CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP)

[TheGOATRises007]

I mean I need his source, because the net rating numbers I see for the 94 Bulls are a giant difference from 93 and SRS is usually analogous with those numbers being similar.

As for the statement of switching FGs by Pippen from 1 year to another, that's a very illogical experiment. You can do that kind of experiment for every game ever played. Like at that point, you can try to retcon every single result ever. Why just stop with the 93 and 94 Bulls? You can swap FGs made between 1 player in consecutive match-ups in the playoffs endlessly. Swap Wade's FGs from game 4 in the 2013-2014 finals. The Heat lose game 4 in 2013 and they're down 3-1. Surely you can see the absurdity in such hypotheticals. That's such a wild hypothetical, that it's silly to entertain. I don't even understand why anyone would try to argue in such a manner.

How exactly did the Bulls play to a 52 win pace without Grant-pre MJ in 95? Their metrics all fell down from the prior season pre-MJ. What numbers support them playing to a 52 win pace? If you cite falcolombardi again, we need his actual source and the methodology for those numbers.

[OhayoKD]

:
Well we're doing it with both teams(and using a better full-strength rating than either 91 or 93 of +10), so I think it's fair.

As for the source:

(For the sake of fairness I'll point out 08/09 Garnett played significantly less minutes)

Now adjust for competition.

You may be tempted to dismiss it as a fluke but the Bulls played at a 52-win pace without Grant in 95(pre-MJ). As it is, variance arguably swung against the Bulls in the Knicks series:

The Knicks trailed in the 4th quarter for the first three games and only narrowly won their two home fixtures. "Should have swept" is a uh, interesting interpretation of events. Kukoc's "miracle shot" was to avoid overtime and the Bulls proceeded to win the next game by double digits.

(before you say "gravity", remember Pippen was more efficient in the 94 playoffs than the 93 run)

Regardless, while +5 to +8 might make a difference in a comparison to 2015 Lebron, 08/09 KG, or rookie Kareem, it's a moot point in a comparison to 69 Russell. The Bulls could literally be a .500 supporting cast and Jordan's "lift" would still fall short.

I mean I need his source, because the net rating numbers I see for the 94 Bulls are a giant difference from 93 and SRS is usually analogous with those numbers being similar.

As for the statement in bolded, that's a very illogical experiment. You can do that kind of experiment for every game ever played. That's such a wild hypothetical, that it's silly to entertain. I don't like basing arguments on hypotheticals. They fall flat to me.

How exactly did the Bulls play to a 52 win pace without Grant-pre MJ in 95? Their metrics all fell down from the prior season pre-MJ.

I believe falco hand-calced and then Aenigma corrected(don't remember the specific website they pulled from), and they match what we get with Ben Taylor's full-strength ratings from his backpicks articles:

Pippen’s non-Jordan seasons were particularly impressive because of the overall heights of the team. In ’94, the Bulls played at a 55-win pace when healthy (4.7 SRS). There was undoubtably malaise during the 1993 season after deep postseason runs and the Barcelona Olympics, so a direct comparison between ’93 and ’94 is apples-to-oranges. Still, the ’94 Bulls added Toni Kukoc and Luc Longley, replaced Jordan with a defensive-centric Pete Myers, and posted close-to-contending results. In 1995, with key cog Horace Grant lost to Orlando (and Ron Harper aboard), a healthy Bulls team still played at a 52-win pace (3.8 SRS) with an rORtg of +1.1 before Michael Jordan returned.

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/

I don't see a playoff-only rating on ben's website but it can be derived from taking the points differential and then the srs of the opponents(I'm guessing srs from falco's calc was also full-strength but I don't remember. If not, then the playoff rating would actually undersell the Bulls)

As for the statement of switching FGs by Pippen from 1 year to another, that's a very illogical experiment. You can do that kind of experiment for every game ever played. Like at that point, you can try to retcon every single result ever. Why just stop with the 93 and 94 Bulls? You can swap FGs made between 1 player in consecutive match-ups in the playoffs endlessly. Swap Wade's FGs from game 4 in the 2013-2014 finals. The Heat lose game 4 in 2013 and they're down 3-1. Surely you can see the absurdity in such hypotheticals. That's such a wild hypothetical, that it's silly to entertain. I don't even understand why anyone would try to argue in such a manner.

Am pointing that out for posterity because it's a common belief for some reason the 94 Bulls performance was a one-off non-replicable fluke. I'm fine with you taking the data as it is, but I wanted to pre-empt "bulls were lucky" since ppl legitimately argue that even here("knicks should have swept" was literally argued unironically in a thread on the front page.

[TheGOATRises007]

The Bulls playing to a 3.8 SRS pace pre-MJ when healthy in 95 seems unfounded to me, because they were pretty healthy that season and their net ratings were porous to start that season. I like Ben Taylor's work, but he could have explained how he got to that number.

The players who missed more significant time grade out as negative and neutral impact.

In terms of the playoff-only rating, from a quick glance of the playoffs series of the 93 and 94 Bulls, there's still a sizable gap in SRS. If we only limited it to the 1st 2 rounds(since we don't know how the 94 Bulls fare further on if they progressed), the gap increases.

