RealGM Top 100 List #2

[DannyNoonan1221]

My vote is also for Kareem. I apologize for the lack of presence in the #1 vote, its been hell at work.

I have to agree with Baller though- I really do believe that Russell benefits too much from his team's success and his era. You can argue that the 70s was 'deflated', 'watered down' 'coked out', but at least it had the top talent in either the NBA or ABA and not working a 9 to 5.

I find it hard for me to rank these players being that I'm only 26, but from what I've read and the little bit of video I've seen I like to think the 70s is when basketball really started to turn into basketball- it still had a few kinks, but it was closer to the real thing than the 50s and 60s. Then the 80s come around and it was some call the "golden age" and I find it hard to argue against that. I just want to make that clear as I continue discussing that I see a pretty natural progression in the quality of players from decade to decade. A big jump from 60s to later 70s, another jump from the 70s to 80s, maybe a slight change if any at all from the 80s to 90s, then a slight drop from the 90s to 00s. You can say its a result of my young age and of course I think the guys i have watched are better than the ones that aren't, but I also don't have the bias of seeing the older guys and letting their legacy inflate through time and memories.

Then I see Kareem's career like this:

1971 Finals MVP
71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80 MVP
1985 Finals MVP

6 mvps sandwiched between two finals mvps- one of which was in a series that included Bird, Magic, McHale and Worthy- all guys who were extremely capable of winning the award (I can go into detail about this if need be). And that first finals mvp was over O and a very young Unseld. And the awards were 14 years apart. and stretched from the 70s to the 80s. Longevity alone is enough to put him in the top 10.

That is one hell of a streak. He did it both offensively and defensively as i am sure most of you will describe in depth statistically (sorry, don't have that capability right now). He has the greatest move/shot in the history of the game. I am excited to see this discussion develop.

[penbeast0]

Vote: Kareem

. . , Bill Russell played most of his career in a weak sauce, whitebread league whose status as a “professional league” is highly dubious. . . .

Russell’s career is overrated for other reasons too. The first of these is his gaudy stats (ditto Wilt). In reality of course the pace was so much higher . . .

Then there’s the question of how much Russell really helped his team win. Russell joined the 57 Celtics midway through the season when they were 16-8. They finished the season 44-28, so they had a better win% without him. Does anyone really dispute he had the strongest team in the NBA anyway? . . .

Some pretty lame arguments here. Although there are reasons to say that there might not have been as strong a player pool in the 60s when Russell played "most of his career . . . ," comparing that to the 70s when Kareem was at his individual peak makes it clear the 60s were much stronger competition. Russell in 65 played in a 9 team league facing 5 HOF centers, Wilt, Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Beaty . . . all of whom were All-stars in the 70s as well. Compare to the expa'nsion heavy 70s where the number of teams in the NBA tripled, quadripled if you count ABA players and it's hard to believe Kareem faced better competition than the 60s competition I mentioned. If you are 6-9 or better in America, you were recruited to play basketball and the pool of 6-9 recruits certainly didn't triple (or quadriple) in this period. Yes, there were improvements in nutrition, weights, coaching, etc. but Russell faced guys who had the same advantages he did; as did Kareem. If Kareem benefitted by those factors, so would Russell. The 60s were a stronger era than the 70s in terms of competition.

Then we get to the "gaudy stats." As listed in the previous post, playing against so many weak NBA teams rather than a concentration of talent is more likely to produce gaudy stats, so if any stats are questionable, it would be those of the 70s. Look at the historical record and after every expansion, there are monster SRS and individual seasons because of the impact of these weak teams. Then comes the pace argument. In Russell's peakl season, 1965, teams scored an average of 110.6 pts/game; in Kareem's 1971 championship season, teams in the NBA scored an average of 112.4 ppg. Note that although both Boston and Milwaukee scored above the league averages, Boston scored 112.8 while 1971 Milwaukee had by far the most inflated scoring in the league at 118.4 pts per game. There is something to the fact that shooting percentages were lower in 65 so rebounds were more available but that's more than countered by the greater advantage of offenses over defenses in 71 making scoring and efficiency easier.

Finally, there's the idea that Boston was a superteam before Russell. The 4 years before Russell, Boston had been 2/4, 3/4, 3/4, and 2/4 with Auerbach, Cousy, Sharman, and HOF Ed Macauley. They were second in the league before Russell but at a weak .542 win percentage in a league where every team except Philadelphia (at .625) had a record between .431 and .542. In fact, Boston was as close to the 2nd worst team in the league in record (6 games) as it was to the team ahead of it. So, no, they had not been powerhouses before Russell but mediocrities. They did have a hot start before Russell joined the team with Heinsohn taking the scoring of Macauley (who was NOT on the team but had been traded with Boston's 1st to get the right to draft Russell) but it's a reasonably small sample size. oh, and, Cousy was not that impressive in the Russell years, possibly the worst playoff performer relative to regular season during that stretch . . . he consistently shot miserably in the playoffs (although Frank Ramsey, the 6th man, was a playoff stud).

This is not a good anti-Russell or pro-Kareem argument.

[3Pac]

my vote for latrell sprewell

[JordansBulls]

This comes down to two players imo. Bill Russell and Kareem. Here are some quotes and post regarding them both.

By ThaRegul8r

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two and then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. My problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was.

Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times where I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

Bill Russell had similar success, with 5 MVPs, 11 championships (and he would have had countless Finals MVPs)... We could assume that he would have had 12 or 13 All Defensive first teams had the award been around back then also

He led the league in defensive win shares 11 times and is the all time leader in defensive win shares.

5 x rebound leader
4 x was top 7 in assists
4 x was top 5 in FG%
(may have led league in blocks several times)

BUT Russell was a bigger liability on offense than Jordan was on defense. Jordan was consistently in the top 6 in defensive win shares and the top 2 in offensive win shares (usually #1) while Russell was consistently in the top 3 in defensive win shares (usually #1) while he did never placed in the top 10 in offensive win shares during his entire career.

Also, you have to note that his championships came, at times, with as many as 7 hall of famers on his roster. There were only 8 teams, and he usually only had to play 2 rounds in the playoffs. His teammate Bob Cousy won an MVP while playing with Russell.

Also he only made 3 All-NBA first teams, usually placing behind Wilt. So he generally was not even the best individual Center in his league...

