RealGM Top 100 List #2

[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.

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 center can only impact so much. He can't guard other people's assignments for example. Put Dwight(3-time DPOY) on the Rockets, and they're still a marginal defense. KG's Minny teams never set the world on fire.

Meanwhile, a coach like Thibs can devise a team scheme that consistently stifles opposing offense.

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?

team offense = team defense

Defense is more consistent, But offense is more explosive. Neither is better in terms of impact since its all about success/failure per possession.

And of course, a great defensive anchor will impact the team defense too. It's just that a great offensive anchor can influence his team more because he can literally impact every offensive possession if he wants. A great offensive player can take over games, while that's not the case for a great defender.

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.

Sure, they can have an impact, but not to the same extent that a great offensive anchor does. Again, on offense you're in control of the ball, where it goes, and who shoots it. On defense, the ball may not go into the paint, and you may not be involved the the opposing play at all.

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.

No way, sorry, but this is incorrect. First, i'm not sure why you're focused on isolation scoring, when individual offense encompasses facilitating, off the ball, and scoring.

Second, if the offense tells their center to stand at the 3pt line...guess what happens? that's right, he's been marginalized on defense. If you're the Spurs raining down perimeter shots...the center won't have a big impact.
Conversely, Shaq int he paint on offense everytime down is brutal. MJ hitting from outside/inside is a nightmare because they can literally do this everytime down the floor. There is no defensive equal to Kobe's 81, no way can a defender lead his team back to victory that way. This is a function of basketball.

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.

Well yeh, but its still less than the adjustment an opposing defense deals with in reagrds to a great offensive anchor. Who are teams preparing more for, Dwight or Durant?

[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.

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?

You compared 1956 NBA to 1957(2 years removed from Mikan). Back then, offenses were garbage. Again, the league average FG% was around 40%.

Don't take my word for it, here's video of the 1957 Celtics. The only competent offensive players on the floor is Cousy & Petitt. http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_t ... ltics.nba/

The NBA was different back then from the time of Thurmond, Reed, or Jabbar. Wilt should have been more impactful defensively, but that goes back to his priorities as a player.

[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.

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.

Make sure to bold your vote mate, don't want any votes being missed here, this might be a tight one.

[ElGee]

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?)

Based on my research and model, here are the odds for a normal portability player. You'll see 10 lines -- the top line is based on playing 95-100% of the season. The next line based on playing 85-95% of the season. The next line is 75-85%, etc. and assumes the player exerts this value throughout the postseason:



As you can see, there is exponential growth in the function, and the difference between playing half a season and a whole season is relatively small.

If I had to bracket players, I would say

MVP +5-7
All-NBA +3-5
All-Star 1.5-3
Sub All-Star 0.5-1.5
"Quality" Starter 0-0.5

[magicmerl]

Make sure to bold your vote mate, don't want any votes being missed here, this might be a tight one.

Roger.

I'm seeing a lot more Kareem posts on here than I expected.

I guess it's pick #4 that turns into a crapshoot.

[ElGee]

realbig3's points have been making me think of something that I don't think I've seen brought up a lot.

Let's say you think Russell's peak defensive impact is worth 7 points. Even 8. And you look around the landscape today and don't see anybody over 4 or 5 on defense alone. (Personally, this is in line with my evaluations.) Consider that this is per game. And Russell's teams played a lot of possessions. Like, 20-25% more than we see today. Which means, on a per-possession basis, Russell would really be closer to a +6 today.

[trex_8063]

[b]My Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar[/b]

For me, KAJ is the only whose resume rivals Jordan's.

