RealGM Top 100 List #2

[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.

[...] 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?

Well to me, MJ didn't exactly have his rival at position (I mean Drexler would be closest and Nique if you bring up the slam dunk ) which is why I left him off the list. But, he played in prime with Magic/Bird, went through the Badboy Pistons and also had Hakeem/Shaq/D-Rob/K.Malone/Ewing/Barkley among others during his time in prime.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm going to have to ask, what is "individual defense".

This phrase makes no sense to me, especially when people use it to describe players who primary impact is anchoring a defense (which would mean they are covering for their teammates, not just themselves).

If individual defense is lesser than individual offense, then does that mean team defense is less than team offense? If not, then doesn't individual defense make up...team defense?

Individual defense seems like a silly arbitrary term, like micro evolution. I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Doesn't make sense to me and I hear so many people on this site use that phrase.

[HeartBreakKid]

Ah, two things I edited into my tl;dr that I forgot to touch upon. I forgot to compare Celtics pre Bill and with Bill.



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



Their DRTG before getting Bill (pace adjusted)

DRtg


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 (becomes #1 every year, Bill the obvious catalyst)
7. Minneapolis 91.3
8. New York 91.9

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'm going to have to ask, what is "individual defense".

This phrase makes no sense to me, especially when people use it to describe players who primary impact is anchoring a defense (which would mean they are covering for their teammates, not just themselves).

"individual defense" = impact defensively from an individual player

"team defense" = impact defensively from overall team.

A great defensive anchor can cover regions well(namely the paint), but still, there are only so many possessions one player can alter on defense. Russell's era for example, was unique in that he played half of it with a narrow lane, and players were slow enough that he could easily rotate to help on D. That said, the other Celtic players weren't bad defenders either.

If individual defense is lesser than individual offense, then does that mean team defense is less than team offense? If not, then doesn't individual defense make up...team defense?

An individual player can impact the offense everytime down if they want. They're in control.

An individual player can only impact the defense depending on the opposing team's play.

[Baller2014]

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.

2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.

[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

FYI only NBA is considered here.

I knew ... just thought it was a great quote

[DQuinn1575]

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.

2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.

I really don't get this - why would you vote for someone who you don't think is the best player?
I may change my vote, but that is only if I get convinced or think of things differently then when I first cast my vote. I voted for Russell, but believe Jabbar is a fantastic player, and am pretty sure I am going to pick him 3 if he doesn't wind up #2.

[TrueLAfan]

My vote is for Kareem here. I think the difference between the first and third best players on the GOAT list is tiny (and the person who won #1 was my vote for #3). I’ve already stated my case in the #1 thread. I take Kareem because of longevity and because I think it would be somewhat/slightly easier to construct a team around him. This was noted in this thread: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1315289&start=40

But I’ll add a few things. I think statistical analysis of teams, let alone individuals, is murky prior to the 1980s--and even more so for defensive statistics and analysis. So while I appreciate the work that goes into studies and metrics, I don’t find them useful in the way we need them to be here. I don’t need an analytic tool to understand how great Bill Russell was on defense. And I think trying to quantify something we just can’t is … not a practical errand.

The idea that 1970s basketball is “inferior” in a confusion of subjective choice with analysis. I used to sort of agree with that … until I did a breakdown of players by position in five year intervals a few years ago. I was kind of amazed at how strong the 70s were. The idea that “everybody knows” about how bad 70s basketball is is a logical fallacy; a sweeping generalization. I would argue that 70s basketball was when the beauty and non-conformity of streetball finally got into the NBA via black players (Earl Monroe) and white players (Pete Maravich), when the league was able to get over prejudices about how lack of D in the ABA (a third of the players on the All-D teams in the three years after the merger were former ABA players). The league became more vertical—hello Julius Erving!--and more horizontal , as the court was spread more as the three came into play.

