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

[JordansBulls]

I must say this discussion is a lot better than the last one we had in 2008. That one we only had 2 pages, this one is at 16 thus far.

[lorak]

My vote: Jordan - simply because he had less flaws than Russell.

Nomination: I though I will nominate Karl Malone or Moses but if ABA career matters then Dr J gets my vote.

[Gongxi]

Vote: KAJ

Nominate: Karl Malone.

[Baller 24]

Both West and Oscar had more than double the elite years that Wade has produced.

Yes, however we're also considering BETTER player, and Wade can be considered a more elite and greater player than either (especially from what we've seen). Same goes for LeBron, his 6-7 year prime is on an absolute peak that only 3 MAYBE 4 players can consider on par for. 6 elite seasons from Wade including a Finals MVP, an NBA Championship, and one of the most dominant performances in the history of the Finals.

His performance against the Mavs in 06' was great...but it was the 2006 Mavs who were not a good defensive team. I don't see how one controversial performance against a weak defensive team

So we're going to just discredit this or what? That's absurd to say considering there have been numerous controversial playoff series', especially involving two (Shaq and Kobe) players on the current ballot. The '06 Mavs are more of an elite team than ANY of what the three-peat Lakers faced throughout their stretch of championship runs (aside from '04 Pistons, but consider I said championship run). And aside from that, they were the 60 win team that was favored, while knocking out an elite defensive team in the Spurs, they were ranked the best offensive team in the league. You can't discredit that, considering they were still a legitimate championship contender.

along with a 2011 series where he faded in the last 2 crucial games(which came after a bad Chicago series for him), somehow catapults him over the Logo & Oscar.

?

West faded numerous times in the finals against the Celtics, Robertson failed numerous times to even MAKE the playoffs with an elite roster, Wade's the better player, more elite player, and a much more dominant player in ANY era.

[Gongxi]

Both West and Oscar had more than double the elite years that Wade has produced.

Yes, however we're also considering BETTER player, and Wade is considerably a more elite and greater player than either. Same goes for LeBron, his 6-7 year prime is on an absolute peak that only 3 MAYBE 4 players can consider on par for. 6 elite seasons from Wade including a Finals MVP, an NBA Championship, and one of the most dominant performances in the history of the Finals.

This has been drummed ad nauseum, I'm sure, but peak does need to be contrasted/compared with longevity. I don't have a huge problem with Wade over West/Oscar, but I'm not sure Wade's peak should eclipse their longevity. Or LeBron's. But I guess it's possible.

[Baller 24]

This has been drummed ad nauseum, I'm sure, but peak does need to be contrasted/compared with longevity. I don't have a huge problem with Wade over West/Oscar, but I'm not sure Wade's peak should eclipse their longevity. Or LeBron's. But I guess it's possible.

Question is, from the prime seasons we've seen from both LeBron and Wade, are they enough to surpass the longevity that Robertson and West hold? I'm just thinking from a point of view where if I were to draft and I had either of these five on the board, which two would I select first? It would be LeBron and Wade with the seasons they've showcased and it isn't even close, for me, personally.

[Optimism Prime]

Sonova crap. Had a huge, long, well-thought out post... and accidentally closed the window.

Quick effort to get some discussion:

Like most, my vote is between Kareem, MJ, and Russell. I think that, were the parameters of the project different, that my vote would be too. If it were an all-time draft, there's no way I'd not pick Kareem with the first pick and build around him. From a historical standpoint, Russell just owned the league in a way that no other player has done since. But Jordan... Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, which is what this project is based on finding out.

That said, I do have to ask how different our votes would look had Kareem, Russell, or Wilt gotten the kind of media bonanza that Jordan received. If people had flocked to the stadium in droves to see Russell block shots, if Kareem's skyhook had been the defining shot that made people want to play, if the song went "If I Could Be Like Wilt"... would people's votes be any different? Or--if Jordan hadn't had the media boom, but Kobe/Garnett did at the same time the internet was taking off.

