RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[Quotatious]

I'm going to nitpick here, as this is a major point of contention for me. Jordan is the greatest scorer/ offensive force to ever play. But calling him the GOAT offensive player in the sense that Russell is the GOAT defender doesn't pass the test for me.

We have mountains of evidence stating that Bill Russell was the best defender ever. For one, he was a defensive force in the way Jordan was an offensive force. He was a terror, and severely limited/intimidated pretty much every center he ever went up against. The fact is, Wilt Chamberlain consistently played worse against him and consistently lost to him in terms of individual matchups. It's a common theme, people just could not beat Bill, and he dominated in a way we've never seen since.

But let's look to another main support of Russell: he led SEVERAL of the greatest defensive teams of all time. ElGee and fpliii have made this case, but no one's defensive impact more directly translated into team defensive efficacy than Russell. We've seen great defenders come and go, but none of them have come close to pulling their teams to the heights Russell's teams consistently did. And here's where Jordan's case gets hairy: you can't say the same for him on offense. In fact, you can very clearly say that Magic Johnson's offensive contribution weighted more heavily on his team's success. Note I'm not talking about winning, I'm talking about team offensive performance as a whole, where Jordan can't claim to be the GOAT. we can say he could have led GOAT offenses, but it never really happened. And in fact, we've seen players like Nash and James, who both take a more "hands on" approach to team offense, pull their teams to greater heights than the Jordan's Bulls ever reached.

And then there's exploitability. Although few in number, there were times when teams were able to limit Jordan's offensive impact. I'm talking specifically about the pistons here, as they quite clearly had a blueprint for dealing with him. Granted, he dismantled it later in his career, but it still existed. Russell never had such deficiencies. Nobody ever figured out how to beat him. Ever. Until he retired, his defense was basically the most consistent thing outside death and taxes. You can point to coaching and strategy, which is fair, but the point is nobody ever figured out Russell. He was probably he most adaptable players ever, and could just change his strategy in a heartbeat to counter whatever the offense was doing. This is a primary reason his contemporaries treat him with such reverence.

I can't get behind claiming Jordan as the offensive GOAT in the same sense as Russell being the defensive GOAT. His offensive impact frankly just doesn't hold up to the same scrutiny we use to evaluate Russell.

There are certainly a lot of great points here, and for what it's worth, I agree that Jordan as the GOAT offensive player is debatable - I think that Magic's (or Oscar's, or Nash's) teams being the #1 offense in the league (in terms of ORtg, and for Nash, we also have RAPM data that absolutely confirms his reputation, and shows that it's clearly him who should be credited for PHX top offensive squads), but MJ made very strong offensive impact even in his twilight years (about +4 on O in both 1997 and '98), and it actually DID translate to great team offense (1st in ORtg in '97, and 9th in '98, with Pippen missing a half of that season), plus 3 other seasons when the Bulls had the best offense in the league - 1991, 1992 and 1996 (and 2nd in 1993, 5th in 1990).

That being said, it's necessarily what I want to argue here - I think looking at team ORtg doesn't always have to be a reliable way of determining how big an individual player's impact really is - team strategy obviously varies greatly depending on what kind of personnel they have - Jordan's Bulls (or LeBron's Cavs and Heat, too) were usually well-balanced between offense and defense, while Magic's Lakers, Oscar's Royals, or Nash's Suns had to excel on one end of the court (offense) to be relevant, because they lacked defensive talent (Lakers often had solid defensive teams, but were still heavily offense-oriented, they just had so much talent on their roster that they could be #1 offensive team, and still top 10 on D), while Jordan's or LeBron's team had more flexibility (their individual superiority defensively also had a lot to do with that).