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

6 MVPs
2 Finals MVPs (has a case for a 3rd)
10 x All-NBA first team (5 x All-NBA 2nd)
5 x All-Defense first (6 x All-Defense 2nd)
6 x Champ
2 x scoring leader
9 x PER leader (compared to Jordan's 7)
4 x block leader (could be more, wasnt recorded until his 5th season)
1 x rebound leader
1 x FG% leader
9 x win shares leader (equal to Jordan)

consistently in top 7 in offensive win shares and top 9 in defensive win shares

He too, had a slight dropoff in playoff production, but not enough to really criticize him about. His longevity is better than Jordan's and his defense is more valuable. But Jordan won as many championships and he did despite playing 5 less seasons and on less talented teams (imo). Magic was the best player on at least 2 of the Laker championships. And the the little things like Jordan never lost with HCA and was undefeated in the Finals etc... Not really important unless youre nitpicking, but when deciding between players this close you kinda have to nitpick.

I will say this also, despite Kareem playing the more valuable defensive position, Jordan generally fared BETTER in terms of defensive win shares (on an average basis) so thats something to think about and offensively its not really a contest imo as Jordan is the greatest offensive player (at least of the ones that are in this discussion).

This is how they compared with HCA.

Code: Select all

 
              HCA(50+)/non-50     
Russell:      10-0 / 12-1 (injured most of series)         
Jabbar:       11-3 / 23-2       


Code: Select all

 
              Road(50+)/non-50   
Russell:      5-1 / 0-0 
Jabbar:       2-6 / 0-1



Now while Kareem lost some series he should have lost, there were a few he should not have lost. 1973 vs GSW with HCA it was against the lowest seeded team in the playoffs. 1981 to a team below .500 (this was still prime Kareem then as well).

Vote: Bill Russell

[kayess]

Ok crossing off some names

No Wilt because < Russell: Russell just got the upper hand on him with 68 and 69 as particular sticking points

No Magic or Bird because < Lebron: Lebron's D is too big an advantage and he's not far behind them in longevity

No Duncan or KG because < Hakeem: Hakeem has the most dynamic offense of 3 for me and biggest playoff high. Pretty close between the three but if I have to pick I like Hakeem

No Shaq or Kobe because < Kareem: Healthier, more stable career. TrueLAfan had a HOF post about Kareem v Shaq's career a while ago. Kobe is SG Kareem but I favor Kareem

That leaves Russell, Hakeem, Kareem, Lebron.

Kareem > Russell. I'd be torn on Kareem's first 13 years v Russell's so it'd be hard for me to pick Russ in spite of the longevity. From 83 on (his 14th year) Kareem probably gives at least as much value to the Lakers as Pau Gasol has to them. That still means a lot.

Kareem v Hakeem. The longevity gap is less than for Russell. 98 and 99 Hakeem (14th and 15th seasons) still are all-star caliber, injured for half of 98 but there in the playoffs. In 00 and 01 his MPG falls but the per minute is still close to 98/99 and still at an all-star rate (15pt+, 10 reb 2 blk) Then he sucks in Toronto. I'd say Hakeem's last 5 seasons are close to Kareem's. But the last 5 are Kareem's 16th-20th (85-89) and Hakeem's 14th-18th. So Kareem has 15 elite seasons vs 13 before that point. Which is crucial but if someone really liked Hakeem's game more, possibly not enough to sway that vote.

Lebron - Lebron's longevity is clearly the worst of the 4. But a quality > quantity case could be made if one thinks LBJ has been at a GOAT prime level even above Kareem, Hakeem or Russell. 11 years of Lebron is still a lot of value.

Right now I'm leaning towards Kareem

Can you link to TrueLAFan's HOF post?

[Dr Positivity]

I think this was the post I was thinking of viewtopic.php?t=1113730

[O_6]

I'm not going to make my vote yet because I expect to learn a lot. But my two true candidates fighting for this spot are Kareem and Russell.

I think this discussion comes down to the value of Kareem's longevity.

I believe "Championships Above Average" was taken into account on the previous thread, I think ElGee may have been the one who brought it up (could be wrong, no offense to whoever it was). But the NBA is a very unique sport in how massive the difference in value is between the #1 player in the league and the #10. Just look at LeBron and Carmelo to see what kind of gap there tends to be. Having an elite MVP level player is the most important ingredient to NBA Championship teams historically. But you don't have to be the very best player in the league to help your team's Championship odds, you can still make an impact even if you're the #10 guy like a Carmelo.


Since the introduction of the salary cap in 1984-85, excluding the two regular seasons (1998-99 and 2011-12) that were shortened by labor disputes, the best player in the league in a given season has averaged about 18 win shares, which is a reasonably good match for James’s performance over the last several years. The model estimates that such a player has about a 20 percent or 25 percent chance of winning the championship in today’s N.B.A. environment.


THIS GRAPH USES IN SHARES WHICH I DON'T FULLY TRUST, BUT THE CONCEPT OF THE GRAPH TRANSCENDS WIN SHARES

Russell played 13 seasons --- 13 MVP caliber seasons
Kareem played 20 seasons --- 12 MVP caliber seasons ('70-'81) ---- 5 All-NBA seasons ('82-'86) --- 2 great role player seasons ('87-'88)

So in terms of Championship Odds, both Kareem and Russell had a dozen or so MVP caliber seasons where their mere presence gave their teams great odds of winning a title. But Kareem also had 5 more All-NBA seasons beyond that where he was still a dominant offensive player. Kareem was an incredibly valuable player during those 5 years and helped his team compete for Championships and win 1. He was also a valuable role player on 2 more title teams, where his scoring was still a valuable asset.

Those extra years from Kareem certainly mean something. His longevity edge on Russell should not be overlooked. These weren't just empty stat collecting seasons from Kareem, those 5-7 extra years definitely add to his career "Championships Above Average" value.

So for me to choose Russell over Kareem, I'd need to feel like Russell's MVP prime was clearly greater than Kareem's MVP prime. Russell's defensive impact seems to have been more valuable on a team scale than Kareem's offensive impact, but Kareem was also a very valuable defensive player.

I'm leaning Kareem right now after leaning Russell leading into this project, but I'll hold off on my vote for now.

I'd love to hear about...

- Kareem's true offensive impact at his prime (Was he a Dirk/Shaq level offensive monster?)
- Kareem's true defensive impact at his prime (Was he closer to Duncan/Hakeem or Shaq)
- Russell's athleticism (Was Russell really a better athlete than David Robinson?)

[Basketballefan]

My Vote: Jabbar

All time leading scorer
Best offensive center ever(GOAT CENTER IMO as well)
6 time champion
6 Mvps
19 all star games
15 All NBA Teams
11 defensive teams and his list of credentials go on.

Why not Kareem for #2? He has superstar longevity that is unparalleled aside from maybe Karl Malone. Mj was my #1 goat so i don't need to make a case over him. As great as Russell was he didn't have near the same 2-way impact that Kareem had. I think his numbers pretty much speak for themselves 25 ppg 11rpg and 4 apg and 3 bpg over a 20 year career. Kareem could do it all, score at a high level, rebound well, set up teammates, block shots etc. He won rings as the man for 2 different franchises and was an integral piece to a dynasty that won 5 championships in 9 years. He won mvps and Fmvps 9 and 14 years apart from each other respectively to show his dominance over a long period of time. I'm not sure much more explanation is needed.