All I'm saying is this: For people of my generation, Jordan was held up as an exemplar of what every basketball player should be, practically shoved down our throats as the GOAT from an early age, whether he'd earned it by then or not. Would things have been different if someone else had the same impact? Perception means a lot, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Jordan's influence on the media weighs into the people voting him at #1 as much as his demonstrated talent on the court.

Vote: Jordan

Nominate: Dr. J

[Gongxi]

I guess the thought problem would be if you would still select them in a draft if you knew/believed/whatever that LeBron and Wade would only play the seasons that they've played so far and not a game more. Because if we're drafting them under the impression that they're going to play as they have thus far and then whatever after that, we're giving them credit for what they might do in the future as opposed to what they've done so far.

A subtle point, but I think very important one when it comes to the "knowing what I know now, who would I draft" angle as a means of judging who the better player is. I agree with the concept of choosing the better player as opposed to better collector of accolades and successes, but when doing so we need to be careful that we don't extrapolate their careers from today on.

All that said, I can still see an argument for Wade/LeBron's superior peaks trumping West/Robertson's superior longevity. I think I'll just put off that internal debate I'll have to have until its time comes. Thinking about it for even a short time already made me change my nomination now, and I'm fairly comfortable with it.

[Vinsanity420]

What in the WORLD makes Wade's peak so much superior to West or Oscar's?

His prime is comparable to West or Oscar's, and he hasn't had as many seasons playing at that level. He's a borderline Top 20 player, he still needs a few more years close to his current level.

[Baller 24]

What in the WORLD makes Wade's peak so much superior to West or Oscar's?

His prime is comparable to West or Oscar's, and he hasn't had as many seasons playing at that level. He's a borderline Top 20 player, he still needs a few more years close to his current level.

Guess that's the value of longevity. But in terms of being a better player, I don't think it's even a question. West and Robertson both are significantly overrated in general, here on RealGM they're actually rated better, but their careers aren't that elite to where they're clear cut better players than the likes of Dr. J (read ElGee well throught out post), Karl Malone, Garnett, Nowitzki, Moses Malone, and even someone like David Robinson.

[GreenHat]

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. :/

I disagree with your the 60s held their own with the 70s who held their own with the 80s who held their own with the 90s argument.

For example how significant is one grain of sand? Its nothing right. What about two grains of sand, its still nothing. We can keep adding that one grain of sand and all of a sudden we have a beach. How did we get to that beach by just adding "nothing"?

A lot of small incremental improvements over the span of 50 years can add up to a lot even if all of those small incremental improvements were next to "nothing"

I use this era as the standard because the mainly because the most information is available. Doesn't that make more sense than using an era where the least amount of information is available as the standard?

Also the talent pool is the most inclusive now and the incentives for joining the league are the highest.

I don't know why you are asking me why its hard to imagine that Bill Russell could be a 10-time all star because that is either a COMPLETE misrepresentation of my position or a strawman argument. You don't seem to be the type to do either so I will assume you missed a bunch of my posts.

I have said SEVERAL times in this thread that I think Russell would be better than Dwight today (better on defense but worse on offense). I have said several times that he had by far the best defensive impact relative to his peers and could possibly have the greatest absolute impact defensively across all eras. I said he could easily lead the league in rebounds and blocks.

Does any of that sound like I said he couldn't be a 10 time all nba player? Of course he could, but that doesn't make him the best at playing basketball of all time.

I just don't think he is better than Jordan (who could also obviously be a 10 time all nba player lol). I'm not saying he should be out of the top 10.

I think some people think that I am arguing against Russell because I hate him. I am only arguing against him being named the best at playing basketball of all time.

[ElGee]

Both West and Oscar had more than double the elite years that Wade has produced.

Yes, however we're also considering BETTER player, and Wade is considerably a more elite and greater player than either. Same goes for LeBron, his 6-7 year prime is on an absolute peak that only 3 MAYBE 4 players can consider on par for. 6 elite seasons from Wade including a Finals MVP, an NBA Championship, and one of the most dominant performances in the history of the Finals.

This has been drummed ad nauseum, I'm sure, but peak does need to be contrasted/compared with longevity. I don't have a huge problem with Wade over West/Oscar, but I'm not sure Wade's peak should eclipse their longevity. Or LeBron's. But I guess it's possible.