*Won MVP 6 times. One might say "what does that prove? Nash won 2 MVP's and both are questionable. Derrick Rose didn't deserve his MVP; neither did Iverson or Unseld or Walton (because he missed so many damn games)....." And frankly, there might be some weight to any of those arguments. But nothing similar can be said about any of Kareem's. He was legitimately the MVP all of those 6 times.
You can mention West or Wilt in '72, but they're up against what is---by ANY measure---one of the greatest individual seasons of all-time. You can mention McAdoo in '74, but you certainly can't say definitively with any credibility that he deserved it over Kareem. Erving might have won it in '76 had he not been busy winning an ABA MVP that year; but he was, so it is what it is. Erving was the only one even in the same ballpark in '80.
You can argue it was a weaker era, but the point still stands that no one else won as many in any other era. And frankly, his level of play should dispel any such argument anyway. It's not like he won these with a relatively mediocre standard of play; he was fantastic.
*Had a fairly consistent record of success. '75 was a disappointing year (38-44), although I wouldn't say he had a ton of talent around him; did have a prime Bob Dandridge, but literally nothing else, imo. '76 was a flub, too (40-42), though I wonder if that was simply gaining some chemistry, etc, as in '77 they managed 53 wins and made the WCF with what was at best a barely above average supporting cast.
Most of the rest of his career, yes, he had a lot of help, but as has been expounded on over and over---most recently in thread about Jordan's luck---basically all of the top tier all-timers had some help or "luck". Nonetheless impressive to consider he's got 6 titles on 10 finals appearances (spent half of an immensely long career in the finals), winning 2 FMVP's, was clearly the best player on those two title teams (as well as one other finals loser).
*Good (if not great) on both sides of the ball for the majority of his career. Only started making concessions on defense at a point in his career when most other players were retiring. Which brings me to the last little bullet point.....
*'Dat longevity! 20 years! And it's not like only 12-13 of those were any good. Kareem was a legit all-star caliber player for AT LEAST 17 YEARS. It's ridiculous. The statistical footprint Kareem has left on the game, really, is rivaled ONLY by Wilt. Period.

Anyway, I haven't read thru yet; I'm sure much of this is redundant, and there's more that could be said, but I'm tired and will leave it at that.

[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.

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.

No, the whole late 50's was weak in terms of play. You can't even really compare the team numbers of that period to modern numbers, unless we're gonna bring Mikan up as a possible #2, since his era was only 2 years removed.

51 Lakers -4.3 DRtg
52 Lakers -7.6 DRtg
53 Lakers -4.1 DRtg
54 Lakers -4.0 DRtg
55 Lakers -1.2 DRtg (no Mikan)

56 Celtics +1.4 DRtg (before Russell)
57 Celtics -4.9 DRtg
58 Celtics -5.2 DRtg
59 Celtics -5.7 DRtg

Looking at the 50's what are we to gather. Mikan had a lesser but comparable effect defensively in that decade, the same Mikan who won 5 titles in 6 years. What does this say about how dominant a big man could be in that era?

[HeartBreakKid]

Mikan being "only 2 years removed" from Russell's is thrice the amount of time between Russell's and Kareem's.

Other than that, the whole "What does that say about how dominant a big man could be in that era" also apply to Kareem, considering that he had amazing stats, and most of the centers he competed against were scrubs or undersized?


I also don't understand why Mikan keeps being mentioned. The strawman of "if you rank Russell high you have to rank Mikan high" makes no sense, because we are not allowed to rank Mikan at all. If Mikan was eligible, then that hypothetical statement would be more relevant, but I see people continuously prop it up.

[90sAllDecade]

Accolades are a questionable form of analysis imo. When analyzing Kareem, it's not that ABA guys could have won MVP or others had a better argument that year.

I'm saying Kareem wasn't competing against other top ten players like Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain or LeBron for MVPs with equally stacked or poor rosters. He wasn't competing with Bill Russell, Hakeem Olajuwon or David Robinson for All Defensive teams. Or Shaq, Durant or Jordan for scoring titles while they also benefited from his inflated pace of the 70s to boost their raw scoring stats.

Accolades used in ranking all time greats across eras is flawed imo, because those same greats weren't there competing for them under the same team, rules and competition circumstances.