[ThaRegul8r]

This comes down to two players imo. Bill Russell and Kareem. Here are some quotes and post regarding them both.

By ThaRegul8r

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two and then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. My problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was.

Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times where I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

Those are not my words, so they are not to be attributed to me. I've never said anything of the sort. (Nor do I even write like that. It's clear it wasn't written by me—I've graded many papers, and thus I can recognize writing styles.) That came from a post I quoted from a discussion on another board I was on under another name prior to registering on RealGM:

ElGee - why do you have Kareem apart from MJ and BR? KAJs resume is almost the same as Jordan's. I know this "he was second option to Magic" argument but he won numerous MVPs before Magic's arrival. Era differences doesn't matter as 90s were similarly bad as 70s, maybe only a little better. Kareem also led worse team than MJ for that period of time. He's right there.

Here's a post from a conversation I and several other posters had on another site seven years ago:

Date: 5/23/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: AlpJones3
MsgId: <20040523185639.15258.00038667@mbs-r04.aol.com>

ActiveVerb wrote:
[[I agree with that. In my opinion you can make a case for 5 guys as number 1:

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Jordan
Magic

After that it's hard for me to see anyone making a strong case for anyone as the single best player of all time.

I think most people would say either Jordan or one of the big three. Jordan has a couple of advantages there -- he played most recently and played a different position, so the three centers split some votes.
Personally I think the only two players that you can make a case for as greatest ever are Russell and Jordan. To me its those two anf then Jabbar,Wilt,Magic,and Bird in any order. I think these 6 players are by themselves ahead of anyone else. Mt problem with naming Jabbar the greatest is he failed to win some titles that i thought he should have won if he was the greatest ever. I didn't see Jabbar win any titles that I thought Russell or Jordan couldn't have won if surrounded equal talent as Jabbar was. Thats the same reason that I wouldn't rank Wilt,Magic,or Bird as high as Russell or Jordan. I saw Wilt,Magic,Bird,and Jabbar fail at times wher I thought if they were realy the greatest they should have won the titles or at least done better. Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrouned by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.

It was a post of someone else's ("AlpJones3" would be the correct citation, "as quoted by ThaRegul8r") provided as an example of someone who thought the way the quoted RealGM poster was questioning to give insight into that line of thinking.

[MacGill]

Ok, so fair or unfair I have some harsh criticisms of KAJ that I would like to maturely discuss. Just want to put that out there as I am totally onside with new information being presented or clarification on perhaps a closed-minded view of my own.

With that said.....his accolades: Now I want to make clear that accolades do not make the player, nor do titles.....and maybe it's all you KAJ supporters, but when the dude was winning mvp's....he wasn't winning titles and when he was winning titles...he really wasn't winning mvp's. Now I know he has his 1979-80 and his FMVP at an older age but to me, KAJ is really missing demonstrating his ability in a rivalry like a Wilt/Russell, Magic/Bird, Shaq/Duncan etc.

Being transparent, maybe that's why I don't see him in the eyes that other's do...I can admit that. But. As I mentioned before, to me he isn't really the GOAT in anything outside of longevity (more on that) and having the most unstoppable shot in the history of the game. Who was really on his level from an MVP perspective? Because if so, we should already be discussing him. I don't knock him for the 70's but I am hard pressed to find another era where one player stood head and shoulder's above the rest and instantly were the favorites because of having him. 60's,80's, 90's, 00's, all had multiple players who you could see being best in league, never mind so many top 15 talents, yet KAJ did what an ATG would do in their era and to me because Magic decides it's LA or back to college (and I believe KAJ was going to give up the game?) he gets additional credit for his longevity.

Ok, so admittedly I am softening my stance here, but if posters want to harp on Russell's Celtic's.....how in the world can we not say the same thing about Magic's Lakers? Hand picking to join the best player in the game and assembling a team that makes the finals 9 times in 12 years I believe. KAJ wasn't Hakeem on defense, nor a rebounder like Wilt, or had a GOAT peak candidate like Shaq but from what I read, he was good enough in all area's to be considered. Yet we have Russell who's team's were off the chain defensively, battles against the KAJ before KAJ....and 11 years of era separates this? With the aba split and the (sorry) more underwhelming MVP candidates when KAJ didn't win in the league.

So I guess it comes down to does what he did as a basketball player impress me. Sure, but am I impressed by Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, more so, I am. Because they all dominated the league like him and all have good longevity to say it wasn't fluke or an outlier, win or lose. Maybe it's a bit unfair....but for how he is talked about, I'd expect an MJ/Russell abolishment of the league because after all, his offense as many mention is greater than Russell's defensive impact. Yet, like everyone, he needed specific help, no difference there....and because of this...why is his accomplishments any sweeter than any of the others I have mentioned. I don't see it....but I will keep an open mind here.

[Baller2014]

Some pretty lame arguments here. Although there are reasons to say that there might not have been as strong a player pool in the 60s when Russell played "most of his career . . . ," comparing that to the 70s when Kareem was at his individual peak makes it clear the 60s were much stronger competition. Russell in 65 played in a 9 team league facing 5 HOF centers, Wilt, Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Beaty . . . all of whom were All-stars in the 70s as well. Compare to the expa'nsion heavy 70s where the number of teams in the NBA tripled, quadripled if you count ABA players and it's hard to believe Kareem faced better competition than the 60s competition I mentioned. If you are 6-9 or better in America, you were recruited to play basketball and the pool of 6-9 recruits certainly didn't triple (or quadriple) in this period. Yes, there were improvements in nutrition, weights, coaching, etc. but Russell faced guys who had the same advantages he did; as did Kareem. If Kareem benefitted by those factors, so would Russell. The 60s were a stronger era than the 70s in terms of competition.

Let's imagine, for the sake of illustrating my point, that the NBA's image changed in 1962, and that suddenly 100% more kids were interested in playing it as a sport. The 100% more 12 year olds who started learning how to play basketball at a young age wouldn't be NBA players until about 8 years later in 1970. Obviously this is a hypothetical example, but the point is that with every year the talent pool grew, because more and more people were taking an interest in the game and had been starting to play, more coaches starting teaching it at schools, more people stuck with it because it was now a profitable career. Blacks were uncommon at the start of Russell's career, but played 61% of all minutes by the end of it. I think there was a big difference between most of Russell's career and the 70's, where the quality was going up and up.

I don't take points off for the ABA existing (it existed in the tail end of Russell's career too). The talent pool had grown enough that it wasn't really weakening the NBA at all. Of course, the NBA was even stronger once those two leagues merged again, but I think both the NBA and the late ABA were stronger than the NBA over most if not all of the 60's.

