RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[Dr Spaceman]

People who judge by play relative to era, when we know that era sucked, are punishing players for being born too late.

Hm. So if we don't judge play relative to era, how do we judge it? In other words, what is the standard? Modern game? What makes it any more reasonable a standard than, say, the mid-80s or the 60s? I can't quite follow this line of reasoning.

Russell had the best team and best organisation in a garbage era of basketball.

So if you were the team with the most talent, it wasn't a surprise when you kept winning the title. Russell is a top 10 player, but not a top 5 one.

So what do you make of Wilt, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, and Elgin Baylor? Do any of them make your top 20?

And winning 11 titles in 13 years is basically an incomprehensible accomplishment, pretty easily the greatest thing any professional sports team has ever done. If you feel that the era was weak, you also feel that Russell was weaker than most perceive him, how do you reconcile that with the level of dominance they displayed?

[Doctor MJ]

People who judge by play relative to era, when we know that era sucked, are punishing players for being born too late. It's also obviously selective. Nobody here has Mikan in their top 5 players (forget the thread limits in a sec, I mean on their own list), because they know it would be absurd to put a guy who would be a back-up in today's game in the top 5 players. People need to stop acting like Russell's Celtics dominating means so much. Russell had the best team and best organisation in a garbage era of basketball. If we transported any of the top 10 into his position it'd have been pretty similar. It was easier to win titles back then, not least of all because there were fewer teams and a handful of playoff games to play. So if you were the team with the most talent, it wasn't a surprise when you kept winning the title. Russell is a top 10 player, but not a top 5 one.

I don't think the mid-to-late 60s era of basketball sucked. I suppose that's really the point. The gap between '55 & '70 is considerably bigger than the gap between '70 & '15 to me.

Have you ever really thought about, say, how long Kareem played? He played against Wilt and he played against Hakeem. One of these eras you think is garbage and the other you think is modern, but the separation between them is not actually that far.

[Baller2014]

You can make your own arguments for whether you want to look at multiple eras at once or pick one as the standard, but you can't just look only at "relative to one era" when you know that era was a weaksauce, broken league. There was nothing standard about the Russell era.

I rate Wilt and Russell toward the end of my top 10, Oscar and Jerry might make my top 20, Baylor would be lucky to make my top 40. You say winning 11/13 titles is the greatest achievement in professional sports. I question the degree to which a lot of Russell's era was a professional league, and I've discussed this at length already. It was not just weak compared to the modern era, it wasn't a pro league. There were a handful of teams, some of them not picking the best players because they were black, some of them wanting to pick local players, relatively no training by pros at a young age, and a lot of people not being interested in basketball because it wasn't a money maker for them. The 2nd best big in Mikan's era chose to be a salesman instead of play pro-ball, and the NBA was still recovering from that sort of thing, as well as the vastly smaller talent pool to draw on because it wasn't a perceived as a pro sport, and because black players only slowly got access to the league. Russell had by far the best team and the best organisation (with ridiculously slanted rules, like no free agency, territorial picks, etc). It's no shock they won repeatedly in their 8 team, whitebread, bush league.

The vote btw is:
Jordan- 21
Russell- 10
KAJ- 1

[colts18]

When Russell was coming up, coaches were literally telling players not to jump on defense to block shots. True story. Russell was one of the first to utilize jumping on defense.

[MisterWestside]

You don't "have to"? Well no, I'm not your boss. I can't make demands of you. However if you're going to bring up X as something to seriously considered when talking about a player, one would presume X wasn't something true about pretty much every other player.

Russell had help. So did everyone else. So...?

Not equally. And not in the same way, with the same circumstances. And I go at lengths to get it right, instead of assuming otherwise.

Here, I'm just simply saying that the players around Russell fit him well. Nothing mindblowing commentary-wise, and it's duh-worthy, but it's in addition to the other important things that helped him achieve the maximum impact that you're impressed with. Not everyone always gets that.

I feel like you're just spouting cliches back at me. Here's how your point looks to me:

Friend: Hey that Eddie Van Halen is an amazing guitarist, you should get him in your band.
Bandleader: Hey Eddie Van Halen want to come to my band and play guitar?
<years later>
Doctor MJ: That Eddie Van Halen he was a great guitarist.
Mister Westside: Well yeah but that bad leader could have insisted he played the bagpipes instead.

I'm all for giving Red credit, but it's just not a zero sum thing. When you recognize a talent in someone, you deserve credit for the recognition, but you don't suck away talent credit from that person.

