RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Time

[Baller 24]

Quick question, what makes Robertson and West a better candidate than someone like Nowitzki? Dirk led his team to an NBA championship as the sole leader with ZERO all-stars, while beating an all-time great talented team. West and Robertson were old, and on a loaded team carried by superior big men and perimeter talent. I've already got Garnett ahead of them both, but IMO Nowitzki deserves to be rightfully so. In 13 years his resume stacks up pretty well with both.

Nowitzki
NBA Champion/Finals MVP
NBA MVP
4x All-NBA First Team (Mind that he's competing with Garnett, Duncan, and James for All-NBA Firsts)
5x All-NBA Second Team
2x All-NBA Third Team
10x NBA All-Star

Robertson
NBA Champion (w/ MVP Kareem)
NBA MVP
12× NBA All-Star
9x All-NBA First Team
2x All-NBA Second team

West (14 Years)
9x Top 5 MVP vote getter
10x All-NBA First
1x All-NBA Second
4x All-NBA Defensive Teams
NBA Champion (w/Wilt/Goodrich)
Finals MVP (losing effort against Russell)

So please explain what makes Robertson and West so intriguing over someone like Dirk (I've already got Garnett ahead)?

[ElGee]

I guess since we're doing concurrent debating in the same thread (?), I'm going to expound on the nomination:

Karl Malone, by all accounts, should have this spot. In many ways, I could say "easily," but I suppose that depends on one's opinion of Karl Malone.

To me, this is a guy who at his peak is comparable to players like Barkley, Bryant, Wade and Jerry West. So the question becomes, how many years does Malone give you the impact? It's certainly not 14 years -- the number of times he was top-10 in MVP voting -- as his game certainly evolved and he had legitimate playoff struggles at times.

But there are two key aspects of Malone's career that are strongly overlooked:

(1) The Allen Iverson Solo Act: Judging players when they are the lone scoring star on their team is a bit tricky, because in the playoffs, against better defenses, teams will load up on the star. Just about every single player sees his shooting numbers decline...but arguably none more than Malone.

Only if you actually examine those games, Malone is doing ALL of the heavy lifting for Utah. He isn't some co-threat in pick and roll with John Stockton (as Amare Stoudemire was with Steve Nash), and he didn't have a viable wing player on his team for many years to create offense. I often hear people say, "sometimes, I want my star to take more shots when the going gets tough and there are no other options." That's EXACTLY what Karl Malone did.

And the results? Well, he increased his scoring a tad but all of his other numbers -- particularly accuracy -- plummeted. But it wasn't a consistent pattern. Some years his shooting was horrible, and in some it wasn't at all.

The Playoffs

(a) he helped (an outmanned) Utah team to the brink of upsetting the 88 Lakers (champions). Malone scored 18 of his 29 in the 2nd half to "stun" LA in G2 in the Forum, then against elimination predicted a win and delivered with 27-11 (10-20, 7-7). In G7, Malone had 31 pts (14-21, 3-9) and 15 rebounds. (Ironically, that may have been Stockton's best game ever: 29 pts 20 ast 5 steals.) Karl Malone was actually very good against elimination.

After the series, Riley said "I don't think we're going to play a better basketball team."

(b) He was good again in 89. Hard to fault his 1991.

Certainly 1992, in which he again bordered on spectacular in finally losing to Portland in the WCF. The key in the series was an OT loss in G5, but Malone made a bunch of key plays down the stretch of regulation to keep Utah in it. He did this with John Stockton injured (IIRC) and basically running everything through him. Finished with 38 and 14 in that game (16-30, 6-6). Portland had the 3rd ranked D that year and with Malone being flanked by Jeff Malone and Ty Corbin dropped a 125.3 ORtg in that game. That's a legendary performance if Malone is on a slightly better team that leads to a championship narrative.

(c) 1993 was a down year. 1994 is an interesting year -- shooting is down but I'm not sure it's a down year. One of his best PS by WS/48. Malone had the flu during the middle of the Houston series. Utah just lost to a better team in Houston, and Malone averaged 26-13-5 in the series (just 51% TS), but his "worst" shooting game (flu) was 8-22/6-9 in a game 3 win (22-16-5).

