What's the GOAT Ceiling Raising Peak?

[McBubbles]

Despite Russell's reputation for winning with ultra stacked supporting casts, he has some of the best ceiling raising performances in NBA history. In 1960-1964 he dominated in a way that none of his in era peers did. From 1968-1969 he beat an ATG level defending champ and a super team with mediocre support.

Kareem from 1971 to 1972 put up a top tier SRS with little evidence of top tier support and showed excellent resiliency the next year.

Lebron from 2016 to 2017 put up ATG results with middling support whilst knocking out an ATG opponent in the previous year, after having already shown excellent resilience in 2015.

Which do you think was the GOAT Ceiling Raising stretch?

[falcolombardi]

Lebron for sure as his prime is still the peak of basketball value across any era

[EmpireFalls]

No mention of Jorgambler?

[AEnigma]

Weird years.

Relative to era, probably need to go with prime Russell in a time when I think you could win multiple titles with him as a starting centre on all but the absolute worst teams. Today’s game, yeah, Lebron, but that is more about taking the best and most dynamic player than it is about any particular “ceiling raising” considerations.

[McBubbles]

No mention of Jorgambler?

I'm just not seeing a strong case here. His argument would really just be team results and Russell obviously beats him there.

You could use on/off but we don't have it for Kareem and Russell and honestly i'm more impressed with Lebron's on/off being pretty close given the greater minutes sample, him staggering more, and him basically sacrificing 4 years of his prime by playing power forward while Jordan's worst off isn't even included.

Honestly, I'm more impressed with Magic in terms of just analytics. Him making multiple finals without Kareem and an injured worthy is very impressive. Furthermore Jordan's teams keep looking much better without him when he's not involved at all, even in 1995.

MJ is also seemingly the least versatile in terms of who he can fit with. You basically can't have high volume shot takers if you want to keep team chemistry and he's the worst of the four in terms of leadership. That and volume scoring doesn't seem correlated very highly with impact relative to other more commonly found ATG archetypes (passing playmaker, rim protector, etc).

[Dutchball97]

I guess I just have a very different definition of ceiling raising. To me it's about players who can make an already good team into an even better one. Probably counterintuitive to my point but the clearest example of this for me is KD joining the Warriors in 2017 and making an already championship caliber team into the best team ever. Floor raising on the other hand would be about doing as much as possible with little help. Kareem in 1977 and Jokic in 2022 are my preferred examples of this as they made the play-offs without even a single above average starter.

The options listed all had at least decent supporting casts around them so it feels more like the peaks you view as the most impactful in general.

[OhayoKD]

Russell is obvious from a CORP perspective I think

Despite Russell's reputation for winning with ultra stacked supporting casts, he has some of the best ceiling raising performances in NBA history. In 1960-1964 he dominated in a way that none of his in era peers did. From 1968-1969 he beat an ATG level defending champ and a super team with mediocre support.

Not mentioned here are the 68 Lakers, who posted the best m.o.v in nba history at that point when west was in the lineup, and the 69 Knicks who would win two championships in short order with the core they faced the Celtics with(traded for DD mid-season)

In fairness injuries helped the 68 Celtics against the Sixers.

[OhayoKD]

I guess I just have a very different definition of ceiling raising. To me it's about players who can make an already good team into an even better one. Probably counterintuitive to my point but the clearest example of this for me is KD joining the Warriors in 2017 and making an already championship caliber team into the best team ever. Floor raising on the other hand would be about doing as much as possible with little help. Kareem in 1977 and Jokic in 2022 are my preferred examples of this as they made the play-offs without even a single above average starter.

The options listed all had at least decent supporting casts around them so it feels more like the peaks you view as the most impactful in general.

The way ceiling raising is generally used, I'd say it's really "who can lift a team that is x good the most". It wouldn't really have much meaning to any ranking if it was "i can lead a team as good as yours with better teammates".

Obviously floor-raisers can cieling raise and vice versa but in the spirit of the thread, 2009, 1977, 1974 are all "top impact" years that seem to be excluded specifically because the final result wasn't good enough.

All the teams here won at least one "strong" championship and performed impressively against one top-calibre opponent excepting the 60-64 Celtics which were running an 8 peat

[Dutchball97]

I guess I just have a very different definition of ceiling raising. To me it's about players who can make an already good team into an even better one. Probably counterintuitive to my point but the clearest example of this for me is KD joining the Warriors in 2017 and making an already championship caliber team into the best team ever. Floor raising on the other hand would be about doing as much as possible with little help. Kareem in 1977 and Jokic in 2022 are my preferred examples of this as they made the play-offs without even a single above average starter.

