RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[An Unbiased Fan]

I have a question for those who base their list on cross-era comparisons (or "how good would he be today?"):

How do you consider longevity?

Let's say you think Russell would be like a better passing Dwight Howard on offense (with less bullishness around the rim) -- great in PnR, lots of OREB, decent mid-range and smart and efficacious around the rim. Then on defense, he's a multi-time DPOY, at or better than the best defenders of the last 25 years.

OK, so that still leaves MJ (and others) as having better peaks in your eyes...do you also factor in the sustainability of that level?

-Scoring is dependent on skill, dominance, or both. Russell had neither scoring wise. Dwight Howard uses his sheer physical frame of muscle to bully his way to points. Russell was listed at 225 lbs.

-I'm not sure how he would have a decent mid-range, considering his bad touch. There's nothing to indicate he would be effective outside the paint.

-Even on putbacks he's lackluster. I can't believe how many layups/putbacks he blows when I watched tons of the old videos. He's not Shaq/Dwight around the rim. Wilt was light years ahead in the same era. He's wasn't all that powerful attacking the rim.

-I do think he would still be DPOY caliber, though nowhere near the same impact he had in that 60's era. How high do you rank Mutombo all-time? Or perhaps Rodman? I don't see Russell as a Top 5 player in any year post 1980.

[Texas Chuck]

. When it comes to ranking the all-time greats, I just can't rank a player with a glaring weakness over a player with no comparable holes in his game.

does this mean when we get to discussing Shaq that he has no chance because of his FT shooting which became a even more glaring weakness in the context of his teams?

I think we want to be careful to not automatically rank guys higher based on the idea of more well-roundedness, or fewer weaknesses because that certainly doesn't mean the guy with a weakness(real or perceived) isnt having more positive impact.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, first of all, with regards to Duncan never having the agility to be "best thing since Russell" on defense...Duncan in his prime was actually a very mobile big man. He just wasn't an insane leaper, but I'd dare say he was pretty elite in terms of coordination, covering space, and end to end speed. His intelligence and timing is as good as anyone I've ever seen, and even though he wasn't a great leaper...he was a prolific shot blocker.

Second of all, yes, the Spurs offense got better when Duncan became more of a role player...but to completely ignore Duncan's ability to anchor an above average offense is pretty strange imo. Russell couldn't do that, Duncan could. When you have no better options (and the Spurs didn't), having a big man that you can run a pretty solid offense through is a nice luxury.

I never said he was a bad defender. He's very good, but he's not the top of the line.

To the second point, I'm reminded of a joke:

How do you end up with a million bucks running a winery?
Start with 2 million.

Duncan can successfully anchor an above average offense when given a coach and supporting cast capable of being elite when not forced to let Duncan dominate the offense. Go Timmay!

No, I'll admit to being too harsh. It's not nothing, but people overrate it. Using the Offensive RAPM numbers from my spreadsheet here's how some guys look on offense:

Average Top 5 years:
Nash 9.08
Shaq 7.63
Ginobili 6.98
Jamson 5.90
Duncan 4.75

That's a nice offensive player, and I'll give him the nod over Russell on that front, but is it really as good as most think he was when he was scoring 25 PPG? I doubt it.

Is it still enough to give him the nod over Russell overall? Maybe, maybe not.

[Doctor MJ]

And again...where's the evidence that Russell's Celtics were actually THAT much more dominant than more modern teams? From what I've seen from Neil Paine's post and from lorak's post from the 2011 list...his Celtics aren't actually outdoing Ewing's Knicks or Duncan's Spurs, even pre-3pt line and pre-offensive strategy.

And if we tend to keep certain players within context for the level of talent and the level of coaching they've enjoyed throughout their careers (Duncan, Kobe, Magic, Bird, etc)...why shouldn't we do the same thing for Russell?

ElGee's numbers gave a pretty huge advantage to Russell's Celtics at their best, and Neil has acknowledged that he thinks ElGee's numbers are good. I recognize that Neil had some other numbers rattling around, when I looked at everything my takeaways was that the Celtics easily came out on top. If you want to go into more detail, by all means.

