RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - #2

[TMACFORMVP]

Where do you get DRTG from those previous seasons? Not questioning it, just wondering? I was moreso referring to the Bucks overall defensive #''s.

70-71: 3rd in opponents points, 1st in opponents defensive FG%
71-72: 2nd in opponents points, 1st in opponents defensive FG%
72-73: 2nd in opponents points, 1st in opponents defensive FG%
73-74: 3rd in opponents points, 1st in opponents defensive FG%
74-75: 5th in opponents points, 2nd in opponents defensive FG%

I stated if we were going by more modern day evaluations, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kareem have come away with a couple DPOY's (where we tend to look at defensive stats, and how good the team defense was). And during that stretch, Kareem was a guy that averaged 15.4 RPG, 1.2 SPG, and 3.4 BPG during the last two seasons of that stretch. (Thurmond during the same stretch averaged 14.5 RPG, 0.6 SPG, and 2.6 BPG). Not to mention, Kareem played in 385 games and 16,240 minutes in those five seasons, compared to Thurmond's 381 games and 15,351 minutes.

However, I'll concede/agree that Thurmond in the first couple seasons of this stretch was likely better defensively, especially man to man - as he's always been criminally underrated for his career. It's a damn shame he couldn't come away with the championship. But I'm not a huge fan of the Kobe example, because as overrated Kareem may potentially be; I think it's undeniable he would have had a case for the DPOY award had it existed. Kareem had a legitimate argument, being on the best opponent defensive FG% team for nearly five years straight (by a decent margin, I might add) while putting up monstrous defensive numbers - Kobe's never had a case for DPOY, and there were always far more deserving candidates.

[Baller 24]

In terms of voting, I've got Abdul-Jabbar set at #2, he's like a Karl Malone in a way, but also has the strict defensive dominance. He gets very underrated for his Lakers years, where I really wish he took home the '80 Finals MVP, might have changed a lot in terms of perception. Magic was great, no doubt, but I believe the first couple of championships were set in the foundation of Abdul-Jabbar's game.

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Nominations are the tough part I've got M. Malone, K. Malone, Garnett, Wade, LeBron, Dirk Nowitizki and Robinson as my primary choices. Wade and LeBron both are more elite players compared to Robertson and West, like Ronnymac's stated, LeBron has had 3-4 seasons with ease at GOAT level which gives him a great edge. I'm going to say this again Karl Malone and LeBron James have some of the same advantages and disadvantages. LeBron's peak/prime is probably better, but Malone's is longer, also similar in terms of accolades with 2 MVPs and 2 lost finals. Wade I feel is getting underrated, he's had some seasons pretty close to LeBron and he's been the best, probably most elite two-guard in the league for about 3 consecutive years now. And prior to his injury, he was elite talent in '05, '06, and part of '07 before his shoulder injury, he's got some accolades, and he's set records defensively, while also being the MOST superior two-guard on defensive.

Garnett and Robinson are pretty similar in a way, both have absolutely amazing RS, Robinson clearly has a case as being number two behind LeBron with his RS dominance at his peak form. While both KG and DRob have issues in the post-seasons, where they aren't the most amazing performers. Robinson's impact to the '99 Spurs was significant, considering its strength at defense, something Garnett also had with the '08 Celtics. However, it's also good to mention that between the two KG was clearly the best player on the '08 Celtics, while Robinson was Duncan's 2nd hand man.

Moses Malone is interesting, but ElGee really had some solid arguments for him. His peak play wasn't the best and didn't really last too long, his '83 season sometimes gets a tad bit overrated, however he's got the longevity and his accolades are very impressive. Nowitizki's interesting, he's got 13 years of some solid basketball under his belt, still playing at a high level (top 6/7ish), something he's continued to do from the beginning of Duncan and Garnett's prime to the decline of their play, but Dirk's been consistent throughout an entire span of a decade. He's got the accolades with the MVP, Finals MVP, Championship, and elite play, while offensively speaking he's been the center of some brilliant offensive schemes. Although, I'm still looking to slide with Garnett over everyone. He's got two-way accolades, absolutely amazing peak play, and with his championship I'm going to say KG's got enough to boost his resume as the 2nd greatest PF ever.

Nominate: Kevin Garnett

(Probably have M. Malone, Nowtizki, K. Malone, LeBron, Wade, and Robinson next, but still need to sort it out).

