RealGM Top 100 List #2

[therealbig3]

Double-checking the votes:

Bill Russell: 21 (penbeast0, MacGill, fpliii, DQuinn1575, JordansBulls, HeartBreakKid, DHodgkins, magicmerl, batmana, Texas Chuck, Quotatious, Jaivl, ardee, Doctor MJ, D Nice, PCProductions, GC Pantalones, rich316, drza, rico381, Dr Spaceman)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 18 (Baller2014, colts18, Greatness, Dr Positivity, DannyNoonan1221, Basketballefan, SactoKingsFan, TrueLAfan, trex_8063, ronnymac2, therealbig3, Owly, Mutnt, Narigo, kayess, lorak, An Unbiased Fan, O_6)

Hakeem Olajuwon: 1 (90sAllDecade)

Last vote counted: O_6 for Kareem, post #279


Votes that didn't count: RayBan-Sematra (Kareem), Imon (Kareem), Clyde Frazier (Kareem), eliasrapp98 (Kareem)...sorry, I don't see your names on the voting list...I mean, I actually know two of you through your posting history (RayBan-Sematra and Clyde Frazier) and I know that both of you are great posters, and maybe I missed seeing it (totally possible), but I don't see your names here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924

[lorak]

Yes, I've looked at Russell's rookie year and posted in the Peaks Project all of the relevant WOWY information we have around his team:

So Celtics in 1957 were already +3.6 SRS team without Russell? (BTW, is Heinsohn underrated?) That means his impact for the rest of the 50s and first half of the 60s was around 3-4 SRS (I obviously have much less confidence in +20 Gs sample over +10 years, than +20 Gs sample in one season),

No, it doesn't mean that. Read on my post on interpreting WOWY numbers in this thread.

Could you requote that?

57 team: Same core from last year minus Macauley.

What about Heinsohn? Because it seems like he was much better than popular opinion thinks and that's one of the main reasons why Celtics in 1957 were so good without Russell. And thus it means Celtics supporting cast in following years also was better than we think.

Also:
How do you explain small improvement in Russell's 2nd and 3rd year?

How good on offense was Russell according to you?

Double-checking the votes:

Bill Russell: 21 (penbeast0, MacGill, fpliii, DQuinn1575, JordansBulls, HeartBreakKid, DHodgkins, magicmerl, batmana, Texas Chuck, Quotatious, Jaivl, ardee, Doctor MJ, D Nice, PCProductions, GC Pantalones, rich316, drza, rico381, Dr Spaceman)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 17 (Baller2014, colts18, Greatness, Dr Positivity, DannyNoonan1221, Basketballefan, SactoKingsFan, TrueLAfan, trex_8063, ronnymac2, therealbig3, Owly, Mutnt, Narigo, kayess, An Unbiased Fan, O_6)

Hakeem Olajuwon: 1 (90sAllDecade)

Last vote counted: O_6 for Kareem, post #279


Votes that didn't count: RayBan-Sematra (Kareem), Imon (Kareem), Clyde Frazier (Kareem), eliasrapp98 (Kareem)...sorry, I don't see your names on the voting list...I mean, I actually know two of you through your posting history (RayBan-Sematra and Clyde Frazier) and I know that both of you are great posters, and maybe I missed seeing it (totally possible), but I don't see your names here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924

I voted for KAJ.

[Mutnt]

My feeling is really that Russell's more one-sided specialization needs to be viewed by flipping the assumed causality. He just kept going more and more in that direction because it worked, and worked better than the more static approach of having your star be the focus of all aspects of your team.

I think also that recognition of specialization is now largely the established opinion in basketball if you think about it.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I wonder if the line of thinking you apply to Russel is also somehow attached to Nash and what he did in Phoenix?

Nash as the focal point of an offense was able to produce all-time great offenses (similar to Russell, just that Bill did it on the defensive side) which made Phoenix an elite team. Now, how to put contextual and other factors in perspective when judging the value of what a 'specialized' player's potential optimal output in a given scenario is compared to someone who's value isn't such visibly distributed in just a single area, or in areas that intertwine with each other, but contrarily in several different areas and several different aspects of the game? That's where the tricky part is.

[ardee]

He did. In rookie year his impact looks like 1-2 SRS, the same in 2nd year and similar in 3rd year. Then we have improvement to 3-4, and probably 5-6 in two peak seasons. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case then I would like Russell's supporters to explain that (Celtics high SRS w/o Russell in his rookie year, small improvement in 2nd year and slightly better but still small improvement in 3rd year; and also that his impact on offense looks negative so his overall impact was lower than impact on D alone - and most pro Russell arguments are based on D, so not whole picture).

What about the rest of my post?

If a 24 game sample size speaks so much to you, what about Oscar?

[lorak]

He did. In rookie year his impact looks like 1-2 SRS, the same in 2nd year and similar in 3rd year. Then we have improvement to 3-4, and probably 5-6 in two peak seasons. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case then I would like Russell's supporters to explain that (Celtics high SRS w/o Russell in his rookie year, small improvement in 2nd year and slightly better but still small improvement in 3rd year; and also that his impact on offense looks negative so his overall impact was lower than impact on D alone - and most pro Russell arguments are based on D, so not whole picture).

What about the rest of my post?

If a 24 game sample size speaks so much to you, what about Oscar?

?
with/without confirms that Oscar was great.

[Doctor MJ]

Put another way: doesn't the roster info you provide make all the more clear that the entire winning approach of Boston was dependent on one singular talent?