Not the same analogy. It's more like me saying that Eddie should keep playing the guitar that he always plays, and shred away with rock-specific solos and hammer-ons, while I have everyone else play smooth jazz. You hear the music as a whole, and it sucks.

There, I give Eddie full credit for his talent. While also saying that he isn't in the right (or best) environment. And guess what? Building basketball teams isn't as simple.

I think you'd be far better served to make your arguments for how Garnett & Robinson would do in that era based on the details of the game than playing these "what if" scenarios.

These "what if" scenarios are no different from the other posts I read about Russell and the modern-day. I'm not discouraging anyone from making them.

But if they are, the standard for comparison is set high. Citing era-specific stats fall short.

[JordansBulls]

The vote btw is:
Jordan- 21
Russell- 10
KAJ- 1

Your voting is off unless I am missing some.

Here is what I saw.


Russell
penbeast0, fpliii, MacGill, Texas Chuck, drza, Warspite, ardee, Doctor MJ, magicmerl, Dr Spaceman


MJ
Basketballefan, JordansBulls, SactoKingsFan, GC Pantalones, Dr Positivity, PCProductions, therealbig3, Quotatious, kayess, batmana, trex_8063, Jaivl, DannyNoonan1221, andrewww, Mutnt, DHodgkins, An Unbiased Fan, O_6


Kareem
Greatness


These below have not registered a vote that have participated in the thread

RayBan-Sematra, mopper8, ThaRegul8r, MisterWestside, lorak, bledredwine, Narigo, The Infamous1, colts18, Owly, sp6r=underrated, ElGee

[Baller2014]

People who judge by play relative to era, when we know that era sucked, are punishing players for being born too late. It's also obviously selective. Nobody here has Mikan in their top 5 players (forget the thread limits in a sec, I mean on their own list), because they know it would be absurd to put a guy who would be a back-up in today's game in the top 5 players. People need to stop acting like Russell's Celtics dominating means so much. Russell had the best team and best organisation in a garbage era of basketball. If we transported any of the top 10 into his position it'd have been pretty similar. It was easier to win titles back then, not least of all because there were fewer teams and a handful of playoff games to play. So if you were the team with the most talent, it wasn't a surprise when you kept winning the title. Russell is a top 10 player, but not a top 5 one.

I don't think the mid-to-late 60s era of basketball sucked. I suppose that's really the point. The gap between '55 & '70 is considerably bigger than the gap between '70 & '15 to me.

Have you ever really thought about, say, how long Kareem played? He played against Wilt and he played against Hakeem. One of these eras you think is garbage and the other you think is modern, but the separation between them is not actually that far.

The first thing I'd note is that I have Russell in the top 10, and I think he'd translate today. But there was a big difference between the NBA in 1970 and the NBA in the mid-60's, and some stats were posted earlier that cut to the heart of this- the number of black players had massively increased. It's also a bad argument because the guys you are comparing were not doing the same thing. Kareem was far more impressive from 1970-74 than Russell was in the tail end of the 60's.

As for Wilt, he massively underachieved because he didn't really care about winning, just so long as everyone called him "the best individually" and gave him his money. Some of the stories about his antics are unbelievable, if he'd played in the modern era he'd have been the most hated man in America.

[Baller2014]

My count is not off Jordan Bulls. Go back and count again.

[An Unbiased Fan]

for sample 2 (which includes y, z) with mean mean_2, if everything else is the same within the samples (or similar really, in case you want to nitpick), then yes, the outlier will impact standard deviation (again, your choice of metric) more than two values. Not something to agree/disagree about, unless when you mentioned "bad offenses", you meant they were so bad that they were outliers as well.

I kinda mean a little of both in the sense that in a 8 team league there is much more variability. Imagine is we took the Top 8 team in the 2014 East, and had them play a 82 games season. One could only imagine the level of offense the Heat would produce, or the level of defense the Pacers would have. That's essentially what you had in the 60's. 1 or 2 good teams, and not alot of depth talent wise. The Heat would really win not 1, not 2, not 3...titles. In the 2 round playoffs, the would suffocate offenses.

I think looking at the level of Boston's defense is important and fine. i just feel the numbers used to prop it up as the GOAT defense aren't comparable to modern numbers. Possessions for one are only estimated, and again, to compare a 8 team league this way to 30 team leagues just doesn't wash.

[JordansBulls]

In Russell's rookie year, 56-57, 2 teams finished with a record above .500. Russell
wasn't lucky to land on the Celtics?

