RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - #2

[Sedale Threatt]

To summarize the most contentious points about Russell -- Russell did the best things to contribute to winning in his era. Period. The consistent winning is powerful evidence for that, as are the many MVP awards (even when he was 2nd-team rather than 1st-team all-NBA), as are the consistently effusive comments from his contemporaries. And nobody has suggested a way he could have been better in rebounding, defense, outlet passing, or high post passing, in which areas he by all evidence was respectively the GOAT (or GOAT runner-up), the GOAT, the GOAT runner-up, and a strong contender for GOAT. Similarly pick-setting and so on.

So any argument against Russell is equivalent to a form of "Fine, but if something else had been needed, he wouldn't have been able to deliver", where the "something else" has to be scoring (perhaps plus passing out of the post, if he were doing more low-post scoring). Based on available video, he dunked just fine, so what we're really talking about is that his moves were restricted to the inaccurate, sweeping hook shots of the day.

Is that a fair summary?

Well, yeah. Scoring is a pretty significant part of the game, and Kareem was about as good as it gets, both in terms of peak and longevity, whereas Russell was merely adequate.

To me it comes down to the fact the Celtics, in large part because of Russell's unique skills, always won, regardless of whether or not they had the best team, compared to Kareem being a much better all-around player, whose teams (when they were good enough) often won.

Not a much better player, perhaps, but he gave you everything you could reasonably ask for, whereas Bill has that one significant hole.

I'm going to soak in the arguments before I made a decision. Frankly, I'm surprised I'm even considering this, but then, there was a time pretty recently I never would have rated Russell over Chamberlain.

One ridiculous things that always stands out to me about Kareem is the 14-year gap between Finals MVPs. That has to be one of the most underrated achievements in all of professional sports. Yeah, playing with Magic and Co. unquestionably extended his career. But he was still dominating one of the great frontlines in NBA history at 37. Then at 39 he averages 22 a game in the 87 Finals.

In contrast, a reasonably similar player like Tim Duncan is comparatively washed up at 34.

[GilmoreFan]

If you make an exception for the ballboy who suddenly wants to join at voting time to prop Shaq, how are you going to refuse the ballboy/s who want to suddenly join to prop Kobe and Lebron? The guy had plenty of time to join, I think you want the late joiners to be people who are know alot and have a high rep on the boards as being objective and reasonable, not people who have obviously joined to prop their guy.

Anyway, not my problem. Doormatt, what team do you support? I've been asking so I can add the details to the list...

[Sedale Threatt]

It seems like every other post you're wringing your hands over where Kobe is going to end up.

[GilmoreFan]

In contrast, a reasonably similar player like Tim Duncan is comparatively washed up at 34.

Which is why nobody is voting for Duncan over Kareem? Anyway, for all we know Duncan could blow up in the playoffs next year, though I doubt he does. Their teams don't play at the same pace, nor does Duncan have Magic on his team to set up easy baskets and to suck defenders away.

But yeh, it's obviously a great achievement.

[Sedale Threatt]

Anyway, for all we know Duncan could blow up in the playoffs next year, though I doubt he does.

Tim hasn't had a series like that in years.

Their teams don't play at the same pace, nor does Duncan have Magic on his team to set up easy baskets and to suck defenders away.

Duly noted about pace, and Magic. But it doesn't suck to play next to Parker, Ginobili and a fleet of good 3-point shooters.

[rrravenred]

Duncan's per36 stats haven't really dived, which is interesting. But yeah, it's not like he's Garnett having an injury-related down year.

[Dr Positivity]

I think what impresses me as much as that 85 Finals MVP is that in the 85 and 86 seasons, at 37-38, he was still a legit top 5-7 player and superstar basically the whole way, he didn't just rediscover the fountain of youth in the Finals. 22.0ppg, 7.9rpg, .628 TS%, 4th in MVP vote, 4th in WS/48, 5th in PER, Finals MVP/Boss in the playoffs at 37. That's pretty much Dirk's 2011 right there. Pretty sure Kareem should at least be considered 1b for 1985 if we're talking best guy on title team count, Magic hadn't overthrown him yet... I think the "value" of the 85 run is a little understated in his case, it's pretty close to best guy on a title team points to me, especially in comparison to 80 Magic's, which is probably farther away. Actually, you might as well say Magic and Kareem in 85 looks a hell lot like the reverse of Kareem and Magic in 82. Two superstars, one a little better most of the year but the other gets Finals MVP, both deserve big credit.

