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

[GreenHat]

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.

I am one of those people who feel that his era should count against him.

Even if I ignored that, your post is clearly biased towards your preference.

Jordan was a jerk, but Russell wasn't a saint. There just wasn't any media attention on him. Take for example the stories of him sitting there smoking cigarettes and reading the newspaper while his teammates practiced. If a player did that today they would be skewered as a teammate by the media. Could you imagine the **** storm if Jordan did something like that? Or Kobe or Lebron today? Or Iverson?

Giving Russell the advantage of winning after Red while Jordan didn't win after Phil seems unfair because Jordan only had the Wizards seasons after. If Phil had left earlier, Jordan still could have won.

How is Jordan a good passer, but Russell is a very good passer?

Russell is not an "okay" scorer either (in the star context). He was a 15 ppg scorer on 44 efg% and 47 TS% (as a center) on teams that were scoring upwards of 120 points per game. That's a low volume, at a low efficiency and a low share of the team's points. That's a bad scorer (again in the context of a GOAT vote).

Now if you want to excuse Russell's craptastic efficiency by saying that he was still among the best at efficiency in his era (the standard counter), then I present to you that his defense has to take a hit then if the "best" offensive players were that inefficient.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to play defense in a league where 44% efg is elite? I would think so.

Even as one of Jordan's biggest critics and someone who thinks he is overrated by the masses, if the question is who is better at playing basketball, the clear answer is Jordan.

Russell might have been more dominant relative to his (lesser) era and was more fortunate to play on a loaded team in an eight team league for some years that gradually grew (whereas Jordan had to compete against as much as 4 times as many teams) but Jordan was just better at basketball in total, not just scoring.

[An Unbiased Fan]

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.

Wait a sec.

Players simply weren't as big and tall back then, so both Russ & Wilt had a HUGE advantage that cannot be ignored(Wilt due to his size, Russ due to his athleticism). For much of his career, Russ went against guys in the 6'7'6'9 range. Would he have been as dominant defensively against players of the last 30 years, who have crazy athelticism, are long, and built? No doubt he would be good, but GOAT level??? I don't see it.

MJ was elite on both sides of the court. Russell was not. MJ, KAJ, Wilt, all had to carry the scoring load, AND much of the defensive load. They didn't have the luxury of being the 3rd or 4th best scoring on a stacked team, where they could focus on one aspect of the court. Now Russell IS the better team player of the bunch, but I still can't get past the multiple HOFers he had around him in an 8-12 team league. Again, it seems like Russell is getting credit for everything the Celtics did.

[Sedale Threatt]

They didn't have the luxury of being the 3rd or 4th best scoring on a stacked team, where they could focus on one aspect of the court. Now Russell IS the better team player of the bunch, but I still can't get past the multiple HOFers he had around him in an 8-12 team league. Again, it seems like Russell is getting credit for everything the Celtics did.

This is another thing I always come back to.

As I said earlier, it's trendy to downplay Boston's supporting cast -- sort of like it was trendy to crap on Led Zeppelin back in the 80s, after their peak crested -- and belittle most of them as low-efficiency chuckers. But, uh, wasn't that kind of the name of the game back then? Especially for the Celtics, who wanted to chuck up as many shots as they could and beat you in a war of attrition.

People can make all the qualifications they want to, but at the end of the day, Russell would have failed if he'd been in a situation that almost all of the other candidates were in that they were required to be the top scorers.

Hell, I've seen Finals box scores where the Celtics had upwards of four 20-point scorers in a game, which obviously cuts Russell a ton of slack to focus on his strengths. Not to mention a coach who actually wanted him to, instead of making him into something he wasn't, which would have happened on pretty much every other team in the league.

My opinion has definitely changed with Bill. I've moved him past Chamberlain, and I'm probably going to end up pushing him past Kareem as well. I would have never dreamed of doing either a couple of years ago. But I draw the line with Jordan.

[drza]

- 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?

I guess I'd say that, as someone else pointed out, if I have to rely on an accolade, MVPs trump 1st team nods. Russell was MVP 3 times when he made the 2nd team. Plus, as I said above, accolades only get you in the door. Looking deeper, I'm fully convinced that Russell's impact on the game, measurable in a quantitative way without even considering the rings argument, was on the whole much larger than Wilt's. There were seasons when Wilt did ramp his own impact up (notably this often occurred when he emulated Russ's game), but I'm comfortable that even when Wilt was putting up video game box score stats Russ was generally having a bigger effect on his team's winning and losing than even the most box-score statistically dominant player of all-time.