[lorak]

Where do you get DRTG from those previous seasons? Not questioning it, just wondering?

Some time ago on basketball-reference someone give formula to estimate ortg/drtg pre 1974. Elgee also was doing it on his own in POY threads, but his and b-r numbers are little different. But if I remember correctly even by Elgee estimations KAJ's teams weren't the best from '70 to '75.

I think it's undeniable he would have had a case for the DPOY award had it existed.

Well, probably he would have the case, but how often and more important - would it be based on reputation (he is big, have a lot of rebounds and blocks) or results (team drtg, shutting down opponents)? I think overall it would be still less (partly because he wasn't that good, but also because after he left Bucks his Lakers teams were usually very weak until Magic arrived) than really all time great defensive anchors who were DPOY contenders several times in their careers AND led their teams to very good defensive results (in terms of drtg).

I also wonder if there's anybody who Kareem stopped in the playoffs? You know, something like Thurmond, who stopped KAJ and Wilt or Hakeem who stopped Ewing? I mean, someone else than aoffensive players like Unseld

[JordansBulls]

Moses won the MVP over prime Kareem, and I don't think it was a controversial, or even wrong decision. .

Well, Karl won MVP over prime MJ In both cases I think, the voters were bored of giving it a guy who'd won 4+ times. Rose beating Lebron is another good example of "this guy has MVPs, our standards are now immediately higher to give it to him AGAIN", IMO

Difference is is that MJ dominated him in the finals especially in 1997 while Moses in 1981 and 1983 dominated Kareem.

[Vinsanity420]

I am going to steal some of drza's responses in previous threads for KG -

Let's distance this from names, and instead look at the on-court realities. For the '04 - '07 Wolves, the majority of the non-Garnett minutes went to players that weren't just poor defenders...they were defenders that were unable to contribute in any area of defense. They lacked the physical ability (combo of strength, speed and/or height) and/or aptitude to stay in front of their man (often without picks), to make reasonable rotations, or to rebound their positions.

....

Well guess what? He got that average defensive support in Boston, and led them to a historic defense. Which would seem to really vindicate the story that the accolades and stats were giving in Minnesota.

You have to look back on your team defensive ratings and ask yourself how much better defensively was 31 year old Garnett than his peak self?

I don't like using team D rating either way... because it is a TEAM defensive rating, after all. You need everyone to buy in to the culture of defense to produce a dominant one. Generally, you have a leader on defense (like KG in 08) to produce this culture, or a coach like Thibs - who turned Chicago around from #11 to #1.. after adding Carlos Boozer.

Now, if KG were a dominant shotblocking threat, but not as good of a scorer (say, 16 PPG), would people call him the GOAT? I wonder...

I'll Vote: KAJ. Bill Russell should rank higher than KG on an all time list because he meant much more to the game of basketball historically... he was considered a revolutionary on defense and had an unreal feel to the game... comparable to Magic or Bird. I still find him extremely difficult to rank, mainly due to his offensive limitations. Defense is great, but it's not like he was a mutant ninja swatting and stopping everything... he could not have been that much better than Hakeem, D-Rob, KG, etc.

Nominate: Oscar Robertson

[Baller 24]

Hondo clearly below West/Robertson? Or does he have a chance at actually being ranked above them?

[ElGee]

You know, now that we're past #1, I'm beginning to think there could be a problem as this goes on with plurality voting. I guess it's too late now, but it might be in order to get some preferential voting going, to prevent this turning into the UK electoral system. Otherwise once things get really hairy you'll have a situation where a guy with maybe 10 votes out of 37 gets up, just because the other 27 are split on other guys.

I'm thoroughly enjoying having my votes not count. At all. Aren't you?

@drza Similarly, I was using the numbers to try and extend beyond all-nba teams. Not all all-nba team nods are remotely equal. You can have two guys on the same all-nba first team, one who is the GOAT peak player ever, and another who might be the 10th-best guy in the league that year.

Garnett's a great example. He makes all-nba 1st in 2000, but he's not as good as he would be in the next two years. I think it's around 01 or 02 we start talking about play comparable to the Malone Machine. Then he has his 03-05 peak. Judging 06-07 is tricky. 08, clear yes. But 09 the dude's injured, so that's out. 2010 he's hobbled a bit, but even in 10-11, I have a hard time placing him as a top-10 player, and therefore regardless of the accolades (let's say he had 2 more all-nba teams) those seasons aren't in the same ballpark as prime Malone seasons. I see, at most, 9 relevant seasons from KG there. (And by relevant I mean to this discussion, to "prime" seasons. KG's peripheral seasons still "count," but the impact they have on my team is hugely different as an all-star or even borderline all-nba guy compared to a top-3 or top-5 MVP guy.)