[Gongxi]

My point is Moses MVP's look a hell of alot more impressive to me than Karl's bull$#@! ones. Karl got 1 because voters were tired of giving it to MJ (his 97 win makes no sense at all), and 1 because of seniority in the shortened season, when in retrospect Duncan should have gotten that MVP. Moses has a good case for some of his MVP's at least, something the RPOY project also bears out, and he was beating out alot of impressive candidates. Who else did Karl beat in 97? A past prime Barkley? Gary Payton? Please.

I agree that Jordan deserved the 97 MVP over Malone, but Malone deserved the 98 MVP over Jordan. So it evens out in that general sense.

I'm not going to flip **** over Moses or Garnett being nominated over Karl (Garnett's peak was amazing and he's enjoyed great longevity to boot), but if I'm forced to vote, I'm going with Karl and I'm not having any regrets about it. The guy was a force for a very long time. Is part of that "long time" kinda skewed when you look at it because you see he dominated in the 80s, 90s, and to some extent the 00s even though it only adds up to anywhere between 11 and 14 seasons? Sure, that's possible, but 11-14 seasons is still impressive in and of itself.

I feel bad that I'm talking a lot more about the nominee than my actual vote, but come on: KAJ pretty much speaks for himself here.

[GilmoreFan]

Well, I'll be with you voting for Karl Malone over KG (barely), but to talk about Karl "dominating" the 80's/90's/00's... I mean, the guy had 9 first round exits. 9... that's not a small number, and he had alot of help most years. He had some other playoff losses that are pretty hard to justify too if he's really as good as peak/prime Moses (or as good as people make him out to be). Again, this is all marginal stuff here, because I have Karl Malone at 13 anyway, one spot ahead of KG, and a few spots behind Moses (at 11), but I haven't really heard any adequate excuse for Karl's many, many playoff shortcomings. He makes Dirk Nowitzki look like the clutchest man alive (in fairness, most of Dirk's criticisms come from a small # of years, but there's a reason alot of people criticise him for years like 07).

[Gongxi]

Instead of looking at first round exits, just look at how he played.

95? 30/13/4. His TS was only 55% (decent, nothing special), but it's not like that's a huge drag.

89? 31/16/1. TS of 57%.

In 90 and 01, his TS was weak (51% and 49%, respectively), but he still produced (30/13, 27/9).

93 was a failure, no doubt about. And he still played, through those few games, as an All Star. I think once we get past the first couple guys- if even that- there's going to be significant failures on every player's part.

[GilmoreFan]

Big stats in a losing effort against a vastly weaker team (like 89) don't mean a whole lot to me, especially when you are matching up with a SF playing out of position, and your team is swept effortlessly, despite having the stronger team from 1-6. Stars of Malone's value should be able to carry their teams to wins over grossly inferior teams, especially when they have heaps of help. What would be the reaction to Lebron laying eggs like those Malone years? Lots of players have big stats, World B. Free, Kevin Love, etc. Obviously since I have Malone ranked 13th I don't think he is those guys, but the point is we should be able to ask why those big stats didn't translate into wins.

[Dr Positivity]

90 and 95 are ugly for Karl from my perspective. Utah had leads in the 4th in both Game 5s (know it was 7 pts with 5 min left in 95, forget 90's exact number but I think it was almost exactly the same), at home, and he turtled aggresiveness and wanting the ball wise exactly like Lebron both times. I don't forgive those 2 losses or the Flu Game any more than Lebron's last 2 years, and I'm going to come down hard on LBJ for his turtling in this project (at least by my standards, because I already consider him a top 8 regular season player ever, so getting dropped to possibly out of the 13 from playoff disappointment is a big knockoff)

[ronnymac2]

I voted for KAJ and LBJ before, so I guess I'll be voting them in again.

