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

[GreenHat]

They want his efficiency to be bumped up because the whole era was inefficient, but for his defense not to take a hit from competing against inefficient players.

Your statement doesn't even make sense to me. Russell's defensive greatness isn't dependent on other people's poor FG% against him compared to stars of other eras. We don't even have that information.

I question whether Russell would stand so far above everyone else all time in terms of defensive impact if he faced efficient competition.

I concede that he very well could still be the best defender of all time in an absolute sense, but I don't think he would perform so far ahead of every other player from all eras if he wasn't defending teams that were just chucking up bad shots and making them at 40% even against bad defenses.

I think playing against more efficient offenses would bring his defensive impact back to the pack (he may very well still lead the pack, but he wouldn't be lapping the field against better offenses is my contention).

They want his assist numbers bumped up because it was harder to get assists back then but they want you to ignore that rebounds were almost twice as easy to gather.

Count me among those who want you to adjust for both properly. When you do that, you see a guy with a fantastic pace-adjusted rebounding rate and who also racked up assists quite well.

I agree with that completely, I'm not a Russell hater at all, I just don't think he is the best at playing basketball of all time.

They want you to assume that Russell would routinely get 10 blocks a game in today's game, even though calculating his blk% off of game films doesn't support that conclusion at all with the much fewer shots.

I would not ask you to assume Russell would block anything like 10 blocks per game today, though I am curious where you've seen numbers giving those estimates.

What I would ask you to do is recognize that there's a hell of a lot more to Russell's defense than shotblocking numbers, and that the other skills he possessed in spades are that made Garnett arguably the best defender of his generation.

I have at least a dozen times over multiple threads in the last week admitted that Russell had by far the biggest defensive impact compared to his peers of all time and am willing to concede that it fairly likely that even in an absolute sense he could have the biggest defensive impact. Is that not enough recognition from me?

That part about 10 blocks was hyperbole (but also true because people on this forum have made claims like that). Change it to 6 or even 5 if you want.

They want you to count his rings without taking into account that he only had to beat out 7 teams at some points and 0 teams over a 2 SRS in some seasons.

Factor in the league size all you want. It's frankly not clear to me how to do so, but I won't say you can't.

I think its a huge factor. Its a numbers game, the less people you have to face the better your chances of winning (especially when you're the favorite). Just ask the top poker players how much harder it is to win the world series of poker.

They want you to recognize how much better his team is than everyone without accounting for how good his teams were minus him.

Go analyze Russell's last few years in the league man. Seriously. Anyone who doesn't come away with some serious respect after that isn't being objective.

From '65-66 to '68-69, Wilt had at least comparable supporting talent to Russell (and clearly superior talent in the last year), and Russell's team still won 3 of 4 times. Then Russell retired, and the team won less than 35 games.

You assume that I don't respect Russell as a player for whatever reason. Just because I consider some of the other all time great players better than him does not mean I don't respect him. Jordan is the only perimeter players I would take ahead of him, that's hardly an extreme position or shows any lack of respect.

Winning 3/4 with comparable teams, isn't some kind of amazing stat and certainly doesn't point to Russell having these magical winning intangibles that people anoint him with. And what about before '66?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Taking another look at the 1964 Finals which had Wilt vs Russell, I still come away very unimpressed by the quality of play. Alot of the players were putting up Derek Fisher type layups, lol. and Russ/Wilt were clearly the most athletic guys on the court by a good margin.

How much of it was great defense, and how much was bad offense.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IydVnbGNdk[/youtube]

[Sedale Threatt]

Semi-interesting tidbit on Russell's supposed advantage in dominance over Jordan:

Boston was 27-2 in series throughout his career.

Chicago was 25-1 from 1991 on, with the only defeat coming in Jordan's abbreviated season.

[GreenHat]

Boston was the second best team in the league the year BEFORE Russell arrived. If you and Slater Martin believe that being the second best team in the league "wasn't much of a team" then you have a lower opinion of the era than most of us (including me) do.

You really open yourself up for attack when you make statements like that.