MVPs and FMVPs are team based and go to the top player on the team with the best or near best record usually or the team with a roster good enough to win it all. So you should also do a team comparison with those imo.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Mikan being "only 2 years removed" from Russell's is thrice the amount of time between Russell's and Kareem's.

Other than that, the whole "What does that say about how dominant a big man could be in that era" also apply to Kareem, considering that he had amazing stats, and most of the centers he competed against were scrubs or undersized?

Because you can't compare NBA of 1956/1957 to the time when Kareem entered the NBA which had far more talented bigmen.

But lets look at the difference between the 1969 Bucks and the 1970 Bucks with rookie Kareem.

1969 = (-1.6) ORtg / (+2.7) DRtg
1970 = (+3.1) ORtg / (-0.9) DRtg

So the offense improve +4.7 with KAJ, and the defense improved +3.6 making for a net +8.3 difference.

The Bucks went from 27-55 to 56-26.

The Bucks went from -5.07 SRS to 4.25 SRS

Seems like a pretty big impact against better competition.

I also don't understand why Mikan keeps being mentioned. The strawman of "if you rank Russell high you have to rank Mikan high" makes no sense, because we are not allowed to rank Mikan at all. If Mikan was eligible, then that hypothetical statement would be more relevant, but I see people continuously prop it up.

If someone brings up the 50's, then its fair game. Its silly that we can comapre 57 to 70, but not 51-54 to 57.

[HeartBreakKid]

Because you can't compare NBA of 1956/1957 to the time when Kareem entered the NBA which had far more talented bigmen.

But lets look at the difference between the 1969 Bucks and the 1970 Bucks with rookie Kareem.

1969 = (-1.6) ORtg / (+2.7) DRtg
1970 = (+3.1) ORtg / (-0.9) DRtg

So the offense improve +4.7 with KAJ, and the defense improved +3.6 making for a net +8.3 difference.

The Bucks went from 27-55 to 56-26.

The Bucks went from -5.07 SRS to 4.25 SRS

Seems like a pretty big impact against better competition.

I just got you to defeat your own point with that.

Your original statement was referring to how Bill Russell influencing his teams rating was essentially an exception, a product of his time, implying that a center could not possibly have that type of influence of a team in a more modern setting. To supplement this point, you then cited George Mikan. Yet you just cited first hand, that that same "criticism" goes to Kareem Abdul Jabar. I could just as easily say to you "clearly that era could be dominated by any big man, that could never happen in a more modern setting!".

Spoiler:

HeartBreakKid wrote: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

What you said

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.

Then your supplement point about George Mikan

No, the whole late 50's was weak in terms of play. You can't even really compare the team numbers of that period to modern numbers, unless we're gonna bring Mikan up as a possible #2, since his era was only 2 years removed.

51 Lakers -4.3 DRtg
52 Lakers -7.6 DRtg
53 Lakers -4.1 DRtg
54 Lakers -4.0 DRtg
55 Lakers -1.2 DRtg (no Mikan)

56 Celtics +1.4 DRtg (before Russell)
57 Celtics -4.9 DRtg
58 Celtics -5.2 DRtg
59 Celtics -5.7 DRtg

Looking at the 50's what are we to gather. Mikan had a lesser but comparable effect defensively in that decade, the same Mikan who won 5 titles in 6 years. What does this say about how dominant a big man could be in that era?

You seem to be under the impression that if a big is impacting their team that much, it is only due to the fact that they are playing in a relic age. But given the very same stats you posted, this would also mean Kareem played in a relic age, since he heavily influenced his teams statistics.

Seems like a pretty big impact against better competition.


If someone brings up the 50's, then its fair game. Its silly that we can comapre 57 to 70, but not 51-54 to 57.

It's literally prohibited. Dumb rule, but the rules none the less. Can't tell someone "you can't think Bill Russell is that high and not give George Mikan a vote sometime soon" when we are literally banned from doing so. Read the OP.