Of course, Malone was often defended by some guy named Hakeem Olajuwon. (According to a report from G5, Malone scored just 4 of his 25 pts when guarded by Hakeem.)

(d) 1995. Upset by Houston. What to make of Malone's G5? From the NYT:

On the other hand, their two-on-two opponents -- Malone and John Stockton -- were fading. In that final 5:40, they barely got up close and personal with the ball. Instead, David Benoit missed three consecutive 3-pointers, and they fell behind, 85-82, until Malone (35 points) dropped in a jump hook.

After Olajuwon's 10th point in the final five minutes made it 87-84, Rockets -- with a minute left -- the Jazz fouled Chucky Brown and Mario Elie intentionally. But they made all four free throws, and a last-gasp Malone 3-pointer meant little.

Still, overall, hard to see how that's not a really good year from Malone -- another top-5 year.

(e) Then we hit Malone's late peak, in which he was the 2nd-best payer in the league to MJ IMO. (I'm big on late peaks.) By this point in time, Malone was established as a really solid post defensive (strip move, size, rebounding). Obviously not in the echelon of Duncan or KG, but without a doubt a positive on that end and someone who throughout his career could be paired nicely with a defensively oriented center. His post passing had also evolved at this point -- just a tremendous interior passer, bar none.

What's interesting to me is that he has 3 subpar TS%/ORtg playoff runs here. But that's not really reflective of how well he played in those postseasons.

1996: As usual, Utah defeats San Antonio. (I always felt Malone gave David Robinson fits. And elbows.) His G7 against Seattle might be his worst elimination game to that point, but the two games prior to get there were monsters (30.5 pts, 12.5 reb, 4.5 ast, 3.0 stls 1.0 TOV 24-44, 13-22)

1997: Malone's MVP year, in which he just absolutely barbecued the Lakers in the second round. That I'm the only one who remembers this is amusing -- maybe it's because I was rooting for LA -- but my word. After a horrible 2-20 G3 -- murders the averages, but isn't much different than 2-50 -- he swings back the other way with 42-9 (12-27, 18-18) and 32-20 (9-21, 14-18) to close. His Finals, however, were a little LeBron Jamesy.

1998: But in 98, Malone seems to bring that experience with him and has another excellent PS. This time, his G5 against Houston is monstrous (31 and 15, 12-22, 7-9 2 TOV). He struggles against the twin towers of San Antonio, but who didn't? The defense, passing, and load was still there. And then again, he just eviscerated the Lakers, posting 29-12-6 on 55.6 TS% (1.5 TOV) in the 2 Forum games.

And whatever we want to say about those first 4 games of the Finals, his last two were close to epic.

(f) He still gives you another MVP and 3 more all-nba seasons from 99-01.

(2) Michael Jordan and Losing Bias

How different would Malone look with two titles? Hakeem was changed forever. Dirk this year. And yet if Michael Jordan isn't around in 97 and 98, that's basically how we view Malone. He was awesome leading up to the Finals in 1998. (Note, Utah lost two VERY close series as well.) He then faces a fantastic defensive teams making all the key players on the other side (What if Stockton's 3 goes down at the end of game 6?)

So let's put this all in perspective. Malone at his peak was scoring at an historically good rate. He could carry a team. He was well above average defensively. He was a great passer. And he gives you valuable play, without ever missing games, basically forever...

I'm having a hard time making a case for anyone else here. (Erving and Garnett had better peaks, but how much do they give up in longevity?)

[RoyceDa59]

I vote for Jordan and I nominate Oscar Robertson.

[ElGee]

Quick question, what makes Robertson and West a better candidate than someone like Nowitzki? Dirk led his team to an NBA championship as the sole leader with ZERO all-stars, while beating an all-time great talented team.

You're reducing out the actual quality of basketball played by the player. It doesn't matter if he had 0 AS or 4 AS (the 98 Lakers and 11 Celtics didn't fare too well there, did they). And Miami wasn't an all-time talented team at all. They had three NBA players most of the season. Think about that.

Dallas, OTOH, was a well-oiled machine with clearly defined roles and balance. Dirk was the hub of that offense, but Jason Terry clocked in as a viable second scorer in the playoffs. Barea was often instant-offense off the bench too. They had incredible 3-point contributions from role players (Stevenson's Finals!?) and Tyson Chandler was an all-around awesome presence.