(Side note, but that bolded section above ending with "defense was ferocious" struck my funny bone, because it gave me a flashback to Mike Tyson ("My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable. And I'm just ferocious!" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSKcBAq6Y5o , 1:10 sec mark). For a minute I started reading your post in Mike Tyson Voice.)

[ElGee]

My 2 cents on Russell v. Jordan:

I could care less about the titles (for both). Russell was the EXACT same player whether they won 11 or 7 (could have easily been 7). This is where I get frustrated that people look so lowly on Karl Malone (same player) or so highly on Dirk after winning (same player).

I digress -- I think it's fair to say Russell's defensive impact on the game alone was as great as anything in league history (matching Jordan's total impact). The difference for me is that I think less of that era. That's not to say I carry some large generational bias (I think more highly of that period than the early 70s), it's just that I do see Russell's dominance in era as *comparable* to Michael's, only I think he was doing it in a slightly easier setting, with the amount of elite competition (limited) and style of play. (eg Auerbach is supposed to be a brilliant coach, but his offensive philosophy was 'jack up crappy shots.')

In other words, Mike Tyson may have been the most "dominant" heavyweight champ relative to competition, but Spinks ain't no Joe Frazier. That's more of a tie breaker to me, as MJ and Russ are way out in front. I can understand going either way.

[ElGee]

Haha WTH. Two Tyson references in a row!

[drza]

Haha WTH. Two Tyson references in a row!

Lol. Great minds think alike...though I got my Tyson reference in first

[Sedale Threatt]

My 2 cents on Russell v. Jordan:

I could care less about the titles (for both). Russell was the EXACT same player whether they won 11 or 7 (could have easily been 7). This is where I get frustrated that people look so lowly on Karl Malone (same player) or so highly on Dirk after winning (same player).

I digress -- I think it's fair to say Russell's defensive impact on the game alone was as great as anything in league history (matching Jordan's total impact). The difference for me is that I think less of that era. That's not to say I carry some large generational bias (I think more highly of that period than the early 70s), it's just that I do see Russell's dominance in era as *comparable* to Michael's, only I think he was doing it in a slightly easier setting, with the amount of elite competition (limited) and style of play. (eg Auerbach is supposed to be a brilliant coach, but his offensive philosophy was 'jack up crappy shots.')

In other words, Mike Tyson may have been the most "dominant" heavyweight champ relative to competition, but Spinks ain't no Joe Frazier. That's more of a tie breaker to me, as MJ and Russ are way out in front. I can understand going either way.

How do you think Russell's dominance would be recognized if the Celtics had won, say, two championships as opposed to 11?

It seems to me that the titles are the biggest feather in his cap, the reason people realize he must have been doing something special there, and take a closer look.

Take those away, and that dominance probably diminishes by a large degree. Pretty hard to rate a defensive specialist that high without an overwhelming reason, right?

[ElGee]

Russell is not an "okay" scorer either (in the star context). He was a 15 ppg scorer on 44 efg% and 47 TS% (as a center) on teams that were scoring upwards of 120 points per game. That's a low volume, at a low efficiency and a low share of the team's points. That's a bad scorer (again in the context of a GOAT vote).

Now if you want to excuse Russell's craptastic efficiency by saying that he was still among the best at efficiency in his era (the standard counter), then I present to you that his defense has to take a hit then if the "best" offensive players were that inefficient.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to play defense in a league where 44% efg is elite? I would think so.

No - because the point is *relative to era.* Russell wasn't a bad offensive player -- he was probably above average. His scoring is weaker than his overall impact there (rebounding, passing), and when you look at his offense relative to the times, before moving more to the high post, that number isn't as ugly as you are making it out to be.

Conversely, his defensive dominance isn't based on "held opponent to 42% eFG!" It's that while other were holding people to 42%, he was holding them to 30% (made up numbers). His team's defense, relative to everyone else in the league, was miles ahead.

[ElGee]

My 2 cents on Russell v. Jordan:

I could care less about the titles (for both). Russell was the EXACT same player whether they won 11 or 7 (could have easily been 7). This is where I get frustrated that people look so lowly on Karl Malone (same player) or so highly on Dirk after winning (same player).