I think that having an elite, offensively dominant PG like Magic, Oscar or Nash and letting them run the show is the most reliable, textbook way to build a great offensive team, and I admit that it's likely easier to build a truly dominant offensive team around a PG, than a more iso-heavy elite offensive player like Jordan, LeBron or Kobe, because it's going to guarantee that there will be great flow to your offense, and it'll be more difficult to come up with a good gameplan to stop an offense like that, where basically all 5 guys on the floor are usually more or less a threat to score, but I think that having an ISO wing like MJ, Kobe, even LeBron, can be extremely helpful against elite defensive teams, when you often can't count on your offense system to work smoothly, and need someone who can score a lot of points efficiently on their own, so I think that on average it might give you more of an advantage in the playoffs, and as far as Jordan/LeBron (I think LBJ is in the same boat as MJ as an offensive player, in the sense that his teams were never really the best in the league offensively - usually very good, or even elite, top 5 level, since he entered his true prime in '09, but not #1) - I think that MJ's/LBJ's boxscore-based metrics, and their volume/efficiency combination, helps to make a strong case for both guys (Shaq may probably be mentioned in the same category).

So, to sum up what I suppose to be a rather unclear analysis, I'd say that Jordan's case as the GOAT may be based more on his individual brilliance (which is almost second to none in terms of volume and efficiency, maybe even more in the postseason than regular season), than him perennially leading the best offensive teams in the league (although he did that 3 times, too).

I guess we could simply agree on Jordan being the best scorer, and one of the best offensive players instead of the best offensive player, right?

BTW - it's admirable to see a Bulls fan arguing for Russell, against Jordan, so ardently.

[RSCD3_]

I'll reserve this spot but I'm seriously considering Russell because if his " vertical and horizontal " defense and mental capacity to blow up plays.

Another thin is how much of the offense was transition and how often was Russell used in the half court.

What kind of hands did we have? what kind of passer was he? If he was above average was it just functionally or did he have great court vision? How was his touch around the rim? How was his college scoring produced ?

With greater spacing would he be more effective?




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[batmana]

For me, there are probably a couple of very strong candidates for the No. 1 spot (Jordan and Russell) and several worth mentioning (Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Magic, Duncan) who are just on the outside of this battle.

Spoiler:

First of all, I am sure we all have different reasons for rating the players the way we do so I’ll try to explain why nobody else can compete with Jordan or Russell here. This is a “Greatest” list, not a “Best” list. Greatness is pretty tricky since it is supposed to combine a player’s individual ability with how much he won. I am pretty sure along the way decisions will be made (by everyone) in favor of a player who won more in comparison to another player who didn’t win. I’ll particularly point out Russell and say that if this was a “Best” project he would probably not be in my top 10. I’ll get to that later as I discuss his case for greatest.