But see, I think you're blurring the line here between "longevity" and "quality". You site KG in 2000, where he was 1st team All NBA and 2nd in the MVP vote, but say that doesn't count as being on Malone's level. Whether I agree with you or not (I don't), that's an entirely different criterion than "longevity". FWIW, KG in 2000 vs late 1990 Malone is going to be (quality-wise) the same argument that I'm sure we'll have when it comes to comparing them: Malone is scoring more on higher efficiency, KG is playing more of a distributor role and is better on defense. How you fall on how to value that probably plays a large part in which one you think was the better player, but that is a separate question than longevity.

Longevity-wise, as I pointed out in my last post, KG was "All NBA-caliber" from 1999 through 2011, with the possible exception of his injured year in 2010 when even the +/- numbers indicate that he slipped, so that's a run of 12 out of 13 years of high-end play. You can say that Malone might still have a slight advantage still in longevity over Garnett, but at this point that advantage is small and shrinking every year. Now, you can say that you just think Malone's consistent offense made him a better player than what Garnett brought to the table if that's what you believe, but to me that's now a question of how you value player quality and not a question of longevity anymore.

Actually, the crux of my point is that "longevity" isn't just a span of goodness. (eg Jack Nicklaus winning majors 24 years apart.) What actually happens IN that span is the essence of it, if one cares about how much a player gives you over his career. (That's the focus of my criteria, is it not yours or everyone else's?)

All MVP's aren't the same. Nor are all-nba teams. Therefore, KG giving me 2, 3, 4, 6 extra years as an all-star piece is BARELY shrinking the longevity gap between him and Malone, because Malone's extra seasons were so close to his best seasons...over and over...

I've already outlined comparative players, and have yet to hear it refuted. I really don't understand what's happening here; maybe people just think Malone wasn't top-5 in each of these individual seasons. That's cool. But I'm guessing there's a disconnect between how people value him and what he provided over his career. He's actually very similar to KAJ in many ways ITO of evaluating career impact.

The opposite can be said of Moses. Does he really have an argument for more than 6 seasons of top-5 play? How many of those years are better than Karl's? And more interestingly, how many years does Karl Malone have that are better than Mose's years on the same index?

eg Malone's 5th, 6th, 7th....12th best years are all better than Mose's 5th...12th best.

I'll leave it at that, as I'm ready to discuss someone else for now. Although I'd like to be able to change my nomination vote if Malone only has 2 nods again -- I do certainly have an opinion on KG (my No. 11) over the remaining candidates.

[ElGee]

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.

I did break down Malone's entire playoff career in the first thread. From 88-01, "he" (as in his team) was eliminated 5 times in the first round. The notion that they had a stacked team seems completely fallacious to me -- so much so that I'm actually curious as to how you arrive at that notion -- and their second best player, Stockton, could never provide any lift in the playoffs.

You might be interested in this:http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/20/clutch-or-choker-kobe-bryant-vs-karl-malone-in-elimination-games/
And this: http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/21/joh ... -failures/

And, I have a post tomorrow demonstrating Malone's big statistical drop in the playoffs...but stats don't exist in a vacuum. Derrick Rose was an excellent offensive player this year, despite low TS% numbers. Malone has an Iverson-effect to me -- watch the games -- the dude is carrying a huge offensive load in the playoffs bc who the hell is capable of helping him? He's doing it against good defenses too, totally keying on him.

IF he were able to drop his game less, then we'd be talking about a guy closer to the sacred peak players. But just because there were times when he struggled, doesn't mean that this wasn't a fantastic all-around player, a huge offensive weapon, a good defender and someone only outdone at his best by a handful of the best players ever.

Ooops. I wanted to talk about Bill Russell and KAJ. Now I feel like Kaima.