I digress -- I think it's fair to say Russell's defensive impact on the game alone was as great as anything in league history (matching Jordan's total impact). The difference for me is that I think less of that era. That's not to say I carry some large generational bias (I think more highly of that period than the early 70s), it's just that I do see Russell's dominance in era as *comparable* to Michael's, only I think he was doing it in a slightly easier setting, with the amount of elite competition (limited) and style of play. (eg Auerbach is supposed to be a brilliant coach, but his offensive philosophy was 'jack up crappy shots.')

In other words, Mike Tyson may have been the most "dominant" heavyweight champ relative to competition, but Spinks ain't no Joe Frazier. That's more of a tie breaker to me, as MJ and Russ are way out in front. I can understand going either way.

How do you think Russell's dominance would be recognized if the Celtics had won, say, two championships as opposed to 11?

It seems to me that the titles are the biggest feather in his cap, the reason people realize he must have been doing something special there, and take a closer look.

Take those away, and that dominance probably diminishes by a large degree. Pretty hard to rate a defensive specialist that high without an overwhelming reason, right?

Yeah but to me it's the overall body of work. Again, that's why I loathe "rings" and ignoring team settings. People were a little slow on the uptake, because it wasn't scoring (we STILL overvalue volume scoring 50 years later, so...). When Russell went in the game, Boston got waaaaaaay better. That was independent of the final title.

You are right -- if he had 4 rings, he probably would be underrated. Kind of like Nate Thurmond is probably underrated (and Russ was waaaaaaay better than Nate Thurmond). But let's say Boston kept posting those ridonculou SRS's and winning the East and lost 4 or 5 times in the Finals instead of just the once. That should still be enough evidence to showcase Russell. Or similarly, if a bunch of highly regarded players retired and the team actually *improved.* (Wait, that actually happened ) Again, title at the end of the season aside.

[Vinsanity420]

...
.

If I said his ABA years = NBA years, would he be Top 10? Yes, but I don't see why I should, especially since he didn't impact the game the way he was in the ABA ( Side note --- taking a 500 ballclub to the finals? There's one modern day player that has done that, PAU GASOL ). Maybe it was his injury like you noted, which is unfortunate, but I don't really want to speculate on what he POTENTIALLY would've been like in a different league while I rank him. I just have to disagree with everyone placing him in the Top 10 based on his ABA accomplishments.

Analyzing his NBA body of work, he was still #26 in MVP shares and around #20 in RealGM RPOY shares. Add in some consideration for his ABA years and I have him at 15-20. I didn't feel his best NBA year was as good as Oscar or West's best NBA years.

Oscar I am more impressed with either way. He keeps getting knocked for his team success despite producing some of the league's best team offensive production during his prime. He didn't have everything that it takes to get done in a 10 team league, and he gets knocked for not having some magical intangibles that was supposed to make his team click - Go figure.

[ThaRegul8r]

You are right -- if he had 4 rings, he probably would be underrated. Kind of like Nate Thurmond is probably underrated (and Russ was waaaaaaay better than Nate Thurmond).

Thurmond is underrated, no "probably" about it. I've been propping Nate Thurmond for years, and, hopefully, was able to open some eyes during the Retro Player of the Year Project.

[ronnymac2]

There are too many bad arguments for Bill Russell. Too many "He's just a winner." Russell has a legitimate argument for being the best peak player ever, yet few have talked about that side of Russell.

Anyway...


I value peak over everything. Accolades, awards, stats and titles are merely a product of your surroundings, competition, era, etc. They are fruitful to the discussion and I use them for context and tiebreakers, but all I care about is how the players performed.

Based on that criteria, there are about eight GOAT peak players. Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar separate themselves from everybody else with their superior career resumes (the tiebreakers). Wilt dominanted statistically, while Russell dominated the title tally. Jordan and Jabbar did both. (I know Wilt won two titles, and I know Russell dominated the glass, but Jordan and KAJ are really the best mix of everything. Six titles each, along with scoring titles, rebounding titles, steals titles, blocked shots titles, career scoring average titles, career scoring total titles...they have the MVPs to back everything up as well).

It comes down to KAJ and MJ to me.

Jabbar, as per usual, is being blamed for not winning championships when his teams sucked.

Does anybody really think Kareem from 1971 is better than Kareem from 1977?

He isn't. It's utterly ridiculous to think that. Kareem in 1977 was as good as any basketball player in history.



I'm not going to officially vote yet, but I'm heavily leaning towards putting KAJ as the GOAT, simply because of his amazing longevity. I don't usually care about a player's longevity THAT much, but KAJ had a peak to match Jordan's and more prime years. He literally comes with everything I could hope for in a player.