Re: context for everyone. Sure everyone, and you can make arguments against Russell. However, the build Russell had still seems to have a rather major defensive edge to me in all eras. You're bringing up stockier slower guys who anchored some amazing defenses and I can see perhaps trying to make a case that that is the true defensive ideal, but my position here isn't so much a Russell think as it is a lanky thing.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Players of that era dribbled . . . as per the rules. Players today, and I mean virtually all players including down to junior high school level, carry the ball on every dribble. In the 60s, the refs would call carry the momen your hand cupped the side of the ball -- of course off hands were less effective and dribble drives less potent. Refs also called more charges v. blocks and the sneakers of the day gave little padding and protection which also limits the great skywalkers. That doesn't mean someone like LeBron or Jordan wouldn't be effective then; assuming no knee injuries (probably not a fair assumption since every skywalker of the 60s had serious knee injuries), he'd be a Connie Hawkins style PF. I don't think Jordan is as portable based on the difficulties with being a dribble drive player back then and based on the fact that no one of Jordan's slim guard type body was a dominant dunking force. Would Jordan have been a great player? Sure . . . Sam Jones or better probably. But the game he developed just wouldn't have been a game that fit in the 60s or 70s so you are looking only at his raw athleticism and intelligence to predict.

The trouble with many of the posters who talk about portability is that they only go one way. It isn't reasonable to look only at how players from the past would play today, you also need to look at how more recent players would play in earlier times. It's the NBA's all-time greatest which includes EVERY era of the NBA including the 50s.

Oh, and Mikan's short peak and inability to adapt to a run the floor style limit him but I will probably be bringing him up in the 15-30 range depending on how things go between now and then.

But I think the reason people bring up things like one-handed dribbling and the lack of skill of the 60's, is because it puts Russell's defensive impact into context.

In terms of help defense, it's a night & day difference between a slow 60's player slashing to the hoop, versus a lightning quick wing of today. The biggest difference between high school to college to pros is the speed of the game. Russell had way more time to react on defense back in the 60's, and a wide margin for era. he could easily help on D because he was a world class athlete playing against marginal athletes.

In terms of rim protection, players of his era didn't get as high, nor had decent explosiveness. So Russell could easily block shots with minimal effort. In old videos he barely jumps for blocks.

Would also point out that he played in 8 team leagues, so defensive prowess during his years is a bit overstated too. One would expect more exceptional defensive divergences, the less number of teams you have. in a 30 team NBA, the separation from team to team would be less in relation.

[SactoKingsFan]

. When it comes to ranking the all-time greats, I just can't rank a player with a glaring weakness over a player with no comparable holes in his game.

does this mean when we get to discussing Shaq that he has no chance because of his FT shooting which became a even more glaring weakness in the context of his teams?

I think we want to be careful to not automatically rank guys higher based on the idea of more well-roundedness, or fewer weaknesses because that certainly doesn't mean the guy with a weakness(real or perceived) isnt having more positive impact.

That's one of the main reasons I don't have Shaq in the GOAT discussion. IMO, Shaq's a top 5 candidate.

I agree that being a more-well rounded player shouldn't automatically vault one all time great over another. However, if they are within the same tier or both in the GOAT discussion, then I think having no or less weaknesses can come into play.

[therealbig3]

ElGee made this post a while ago: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1048645&start=0

I think that's where Bill Russell's argument comes from. Especially from 61-65, but as pointed out by ElGee, Russell basically played GOAT defense his entire career, so his longevity is pretty insane.

If we average the 61-65 stretch, Russell's Celtics were a -9.5 defense over 5 years. Incredible.

Now, Tim Duncan is a guy that routinely gets compared to Russell's Celtics, and he's really the one defensive anchor who enjoyed great defensive teammates and a great defensive coach his entire career, just like Russell. So let's look at his team's DRating throughout his career:

98: -5.6
99: -7.2
00: -5.5
01: -5.0
02: -4.8
03: -3.9
04: -8.8
05: -7.3
06: -6.6
07: -6.6
08: -5.7
09: -4.0
10: -3.1
11: -1.7
12: -1.4
13: -4.3
14: -4.3

Well then, let's average out Duncan's best 5-year stretch: 04-08. Over that time period, the Spurs were a -7.0 defense over 5 years. Fantastic, but still significantly behind Russell's Celtics (-9.5). But again, it's no secret that the Spurs play in a much better offensive era. It's very possible that Russell's Celtics would have dropped to a -7.0 defense during their heyday as well.