The Celtics went 39-33, had an SRS < 1, and then got upset in the quarterfinals of an 8 team league. Granted that's not a horrendous team, but not at all the image you conjured up.

I said they were the second best team in the league. Do you disagree with that?

I'm glad you use SRS because guess how many teams had a better SRS than them? One

Yeah they only had 39 wins, but how many teams had more wins than them? Again One

Am I really opening up myself for attack by saying the team with the second best record in the league and the second best SRS is the second best team?

Or do you agree with Slater Martin and (presumable Reg, since he posted the quote) that the team with the second best SRS and record in a year in that era "wasn't much of a team"?

Also if you want to use SRS, that team that Russell's Celtics beat in the finals his rookie season (the one they barely beat in 7 games with the last game going into double overtime) had a NEGATIVE SRS and a LOSING record.

There were only two team in the league that year who had a better SRS than the Celtics the year before which was BEFORE they got Russell. The league was full of mediocrity at the time. Once again Russell's team faced a negative SRS team with a losing record in the finals and almost lost to them.

So yeah that team was the second best team in the league. Admittedly the league was really weak in that era. They lost Mcauley and added Russell and Heinshon.

They were the second best team in the league and they added Russell and Heinshon to Sharman and Cousy (while losing Mcauley) and won the championship with Cousy winning MVP.

So the team was in second with an MVP player before Russell (and Heinshon) showed up. Not exactly the same if Russell played today and got drafted by the Cavs.

I think the '56-57 performance is a more worthwhile argument people should think about.

It's not the Cavs...on the other hand LeBron didn't lead the Cavs to 11 titles either. No one should give Russell GOAT simply because he won 11 titles, but at the same time, it's pretty silly to talk about going from never winning, to winning so many in a row as if it's a small difference. The Bulls did win 55 games without Jordan after all.

Also, Cousy as MVP was just a joke. It was the only year that Cousy beat Pettit in an MVP race, and it has everything to do with him being an established star getting honored for team success that within a year everyone credited Russell for.

I agree that MVPs are a joke, but you can't deny that Cousy was one of the better players of that era (which to me speaks to the era).

I'm not saying that Russell didn't improve the Celtics, of course he did. By a lot. Just that part of what made him a "winner" was starting out on a good team, with by far the best GM and only facing 7 other teams, only facing two series and getting to play teams with negative SRS and losing records in the Finals. I feel those factors (added to his awesome defense) helped him win so much.

[Fencer reregistered]

Semi-interesting tidbit on Russell's supposed advantage in dominance over Jordan:

Boston was 27-2 in series throughout his career.

Chicago was 25-1 from 1991 on, with the only defeat coming in Jordan's abbreviated season.

Does 1991 have any significance other than that it was the start of Chicago's championship streak?

[JordansBulls]

Semi-interesting tidbit on Russell's supposed advantage in dominance over Jordan:

Boston was 27-2 in series throughout his career.

Chicago was 25-1 from 1991 on, with the only defeat coming in Jordan's abbreviated season.

Does 1991 have any significance other than that it was the start of Chicago's championship streak?

If I were guessing here, I would say that it was the first time the Bulls were a team that could win it all whereas the Celtics even before Russell got there still had the #2 out of #8 record in the league and even when Russell got there missed 1/3 of the season and still got the #1 record of the league.

[Dipper 13]

Sorry to break this to ya, but a 10 PPG/15 RPG/5 BPG/DPOY center wouldn't be be better than Dwight Howard impactwise. Russell was usually the 3rd or 4th best scorer on his team. Where as Dwight Howard has to hold down the scoring & defense. Just last year Dwight put up 23 PPG/14 RPG/59% FG%/2.4 BPG/DPOY.

Please explain how Russell would have done better in today's game. He's a better outlet passer, and shot-blocker. But offensively you're giving up a lot. And on a team like Orlando, Russell wouldn't have the luxury of being just the 3rd or 4th option. Perhaps Russell leadership would turn that team around, perhaps not.

All due respect to Russell as a pioneer of the game, but the more in depth we go, the more I feel he's being overrated.