[TheGOATRises007]

"Am pointing that out for posterity because it's a common belief for some reason the 94 Bulls performance was a one-off non-replicable fluke. I'm fine with you taking the data as it is, but I wanted to pre-empt "bulls were lucky" since ppl legitimately argue that even here("knicks should have swept" was literally argued unironically in a thread on the front page."

They argued that here on the PC board or the GB board? Either way, it's an argument not in good faith.

And I've seen arguments about the Knicks getting lucky in that series to be fair regarding the contentious call in game 5.

There's much better ways to curb talk of the Bulls being 'lucky' than to switch FGs of Pippen. That's just nonsensical for any purpose.

[OhayoKD]

The Bulls playing to a 3.8 SRS pace pre-MJ when healthy in 95 seems unfounded to me, because they were pretty healthy that season and their net ratings were porous to start that season. I like Ben Taylor's work, but he could have explained how he got to that number.

Would it not just be him taking the games with all the starters and then calculating their SRS? The result's been replicated so I'm willing to trust it for now. You can also look up "1995 Bulls net-rating without Jordan" and it'll say +4.7

The players who missed more significant time grade out as negative and neutral impact.

By what measure? We don't have regular season on/off for the Bulls pre-1997 to my knowledge.

In terms of the playoff-only rating, from a quick glance of the playoffs series of the 93 and 94 Bulls, there's still a sizable gap in SRS. If we only limited it to the 1st 2 rounds(since we don't know how the 94 Bulls fare further on if they progressed), the gap increases.

I mean, that excludes 2 dramatically less impressive series performances(statistically at least) including one against a weaker version of the team that stopped the 94 Bulls from advancing further. I think it's better to just take the average.

Regardless, for comparison:

Round 1: Atlanta Hawks (-0.7), won 3-0, by +16.4 points per game (+15.7 SRS eq)
Round 2: Cleveland Cavaliers (+8.1), won 4-0, by +8.5 points per game (+16.6 SRS eq)BBR says the 93 cavs were [b]+6.3 but I don't know if that's an inaccuracy or some sort of full-strength adjustment. If it's the former than the correct rating would be +14.4)
Round 3: New York Knicks (+5.0), won 4-2, by +4.7 points per game (+9.7 SRS eq)
Round 4: Phoenix Suns (+4.8), won 4-2, by +0.0 points per game (+4.8 SRS eq)

[/quote]
They don't include the 94 Bulls so i' had to hand-calc(feel free to vet, i'm just going off bbr)
94 Bulls were +6.3 vs the +3.64 Cavs(+9.94) in the first round
They were +1.14 vs the +6.48 Knicks(+7.62)

Eyeballing it, first two round gap is bigger than the regular season gap, average gap is smaller, though if I was going to weigh the various series differently, I'd probably put the most weight on the Knicks one as that they were the stiffest opponent for both teams(and ultimately for championship probability, how you perform vs better opponents is probably more important than how much you blow-out teams by in sweeps.) If nothing else, the +8 po rating falco provided seems accurate. Take sansterre putting the 93 Bulls at +10.08 and you +2 for the playoffs.

Not that the approach you choose really matters in a comparison to 69 Russell.

From a practical standpoint, being extremely competitive with a team that came within a possession of winning the finals in 6 suggests a ginormous gap in terms of championship prospects compared to a team missing the playoffs and the Celtics ended up beating better opposition anyway.

[jalengreen]

When did I say anything about the 69 Celtics not winning as many RS games as the 15 Hawks or that championship likelihood is about winning a particular number of RS games? I am not going to waste time with someone putting words in my mouth again so quit this basic nonsense. You pointed out the Celtics' wins after Russell retired and I merely gave the full picture by pointing out their number of wins with him for comparison.

Here are the words you yourself put in your own mouth:

48 to 34 wins isn't a historic dropoff

Here is the larger point you are arguing:

if your own definition of who is "better" is who increased championship likelihood more.

You are either
A. applying modern-tresholds to argue that the regular season record did not drop by enough to qualify as a "historic" drop in championship probability
B. making a point that doesn't actually support your larger claim

Additionally, despite specifically using "variance" as a reason to dismiss the fact the Celtics won as evidence, you are using record instead of SRS which places the Celtics as a 55-win team. A 7-point srs drop off is actually "historic" even if you were only concerned with raw srs. In the context of the 60's, 55-wins typically made you a clear-championship favorite. In the context of 1969, it put them right up there with the best teams in the league. Whether you use the macro of "era"(era-relative) or the micro of "1969", going from outlier(macro) or arguably league-best(micro) to below average(-1.5 SRS, 35-wins) is not only "historic", but virtually unheard of

The Celtics SRS(+5.35) was right at the top with the rest of the league in a decade where +4 teams were special:

In a season where 5 such outliers popped up(and per your contribution, a +4 team that was arguably actually a unprecedented(russell excepted) +8.2, the Celtics still won.

So your definition of an outlier in 1969 is based on leaguewide distribution during 1962-65? How is that relevant in any way?
That's like saying SGA is the leading scorer in 2023 because he averaged more points than anyone during 2008-13.