And one more point I'm curious about...I understand we don't have a lot of individual impact numbers for Bill Russell, but a really common counter-argument to "Tim Duncan anchored so many fantastic defenses!" is "Look at his teammates and his coach, he clearly had more help than someone like Kevin Garnett or Hakeem Olajuwon, it's not fair to prop him up over them based on team defensive ratings"...but we feel alright giving Bill Russell all the credit for the Celtics' defensive dominance, despite playing for Red Auerbach, and despite playing with many notable defenders on his team?

[An Unbiased Fan]

I think that's where Bill Russell's argument comes from. Especially from 61-65, but as pointed out by ElGee, Russell basically played GOAT defense his entire career, so his longevity is pretty insane.

If we average the 61-65 stretch, Russell's Celtics were a -9.5 defense over 5 years. Incredible.

Should be pointed out though, that those numbers came in a 8-10 team league. Team divergence is greater in smaller leagues, while modern leagues have more parity because they're 3-4 times larger. So the -9.5 is overvalued like most numbers from that era.

[colts18]

3) Russell was a scorer in college. One of the big arguments used against Russell is that he couldn't score enough to play in today's game. I've seen folks say that in today's game, Russell would be similar to players like Joakim Noah or Ben Wallace. But Russell has stated before that he consciously chose the way that he played, to focus more on defense than on offense, in order to maximize his team's success (I can't find the quote, but if anyone has it please post it). But prior to that decision, Russell actually COULD score. In college, Russell averaged 20.7 ppg on 51.6% shooting from the field. He may never have projected into a monster scorer, but were scoring more of his focus (as it likely would be in today's game) there's no reason to believe he couldn't have done so.

This is an awful reason to vote for Russell. All this means is that competition in college was even weaker than his NBA competition. Did you know that Dennis Rodman scored 26 PPG on 64 FG% in college? No one is arguing for him as a scorer because of that.

[ThaRegul8r]

When it comes to ranking the all-time greats, I just can't rank a player with a glaring weakness over a player with no comparable holes in his game.

I don't wish to get involved in the discussion, but nevertheless I can't resist:

In that case, Walt Frazier > Magic.

Correct?

The NBA's All-Star Weekend is a haven for retrospectives, inevitably saluting the likes of Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. It's all rollicking good fun, with a dash of sweet nostalgia, but there's one highly influential name that always seems to be forgotten.

Walt Frazier just about owned the NBA during his peak in the early '70s. You could attempt to name a contemporary point guard in his class as an all-around player, but you would fail, miserably. History quite rightfully shines on Bob Cousy, Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Lenny Wilkens, Nate Archibald, Maurice Cheeks and the current careers of Steve Nash and Jason Kidd, but if I were in the playground choosing point guards, Magic is the only guy I'd take ahead of Frazier.

Come to think of it, not even Magic could assemble a Frazier-like package when it came to complete command of the game. Maybe his "Clyde" reputation, with the gaudy jackets, flashy limousines and nocturnal conquests, became the essence of his legacy -- but that's wrong. Ask anyone who followed the great Celtics teams featuring Dave Cowens, John Havlicek and JoJo White. They won two titles, but Frazier was a huge reason they were denied a more satisfying run.

Like all of the great point guards, Frazier thought mostly of distribution -- and lord, what clientele. On a given night with those great Knicks teams, he had to enable Earl Monroe's creativity, Willis Reed's inside presence, Dave DeBusschere's 18-foot jumpers and Bill Bradley's frantic pace as he raced behind screens. And there were others, over the years: shot-putting Jerry Lucas, "Fall back, baby" Dick Barnett, jazzy Cazzie Russell ... even the angular Phil Jackson needed a little taste occasionally.