The candidates to get my vote for nomination are Dr. J, West, Robertson, the Malones, Barkley, KG, LeBron, Wade and Dirk.

Great argument made by ElGee for Karl Malone.

[GreenHat]

Russell is not an "okay" scorer either (in the star context). He was a 15 ppg scorer on 44 efg% and 47 TS% (as a center) on teams that were scoring upwards of 120 points per game. That's a low volume, at a low efficiency and a low share of the team's points. That's a bad scorer (again in the context of a GOAT vote).

Now if you want to excuse Russell's craptastic efficiency by saying that he was still among the best at efficiency in his era (the standard counter), then I present to you that his defense has to take a hit then if the "best" offensive players were that inefficient.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to play defense in a league where 44% efg is elite? I would think so.

No - because the point is *relative to era.* Russell wasn't a bad offensive player -- he was probably above average. His scoring is weaker than his overall impact there (rebounding, passing), and when you look at his offense relative to the times, before moving more to the high post, that number isn't as ugly as you are making it out to be.

Conversely, his defensive dominance isn't based on "held opponent to 42% eFG!" It's that while other were holding people to 42%, he was holding them to 30% (made up numbers). His team's defense, relative to everyone else in the league, was miles ahead.

I agree that relative to his era he was an average offensive player and that clearly he held his opponents to even worse numbers.

What I am saying is that isn't it easier to have a huge defense/rebounding impact when the other team is a bunch of inefficient chuckers who are coached to just chuck it up?

Obviously Russell had the most defensive impact relative to era but even if one were to concede the point that Russell is the best defensive player of all time absolutely and not relatively, my contention is that the HUGE gap would decrease significantly if he wasn't playing in a league where 42% efg is considered elite. Not to mention a league where players can shoot threes outside his sphere of influence or where an offense can scheme to limit his impact on defense.

[Sedale Threatt]

Yeah but to me it's the overall body of work. Again, that's why I loathe "rings" and ignoring team settings. People were a little slow on the uptake, because it wasn't scoring (we STILL overvalue volume scoring 50 years later, so...). When Russell went in the game, Boston got waaaaaaay better. That was independent of the final title.

You are right -- if he had 4 rings, he probably would be underrated. Kind of like Nate Thurmond is probably underrated (and Russ was waaaaaaay better than Nate Thurmond). But let's say Boston kept posting those ridonculou SRS's and winning the East and lost 4 or 5 times in the Finals instead of just the once. That should still be enough evidence to showcase Russell. Or similarly, if a bunch of highly regarded players retired and the team actually *improved.* (Wait, that actually happened ) Again, title at the end of the season aside.

I agree, but that's the whole point I was alluding to -- without those rings, I'd argue that Russell's reputation would plummet.

Not fairly, perhaps. And you could obviously say that about virtually every player.

But I can't think of anyone else whose legacy was cemented more by winning than Russell's. He played such a cerebral and subtle style, one that didn't translate at all to the box score or surface evaluation, that his impact would largely be ignored if he didn't have all those rings to back it up. There would be no real reason to look all that closely at him.

I don't know if that made any sense. I was just curious about your opinion as an anti-ring proponent, on a player whose legacy would be drastically reduced without them.

[Sedale Threatt]

Jabbar, as per usual, is being blamed for not winning championships when his teams sucked.

Does anybody really think Kareem from 1971 is better than Kareem from 1977?

He isn't. It's utterly ridiculous to think that. Kareem in 1977 was as good as any basketball player in history.

This never makes any sense to me, whatsoever. Especially not when we have such a massive body of work, that shows Kareem won at every stage of his career but one -- the stage where his supporting cast was the worst, and often plagued by injuries and whatnot.

[ThaRegul8r]

Yeah but to me it's the overall body of work. Again, that's why I loathe "rings" and ignoring team settings. People were a little slow on the uptake, because it wasn't scoring (we STILL overvalue volume scoring 50 years later, so...). When Russell went in the game, Boston got waaaaaaay better. That was independent of the final title.

You are right -- if he had 4 rings, he probably would be underrated. Kind of like Nate Thurmond is probably underrated (and Russ was waaaaaaay better than Nate Thurmond). But let's say Boston kept posting those ridonculou SRS's and winning the East and lost 4 or 5 times in the Finals instead of just the once. That should still be enough evidence to showcase Russell. Or similarly, if a bunch of highly regarded players retired and the team actually *improved.* (Wait, that actually happened ) Again, title at the end of the season aside.

I agree, but that's the whole point I was alluding to -- without those rings, I'd argue that Russell's reputation would plummet.