Are you really asking how "outlier relative to era" is relevant to an "era-relative" framing. Are the KD-Warriors as tough as the 2014 spurs because they were both the best teams in the league?

Not that this really helps because, again, the Celtics literally beat the teams that posted the best, 3rd best(excepting the Celtics themselves), and 5th best srs. Based on "league-wide distribution" that still qualifies as an absurdly tough gauntlet(Jordan, Lebron, and Shaq have never faced equivalent competition based on "season-wide team distribution"). The Celtics ran through a gauntlet(absurd to very absurd depending on if we go by season or era) and then fell to below average the next year. Barring a solid case for the Celtics without Russell getting substantially worse as a collective, this would qualify as an unrivalled carry-job(that culmanated in a championship).

[spoiler]
Sam Jones scored 1.8 points more than Bailey Howell while shooting 7-points worse on a mediocre offense. This wasn't 2023. A <30 mpg role player does not suddenly stop becoming a role player because he's "the second highest scorer" on a team that gained the entirety of it's (unrivalled) separation on defense. Russell's best teammate improving significantly the following year is more note-worthy and it wasn't the only improvement for the roster:

If "but 41 fg% scorer sam jones left!" is your only point here, then I think "basically the same" works just fine:

You quoting two other posters who also pointed out Sam Jones left along with Russell isn't the flex you think it is. Even if you want to call Sam Jones the third highest scorer behind Howell, that's still relevant to point out in terms of roster changes rather than pretending like he never existed.

I said "virtually" identical, as in, the roster didn't change to a degree significant enough to expect a significant drop-off indepdent of Bill. Unless you want to contest that hondo improving dramtically(and whatever other positives are at play) was outweighed by the celtics losing a distant third best scorer for an average offense who was being given role player minute, this doesn't actually function as a counter.

Ad populum... do you have Wilt top 4 in 1969 yourself? You name dropped him hoping that nobody would catch that 69 Wilt was not the same caliber of player as he was before.

I am of the opinion WIlt was still a top 4 player, But I obliged you and referenced the rankings of PC-projects. As Wilt being 2nd best or 6th doesn't matter for my argument I'm not going to waste time challenging that.

"Russell merely beat the 2nd, 6th and 10th best players in the finals" - was he playing 1 vs 3 by himself? Rather convenient for you to leave out Havlicek's results in POY voting because a team with the 1st and 7th best player beating a team with the 2nd and 6th best player doesn't sound so impressive anymore. And if you are going to trash Sam Jones as a role player, you should do the same for Elgin Baylor too considering his playoffs performance if you are being consistent.

What exactly do you think I was pointing out all this for...

We know the core from the early superteam had mostly faded and retired by 61. And we know it didn't stop the Celtics from winning 5 more.

1. Won a championship as a player coach with a team that would proceed to win 35 games without him with a virtually identical roster and went 3-5 without him in the season itself

There's also the Celtics falling from "easily the best team in the regular season" to "easily the best team in the regular season" when his teammates missed time.

Russell's best teammate improving significantly the following year is more note-worthy and it wasn't the only improvement for the roster

Your counter to this was..."they lost their second leading scorer". Hondo saw his efficiency and volume spike the following year as the offense improved by 2-points. What is your basis for Sam Jones's scoring 16ppg on horrific efficiency covering that gap?

Considering the Finals was a close 7 game series and one of their wins was by 1 point on a last second game winner, yes, there was luck involved. Especially since Russell himself was on the bench during that game winning possession and had nothing to do with it. Just because the Celtics won plenty of rings in the years before does not mean the ring in 1969 was guaranteed.

Why do you think the bar here is "100% chance of winning" for Russell to clear everyone else. How often do 35-win teams win championships. How often do 35-win teams plus a superstar win championships? It is not enough to say "variance" because "variance" can go either way. Russell picked up 5 fouls enabling the Lakers near-comeback in the first place(game 7 was previously looking to be a blowout). Jerry west had maybe the best series of his career. When the probability starts at almost zero(barring a case that the 35-wins the next season is not indicative), beating the best, second best, and 5th best opponent to clinch a championship reflects a massive increase in championship likelihood. "It could be variance" is not support for "69 russell was not a goat-level peak" it is support for "i don't know how good it was", and from a probabilistic perspective as things stand Russell being ahead of goat-level peaks is more likely than the reverse(at least based on the evidence both of us have presented).Moreover, if you are questioning what is a historic disparity between cast performance and cast+star performance on the basis of variance then it makes sense to look elsewhere to see if things are replicated. And in this case, it doesn't really matter what relationship you assume between 1969 and the other seasons in terms of goodness..

Yes. Career WOWY, Olympics, college performance are so relevant in a season specific thread

There are three possible scenarios.
1. Bill Russell was better in 1969 than he was for the previous 10 titles(in which case 69 Russell was a good enough season to win 11 championships in 13 years)
2. Bill Russell was as good as he was in 1969(ditto as above)
3. Bill Russell was worse than he was before(which would mean the previous versions of russell were also capable of lifting a 35-win team past an unrivalled gauntlet of competition)

IOW, 69 Russell is either
-> a better version of someone who always won
-> as good a version of someone who always won
-> or a worse version of someone who always won

And at this point, you haven't been able to make an argument against Russell's 69 representing unrivalled championship lift beyond an expression of uncertainty.