My question to everyone, which I'm posing if for no other reason than to force verbalization, is:

***How do you stack up EACH individual season in the longevity argument?***

My feeling is that people are really blurring the lines from one year to the next. Either they weren't around, or forgot what happened, or maybe never took a closer look. They simply look at a run of stats/accolades, and assume a player played a certain way over x-number of years. This is incredibly fuzzy, though, and sometimes flat-out misrepresents a player.

Karl Malone is the token case, not even bc of the anti-rings bias, but because I think we all agree his peak was a little short of the top guys. But he's the exemplar because of his **consistency,** in which he had so many seasons from 90-100% of his peak play. Personally I'll give him 10 such seasons, with a few more good years.

Moses Malone represents the opposite. Even if you hold his peak higher than Karl's (not sure I do), he's got about 4 such seasons in that 90-100% range. Then a few more good years.

That's an astronomical difference in helped a team win championships over a career, and I'm not understanding how/why people are overlooking it. It's not a matter of lining up all-nba teams or AS appearances. Part of the very nature of high-level peaks is that they mean more than just an all-nba nod.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on that point earlier with my peak/longevity question.

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

I wanted to credit your blog post before I forgot. Good work.

I don't necessarily agree with all of it. For example, if we compare individual FG percentages to the league average, which was a tool penbeast mentioned earlier, Tommy Heinsohn suddenly look a lot better. He either met or surpassed that in five of his first six seasons. It wasn't until the last three, when that three-pack-a-day habit was probably taking its toll, that there was a substantial drop-off. Otherwise, he looks like a pretty solid scorer for the day.

A guy like Sharman improves, too. Quality scorer, typically above the league average, with hard-nosed defense -- sign me up for some of that. I also refuse to believe that the sum of Bob Cousy's contributions can be neglected by virtue of his FG%.

Besides, since when did this become the end-all, be-all measure? (That's not directed at you, but a general observation.) Dirk just had a pretty crappy FG% in the Finals, for example, and anybody who watched knows he had an excellent series.

I'll fully cop to the fact that I probably hold Russell to a different standard, in relation to teammates, that I don't for others. Which obviously isn't fair. I probably still have a hard time believing that Russell could have been that good in his areas of expertise, because they're so far outside the norm. Nobody ever won like he did, before or since. To call him an outlier isn't even close to adequate.

So I guess that's the question at hand -- was his defense and rebounding great enough to offset his obvious flaw as an offensive player, and surpass more well-rounded greats like Jordan and Kareem?

I'm certainly not baffled at the question, or that he'd be a candidate for the top spot. I just don't agree.

[Sedale Threatt]

Regarding the peak/longevity questions, I don't have an answer.

For Kareem, he had both, so I don't see how that's not a huge factor in his favor. There's also the matter of Shaq's prime, which I think dusts some of the other top candidates like Magic and Bird. I know the latter was especially good, but Shaq at the top of his game was about as good as it gets. I could easily put him fifth.

That said, I'd wager that Wilt had the best one-year peak of them all, and I'm still not putting him any higher than fourth.

[Sedale Threatt]

Perception means a lot, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Jordan's influence on the media weighs into the people voting him at #1 as much as his demonstrated talent on the court.

I'd be foolish to think that being the best-marketed, most popular athlete in history doesn't play a huge role in Jordan's reputation. But the thing about that is, you have to deliver at a pretty high level, or all the cute commercials start to get pretty stale. (See James, LeBron.) Besides, I'd argue that the ability/results led to the media influence, not the other way around. Nobody came through the way Jordan did, as often as he did.

[GreenHat]

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).

I don't disagree with that. I would take the opportunity to point you & others to +/- data we have on Kevin Garnett.

http://asubstituteforwar.com/2011/04/23 ... o-garnett/



Basically, we've seen it be possible to have someone really distance themselves from the field in this generation, and he's someone with similar build & mentality to Russell without GOAT level shot-blocking. Add in the blocked shots & all-time great BBIQ, and you truly may have someone lapping the field.