Teams finishing .500 or better-
56/57- 2 of 8
57/58- 4 of 8
58/59- 3 of 8
59/60- 4 of 8
60/61- 3 of 8

When you on one of 3 teams to finish over .500, what does that say? It says that there were maybe 2 dominant teams. 1 or 2 dominant while the others just knock each other around. Which was the case.


1956-1957 rookie year 1st Title:
Name WS in order (also Russell is 4th in WS/48)

Sharman 10.4
Cousy 8.8
Heinsohn 7.1
Russell 6.2

Interesting that fellow newcomer Heinsohn had a more valuable year. Can't imagine anyone would claim that
Russell won the title (his first) all by himself.
1957-1958 No title, but Russell is #1 in WS
11.3, 10.0, 8.7, 6.0, 5.4 - 5 major contributors, the famous (team over individual player proved it this year).

But hold on a minute! Russell is behind Ramsey in WS/48. 12% behind Ramsey. What do you know about that..... So every minute they were on the floor Ramsey had more value then Russell by 12%.

1958-1959 2nd Title, Russell is first in WS, but there are six major contributors: 12.9, 8.7, 7.6, 6.5, 5.9, 5.3

1959-1960 3rd Title, Russell is first in WS, but 5 other major guys: 13.8, 7.9, 7.8, 7.7, 5.9, 5.3
By WS/48 Russell was only 6.2% ahead of Sharman.

1960-1961 4th Title Russell has 1st place in WS, but viola!! Sam Jones has a better WS/48.

1962-1963 6th Title Russell 1st in WS, but again 2nd in WS behind Jones.

1965-1966 9th Title Russell is MASHED (by 27.4%) in WS/48 by Sam Jones, and topped also by Larry Siegfried (the immortal).

1966-1967 No Title; Russell is mashed in WS/48 by hard nosed Bailey Howell, and almost equaled in WS by BH as well. This is the year I started to watch them a lot. The 76'ers were much better that year.

1967-1968 10th Title; Russell 2nd in WS behind Howell, and 4th on the 12 man roster in WS/48, and only a few percentage points out of 7th.

1968-1969 11th Title; Russell again 2nd in WS and 4th in WS/48

I find it ironic to the point of bitterness that someone could trumpet Russell as the greatest team player and winner in NBA history then go and try and prove (and fail) that only he was great, and perhaps Red, and the rest of the team was weak.

It was a team. How do you not get that? Russell helped them, they helped him. His legend is void if it was a one man show.


His Teammate John Havlicek made 5 first team all nba while Russell only made 1. His teammate John Havlicek made 4 all nba first teams while Russell only made 3.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't think the mid-to-late 60s era of basketball sucked. I suppose that's really the point. The gap between '55 & '70 is considerably bigger than the gap between '70 & '15 to me.

In what ways? I would say in terms of league size, talent level, skillsets, floor spacing, pace, and team schemes, Russell's era is not that different from Mikan's. The only difference is the shot clock which quickened the pace, but other than that, what was really that different?

On the flipside, MJ played in league's 3 times bigger, with much more talent, athleticism, skill, and team gameplanning/adjustments.

[Doctor MJ]

You don't "have to"? Well no, I'm not your boss. I can't make demands of you. However if you're going to bring up X as something to seriously considered when talking about a player, one would presume X wasn't something true about pretty much every other player.

Russell had help. So did everyone else. So...?

Not equally. And not in the same way, with the same circumstances. And I go at lengths to get it right, instead of assuming otherwise.

I asked you for specifics, you shied away. I guess it wasn't clear: If you want to make a case about Russell specifically, you've got to drill down into the granular details.

I feel like you're just spouting cliches back at me. Here's how your point looks to me:

Friend: Hey that Eddie Van Halen is an amazing guitarist, you should get him in your band.
Bandleader: Hey Eddie Van Halen want to come to my band and play guitar?
<years later>
Doctor MJ: That Eddie Van Halen he was a great guitarist.
Mister Westside: Well yeah but that bad leader could have insisted he played the bagpipes instead.

I'm all for giving Red credit, but it's just not a zero sum thing. When you recognize a talent in someone, you deserve credit for the recognition, but you don't suck away talent credit from that person.

Not the same analogy. It's more like me saying that Eddie should keep playing the guitar that he always plays, and shred away with rock-specific solos hammer-ons, while I have everyone else play a smooth jazz accompaniment. You hear the music as a whole, and it sucks.

There, I give Eddie full credit for his talent. While also saying that he isn't in the right (or best) environment. Amd guess what? Building teams isn't as simple.

I wish I knew if you understood me.

