RealGM NBA Top 100 list -- #1

[Texas Chuck]

Here's the simplest way to sum up Russell's supporting cast:

Without Russell, evidence suggests they were an average team. Only for a supporting cast, that also makes them above average. You know who else had an above average supporting cast when their teams were dominant? Every GOAT candidate ever.

Amen.

Mike's first retirement didn't exactly send the Bulls to the bottom of the league. Great teams have good players on them. One guy doesn't win championships. Obviously we have to be careful not to miss guys because they happen to play on non-championship caliber teams, but we also shouldn't dismiss guys because they did. Jabbar isnt somehow a worse player because of Oscar or Magic being his teammate. Nor Jordan with Pippen, Grant/Rodman with Phil coaching.

[ElGee]

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.

I think you're thinking on this is off -- improved offensive era is accounted for in the raw number. Introducing the 3-point shot should create more range in the numbers (top offensive/defensive teams), not less.

PS The 04 Pistons played 45 games with Rasheed Wallace. They had a -10.9 DRtg in those games. I see no reason why a team in the 3-point era can't be ~10 pts better than league average.

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?

I've yet to hear someone give Russell credit for all the defense. The challenge is to ballpark how much of that defense he was responsible for, and it looks like a whole heck of a lot. I would say comfortably that with a decent defensive big, the 60's Celtics would be above average defensively. Satch Sanders alone was an excellent defensive forward, along with KC and even Hondo.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

If you look at changes in average height, field goal %, and other stats, you'll see the S curve I wrote about cluster around the era I talked about.

I agree, but I think the issue is instead about the skill/athletic level of the eras, and of course the league structure.

I'm talking about fundamental things that you agree will see major changes in this one particular era but not in other eras, and you want to fixate on more subtle things changing in tinier ways to emphasize a qualitative difference? I think you might want to make clear exactly what you're saying here.

If you agree that the big change was in that era, you agree with me.
If you don't agree that the big change was in that era, then you ought to be able to point out really glaring things that have shifted more massively in more recent eras beyond just rule/strategy changes.

I agree with you that team strategy has continued to advance since then, but in terms of major skills, the big shift happened in the '60s.

I'd say the big shift came in the late 60's, but this new crop of players were either in their first years, or in college during Russell's era. For nearly all of Russell's career, including his prime, the skill level in the NBA was very basic. One hand dribbling, basic shots, limited moves, poor offensive skillsets, it was very flawed.

Athletically, the NBA didn't attract as many great athletes back then. the vast majority of the league had a major dropoff in ability from the Top 10 players of the 60's or so. In explosiveness, it's night & day. Imagine how much easier it would be for any of the Top 20 players ever to play in a NBA where the vast majority of players had the athletic ability of Luke Walton. Russell barely jumps to block shots. He doesn't even break a sweat rotating on defense in any of the old Celtic games on video. No one attacks the rim(save Baylor).

Okay I guess you are addressing things a bit more here, and you bring up some good things. So let me ask you:

When do you believe the NBA stopped having the kind of growth that justifies knocking down all prior eras?

Re: vast majority athletic ability of Luke Walton. Riiight.

Also you mention the size of the league, but of course that's something that reduces average quality. There's really no doubt that as a result of rapid expansion quality actually went down for a bit in the '70s before the Golden Age of the '80s. And while the '80s were beautiful, there's no real reason to look at the Oscars and Wests of the '60s like they were some mere fraction of the stars that came later.

Despite the larger size, I would say the modern NBA is more talented. The crop of talent coming from high school/college is deeper. And the range of recruiting also spans the globe now. This is a by product of the NBA popularity, and the shift from baseball to basketball as a pasttime in working class neighborhoods. Think of it like soccer. In Euro, kids grow up playing, and their skill level dwarfs the US. in the US we are weaker because out top athletes play other sports. That how the NBA was in the 60's.

In general i don't disagree with you, but I think you exaggerate a good deal.

I think that when we talk about people who grew up pre-NBA, you're quite right that you had a lot of people who gave up on the sport before they were ever serious about it. However, once the NBA started getting serious coverage in sporting magazines, that shifted pretty quickly

For the more normal-sized athletes, quite frankly the NBA still isn't really the league of choice because normal size athletes basically suck at NBA basketball. However, the taller you are, the more clear cut it was early on that basketball was your thing.