[90sAllDecade]

George Mikan played in the NBA every year of his career except the first few. He's fair game imo.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nge01.html

The questions he raises are legitimate about questioning ranking players based on championships, team impact in era, accolades, WS and PER etc.

It's the truth imo and shouldn't be ignored because it disagrees with long held, media influenced paradigms (like ranking players on rings or resume/accolades etc.).

Every new Top 100 project should challenge old beliefs with fresh perspectives and arguments, it's what makes things interesting imo. People should create new lists based on new arguments and evidence ideally.

[HeartBreakKid]

George Mikan played in the NBA every year of his career except the first few. He's fair game imo.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nge01.html

The questions he raises are legitimate about questioning ranking players based on championships, team impact in era, accolades, WS and PER etc.

It's the truth imo and shouldn't be ignored because it disagrees with long held, media influenced paradigms (like ranking players on rings etc.).

Every new Top 100 project should challenge old beliefs with fresh perspectives and arguments, it's what makes things interesting imo. People should create new lists based on new arguments and evidence ideally.

Well, feel free to vote for him, it will not count.

If you wanted George Mikan eligible, then you should have spoke up during the the developmental process. I certainly wanted pre shot clock era basketball to be eligible, but people here don't seem interested in broadening their horizons to that extent.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Because you can't compare NBA of 1956/1957 to the time when Kareem entered the NBA which had far more talented bigmen.

But lets look at the difference between the 1969 Bucks and the 1970 Bucks with rookie Kareem.

1969 = (-1.6) ORtg / (+2.7) DRtg
1970 = (+3.1) ORtg / (-0.9) DRtg

So the offense improve +4.7 with KAJ, and the defense improved +3.6 making for a net +8.3 difference.

The Bucks went from 27-55 to 56-26.

The Bucks went from -5.07 SRS to 4.25 SRS

Seems like a pretty big impact against better competition.

I just got you to defeat your own point with that.

Your original statement was referring to how Bill Russell influencing his teams rating was essentially an exception, a product of his time, implying that a center could not possibly have that type of influence of a team in a more modern setting. To supplement this point, you then cited George Mikan. Yet you just cited first hand, that that same "criticism" goes to Kareem Abdul Jabar. I could just as easily say to you "clearly that era could be dominated by any big man, that could never happen in a more modern setting!".

Huh? I never said a bigman didn't influence team ratings. I said that the influence is more pronounced in the 50's where there weren't great bigmen around, and offenses were garbage. Hence why I brought up Mikan.

It's literally prohibited. Dumb rule, but the rules none the less. Can't tell someone "you can't think Bill Russell is that high and not give George Mikan a vote sometime soon" when we are literally banned from doing so. Read the OP.

Bringing up Mikan is not prohibtied, we just can't vote for him. Bob Cousy is on the table and his career spans both Mikan/Russell's era.

[90sAllDecade]

George Mikan played in the NBA every year of his career except the first few. He's fair game imo.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nge01.html

The questions he raises are legitimate about questioning ranking players based on championships, team impact in era, accolades, WS and PER etc.

It's the truth imo and shouldn't be ignored because it disagrees with long held, media influenced paradigms (like ranking players on rings etc.).

Every new Top 100 project should challenge old beliefs with fresh perspectives and arguments, it's what makes things interesting imo. People should create new lists based on new arguments and evidence ideally.

Well, feel free to vote for him, it will not count.

If you wanted George Mikan eligible, then you should have spoke up during the the developmental process. I certainly wanted pre shot clock era basketball to be eligible, but people here don't seem interested in broadening their horizons to that extent.

Fair enough, although not voting for him, just using his example to point out the flaws in ranking based on rings, resume/accolades, WS and PER.

Personally I rank based on who the best actual player is and prefer watching players, team support/competition/rule analysis and statistical analysis while understanding the proper context of those stats.