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Nominate: LeBron James


However...I've seen some convincing arguments for some of the other candidates up for nomination. My nomination really might change. I'm only 50/50 as is right now.



My argument for LBJ is obviously based on peak play. I think he's got 4-ish years of playing at or near a GOAT level. The Malones, West, Garnett, etc. do not. They do have longevity.

The way I see it, if all the players were picked in an all-time draft, and they were all given equal supporting casts (very good supporting casts where they each were clearly the best player, but with strong talent and excellent fit overall), LeBron James would have an equal chance, along with the other GOAT peak players, to win a title. Garnett, Moses, Robertson, etc., would not.

James in, say 2009, played at a level that anybody else in the nomination group never got to. Obviously, James doesn't have anywhere near the PRIME longevity that the others had though. Prime essentially meaning years in which you COULD be a championship-caliber anchor for a team if you were dropped in a random year with reasonable, realistic competition that year. So KAJ from 1971 to roughly 1983ish or something like that. That's KAJ's prime. Shaq's prime is from 1994 or 1995 to 2005ish.

Let me break down Shaq for a minute. 94-96 were early-prime years, where he was at his best as a run/jump athlete. 97 is just a regular prime year, while 98 and 99 are closer to the peak (well, maybe 98...99 is a little eh). 2000-2003 are the absolute peak (with 2000 and 2001 being the absolute apex if you want to get technical). 2004 and 2005 are latter-stage prime. 2006 is just a really good season or something like that. Or maybe it's latter-stage prime. Whatever.

I'll do Duncan next. Early prime years from 99-01. Then, imo he went straight to his peak from 2002-2004 (Duncan matured pretty quickly). 2005 is very close as well, but let's call that his regular prime. Actually 2006, too. I think his 06 season gets underrated. 2007 and maybe 2008 is latter-stage prime.

I don't have a personal formula for figuring out how to balance those things. I value peak play a lot, but overall prime is right there, too.

Now, I know somebody will bring up Bill Walton. Well, I think Walton actually had a peak very close to the players in this nomination group. However, he didn't have anywhere close to what they had in their primes. He had his two seasons. But then, he never had anything like the stretch Garnett had from 2000 to 2002 and 2006-2008 (counting Garnett's peak as 2003 and 2004, the season matching Walton's 77 and 78 campaigns). He never had Karl's 1990-1993, even if he equaled Karl's peak from 95-97 (or whatever it is).

Walton is really hard for me to discuss regardless. I mean, we never even saw his true peak. Technically, 1977 and 1978 is most likely early or regular prime years, not actual peak years. It's just Bird in 1983. We didn't get to see his Bird's apex 1986 version. (not saying he was as good as Bird, just saying we probably never saw his apex.)


Anyway...even with all of that justification, I'm not totally sold on nominating James. I do think West and Robertson deserve a bit more mention.

[GilmoreFan]

Lebron is going to be my next nomination, after Moses gets up.

[TMACFORMVP]

One aspect of Russell's game that I just marvel at is his speed. We talk about the torrid pace they played at in the 60's to downgrade their stats (and rightfully so), but we fail to appreciate how well conditioned these athletes must have been to play large minutes at such a fast pace, especially Russell. This guy was all over the place, quick enough to come out on the pick and roll, and then recover fast enough to block the shot. He ran the fast break, fought for every rebound, competed on every possession, and played over 40 MPG nearly every season of his career.

Someone asked, what's the difference between Garnett and Russell, and I'd point to their defense. I'm probably alone in this mind-set, but I think Garnett has been slightly overrated defensively; not neccessarily his impact with Boston, but his years in Minnesota. Don't get me wrong, Garnett is an all time great defender, and one of the best the league has seen, but recently, I've started to notice that people are equating Garnett with automatically anchoring a top 5 sort defense, and on the same caliber with guys like Hakeem, Russell, or D-Rob. I think what made them all such terrifying defenders was because of their same ability to rotate, much like Garnett, but also be the best shot blocking threats in the league, something Garnett really hasn't/wasn't been for his career.