Frazier accommodated them all, but it was remarkable to watch what happened in the final moments of the truly big games. More often that not, Frazier took the big shot. He wouldn't have been a great three-point shooter, had that rule existed, but he was deadly from 20 feet in. He seldom missed a clutch free throw. He played some of the best defensive guard this side of K.C. Jones, absolutely locking down some of the league's top scorers and brazenly stealing the ball from Havlicek, Phil Chenier, Gail Goodrich and so many other backcourt stars at crucial times. It seemed especially relevant that he looked the part -- tough, dangerous, absurdly confident, oblivious to pressure -- and his expression never changed. Only the flow of the game, at his discretion.

I don't know if Frazier's name even matters these days. It's just that when people get to talking this weekend, his name must come up. It starts right here.

Link

Walt Frazier is the Michael Jordan of point guards – in other words, he excelled in every aspect of the game.

You can compare me to a lot of guards offensively, but when you start talking defense? You can’t compare anyone to me but Jordan and maybe a few others. [...] Magic was a phenomenal offensive player, but when you think of defense you don’t really think of Magic as a shut down player. That’s what separated me from most of the back court men in general. At times, I could control the game on both ends of the court.

[MisterWestside]

And one more point I'm curious about...I understand we don't have a lot of individual impact numbers for Bill Russell, but a really common counter-argument to "Tim Duncan anchored so many fantastic defenses!" is "Look at his teammates and his coach, he clearly had more help than someone like Kevin Garnett or Hakeem Olajuwon, it's not fair to prop him up over them based on team defensive ratings"...but we feel alright giving Bill Russell all the credit for the Celtics' defensive dominance, despite playing for Red Auerbach, and despite playing with many notable defenders on his team?

And those players all fit Russell, by the way. It seems that they're often grouped into the category of "average Joes", but they all worked as a collective unit to provide the optimal basketball environment for Russell to thrive in. Auberbach and the Celtics weren't idiots.

[Jaivl]

When it comes to ranking the all-time greats, I just can't rank a player with a glaring weakness over a player with no comparable holes in his game.

I don't wish to get involved in the discussion, but nevertheless I can't resist:

In that case, Walt Frazier > Magic.

OT: Actually Frazier is a player I really wanna read about. I recently watched a few games of the early-'70s Knicks and that's what suprised me, his complete package. Also his modern game (pump-fake fadeaways, quick dribbles, deep range in his jumper, etc).

Well, not gonna derail this anymore, I'm really enjoying the read.

[Doctor MJ]

ElGee made this post a while ago: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1048645&start=0

I think that's where Bill Russell's argument comes from. Especially from 61-65, but as pointed out by ElGee, Russell basically played GOAT defense his entire career, so his longevity is pretty insane.

If we average the 61-65 stretch, Russell's Celtics were a -9.5 defense over 5 years. Incredible.

Now, Tim Duncan is a guy that routinely gets compared to Russell's Celtics, and he's really the one defensive anchor who enjoyed great defensive teammates and a great defensive coach his entire career, just like Russell. So let's look at his team's DRating throughout his career:

98: -5.6
99: -7.2
00: -5.5
01: -5.0
02: -4.8
03: -3.9
04: -8.8
05: -7.3
06: -6.6
07: -6.6
08: -5.7
09: -4.0
10: -3.1
11: -1.7
12: -1.4
13: -4.3
14: -4.3

Well then, let's average out Duncan's best 5-year stretch: 04-08. Over that time period, the Spurs were a -7.0 defense over 5 years. Fantastic, but still significantly behind Russell's Celtics (-9.5). But again, it's no secret that the Spurs play in a much better offensive era. It's very possible that Russell's Celtics would have dropped to a -7.0 defense during their heyday as well.

And one more point I'm curious about...I understand we don't have a lot of individual impact numbers for Bill Russell, but a really common counter-argument to "Tim Duncan anchored so many fantastic defenses!" is "Look at his teammates and his coach, he clearly had more help than someone like Kevin Garnett or Hakeem Olajuwon, it's not fair to prop him up over them based on team defensive ratings"...but we feel alright giving Bill Russell all the credit for the Celtics' defensive dominance, despite playing for Red Auerbach, and despite playing with many notable defenders on his team?