The players I dismiss from the battle for No. 1 (Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Magic, Duncan) all have a spot or two in their resumes: for Wilt it was his inability to win; for Kareem it was the lack of team success even though he was dominant individually; for Shaq it was a combination of things (basically Jordan beats him in terms of his longer peak). However, all these guys will again be in my consideration for No. 2 which I’m still undecided about.
Now, off to the curious case that is Bill Russell. I mentioned that if we were talking “best” instead of “greatest”, I wouldn’t consider him here. I believe Kareem, Wilt, Shaq are clearly better than Russell. But neither won as much as him, neither gave his best time and again throughout their entire careers like Russell did.
Russell has an unparalleled number of titles and won with different supporting casts. However, I believe Russell was lucky to be in the situation he was in. He got in Boston who were coached by undoubtedly the greatest coach at that moment in Red Auerbach and I’m sorry for being so blunt but the other coaches were largely amateurs in terms of knowledge and tactics. That’s like putting this year’s (contender of your choice – SA, MIA, OKC, LAC, IND, etc. with their current coach) against the rest of the league coached by gym teachers.
I will not pretend to know more about Russell’s teammates than every other poster here but I am taking with a grain of salt all the comments about how overrated Cousy was, and how all of Russell’s teammates were HOFs because of Russell. The way I see it, Russell had excellent teammates and the team was incredibly deep in an era in which most teams had one star (or superstar), a couple of good players and that’s it; noone else had depth.
We have people convincing us that Russell’s numbers were not as bad as they look because of the era (poor efficiency) which I agree with but then they point out how Cousy shot under 40%... Shouldn’t we be judging Cousy by the same criteria? Maybe his % used to be the norm for a playmaker in an era where there was no such thing as an open shot, and where coaches believed that it was important to shoot and shoot and shoot instead of working for a good look. I got carried away though, I’d get back to it when we start discussing Cousy.
What I want to say is that if Wilt had been drafted by Boston instead of Russell, I have absolutely no doubt that Wilt would have all those titles and Russell would probably have 1 title or so. I firmly believe that Auerbach would have convinced Wilt about teamwork and defense and his offense and overall dominance would have been insurmountable for other teams, given Boston keep their amazing depth around him. If Wilt lucks into going to Boston, he has 10+ titles now and there is no argument for who the GOAT is. For all the wins Russell had against Wilt, I am still not convinced Russell was a better player.
Please, keep in mind that I’m not saying Russell’s game wouldn’t translate. I think it will. I’d expect him to be a great impactful defender and overall center in today’s game. I just don’t think that’d make him better than Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt individually or as a team player. To summarize, in my mind Russell’s narrative is massively impacted by those titles and even though it’s fair, it’s not enough to make him No. 1 overall in my book when there were players who were clearly better basketball players than him. In a sentence, I believe Bill Russell was a tremendous physical specimen, an excellent basketball player with a high IQ who happened to play for the best coach (by miles), on the most stacked team (with no other team anywhere near) and won an obscene amount of titles which skew our view of him. We are not dealing in hypotheticals but again, Wilt would be the undisputed GOAT if he was put in Russell’s shoes for his entire career. I could be wrong but if Russell has only 2 titles on his resume, he is not the GOAT on almost anybody’s list.
Michael Jordan to me is the perfect basketball story. Like previous posters mentioned, he combines individual accolades and achievements with the team success. When his team was still bad, he put up mindblowing numbers. When they got the depth and coaching, he started winning titles, and never looked back. He never underperformed. I don’t want to repeat the numbers that were already posted but he never had a bad playoff series, and he got even better in the Finals (he never had a bad game in the Finals either, I know you can point out games in which he shot a poor percentage but he got his no matter what, and he impacted the game in more ways than scoring). He didn’t take nights off during the regular season either. It’s amazing how today’s players are all about resting (playing less minutes per game and still taking games off towards the end of the season) while Jordan regularly played 82 games. For me, Jordan is the greatest performer, the best big-game player, the most dominant player. In an all-time draft, I’d take him at No. 1 and never look back. Jordan won MVPs, Finals MVPs, scoring titles, defensive accolades. He was the first player to have a center-like impact from a perimeter position in an era ruled by big men. In today’s era, Jordan IMO would be even more dominant and early Jordan could average 40+ PPG. (BTW, him not being a good 3-point shooter is due to the 3-point shot being introduced when he was already playing the game; you have to understand that those players didn’t practice the shot with the knowledge it was worth more, plus in the early years teams didn’t gameplan to get a good look from downtown, the shot was taken as a bailout shot or as a “Hail Mary” shot. If Jordan entered the league today, he would turn into a very-good-to-great 3-point shooter and that’s beyond any shadow of a doubt. People should instead be more impressed that he had the most 3s in the NBA Finals before Robert Horry surpassed his record instead of pinching percentages from the 1980s on an incredibly low number of attempts. When Jordan started taking a reasonable number of 3s, he shot them well. When he needed to, he would straight-up murder you from downtown, just ask Portland.)
To complete the Russell-Jordan parallel, I believe none of Michael’s compatriots would have won the same amount of titles in his place (not even Shaq even though he has the strongest case) considering how the Bulls needed all of those points and scoring outbursts.

My vote goes to Michael Jordan and it’s all open from the next spot for me.

Spoiler:

OT:
I would like to open a discussion about George Mikan. I completely disagree with the notion that we should leave him off the list because he played in another era. For all we know, he was one of the greatest players and we should try to assess him accordingly. I personally wouldn’t hesitate to put him in my top 10 and I believe it is a bit of a double standard to include Russell or Wilt and argue for their dominance but exclude Mikan. If you feel he should be outside of the top 10 or top 20, fine, I respect that opinion. But I cannot compile a top 100 list without including him in it. Please, don’t bring up how if we include Mikan, we should also include Dr. James Naismith as he was probably even more dominant in his era; I want this to be a serious discussion and an attempt to pay one of the greatest ever his due.