It's been two weeks and we've already reduced that great *team* performance to Dirk?

[Fencer reregistered]

As for nominating West before Robertson could people doing so provide some kind of explanation?
Here are some arguments why West wasn't better than Robertson: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1122883
Remember, if you are saying that West is better because he was better defender and more clutch player, then the same could be said about West > Magic.

We probably should save West vs. Robertson for later. But I'm not ready to put a guy as high as #11 who was never the best player on an NBA (or perhaps ABA) championship team. Beyond that, I already stated my reasons in this thread.

[Baller 24]

Quick question, what makes Robertson and West a better candidate than someone like Nowitzki? Dirk led his team to an NBA championship as the sole leader with ZERO all-stars, while beating an all-time great talented team.

You're reducing out the actual quality of basketball played by the player. It doesn't matter if he had 0 AS or 4 AS (the 98 Lakers and 11 Celtics didn't fare too well there, did they). And Miami wasn't an all-time talented team at all. They had three NBA players most of the season. Think about that.

Dallas, OTOH, was a well-oiled machine with clearly defined roles and balance. Dirk was the hub of that offense, but Jason Terry clocked in as a viable second scorer in the playoffs. Barea was often instant-offense off the bench too. They had incredible 3-point contributions from role players (Stevenson's Finals!?) and Tyson Chandler was an all-around awesome presence.

It's been two weeks and we've already reduced that great *team* performance to Dirk?

Not saying it wasn't a team effort, but the team doesn't strike me as ultimately talented. The players would do their job, sure, but it's Dirk's job to close it and finish it off, he did that incredibly well. From the start in Portland, to sweeping the defending champs to knocking out new "the big 3" . It's always been a team effort, not counting against that, but within the past decade you can only think of one other team that's relied on ONE player to dominate as well...and that's the '03 Spurs. Perfect accomplishment of role players, incredibly inconsistent, but the teammates at random moments would get the job done. Similarity for Dallas, but less defensively oriented, and much more potent offensively. You can't say Terry, Kidd, and Berra were consistent as a hawk the entire way, because that clearly wasn't the case, but it was Dirk that did his job just as good as Timmy D did his in '03. He had an incredible run, you can't count against that, and that still doesn't give a reason for Robertson and West to be higher.

[Fencer reregistered]

re: Different Eras. I don't understand how we are supposed to seriously consider "how well game translates to other eras." League rules as well as economic factors change the dynamics of the game, and the sport evolved. Why not just judge guys based on what they did?

re: Intangibles. These are *already* built in to impact. If someone had really bad off-court issues, or zapped a team in practice and uninspired them, then we would see in that a player's impact. I fear people look at a player's impact (intangibles built in) and then ADD some intangible factor, which really at its root is just a bias.

I see this with McGrady vs. Kobe Bryant. It's been noted by many NBA people that McGrady had "lazy" habits, and like Allen Iverson, didn't take practice as seriously as he could have. BUT THE DUDE STILL SMOKED THE LEAGUE IN 2003.

Someone says, well, if McGrady had more "fire" (or whatever) he would have had a better career. That's true probably. But he made SEVEN all-nba teams. Guess what - if Shaq cared more about basketball he might have been the GOAT.

But we should just judge these guys on how they played/actual impact.

Oversimplified example: If you don't practice, and hence drag down the level of your play, and also drag down the level of your teammates' play by interfering with their opportunities to practice, the latter intangibles SHOULD be added onto your own performance in evaluating your impact on the team.

[Fencer reregistered]

I would hate for it to seem like I'm piling on Russell, but since he's in contention for the #1 spot, I feel compelled to point out a few more things.

1) I tend to feel that Russell dominance, even within his own era, is a bit overstated. Amongst the Top 10 candidates, Russell is the ONLY one with less than 6 All-NBA 1st team nods. Even more amazing is that he barely has half of that total at 3. Now competition definitely factors into this since both MJ & KAJ probably had the easiest time getting 1st teams nods during their eras, but even still, it's hard to call Russ the GOAT when he wasn't even rated the #1 center 9 out of 12 years.