For that reason it's hard to really buy that the NBA was missing out on all the great would-be bigs in the '60s, for example.

I also think it's telling when you bring up Elgin Baylor. If the Baylors of the world were the true testament to what made NBA basketball modern quality, then close up analytic analysis of Baylor would show him to be better than was thought at the time instead of so much worse. Baylor almost certainly would have been more effective in later eras, not because he'd have more skill so much as offensive schemes and officiating norms would shift to make more use of those guys. But because of that lack of shift, it meant that guys who maybe could have been doing those things weren't so much, and as a result they are perceived to be lesser athletes.

[MisterWestside]

Without Russell, evidence suggests they were an average team. Only for a supporting cast, that also makes them above average. You know who else had an above average supporting cast when their teams were dominant? Every GOAT candidate ever.

Note the qualifier.

Look, I'm not saying you're incorrect. That's what greats can do for a roster; they make it easier to build a team. But you still have to build the thing properly in the first place - even if you just have to fill the roster with average players - and franchises can still half-ass it or whiff completely. When posters look at the historical impact of a player, that isn't trivial. Players who were put in the best position to succeed from the get-go are seen more favorably than others, and that has zero to do with their skills.

You have to pick one or the other. It's fine to fawn over Russell's era-based impact and rank him highly for it, but be consistent. Don't then talk about how he'd translate to other eras based on that era-based impact, when you know there are a bunch of assumptions and strings attached to it. Don't then dismiss Mikan because he didn't translate, knock him down the rankings because of it, and then automatically assume that Russell would play as the same ole Russell if he played in another era. You want to talk about Russell in his time, on his team? Then keep it in his time and on his team, and state that. But ranking him above another player who didn't have all the pieces in place for a dominant team and dominant impact from the start (Jordan), or who played in the era of basketball that resembles today's game more than the '60s (Jordan), and doing so as if this is a genuine apples-to-apples comparison, is to me.

[ElGee]

What Red did do was tell him to just keep playing that way when others thought it was a bad way to play.

But wait a second, ElGee. This statement still admits that Auerbach played an instrumental role in Russell's style of play; as if he was the guiding voice that kept him grounded in the development of his skillset. That can make a difference, regardless of the causality. And that's also one of the key premises of the poster you were rebutting. Here:

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...

You can't then slam Chamberlain for following along with how others perceived him when he didn't have anyone as influential in his corner.

Also, on a related note, I also have an inkling that some of those thoughts on Chamberlain are largely based on the anecdotal evidence that you're reading. And let's just say this, as a quick example: if your blog (and others) didn't exist about the clutchness of LeBron James, and I just went by the anecdotal evidence of the time, you probably couldn't convince me otherwise that James isn't clutch. We know that anecdotal evidence, while not always entirely unreliable, isn't the strongest source of evidence to use; especially where the media is concerned.

I'm with Doc on this -- I give Red his credit for seeing something special, and I give Russell his due credit as a player. In the context of this discussion -- and the point I responded to that you cited -- Bill Russell had the mind and the body to be that kind of player all on his own. Read Second Wind -- by all accounts, he went and played that way. Red simply let him play.

OTOH, to attribute an ability for Red to CHANGE a player into something that no one else had seen (the Russell approach to defense) is to give Red some pretty prescient powers that I don't see him exhibiting. Then, when you combine that with Chamberlain's personality, I'd suggest that you might see a lesser Wilt. Why? Because if it's true that Red would have played the same style (up-tempo w/distribution of quick shots) Wilt would have had fewer shots, and potentially less of an opportunity to do what he did for Hannum in 67 as a half court hub. And defensively, no matter how hard he tried, he was not the defender Bill Russell was (and Wilt was a great defender).

My biggest gripe with the OP is that he said Red would have convinced Wilt about "defense." By all accounts, Red thought the Celtics had a great offense because they scored a lot of ppg. I've never seen evidence that he understood how his team was winning.

PS My classifications of Chamberlain in my last post were from his own words. He talked about being immune to criticism by way of his own scoring. The most important takeaway to me is how differently he viewed and processed basketball than Russell.