[trex_8063]

---

I posted these quotes on Russell's defensive range (thanks to ThaRegul8r for supplying them) recently in another thread, but I'm not sure if many have seen them, and they're relevant here:

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm)

“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell

“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr

“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services

“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West

“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake

“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials

“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142

Russell's length, physique, lateral quickness and general athletic package is imo very similar to a young Kevin Garnett.
All these testimonials about are basically referring to and marveling at his remarkable athleticism......an athleticism that would be less remarkable or less unusual/unique in a modern context.
jsia.....

My Vote for #1: Michael Jordan
Jordan had a Lebron-esque level of impact on both sides of the ball (arguably even greater than Bron offensively), and he did this as a perimeter player in an era where floor spacing was poorer, where hand-checking was allowed, and where some of the greatest rim-protectors of all-time (Ewing, Hakeem, Eaton, DRob, Tree Rollins, Mutombo) were allowed to camp under the rim.
He consistently elevated his level of play in the playoffs, he consistently was willing to step up in clutch moments.
I'll leave it at that, as most other arguments have likely already been made.

[ceiling raiser]

So, in my first thread, I'd said:

Now, what I'm looking to learn about Russell:

The shooting/scoring in general is obviously is a concern. What quotes/evidence do we have in particular about how Boston ran their offense? Was the goal truly to get up more shots than the opponent? I just did some brief research on this:



Columns 1 and 2 correspond to Russell, columns 3 and 4 correspond to his teammates, season by season. From the numbers, it seems like this was an equal opportunity offense for the most part, Russell doesn't seem too far removed from his teammates in terms of relative FG%. Among players who played at least half of their games that season, there were only 22 instances of players beating the league average by 2%:



8 were Sam Jones, 5 Bill Russell, 3 Bill Sharman, 3 Bailey Howell, 2 Don Nelson, 1 Frank Ramsey. The cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but if we extend it to all player-seasons above league average (<2% above, since those are covered above), players with multiple seasons in that range:

4 were Sam Jones, 4 Tom Sanders, 3 Tom Heinsohn, 3 Bill Russell, 2 John Havlicek, 2 Don Nelson, 2 Bill Sharman

Again though, I'd like some quotes before drawing any conclusions on this to demonstrate that inefficient shooting was by design.

Fortunately, ThaRegul8r was able to provide me with quotes supporting what the quick-and-dirty numbers above say:

Tom Heinsohn: We had a very simple objective at the start of every game: We were going to take more shots than the other team, as many more as we could. So the less time we wasted bringing the ball upcourt, the more shots we’d get, and the easier those shots would probably be because the defense would be caught unprepared.

We were trained to play at a pace other teams didn’t like, to extend ourselves 100 percent every minute we were out there. Other coaches preferred to slow the pace so that their players would still be strong at the end of the game if they had to go the full forty-eight minutes. Red’s approach was just the opposite: Turn the contest into a physical test of wills!

Even if other teams were able to match us shot for shot, they weren’t getting as many good shots as the game wore on because they were being forced to think quicker, shoot quicker, and make decisions quicker, invariably leading to more turnovers than they were accustomed to committing.

We didn’t waste a lot of time looking for the perfect shots, the way other teams did. Our idea was to overwhelm the opposition by the number of shots we took; the emphasis was clearly on quantity.

The mathematics of that approach were obvious. If we took 100 shots and made only 40 percent, we’d still have as many points as a team that took 80 shots and made 50 percent. The meant if the other team was trying to limit its number of shots by playing a slower game, it was going to have to shoot a much higher percentage than we did in order to beat us.

We weren’t worried about percentages. People look back at those Celtics today and say, “Hey, Cousy shot only 38 percent,” but that’s a misunderstanding of the way we played.