So first off, when looking to evaluate the dominance of an outlier it's not actually good to compare them to the mean because they distort the mean. This is particularly the case in a smaller group.

So for example, in '64, if you compare the Celtics to the median, they rate a +12.8, and if you compare them to the mean of the team's not including them it's still a +12. Basically then the Spurs have only 1 year even 2/3rds as dominant as that, even before you consider that a 12-13 edge relative to efficiencies south of 100 makes for a great percentage edge that it would in later eras with higher average efficiencies.

So yeah, just peak vs peak, there's absolutely no contest here. We can talk about degree of difficulty, we can talk about luck, but just the numbers, Russell's Celtics hang'em up there off the charts.

Re: Russell sharing less credit. I don't mean to imply that Russell should get all credit while everyone else shares.

If you're wondering why I consider Russell the defensive GOAT while leading the defensive GOAT team but I don't consider Duncan the 2nd while leading the 2nd, well clearly there are other factors involved. I will admit as always that with players from earlier era I accept things more on face value, not with high confidence of course, but I'm not going vehemently deviate from history based on nothing.

I will also say that when we talk about a particular team outlier, it makes sense that the reason for it might to have much to do with a particular star talent. After all, if it's not due to that, then what's it due to? GOAT defensive strategy from the coach? Red's good but there's nothing to indicate this. GOAT and a half defensive supporting cast? Sure is convenient it came and left with Russell.

[Doctor MJ]

And one more point I'm curious about...I understand we don't have a lot of individual impact numbers for Bill Russell, but a really common counter-argument to "Tim Duncan anchored so many fantastic defenses!" is "Look at his teammates and his coach, he clearly had more help than someone like Kevin Garnett or Hakeem Olajuwon, it's not fair to prop him up over them based on team defensive ratings"...but we feel alright giving Bill Russell all the credit for the Celtics' defensive dominance, despite playing for Red Auerbach, and despite playing with many notable defenders on his team?

And those players all fit Russell, by the way. It seems that they're often grouped into the category of "average Joes", but they all worked as a collective unit to provide the optimal basketball environment for Russell to thrive in. Auberbach and the Celtics weren't idiots.

Please expound. What is it about each of those players that made them the exact type of player that Russell could thrive with defensively.

[Doctor MJ]

3) Russell was a scorer in college. One of the big arguments used against Russell is that he couldn't score enough to play in today's game. I've seen folks say that in today's game, Russell would be similar to players like Joakim Noah or Ben Wallace. But Russell has stated before that he consciously chose the way that he played, to focus more on defense than on offense, in order to maximize his team's success (I can't find the quote, but if anyone has it please post it). But prior to that decision, Russell actually COULD score. In college, Russell averaged 20.7 ppg on 51.6% shooting from the field. He may never have projected into a monster scorer, but were scoring more of his focus (as it likely would be in today's game) there's no reason to believe he couldn't have done so.

This is an awful reason to vote for Russell. All this means is that competition in college was even weaker than his NBA competition. Did you know that Dennis Rodman scored 26 PPG on 64 FG% in college? No one is arguing for him as a scorer because of that.

Um, what?

Russell was doing this while beating the best college teams in the land, and those are the players that go on to the next level.

Rodman was doing this by playing the Wyoming School of the Deaf and the Blind.

There's a difference.

[SactoKingsFan]

When it comes to ranking the all-time greats, I just can't rank a player with a glaring weakness over a player with no comparable holes in his game.

I don't wish to get involved in the discussion, but nevertheless I can't resist:

In that case, Walt Frazier > Magic.

Correct?

The NBA's All-Star Weekend is a haven for retrospectives, inevitably saluting the likes of Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. It's all rollicking good fun, with a dash of sweet nostalgia, but there's one highly influential name that always seems to be forgotten.

Walt Frazier just about owned the NBA during his peak in the early '70s. You could attempt to name a contemporary point guard in his class as an all-around player, but you would fail, miserably. History quite rightfully shines on Bob Cousy, Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Lenny Wilkens, Nate Archibald, Maurice Cheeks and the current careers of Steve Nash and Jason Kidd, but if I were in the playground choosing point guards, Magic is the only guy I'd take ahead of Frazier.