Granted so much goes into team defense, it's unfair to completely judge Garnett's Minnesota teams defensively (when afterall, his supporting cast sucked), but his Minnesota teams were generally average defensively, barring his one year in 03-04. And again, I understand shot blocking isn't a one and all metric for defense, but those three players had similar capability in rotating and defending the pick and roll that KG did, but they were also far more intimidating factors in the paint. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Timberwolves best defensive season came when KG was most intimidating at the rim. I understand he hasn't been any better a shot blocker with Boston, so how do we explain that, but there are more factors as mentioned with coaching, and better personnel.

I just think it's slightly overrating Garnett, when I've seen many people claim Garnett has anchored elite defenses ever since he came into the league and became an established player (and that's the part I'm saying is overrated, because otherwise, no one has had real more defensive impact in the league when Garnett finally got some personnel and coaching, the only other with an argument being Howard.

*First column is team DTRG, then opponents points, and finally opponent FG%.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Code: Select all

84-85: 4th - (10th in points, 6th in FG%)
85-86: 14th - (13th in points, 13th in FG%)
86-87: 3rd - (3rd in points, 6th in FG%)
87-88: 4rd - (13th in points, 2nd in FG%)
88-89: 4th - (9th in points, 7th in FG%) 
89-90: 1st - (9th in points, 5th in FG%) 
90-91: 2nd (6th in points, 5th in FG%) 
91-92: 10th - (11th in points, 10th in FG%) 
92-93: 3rd - (3rd in points, 3rd in FG%) 
93-94: 2nd - (5th in points, 3rd in FG%)
94-95: 12th - (14th in points, 2nd in FG%) 
95-96: 14th - (17th in points, 14th in FG%)

 
Total: 6.08 (9.5 in points, 6.3 in FG%)

David Robinson

Code: Select all

89-90: 3rd (5th in points, 3rd in FG%) 
90-91: 1st - (5th in points, 1st in FG%)
91-92: 1st - (3rd in points, 1st in FG%) 
92-93: 10th - (8th in points, 4th in FG%) 
93-94: 9th - (2nd in points, 4th in FG%)
94-95: 5th - (12th in points, 7th in FG%) 
95-96: 3rd - (10th in points, 3rd in FG%)

 
Total: 4.57 (6.4 in points, 3.8 in FG%)

Obviously Robinson has had better coaching, but it's interesting to note that they were a slightly worse defensive team relative to the year with Rodman, opposed to the previous seasons without. Nonetheless, I'd say both had better supporting casts than Garnett, but both Robinson and Hakeem faced fluctuations with their roster as well, and no one else of real significance of All-NBA defensive caliber either, yet for the most part, they anchored top 10 - near top 5 defenses every year of their career.

Garnett on the other hand, in his Minnesota years:

Kevin Garnett

Code: Select all

98-99: 11th (16th in points, 15th in FG%)
99-00: 12th (11th in points, 9th in FG%)
00-01: 16th (14th in points, 22nd in FG%)
01-02: 15th (16th in points, 13th in FG%)
02-03: 16th (18th in points, 10th in FG%)
03-04: 6th (7th in points, 4th in FG%)
04-05: 15th (9th in points, 7th in FG%)
05-06: 10th (8th in points, 9th in FG%)
06-07: 21st (19th in points, 15th in FG%)

Total: 13.5 (13.1 in points, 11.5 in FG%)

Again, I feel I have to clearly explain what I'm trying to say; in no way am I saying that Garnett isn't an elite defender, but I'm not completely sold he's as good an anchor as guys like Hakeem, or Robinson, and especially Russell. Garnett's strengths defensively lie within his impeccable rotation and pick and roll defense, arguably in that regard having a case for top three all-time. He's a terrific vocal leader on the court, and his passion inspires teammates to play to the best of their ability. BUT, I think those I've mentioned, provide the same impeccable rotations, while being a double threat with all time great shot blocking, something Garnett lacks compared to his peers. And Russell especially even exceeds the leadership Garnett displays on the court.