And I find the idea of downgrading Kareem for not having a “rivalry” equally off. I guess you could say Kareem was “head and shoulders” above players in the 1970s because he was the NBA MVP over half the time. My response to that is

1) That’s bad because …?
2) Had the ABA players been in MVP voting, Julius Erving would have made things more interesting (and that’s part of this project)
3) While there wasn’t really a single player that was dominant throughout the decade, there was multiple players who several years of great play. Bob McAdoo. Bill Walton. George Gervin. Dave Cowens. Wilt Chamberlain. Jerry West. Walt Frazier. John Havlicek. Elvin Hayes. Rick Barry. Bob Lanier. All of those guys had at least two years in the top 5 of MVP voting in the 1970s. I’m not sure where I see having a rivalry with “a guy” (or two guys) for nine or ten years being harder or more valuable than rivalries with all of those players for 2-5 years each.

And I can’t tell you how misguided I find the idea of “underwhelming” MVP candidates in the 1970s. That’s a subjective belief. To make that point stronger, look at the #4 player in MVP voting from 1970 to 1979 (player ages in parentheses):

1970—Walt Frazier (24)
1971—Willis Reed (28)
1972—John Havlicek (31)
1973—Wilt Chamberlain (36)
1974—Dave Cowens (25)
1975—Rick Barry (30)
1976—Rick Barry (31)
1977—Bob Lanier (28)
1978—Kareem Abdul Jabbar (30)
1979—Kareem Abdul Jabbar (31)

Seems like an awful lot of great players at their peak (except for Wilt). I’m going to kind of go with the idea that the worst player on that list … maybe Bob Lanier in 1977, who was a 25.3/11.6/3.3 player that shot over 53% with good range and got two blocks a game ... was an awfully good player. Joakim Noah was 4th in MVP voting this year. I think Noah is a terrific player. I'm not (at all) sure he was better last year than Lanier was in 1977 ... and that's not an insult to either man.

[An Unbiased Fan]

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.

2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.

I'm leaning KAJ(I voted him #2 last time), but I don't think there's much a difference from #2-#12 or so. Looking at the top players on a positional basis helps me sort them out.

Also, the problem with the #1 thread is that it wasn't even up a full 2 days. There was one full day of discussion for the GOAT(Sunday), and then it was over while people were still debating today. If the goal is to simply write down names and poll everyone , then this system is fine. But if we're actually gonna debate/discussion each spot, then it's too quick.

[ceiling raiser]

2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.

I would certainly hope not, at this spot or any other. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm far more interested in the conversation than the actual results. Whether there is a plurality or majority makes no difference.

If there's going to be strategic or agenda-based voting, I'm not sure how interested I'd be in continuing to participate in the project.

[magicmerl]

Also, the problem with the #1 thread is that it wasn't even up a full 2 days. There was one full day of discussion for the GOAT(Sunday), and then it was over while people were still debating today. If the goal is to simply write down names and poll everyone , then this system is fine. But if we're actually gonna debate/discussion each spot, then it's too quick.

But there were 19 pages of discussion in there. I read it all, but quite frankly, I can't read 30+ pages about every pick.

I had originally suggested voting for players in tiers of 5 in the interests of expediency (and that might still be the way to go once we get past the top 20 or so). But now I think that was wrong because there's no way all of the discussion about the #1 pick could have taken place within a 5 pick context.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Ah, two things I edited into my tl;dr that I forgot to touch upon. I forgot to compare Celtics pre Bill and with Bill.



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



Their DRTG before getting Bill (pace adjusted)

DRtg


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 (becomes #1 every year, Bill the obvious catalyst)
7. Minneapolis 91.3
8. New York 91.9

Sorry, but what can we gather from this other than the fact that NBA offenses were horrible back then. We're talking about a time when the NBA'a average FG% was around 40%. Clearly, adding a player of Russell's ability to that time would yield great results.

[ceiling raiser]

An individual player can impact the offense everytime down if they want. They're in control.

An individual player can only impact the defense depending on the opposing team's play.

This is a matter of opinion, but I respect where you're coming from here. A dominant first option offensively can be extremely important to your team defense

That being said, some players (your Hakeems, Russells, KGs, etc.) can cover quite a bit of ground and involve themselves in plays that we'd count most defenders out of:

2) What are your thoughts on Hakeem's defensive range/quickness after rewatching this footage in detail? How would you compare him to say a Garnett, Russell, or others in those regards?

Dream was very comparable to Russell in many areas, though Russell also cleaned the defensive boards like Garnett or Rodman. He was so quick at recovering from above the FT line to block a shot, much like this below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=39m42s


Also his hands were even quicker than his feet on defense. Hakeem is proof (to all the "weak era" detractors) that Russell would dominate in the modern era.