Come to think of it, not even Magic could assemble a Frazier-like package when it came to complete command of the game. Maybe his "Clyde" reputation, with the gaudy jackets, flashy limousines and nocturnal conquests, became the essence of his legacy -- but that's wrong. Ask anyone who followed the great Celtics teams featuring Dave Cowens, John Havlicek and JoJo White. They won two titles, but Frazier was a huge reason they were denied a more satisfying run.

Like all of the great point guards, Frazier thought mostly of distribution -- and lord, what clientele. On a given night with those great Knicks teams, he had to enable Earl Monroe's creativity, Willis Reed's inside presence, Dave DeBusschere's 18-foot jumpers and Bill Bradley's frantic pace as he raced behind screens. And there were others, over the years: shot-putting Jerry Lucas, "Fall back, baby" Dick Barnett, jazzy Cazzie Russell ... even the angular Phil Jackson needed a little taste occasionally.

Frazier accommodated them all, but it was remarkable to watch what happened in the final moments of the truly big games. More often that not, Frazier took the big shot. He wouldn't have been a great three-point shooter, had that rule existed, but he was deadly from 20 feet in. He seldom missed a clutch free throw. He played some of the best defensive guard this side of K.C. Jones, absolutely locking down some of the league's top scorers and brazenly stealing the ball from Havlicek, Phil Chenier, Gail Goodrich and so many other backcourt stars at crucial times. It seemed especially relevant that he looked the part -- tough, dangerous, absurdly confident, oblivious to pressure -- and his expression never changed. Only the flow of the game, at his discretion.

I don't know if Frazier's name even matters these days. It's just that when people get to talking this weekend, his name must come up. It starts right here.

Link

Walt Frazier is the Michael Jordan of point guards – in other words, he excelled in every aspect of the game.

You can compare me to a lot of guards offensively, but when you start talking defense? You can’t compare anyone to me but Jordan and maybe a few others. [...] Magic was a phenomenal offensive player, but when you think of defense you don’t really think of Magic as a shut down player. That’s what separated me from most of the back court men in general. At times, I could control the game on both ends of the court.

Here's my response to a similar post by Texas Chuck:

"I agree that being a more well rounded player shouldn't automatically vault one all time great over another. However, if they are within the same tier or both in the GOAT discussion, then I think having no or less weaknesses can come into play".

Frazier and Magic aren't close to being in the same tier since Magic was clearly a higher impact player. Therefore, the aforementioned scenario does not influence their all time ranking.

[therealbig3]

And my response to Russell's body-type: I'm not convinced that he was a better athlete than Robinson or Olajuwon or Garnett, and I know Duncan wasn't the same level of athlete that any of those guys were, but I've never been convinced that they were clearly superior defensive players than him despite that. I have them all in the same tier.

As for DRAPM over the years, compare him to Garnett when both were in their primes (02-07), as well as 08, which is Garnett's most famous year defensively:

02 Duncan: +2.3 (t-2nd)
02 Garnett: +1.2 (t-26th)

03 Duncan: +3.4 (t-1st)
03 Garnett: +2.3 (8th)

04 Duncan: +4.3 (2nd)
04 Garnett: +4.2 (3rd)

05 Duncan: +3.8 (3rd)
05 Garnett: +1.3 (t-57th)

06 Duncan: +3.6 (2nd)
06 Garnett: +1.9 (t-28th)

07 Duncan: +2.5 (t-18th)
07 Garnett: +4.3 (1st)

08 Duncan: +3.1 (t-5th)
08 Garnett: +5.2 (1st)

RAPM seems to support Duncan's candidacy as a GOAT-defender, as he was ranking as a top 1-3 defender every year of his prime we have the data available with the exception of 07, and seems to clearly outperform Kevin Garnett from 02-06. And Garnett doesn't do anything in 08 that Duncan didn't do prior to that.

Anyway, not really the place for a Duncan vs Garnett discussion, but my point is, nothing really supports that Duncan was a tier below ANYONE on defense, just a belief that because he wasn't as mobile as some other players, he couldn't possibly be on their level defensively. Which isn't the case imo. He's always struck me as a more intelligent and a more disciplined defender than Hakeem or Robinson, and his rim protection and superior post defense (due to strength) compared to Garnett compensates for his inferior but still excellent mobility, imo.