The constant battle was to find ways to upbeat the tempo and to never allow the other team to slow us down; more important, to never allow them time to catch their breath or to think. […] With Cousy and Russell perfecting what they knew at opposite ends of the floor, allowing us to become more and more assertive all the time, we were simply too much for most teams to withstand. We were the marines, baby! Charge! That was us: the leathernecks of the NBA, charging up Pork Chop Hill every night.
— Tommy Heinsohn and Joe Fitzgerald, Give ’em the Hook (Prentice Hall, 1988), pp. 81-82

John Havlicek: The Celtics have never won by field goal percentage. On at least one occasion they had the worst team shooting percentage in the league. But they took the most shots and they also accomplished their main objective, which was to win the championship. The Celtics have been blessed with a succession of great rebounders, from Bill Russell to Dave Cowens and Paul Silas, who have enabled them to have possession of the ball more than other teams. The rule of thumb for me, and for every other Celtic, has been, ‘If you’ve got the shot, take it. Otherwise you’re no good to us.’ This is not to say that your better shooters shouldn’t get the ball in key situations. It means that, as Red says, you can’t let them insult you. There is nothing wrong with a so-so shooter taking an open shot when there are good offensive rebounders positioned underneath the basket.
— John Havlicek and Bob Ryan, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion (Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 91

I now feel comfortable casting my vote. Bill Russell is my selection for #1.

[Baller2014]

I can see slamming the 60s although personally, since the question is greatest of all time rather than who would be the greatest in today's league, I think being portable to the 50s and 60s is just as important as being portable to the last 20 years.

But saying the talent level in the 60s is inferior then picking Kareem who played his most dominant ball in the 70s seems disingenuous to say the lleast. For most of Russell's career, there were the same number of teams and players. There was expansion toward the end (67 and 68 plus the very limited impact of the ABA's 1st two years), but it was a small talent pool with multiple college superstars on every team.

The 70s had two factors lessening the talent pool and inflating the statistics and the top players. First (and lesser), the ABA started siphoning off talent. By 1969, Rick Barry was the only player to jump leagues although Mel Daniels was an NBA 1st rounder who signed with the ABA. By 1975, the ABA was pretty much on a par talentwise with the NBA . . . and that's more players than played in 1966's NBA, a doubling of the size of the player tool in 10 years. But that grossly UNDERestimates the expansion of the player pool. In that same period the NBA had gone from 8 teams to 18, MORE THAN DOUBLING. There may have been an expansion of the basketball playing population in that time but without international players or greatly increased popularity, I don't see how you can say the competition that Kareem faced on a day in and day out basis was close to as good as Russell faced.

Add to that the limited number of great centers in Kareem's heyday . . . the centers he faced that gave him the most trouble during the 70s (other than the one year of poor injury plagued Bill Walton) were Wilt and Nate Thurmond, both of whom played the majority of their prime during Russell's era, not Kareem's. His main competition for the top center in the 70s were Dave Cowens (who was smaller than Russell and not a true rim protector though I loved his motor) and Willis Reed (also smaller than Russell and a bit injury prone). Meanwhile he was able to feast on a lot of expansion era centers that might not have even made the league as backups in 1965. In 1975, Kareem faced basically 7 competent NBA centers (Ray, McAdoo, Cowens, Unseld, Lacey, Lanier, aging Thurmond) and 10 stiffs (Sojourner, Kunnert, Neal, Elmore Smith -- the JaVale McGee of the 70s, Tom Burleson, E.C. Coleman -- a combo forward out of position for the expansion Jazz, Awtrey, Gianelli, LeRoy Ellis, Chones). If you think Elmore Smith could actually play well, it's still 8 good to 9 stiffs. Russell in 1965 faced a HOF center more than half the time (Wilt, Reed, Beaty, Bellamy, Thurmond) with only 3 weak centers (Wayne Embry -- a lot of people like him better than I do, maybe Sam Lacey level, LeRoy Ellis -- yeah, same one only 24 instead of 33, and Ray Scott).

There is no real way to say you won't support Russell but favor Kareem because of era strength and pass the red face test.

I most certainly can. Kareem's first year was 1970. Russell's last year was the year before Kareem's rookie year. A great deal had changed since Russell came out in 1956, 14 years earlier. I'll give you a hint what the most obvious one was:
Here's the 1957 championship Celtics.

And here's the 1970 Lakers.

It shouldn't he hard to spot the difference.