Also, from the #1 thread:

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

They're few and far between, but I guess that's part of why they're held in such high regard.

[DannyNoonan1221]

And I can’t tell you how misguided I find the idea of “underwhelming” MVP candidates in the 1970s. That’s a subjective belief. To make that point stronger, look at the #4 player in MVP voting from 1970 to 1979 (player ages in parentheses):

1970—Walt Frazier (24)
1971—Willis Reed (28)
1972—John Havlicek (31)
1973—Wilt Chamberlain (36)
1974—Dave Cowens (25)
1975—Rick Barry (30)
1976—Rick Barry (31)
1977—Bob Lanier (28)
1978—Kareem Abdul Jabbar (30)
1979—Kareem Abdul Jabbar (31)

Seems like an awful lot of great players at their peak (except for Wilt). I’m going to kind of go with the idea that the worst player on that list … maybe Bob Lanier in 1977, who was a 25.3/11.6/3.3 player that shot over 53% with good range and got two blocks a game ... was an awfully good player. Joakim Noah was 4th in MVP voting this year. I think Noah is a terrific player. I'm not (at all) sure he was better last year than Lanier was in 1977 ... and that's not an insult to either man.

That's damn hard to argue. As I've said I am a believer that the 70s >>> 60s. And while I agree to an extent that expansion/ABA dilute competition, as a whole there were a higher number of good players in the 70s- not always playing against each other- but playing some form of professional basketball and that pushes me in favor of 70s over 60s.

[ceiling raiser]

Sorry, but what can we gather from this other than the fact that NBA offenses were horrible back then. We're talking about a time when the NBA'a average FG% was around 40%. Clearly, adding a player of Russell's ability to that time would yield great results.

Perhaps. From what I remember though, the defensive results are pretty similar on the other side, when 69 (Russell's last year) and 70 (first Boston team post-Russell) are compared.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm going to have to ask, what is "individual defense".

This phrase makes no sense to me, especially when people use it to describe players who primary impact is anchoring a defense (which would mean they are covering for their teammates, not just themselves).

"individual defense" = impact defensively from an individual player

"team defense" = impact defensively from overall team.

Which is anchored by a center...I feel like your term doesn't really describe centers at all. When I hear people say individual offense > individual defense I think of like Kobe Bryant shooting over Mo Williams an isolation play or something.

A great defensive anchor can cover regions well(namely the paint)

If that player has a zone of influence by your own accord (that's what protecting the paint), is that not impact that transcends the individual? It is literally giving his teammates something to playoff of, which is why the individual defense thing makes no sense.

How do you rate team defense vs team offense?

, but still, there are only so many possessions one player can alter on defense. Russell's era for example, was unique in that he played half of it with a narrow lane, and players were slow enough that he could easily rotate to help on D. That said, the other Celtic players weren't bad defenders either.

If one player is altering their tactics, then the defender literally did impact them.

An individual player can impact the offense everytime down if they want. They're in control.

An individual player can only impact the defense depending on the opposing team's play.

When players are out on the court, they are impacting the game passively. They do not need the ball in their hand nor do they need to be guarding the person with the ball in their hand to make impact. If I am standing on the 3 point line in an NBA game, I am impacting the game. If I am defending someone who doesn't have the ball who is standing in the 3 point line - regardless of their plan, I am impacting the game.

The GOAT shot blocker and GOAT rebounder, standing next to the rim is impacting the game on every possession, at the very least more consistently than an isolation scorer would. That literally means that any decision that the offense has is factoring in heavily in whether they should slash toward the rim, post up or PNR - it is also affecting the coaching strategy to contend for offensive rebounds.

If the opposing team were to chose an offensive strategy that would take away all of an individual defenders attributes (let's say amazing rebounding, shot blocking, cross court passes like Russell), then that player is impacting them because he is forcing them to play a certain way and utilize a certain strategy.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Sorry, but what can we gather from this other than the fact that NBA offenses were horrible back then. We're talking about a time when the NBA'a average FG% was around 40%. Clearly, adding a player of Russell's ability to that time would yield great results.