To talk about Russell matching up with 5 "HoF big men is misleading, just as it would be misleading if I pointed out all the "HoFers" Russell played with. They made the HoF because the Celtics won, but it's a misleading way of describing some of them. Russell had the best team, and some of those big men you named were good, but let's examine them a little more closely. Wilt I covered already. Reed and his legend have become pretty overrated, Frazier was the dominant force on those Knicks. Often the Knicks did almost as well without Reed, and got nowhere before Frazier arrived. Reed also only got into the NBA in 1965. Bellamy I don't rate at all. He is the definition of an era player, and I suspect one could make a case study to show how Bellamy embodied the shifting strength of the NBA. He arrived in 1962 and his stats more or less steadily declined as the 60's went on, from being an absurd 32-19 as a rookie, to posting a more realistic 17-12 in 1969 at age 29 (we certainly weren't seeing guys like Bellamy's stats surge upwards as the NBA became "weaker" in the 70's due to expansion). Bellamy would have been a pretty good player in anytime, but outside of his era he was nothing special. Zelmo would be an all-star today, a really good player, but his teams weren't as good as Russell's, what should we expect him to have done? Thurmond's legacy is debated a lot both ways, but again; his teams were worse. What was really expected of him? It's not like Kareem had no competition when he played, indeed he had better competition. The very next year after Russell retired he took the expansion Bucks team from 27 wins to 56, and they won 66 and the title in his 2nd year (posting a historic SRS, better than any Celtic team under Russell ever did). Had the league gotten that much weaker in 2 years? If anything I'd argue the contenders were stronger right after Russell's retirement.

Then we get to the "gaudy stats." As listed in the previous post, playing against so many weak NBA teams rather than a concentration of talent is more likely to produce gaudy stats, so if any stats are questionable, it would be those of the 70s. Look at the historical record and after every expansion, there are monster SRS and individual seasons because of the impact of these weak teams.

Explain to me how the league was weaker in 1970-72 than 1969? The best teams were the Knicks (who had improved along with Frazier's improvement), the Bullets were still the Bullets, the Lakers were dangerous as always (and got even more dangerous with Wilt's arrival). I mean, even if you think that the bottom teams got worse, that argument doesn't work because Kareem's performance against the top teams was still awesome (meaning it wasn't just number padding v.s bad teams). Kareem's playoff numbers against good teams are still crazy high. In his rookie year for instance his stats actually got higher in he playoffs (he was putting up 35-17-4 on 567 FG%).

Then comes the pace argument. In Russell's peakl season, 1965, teams scored an average of 110.6 pts/game; in Kareem's 1971 championship season, teams in the NBA scored an average of 112.4 ppg. Note that although both Boston and Milwaukee scored above the league averages, Boston scored 112.8 while 1971 Milwaukee had by far the most inflated scoring in the league at 118.4 pts per game. There is something to the fact that shooting percentages were lower in 65 so rebounds were more available but that's more than countered by the greater advantage of offenses over defenses in 71 making scoring and efficiency easier.

Looking at scoring isn't helpful, especially since Russell's big stats aren't on the offensive end, they're on rebounding. Of course Russell is going to have more rebounds to grab when teams are taking more shots. Indeed, the ppg average furthers that argument, because when there are more shots clanging off the rim in 1965 there are more rebounds to grab. Offensive schemes improved in the 70's, the shot clock was more frequently used up, teams scored more efficiently, and that meant scoring went up. But efficient scoring is a good thing, not a bad one. The pace of the game in the 70's was obviously different to today's game (just like the 60's was ever more different), I don't think Kareem would be called on to average 35-17-5 in today's game, but his stats are far less padded than Russell's were.

Finally, there's the idea that Boston was a superteam before Russell. The 4 years before Russell, Boston had been 2/4, 3/4, 3/4, and 2/4 with Auerbach, Cousy, Sharman, and HOF Ed Macauley. They were second in the league before Russell but at a weak .542 win percentage in a league where every team except Philadelphia (at .625) had a record between .431 and .542. In fact, Boston was as close to the 2nd worst team in the league in record (6 games) as it was to the team ahead of it. So, no, they had not been powerhouses before Russell but mediocrities. They did have a hot start before Russell joined the team with Heinsohn taking the scoring of Macauley (who was NOT on the team but had been traded with Boston's 1st to get the right to draft Russell) but it's a reasonably small sample size. oh, and, Cousy was not that impressive in the Russell years, possibly the worst playoff performer relative to regular season during that stretch . . . he consistently shot miserably in the playoffs (although Frank Ramsey, the 6th man, was a playoff stud).

This is not a good anti-Russell or pro-Kareem argument.

Why are we looking at the 4 years before Russell? That isn't a good measure of the team they had immediately before Russell joined (the team immediately before Russell joined is). And as you say, they were 2nd in the NBA the year before Russell arrived, and then had a better win% in Russell's rookie years in games he didn't play. Obviously that's sample size to some degree, I don't think Russell made them worse, but they were already winning the league without him. Then after Russell's rookie year the front office continually upgraded the Celtics with huge talent infusions and stars. I think Cousy is overrated, so I'm right with you on that point, but the whole NBA was overrated in 1957. It was a weak league. As it improved, so did the Celtics, adding many of the best players to their roster. The fact remains Russell had clearly the best support cast, by a long way IMO, and I don't think people are even disputing this fact.

[HeartBreakKid]

Well, I missed most of the first thread, but here's my vote here.
Intro
My top 3 as of now goes like this

1) Bill Russell
2) Michael Jordan
3) Shaquile O'Neal


Jordan's out, O'Neal likely won't get talk here so no reason for me to bring him up yet - so this leaves Russell comfortably at #2.


Going in, I'm going to predict that Kareem is going to be the biggest hurdle to challenge Russell. Since I missed out on the Jordan debates, I think Kareem will be a nice substitute since he also signifies the whole two way player thing.



So here is my argument for why Bill Russell is the second best player of all time (since Jordan won).

Tangible defensive impact

Bill Russell's defensive impact is higher than anyone else's offensive impact and defensive impact. Look at the team metrics, it's a no brainer. There was one team metric that made the Celtics look like such an out lier, I lost all of my notes on my last computer so I can't seem to remember what it was, but I found some other stuff as decent substitutes.


Here's a study done by Neil Payne, he measures the offensive and defensive efficiency of every team in the NBA up until 2010.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205

As you can see, the Russell era Celtics dominate this list, and are the top 6 best defenses of the shot clock era team. The gap between the worst Celtics defense in the top 6 is still 5 points higher than #7 (63 Bullets).