Garnett does everything exceptional, but Russell did all those same things at the absolute best one could possibly do it - including shot blocking, where the big difference lies.

Garnett is an all time great defender, and the prototypical player at the PF position, along with Duncan, BUT I still think he's not in the same tier as Russell, or the other aforementioned centers defensively. Similar versatility on pick and rolls and rotations, but Russell possesses even greater leadership (again, player coach for two seasons), with far greater intimidation.

Anyways, I also think we're selling Russell short here offensively. I saw in the last thread a 10 PPG average? I don't think anyone called that out, but that's ridiculous IMO. Kwame Brown last year averaged 8 PPG in only 26 minutes of play. If you're a big man, that can understand a pick and roll, and catch the ball while playing 36+ minutes a night, I think double digits would be an absolute minimum for any completely incompetent, unskilled center. Then we consider Russell was actually efficient for his time frame, had an underrated touch around the basket, and by choice took a lesser scoring role for the betterment of the team, I'd expect Russell's offensive numbers to be similar, if not even better. Look, Russell's had a season where he's averaged nearly 20 PPG on 46% from the floor, by those standards, he'd be a solid offensive player in today's game. He's even had some memorable games where he's scored the ball, IIRC, he once stated he felt he was a better offensive player than defensive, but chose whichever was best for the team. And after all, he was the most important offensive player for those Celtic teams, because of his

a.) rebounding
b.) high post passing
c.) outlet passing
d.) unselfishness to get the rest of his team involved.

His supporting cast has always been overrated, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek being the only other two main guys with all-time talent, IMO.

All we could do is speculate, but IMO Russell in today's game would be the run away DPOY, and likely a dominant teams second most important scoring/offensive player. 15-18 points, 14-15 rebounds, 4ish blocks, and 3-4 assists while chipping in with nearly 1.5 steals and shooting a solid percentage from the field. Combine that with being the ultimate teammate, and terrific leader off and on the court, give me that over Howard any day.

For that last paragraph however, might be the reason I go AGAINST Russell. I just think Kareem in his prime was the better player. He would still be doing whatever he did then, which would arguably make him the unquestioned best player in the NBA in any era (perhaps with Jordan having the only argument). He could anchor your defense, not to the same extent Russell did, but while being the far and away best offensive player in the game. He had the most unstoppable shot in the game, could even take you out to the perimeter, had an underrated power game, and was an exceptional passer himself. His impact on those Lakers championships as noted often gets overlooked when Magic only took complete control over the team in the latter two championships.

Though one could ask, why not Wilt or Hakeem sort if that's the argument I'm using. Well, first off, Kareem has far more championships than the both of them combined (we can act like it doesn't matter in an all time ranking, but it does), and is the better scorer than the either of them. The problem with Wilt for me is, he was exceptional in every facet of the game, but at different times of his career. The one time he put it together (67') is arguably the GOAT season of all time. But unfortunately, he didn't always play that way which cost him a couple championships, IMO. Kareem has always been what he was, a terrific all round player, and a dominating force in every aspect of the game for a much longer time (longevity is a huge factor here), while just being flat out more dominant than a guy like Hakeem.

From a pure accolade standpoint, Kareem has the best resume of anyone (#1 all time leading scorer, most all-star teams, All-NBA teams, MVP's, 2nd in defensive teams), while having arguably the best prime, stretch of dominance of all time, IMO second to Jordan. Russell is similar in that respect, but when I look at both players, as good as Russell was, and he'd nowhere outside my top 3, I'd take Kareem for my second spot.

I'll post my vote and nomination at a later time, Kareem is likely my vote, but still flip flopping through a few guys for my nomination (Moses, El Gee had a good argument for the Mailman, and even LeBron cross my mind).