There's a fundamental principle here:
There's credit to be given for choosing the right way to use someone.
There's credit to be given for someone doing their thing.
They are not zero sum.

Auerbach using Russell well does not change what Russell was, only how he was perceived. Yes we have to look at all players and try to distill truth beyond mere perception, but none of that makes a player suspect simply because we actually got to see him do his thing.

I think you'd be far better served to make your arguments for how Garnett & Robinson would do in that era based on the details of the game than playing these "what if" scenarios.

These "what if" scenarios are no different from the other posts I'm read about Russell and the modern-day. I'm not discouraging anyone from making them.

But if they are, the standard for comparison is set high. Citing era-specific stats fall short.

What do I have to do to get you to actually talk specifically about basketball?

I'm okay with you talking "what ifs", but you want to knock Russell for his supporting cast without making clear you know anything about the supporting cast and you want to assert the relative greatness of Garnett & Robinson without making clear you know anything about them either.

However powerful you think what you're doing now is, I assure you getting into more specifics and doing it well will be far more effective.

[Baller2014]

Jordan- 21 votes; Baseketballfan (1), Jordanbulls (2), Sacto (3), RayBan (4), GCP (5), Baller (6), Dr P (7), PCP (8), realbig (9), Quo (10), Kayess (11), Batmanna (12), Trex (13), Jaivl (14), DannyNoonan (15), Owly (16),
Andrewww (17), Mutnt (18), DHodgkins (19), Bias (20), O_6 (21)

Russell 9 votes; Texas (1), Warspite (2), Dr Spaceman (3), Ardee (4), Pen (5), fplii (6), Dr MJ (7), Drza (8), Magicmerl (9)

Kareem- 1; Greatness (1)

I counted 1 extra Russell vote because someone is making it plain as day they're voting for him (MacGill), but the rest of the wavers seem divided evenly (or are not voters, like spr and reg). There is another pro-Kareem voter too. I recommend we wrap this up unless it gets closer. I don't think anyone is moving after the current discussion, and the sooner we close this thread the more time we get for a good #2 discussion (and so on). When there's a clear majority I think the threads should be closed before the 3 days, because it's already a risk you'll lose enthusiasm as the project sags on. Less days on a discussion that is clearly over will give more time on discussions where a majority does not exist.

[MacGill]

I don't think the mid-to-late 60s era of basketball sucked. I suppose that's really the point. The gap between '55 & '70 is considerably bigger than the gap between '70 & '15 to me.

In what ways? I would say in terms of league size, talent level, skillsets, floor spacing, pace, and team schemes, Russell's era is not that different from Mikan's. The only difference is the shot clock which quickened the pace, but other than that, what was really that different?

On the flipside, MJ played in league's 3 times bigger, with much more talent, athleticism, skill, and team gameplanning/adjustments.

I just can't get with you on this AUB. I mean you still have the separation factor between ATG's in every era, right? Look at LBJ right now, what he has done the past 5 years (separation)....in this era against as you put it, the highest level of competition. Why with Russell, does it not work the same? Just a well ahead of his time athlete against the rest?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Jordan- 21 votes; Baseketballfan (1), Jordanbulls (2), Sacto (3), RayBan (4), GCP (5), Baller (6), Dr P (7), PCP (8), realbig (9), Quo (10), Kayess (11), Batmanna (12), Trex (13), Jaivl (14), DannyNoonan (15), Owly (16),
Andrewww (17), Mutnt (18), DHodgkins (19), Bias (20), O_6 (21)

Russell 9 votes; Texas (1), Warspite (2), Dr Spaceman (3), Ardee (4), Pen (5), fplii (6), Dr MJ (7), Drza (8), Magicmerl (9)

Kareem- 1; Greatness (1)

I counted 1 extra Russell vote because someone is making it plain as day they're voting for him (MacGill), but the rest of the wavers seem divided evenly (or are not voters, like spr and reg). There is another pro-Kareem voter too. I recommend we wrap this up unless it gets closer. I don't think anyone is moving after the current discussion, and the sooner we close this thread the more time we get for a good #2 discussion (and so on). When there's a clear majority I think the threads should be closed before the 3 days, because it's already a risk you'll lose enthusiasm as the project sags on. Less days on a discussion that is clearly over will give more time on discussions where a majority does not exist.

There's 55 voters though, and I'm sure many(like myself) didn't realize this was starting yesterday evening. I think a few days for each in the Top 20 is fine, and then less time after that.