[ElGee]

Count me in for those lower on KAJ. I have two hangups about him:

(1) Defense (mentioned in this thread)
(2) Offensive rigidity
(3) The early 70s

The second one is a small point, as this IS someone I have in the elite group of all-time peaks. But he's also someone whose numbers suggest a better offensive player than what he actually is IMO. You look at some of the numbers and think "GOAT offensive weapon?" And I think there was less synergy to his offensive game than that. This is a minor issue, but one that differentiates him on offense from the short list of GOAT offensive performers.

The final thing is those early 70s years were the weakest in league history for me. I watch Kareem play (in our limited available tape) and I firmly believe he was at his best in 1977 and 1980. But his numbers were bonkers in the early 70s...and I think that might sway people into thinking he was motoring along at peak-levels for 7 or 8 years. IN reality, he swooned a few times, both in Milwaukee and in LA. He was a complicated man.

[penbeast0]

Obviously I am going with Russell again.

Russell v. KAJ -- Obviously (again), Kareem has a monster edge in scoring, Russell, however, has a big edge defensively, in rebounding, in leadership, and in having his teams play above their levels of talent (shown most clearly in 68 and 69 where Boston wasn't close to the top teams anymore except for Russell). Oh and 68 and 69 were post expansion; while they didn't have 30 teams, they had 12-14 and guess who still ended up on top both years. Kareem was great individual player but didn't win except when his team was clearly superior. Not to knock Kareem, still one of my top 4 all-time, but the object of the game is to win.

So, let's look at the less obvious comparisom . . .

KAJ v. Wilt -- First, the statistical argument clearly favors Wilt . . . easily. Both raw and adjusted (for era pace and efficiency) numbers have him as the superior scorer and rebounder; even the superior passer.

And, anecdotal evidence from contemporaries have Wilt as the more feared defender although the statistical evidence people are offerring is less clear. I'd favor Kareem defensively; Wilt was intimidating like Shaq but took defense off way too often to impress me until his late career.

Kareem clearly has a longevity edge as he does on everyone to ever play, but Wilt had a long season and from day 1 to the end was always a top 5 player in the league -- even in 72 when he wasn't scoring he was still leading the league in rebounding and a consensus choice for DPOY if such a thing had existed . . . and he won the ring as the best player on his team in a Russellesque performance. That's a 13 years (one injured) with a 10 year peak better than Kareem's 10 year peak.

Finally, let's look at winning. This is the only clear edge Kareem has on Wilt (Though it's odd that those favoring Kareem over Wilt for winning rings then dismiss Russell for not scoring). Wilt had two titles as the best player, 67 and 72 (yes, he was the best though he wasn't scoring) -- he was blocked by Bill Russell with the GOAT dynasty ever. Kareem had . . .count them . . . two titles as the best player also, 71 and 80. While he was still an incredibly valuable 2nd option in 82 (23/8/3), Magic actually outrebounded him as a guard! and was without question the team leader. Magic was actually the team's emotional leader from day 1, Kareem's teams never performed above expectation except when led by another player, Oscar on a mission to prove he wasn't a loser in 71 and Magic from 80 onward. Kareem was not a guy to uplift his teammates -- maybe Wilt wasn't either with his crappy it's all about me attitude but the argument isn't that Wilt is more of a winner/leader than Kareem, it's that Kareem doesn't dominate Wilt in this area.

Kareem dominated the 70s, winning multiple MVPs in a league with no other legit superstar centers once Wilt retired except for Walton's 1 healthy season -- where he beat Kareem with less talent around him. Nate Thurmond had no offensive game (and unlike Russell, played as if he did hurting his team with his inefficient gunning), Reed/Cowens/Unseld were all undersized bangers who couldn't dominate in the opst, Artis Gilmore was in the ABA and his knees were breaking down by the time he came into the NBA. Kareem's main center competition was Bob McAdoo, as legit a center as Dirk Nowitski (whose game was very similar), a weak defensive high scoring jump shooter. Thus all the accolades, But Wilt also had all the accolades in the world despite competing with Russell, arguably the greatest center to ever play.

So, Wilt has the scoring, the rebounding, the passing, and the peak edge. Kareem has the longevity and was the better second banana. The winning/leadership edge is even; they have the same number of titles as the main man despite Wilt facing much tougher competition. Wilt was more the GOAT than Kareem.

[penbeast0]

Oh, and of course, Russell owned Wilt, you could actually see them face to face and Russell always won when it counted. So, GOAT center . . . Russell, Wilt, Kareem . . . . then Shaq for what it is worth.