[GilmoreFan]

Pace and speed aren't the same thing, and I worry when people look at the pace of 60's games and come to the conclusion they were playing more uptempo than the run TMC warriors, or the Nash Suns. Pace is a little more complex than that.

As for the nomination, Moses won MVP deservedly over guys like Prime Kareem, Bird, Magic, Erving, etc, whereas Karl Malone won undeservedly v.s a late prime Jordan. I know what is more impressive. Moses was just the more impactful player in his peak. I can see Lebron, heck I have him at 12, but some of the Karl voters really could help alot by explaining all his failures (and boy were they alot). How come Lebron and Dirk get heat for far lesser failures than Malone regularly dished out? Does anyone have a single reason beyond "yeh, but his numbers looked good anyway"?

[lorak]

In previous thread several posters said something like that about KAJ: „excellent on both ends of floor”.

It’s not true and I’m going to show why.
No doubt KAJ was great OFFENSIVE player, but he wasn’t as good on defensive end. I’m not saying he was bad defender, but he definitely wasn’t defensive anchor like others great centers.
Lest look at teams DRtg below league average to see how good defensively were teams of some great centers like KAJ, Wilt, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and few others.

For reference point – the best teams all time (well, since 1974, because earlier data isn’t available) have below -8.0: SAS 2004, Celtics 2008, NYK 1993 and 1994. Using estimations we know that one Russell’s team (1964) have even better result: -9.2 (!). But usually your team is very good on defense if it have -4 or lower, since 1974 (without 2011 season) only 40 different teams have -5 or lower.

So now lets see how the best KAJ’s seasons looks and his 5 and 10 year defensive peaks in comparison with others (peak in this case = 5 or 10 straight years when team defense was the best in players career).


KAJ best years in terms of team defense are his first seasons, so calculations are based on estimations (except one season).
KAJ 5 year defensive peak (1970-1974): -2.4 (good result, but not very good or great)
KAJ 10 year peak (’72-’81): -1.4
KAJ first 5 seasons in LA (1976-1980): -0.4 (barley above average)
Looking at whole career his best season were 1974 with -4.1, then 1973 with -3.8 (estimated), then 1972 with -2.8 (also estimated) and that’s all what’s worth looking on, because rest of his career = result -1.6 or higher (usually around league average), he never, except these three seasons (’72-’74), was anchoring team to better defense than -1.6.

Code: Select all

defensive 5 years peaks, teams average drtg relatively to league average in these 5 years, estimations pre 1974

years   drtg   player
'61-'65   -7.7   Russell
'04-'08   -7.0   Duncan
'93-'97   -6.1   Ewing
'03-'07   -5.2   B. Wallace
'85-'89   -4.6   Eaton   
'98-'02   -5.6   D. Robinson
'96-'00   -3.9   Mourning
'87-'91   -3.4   Olajuwon
'70-'74   -2.4   KAJ
'64-'68   -2.1   Wilt



Code: Select all

defensive 10 years peaks

years   drtg   player
'60-'69   -6.3   Russell
'99-'08   -6.1   Duncan
'92-'02   -4.2   D. Robinson
'00-'09   -3.8   B. Wallace
'88-'97   -3.1   Ewing
'84-'93   -3.1   Eaton
'87-'96   -2.6   Olajuwon
'93-'00   -2.2   Mourning (only 8 seasons because of obvious reasons)
'64-'73   -1.9   Wilt
'72-'81   -1.4   KAJ




Code: Select all

how many times player's team have drtg relatively to league average lower than -2 and lower than -4; also added single season career high (team drtg relatively to LA)

>-2   >-4   career high   player
13   09   -9.2 in 1964   Russell
13   11   -8.8 in 2004   Duncan
07   06   -8.3 in 1993   Ewing
08   04   -7.5 in 2004   B. Wallace
11   08   -7.2 in 1999   D. Robinson
08   04   -6.3 in 1989   Eaton
06   01   -6.1 in 1997   Mouring
06   01   -6.1 in 1964   Wilt
08   03   -4.9 in 1994   Olajuwon
03   01   -4.1 in 1973   KAJ


So KAJ looks really bad in comparison with others:
– Not many good defensive teams. Only 3 times in his career drtg -2 or lower! Second (looking from the end) on the list are Wilt and Zo with 6 such seasons each (and Mourning did it in only 8 years!).