That he always won makes it less likely you can dismiss the gigantic gap(unless you think shaq, jordan, and lebron are likely to win a title or at least have a good chance of winning titles against dominant competition in similar situations(what they've actually managed with rosters that performed this way without them suggests otherwise)) simply as a matter of "variance".



It seems like you think it's wrong to assume players are capable of what they were in surrounding years barring a dramatic and discernable change. Fine, but in this case, because Russell has never failed to win when healthy, and 69 represents a gigiantic lift in performance.

If you want to make the claim that 69 Russell > 88 Jordan, just say it outright instead of being vague about it.

I am asking the board for a comparison with literally any season from any player(from after Russell's retirement) not named Bill. Unless you are just assuming drastic year to year changes just coz, what Jordan did in 88-90 with "Limited'(90 not really but whatever) support is relevant yeah, but you are welcome to offer positive arguments(as in reasoning that supports season a is better than season b) with the assumption that only data from the season in question is indicative.

I meant best case scenario as in even if I had Russell as my GOAT, the man did not have ten seasons above all the other best peaks in NBA history. I thought that would be obvious but clearly not since you keep equating Russell's 1969 season to his whole career.

If your assertion is "Obvious" you should have no issue backing it up. Definitive language rings hollow when you don't have anything concrete supporting your position.

They did regress though.

Sure. But the gap from championship vs weaker opposition(celtics beat the best, second best, and 5th best possible opponents, all of whom were outliers for the decade) to championship contention is is much smaller than the gap from beating a "most difficult ever?" gauntlet to below average/not even making the playoffs.

92-93: SRS: 6.19 (4th of 27) Pace: 92.5 (27th of 27)

Off Rtg: 112.9 (2nd of 27) Def Rtg: 106.1 (7th of 27) Net Rtg: +6.8 (2nd of 27)

93-94: SRS: 2.87 (11th of 27) Pace: 91.9 (25th of 27)

Off Rtg: 106.1 (14th of 27) Def Rtg: 102.7 (6th of 27) Net Rtg: +3.3 (11th of 27)

Regression carries over into the playoffs and the PC board didn't vote 93 Jordan as his peak to be fair.

Your numbers ignore that the 94 Bulls two best players missed more games than they did during the three-peat years. At full-strength the 94 Bulls were at a +5 team that improved in the postseason(+8 playoffs-only).

91 is not 93, but we're using a full-strength rating derived from the best scoring year from the three-peat(92). Alternatively, you can also use 88-90(remember, the 90 Bulls posted the same offense as the 91 Bulls post ASB and had the same differential until they ran into a much better version of the Pistons) and as I've mentioned before, a generous assumption that all of the Bull's improvement from 84 to 88 was a result of dpoy+scoring title Mike only gets him improving a bad team to fringe contention. The 90 Bulls(led by a version of Jordan that posted comparable box-stuff to 91 MJ against better competition and has better defensive film-tracking, on/off, ect.) did not come close to replicating what the 69 Celtics managed despite facing much weaker opposition(and as we seem to agree, he didn't have weak support).

People on this board are always in-depth with examining analytical data, but they only point to the -2 in wins as a sign that the regression was minuscule.

Okay, but at the moment, the people of the "board"(atm, me)generously replaced the 93 regular season data for the Bulls with their full-strength 92 regular season data(+10) potentially exaggerating the actual drop-off and then generously assumed Jordan was the only reason the Bulls got any better between 84 and 88(Oakley doesn't exist IG).

This extrapolation is skewed towards Mike. He still looks alot worse than Russell.

What do you think about 2016 LeBron? Cavs were pretty bad without him & with him, they beat a 73 win team.

[OhayoKD]

Here are the words you yourself put in your own mouth:

48 to 34 wins isn't a historic dropoff

Here is the larger point you are arguing:

if your own definition of who is "better" is who increased championship likelihood more.

You are either
A. applying modern-tresholds to argue that the regular season record did not drop by enough to qualify as a "historic" drop in championship probability
B. making a point that doesn't actually support your larger claim

Additionally, despite specifically using "variance" as a reason to dismiss the fact the Celtics won as evidence, you are using record instead of SRS which places the Celtics as a 55-win team. A 7-point srs drop off is actually "historic" even if you were only concerned with raw srs. In the context of the 60's, 55-wins typically made you a clear-championship favorite. In the context of 1969, it put them right up there with the best teams in the league. Whether you use the macro of "era"(era-relative) or the micro of "1969", going from outlier(macro) or arguably league-best(micro) to below average(-1.5 SRS, 35-wins) is not only "historic", but virtually unheard of

So your definition of an outlier in 1969 is based on leaguewide distribution during 1962-65? How is that relevant in any way?
That's like saying SGA is the leading scorer in 2023 because he averaged more points than anyone during 2008-13.

Are you really asking how "outlier relative to era" is relevant to an "era-relative" framing. Are the KD-Warriors as tough as the 2014 spurs because they were both the best teams in the league?