[Doctor MJ]

Bill Russell - I started watching basketball shortly after Russell retired, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of his play.
The issues I have with Russell are:

1. Russell joined the Celtics mid-year in 1956-57. The team was 16-8 when he joined, and finished 44-28. That means the team had a better
winning percentage without him. It also meant he joined the best team in the league. So although 11 of 13 is a fantastic
achievement, Jordan did not have that opportunity. The team was averaging 105.2 ppg and giving up 100.6. After Russell
showed up it was 105.7 and 100.0 - so the defense didn't change that drastically, and didn't change much the following
year when he was there the full season.

I think that this is a great thing to bring up, and it is indeed a question mark. I don't like dismissing it, but I think you want to be careful how much confidence you have in basically a quarter of a season.

This was a team that had never been the best before, and went through a seismic shift toward defense this year as they started their dynasty. I think it's fine to say it was a good supporting cast, but it seems pretty crazy to me to look at that sample and say "So that was a team that would win 2 for every one they lose from here on out!"

When they won, they won with defense, and no one who ever watched them questioned whether Russell was absolutely necessary in making that defense work.

2. If we believe that Russell's team were the all-time best in defense, then they were below average on offense. If
Russell was always the 3rd or 4th option then he was a below average offensive player. This isn't Kevin McHale or James
Worthy on a loaded offense - this is an average at best offense, and the team wasn't going to the guy.

Did you just attempt to use the mere fact of Russell's GOAT defense to prove he couldn't be GOAT overall?

3. Bill played with Sharman,Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek, et al - a better set of teammates than Jordan had virtually every year.
Yet Jordan's Bulls had 4 seasons of SRS superior to the best Celtics team. So if Russell's teammates > Jordan's teammaters
and Jordan's teams > Russell's teams, well the math puts Jordan > Russell.

You really can't compare SRSes across eras like this.

There's also the matter that you just combined different eras. I mean I might as well talk about how lucky Jordan was to play with Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman ever year. And when you think about it, which is better Pippen & Rodman, or any of those two player combinations?

I said it before and I'll say it again: People get Jordan's supporting cast wrong. They think that because there wasn't another volume scorer it was a weak cast. On the contrary, Jordan would have made any player like that worse. He had the perfect supporting casts for what he needed.

Did Russell? Well, given there was complete turnover in the roster and Russell had to make a massive shift in how he played offense in order to continue winning titles, it's absurd to say that both before and after the turnover was perfect.

4.I could list many examples where Jordan saved the day for the Bulls. I can't list any of Russell's. Havlicek stole the ball,
Sam Jones and Don Nelson made clutch shots. Big stars make big plays - Magic's junior junior sky hook, Bird's steal, Kareem's hook against
Boston. I know Russell was the star, but what did he do to win?

All you talked about there was offense while asking about a player that you've made clear you already know is a defense oriented player. I'm not sure what connection you want to be made for you beyond the clear cut:

The Celtics won with defense.
Russell helped them win by making their defense good.
And they all lived happily ever after with more rings than fingers.

5. In 1970 Russell retired. The year before the Celtics won 48 games. The next year the two expansion teams added Jabbar and Dandridge, and Connie Hawkins and 2nd overall pick Neal Walk. They increased by 52 wins. which took away about4 wins per team. That would give the Celtics 44 wins. They lost Sam Jones, one of the top 50 or so players of all-time PLUS Russell, and only dropped 10 more games.

You just used SRS in an inapprpriate way...and now when it's time to use it you forget? C'mon.

The Celtics in '68-69 were an old team getting through the regular season who still posted an SRS that was elite for the era they played in. The following year they were a below average team. That's a big fall off by any reason able analysis.

Re: "They lost a top 50 all-time player in Sam Jones!". Are you even trying to be hones there? Sam Jones isn't in Top 50 contention because of what he did in '68-69. I mean hell, Sam was an offensive player and the team did fine offensively after he was gone. The team fell off because of...what was it Russell did again?...defense.

So, the team did not improve much after he arrived.
He was in a great situation, which helped him win 11 of 13
He was below average offensively
He did not make any known game winning plays.
The team did not fall apart when he left.
His best teams were not as good as Jordan's, although he had a better supporting cast.

The team improved by about 6 SRS in his rookie year and fell off by about 6 SRS when he left. Jordan wishes he could say the same.