My 12th greatest alltime is very close between Jerry West (a hair over oscar), Moses, Karl Malone (a hair over Garnett and Pettit), and possibly Mikan who is the hardest of the all time greats to rate. For now will say Jerry West but am open to changing it. Good debates on Moses v. Karl for the GOAT Malone title.

[LikeABosh]

Bill Russel....11 time champion...wow

[JordansBulls]

I think it is better to have posters to put there Vote and Nomination in bold so it is easier to count up later. Also on a separate line.

[lorak]

To people nominating KG - why he's over K. Malone and DRob?

And I really don't know how anyone could pick Moses before Karl. His peak was really impressive, but what with rest of his career? Overall Karl looks better.

[FJS]

Kareem Adbul Jabbar


Nominate: Karl Malone.

[TMACFORMVP]

I unfortunately won't have much internet access starting from later today to possibly the next few days (already very off and on right now), so I should probably leave an official vote, and nomination.

I forgot to mention in my original post that, despite what I said about KG, he's also one of the guys I'm strongly considering (afterall, I didn't say THAT much, just said I don't think he's on the same sort of tier defensively as Russell, because of the intimidation factor - and a perception that his Minnesota teams were great defensively - admittedly not everyone claims that so otherwise I'm completely fine with how he's rated defensively, and the impact he's had on the Celtics).

Moses had the best peak, the Mailman had ridiculous longevity, KG had the best all around game, and defensive impact. I'm not completely sold on West or Oscar, when I think similarly along the same lines of Baller 24 that I'd prefer Wade and LeBron as perimeter players. But I presume, when you're talking careers, at this respective stage of their careers, West/Oscar have considerably more peak years than Wade does. Saying that however, I'd easily expect Wade to pass them up granted health permits him (which he's been good about these past couple of seasons). I think however, if we do bring up KG in this conversation, we must do the same with Robinson. I think DRob was probably a more dominant performer individually, but never led a team the same way KG did, changing an entire culture, averaging 20/10 en route to an NBA championship. He didn't win Finals MVP, but that doesn't really affect my criteria, since he was clearly the Celtics MVP throughout the entire playoff run.

Nonetheless though, from a statistical standpoint, they had very similar outputs for their championship team. In their primes, KG was a better passer, but DRob the more dangerous scorer and defender IMO. And while we bash DRob for his playoff failures, we still have to take into account the first round loss streak by KG, and the fact his performance took a slight dip as well (in fact, they have very similar playoff #'s, but in that regard, DRob actually falls off more, since he had greater regular season statistics).

It's funny, that I'd almost prefer Robinson and Garnett over Malone for an ATL sort, but in a career respect, Robinson's prime doesn't last too long, and has been outplayed by Malone head to head in a playoff series. And Karl Malone's defense often gets underlooked, he was a terrific defender, but I understand he wasn't an anchor the way KG or Robinson have been. But his peak is comparable, if not slightly better, with decently more prime years to his resume as well. That HAS to count for something.

There was a good point in this thread, or the last about Moses's real peak. While he played many seasons as a 20/10 player, his dominant years don't really stretch as long as those stats would indicate. Nonetheless, what he did taking the Rockets to the NBA Finals, and how he outplayed Kareem in the Finals in 83 are more impressive than any of the other candidates IMO. It's hard to argue with 3 MVP's, and despite my feeling that LeBron is probably the best individual talent/player left, Moses has the best success to go along with dominance. One thing people overlook though is that the Sixers team already pushed the Lakers to six games in the Finals before Moses came, so he was already coming to a championship caliber team. In that regard, we could argue what KG did to change the entire culture was more impressive.

I'm seriously back and forth on this. I think Moses was the more physically intimidating player, while KG has the least amount of flaws in his overall game. I think Karl Malone sort of provides the best in between, but the lack of a championship hurts him in a career perspective, especially since the other two aren't completely lackluster in the "long prime" factor.

This could honestly change depending on the time of day... but at the moment, I'm feeling Moses still had ten seasons where he finished top 10 in MVP voting, and eight seasons of All-NBA play. I think one more MVP weighs heavily, and during a time of Bird, Magic, Kareem, Erving to not have any gripes about him winning MVP is pretty telling. He wasn't the best defender, but he wasn't any liability, and I still can't get over how he basically bulldozed his way in leading the .500 Rockets to the Finals, and even challenging Bird and the Celtics.