So lets say he would be around Garnett on defense. Maybe better.

My point is that he wouldn't be ANOTHER Garnett distance above Garnett himself (if that makes any sense) and that's where a lot of Russell supporters have him, because of his beastly numbers against inefficient scorers.

I know that he made those bad scorers even worse, but I think its easier for an elite defender to make bad scorers worse than it is to make good scorers worse.

I don't think he would be so far ahead in defensive impact, playing against modern offenses. In all of the video I have seen, I see an elite defender shutting down crappy offenses. I think there are elite defenders in the rest of history who could have had similar impacts, against those offenses playing with those rules (which favored the defense)

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.

GreenHat, I'm sorry but I don't have any conception of your ideas at all. That's not an insult, just that you're relatively new here. You made a statement about Russell supporters' expectations as if we were all the same, I simply wrote back from my perspective.

Re: 5 or 6 block expectations. People've gone through this weird phase where they've convinced themselves that Dwight Howard is blocking shots as well as you can expect anyone to do in this era and it's absurd. In the last 5 years we've seen a 33 year old Marcus Camby block 3.6 shots per game. There really isn't any reason to think that shotblocking is far harder than it was back when Camby was young, blocking even more shots, and it still wasn't as high as Mutombo, or Zo, or Ratliff's peaks.

I certainly think Russell could block 4 shots per game now, and 5 isn't out of the question.

I think five is out of the question.

Dwight Howard is about a 6 blk% now and he's still not getting 3 blocks a game. Career wise 6% is about as high as you can get as a full time player (if you only play 15 mins a game or something, you can get higher). The highest career blk% of any full time player for all the years we have data is 6.44 by Zo and 6.14 by Deke.

I think Russell would be in that 6% range (greatest shotblocker of alltime range, no slight). If you think he can get five in today's game you're putting him at about 10%, about 33% better at blocking shots than every other human being of all time. I'm sorry I don't buy that.

Zo and Mutombo were in the 6% range, same as Dwight (Ratliff was a part time player, averaged 25 mins for his career).

You say there isn't a reason for fewer blocks from the days of Zo, Mutombo, etc. but there absolutely is. There are less shots to block. How many more threes are there today? How many fewer shots are there?

Plus teams pull the center out now by running that high pick and roll. But the less blockable shots is the real key.

Zo and Mutombo would not be blocking 4 a game in today's game and Russell would not be blocking 5. I don't buy Russell as a 10 blk% player when Zo and Mutombo (and every fulltime player) is under 6.5 for their career.

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.

That has everything to do with the amount of luck involved. Poker has far far FAR more luck involved than basketball. In fact the amount of luck involved in poker is a serious issue in terms of maintaining the audience imho. There is no playoff system that results in less luck than the NBA's simply in terms of HCA teams winning out, and quite often, even the "upsets" aren't even really upsets.

I agree that poker has way more luck involved.

But luck is involved in basketball too. Take Russell's first championship.

The Celtics only had to beat the Nationals (who were a -1 SRS team) and then in the finals they only had to beat the Hawks (another negative SRS team).

So first of all wow, what an easy road to the championship.

Anyway in the finals they beat the Hawks 4-3 and game 7 came down to double overtime.

That's basically a coinflip, there was luck involved in that series. If he had to play 4 series every year, he would have more of those coinflips and some might not go his way. Sure he would have some easy series too, but just the sheer number of more competitors would make it harder to win.

But the bigger picture, is that with 30 teams, Russell's chances of getting on a team like Boston in the first place is much lower.

I would absolutely bet my life on Russell not being nearly as successful in a 30 team league as he was in what was originally an 8 team league, having to only win 2 series and sometimes not even having to play a team with a winning record in the finals.

So I stand by the number of teams mattering in terms of difficulty in winning it all.

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?

GreenHat, this is really just a particular tone I'm taking because it seemed appropriate given what I was responding to. You used a rhetorical voice, so I'm using one too. Not out of spite - it's just fun. I'm not actually making assumptions about you personally.

Re: last paragraph. Let me backtrack here.