I hate when people just magically handwave rings to and away from players. If Russell had only four rings, then evidently he didn't do something in this hypothetical scenario that he did in real life, which resulted in the championships won in actuality. Didn't block that shot by Coleman at the end of Game 7 of the '57 Finals, didn't drop 30/40 in Game 7 of the '62 Finals when his entire frontcourt fouled out of the game, for example.

[Sedale Threatt]

I hate when people just magically handwave rings to and away from players. If Russell had only four rings, then evidently he didn't don something in this hypothetical scenario that he did in real life, which resulted in the championships won in actuality. Didn't block that shot by Coleman at the end of Game 7 of the '57 Finals, didn't drop 30/40 in Game 7 of the '62 Finals when his entire frontcourt fouled out of the game, for example.

I'm not trying to diminish what Russell did. His teams won what they won, and it's in the books. As such, it needs to be accounted for. He'll be no lower than third in my voting.

I just wanted to see what one guy, whose been a vehement anti-ring proponent, thought about a player whose reputation has been enhanced by winning like no other.

[drza]

Yeah but to me it's the overall body of work. Again, that's why I loathe "rings" and ignoring team settings. People were a little slow on the uptake, because it wasn't scoring (we STILL overvalue volume scoring 50 years later, so...). When Russell went in the game, Boston got waaaaaaay better. That was independent of the final title.

You are right -- if he had 4 rings, he probably would be underrated. Kind of like Nate Thurmond is probably underrated (and Russ was waaaaaaay better than Nate Thurmond). But let's say Boston kept posting those ridonculou SRS's and winning the East and lost 4 or 5 times in the Finals instead of just the once. That should still be enough evidence to showcase Russell. Or similarly, if a bunch of highly regarded players retired and the team actually *improved.* (Wait, that actually happened ) Again, title at the end of the season aside.

I agree, but that's the whole point I was alluding to -- without those rings, I'd argue that Russell's reputation would plummet.

Not fairly, perhaps. And you could obviously say that about virtually every player.

But I can't think of anyone else whose legacy was cemented more by winning than Russell's. He played such a cerebral and subtle style, one that didn't translate at all to the box score or surface evaluation, that his impact would largely be ignored if he didn't have all those rings to back it up. There would be no real reason to look all that closely at him.

I don't know if that made any sense. I was just curious about your opinion as an anti-ring proponent, on a player whose legacy would be drastically reduced without them.

I guess the question, as I see it, is:

*Would Russell have been a worse player if he played the same but didn't get any rings?

*Or would we just not realize that he was as good as he was, otherwise?

I'd argue it's more of the latter than the former. And that makes sense, because most folks rate basketball based on scoring and rings. Russell didn't have the scoring, so many even now would like to make him less than he was because he doesn't fit the narrative for what greatness "should" be. But he just has so MANY rings that there's no way to keep him out of the argument. That actually makes me appreciate him more...because his being so good in a way that doesn't fit the mold actually forces those of us who care to really take a close look at how we evaluate basketball. Even in this thread, I've seen several folks describe a great player and support his "greatness" based upon scoring exploits. It's counter-intuitive, but there really are more ways to be great than to just be a dominant scorer. And Russell's career, on the surface because of those titles, forces us to be cognizant of that.

[cpower]

I vote for Michael Jordan.


The vote has come down to Russell, Wilt and MJ.
My criterias are : 1 raw abilities and dominance 2 achievements 3 impact
criteria 1
Russell:
Most dominant defender ever, not great scorer. Very competitive and mentally unbeatable.
Wilt:
Arguably the best center ever, total dominance on the offensive end of the floor. Choked in big games sometimes. Arguably the best athlete ever played the game.
MJ:
The best scorer ever, plays both ends of the floor. Very competitive and mentally unbeatable, very clutch in big moments. Arguably the best athlete ever played the game.
MJ>>Wilt>Russell

criteria 2
Russell:
Most rings ever, although playoffs were only two rounds. Only 3 ALL-NBA first team selections could hurt his resume.
Wilt:
Only 2 rings in a easier playoffs era. Led the NBA in scoring seven years in a row.
MJ:
6 rings 5 mvps. 10 times scoring champ. Never lost a final series.
MJ=Russell>Wilt

criteria 3
MJ has a bigger impact thanks to the tv coverages and internet. His dominance and creativity made basketball a much more popular sport compared to Wilt or Russell.
MJ>Wilt=Russell

So MJ takes it.