FWIW, I'm not treating RAPM (or any variant of +/-) as the be-all, end-all...like I said, I don't really rank Duncan over Garnett as a defensive player, I see them as more or less equal. And I see both of them as more or less equal defensively to Robinson and Olajuwon. And I see all 4 of them as more or less equal defensively to Russell.

[colts18]

So first off, when looking to evaluate the dominance of an outlier it's not actually good to compare them to the mean because they distort the mean. This is particularly the case in a smaller group.

So for example, in '64, if you compare the Celtics to the median, they rate a +12.8, and if you compare them to the mean of the team's not including them it's still a +12. Basically then the Spurs have only 1 year even 2/3rds as dominant as that, even before you consider that a 12-13 edge relative to efficiencies south of 100 makes for a great percentage edge that it would in later eras with higher average efficiencies.

So yeah, just peak vs peak, there's absolutely no contest here. We can talk about degree of difficulty, we can talk about luck, but just the numbers, Russell's Celtics hang'em up there off the charts.

By standard deviation, the 64 Celtics were not 1.5x more dominant than the best Duncan team. The Celtics weren't even the most dominant defensive team by that measure.

Here is a B-R post on the players who played for the best defensive teams. This post was in 2010 which coincidentally is after Duncan's 13th season (Russell played 13).


4. Bill Russell -6.08
8. Tim Duncan -5.60

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7239

[Texas Chuck]

And one more point I'm curious about...I understand we don't have a lot of individual impact numbers for Bill Russell, but a really common counter-argument to "Tim Duncan anchored so many fantastic defenses!" is "Look at his teammates and his coach, he clearly had more help than someone like Kevin Garnett or Hakeem Olajuwon, it's not fair to prop him up over them based on team defensive ratings"...but we feel alright giving Bill Russell all the credit for the Celtics' defensive dominance, despite playing for Red Auerbach, and despite playing with many notable defenders on his team?

Can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not one who thinks so much credit should go to Pop and Duncan's teammates. If you look at the Spurs D over the Duncan era its pretty clear Duncan is by far the dominant factor. The few times the Spurs weren't a top 5 defense tie directly into the worst years of Duncan's career. His resurgance the last couple years? The D is right back among the best in the league.

Sure Pop and Red help. And yeah some of the teammates help too. But the idea that Duncan had better team defenses than KG for the most part has s great deal to do with those 2 guys and not just teammates.

So yeah I give Russ a ton of credit because its earned. And a couple spots lower when we discuss Timmy he's going to get a ton of credit from me too.

You are leery of rewarding guys for teammates and coaches and that's absolutely fair. Count me among the few who worry about the opposite: getting punished for it.

[Doctor MJ]

So first off, when looking to evaluate the dominance of an outlier it's not actually good to compare them to the mean because they distort the mean. This is particularly the case in a smaller group.

So for example, in '64, if you compare the Celtics to the median, they rate a +12.8, and if you compare them to the mean of the team's not including them it's still a +12. Basically then the Spurs have only 1 year even 2/3rds as dominant as that, even before you consider that a 12-13 edge relative to efficiencies south of 100 makes for a great percentage edge that it would in later eras with higher average efficiencies.

So yeah, just peak vs peak, there's absolutely no contest here. We can talk about degree of difficulty, we can talk about luck, but just the numbers, Russell's Celtics hang'em up there off the charts.

By standard deviation, the 64 Celtics were not 1.5x more dominant than the best Duncan team. The Celtics weren't even the most dominant defensive team by that measure.

Here is a B-R post on the players who played for the best defensive teams. This post was in 2010 which coincidentally is after Duncan's 13th season (Russell played 13).


4. Bill Russell -6.08
8. Tim Duncan -5.60

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7239

Okay, but the numbers I quote still stand.

I like using standard deviations and other statistical techniques too, but the numbers I'm quoting here are easy to understand. One team being 12 points beyond the median while another is 8 points beyond the median is a big difference no matter how you slice it.