2) Not only did Wilt best Russell in All-NBA 1st teams 7 to 3, he was also the more dominant rebounder & scorer. Wilt was #1 in RPG 11 out of 13 times, and #2 the other 2 seasons. He was #1 in PPG seven times, and led the NBA in FG% nine times. Russell was the superior defender, but it should also be noted that Wilt made 2 All-D 1st teams at the end of his career.

I give Russell major credit for his leadership & intangibles, but it's hard to ignore the multiple HOFers he was surrounded by in an 8 team league. I'm not sure how Russ is over Wilt in both dominance of the 60's as a player, or in how well they would do across other decades. Wilt's skillset and style of play would be dominant from the 50's-00's, while I question what Russell would produce post-merger. A center who shoots in the mid to low 40% would have a tough time outside of the 50-60's.

I think that if you're MVP, you can be given a pass on not making all-NBA first team.

As for guys being outstanding offensive and defensive players at different points in their careers -- well, most guys don't have the conditioning to play to their very top potential at both ends of the court all the time (if they did, they'd be much better conditioned that even other professional basketball players). Wilt was quoted as saying his late career defensive surge related to him hanging back on defense (literally staying back). Russell was quoted saying he'd take a blow (as in rest) on offense if he had to, but never on defense. I'm a Celtics fan, and I've seen plenty of times that Paul Pierce has excelled on offense and plenty that he's excelled on defense, but not many long stretches where he's excelled at both. Etc.

[ElGee]

Quick question, what makes Robertson and West a better candidate than someone like Nowitzki? Dirk led his team to an NBA championship as the sole leader with ZERO all-stars, while beating an all-time great talented team.

You're reducing out the actual quality of basketball played by the player. It doesn't matter if he had 0 AS or 4 AS (the 98 Lakers and 11 Celtics didn't fare too well there, did they). And Miami wasn't an all-time talented team at all. They had three NBA players most of the season. Think about that.

Dallas, OTOH, was a well-oiled machine with clearly defined roles and balance. Dirk was the hub of that offense, but Jason Terry clocked in as a viable second scorer in the playoffs. Barea was often instant-offense off the bench too. They had incredible 3-point contributions from role players (Stevenson's Finals!?) and Tyson Chandler was an all-around awesome presence.

It's been two weeks and we've already reduced that great *team* performance to Dirk?

Not saying it wasn't a team effort, but the team doesn't strike me as ultimately talented. The players would do their job, sure, but it's Dirk's job to close it and finish it off, he did that incredibly well. From the start in Portland, to sweeping the defending champs to knocking out new "the big 3" . It's always been a team effort, not counting against that, but within the past decade you can only think of one other team that's relied on ONE player to dominate as well...and that's the '03 Spurs. Perfect accomplishment of role players, incredibly inconsistent, but the teammates at random moments would get the job done. Similarity for Dallas, but less defensively oriented, and much more potent offensively. You can't say Terry, Kidd, and Berra were consistent as a hawk the entire way, because that clearly wasn't the case, but it was Dirk that did his job just as good as Timmy D did his in '03. He had an incredible run, you can't count against that, and that still doesn't give a reason for Robertson and West to be higher.

But you guys keep acting like that's something special about the STAR, when I think it says something special about the TEAM. Why do I think that? Because I've been obsessed with basketball for over 20 years, and TEAMS win in that context, not stars. The 89-90 Pistons. The 94 Rockets. Heck, the 99 Spurs. The 03 Spurs. The 04 Pistons. Even the 06 Heat. And the 11 Mavs.

Those teams won, not simply because some star went bonkers (amazingly, the 06 heat might be the most star-bonkers example), but because they got breaks, coached well, made key shots, all played good TEAM defense, all had other guys step up, etc. Dirk Nowitzki barely improved this year from last year...it was all the other stuff that changed.

As for West/Robertson vs. Dirk, it should just be who played better. This kind of "argument" has nothing to do with that.

[FJS]

My vote goes to KAJ:
He dominated in 2 teams, 2 eras.
6 MVP, 6 Titles
Max. Scorer of all-time
All star every year but 1979
A great C who dominated in offense and deffense.


Then, nominate for MJ
MJ reasons are pretty obvious and a lot of you have written about it.

MJ as in Jordan? He's already on the ballot.

Ok, I'm sorry.
Then I nominate Moses Malone.