These Celtics are almost the 1st team in DRTG every single year Bill Russell plays, often times by a significant amount. This is despite Russell being a 50s player, having to deal with the mass expansion of talent and technique changes NBA players are utilizing - Bill is still keeping up no matter what happens. This is even more impressive when you take into account that the Celtics are a totally different team from 57 up until 69, yet not a single beat is missed in between.

I believe these numbers are Pace Adjusted (I got these from an ElGee post, not sure if he made these himself). The actual numbers themselves don't matter if you don't buy the pace adjusted formula, but difference between the team's defenses is what is important.

1961

DRtg

Code: Select all
1. Boston 83.4
2. St. Louis 87.9
3. Los Angeles 90.1
4. Philadelphia 90.2
5. Syracuse 91.3
LEAGUE AVG. 91.5
6. Detroit 95.2
7. New York 96.3
8. Cincinnati 98.3


62

DRtg

Code: Select all
1. Boston 84.6
2. Syracuse 91.0
3. Philadelphia 92.5
4. Los Angeles 93.0
LEAGUE AVG. 93.3
5. Detroit 93.6
6. New York 94.4
7. Chicago 96.1
8. Cincinnati 97.2
9. St. Louis 97.5

63

DRtg

Code: Select all
1. Boston 87.0
2. St. Louis 93.1
3. Los Angeles 94.8
4. Syracuse 95.5
LEAGUE AVG. 94.5
5. Detroit 97.0
6. San Francisco 97.1
7. Cincinnati 98.9
8. New York 99.6
9. Chicago 101.6




64

DRtg


Code: Select all
1. Boston 83.0
3. San Francisco 88.6
2. St. Louis 93.8
LEAGUE AVG. 94.5
8. Cincinnati 94.9
9. Baltimore 96.6
5. Philadelphia 96.9
6. Los Angeles 97.1
4. Detroit 98.6
7. New York 101.4



65


DRtg

Code: Select all
1. Boston 83.5
2. St. Louis 91.5
3. San Francisco 91.9
4. Detroit 92.6
LEAGUE AVG. 93.4
5. Philadelphia 93.9
6. Los Angeles 95.8
7. New York 96.0
8. Cincinnati 96.3
9. Baltimore 99.0

The numbers pre 61 and post 64 are still totally dominant, but this stretch was the most impressive, but you could really look at his entire career and nothing changes. Best defense every year, sometimes by a decent gap, most of the times by a gigantic one.

Here is a comparison of the Celtics team WITHOUT Bill Russell and the Celtics team WITH Bill Russell (rookie season)

56 Celtics - 23 OWS 14 DWS (37 WS)
57 Celtics - 17.2 OWS 32.4 DWS (48.6 WS), (Bill injured half the season)

1956

DRtg

Code: Select all
1. Rochester 86.3
2. Syracuse 86.6
3. St. Louis 87.6
4. Fort Wayne 89.1
LEAGUE AVG. 89.2
5. Philadelphia 90.2
6. Boston 90.7
7. Minneapolis 91.3
8. New York 91.9

Many of these years the Celtics range from an average offensive team to a putrid one. Now, Russell is to blame for that, however, this shows how great that his defensive impact was, it was so great that his team would win no matter what they gave up on the offensive end. The idea that Russell is a liability due to his offense makes no sense, because his defense literally makes his short comings on offensive negligible, the proof is in the pudding really.

Here is an idea of how bad the Celtics were on offense. Dead last this year in rating.

DRtg

Code: Select all
1. Boston 87.0
2. St. Louis 93.1
3. Los Angeles 94.8
4. Syracuse 95.5
LEAGUE AVG. 94.5
5. Detroit 97.0
6. San Francisco 97.1
7. Cincinnati 98.9
8. New York 99.6
9. Chicago 101.6

ORtg

Code: Select all
1. Cincinnati 100.0
2. Syracuse 98.6
3. Chicago 97.9
4. Los Angeles 97.4
LEAGUE AVG. 96.0
5. San Francisco 95.4
6. St. Louis 94.7
7. Detroit 94.0
8. New York 93.3
9. Boston 92.6

I'm not trying to be selective, this is pretty much the tale of the Celtics. I don't think it makes for an interesting read to just spam numbers, so I see little reason to keep posting more examples. (I can't remember if there is a better example of how bad they were on offense than this one though)


Bill Russell feasted on easy competition


Not entirely true.

Yes, the world was less athletic as a whole back in the 50s and 60s. The world is less athletic as a whole 10 years ago. If one were to penalize Russell for being an old school player, where does it stop? Jordan is a player from the 1980s, 30 years ago. Gretzky is a 80s player. Ali broke in the 60s, Sugar Ray is from 40s. Pele from the 50s and 60s just as Bill. Fat boy Babe Ruth all the way from the 19-teens up to the 30s.

Yet these men are not nearly as discredited for the era that they competed in. Is it not possible that the best athletes in the world would not be one of the best athletes in the world a mere few decades later? Have humans evolved so much to where the cream of the crop in one era, wouldn't be close to the cream of the crop of another relatively close era?


Now, not everyone may think the people I listed above are the GOATs for what ever reason, just trying to touch all the bases here.

All things point to me, that Bill Russell competed when the NBA finally became modernized, it may have been at the start of the NBA's modernization, but it was modernized none the less.

Prior to Bill was the Schayes/Petit/Cousy era, but more importantly prior to that era was the Mikan Era. An argument often spawns that how can Russell be considered so great when Mikan is usually held in much lower regard. The answer is simple, George Mikan literally did face inferior competition, as in the best basketball players in the world were not in the NBA, you could say he "ducked" the competition (not really fair, since it is not his fault the NBA was segregated, but the best analogy to get my point across). Players in Mikan's era were also genuinely shorter.

So Bill faced better athletes (by the time Bill had retired, you could make a good living off of playing basketball, good enough to attract world class athletes of going into pro sports instead of normal desk or labor jobs), a non-segregated league (fpliii touched upon this in the last thread, with an awesome stat of something like 27% of minutes were played by blacks when Bill first came in, and it was at 70% by the time he had left), and the players in general had gotten taller. On top of this, tactics had changed and advanced through Bill's career, and unlike other players from the 50s, Bill adapted and dominated no matter what happened.



So what about after Bill?

Well, Kareem seems to be the next big head honcho around here. How can anyone who truly has studied their history use the argument that Bill wasn't that great because of his competition, and then vote for Kareem Abdul Jabar as the second best basketball player?

The NBA in the 1970s was inferior to the NBA of the 1960s, and Kareem is a 1970s player, not a 1980s player. Well, okay, Kareem is both a 70s and 80s player in that he was featured in both, but Kareem's actual basketball prime was the 70s, in the 80s he was still good, but not what he once was.


We don't need to look at league wide stats to see that the 70s were worse than the 60s, it's common sense.