Not that this really helps because, again, the Celtics literally beat the teams that posted the best, 3rd best(excepting the Celtics themselves), and 5th best srs. Based on "league-wide distribution" that still qualifies as an absurdly tough gauntlet(Jordan, Lebron, and Shaq have never faced equivalent competition based on "season-wide team distribution"). The Celtics ran through a gauntlet(absurd to very absurd depending on if we go by season or era) and then fell to below average the next year. Barring a solid case for the Celtics without Russell getting substantially worse as a collective, this would qualify as an unrivalled carry-job(that culmanated in a championship).

I said "virtually" identical, as in, the roster didn't change to a degree significant enough to expect a significant drop-off indepdent of Bill. Unless you want to contest that hondo improving dramtically(and whatever other positives are at play) was outweighed by the celtics losing a distant third best scorer for an average offense who was being given role player minute, this doesn't actually function as a counter.

Ad populum... do you have Wilt top 4 in 1969 yourself? You name dropped him hoping that nobody would catch that 69 Wilt was not the same caliber of player as he was before.

I am of the opinion WIlt was still a top 4 player, But I obliged you and referenced the rankings of PC-projects. As Wilt being 2nd best or 6th doesn't matter for my argument I'm not going to waste time challenging that.

"Russell merely beat the 2nd, 6th and 10th best players in the finals" - was he playing 1 vs 3 by himself? Rather convenient for you to leave out Havlicek's results in POY voting because a team with the 1st and 7th best player beating a team with the 2nd and 6th best player doesn't sound so impressive anymore. And if you are going to trash Sam Jones as a role player, you should do the same for Elgin Baylor too considering his playoffs performance if you are being consistent.

What exactly do you think I was pointing out all this for...

We know the core from the early superteam had mostly faded and retired by 61. And we know it didn't stop the Celtics from winning 5 more.

1. Won a championship as a player coach with a team that would proceed to win 35 games without him with a virtually identical roster and went 3-5 without him in the season itself

There's also the Celtics falling from "easily the best team in the regular season" to "easily the best team in the regular season" when his teammates missed time.

Russell's best teammate improving significantly the following year is more note-worthy and it wasn't the only improvement for the roster

Your counter to this was..."they lost their second leading scorer". Hondo saw his efficiency and volume spike the following year as the offense improved by 2-points. What is your basis for Sam Jones's scoring 16ppg on horrific efficiency covering that gap?

Considering the Finals was a close 7 game series and one of their wins was by 1 point on a last second game winner, yes, there was luck involved. Especially since Russell himself was on the bench during that game winning possession and had nothing to do with it. Just because the Celtics won plenty of rings in the years before does not mean the ring in 1969 was guaranteed.

Why do you think the bar here is "100% chance of winning" for Russell to clear everyone else. How often do 35-win teams win championships. How often do 35-win teams plus a superstar win championships? It is not enough to say "variance" because "variance" can go either way. Russell picked up 5 fouls enabling the Lakers near-comeback in the first place(game 7 was previously looking to be a blowout). Jerry west had maybe the best series of his career. When the probability starts at almost zero(barring a case that the 35-wins the next season is not indicative), beating the best, second best, and 5th best opponent to clinch a championship reflects a massive increase in championship likelihood. "It could be variance" is not support for "69 russell was not a goat-level peak" it is support for "i don't know how good it was", and from a probabilistic perspective as things stand Russell being ahead of goat-level peaks is more likely than the reverse(at least based on the evidence both of us have presented).Moreover, if you are questioning what is a historic disparity between cast performance and cast+star performance on the basis of variance then it makes sense to look elsewhere to see if things are replicated. And in this case, it doesn't really matter what relationship you assume between 1969 and the other seasons in terms of goodness..

Yes. Career WOWY, Olympics, college performance are so relevant in a season specific thread

There are three possible scenarios.
1. Bill Russell was better in 1969 than he was for the previous 10 titles(in which case 69 Russell was a good enough season to win 11 championships in 13 years)
2. Bill Russell was as good as he was in 1969(ditto as above)
3. Bill Russell was worse than he was before(which would mean the previous versions of russell were also capable of lifting a 35-win team past an unrivalled gauntlet of competition)

IOW, 69 Russell is either
-> a better version of someone who always won
-> as good a version of someone who always won
-> or a worse version of someone who always won

And at this point, you haven't been able to make an argument against Russell's 69 representing unrivalled championship lift beyond an expression of uncertainty.

That he always won makes it less likely you can dismiss the gigantic gap(unless you think shaq, jordan, and lebron are likely to win a title or at least have a good chance of winning titles against dominant competition in similar situations(what they've actually managed with rosters that performed this way without them suggests otherwise)) simply as a matter of "variance".



It seems like you think it's wrong to assume players are capable of what they were in surrounding years barring a dramatic and discernable change. Fine, but in this case, because Russell has never failed to win when healthy, and 69 represents a gigiantic lift in performance.

If you want to make the claim that 69 Russell > 88 Jordan, just say it outright instead of being vague about it.