[Baller 24]

As for West/Robertson vs. Dirk, it should just be who played better. This kind of "argument" has nothing to do with that.

Agreed, but championship runs, overall resume, and era dominance can all be included in who ranks ahead of who on an all-time list. That's just ONE of my reasoning's for Dirk, considering his resume and the dominance of the level OF his play stacks up with either or.

[penbeast0]

btw, got a PM saying my post was too long to read. To shorten it --

Kareem and Wilt don't seem to have as much team impact as Russell and jordan.

Jordan is GOAT scorer; Russell is GOAT (or 2nd to Rodman) rebounder -- wash
Russell is GOAT defender; Jordan is outstanding but not in that league -- edge Russell
Jordan is good rebounder/passer; Russell is okay score, very good passer -- edge Jordan
Russell won from day 1 to the last day of his career, even with inferior talent in 69. Jordan won only after Phil Jackson got him to adapt to triangle. Russell was great leader and loved by teammates who thought of nothing but winning from day 1 to retirement; Jordan was jerk who ripped teammates as well as inspired them and who quit during his championship stretch to pursue personal glory for 2 years. Russell won with Red as coach and after Red quit; Jordan won only after Jackson came. -- edge Russell

Overall -- Edge Russell

The only way you can vote anyone over Russell is if (a) you feel his era should count against him or (b) if you value volume scoring over everything else. Otherwise, Russell is GOAT.

[JordansBulls]

btw, got a PM saying my post was too long to read. To shorten it --

Kareem and Wilt don't seem to have as much team impact as Russell and jordan.

Jordan is GOAT scorer; Russell is GOAT (or 2nd to Rodman) rebounder -- wash
Russell is GOAT defender; Jordan is outstanding but not in that league -- edge Russell
Jordan is good rebounder/passer; Russell is okay score, very good passer -- edge Jordan
Russell won from day 1 to the last day of his career, even with inferior talent in 69. Jordan won only after Phil Jackson got him to adapt to triangle. Russell was great leader and loved by teammates who thought of nothing but winning from day 1 to retirement; Jordan was jerk who ripped teammates as well as inspired them and who quit during his championship stretch to pursue personal glory for 2 years. Russell won with Red as coach and after Red quit; Jordan won only after Jackson came. -- edge Russell

Overall -- Edge Russell

The only way you can vote anyone over Russell is if (a) you feel his era should count against him or (b) if you value volume scoring over everything else. Otherwise, Russell is GOAT.

Or you feel a player should be a 2 way player that has the accolades, rings and was statistically dominant. Which is why my GOAT's in every major sport are guys who had each of them. MJ for Basketball, Gretzky for Hockey and Ruth for Baseball.

[penbeast0]

I feel a player should be dominant; but I feel Russell was more dominant than Jordan . The Celtics in the 60s just seemed inevitable they should win; they dominanted defensively and with rebounding; the Bulls were the best team but they seemed to be less dominant; they relied on efficiency and defense but their defensive leader was Pippen and Jordan just doesn't dominate two different areas at GOAT level like Russell. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a one dimensional player, his defense was as good as Russell's passing and he was a fine rebounder for his position, but Russell dominates more areas of basketball than Jordan. And statistically, his rebounding is nearly as dominant as Jordan's scoring; people just seem to look on scoring as the be all and end all.

[Sedale Threatt]

Kareem just isn’t at the level of the other 3 contenders.

Don't agree with that, at all. If we're holding underachievement against people, why does Wilt get a pass? His teams routinely underachieved, especially later in his career, when the talent pool finally leveled off in comparison to the Celtics.

As for Kareem's teams under performing, the reason always seems pretty crystal clear to me -- those teams weren't very good, and on occasion decimated by injuries/circumstances to boot.

Duly noted about his personal failings -- anti-intangibles, if you want to call them that -- but otherwise we've got a huge body of work with which to judge Kareem's impact and career, which charts a pretty simple course.

He won in high school, he won in college, he won early in the NBA, and he won late in the NBA. The one dip happens to coincide, not coincidentally, with the one stretch where the team he was on wasn't worthy of his talent.

Should those Lakers teams been better? Perhaps, especially when we have numerous instances throughout NBA history of teams being greater than the sum of their individual parts.