8:57 mark

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYV5KnIz_pE[/youtube]

[Dr Positivity]

Thanks for that interview, great stuff. I continue to think Wilt is one of the most clearly intelligent and well spoken superstars, but really watching that is all you need to know about how this guy couldn't put it all together as a team over individual guy. "Sometimes you can be... too good." Ok Wilt

[ElGee]

Vote: Michael Jordan. Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar follow behind.

I would write a long explanation but nothing has changed in the last three years, except for the fact that I lost any delusion that people want to read Odyssey-like posts from me.

Unlike most people, I couldn't care less how long a post is. I only care whether it's thoughtful and contains cogent points. If it isn't, then a sentence is too long. I read books. For recreation. I'm currently reading a book with over 500 pages. No internet message board post is as long as a book. Therefore I think it's a sad reflection on society when a message board post is "tl; dr." I think Twitter, with its 140-character limit, and Facebook, with its 240-character limit, has contributed to decreasing people's attention spans, as they can't be bothered to read anything longer than a status update. (I'd be curious as to whether there's been any research conducted on this.)

(I read The Odyssey, btw. One of my favorite works of literature.)

[GilmoreFan]

Let's not clap too loud, while I agree with the sentiment of having long posts full of thoughtful and intelligent analysis, that description doesn't extend to some of the mass quotes he (and others) and spamming, which include single game box scores, long newspaper articles, the usual rhetoric you hear from player X about how such and such is "the best". I'd clap if I saw more analysis, and less of the former, which is tedious to go through.

[GilmoreFan]

I notice Erving is up to 8 votes by the way, double the next closest guy (Moses with 4).

[Dipper 13]

"Sometimes you can be... too good."

Are you one of the special problems, he was asked. "Of course. A superstar is always a special problem. A coach has to know how to use him to best advantage."

-Wilt Chamberlain, Oct. 1968

[ronnymac2]

Vote for a GOAT: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

He's got it all.



Vote for a new nominee: LeBron James

Over the past four years, he's been better than anybody else left has been at their peak. He's got enough longevity and stats/accolades/awards to make this choice legitimate.

[ElGee]

Btw, an overview of Russell's teammates: http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/19/bil ... teammates/

Keeping in mind it was common for teams to have 2 and 3 all-stars. I really suggest to the people who seem baffled by Russell's inclusion here to read all the RPOY threads from 1969 back to 1957.

@Green Hat - Regulator didn't cherry pick a few games. The pattern, through the entire decade of the 60s, is that when Russell is out, Boston regresses to around average. The defense -- the staple of their dominance -- just wasn't there, despite a solid defensive PG in KC Jones, a solid defensive wing in young Hondo, and IMO one of the best defensive players of the decade in Satch Sanders. It just wasn't the same team without Russell, year after year, in the few games he missed. Opposing coaches talked about this too -- does that not resonate at all?

If someone is going to make some "in a vacuum" argument about older players, so be it. Who can refute that? Just because I think it's pretty clear that

*deep breath*
the difference between the best players of the 60s, when they were older, wasn't much different from the best players of the 70s, when they were younger, and that players of the 70s held their own against the stars of the 80s, and that the stars of the 80s were great right up until the new generation that would rule the 90s
*end breath*

doesn't mean you have to believe with all the small and large changes and all the rule changes, that anyone would translate well to any era. Why you decide to make this era the gold standard, and pluck players from the past without giving them any extra benefit, I'm not sure. No one can really argue that, can they? Then again, no one really has any idea how someone raised in a different period would look?

To me, I see a *freak* of an athlete in Bill Russell (Dude qualified for the Olympics in his spare time basically). My experience with freak athletes, spotting them when they are young (Bo Jackson, Mike Vick, Jevon Kearse, Shaq, LeBron James, and a few more) is that they are reaaaaaaalllllly successful at athletics. Why it's hard to imagine that Russell could be a 10-time all-nba player, when he is about as tall and athletic as Dwight Howard, one of the smartest, hardest working players ever who revolutionized the game, is beyond me.