[MacGill]

Jordan- 21 votes; Baseketballfan (1), Jordanbulls (2), Sacto (3), RayBan (4), GCP (5), Baller (6), Dr P (7), PCP (8), realbig (9), Quo (10), Kayess (11), Batmanna (12), Trex (13), Jaivl (14), DannyNoonan (15), Owly (16),
Andrewww (17), Mutnt (18), DHodgkins (19), Bias (20), O_6 (21)

Russell 9 votes; Texas (1), Warspite (2), Dr Spaceman (3), Ardee (4), Pen (5), fplii (6), Dr MJ (7), Drza (8), Magicmerl (9)

Kareem- 1; Greatness (1)

I counted 1 extra Russell vote because someone is making it plain as day they're voting for him (MacGill), but the rest of the wavers seem divided evenly (or are not voters, like spr and reg). There is another pro-Kareem voter too. I recommend we wrap this up unless it gets closer. I don't think anyone is moving after the current discussion, and the sooner we close this thread the more time we get for a good #2 discussion (and so on). When there's a clear majority I think the threads should be closed before the 3 days, because it's already a risk you'll lose enthusiasm as the project sags on. Less days on a discussion that is clearly over will give more time on discussions where a majority does not exist.

The only problem I have here is that if we close it sooner, we may lose out on information being shared. I'm all for MJ being #1, and I was clear I would come back to my vote before the 2 days...but if we have 50 voters or so signed up why would we close this early with only 30 cast?

[Texas Chuck]

Baller,

no offense mate, but let someone else keep track of the votes. Some of the votes you are counting above, are guys you were insisting should get no vote in the other thread because they missed some arbitrary cut off.

Then I guess when they voted the way you like--all of sudden your vehement opposition to them vanishes. I'm for letting everyone vote, but the guys really running this should decide, not you or I.

Just let penbest or Doc handle it. They are trustworthy.

edit: yeah and there really should be no rush to close this. Mike's going to win, but we are getting some valuable discussion.

[Baller2014]

Actually I'm pretty sure after the top 20 you'll have even more need for using the full time allocation (and run off votes). There's 57 voters btw, not 55. An absolute majority is 29, but we already have 2 pro Kareem voters (Greatness and Nagiro), so make that 27. Jordan already has 21, and there are several votes who (while they haven't actually voted) are making it clear they won't be supporting Russell. I doubt all 57 voters will vote in any 1 thread, especially since some of them were mods conscripted into this project who don't post here often. If they haven't participated at this juncture, I doubt they're going to do so now. I also looked over some of the absentee voters preferences in the pre-100 lists done over the last few weeks. I am not seeing a pro-Russell majority forming (indeed, some have him much lower than #1). Are we really gaining anything by leaving this open? Jordan's victory is assured.

[Baller2014]

Baller,

no offense mate, but let someone else keep track of the votes. Some of the votes you are counting above, are guys you were insisting should get no vote in the other thread because they missed some arbitrary cut off.

Then I guess when they voted the way you like--all of sudden your vehement opposition to them vanishes. I'm for letting everyone vote, but the guys really running this should decide, not you or I.

Just let penbest or Doc handle it. They are trustworthy.

Yeh, and then Pen seemed to say they would have a vote if they participated. So I counted them. If Pen wants to exclude them for the first 5 votes as I suggested, I'm all for it, but it's a little convenient to change that position now (given they both voted against Russell).

[rich316]

Wow, lots of great posts here!

Bill Russell was probably the most effective single basketball mind to have ever played. He saw things that others didn't see, long before they became institutionalized in the coaching culture. At that phase of the sport, coaching, game planning, and player development pretty much came down to superstitions. This gave an athletic genius like Russell a massive headstart, because all of the accumulated basketball wisdom of decades had not yet been quantified and inculcated in generations of coaches.

Jordan was taught the game by one of the most legendary college coaches ever, Dean Smith. His NBA success was fostered by Phil Jackson and his elite team of assistants, each one of whom were first-class basketball teachers and minds in their own rights. His physical talents were unsurpassed, but they were guided to their full fruition by the accumulated basketball knowledge that had accrued in the decades since Russell, and in no small part a product of Russell himself.

This, IMO, is the GOAT argument for Russell. Nobody saw further and understood more from where they were situated within the context of their time, and also happened to be blessed with a fantastic collection of physical talents with which to utilize his insights.

However, this overlooks the fact that as Jordan had the finest basketball minds to guide his career, so did his opposition. Russell was so good because he played chess to everybody else's checkers. In Jordan's day, everybody was playing chess, and he was the grand-master.

My vote: Michael Jordan.