The reason I bring up the comparable teams in the last seasons is because it was argued that Russell was winning because of his superior supporting cast. I'm saying, well even when he didn't have the superior cast he won, but gives a counterexample to your point.

What about before '66? Well Russell had a better supporting cast on average than Wilt. He did not have a supporting cast so much better than explains 11 to 2 on titles though.

In terms of the difference in supporting casts not being 11 to 2 worth, I'll use a chess example.

I am slightly better than my friend at chess. But I can win almost every time, because I am the better player. If we play 13 times, I can beat him 11 times because I am better.

The NBA back then was very skewed towards the favorite. The favorite almost always won it all back then. Russell's team was the favorite the majority of those years (obviously he contributed to that).

I'm sure we'll look into it further in the future matchups, so I'm not going to get into it now (that seems more of a Russell-Wilt thread than a Jordan-Russell one), especially since I have to respond to two other of your responses lol.

[Sedale Threatt]

Good post. There are a lot of little factors like you touch on -- more 3-pointers/jump shots, less offensive strategy, smaller league, shorter championship road -- that contributed to the Celtic's overwhelming dominance, and Russell's success. Obviously, the fact Russell was a phenomenal player was the biggest factor of all. But that level of dominance is the biggest feather in his cap, and it resulted from a perfect storm of circumstances.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Both West and Oscar had more than double the elite years that Wade has produced.

Yes, however we're also considering BETTER player, and Wade can be considered a more elite and greater player than either (especially from what we've seen). Same goes for LeBron, his 6-7 year prime is on an absolute peak that only 3 MAYBE 4 players can consider on par for. 6 elite seasons from Wade including a Finals MVP, an NBA Championship, and one of the most dominant performances in the history of the Finals.

By what metrics is Wade a better player than either West or Oscar? I would say both West & Oscar are more skilled than Wade, and can do more things on the court too. Wade is elite at attacking the rim, but West is a better shooter, better off the ball, and an equal facilitator/defender. Oscar is a better all-around player. How is Wade a better player? I need something specific.

Let's compare era dominance...

West:
10 All-NBA 1st teams
4 All-D 1st teams
8 Top 5 MVP finishes
2.090 MVP Shares

Oscar:
9 All-NBA 1st teams
9 Top 5 MVP finishes
2.479 MVP Shares

Wade:
2 All-NBA 1st teams
2 Top 5 MVP finishes
0.784 MVP Shares

^
If you include his 2006 playoff run, then Wade has 3 elite seasons, as compared to West & Oscar. Hell, you can throw in 2011, and it's still just 4 elite seasons.You bring up 2006 vs Mavs, and I can counter with West & oscar was great playoff performers in their own right.

So we're going to just discredit this or what? That's absurd to say considering there have been numerous controversial playoff series', especially involving two (Shaq and Kobe) players on the current ballot. The '06 Mavs are more of an elite team than ANY of what the three-peat Lakers faced throughout their stretch of championship runs (aside from '04 Pistons, but consider I said championship run). And aside from that, they were the 60 win team that was favored, while knocking out an elite defensive team in the Spurs, they were ranked the best offensive team in the league. You can't discredit that, considering they were still a legitimate championship contender.

My point in bringing up the 06' Mavs, is their defense. If you want to proclaim Wade's series as one of the best Finals ever, I feel the need to point out that the Mavs were a weak defensive team, that were outscored in 3 quarters earlier that year by a single player. They had no one to guard Wade, and were offensive minded. Defensively, the 2006 Mavs were near the bottom of All-time Finals opponents.

West faded numerous times in the finals against the Celtics, Robertson failed numerous times to even MAKE the playoffs with an elite roster, Wade's the better player, more elite player, and a much more dominant player in ANY era.

Maybe so, but West led LA to 9 Finals, and I really don't a big difference in impact from Wade to Oscar. I mean sure, Wade led the heat to playoffs, but in a really weak East, and he couldn't overtake the 1st round #4-5 seed matchups either.

Wade simply hasn't proven to be better than West or Oscar. Both West & oscar could still excel in today's era, but I'm not sure how Wade would have done in the 60's considering his style of play, which is to attack the rim.