The ABA was introduced and picked up steam. What league was better is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is superstars went to the ABA and basketball is a superstar sport, just ONE superstar leaving makes a gigantic difference in competition. The second best player in the entire world, at the time some would argue the best player, Julius Erving did not even play in the NBA until the 77 season. It is common sense, that with the talent split, there is no way it could have been as good as the prior decade.

To compound with this, the NBA had massively expanded. Everyone knows expansion makes teams weaker overall, as there is less talent to go around, hence why the 90s gets so much criticism and why the 00s had so many imbalanced teams.

So you're talking about an expansion and another professional league, yet the argument is that Russell played against inferior competition?


Another thing to point out, there is only a one season difference between Russell and Kareem. Bill Russell retired in 68-69, Kareem's rookie season was in 69-70 - if Bill was arguably the best player just the year before Kareem started his career, how can there be a gigantic difference in the competition they faced? Hell, this is kinda ironic because people use the whole Mikan's era was uncivilized so by association Russell's has to be, when Russell and Kareem nearly played at the same time. So does this mean that Kareem is from a dinosaur age too?



Bill played against a freak athlete in Wilt Chamberlain, and often times out played him despite what the stats say. One has to remember that Chamberlain was a stat padder, and on top of that the Celtics would often get gigantic leads, so a lot of Wilt's stats came in "garbage time". Here are some examples in key playoff games from Fatal9.

Here for example is the '62 series...

Game 1:



Warriors lost by 28, Wilt winds up top scorer after scoring most of his points when "the issue was no longer in doubt".

Game 3:


Celtics led by 28 after three quarters (109-81). Russell outplays Wilt when the game was a contest but then Wilt catches up/exceeds Russell's stats when it was "too late to matter". Again, Wilt winds up top scorer due to the points he scored after the game was a blowout.

Game 5:

"Russell scored 29 points to Chamberlain's 30. Bill blanketed Wilt so well that the NBA scoring king had only four of 13 field goal tries, 11 points and was out-rebounded 11-9 by his tormentor in the crucial first half. Russell also contributed numerous blocked shots and assists to the decision."- http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z ... 76,2892610

Celtics led by 23 at the half and yet again most of Wilt's points end up coming after the Celtics had already blown out the Warriors while playing poorly in the first half, so he got the top scoring honors over Russell again.

Yes, the game is never over by half time but if a majority of your points are coming after you're already down 25+ points, when the outcome is basically decided and the opposing team eases up, that's not a good trend. Playing 48 minutes in games like this and using those garbage minutes to actually pad your stats (while not playing well when the game was actually on the line), then sorry I'm going to respect your stats a lot less.

It's not to say Wilt couldn't play well with the game on the line, he had a couple of truly great games in that series where he significantly outplayed Russell, but it shows how much the box score/averages can be manipulated if you're stat conscious enough and get heavy minutes in games like this. It's also scary to think how much more of a dropoff we might have seen in the playoffs from Wilt if he wasn't doing this. There's three cases in seven games where Russell outplayed him when it mattered, but Wilt got his stats in garbage time to come out on top statistically. A player doing this in a playoff series today would lose a lot of credibility. LeBron/Kobe for example take couple of shots during blowouts and instantly get accused of statpadding, this is that and then some. Also, aren't there stories of Russell sometimes purposely letting Wilt score at the end of blowouts so Wilt comes out thinking he actually played well? I actually considered that to be nonsense until I looked deeper into these games.

Not only this, but the two players who gave Kareem the most trouble (even by his own admission) were Nate Thurmond and Wilt Chamberlain, two players who were considered to be vastly inferior defenders to Bill Russell (which is saying something, because they are still great defenders).

Kareem averaged 28.8/14.5 on nearly 52 FG% his rookie season, which is also when he won MVP (he was the best player in the league).

When he played against Thurmond his stats were this (basketball reference doesnt have proper splits as this was a long time ago I presume)

Game 1 - 16 points, 7 FGs (loss by 14)
Game 2 - 28 points, 10 FG (win by 6)
Game 3 - 21 points, 7 FG (loss by 17)
Game 4 - 13 points, 5 FG (win by 14)
Game 5 - 23 points, 9 FG (win by 16)
Game 6 - 26 points, 9 FG (win by 7)

So as you can see Thurmond did strifle him, a lot of info is missing here, but it's pretty clear that an athletic defensive anchor from the 60s could hamper Kareem's game. Now to be fair, Thurmond is arguably a better man to man defender than Bill (some would argue), and this was Kareem's rookie season (though he was like 22, and MVP).



But we can go to arguably his best season in 72, and see that 30 year old Thurmond seems to slow down Kareem.

Kareem averaged 34.8 on 57 FG%, 60 TS% (efficiency doesn't really matter as the stats don't show what Kareem shot in these games, but it's clear to see based on these stats, that Kareem was pretty much unstoppable offensively).

vs 30 year old Thurmond (who was slowing down from injuries)

Game 1 - 17 points (loss by 7)
game 2 - 30 points (loss by 2)
game 3 - 21 points (win by 11)
game 4 - 34 points (win by 23)

Then the playoffs from that year, where the Bucks and Warriors played

Kareem averaged 22.8 points that series, where he was presumably guarded by Thurmond. (who had 25.5/17.8)

The next series Kareem would put up 33.7 against the future champs in the Lakers (who was guarded by a great defender in Chamberlain, though he was 35 then).


So the point is here isn't "oh look, Kareem scored less PPG against Thurmond, that must mean Russell would shut him down" - I'm not saying that at all. My point is here, the difference in competition isn't so big that the best player from the 60s could not out play the best player from the 70s. You can discount Russell for other reasons, but era bias makes no sense here. Kareem feasted against a lot of teams who could not field as many legitimate centers as they should have because the ABA had stolen them. The 60s was more competitive than the 70s, and a better age for centers I would argue. (in the NBA)





Kareem would be better in the modern NBA than Bill Russell, his skills translate better[/b


My rebuttal to that is [b]so?. That just means the rules are different. Basketball is basketball. The three point line is optional, there are plenty of courts that do not have 3 point lines. 3 second rule is optional, plenty of people do not call it, many orgs do not call it, hell the NBA forgets to call it. Even the bloody shotclock is optional, not even talking about pick up, most organized basketball games to this day do not have a shot clock - doesn't mean they're not playing bloody basketball.

Modern rules are the way they are because the people making them thinks it makes the game more entertaining, not because...uh...rules are superior today than before?


But here's a question, why can't Bill Russell dominate in today's NBA? He could dominate the 50s and 60s, so he should be able to dominate the 40s (that's 3 decades right there). I already covered how the 70s was inferior to the NBA 60s (same decade Kareem played in), that's 4.