And in a comparison like this where the margin for error is so slim, Kareem's failures as a leader probably matter. But otherwise, statistical differences don't mean much to me when compared to an era when they were so obviously inflated, and not just by pace.

Not voting Kareem No. 1 is fine by me. But somehow separating him from this group doesn't make much sense to me, especially in comparison to Wilt.

First, Russell’s defense was at least as important to the Celtic titles as Jordan’s scoring was to the Bulls. And, Russell was also at the GOAT level in a second area, rebounding. Jordan wasn’t one dimensional, he was a good rebounder and passer and an outstanding defender but not GOAT level at any of those skills (he might have been for wing defense if he had focused on it consistently but he often saved his energy defensively for his offense except during crunch time where he was superb).

Don't have much of a counter here, other than to say that Jordan was a more complete player. Russell's offensive game was pretty good for his era, but there's a pretty noticeable dip from his strengths in those two areas.

I know it's trendy to downplay Russell's supporting cast, but he was very fortunate that his teams always had enough scorers to minimize his one weakness, to the point where it was never much of an issue. He never had to do it all, which is fortunate, because he couldn't.

Jordan, on the other hand, was at least excellent pretty much across the board. It's hard to top what Russell brought as a defender and a rebounder, but I'd still pick Jordan's overall package -- scoring, getting to the line, dominating down the stretch, excellent peripheral production across the board and, when he was younger and could expend the energy, one of the best few wing defenders in history.

Secondly, Jordan wasn’t a winner from day 1 to the end like Russell.

Yeah, but how much of that was Jordan's fault considering the only top-notch player he played with before Pippen/Grant were acquired was Charles Oakley? Otherwise, those early Chicago teams were an abortion.

No question Jordan had to learn how to integrate his style of play into a team structure, and that Jackson was integral in that process. As a Laker fan, I've seen first-hand what Phil can do in terms of harnessing individual players into a cohesive unit.

But again, the lack of talent was the biggest influence on his style of play during the earlier years. After all, he never had any problem subjugating his game for the benefit of the team in college, which gave rise to the joke about Dean Smith being the only man who could stop him. Then he gets to the pros, where the organization and talent level aren't nearly what he was used to, and often the only way the Bulls could win was if he did it himself.

That led to some habits that obviously needed some undoing, but not through is own selfishness. He simply needed to learn to trust his teammates after being stuck with so many bad ones. And even then, once he got them, it was far more an issue of them learning what it took to win, and not coming down with migraine headaches before Game 7s, than any catastrophic hole in his game.

Even with Pippen and Grant still a few years away from their peaks, the Bulls still pushed a championship Pistons team that totally dusted Portland in the Finals to seven games, largely because Jordan was so brilliant.

As for Russell, obviously he was the missing piece for a Celtics franchise that couldn't get over the hump. But that was the key -- he was the final addition, not the first, as was the case with Jordan. Big, big difference.

And that’s the third strike against Jordan. He was a jerk. He called his teammates his supporting cast and ripped them in the press. He gets a pass for it generally because they won anyway and because of the massive media hype of his day but his dynasty was never going to last like Russell’s IMHO because he would drive off other great players eventually with his arrogance.

How can you possibly prove that last statement? There was never, ever going to be a dynasty like Russell's for any number of reasons, the least of which was Jordan's personality. It's not like you can make much of a case in support of instability considering the Bulls still pulled off two three-peats, the best string of success since those Celtics, in a much more competitive league.

Frankly, even after reading a ton about Jordan, and watching him live, I don't think his ruthlessness in the locker room resulted from arrogance as much as an incredibly high standard that he expected everyone to live up to.

No question he left a lot to be desired in how he dealt with some teammates -- or more specifically, teammates he didn't respect. But, as I noted earlier, teammates like Armstrong and Kerr felt that his exacting standards actually brought the team together. People didn't want to let him down.

Once you proved yourself to him, he was a great teammate. For example, John Paxson, a role player if there ever was one, earned Jordan's loyalty starting back in college, when he won an all-star game both were playing in with a buzzer-beater. Then he followed that up by being dependable and hard-working in the pros. Jordan appreciated him so much he had his agent stir up some free-agent offers to drive up his contract.