Maybe Shaq would have joined the circus in the 60s instead of playing basketball, because we know he didn't want to work hard, keep his weight under 3 bills and play basketball all the time. :/

[ElGee]

Let's not clap too loud, while I agree with the sentiment of having long posts full of thoughtful and intelligent analysis, that description doesn't extend to some of the mass quotes he (and others) and spamming, which include single game box scores, long newspaper articles, the usual rhetoric you hear from player X about how such and such is "the best". I'd clap if I saw more analysis, and less of the former, which is tedious to go through.

What you call "tedious to go through" I call education. Read 50 or 100 of them over games spanning years, and you end up learning a good amount. Especially if you weren't around then.

Pedagogically, I prefer a lot of raw data to slowly form conclusions (yes, I like research papers). I think hearing someone else's summary and losing all the nuance isn't a really good way to "learn."

[ElGee]

Vote for a GOAT: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

He's got it all.



Vote for a new nominee: LeBron James

Over the past four years, he's been better than anybody else left has been at their peak. He's got enough longevity and stats/accolades/awards to make this choice legitimate.

I've got LeBron right there, so this is less about him and more about Karl Malone. How bad do people think Malone's peak years were? This dude made 11 straight all-nba 1st teams and 14 consecutive top-10 MVP finishes (most since merger). Unless we are just being super big on peak play (and I love me some peak play), what's the issue here?

Personally, I'm looking at a pod of players including (better peaks:) LBJ, KG, Doc J (comparable peaks:) Kobe, Barkley, and probably West and Big O (maybe Dirk too). But compare them with Karl Malone and...I don't really get the argument.

[ThaRegul8r]

Let's not clap too loud, while I agree with the sentiment of having long posts full of thoughtful and intelligent analysis, that description doesn't extend to some of the mass quotes he (and others) and spamming, which include single game box scores, long newspaper articles, the usual rhetoric you hear from player X about how such and such is "the best". I'd clap if I saw more analysis, and less of the former, which is tedious to go through.

I find it amusing that you elected to take the opportunity to take a shot at me, when—if one were to actually read the post—I was essentially saying that I for one was interested in reading shawngoat23's opinion, and telling him not to let a fear of it being perceived as "too long" prevent him from expressing it, when there was at least one person (me) willing to hear (read) what he had to say. For me, the discussion is the thing that makes projects like this worthwhile, rather than someone just listing a name.

[GilmoreFan]

Glad to see someone else putting Lebron up. I'm going to hold off on him until after Erving and Moses get in, but he's next on my list. I actually thought I'd be pretty much alone on that one...

[GilmoreFan]

But it's just raw data he and others are presenting, and it's incomplete and selective data... this isn't a careful weighing up of all the factors and assessing them and stats, it's a bunch of selected newspaper articles about how such and such was awesome. Sure, noting that stuff is an important footnote in the overall nuanced analysis, but there's almost no analysis here... it's just a free for all mass paste of old articles saying "Joe Blow said such and such was great", and one off box scores. I can look up box scores myself, I don't need cherry picked box scores to help me, I would rather persuasive and well reasoned analysis.

So yes, discussion is good, but is that what massive pastes are achieving? I don't think so. It's about as helpful as this Jordanbulls guy just listing HCA or winshares over and over.

[Dr Positivity]

I think the B&W TVs get away from the fact that, the gap between the Russ/Wilt/West generation retiring and the Jordan/Hakeem/Barkley/etc. guys being in the league, wasn't that big. Jordan and Hakeem were in the league 10-11 years after Wilt, Oscar and West retired and 15 after Russell. Basically Derrick Rose being in the league 10 years after Jordan. And Wilt and West were still top 5 MVP vote caliber in the early 70s. Havlicek was around in 63 with mega old timers like Pettit and Cousy and still was the best guy on a title team in 74 and dropping 16-17ppg at 36+ in 78. It's hard to imagine the game changing that much in that timeframe to the Jordan generation that would prevent these 60s stars from kicking asses.