Rules: Vote for 1 player. You may change your vote as consensus emerges but if so, go back and EDIT YOUR ORIGINAL POST. Votes without analysis will not be counted. If, after 2 days, there is not a majority consensus, the top; 2 nominees will have a 1 day runoff election to determine the spot on our list. NBA/ABA only, no college, international play, ABL, NBL, BAA or other pre-NBA play considered.

According to these rules all NBA play is fine in debate.

[Baller2014]

Maybe I missed it, but I thought pre-shot clock was out. I certainly hope it is.

[batmana]

As I previously stated, I am still undecided on the No. 2 spot and will listen to every argument before making my decision. I have Bill Russell as the frontrunner but I think there are 4 players who could sneak before him: Kareem, Wilt, Shaq and Magic.

I expect that Kareem will get the most votes out of those four so I will try to read every argument in his favor. I can see the big picture about him but I am too concerned about his lack of success in his prime (between titles 1 and 2). I learned a lot about it already in the thread for the No. 1 spot but it is still in my book a spot on his resume and why I need more convincing to push him ahead of Bill Russell.

I will make my own little research too before editing this post to include my actual vote…

Spoiler:

BTW I have yet to read every post so far in this thread so I am just reserving this spot for my vote; when I get back from work I will go through the entire thread which will have no doubt doubled by then .

My vote for the No. 2 spot goes to Bill Russell (explanation is in my second post in this thread).

[E-Balla]

I have no idea who I'm voting for but unlike many of you for me its a three man battle:

Russell - probably in the lead for me. Played over half his career in the super weak 50s - early 60s era but was still dominant in the late 60s so that point is moot (especially since I'd take the late 60s over the pre merger 70s any day). Defensively he was great but offensively he was below average. He does have the most impressive accomplishment of the three (11 rings all of which he was the best player on the squad). Longevity wise he's at 13 great seasons and while I think his peak play was lower than the other two in this spot and many others he was amazingly consistent.

Kareem - possibly second. My biggest issue with him is that he wasn't really a leader and he didn't show up in some post seasons where he was really needed (81 and 73 should've been rings). Sure he was the best player on those championship teams but was he the leader over Oscar? Magic? Individually he's over these two but I definetly trust him less to be able to bring a team a championship. Also the fact that his best seasons by a distance come in the second weakest era and that his longevity is boosted by Magic take him a step below where many have him IMO. In his defense he did have some horrible guard play in the mid 70s.

Magic - he's almost the anti Russell. His offense is slightly worse than Russell's defense but his defense is better than Russell's offense. I feel his defense is underrated because he wasn't really bad just playing out of position a lot more than he should've on that end. He was amazing when LA ran a trapping defense and he could guard forwards relatively well. Magic really has one negative compared to these two and its his relatively short prime. 8 seasons is significantly less than 15 and 13.

[Baller2014]

Sure he was the best player on those championship teams but was he the leader over Oscar? Magic? Individually he's over these two but I definetly trust him less to be able to bring a team a championship.

I just want to focus on this. One of the most annoying things I see is when people post about how they're picking a guy because he had "killer instinct" or "leadership" or "the edge". Most of this stuff is virtually impossible for us as fans to really determine. What I do know about Oscar and Kareem is that Kareem turned the Bucks into a 56 win team as a rookie with no Oscar at all. I also know, and stats confirm, that Kareem got better in his 2nd and 3rd seasons. In the 40 games that (past his prime) Oscar missed in his 4 year tenure with the Bucks, they were 30-10 (a 60 win pace). I also know Oscar's stats steadily dropped on the Bucks and his role was more limited. To me, it looks like Kareem was the guy doing all the heavy lifting, and that a past his prime Oscar rode his coat tails to victory. The years the Bucks lost, they tended to lose to incredibly stacked teams. In Kareem's rookie year they lost to a Knicks team who was even stronger than they'd been the previous year (when they posted 54 wins and the best SRS in the NBA). Kareem put up 35-17-5 that playoffs, on insane FG%. He wasn't to blame for their loss, nor was he the other years in Milwaukee. The other teams were just better.