I am asking the board for a comparison with literally any season from any player(from after Russell's retirement) not named Bill. Unless you are just assuming drastic year to year changes just coz, what Jordan did in 88-90 with "Limited'(90 not really but whatever) support is relevant yeah, but you are welcome to offer positive arguments(as in reasoning that supports season a is better than season b) with the assumption that only data from the season in question is indicative.

I meant best case scenario as in even if I had Russell as my GOAT, the man did not have ten seasons above all the other best peaks in NBA history. I thought that would be obvious but clearly not since you keep equating Russell's 1969 season to his whole career.

If your assertion is "Obvious" you should have no issue backing it up. Definitive language rings hollow when you don't have anything concrete supporting your position.

Sure. But the gap from championship vs weaker opposition(celtics beat the best, second best, and 5th best possible opponents, all of whom were outliers for the decade) to championship contention is is much smaller than the gap from beating a "most difficult ever?" gauntlet to below average/not even making the playoffs.

Your numbers ignore that the 94 Bulls two best players missed more games than they did during the three-peat years. At full-strength the 94 Bulls were at a +5 team that improved in the postseason(+8 playoffs-only).

91 is not 93, but we're using a full-strength rating derived from the best scoring year from the three-peat(92). Alternatively, you can also use 88-90(remember, the 90 Bulls posted the same offense as the 91 Bulls post ASB and had the same differential until they ran into a much better version of the Pistons) and as I've mentioned before, a generous assumption that all of the Bull's improvement from 84 to 88 was a result of dpoy+scoring title Mike only gets him improving a bad team to fringe contention. The 90 Bulls(led by a version of Jordan that posted comparable box-stuff to 91 MJ against better competition and has better defensive film-tracking, on/off, ect.) did not come close to replicating what the 69 Celtics managed despite facing much weaker opposition(and as we seem to agree, he didn't have weak support).

Okay, but at the moment, the people of the "board"(atm, me)generously replaced the 93 regular season data for the Bulls with their full-strength 92 regular season data(+10) potentially exaggerating the actual drop-off and then generously assumed Jordan was the only reason the Bulls got any better between 84 and 88(Oakley doesn't exist IG).

This extrapolation is skewed towards Mike. He still looks alot worse than Russell.

What do you think about 2016 LeBron? Cavs were pretty bad without him & with him, they beat a 73 win team.

Hmmm, not a bad shout, and you can get 2016 to look pretty insane if you' choose the right samples(30ish win can be turned into 20ish wins if you use wowy instead of lineup-ratings). You also get a degree of replication in 2015 and 2009(though them losing to hot-shooting underdog implies a consistent era-specific limitation in terms of "garunteeing" wins). but I think the biggest issue would be "competition". The Warriors are great but the Lakers are probably more akin to the 2018 dubs than the 2016 ones and then there's a big culf in-terms of intra-conference opposition.

Still, if you take the lowest end view of the cast and see it as Lebron propping a 20ish win team instead of a merely "below average" one, it's not a bad shout.

[Lou Fan]

I beat this drum to deaf ears in the most recent peaks project. Russ needs to be considered more seriously as a BOAT and frankly GOAT contender.

[Texas Chuck]

I beat this drum to deaf ears in the most recent peaks project. Russ needs to be considered more seriously as a BOAT and frankly GOAT contender.

He does. But he won't ever be because of era and lack of scoring dominance. Too many posters just won't consider any player not of the modern era who dominate primarily through offense. Even Tim Duncan can barely get a sniff. KG is some really bizarre exception that I've never understood. I'm guessing its just stylistic preference combined with too much emphasis on +/- data. But even KG while he has very vocal supporters can't generate enough widespread appeal.

Not sure what more Bill Russell legit needed to have done to be a more serious GOAT candidate. The only thing that truly matters he was the best we've ever seen. And the contemporary writing of the time shows people knew in real-time, players, coaches, dedicated media. They mostly weren't fooled by Wilt's absurd numbers. They knew Russell was the guy.

Only in hindsight do we put these arbitrary requirements that exclude him. It's never made sense.

[OhayoKD]

I beat this drum to deaf ears in the most recent peaks project. Russ needs to be considered more seriously as a BOAT and frankly GOAT contender.

He does. But he won't ever be because of era and lack of scoring dominance. Too many posters just won't consider any player not of the modern era who dominate primarily through offense. Even Tim Duncan can barely get a sniff. KG is some really bizarre exception that I've never understood. I'm guessing its just stylistic preference combined with too much emphasis on +/- data. But even KG while he has very vocal supporters can't generate enough widespread appeal.

Not sure what more Bill Russell legit needed to have done to be a more serious GOAT candidate. The only thing that truly matters he was the best we've ever seen. And the contemporary writing of the time shows people knew in real-time, players, coaches, dedicated media. They mostly weren't fooled by Wilt's absurd numbers. They knew Russell was the guy.

Only in hindsight do we put these arbitrary requirements that exclude him. It's never made sense.

"He was maybe willis reed level" when he beats wilt+west, and 3 of the top 4 possible opponents for a chip is quite a take

[Lou Fan]

I beat this drum to deaf ears in the most recent peaks project. Russ needs to be considered more seriously as a BOAT and frankly GOAT contender.