King of just rambling, throwing all my thoughts out there. I seriously could see the case for any of these guys, but at the moment, I'm feelin Moses was more dominant than KG, and has a slightly more impressive peak than the Mailman.

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nominate: Moses Malone

[Sedale Threatt]

...

Good post on Kareem's defense. I would never dream of comparing him to Bill Russell, or at least some of the guys that were on the list.

But even if he probably wasn't an absolutely elite defensive player, especially as he got older, there's just too much indication that he was still excellent, as shown by TMac. He also seems to measure out well with the stats, both box score and advanced. There's a lot more to defense than blocking shots, but leading the league four times is not insignificant.

Getting back to Russell, it seems as if Kareem's defense was substantially better than Bill's offense, at least to me. Put it all together, and Kareem was obviously a better all-around player, with the added bonus of his ridiculous longevity.

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.

That's a great point. It wasn't like he pulled that series out of his ass. He was quality all year long. Ever is a long time, but I think it's safe to say it's going to be quite a while before we see somebody have a year, capped off with a series like that. If ever.

Count me in for those lower on KAJ. I have two hangups about him:

(1) Defense (mentioned in this thread)
(2) Offensive rigidity
(3) The early 70s

The second one is a small point, as this IS someone I have in the elite group of all-time peaks. But he's also someone whose numbers suggest a better offensive player than what he actually is IMO. You look at some of the numbers and think "GOAT offensive weapon?" And I think there was less synergy to his offensive game than that. This is a minor issue, but one that differentiates him on offense from the short list of GOAT offensive performers.

The final thing is those early 70s years were the weakest in league history for me. I watch Kareem play (in our limited available tape) and I firmly believe he was at his best in 1977 and 1980. But his numbers were bonkers in the early 70s...and I think that might sway people into thinking he was motoring along at peak-levels for 7 or 8 years. IN reality, he swooned a few times, both in Milwaukee and in LA. He was a complicated man.

Could you be more clear with #2? I think I get where you're coming from -- he tended to be a little mechanical, perhaps even one-dimensional with the sky hook, especially as he got older -- but he still had a pretty well-rounded game for the most part. He ran the court well, he had a decent jumper, he was an underrated and very willing passer who understood the game exceptionally well.

I'm not sure what to make about the early 70s thing, either. I mean, he was absolutely ridiculous at that point as well. Maybe not his pure peak, in terms of the experience he would eventually accrue, but I look at those numbers, and the achievements, and it's difficult to accept any sort of asterisk. He utterly dominated that decade, from start to finish.

The most legitimate criticism, in my opinion, stems from your last sentence. And that's putting it mildly.

If Michael Jordan was a jerk, as penbeast asserted in the first round, I don't even know what adjective would best describe Kareem. Moody, aloof, arrogant, condescending, downright mean...that's just for starters. Intangibles are always a tricky area to get into, but to me this is the one area where he falls substantially short of Russell's standard.

Bill was a prototype leader, whereas Kareem had a tendency to isolate and stew, even when things were going well. Which isn't exactly the best way to bring a team together. He gets way, way too much blame for L.A.'s struggles in the late 70s, but I definitely think it's fair to wonder why, despite all the obvious shortcomings he had nothing to do with, the Lakers didn't do a little bit better.

There were also the toe stubs against Wilt and Thurmond, which I don't hold against him too much. Not a huge amount of shame in getting stymied by arguably two of the three best defensive centers in history, in my opinion.

All that said, the guy was still one of the greatest winners in history.

[ElGee]

This is Bill Russell in a landslide for me. In the first thread, I presented the Celtics defensive dominance. I think it's important to understand that (it appears) Russell was having a defensive impact on his team that matched *overall* impact of any player in NBA history.

There has been a lot of discussion about the entire Celtics team. People have pointed out, "hey, if you take Russell off the Celtics, they are still a good team." OK, how good? .500? 1 SRS? Look at the evidence:

*They weren't a good offensive team -- Sam Jones, and later Havlicek, were good offensive players. Bill Sharman was good in the early days. Heinsohn and Cousy, both of whom I find to be ridiculously overrated, at least provided some volume/load options, despite Heinsohn never seeing a shot he didn't like.