Your argument implies Russell in 1969 was doing something directly comparable to Kareem in 1970. That's clearly not true. Russell was putting up 10-19-5 on 433. FG% on a 48 win team. The next year without Russell the Celtics dropped 14 games. He was a big part of that, but he wasn't pulling Kareem's weight. Kareem came onto the garbage expansion Bucks who had won 27 games the year before, and turned them into a 56 win powerhouse who lost in the conference finals to a NY Knicks team that was substantially better than any team Russell faced the year before (thanks to the emergence of Walt Frazier). Kareem put up 29-15-4 on 518 FG%. They were not comparable players doing comparable things. Kareem was immediately the MVP of the NBA in 1970, and he (unsurprisingly for a rookie) got better the following few years.

[ceiling raiser]

Russell's length, physique, lateral quickness and general athletic package is imo very similar to a young Kevin Garnett.
All these testimonials about are basically referring to and marveling at his remarkable athleticism......an athleticism that would be less remarkable or less unusual/unique in a modern context.
jsia.....

I agree that he is similar to younger KG in some regards (and Hakeem), but that's still extremely rare IMO. It's not like those guys are a dime-a-dozen. As someone earlier in the thread had stated, it's tough to find a guy who dominated in both the "horizontal" and "vertical" games (MJ was another such guy obviously, I saw a great quote recently that noted his mastery of the horizontal game was what separated him from say a Dr. J).

[lorak]

One other note...I've seen Russell conflated with Mikan a few times in threads relating to this project. I feel like this is inappropriate for a couple of reasons:

1) Basketball is and always will be basketball, but I think the shotclock changed the game. I'd be very interested in research on players before/after the clock was implemented.

2) The NBA through the early-mid 50s (Mikan's era) was far different than Russell's era (which extended through the end of the 60s) partially because alleged quotas seemed to disappear. There were far more black players as we progress deeper into Russell's NBA, and his impact remained at or near the top of the league. I looked at the composition of the NBA in terms of % of players, % of games started, % of minutes played, and % of true shooting attempts (FGA+.44*FTA), and it paints a picture of two different leagues:

All true, but as shot clock changed the game, the same happened during 70s - merger, different style of play, not only more above the rim, but also much slower pace, and then 3P line. And during Russell's era on average (per season) 37% of players were black. During Jordan's era 76%! That's very big difference and in XXI century we additionally have significant impact from international players. So my point is that difference between the game in last ~20 years and Russell's era is bigger (or at least equal) than between Bill's times and pre shot clock game, and thus if we ignore pre shot clock, or draw line there, then why not to ignore 60s?

[MisterWestside]

I don't vote on these all-time lists (Dr Spaceman recruited me for this project, but I'll browse around while I figure out my own rankings), but I'll chime in with a couple of thoughts:

-Why this forum continues to use pure RAPM over more powerful hybrid metrics like xRAPM or RPM (both of which do a better job of predicting overall impact as standalone metrics), I don't know. Mind you, even those metrics don't come close to predicting player value like WAR does in baseball, and those measures of player impact have a bunch of other strings attached to it as it pertains to understanding the true inherent ability of a basketball player (hint: you have to incorporate alot more than just the metrics to help you out here), but can we please stop limiting ourselves if we decide to use the all-in-one metrics?

-Russell's offense. Yes, he had more skills on offense than those Celtics teams asked him to employ. And they were still average at best, and I'm not convinced that they weren't below-average. They certainly weren't elite skills, or even all-star skills. And if you're going to outstrip the overall modern impact of players of the current best players in the league, you have to be way better in modern defense than prime KG/Duncan to compensate for that weakness. In this day of zany offenses, I don't think so. Even for the best and most mobile defensive players in the league today, you can only do so much on the defensive end of the floor.

This is not to knock those who vote for Russell. I respect their picks.

[ceiling raiser]

I most certainly can. Kareem's first year was 1970. Russell's last year was the year before Kareem's rookie year. A great deal had changed since Russell came out in 1956, 14 years earlier. I'll give you a hint what the most obvious one was:
Here's the 1957 championship Celtics.

And here's the 1970 Lakers.

It shouldn't he hard to spot the difference.