Of course, that doesn't mitigate the scorn with which he treated others. But I think there are many different ways to lead, and Jordan's was effective.

And it's not like Russell was an angel. There aren't nearly as many anecdotes as there are for Jordan, but one that stood out to me was the way he rode Heinsohn for winning the Rookie of the Year that he thought he deserved. I also think he was exceptionally fortunate to be coached by Red Auerbach, who shrewdly identified him as someone who did not suffer fools lightly and treated him accordingly.

Otherwise, I can easily see someone as proud and strong-willed as Russell in some titanic battles of will with probably half the clowns Wilt Chamberlain was stuck with.

[Sedale Threatt]

btw, got a PM saying my post was too long to read.

It wasn't too long, but you should definitely break things up with paragraphs. You have a lot of good things to say, but when there's no space it tends to get a bit thick.

[JordansBulls]

I feel a player should be dominant; but I feel Russell was more dominant than Jordan . The Celtics in the 60s just seemed inevitable they should win; they dominanted defensively and with rebounding; the Bulls were the best team but they seemed to be less dominant; they relied on efficiency and defense but their defensive leader was Pippen and Jordan just doesn't dominate two different areas at GOAT level like Russell. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a one dimensional player, his defense was as good as Russell's passing and he was a fine rebounder for his position, but Russell dominates more areas of basketball than Jordan. And statistically, his rebounding is nearly as dominant as Jordan's scoring; people just seem to look on scoring as the be all and end all.

How did MJ not dominate two areas? Obviously scoring was one and defense was the other and if you want clutchness as a 3rd area. He actually made key plays down the stretch in pivotal games as well. Russell isn't even the all time rpg average leader.
On another note, remember Russell during his run for 8 titles won 16 series during those years and overall 25 series in the years he won titles while MJ in his runs had to win 4 series a year for 24 series. Overall Russell won 27 playoff series, while Jordan won 30 playoff series all as the best player on the team. Now what matters here isnt the actual number of series won, but the # of series actually won as the team's best player. Not to mention you penalize MJ for how he started, but forgot to mention Russell went to a team with the 2nd best record prior to him getting there and then as a rookie came in playing with the ROY and MVP of the league and the guy who was the ROY lead the team in scoring and put up 37 and 23 in the final game 7 of the finals to win it for Boston along with Russ.
It's true Russell won with many different players, but Imagine MJ going to the Pistons as a rookie and playing with Isiah and Laimbeer right off the bat who had the 4th best record in the East the season prior at 49-33 (1984) The Pistons in 1985 with MJ would have probably started winning titles immediately and then when Isiah leaves he gets a guy like Grant Hill as the Pistons ended up getting as well.

On your other point, the reason scoring is more important is because it is the only thing that guarantees that you win. If a team has the most rebounds in a game or blocks, free throws, you may not win, but if you have the most total points in a game it is a gurantee you would win the game.

[drza]

I, too, have this vote down to Russell vs Jordan. If I were in the mood I could build cases for a few others, but I'm comfortable with that two-some. But I'm not very comfortable using primarily rings and/or accolades to make the decision. Rings and accolades are like a resume...they get you an interview, but to get the actual job you have to go deeper.

Plus, the 11 rings aren't in and of themselves what most impresses me about Russell. I knew about the rings before last summer, and I probably didn't think as highly of Russell then as I do now. And the reason, as some others have mentioned, is the RPoY project in which I learned SO much about NBA history. And I give a lot of credit to ElGee, I believe it was, who came up with the rough team offensive and defensive ratings as well as another poster who rigged up a rough +/- stat for some of the star players based on the edges of their career and/or the extended periods of time they missed. Because for the first time in my experience, we had a way to TANGIBLY estimate Russell's value to his teams. In today's NBA I really like to look at both the box score and the +/- stats to get a better handle on how a player is actually playing, and when in doubt I tend to lean more towards +/- as my tie-breaker because box-score stats don't always translate to team success. But you can't pad your +/- numbers without making the team better.

But back to Russell. People often reduce Wilt vs Russell to "individual statistical dominance" vs "11 rings". But the +/- and defensive/offensive rating info gave us actual data to use as individual statistics to use to estimate Russell's and Wilt's relative impact. And those numbers indicated that, for the most part, Russell MERSECUTED Wilt in the impact that his individual presence had on a game. Wilt was rolling up all types of box score records that will never be broken, but those numbers didn't necessarily translate to huge impacts, certainly not on the level of Russell's on a year-to-year basis.

