals some years, he wasn't hurt by there being less rounds that's ludicrous.

Also I did take MJ's whole career. Did you read the part of my post where I listed the 5 players with a better postseason record than Russell?

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Off z-score it obliterates the whole gap damn near. But that just means they faced just about even opponents which is my point. About even accomplishments.

[HMFFL]

Jordan. Its not good enough that hes one of the top three players ever, and probably the goat for some people and instead they treat him as some mythical figure who only played six years, won six title, was on the best team ever but also had no help and excuse all of his actions as a teammate. It reminds me of the kids from sandlot talking about babe ruth.

Im curious because you always trash Jordan on here but what year did you start watching the nba?

I've never trashed Jordan. In my opinion the worst you could rank him is three but I think he's still the GOAT. What I've never been able to stand is his cult tearing other people down to make him look better and its been going on for a long time. I also can't stand the unquantifible things like "heart of a champion" being used all the time.

I have felt the opposite in regards to Jordan's followers compared to Lebrons. Jordan's followers prove him with numbers while Lebrons don't have much to go off of except longetivity.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[capfan33]

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Off z-score it obliterates the whole gap damn near. But that just means they faced just about even opponents which is my point. About even accomplishments.

But if they faced generally even opponents and Russell won almost twice as many rings and made the finals twice as much, I would definitely give the edge to Russell. Even accounting for the extra series' Jordan played, I don't think extra first-round series should count for that much.

[NZB2323]

If this was how it worked dynasties would be MORE common after league expansion across sports not less. The same way I value the modern Patriots over the 60s Packers is the same way I see the 90s Bulls and 60s Celtics as equally accomplished.

The Celtics were playing teams with losing records in the Finals some years, he wasn't hurt by there being less rounds that's ludicrous.

Also I did take MJ's whole career. Did you read the part of my post where I listed the 5 players with a better postseason record than Russell?

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Sure, but that shows how incredibly stacked the Celtics were. In 59 they had 3 players on the all-NBA 1st team, and later they added Havlicek and had him come off the bench.

Compare that to the teammates Hakeem had when he won a championship. Sure, 11 championships and all, but can we really say Russell was better?

[E-Balla]

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Off z-score it obliterates the whole gap damn near. But that just means they faced just about even opponents which is my point. About even accomplishments.

But if they faced generally even opponents and Russell won almost twice as many rings and made the finals twice as much, I would definitely give the edge to Russell. Even accounting for the extra series' Jordan played, I don't think extra first-round series should count for that much.

If the first round series are against teams as strong as the CF opponents for Russell then it should count. Again equal team strength, equal amounts of series played, MJ won more games and had a better W/L percentage.

[WarriorGM]

yeah the league outside of russell's celtics was basically a flaming shitheap of mediocrity until 1967. in russell's first 3 years, he played one opponent with an SRS over 1 and the average team was 0.3, so basically a 0.500 team. and that was worth 2 titles and another finals appearance.

it wasn't until year 8 in 1964 that he played just his second team with an SRS over 3. he played two +4 teams that year, then went back to two teams under +2 in 1965. the first time he saw a team even over 4.5 was 1967. and he lost (though they were way over 4.5).

his average opponent was a +2.4 team compared to jordan's +4.3. so jordan having a better win percentage is not because of expansion. he actually played tougher opponents.

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Sure, but that shows how incredibly stacked the Celtics were. In 59 they had 3 players on the all-NBA 1st team, and later they added Havlicek and had him come off the bench.

Compare that to the teammates Hakeem had when he won a championship. Sure, 11 championships and all, but can we really say Russell was better?

Let's approach from a different angle: What would Russell have needed to do to show he was better?