Great situation, so 11 titles. Yes, because in "great situations" 11 titles is the norm in basketball.

Look, if things had been worse, Russell would have won less. The 11 rings do have some luck involved, but when one guy's team accomplishments are so far, far, FAR beyond everyone else, trying to nitpick it to explain it all is just absurd. If you had been an analyst at the time, you wouldn't have predicted anything like this based on the team context he was arriving in.

Re: "He did not make any known game winning plays." Man, just listen to yourself. There isn't anyone from that time period who wouldn't laugh at your for talking like this. It blows my mind how you can be old enough to remember the '70s, but not imagine how it would sound if a younger person talked about the '70s saying "I didn't watch ball in the '70s, but I'm sure I would have heard about it if X ever did anything useful to help his team at the end of one of the 1000 games he played in."

[Baller2014]

The 94 Bulls without Jordan made some key upgrades. They also won a lot of close games, had a modest SRS, and looked like a team who overachieved. The 93 bulls had been coasting in the regular season, but come playoffs hit a switch. It's misleading to look for the "drop off" after Jordan retired.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm with Doc on this -- I give Red his credit for seeing something special, and I give Russell his due credit as a player. In the context of this discussion -- and the point I responded to that you cited -- Bill Russell had the mind and the body to be that kind of player all on his own. Read Second Wind -- by all accounts, he went and played that way. Red simply let him play.

OTOH, to attribute an ability for Red to CHANGE a player into something that no one else had seen (the Russell approach to defense) is to give Red some pretty prescient powers that I don't see him exhibiting. Then, when you combine that with Chamberlain's personality, I'd suggest that you might see a lesser Wilt. Why? Because if it's true that Red would have played the same style (up-tempo w/distribution of quick shots) Wilt would have had fewer shots, and potentially less of an opportunity to do what he did for Hannum in 67 as a half court hub. And defensively, no matter how hard he tried, he was not the defender Bill Russell was (and Wilt was a great defender).

My biggest gripe with the OP is that he said Red would have convinced Wilt about "defense." By all accounts, Red thought the Celtics had a great offense because they scored a lot of ppg. I've never seen evidence that he understood how his team was winning.

PS My classifications of Chamberlain in my last post were from his own words. He talked about being immune to criticism by way of his own scoring. The most important takeaway to me is how differently he viewed and processed basketball than Russell.

Yeah, I really don't mean to slam Red here. I think Red's great. However this notion that he'd find a way to turn water into wine wherever he went is just mythology. He coached for 10 years before Russell got there, and he won nothing. That doesn't make him bad by any means, he was just a guy trying to make it work like everybody else, until he found his masterstroke.

I'm not going to say he had no idea how his team was succeeding, but I'd challenge people to name any signature basketball strategy of his the way you could with Alex Hannum or Red Holzmann. Doesn't mean I rate those guys ahead of him, but if you think Red in every facet of coaching was better than those guys, you're just drinking Kool Aid. They all had strengths and weaknesses.

[Doctor MJ]

The 94 Bulls without Jordan made some key upgrades. They also won a lot of close games, had a modest SRS, and looked like a team who overachieved. The 93 bulls had been coasting in the regular season, but come playoffs hit a switch. It's misleading to look for the "drop off" after Jordan retired.

There's truth in what you say, but if someone is going to try to knock Russell for the team not noticing his arrival and departure, they best not do it while advocating for Michael Jordan.

[Dr Positivity]

There is just so many contextual factors that go into the Celtics level of play, or level of offense/defense, that go beyond just Bill Russell. Not only because there's always a lot of noise disconnecting team result and individual contribution to it, but that in addition to the 1960s factor. The statistical evidence is enough to confirm to me that Russell had top 10 all time caliber impact but I don't consider it that useful to determine Jordan v Russell, especially considering the 90s Bulls have statistically the most greatest teams ever anyways especially when adjusting for era difficulty. The Celtics dominant results especially on the defensive end, could be as true with Russell being 8th best player of all time instead of the 1st. The difference between 1 and 8 isn't that big anyways

[Texas Chuck]

The 94 Bulls without Jordan made some key upgrades. They also won a lot of close games, had a modest SRS, and looked like a team who overachieved. The 93 bulls had been coasting in the regular season, but come playoffs hit a switch. It's misleading to look for the "drop off" after Jordan retired.