The options listed all had at least decent supporting casts around them so it feels more like the peaks you view as the most impactful in general.

The way ceiling raising is generally used, I'd say it's really "who can lift a team that is x good the most". It wouldn't really have much meaning to any ranking if it was "i can lead a team as good as yours with better teammates".

Obviously floor-raisers can cieling raise and vice versa but in the spirit of the thread, 2009, 1977, 1974 are all "top impact" years that seem to be excluded specifically because the final result wasn't good enough.

All the teams here won at least one "strong" championship and performed impressively against one top-calibre opponent excepting the 60-64 Celtics which were running an 8 peat

If the criteria is having a lot of impact on a title winning team, beating other strong teams, while having as little help as possible, shouldn't 1994 Hakeem and 2003 Duncan be at the top of the list?

[Djoker]

I'd say 1960-64 Russell whose team won five consecutive titles. It was certainly a solid cast but the value he added as a GOAT rim protector is what lead to these titles. In that games he missed, those teams looked nothing like championship contenders.

[OhayoKD]

I guess I just have a very different definition of ceiling raising. To me it's about players who can make an already good team into an even better one. Probably counterintuitive to my point but the clearest example of this for me is KD joining the Warriors in 2017 and making an already championship caliber team into the best team ever. Floor raising on the other hand would be about doing as much as possible with little help. Kareem in 1977 and Jokic in 2022 are my preferred examples of this as they made the play-offs without even a single above average starter.

The options listed all had at least decent supporting casts around them so it feels more like the peaks you view as the most impactful in general.

The way ceiling raising is generally used, I'd say it's really "who can lift a team that is x good the most". It wouldn't really have much meaning to any ranking if it was "i can lead a team as good as yours with better teammates".

Obviously floor-raisers can cieling raise and vice versa but in the spirit of the thread, 2009, 1977, 1974 are all "top impact" years that seem to be excluded specifically because the final result wasn't good enough.

All the teams here won at least one "strong" championship and performed impressively against one top-calibre opponent excepting the 60-64 Celtics which were running an 8 peat

If the criteria is having a lot of impact on a title winning team, beating other strong teams, while having as little help as possible, shouldn't 1994 Hakeem and 2003 Duncan be at the top of the list?

Well the criteria(and if i'm misrepresenting you op, feel free to correct) is something like "most impact on team at least x good" and I'd guess the OP would quibble with Hakeen and Duncan's impact being on par with the three picked.

I would consider Hakeem and Duncan strong cieling raising years regardless because I think a filter beyond "title" stretches utility(not to mention them winning again in short order) but the delta isn't as high statistically(though Kareem's advantage is somewhat murkier).

[EmpireFalls]

Could the answer be Jokić? It requires a certain roster (one with athletic runners and defenders and a scoring guard who’s just missing that central offensive hub) but the case could be made. He’s not really that ball dominant.

[Special_Puppy]

Could the answer be Jokić? It requires a certain roster (one with athletic runners and defenders and a scoring guard who’s just missing that central offensive hub) but the case could be made. He’s not really that ball dominant.

Its really hard to say because Jokic has never had a great supporting cast.

[Special_Puppy]

Jordan should be here lol

[EmpireFalls]

No mention of Jorgambler?

I'm just not seeing a strong case here. His argument would really just be team results and Russell obviously beats him there.

You could use on/off but we don't have it for Kareem and Russell and honestly i'm more impressed with Lebron's on/off being pretty close given the greater minutes sample, him staggering more, and him basically sacrificing 4 years of his prime by playing power forward while Jordan's worst off isn't even included.

Honestly, I'm more impressed with Magic in terms of just analytics. Him making multiple finals without Kareem and an injured worthy is very impressive. Furthermore Jordan's teams keep looking much better without him when he's not involved at all, even in 1995.

MJ is also seemingly the least versatile in terms of who he can fit with. You basically can't have high volume shot takers if you want to keep team chemistry and he's the worst of the four in terms of leadership. That and volume scoring doesn't seem correlated very highly with impact relative to other more commonly found ATG archetypes (passing playmaker, rim protector, etc).

Sorry but this just seems like some sort of vendetta to Jordan. I’m not saying he wins the argument but to say he doesn’t deserve a place at the table in this conversation is lunacy.