[GreenHat]

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.

You said something that was technically true but painted an inaccurate picture. It's always a temptation when you're arguing, but when it's obvious it does your case more harm that good.

The '55-56 Celtics were about a .500 team no matter how you slice it. When you refer to them as the #2 team in the league and contrast that with Cavs after the Cavs were the 30th best team in the league this year, you're giving the impression that those Celtics were elite when in fact they were mediocre (but admittedly, not terrible).

I'll make the oh-so-bold statement taking a mediocre team and instantly transforming them to the greatest dynasty in all major sports modern world history would kind of be a big deal.

Re: SRS & "league was really weak". It's called parity brother. Having a competitive league sucks the SRS standard deviation down. It does not make winning titles inherently less impressive. In fact, it's arguably MORE impressive to be so consistently dominant in league where most teams were unable to consistently beat their opponents.

I disagree that it makes it more impressive.

Is it more impressive if I beat out seven 5s or beat out 29 teams that includes a bunch of 8s and 9s (along with some 3s and 2s)? I think its the latter by far. Its not like you have to beat out the 3s and 2s in the playoffs anyway. And in the first scenario you only have to beat two teams instead of four.

I stand by my statement that they were the second best team in the league. If you want to call 7/8 of the league at the time mediocre, than why is being the best team in such a mediocre era such a big deal?

Keep in mind the team the Celtics beat in Russell's rookie year was WORSE than the pre-Russell Celtics. He was beating teams in the Finals that were worse than the Celtics before him.

My only point was that Slater Martin (and Reg for posting it) were wrong in saying that the Celtics were "not much of a team" before Russell showed up. "Not much of a team" would be the Cavs, that's why I brought them up.

Do you agree that the Celtics were "not much of a team" before Russell? That's what brought up this tangent. I wasn't saying Russell had no impact because they were in second before him. I was arguing against the Celtics not being "much of a team" because they were the second best team in the league.

The era was a lot worse in terms of level of play, but compared to their era they were the second best team. If you count the second best team as "not much of a team", then it really is not much of a league.

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.

I didn't say MVPs are a joke, just Cousy's. It was clearly a special case. Similar to Willis Reed in '70 where an established star on a suddenly great team gets all the MVP narrative even when it really doesn't make sense.

Was Cousy one of the better players in the era? Sure, and as I've said, you won't find me trying to say Russell actually had a bad supporting cast.

Re: chafing against winner. As you're seeing, you're talking to a guy who keeps trying to hammer in to everyone that they need to stop holding the lack of winning against Kevin Garnett. I don't champion guys just because they win titles. I do think though that the rise and fall associated with Russell's coming and going is pretty amazing.

If we want to do retroactive MVPs because of narratives, I think that is only going to help Jordan's case lol. I don't put much stock into them either way, I just used it to point out Cousy was already one of the best players of the era.

You agree that Russell didn't have a bad supporting cast, but are you not willing to say he had a good supporting cast that didn't overlap his strengths?

No doubt that Russell had a big impact. But so did a lot of the all time greats. They weren't able to rack up as many titles in between because they had to face a lot more competition (again no winning the title while only beating two negative SRS teams in the playoffs).

I would also note that after Russell retired, the Celtics were back to that level 3 seasons later and then averaged almost 60 wins over 5 seasons winning two titles. And like you said that was in an era where parity was a lot higher than it is now.

[GreenHat]

Good post. There are a lot of little factors like you touch on -- more 3-pointers/jump shots, less offensive strategy, smaller league, shorter championship road -- that contributed to the Celtic's overwhelming dominance, and Russell's success. Obviously, the fact Russell was a phenomenal player was the biggest factor of all. But that level of dominance is the biggest feather in his cap, and it resulted from a perfect storm of circumstances.

Thanks.

And yeah that's been my point all along.

I never tried to say that Russell was bad or didn't have any impact.

Its easier to standout defensively/rebounding when you're the only team that plays defense and the other team's strategy is to come down and chuck up the first shot that they can and they can't shoot threes either.