What separates the 80s from the 70s? The 3 point line which no one used? Seems like an anchor would still be pretty damn good there.

90s? 3 pointers are becoming more frequent, but not the cupse of an offense like they are today. Bigs could still camp the paint, defenses could still be physical. Seems like Bill transfers well here.

So by my count, seems like there are 60 years worth of NBA basketball of rules that are "bias" (someone actually said the rules were bias toward Bill Russell in the other thread) toward Bill - seems like his style of ball translates over more times than not.


I'd argue that he would thrive in the early 2000s as well, seeing as that defense truly marked that era so much to the point that the league had to change the rules drastically to get people out of the paint and to make the game less physical on perimeter players.



But what about today? If Bill isn't the best player (because James could be better), he would almost certainly be the second best. Think about it.

If Bill is truly the best rebounder of all time, he should reasonably get 18-19 rebounds a game, as his rebounding rate was similar to Dennis Rodman's (who got about that much), 17 rebounds at least. That is incredible impact, like think about how much impact Love has on boards, anyone who thinks that doesn't more than make up for his offensive short comings is crazy. Not to mention Rodman also used to stat pad, something Bill never did.

He would probably get 4-5 blocks a game if he truly was the GOAT shot blocker. He has the physical attributes (6'11, he is taller than Howard and Olajuwon when he stands next to them). He certainly has the basketball IQ, as he had essentially created the fundamentals to modern shot blocking. People say well teams can make it up by taking 3s, while that diminishes his impact some what, it still doesn't change the fact that taking away the paint with such incredible efficiency is ungodly impact.

On top of that, Bill has the horizontal game. If one were to concede that he has amazing agility (and there are many accounts that he has this, as many perimeter players from his era would admit that Russell could switch on to them), how does this not make him prime to be a great pick and role player? PNR is much bigger now than it was then, so if he were teleported to this era and had a chance to assimilate, wouldn't he be one of the best PNR defenders, which is probably the most important thing for a modern big? It's why people talk about Dwight Howard all time.


Bill played point-center, he was literally the primary point player some seasons. No reason why he couldn't get at least 3 assist like an Andrew Bogut. Again, that makes up for his lack of scoring alone, a good passing high post center will not put up a lot of numbers, but is very fundamental to a neatly run offense. Joakim Noah put up like 5-6 APG, but I won't dive too much into hyperbole for Bill's passing ability.

So why is a 15/19/3/5 player who would probably dominate KG style +/- not as good as say a 26/13/3/4 player? (not taking into account that Bill would project into someone who would likely get more steals than Kareem). Are there not intangibles here that make up for any difference in numeral impact? Is Kareem not someone who has social problems with his teammates and club? Is Bill someone who has not risen to the challenge when ever his team needed too? For the most part Kareem has too, but Kareem certainly has more of a reputation for being mentally weak than Bill does. Bill is called an older Ben Wallace, yet I can't see Bill putting up a 30/40 game in Game 7 of the NBA finals (with pace adjusted, still blazing numbers for someone who "can't score").


My vote goes to Bill Russell, there's no reason NOT to believe that Bill Russell's impact is the real deal. Arguments against him usually just revolve around skepticism, and if era bias is the problem, then you have to fault Kareem for that too, because his prime happened in a weaker era.

[HeartBreakKid]

Also, sorry for the tl;dr - given that I missed MJ vs Bill, I decided to let it all out in my first post here.

My other post from here on will be...much shorter and easier to digest.

[ThaRegul8r]

Ok, so fair or unfair I have some harsh criticisms of KAJ that I would like to maturely discuss. Just want to put that out there as I am totally onside with new information being presented or clarification on perhaps a closed-minded view of my own.

With that said.....his accolades: Now I want to make clear that accolades do not make the player, nor do titles.....and maybe it's all you KAJ supporters, but when the dude was winning mvp's....he wasn't winning titles and when he was winning titles...he really wasn't winning mvp's. Now I know he has his 1979-80 and his FMVP at an older age but to me, KAJ is really missing demonstrating his ability in a rivalry like a Wilt/Russell, Magic/Bird, Shaq/Duncan etc.

[...] Who was really on his level from an MVP perspective? Because if so, we should already be discussing him. I don't knock him for the 70's but I am hard pressed to find another era where one player stood head and shoulder's above the rest and instantly were the favorites because of having him. 60's,80's, 90's, 00's, all had multiple players who you could see being best in league [...]

A minor quibble with one point: Who was Jordan's Russell, Magic or Duncan through the decade of the 90's? As far as rivalries, Magic/Bird ran through most of the 80's, the 00's had Shaq/Duncan, the 90's were Jordan/...? Who was that other top 10 GOAT player who was Jordan's great rival through the 90's?

[ThaRegul8r]

When he played against Thurmond his stats were this (basketball reference doesnt have proper splits as this was a long time ago I presume)

Game 1 - 16 points, 7 FGs (loss by 14)
Game 2 - 28 points, 10 FG (win by 6)
Game 3 - 21 points, 7 FG (loss by 17)
Game 4 - 13 points, 5 FG (win by 14)
Game 5 - 23 points, 9 FG (win by 16)
Game 6 - 26 points, 9 FG (win by 7)

So as you can see Thurmond did strifle him, a lot of info is missing here, but it's pretty clear that an athletic defensive anchor from the 60s could hamper Kareem's game. Now to be fair, Thurmond is arguably a better man to man defender than Bill (some would argue), and this was Kareem's rookie season (though he was like 22, and MVP).

I can tell you that—man-to-man—he was. No need to add "arguably." Overall, Russell was better, but strictly man-to-man, Thurmond was better.

[SactoKingsFan]

I've decided to vote during day 2 after more arguments have been presented. Initially I planned on voting for either Kareem or Wilt. After reading the analysis in the GOAT thread I think I may have underrated Russell. Therefore, I'll be considering Kareem, Wilt and Russell for the #2 spot.

--EDIT--

Initially I was leaning towards voting for Wilt due to his GOAT level talent, physical dominance and video game numbers. However, after reading through the last two threads and considering Wilt, Russell and Kareem, I’ve decided to vote for Kareem. IMO, he has the best combination of peak performance, longevity, skillset and era dominance.

Kareem’s Individual Accomplishments:

All-Time Peak (1972):

averaged nearly 35 PTS on .60 TS%, 16.6 TRB, 4.6 AST, 25.4 WS, .34 WS/48

High Impact/GOAT Longevity:

10x All-NBA 1st team, 5x All-NBA 2nd team, 19x All-Star, 6x NBA MVP, 2x NBA Finals MVP

As previously mentioned in this thread, Kareem was immediately a high impact player. The season before they drafted Kareem the Bucks were one of the worst teams in the league (27-55). During his rookie season Kareem averaged 28.8 points, 14.5 rebounds and 4.5 assists and the Bucks went 56-26-one of the greatest single season improvements in NBA history.