- His defensive peak, career year, also looks bad in comparison with others, his teams result (-4.1) is the worst of all these players and Hakeem with -4.9 is closest to him, but beats him badly in terms of consistency (8 seasons with drtg -2 or lower).

- Add to that very good Bastillon’s post from here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1056693&start=60
KAJ’s teams defense with and without him, impact wasn’t too big, in 75 and 78 when he missed games his teams defense improved without him (!) Well, maybe I will quote Bastillon, because his English is better than mine:

but I stand by what I was arguing earlier - KAJ is overrated defensively. he was able to make a positive impact, but nowhere near all-time level and he's considered some all-time defender by many on this board. when he was missing games in 75 and 78, teams sucked offensively, but actually played BETTER defense. when he was changing teams in 75 neither Bucks nor Lakers felt a dramatic change in defensive efficiency. finally, even in his rookie year, there was no major defensive impact, considering all the changes outside of him (which were clearly positive - Dandridge, more health, stability on the roster - rarely changing starting lineups).

I don't see any compelling evidence to think that KAJ was a top-10 defender and actually he might not make the top-15 either.

PS
We all know that Russell was great defensively, but looking at data above we could see that Duncan also is amazing.

[TMACFORMVP]

Pace and speed aren't the same thing, and I worry when people look at the pace of 60's games and come to the conclusion they were playing more uptempo than the run TMC warriors, or the Nash Suns. Pace is a little more complex than that.

I understand that, but I was merely saying Russell's quickness defensively was what made him so special. Add that to the an undeniable, still uptempo game, and his constant movement over the floor, then his physical conditioning was still something to marvel at.

Re: Kareem's defense. It's true I don't think he's as good as the absolute all time great centers defensively, but nonetheless, I'm not sure how accurate it would be to say his teams might have been potentially better without him. Those Bucks teams from 70-75 were the best ranked defense in the NBA, with Kareem playing over 95% of those games. It's arguable that he could have been the defensive MVP during that stretch because of his impact in the paint, and the Bucks defensive #'s. In a modern day discussion, if one had these credentials, he's to be the DPOY for most of these given seasons And the Lakers teams had a different style of play, which IMO allowed opponent teams more easier bucket opportunities. But regardless, they are interesting stats for sure, which puts things in some perspective.

And Duncan IS amazing defensively (he's had more help as well on that side of the court than any of the guys I listed too however).

[GilmoreFan]

I don't really think alot of stats like drtg, but am sympathetic to your point. Kareem was not as great on the defensive end as some of the all-time great anchors like Hakeem, Duncan and Russell. But he was still pretty awesome on D relative to 99% of players who existed, and he was just unbelievable on offense, so on balance he's still clear 2nd for me.

[lorak]

Re: Kareem's defense. It's true I don't think he's as good as the absolute all time great centers defensively, but nonetheless, I'm not sure how accurate it would be to say his teams might have been potentially better without him. Those Bucks teams from 70-75 were the best ranked defense in the NBA, with Kareem playing over 95% of those games. It's arguable that he could have been the defensive MVP during that stretch because of his impact in the paint,

I think Nate Thurmond was defensive MVP of this period. His defense destroyed every great center of his generation, including KAJ in 70s (Thx Regular for POY threads! )
And when anyone thinks that KAJ was DPOY like impact on any point of his career that's why he's overrated defensively. It's like with Kobe Bryant - both of them were very good defenders early in their careers, All D good, but not DPOY good. Then after several first years their defense declined but reputation grows with every year.

BTW, from 1970 to 1975 Bucks defense (drtg) was ranked:
9th in 1975
1st in 1974
3rd in 1973
4th in 1972
6th in 1971
8th in 1970

So it definitely wasn't the best defense in the NBA.