There can be a bit of a chicken-vs-egg argument when it comes to rings. For some, as soon as a person gets a ring they automatically become a better player (see the recent "is Jason Kidd NOW the 3rd best PG of all-time" thread with the implication that his recent ring somehow made him a better player than he had been before), but I don't agree with that. Individuals can make an impact, but teams win titles. That said, the Celtics were able to win all of those titles as a direct result of having by-far the most impactful individual player of the time while also supporting him with a good cast.

And for this thread, the first part of that sentence is the more important one. Russell was by-far the most impactful individual player of his time. And as I detailed on the first page of this thread, I believe that his impact could translate across eras (by the way, I don't see why estimating how a player might play in different circumstances is controversial. In the end, that's exactly what we're doing with this entire historical rankings exercise, it's just another way of doing that same thing).

I'm leaning towards Russell for #1, but I'm still checking out other folks's arguments.

[Sedale Threatt]

...who quit during his championship stretch to pursue personal glory for 2 years.

How is inviting ridicule by playing minor league baseball, at an extremely mediocre level, pursuing personal glory? If he was truly interested in personal glory, why not just keep playing basketball, where he was worshiped like a god, and try to win more championships/awards/praise?

Getting back to the Halberstam book, multiple sources opined that the break was a confluence of events, including the death of his father, the fatigue of three straight championship runs, plus the 92 Olympics, and, perhaps most important of all, the desire to get away from the unending scrutiny under which he lived and played.

One could easily say, big deal, Russell won 11 out of 13 championships -- how's that for fatigue? Especially in a league that did not afford the luxurious travel options and accommodations players enjoy now. Or the fact that Jordan willingly pursued all the attention he got.

Fair points. At the same time, I think we can all agree that it was a totally different era, even back in the 80s and 90s. The expectations, the attention, the competition -- all increased exponentially by the time Jordan was in his prime.

Some can and will hold his need to step back and recharge as a weakness. Fair enough. To me, considering what he did with it by coming back and dominating well past the point many of his contemporaries had already retired, let alone played well, it was time well spent.

I feel a player should be dominant; but I feel Russell was more dominant than Jordan.

Look at it this way -- when he got the requisite help, Chicago never lost, despite playing in a league that was twice as large as in the 60s. That's the very definition of dominance, in my book.

[pancakes3]

replying more to DRZA, Penbeast, and Sedale here...

- Wilt doesn't get a free pass (in this context anyway) for underachieving. He's not in the serious running for #1 player of all time. Sure he's in the top 5 or top 10, but i don't think anyone's picking Wilt as their GOAT thus far and that's a direct consequence of his "eh... take it or leave it" mentality on the court.

- I have a hard time reconciling Russell as the GOAT when it wasn't immediately clear that he's the best player from his era. The lack of 1st team nods, the anecdotes of Wilt being better but Russ being "mentally tougher"... the stacked teams... the lack of a dominant offensive game... i mean this is the GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME here and Jordan fits the bill doesn't he? DPOY and Scoring titles as a perimeter player! isn't that the completeness we want in a GOAT? His offensive game had no holes in it, and his defense was ferocious. He was a player who was as dynamic an individual scorer as it'll get and yet some of his most memorable plays (and legacy) came as a result of him "trusting" his teammates and making the right pass?

- Russ vs Wilt was compelling but think of how many battles MJ went into and came out on top. Bad Boy Pistons, Showtime, dropped 63 on the Celtics, Barkley, Payton, Ewing, Stockton/Malone... he stopped a lot of guys dead in their tracks. Sure Russ could play mind games and throw Wilt off his game and being a Stilt-slayer was probably a huge part of the 11-titles but what if the contribution the team needed was offensively? a watered down analogy would be the 2008 finals where KG was the best player wearing green and yet when it came to crunch time, Pierce walked out with the hardware because when the buzzer sounds, your team needs more points than the other team. I guess what i'm trying to say is... MJ had more... versatility in his impact? (i think the buzzword-meter just popped a gasket)