By making his 15th All-NBA team during his 17th season, Kareem completed the longest stretch of high impact play the NBA has ever witnessed. Others have had arguably higher peaks, but none have come close to matching Kareem’s longevity.

Dominant & Efficient Scorer:

All-time NBA leading scorer

Top 2 highest FG % while volume scoring (30+PPG)

1. 1971: 31.7 PTS, 57.7 FG%; 2. 1972: 34.8 PTS, 57.4 FG%

Although Wilt was the more prolific volume scorer, Kareem was one of the all-time most efficient volume scorers. He has 3 of the 16 most efficient (TS%) 30+ point seasons. Only Jordan and Dantley have as many 30+ point seasons that ranked in the top 16 in efficiency.

Good Defender: 5x Defensive 1st team, 6x Defensive 2nd team, 4x block leader

FT Shooting: As a 72% FT shooter Kareem has a significant edge over Wilt (51%) and Russell (56%). This is an important part of his skillset since you could give him the ball late in games without worrying about teams fouling.

The Skyhook: arguably the most unstoppable offensive move in NBA history

Era Dominance:

In addition to the aforementioned accomplishments, Kareem dominated as a center during an era many consider the golden age of NBA bigs.

Some of the notable bigs prime Kareem played against:

Wilt Chamberlain
Willis Reed
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Moses Malone
Nate Thurmond
Walt Bellamy
Dave Cowens
Bob Lanier
Bill Walton
Robert Parish
Artis Gilmore
Bob McAdoo
Jack Sikma
Dan Issel


VOTE: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[DHodgkins]

Vote: Bill Russell

"... I won back-to-back state championships in high school, back-to-back NCAA championships in college, I won an NBA championship my first year in the league, an NBA championship in my last year, and nine in between..."

Russell in game 7's:
10 W - 0 L

Game 1: 30 pts 44 rebs ... played every minute
Game 2: 19 pts 32 rebs
Game 3: 22 pts 35 rebs
Game 4: 25 pts 32 rebs
Game 5: 18 pts 32 rebs
Game 6: 6 pts 21 rebs
Game 7: 15 pts 29 rebs
Game 8: 19 pts ... Held 50 ppg Wilt to 22
Game 9: 12 pts 26 rebs
Game 10: 20 pts

Greatest winner ever.
Greatest defensive player ever. Lord knows how many DPOYs/All D 1st teams/FMVPS he would have won

[HeartBreakKid]

I can tell you that—man-to-man—he was. No need to add "arguably." Overall, Russell was better, but strictly man-to-man, Thurmond was better.

I'm incline to agree. Though the reason why I put that was to not make it so much a comparison of Russell/Thurmond vs Kareem - but a comparison of the "Old Guard" vs "New Guard". Ie, Is Russell's time so dated, that it cannot challenge Kareem's?

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Bill Russell

"... I won back-to-back state championships in high school, back-to-back NCAA championships in college, I won an NBA championship my first year in the league, an NBA championship in my last year, and nine in between..."

Russell in game 7's:
10 W - 0 L

Game 1: 30 pts 44 rebs ... played every minute
Game 2: 19 pts 32 rebs
Game 3: 22 pts 35 rebs
Game 4: 25 pts 32 rebs
Game 5: 18 pts 32 rebs
Game 6: 6 pts 21 rebs
Game 7: 15 pts 29 rebs
Game 8: 19 pts ... Held 50 ppg Wilt to 22
Game 9: 12 pts 26 rebs
Game 10: 20 pts

Greatest winner ever.
Greatest defensive player ever. Lord knows how many DPOYs/All D 1st teams/FMVPS he would have won

FYI only NBA is considered here.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Project is moving a bit fast. Maybe 3 days for the Top 10 would be better since people have work.

The #2 spot is tough. From #2-11, the margin is very slim depending on criteria used. Thinking about this organically, so a rough estimate of he Top players left for every position is.....

Center
KAJ
Russell
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem

PF
Duncan
Dirk
Petit
Barkley
Malone

SF
Bird
Lebron
Dr. J
Baylor
Hondo

SG
Kobe
West
Drexler
Wade
Manu

PG
Magic
Oscar
Stockton
Cousy
Payton

The clear best at their positions left are Magic, Kobe, Duncan. Bird vs Lebron lingers, and of course the center position is one big clusterbleep
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-At center, I feel Russell proved himself over Wilt when it comes to impact during their era. So Wilt is gone.

-Shaq's prime was longer and better than Hakeem's. In raw imapct I'm giving Shaq an everso slight edge. So no Hakeem.

-That leaves KAJ, Russell, Shaq for best center ever. In terms of portability, Russell takes a hit. He doesn't possess the skills to be a 1st or 2nd option on offense. his defense was GOAT caliber, but not better than Hakeem's by much if at all, who I already put aside. As a matter of fact, if we gauged offensive/defensive impact, how would we compare Russell to Hakeem? If Russell's a 10, then Hakeem's at least a 9. offensively Russell is a 5 at best, while Hakeem is clearly more. i don't buy the 60's Celtics as the GOAT defense anymore, I just feel the numbers are skewed due to league size, along with nearly non-existent competition. There wasn't a decent squad to rival Boston til circa 1966. Ha, BUT....Russell had crazy intangibles as a leader, which i don't feel Hakeem possessed. So I give Russell a minor edge over Hakeem.

-Russell vs Shaq vs KAJ. Shaq/Russ are kinda the mirror image. Shaq was raw offensive dominance, and Russell was stealthy defensive dominance. Yet KAJ was more the hybrid. Incredible offense coupled with solid defense. I'm a big beleiver in Individual offense > individual defense. You can simply impact the game more on offense because you are involved on significantly more possessions a game, if you're a 1st option.

So because Kareem had GOAT longevity as an offensive anchor, and elite defense, along with bigtime correlation to team success, i give him the edge or Russ/Shaq who are an interesting head to head debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lebron vs Bird is close, but I still side with Bird's impact. Lebron's box scores are GOAT level, but they don't correlate to team impact at a good rate. Lebron is much like Wilt in that I feel the underachieving of his squads drops him in my eyes. if we praise Russell for getting the most out of his cast, while ripping Wilt, then Lebron deserves criticism too. Bird certainly had HOFs around him too....but he also won at a higher rate against tougher conference/finals opponents. Far too ofetn, even 11 years into his career, Lebron will just dissapear in crucial moents. He can have a great quarter, and be nowhere the other 3.

So Bird is still my GOAT SF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That leaves 5 positions to choose #2 from.
pg Magic
sg Kobe
sf Bird
pf Duncan
c KAJ

Gonna have to breakdown this down tomorrow.