He does. But he won't ever be because of era and lack of scoring dominance. Too many posters just won't consider any player not of the modern era who dominate primarily through offense. Even Tim Duncan can barely get a sniff. KG is some really bizarre exception that I've never understood. I'm guessing its just stylistic preference combined with too much emphasis on +/- data. But even KG while he has very vocal supporters can't generate enough widespread appeal.

Not sure what more Bill Russell legit needed to have done to be a more serious GOAT candidate. The only thing that truly matters he was the best we've ever seen. And the contemporary writing of the time shows people knew in real-time, players, coaches, dedicated media. They mostly weren't fooled by Wilt's absurd numbers. They knew Russell was the guy.

Only in hindsight do we put these arbitrary requirements that exclude him. It's never made sense.

I think Russ is probably my GOAT pick as of now the more I learn about him the higher my evaluation of him and I think this pretty universally true of everyone but some people just don't take the time to learn about him because people just don't respect 60s hoops. Most people may as well just make GOAT lists starting from 1980.

I will admit I'm also a big KG guy (seems like someone you are not so fond of) but yes in general this archetype of guy (All time level defense+good but not all time offense) are the ones who are most consistently underrated and the iso specialists and the mega ball dominant guys are always the most overrated archetypes.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm pretty high on KG. I think he's a top 15 all-time guy. Just find it odd that we have some really vocal posters with some clear offensive requirements that waive them exclusively for that player.

I'm not anti-KG, though I know I have that rep. I'm against anytime we make exceptions for singular players. We see this same thing with Curry right now. The exact same narrative that certain posters use as a negative for literally every other player, they spin as a positive for Curry because he's become the poster boy for how they think basketball must be played.

Some of the theory guys fall in love with certain players and don't seem to realize its become a blind spot for them in their otherwise objective evaluation process. Once they decide a player is idealized, they reverse engineer to make sure that player is GOATed.

[ty 4191]

I'm pretty high on KG. I think he's a top 15 all-time guy. Just find it odd that we have some really vocal posters with some clear offensive requirements that waive them exclusively for that player.

I'm not anti-KG, though I know I have that rep. I'm against anytime we make exceptions for singular players. We see this same thing with Curry right now. The exact same narrative that certain posters use as a negative for literally every other player, they spin as a positive for Curry because he's become the poster boy for how they think basketball must be played.

Some of the theory guys fall in love with certain players and don't seem to realize its become a blind spot for them in their otherwise objective evaluation process. Once they decide a player is idealized, they reverse engineer to make sure that player is GOATed.

Yeah, but who has more "Rings"? Curry has far more than KG. Ergo, Curry must be a much greater player.

Rings are all that matter. It's that simple. No need for nuance, historical context, coaching, strength of teammates, suitability of a player within a team structure and framework, etc. etc.

"Rings" should be the end of every discussion!!! Suspend all critical thinking.

[Texas Chuck]

Yes I know this board loves to mock the very purpose of the endeavor. Why would we look at who contributed the most to the purpose of the activity? We are much better just looking at whose box scores are the prettiest.....We should never just count rings, but we definitely shouldn't treat a player like Russell whose teams won and won and won and won at every level because primarily of him as a punchline for RINGZ jokes either.

Its so needlessly and incorrectly reductive of one of the 2 or 3 best player of all-time. And maybe the singular best player honestly. I think its probably Lebron, but I'm not 100% sure its not Russell.

[OhayoKD]

Yes I know this board loves to mock the very purpose of the endeavor. Why would we look at who contributed the most to the purpose of the activity? We are much better just looking at whose box scores are the prettiest.....We should never just count rings, but we definitely shouldn't treat a player like Russell whose teams won and won and won and won at every level because primarily of him as a punchline for RINGZ jokes either.

Its so needlessly and incorrectly reductive of one of the 2 or 3 best player of all-time. And maybe the singular best player honestly. I think its probably Lebron, but I'm not 100% sure its not Russell.

But how can you be good if you don't average 20?

[Owly]

How exactly did the Bulls play to a 52 win pace without Grant-pre MJ in 95? Their metrics all fell down from the prior season pre-MJ. What numbers support them playing to a 52 win pace? If you cite falcolombardi again, we need his actual source and the methodology for those numbers.

Not taking a position on the broader debate. Looked up the gist of the question because I was curious.
I had MJ's return as versus Indiana. So first 65 are without MJ.
Not going to do the health thing, as you have said they were broadly healthy (probably above average at least, otoh) and it keeps it simpler so no health adjustment here. No schedule adjustment either. I wanted a simple big picture look here.
Chicago through 65 games are 34-31 but ... have scored 6555 points, conceded 6276. Plus 279 or plus 4.292307692 per game. For a full 82 that scales to 8269.384615 pts, 7917.415385 pts against and plus 351.9692308. They were, according to their points diff, unlucky. Check out the game results green and red bars on Reference for confirmation a lot of +10 and +20 games, few in those minus range, many in the small red area. At a glance I have their record in games decided by 2pts or fewer as 2-5; 4pts or fewer as 5-12 and 8pts or fewer as 10-20.