Im sorry, but Im not going to let you get away with that. Put whatever qualifiers you want to put on it. The best basketball player ever(according to you) walks away at age 30. This is prime Mike here.

Sure Luc Longley, Kukoc, Pete Myers, and Steve Kerr are some nice role player additions. But the heavy lifting was still done by Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong.

I don't really care about this argument because its irrelevant, but to suggest Russell can't be the GOAT because when he retired at age 34 his team only lost 14 more games, yet not acknowledge that Mike walked away in his prime and his team was still one of the best in the conference isnt being honest in your analysis.

[Baller2014]

The Bulls SRS dropped 4 points in 94 (a huge drop) and they were coasting in the 93 regular season anyway. It's not at all like the Celtics before/after with Russell. The Celtics were actually getting a better win% before Russell arrived in the 57 season, and for his last season the team lost other key players too (it was not just "Russell's gone!"), Jones retired and White and Sanders missed a combined 50 games in 1970. Then once Cowens arrived as a rookie in 1971 and the injury bug was less of an issue the team was back to 44 wins. They next year they were at 56 wins, and the year after 68 wins and the title.

[Dr Positivity]

Yea I don't see a reason to consider the 93 Bulls a better "drop-off point" than 92. The Bulls throughout the 90s proved they could play at a GOAT level with Jordan and in 94 they were more like 2012-2014 Pacers. Big enough drop-off when looking at holistically

I also don't like 57 Russell as that useful of information because he's a rookie

[sp6r=underrated]

Yea I don't see a reason to consider the 93 Bulls a better "drop-off point" than 92.

93 is a better drop off point as it was more recent. If you're truly uncomfortable with using 93 as the drop off point you should average the two seasons but 92 as cut off point seems wrong without a convincing argument in favor. What you guys are calling coasting could easily be labeled exhaustion. Pointing out what happened later in the decade is flawed as the roster had almost complete turnover,

The Bulls in 94 and 95 (pre-Jordan return) were playing at a low 3 SRS level. They would have likely won a title later in the decade if they got the SG equivalent of Dave Cowens.

[Doctor MJ]

The Bulls SRS dropped 4 points in 94 (a huge drop) and they were coasting in the 93 regular season anyway. It's not at all like the Celtics before/after with Russell. The Celtics were actually getting a better win% before Russell arrived in the 57 season, and for his last season the team lost other key players too (it was not just "Russell's gone!"), Jones retired and White and Sanders missed a combined 50 games in 1970. Then once Cowens arrived as a rookie in 1971 and the injury bug was less of an issue the team was back to 44 wins. They next year they were at 56 wins, and the year after 68 wins and the title.

Oh, a huge drop you say? You mean like the even bigger drop the Celtics saw after Russell retired that you're still refusing to talk about in terms of SRS? (Instead there you emphasize how similar the record was...when the Bulls sans Jordan was far more similar.)

Look, I expect Jordan to take the top spot, he's going to get the top spot, i'm so fine with him getting the top spot. He's awesome.

Do us all a favor, yourself included, and stop trying to manipulate the discussion to help when a debate we all knew was over before it started. We're here first and foremost to learn, and you refusing to acknowledge the obvious just gets in the way.

[Doctor MJ]

Yea I don't see a reason to consider the 93 Bulls a better "drop-off point" than 92. The Bulls throughout the 90s proved they could play at a GOAT level with Jordan and in 94 they were more like 2012-2014 Pacers. Big enough drop-off when looking at holistically

I also don't like 57 Russell as that useful of information because he's a rookie

Well yeah, the truth is that it doesn't make sense to say "Aha! Gotcha!" based on a lack of glaring correlation around the points no one considers to be these players' peak. Jordan obviously had huge impact. So did Russell.

[MisterWestside]

I'm with Doc on this -- I give Red his credit for seeing something special, and I give Russell his due credit as a player. In the context of this discussion -- and the point I responded to that you cited -- Bill Russell had the mind and the body to be that kind of player all on his own. Read Second Wind -- by all accounts, he went and played that way. Red simply let him play.