His on off metrics are absolutely up there with anyone’s and as for the fit, the volume scoring thing, if it’s Michael Jordan we’re talking about that’s selling him short heavily. Having a perimeter who can go by anyone and basically requires a double team on every PnR is pretty valuable, especially if such player happens to be a very good passer and an all-world defender.

[VanWest82]

Leaving aside the elephant in the room with this thread, I've always considered Russell to be more of a floor raiser than ceiling raiser. The Cousy Celtics were #1 on offense three years in a row in the mid 50s with top2 and top3 offenses bookending that. Then Bill shows up and it's 13 straight years of below average to downright bad offense before finally recovering in 71-72 after Bill has retired.

No one is that unlucky. With Russell on your team, your defense is really good no matter who the other guys are, but there appears to be a ceiling to how good the offense can be.

[rk2023]

As I have said before, I think of Russell as the ultimate floor raiser in actuality - with a case to be made to be the ultimate ceiling raiser in theory.

I feel like both of these can be soundly defended

[70sFan]

Leaving aside the elephant in the room with this thread, I've always considered Russell to be more of a floor raiser than ceiling raiser. The Cousy Celtics were #1 on offense three years in a row in the mid 50s with top2 and top3 offenses bookending that. Then Bill shows up and it's 13 straight years of below average to downright bad offense before finally recovering in 71-72 after Bill has retired.

No one is that unlucky. With Russell on your team, your defense is really good no matter who the other guys are, but there appears to be a ceiling to how good the offense can be.

More recent estimations actually show that Celtics were better than that in the first half of his career.

[Dutchball97]

No mention of Jorgambler?

I'm just not seeing a strong case here. His argument would really just be team results and Russell obviously beats him there.

You could use on/off but we don't have it for Kareem and Russell and honestly i'm more impressed with Lebron's on/off being pretty close given the greater minutes sample, him staggering more, and him basically sacrificing 4 years of his prime by playing power forward while Jordan's worst off isn't even included.

Honestly, I'm more impressed with Magic in terms of just analytics. Him making multiple finals without Kareem and an injured worthy is very impressive. Furthermore Jordan's teams keep looking much better without him when he's not involved at all, even in 1995.

MJ is also seemingly the least versatile in terms of who he can fit with. You basically can't have high volume shot takers if you want to keep team chemistry and he's the worst of the four in terms of leadership. That and volume scoring doesn't seem correlated very highly with impact relative to other more commonly found ATG archetypes (passing playmaker, rim protector, etc).

The bolded part seems like a double-edged sword to me. Yes, rim protectors and primary playmakers generally grade out as the most impactful individuals on a basketball court but isn't it also true that when you already have a capable rim protector or primary playmaker, that adding another one brings quickly diminishing returns?

For example adding Russell to the Lakers in 68 might just result in the GOAT team but adding Russell to the 76ers would likely be a marginal upgrade at best, if they improve at all with him. Or Magic would be able to lift a lot of teams to amazing heights but put him on the Jazz with Stockton and you're not getting the most out of either of them.

On the flipside you can pretty much keep adding wings to a team without it ever really becoming a detriment. Someone like Kawhi is going to be able to lift just about any team regardless of what personnel they already have, while the results for playmakers and rim protectors seem much more team dependent.

That's also why I don't buy MJ being harder to fit into teams than Russell, Kareem or even LeBron. Even if MJ's high usage and his combative attitude towards teammates doesn't make him necessarily the most ideal ceiling raiser either.

[Djoker]

Leaving aside the elephant in the room with this thread, I've always considered Russell to be more of a floor raiser than ceiling raiser. The Cousy Celtics were #1 on offense three years in a row in the mid 50s with top2 and top3 offenses bookending that. Then Bill shows up and it's 13 straight years of below average to downright bad offense before finally recovering in 71-72 after Bill has retired.

No one is that unlucky. With Russell on your team, your defense is really good no matter who the other guys are, but there appears to be a ceiling to how good the offense can be.

More recent estimations actually show that Celtics were better than that in the first half of his career.

This is correct. Russell's Celtics were actually good on offense in the early years then slightly below average with one bad year in 1964 then above average again in the later years.

rORtg
1957: +2.2
1958: +1.4
1959: +1.7
1960: +2.5
1961: -1.4
1962: +0.9
1963: -0.6
1964: -2.4
1965: -0.4
1966: -0.5
1967: +2.3
1968: +0.5
1969: +0.1