Not going to state this equates to a certain number of wins (pace) but points dif looks a lot better than W-L.

[Owly]

How exactly did the Bulls play to a 52 win pace without Grant-pre MJ in 95? Their metrics all fell down from the prior season pre-MJ. What numbers support them playing to a 52 win pace? If you cite falcolombardi again, we need his actual source and the methodology for those numbers.

Not taking a position on the broader debate. Looked up the gist of the question because I was curious.
I had MJ's return as versus Indiana. So first 65 are without MJ.
Not going to do the health thing, as you have said they were broadly healthy (probably above average at least, otoh) and it keeps it simpler so no health adjustment here. No schedule adjustment either. I wanted a simple big picture look here.
Chicago through 65 games are 34-31 but ... have scored 6555 points, conceded 6276. Plus 279 or plus 4.292307692 per game. For a full 82 that scales to 8269.384615 pts, 7917.415385 pts against and plus 351.9692308. They were, according to their points diff, unlucky. Check out the game results green and red bars on Reference for confirmation a lot of +10 and +20 games, few in those minus range, many in the small red area. At a glance I have their record in games decided by 2pts or fewer as 2-5; 4pts or fewer as 5-12 and 8pts or fewer as 10-20.

Not going to state this equates to a certain number of wins (pace) but points dif looks a lot better than W-L.

Did a brief look at wins off the pro rata 82 game pts scored and points against.

Lowest is a modified version of "Stumbling" wins at 52.26301538, highest is ESPN/Hollinger pythag wins at 55.11172479. Most pythag versions a little above 53.

[mstat13shuh]

1964 Wilt had a far better peak then 1969 Russell.

As he took a

36.9 PPG (League leader)

22.3 RPG

5.0 APG

52.4% FG

31.6 PER

.325 WS/48 (Career-high and league leader)

14.4 OWS

10.6 DWS (Career-high) *For reference, Olajuwon's career high was 8.7.

In the playoffs

Also in the playoffs for Wilt

Playoffs
-34.7 PPG (playoff leader)
-25.2 RPG
-3.3 APG
-54.3% FG (playoff leader)
-31.3 PER (Career high and playoff leader)
-.323 WS/48 (Career high and playoff leader)
-2.3 OWS (playoff leader)
-1.5 DWS

Wilt Chamberlain vs Hawks 1964 WCF: 38.6/23.4/3.9 on 55.9 FG% and 56.3 TS%




Finals (Against the greatest defender ever, Bill Russell)
-29.2 PPG
-27.6 RPG
-2.4 APG
-51.4% FG

His teammates shot a combined 34.8% and the Warriors lost in 5 through to his credit Wilt did make the games close.

100% true & I wish more would at least acknowledge Wilt for this & respect him for it.

[mstat13shuh]

Yes I know this board loves to mock the very purpose of the endeavor. Why would we look at who contributed the most to the purpose of the activity? We are much better just looking at whose box scores are the prettiest.....We should never just count rings, but we definitely shouldn't treat a player like Russell whose teams won and won and won and won at every level because primarily of him as a punchline for RINGZ jokes either.

Its so needlessly and incorrectly reductive of one of the 2 or 3 best player of all-time. And maybe the singular best player honestly. I think its probably Lebron, but I'm not 100% sure its not Russell.

But how can you be good if you don't average 20?

Well, as an example(1 of the best, if not the best, I feel, here)Wilt didn't average anywhere near 20ppg in his final 2 seasons, both regular season & playoff, yet I feel, even at that point in his career, he was one of the most dominant players, certainly one of the most dominant centers, if not the most dominant, in the game, whom I feel should've garnered more 71-72 RS MVP votes from the players, certainly at least as much as West, whom, at least to my knowledge, had more than him that season.

Now, could Wilt have averaged 20ppg or better his final 2 seasons? Wholeheartedly so.

But that's beside the point. It wasn't necessary for him to do so. That's the point.

[mstat13shuh]

I'm pretty high on KG. I think he's a top 15 all-time guy. Just find it odd that we have some really vocal posters with some clear offensive requirements that waive them exclusively for that player.

I'm not anti-KG, though I know I have that rep. I'm against anytime we make exceptions for singular players. We see this same thing with Curry right now. The exact same narrative that certain posters use as a negative for literally every other player, they spin as a positive for Curry because he's become the poster boy for how they think basketball must be played.

Some of the theory guys fall in love with certain players and don't seem to realize its become a blind spot for them in their otherwise objective evaluation process. Once they decide a player is idealized, they reverse engineer to make sure that player is GOATed.

Yeah, but who has more "Rings"? Curry has far more than KG. Ergo, Curry must be a much greater player.

Rings are all that matter. It's that simple. No need for nuance, historical context, coaching, strength of teammates, suitability of a player within a team structure and framework, etc. etc.

"Rings" should be the end of every discussion!!! Suspend all critical thinking.

Lol smh, so you're saying that Robert Horry is better than 99.99% of all remaining NBA/ABA players because he has 7 rings?

Or was this simply a sarcastic bit of commentary written out of sheer frustration?

Just wondering...