My issue with this is that in the latter half of his career, Russ played in a league of predominantly black players:

One other note...I've seen Russell conflated with Mikan a few times in threads relating to this project. I feel like this is inappropriate for a couple of reasons:

1) Basketball is and always will be basketball, but I think the shotclock changed the game. I'd be very interested in research on players before/after the clock was implemented.

2) The NBA through the early-mid 50s (Mikan's era) was far different than Russell's era (which extended through the end of the 60s) partially because alleged quotas seemed to disappear. There were far more black players as we progress deeper into Russell's NBA, and his impact remained at or near the top of the league. I looked at the composition of the NBA in terms of % of players, % of games started, % of minutes played, and % of true shooting attempts (FGA+.44*FTA), and it paints a picture of two different leagues:

and still was doing much of the same things. The league was certainly more diverse across Kareem's prime:

but it's not night-and-day, as Russel and Kareem played and demonstrated the ability to dominate a predominant black league.

[penbeast0]

60s were more like today except for bottom of bench where last two guys were almost always white; 50s were pretty whitebread but the bulk of Russell's career was in a league where the starters were 50%+ black.

[lorak]

T
With Russell, you're talking about a real life fairy tale career. Perfect player, for the perfect team, with the perfect coach. When I think about that it makes me feel at ease about any era bias because his total impact on the court was basically unmatched and has not been close to repeated since. His impact and influence defensively on his teams reached levels unheard of

I disagree. Even if we ignore eras differences (so that it was easier for a rim protector to have big defensive impact pre 3P line) and will look only on pure impact numbers, then we would see than others also impacted their teams defensively as much as Russell: Duncan (and I'm not talking about years with Robinson), Ewing under Riley, KG in Boston or Wallace in Detroit (BTW, prime Mikan also looks like someone with BIG defensive impact).

[Jaivl]

First of all, a disclaimer: I'm not going to write long posts in these first three selections, and I don't feel the need to. I'm quite set on the first 3.

I only see three choices for the title of "best player ever". Michael Jordan, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Kareem's case is based mainly on his combination of GOAT longevity and elite offensive play during that stretch. He has a whooping 16 seasons with +10 win shares, and while I am concerned that it is a simplistic analysis, it's only a quick demonstration of his sustained level of greatness. But he comes short in both impact and peak to Jordan and Russell. Still, he is a clear-cut top 3 player for me. Not gonna argue too much if somebody has him as #1.

You know what you're gonna get with Jordan. Maybe the most complete player ever in his prime, capable of making a huge impact with both his GOAT-level scoring and his incredibly disruptive help-defense. I was a bit concerned about his real impact on defense, but recent RAPM data of his '98 season (35 years old) shows a great impact on that end for a perimeter player. He had selfishness problems in his first years in the league, but Phil Jackson changed his mind, and handed us the best peak performer in the planet, period. Prime Jordan knew what he had to do to win, from setting up teammates to crash the offensive boards or take the scoring load almost alone. But that's my main concern, what happens if Phil doesn't coach Jordan?

Russell also knew what he had to do to win. His advantage over Jordan is that he knew it since day one. His Celtics rated consistently as the clear-cut best defensive team in the league despite playing at a higher pace (at least by FGA). That's impressive stuff, and Russell has to be given a great part of the credit, as he was the main defensive anchor of the Celtics. We're talking about the most impactful player of all time, and the best defensive player ever. But Russell is not perfect either. I don't have concerns about his height (6'9" barefoot, would be listed at 6'10" or 6'11" today), nor about his athleticism (impressive track records), nor about his transition to today's game as an impactful player (but not as impactful as in the '60s, obviously). I have concerns about his real value on offense. We all know about his mediocre scoring, and that's what is bothering me. Unlike Jordan, who is near-GOAT level on offense (global) and defense (for his position), Russell has a glaring weakness in his offense. Post passing is a nice asset to have, but It's not enough to consider him a really impactful offensive player. His defensive impact seems higher than Jordan's offense, but I rate him negatively as an offensive player. That's what tilts the balance for me.

Vote: Michael Jordan

(PS: Would be really interested if someone posted articles of Russell's playmaking, or recommend me some games where I can see his playmaking in full display. Didn't see the impact on the limited footage I have about him, but that could change).