But then you look at 1964, when Cousy retired, and old Heinsohn's minutes are at 27 per and his TS% is 45.8%. The "offensive" forces on the team are young Hondo and Sam Jones. And as one would expect, they weren't an overpowering offensive force. You still have one of the most dominant teams in NBA history: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4723

(Btw, for comparison, the 65 Hawks Beaty, Wilkens, Hagan and Guerin (alongside Pettit), the 65 Lakers had Baylor and LaRusso next to West and the 65 Royals had Lucas, Twyman, Adrian Smith (and Wayne Embry) next to O. The large difference, it seems, was Russell's nonsensical defensive impact.)

*They were, however ridiculous defensively -- So much so, that their 7 SRS totally clears the field. In 65 they are even better, with a 7.5 SRS (St. Louis is second at 2.7).

So it's hard to see how removing Russell even keeps them above St. Louis or Cincinnati...and having a 5+ SRS impact on a team is astronomical. To me, I have Russ with *9 seasons* around this level, and his few "down" years are still better than all but 15 or 20 players seasons in NBA history. No one touches that.

And if you use Neil's method for pace estimation, you get this: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205

1957 Celtics: 23rd-best D all-time
1959 Celtics: 21st
1962 Celtics: 6th
1963 Celtics: 3rd
1964 Celtics: 13th
1965 Celtics: 5th

That, btw, is why someone might say "the Celtics weren't much of a team before Russell." Because, compared to Russell dynasty teams, they weren't.

Vote: Bill Russell
Nominate: Karl Malone

[Sedale Threatt]

Interesting to note that Kareem's Bucks team stands atop that list of dominant teams, despite having what does not appear to me to be an especially loaded roster.

[ElGee]

Count me in for those lower on KAJ. I have two hangups about him:

(1) Defense (mentioned in this thread)
(2) Offensive rigidity
(3) The early 70s

The second one is a small point, as this IS someone I have in the elite group of all-time peaks. But he's also someone whose numbers suggest a better offensive player than what he actually is IMO. You look at some of the numbers and think "GOAT offensive weapon?" And I think there was less synergy to his offensive game than that. This is a minor issue, but one that differentiates him on offense from the short list of GOAT offensive performers.

The final thing is those early 70s years were the weakest in league history for me. I watch Kareem play (in our limited available tape) and I firmly believe he was at his best in 1977 and 1980. But his numbers were bonkers in the early 70s...and I think that might sway people into thinking he was motoring along at peak-levels for 7 or 8 years. IN reality, he swooned a few times, both in Milwaukee and in LA. He was a complicated man.

Could you be more clear with #2? I think I get where you're coming from -- he tended to be a little mechanical, perhaps even one-dimensional with the sky hook, especially as he got older -- but he still had a pretty well-rounded game for the most part. He ran the court well, he had a decent jumper, he was an underrated and very willing passer who understood the game exceptionally well.

I'm not sure what to make about the early 70s thing, either. I mean, he was absolutely ridiculous at that point as well. Maybe not his pure peak, in terms of the experience he would eventually accrue, but I look at those numbers, and the achievements, and it's difficult to accept any sort of asterisk. He utterly dominated that decade, from start to finish.

The most legitimate criticism, in my opinion, stems from your last sentence. And that's putting it mildly.

I'm not going to asterisks the early 70s. I just think it's important to keep in mind the competition was watered-down. I'm not saying those aren't years close to his peak seasons -- he has some awesome early 70s years -- I'm just saying if he were doing that same stuff against different competition, then we could talk about that as peak impact.

The offensive point is a subtle point -- I expound in the 77 RPOY thread. Let's put it this way:

Wilt Chamberlain wasn't some mystical offensive player when he scored the ball a lot. In a team setting, what you threaten with is important, and Wilt needed to gather a lot, or just went up if he had good position, or shot that little fade (and probably turned it over a lot). So even though he had the passing *skills* then, I wouldn't say he was having GOAT offensive impact.

KAJ is like a lite version of that concept. The dude is a fantastic passer, but it's all a little mechanical. I never felt he got teammates the types of shots the all-time great offensive players got them, and I think some of that was his approach. The approach worked well in scoring (pts/efficiency), but the overall package suffered juuuuust a little because of it. Just enough that I don't see any point in history where I go "hey, that high volume high efficiency scorer who is also a good passer is having GOAT-level offensive impact."

It's nit-picking in the sense that slightly better offense, or better defense, would be what it takes for Cap to pass the few sacred peak guys ahead of him IMO.