Well, it's not like I was stating that Red was the mastermind behind what Russell did. But even if Russell came up with his style of play all on his own, you're still admitting that Red played a key part in the fine-tuning of Russell's skillset by "LETTING him play". If you say that much, then you're implying that these influences matter to the impact of a player. That's all that's needed to articulate the spirit of the argument made by the OP about Chamberlain and coaching.

OTOH, to attribute an ability for Red to CHANGE a player into something that no one else had seen (the Russell approach to defense) is to give Red some pretty prescient powers that I don't see him exhibiting.

Perhaps. But, even if Red himself wasn't the right guy for that purpose, if we're going to proceed from the above point and play the hypothetical cross-era game, you can still suppose the presence of others who could make a dfference.

I'll skip down to this point:

PS My classifications of Chamberlain in my last post were from his own words. He talked about being immune to criticism by way of his own scoring. The most important takeaway to me is how differently he viewed and processed basketball than Russell.

Thanks for the clarification.

But those viewpoints are still largely influenced by what he actually experienced in his era as a player: mediocre team success, media scruntiny, lack of sound team philosophy, lack of strong coaching and management in his early seasons outside of Hannum, subpar roster fits, etc. And your perception of him is based on that. But the nice thing about the conjecture exercise is that I can give Chamberlain the right coach and system based on his on-court skills from the get-go, and think about his impact on a roster without even engaging you in the particulars of a player's psyche.

[sp6r=underrated]

You have to be very careful when you focus on how teams improved/declined at various points in a superstar's career.

As an example the lakers during the mid 80s improved as KAJ lost his fastball. You could easily misinterpret this to mean KAJ wasn't having much impact earlier. On careful inspection though it is clear that the lakers improvement was due to the fact that Magic, Scott Worthy and Green entering the prime of their career outweighed the decline of KAJ.
The lakers would have declined a lot during this period if the roster was the same quality as the early 80s lakers.

This is one example but I strongly advise caution on this front.

[Baller2014]

Oh, a huge drop you say? You mean like the even bigger drop the Celtics saw after Russell retired that you're still refusing to talk about in terms of SRS? (Instead there you emphasize how similar the record was...when the Bulls sans Jordan was far more similar.)

Look, I expect Jordan to take the top spot, he's going to get the top spot, i'm so fine with him getting the top spot. He's awesome.

Do us all a favor, yourself included, and stop trying to manipulate the discussion to help when a debate we all knew was over before it started. We're here first and foremost to learn, and you refusing to acknowledge the obvious just gets in the way.

If I had accused you of bad faith, I'd be getting warned now. Do me a favour and please assume my posts are all in good faith thanks. I posted a great deal of evidence to this effect, and have been engaging in an in depth discussion on these points. I would like it to continue to be a civil discussion.

Yes, the Celtics had a huge SRS drop after Russell left... but as I said, it wasn't just Russell who left. They also lost one of their best players, HoFer Sam Jones, and Sanders (as well as one of their new rotations players who was there to fill the Jones hole) missed a combined 50 games the next year. When the Celtics were healthy again (but one year older) in 1971, and had rookie Cowens (to replace the Russell/Jones hole) they won 44 games. The team's SRS was worse, as you'd expect because Cowens is not an adequate substitute for Russell, but not by as much as you'd expect. In 1972 the Celtics turned it up another notch, now that Cowens wasn't a rookie anymore, and won 56 games, then in 73 they kicked the doors off and posted 68 wins and an SRS of 7.34 , basically they were right up there with the best Russell teams who had ever existed or better (and those teams were playing back in the early to mid-60's when, as I covered, the talent level was lower by default). Was the team around Cowens (though Hendo was really the best player) really as good as what Bill Russell had? Does that make Cowens impact comparable in some way to Russell?

In Jordan's case the team got better players to add the following year without Jordan (some quite significant), quite a different situation to the Celtics first year post Russell.

Let's say the Celtics and Bulls were both coasting in 69 and 93. That comparison still favours Jordan, when we compare the non-coasting years previous to those 2 years to the post Jordan/Russell result. The drop off was more extreme when Jordan left, especially when you factor in the worse context following Russell's departure.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Kareem-Abdul-Jabbar

KAJ is the GOAT because of his combination of peak performance and GOAT longevity against the greatest competition any player has ever faced. Also the different teammates, pecking orders, systems, coaches, and mini-eras he dominated or contributed to his team's success.