[ceiling raiser]

All true, but as shot clock changed the game, the same happened during 70s- merger, different style of play, not only more above the rim, but also much slower pace, and then 3P line. And during Russell's era on average (per season) 37% of players were black. During Jordan's era 76%! That's very big difference and in XXI century we additionally have significant impact from international players. So my point is that difference between the game in last ~20 years and Russell's era is bigger (or at least equal) than between Bill's times and pre shot clock game, and thus if we ignore pre shot clock, or draw line there, then why not to ignore 60s?

1) I do agree, but I think with regards to the merger/3pt line, neither forced players out of the league. In the years following the introduction of the shot clock, it seems that many players were unable to play at a high level after its introduction who were doing so before. The pace is a valid argument (though I'm not a big box score stats guy anyway ), though from the two quotes in my above post on this page, it seems that incorporating running and quantity over quality with regards to shot selection was indeed by design. We can agree to disagree on this point, but I 100% understand where you're coming from here and definitely respect your opinion.
2) Great point with regards to international players, though that would work against all players prior to the mid-2000s. As for 37% vs 76%, that is certainly true. There were obviously more black players in the league when MJ played. From the mid-60s on though, the league was half black, and it seems Russell was doing many of the same things. If you feel that either (or both):
• Russell's dominance was lessened as more black players came into the game
• There's a substantial difference between the 50%-57% (Russ had his best year, by his admission and by the numbers in 64, and the league was 50% black in terms of MP that year) and 76% (average during MJ's career as you stated)
then I can definitely understand how you came to your conclusion.

But yes, to reiterate, I definitely understand your points, just disagree (but again, I can see where you're coming from here).

[penbeast0]

Others led their teams to defensive dominance for a couple of years (even Hakeem!) the way Russell did for over 10. And a lot of people had better offensive TEAM numbers than Jordan, although I have Jordan rated above all of them except Russell admittedly.

[ceiling raiser]

Others impacted their team's defensive ability for 1 or 2 years (even Hakeem!) the way Russell did for over 10. And a lot of people had better offensive TEAM numbers than Jordan, although I have Jordan rated above all of them except Russell admittedly.

Just two notes:
1) I agree with this 100%.

2) My one issue with this point (even as a Russell for #1 voter), is that the better offensive team numbers are the primary argument for Russ, but not for MJ (as far as I can tell from reading posts in this thread), so I'm not sure that this is very important.

[ceiling raiser]

(PS: Would be really interested if someone posted articles of Russell's playmaking, or recommend me some games where I can see his playmaking in full display. Didn't see the impact on the limited footage I have about him, but that could change).

This would be great, I gotta second this.

I didn't really get into his passing because I can't say too much confidently about that part of his game. It won't make a tremendous difference IMO, but it could be the difference between being a slight negative offensively and a slight positive.

[lorak]

• (Russ had his best year, by his admission and by the numbers in 64, and the league was 50% black in terms of MP that year)

Yes, what Russell did in second half of the 60s (when league was +50% black), especially during last two seasons, is the main reason why he is in my ~top10

BTW, how do you explain why Celtics defense didn't improve in Russell's second year? I mean, he played 1k more minutes, 2nd year players usually are better, yet Celtics defense stayed the same. Why? Was Loscutoff so good defensively? Or maybe Ramsey so bad?

[lorak]

Others impacted their team's defensive ability for 1 or 2 years (even Hakeem!) the way Russell did for over 10. And a lot of people had better offensive TEAM numbers than Jordan, although I have Jordan rated above all of them except Russell admittedly.

Just two notes:
1) I agree with this 100%.

And I disagree ;], because others also impacted their teams defensive ability that much for 10 years. Just results (team drtg) weren't consistently as good, but that's because of worse support or differences in leagues. But defensive impact, for example in Duncan's or Mutmbo's case, was there all the time.

[Baller2014]

It's not just that the league had more black players (though it did), everything improved (because black kids, all kids, were starting off earlier and there were more of them taking up the sport, as it had become a serious money spinner, as opposed to the 50's when nobody took it very seriously).

Then there's the fact that what Kareem did in his early years in the 70's was clearly more impressive than what Russell was doing in the tail end of the 60's. It was not like for like at all.