Perhaps. From what I remember though, the defensive results are pretty similar on the other side, when 69 (Russell's last year) and 70 (first Boston team post-Russell) are compared.

To be fair, the 1970 Celtics had a frontcourt of 6'6 Don Nelson, and Hank Finkel at center.

[HeartBreakKid]

Ah, two things I edited into my tl;dr that I forgot to touch upon. I forgot to compare Celtics pre Bill and with Bill.



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



Their DRTG before getting Bill (pace adjusted)

DRtg


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 (becomes #1 every year, Bill the obvious catalyst)
7. Minneapolis 91.3
8. New York 91.9

Sorry, but what can we gather from this other than the fact that NBA offenses were horrible back then. We're talking about a time when the NBA'a average FG% was around 40%. Clearly, adding a player of Russell's ability to that time would yield great results.

So how come Thurmond, Chamberlain, Petit, Bellamy or Reed didn't do that? If the offenses were so horrible (which doesn't make sense, since everything would naturally be to scale as there were more possessions and different tactics), how come other star centers can't do the same thing?

You are saying that clearly adding Russell (aka a superstar) would wield great results for he is far above all the other players, which is the same exact thing you can say about any other superstar. Lebron James is far above everyone in today's NBA - hence why he has incredible stats. Clearly if you were to add Kareem to the 1970s Bucks it would wield great results.



In fact while we're here, how come Kareem didn't what Bill did if he was so far above Russell, and he faced even weaker competition?

[DQuinn1575]

However, my problem with Wilt and Kareem particularly, and several of the other great scorers, is this . . . I think they chose to maximize their own abilities, possibly at the expense of maximizing the team ability.

Kareem joined the league as probably the greatest winner in high school and college ball, losing only 3 games in 7 years. He did not lead the NCAA in scoring, and his average in college was less than in the pros.

He was fed the ball in the post, and was the greatest scorer of his time; one of the top offensive players ever.
He finished in the Top 7 in field goal % 18 years in a row. Virtually every shot he took was a good one, and a better one than his teammates would have taken.

I'm going to pick Kareem here. I will do a comparison of Kareem in relation to Bill Russell.

Bill Russell played 13 seasons in the NBA. Here is how Kareem did in his first 13 seasons

Russell won 11 championships in 13 years - he had nothing left to prove to anyone. Downgrading him because he chose to retire seems silly. Can you imagine someone going up to Russell and saying - well you've won 11 championships, but you need to play 5 more years to be considered the greatest of all-time. It's seems pretty silly

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?)

Offensively Kareem was the best big man I have ever seen.
Dirk was top 7 in TS% once,

Jabbar was top 7 in TS% 10 times, 5 of them while being in the top 10 in fga.
Comparing Dirk to Jabbar seems silly.

Shaq fared as well as Kareem in FG% - 16 times in the Top 4 - but he shot less only 4 years in top 10 in FGA, versus
10 years for Kareem.
So offense a monster.

Defense - - he was pretty mobile, but not the defensive player that Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, or Wilt were

Russell was Olympic caliber high jumper- ranked 7th in the world who ran the court well, and was 49.6 in the 440 yard dash, and long jumped over 21 feet

[magicmerl]

Ah, two things I edited into my tl;dr that I forgot to touch upon. I forgot to compare Celtics pre Bill and with Bill.



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



Their DRTG before getting Bill (pace adjusted)

DRtg


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 (becomes #1 every year, Bill the obvious catalyst)
7. Minneapolis 91.3
8. New York 91.9

Sorry, but what can we gather from this other than the fact that NBA offenses were horrible back then. We're talking about a time when the NBA'a average FG% was around 40%. Clearly, adding a player of Russell's ability to that time would yield great results.

Oooh, I can answer this one. It's that Boston was one of the weakest teams relative to the rest of the league prior to Russell's arrival, and with him they were instantly and consistently the best defensive team in the league by a large margin.

Defense has been underrated historically and it continues to be valued less than offense because it's not as well quantified or understood. I can see why that means some people don't feel comfortable voting for Russell here, since he's arguably the GOAT defender.

But I picked Russell for #1 (we don't need to rehash all the same posts again do we?), so I'm going to pick him for #2 as well.