So Mr. Alcindor comes in wrecking the league. GOAT rookie, on par with prime Jerry West himself coming off an epic Finals MVP win. He murders the 1970 league MVP peak Willis Reed in the playoffs, but the Knicks are a machine with Debusschere and Frazier and beat MIL.

71, he gets prime Oscar and they win a title together. One of the most impressive 2-year stretches in history was the 1971-1972 Bucks. Expansion era I know, but they did what they were supposed to do. 60+ wins, ridiculous SRS, only losing in '72 to another GOAT team candidate.

A Wilt Chamberlain whose efforts are mainly focused on defense does a good job slowing 3rd-year KAJ in 1972 in the playoffs. That said, he didn't outplay KAJ. His offensive responsibility was far greater than WIlt's especially since Oscar Robertson was hurt in that series. KAJ was forced to shoulder an insane amount of offense, taking like 33 shots per game. You're percentages will fall when you need to shoot that much against an elite defender. KAJ still outscored Wilt 202-67 on the series. He had 37 points, 25 rebounds, and 8 assists in the closeout game 6 and shot 16-36 from the field. Wilt is hailed as a hero for slowing KAJ down, but they weren't in equal circumstances. KAJ could not have done more to help his team win save morph into a player who would be the guaranteed GOAT by all.

Nate Thurmond, the GOAT low post man defender, slowed KAJ in 1973 (Oscar is really in decline now). This is the last time Jabbar is really neutralized in any sense.

1974 is basically LBJ in 2009. He was clearly a champion. Probably his best year ever defensively and averaged 32 PPG and 5 APG in the playoffs on 55 percent shooting. MIL had the best SRS in the league and went 7 vs. Boston. KAJ torched an amazing defensive frontcourt of Dave Cowens and Paul Silas.

He moves to LA, and for the next 5 seasons, he essentially either has poor talent around him or incredibly mismatched talent (CoughDantleyCough). I'll quote TrueLAfan from the '79 RPOY thread here:

This is another strange year, and, again, I think I'm going to be going against the grain in some of these choices. But I was watching, and I've got my reasons...although I'm curious to hear what others have to say that isn't necessarily statistically related.

1. Kareem. Suffered from voter fatigue, and a misapprehension about his team. The Lakers were a good team. On paper. This is exactly what Adrian Dantley did for the Lakers in 1978 and 1979.

--Kept Jamaal Wilkes from playing at his natural position of SF.
--Held onto the ball too long, and didn't pass out (especially to perimeter players).
--Often set up in the low post, forcing Kareem to change his game.
--Absolutely, positively, did not play D. Uh-uh.

All of this meant that the Lakers were...troubled, shall we say. Kareem was his usual self in many ways; 24 points and 13 boards a game (from now on, Kareem is going to be a great rebounder). He averaged over 5 assists a game and a hair under 4 blocks. I blame Dantley for 80% of the team's underperforming; he was a team wrecker. (The lousy bench, poor D other than Kareem, and lack of quality at SG...that hurt too.) The Lakers had zero chemistry (and they'd had plenty in, say, 1977). Jerry West (the coach at the time) had this to say. “This team has averaged 48 wins over the past three seasons, and I'll tell you what. I don't care if he's at the top of his game, past it or underneath it—without Kareem we don't beat anybody. This team just doesn't complement him at all.” (They still made it to the conference semis in two of those years, losing to eventual champs both times.)

Big laffs for me...Sports Illustrated referring to Don Ford as a “defensive” player. Don Ford couldn't guard my grandmother, and she can't go left.