[CobraCommander]

For me its Russell but this is nitpicking. I have:

1 Jordan
2 Kareem
3 James
4 Wilt
5 Magic
6 Duncan
7 Bird
8 Russell
9 Shaq
10 Hakeem

1A. Jordan
1B. Wilt
2.Kareem
3.James
4.Magic
5.Shaq
6.Bird
7.Duncan
8.Shaq
9.Curry
10- jokic or giannis or Hakeem- who ever finishes with the most rings between these 3

Took your list fix

[f4p]

On this point specifically, SRS in an 8-team league with the Celtics being a big outlier most years is going to be significantly different than SRS in a 22+ team league. In essence, it punishes the Celtics for being such an incredible team because they depress the SRS of the other teams in the league. I'm not sure how big this effect actually is but I think it's big enough to be problematic in comparing raw SRS numbers 30 years apart. It won't explain the entire difference but I think it could be a sizable portion.

Off z-score it obliterates the whole gap damn near. But that just means they faced just about even opponents which is my point. About even accomplishments.

the celtics accumulated about 78 SRS in russell's 13 seasons, so +6 per year, and there were a 121 team-seasons during that time, so an average of 9.4 teams per season. dividing the celtics +6 per year up to the other 8.4 teams would mean the celtics theoretically suppressed about 0.71 SRS from the other teams in the league. this seems like the way to calculate that.

jordan's teams accumulated 65 SRS in 13 seasons, so +5 per year, and there were 339 team-seasons during that time, so an average of 26.1 teams per season. so the bulls had an effect of about 0.2 on the average of the other 25.1 teams.

so about a 0.5 SRS differential in skewing for russell. but the difference in their opponents was 1.9 so it would be 1.4 after adjusting.

But if they faced generally even opponents and Russell won almost twice as many rings and made the finals twice as much, I would definitely give the edge to Russell. Even accounting for the extra series' Jordan played, I don't think extra first-round series should count for that much.

just using regular season SRS and playing out the playoffs, i have russell with 7.0 expected titles and jordan with 2.9. now i don't know if winning 11 when expecting 7 or winning 6 when expecting 2.9 is better. more extra titles for russell but only 57% above expected, less extra titles for jordan but over 100% above expected. jordan did manage to win every season with better than a 6.3% chance, which is ridiculous, while russell lost 30% and 71% chances, but russell also converted 7.1% and 13.5% chances so it probably evens out.

of course, russell should have more expected titles, as jordan didn't join the best team in the league his rookie year like russell did.

[E-Balla]

just using regular season SRS and playing out the playoffs, i have russell with 7.0 expected titles and jordan with 2.9. now i don't know if winning 11 when expecting 7 or winning 6 when expecting 2.9 is better. more extra titles for russell but only 57% above expected, less extra titles for jordan but over 100% above expected. jordan did manage to win every season with better than a 6.3% chance, which is ridiculous, while russell lost 30% and 71% chances, but russell also converted 7.1% and 13.5% chances so it probably evens out.

of course, russell should have more expected titles, as jordan didn't join the best team in the league his rookie year like russell did.

Ehh... The Celtics were the 2nd best team in the league without him in 56, but they were usually towards the middle of the league in the post Cousy pre Bill era.

[f4p]

just using regular season SRS and playing out the playoffs, i have russell with 7.0 expected titles and jordan with 2.9. now i don't know if winning 11 when expecting 7 or winning 6 when expecting 2.9 is better. more extra titles for russell but only 57% above expected, less extra titles for jordan but over 100% above expected. jordan did manage to win every season with better than a 6.3% chance, which is ridiculous, while russell lost 30% and 71% chances, but russell also converted 7.1% and 13.5% chances so it probably evens out.

of course, russell should have more expected titles, as jordan didn't join the best team in the league his rookie year like russell did.

Ehh... The Celtics were the 2nd best team in the league without him in 56, but they were usually towards the middle of the league in the post Cousy pre Bill era.

well, russell didn't join the 1957 celtics until after 24 games into the season because of the olympics. the celtics were already 16-8, which would put them on pace to finish 48-24, 10 games ahead of the next best team at 38-34. they actually had a worse record with russell at 28-20. now maybe they just got hot those first 24 games, but being on pace for 10 more wins than 2nd place feels like they were probably the best.