Again, a chunk of the problem with the Lakers rebounding this year can be traced to … Adrian Dantley. By playing at SF, he pushed Wilkes to PF. Right there, that took away Kareem’s advantages in rebounding. At a Reb % of 17.6, Kareem grabbed about 100-125 more rebounds that an “average” C with a Reb Rate of 16.0. But with Wilkes at PF combined with Don Ford—one of the worst starters I’ve ever seen—the Lakers got 1219 rebounds out of their starting SF and PF positions … a combined Reb % of 21.3. That’s bad. You should get about 23 to 23.5% of rebounds from those positions. That meant the Lakers gave back Kareem’s extra rebounds. And most of the rest of the team—Lou Hudson (who I loved, but was shot by 1979), Ron Boone, Norm Nixon—were really bad rebounders. When West points out that the Lakers didn’t compliment Kareem well, he’s right. Kareem's scoring took a hit because his usage dropped so much...14% to be exact. That's more than his socring drop, even adjusted per minute. Why did Kareem's usage drop? Because the team had added a player who took as many shots per mintue as Cap, held the ball too long, and caused a disruption to the offense that was much more obvious when you were watching than it is in the box scores (although when you know about it, the statistical evidence is there too.) Put it this way...who do you think should be leading the team in usage? The five time MVP with the best halfcourt move in the history of basketball, or the second year player who forced a starter to play out of position? Guess which player led the Lakers in usage?

I should add this...maybe Kareem should have said something publically. I have the feeling, based on what West said at the time and since, that it was brought up to and known by coaching and management. The problems with the team (and Dantley, in particualr) were not a mystery. But should Kareem have put his foot down? Would that have helped the situation? Would it have helped the team? It’s hard to say. It was a different time, and players operated differently with the media in terms of asserting power and having their reputations established. I have the feeling that if Elvin Hayes had had a microphone in his face as often as, say, Allen Iverson has/had, he’d have a very different legacy. But, all in all, I can’t fault Kareem for this. I think he’s naturally taciturn, and I think West didn’t want to play up the mistake in picking up Dantley. But, for me, that doesn’t affect Kareem’s value. And I think it should be noted that when Dantley got his wish and went to a team that allowed him free rein on offense, he never got his team to as many wins as the Lakers did in a season of disruption where there was great parity in the league.

Nevermind that the man obliterated one of the GOAT defensive frontcourts in Bill Walton/Mo Lucas in the '77 WCF with literally **** players around him, while Coach Ramsay's Blazers were a Spurs-like machine.

We get to 1980, where his GOAT-esque season and playoffs is overshadowed by arguably the GOAT performance on the last game of the season by his teammate, Earvin Johnson. KAJ would have been REG SEA MVP and Finals MVP if the voters weren't idiots. KAJ was definitely the lead dog on that team.

1981...outrebounds Moses Malone in a 3-game series. Outplays Moses Malone. He's still arguably the best player in the league.

1982...This is, in my opinion, his most impressive year so far. His team is oozing with talent, so the man tempers his scoring to allow LA to have five (5!) players average 16.7 PPG in the playoffs. That's insane balance. KAJ protects the basket as LA plays an amazing trap D and runs over the league over the last half the season and through the playoffs.

1983...One of the best. Moses Malone dominates him on the glass in the NBA Finals, but KAJ's offensive output is amazing. Moses can't guard KAJ, but KAJ can guard Moses on his initial drives and postups. Moses' offensive rebounding hurts LA though.

1985...man wins Finals MVP 14 years after he won his first. That's a record. Does it against Bird/Parish/McHale. The man would have had at least 5 Finals MVPs if Oscar wasn't hurt in 1972, Richie Powers wasn't a douchebag in 1974, and voters weren't incompetent in 1980. Just my opinion.

The man continued to compete at a high level against some of the best frontcourt players ever. Was still contributing to title teams in his later years. Always a devastating scorer. Could hit free throws. Really no weakness.

Competition: The man faced Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens (with Paul Silas), Bill Walton (with Mo Lucas), Wes Unseld (with Elvin Hayes), Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Moses Malone, Robert Parish (with Bird/McHale/Walton), Akeem Olajuwon (with Ralph Sampson), Patrick Ewing, Bill Laimbeer (with Mahorn/Rodman), and Jack Sikma.

The only truly all-time great centers he never faced were George Mikan, Bill Russell, Shaq, David Robinson, Dwight Howard and Alonzo Mourning. He faced everybody else, pretty much all in their primes. Worst thing you could say was Kareem was outrebounded by peak Moses Malone in 1983 and stifled by GOAT man defender Nate Thurmond in 1973.

He whipped everybody else's ass. Kicked ass for 20 years. Contributed to winning teams no matter what. He was on great teams. He was on terrible teams. Nobody did more for his team in my opinion.