Go look at the minutes distribution around '64 and you see everyone else was basically platooned around Russell. General rule: If a coach can platoon you, then your talent is relatively replaceable there. I would suggest people really ponder what that means when talking up Russell's supporting cast

You are looking at it completely wrong. Does 1999 Tim Duncan become less "valuable" because David Robinson was his backup in case of injury? If I was the backup to Michael Beasley, does that make him a "value"? Your backup has nothing to do with the quality of your play. In/out can't account for that so it literally can't make a judgment on how good a player is.

Did you ponder what it means to Russell's cast? You shouldn't make that argument because it props up the anti-Russell crowd. The Celtics had so much depth that they had quality players on the bench who could play in case of injury (it's not like you can start 9 HOF players at the same time). What other teams in that era had that kind of depth? Could the Lakers replace an injured Jerry West with HOF John Havlicek
off the bench?

The conclusion that Boston must have had mega talent all the way through the bench is logically consistent.

Is that really the likely basketball interpretation though? Obviously I don't think so. It is beyond all reasonable debate that too many of those Celtics are in the Hall, and when you look at it considering where the talent would putatively lie I think it makes things that much more clear.

Your theory applied to the years around '64 would mean that Red stockpiled a roster filled with mega talent all the way through...on defense. In your experience, have you ever seen anything while watching basketball that makes this seem the most likely explanation?

So yeah I go back to my general rule: If you are successfully platooned this says something about how common place your abilities are...rather than that miraculously your GM has stacked the roster with mega talent. It's how it is in basketball


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[90sAllDecade]

I want to say, if we're saying Russell is the most valuable player of all time based on historical team impact, there is a very strong case he's not and George Mikan is.

(I'm not a Mikan advocate, just using his example as evidence against using team impact without accounting for era weakness, team support and other factors)

Chat Transcript: Celtic Legend Bill Russell


Danny McCarthy Salem Massachusetts: Who was your hero growing up?

Bill Russell: My father. Outside of him, my basketball coaches were great. And also, don't forget George Mikan. This was a great player, this alway s bothers me when people talk about the greatest players to play the game, they don't discuss George enough.One time I met him, I was third string varsity in high school, and I met George Mikan. And he walked over to me and said, "Hi, Big Fella". And he was 6-10 and I was 6-6! And here was the No. 1 guy in basketball and I was a third string guy in high school and he talked to me about basketball for 15 minutes!

http://www.nba.com/celtics/chat/russell_050228.html

Also folks mentioning that the dominance Russell had with a team winning 11 of 13 (Edit: a .846 of championships) has never been done before is also arguably not totally true considering Mikan similarly won 7 of 9 (a .778% of championships) during his playing years.

Mikan's peak team SRS was also 8.25 like Russell's athough Bill has a better overall team SRS average, his WS as responsibility for that team impact are much lower on average, especially at Mikan's peak.

Much information is missing on Mikan's earlier years in the NBL, but at his peak he is more dominant than Russell. Three of his peak WS, 23.4, 21.4, 20.9 48-49' to 50-51' are all head and shoulders over Russell's peak of 17.3 in 63-64'.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nge01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ebi01.html

I don't like team impact in era, WS or PER as player measurement tools personally, But I want to give some consideration for those that do and think both have their numbers inflated by beneficial rules, weaker competition/era and in Russell's case (I haven't checked Mikan's team support yet) much greater team support relative to his league.

[drza]

It's funny, because all the numbers actually do is answer the question "Who was the Celtics most important player from 1957 to 1968?" That. Is. It. Heck, you can't even claim that "Russell was most important player on the best team; therefore he was the best player in the league". The logic doesn't follow. Value =/= Goodness. Not the same thing.

You know, I'm not sure that I agree with you here. I'm also not sure to what extent I disagree. But I think it's an important thing for us to try to tease out so I'm gonna take a moment and see where this goes.

First, I feel like I could make the same statement about pretty much any characteristic and have it be just as true.

Skill set =/= Goodness

A player can have all of the talent in the world, be able to do any number of amazing things. But if those skills don't translate into improvement of the team, I'd question their relevance in determining goodness.

Individual production =/= goodness

A player can produce video game numbers of points, rebounds, assists...whatever. But if those numbers don't translate into improvement of the team, I'd question their relevance in determining goodness.

Of course, I also understand your point that being important to a particular team isn't necessarily the same as being the best.

But that leads to the obvious question: So what, then, DOES equal goodness?

To me, it's a bit of a combination of all of the above. A player's skill set allows them to produce individually (whether that production things that are measured in the box scores or not). That production tends to help determine how valuable they are to a given situation. And if a player can produce the most value in the most different situations, then to me that is ultimately what determines how good they are.

But the thing is, this isn't a science project. We don't get to run blinded and unbiased tests on every player, put into every situation, to determine which of them can have the largest positive effect across the most situations. So instead, we're left with some imperfect set of observations and statistics in some subset of all possible situations, and have to make our estimate of goodness based on that.

And this brings us back to what I was pointing out in my previous post, that while all of us use some combination of the available information to make our estimates, there is definitely a trend to prefer to anchor those estimates in certain approaches. Some seem to like the skillset/scouting approach the best. Some tend to like to focus more on the quantifiable production. And some like trying to estimate impact. I'm not sure that there is a correct cocktail of how much each approach should influence your estimate of "goodness", which is why these discussions can be so rich.

But one thing that I do observe is that the validity of the "impact approach" seems to get more push-back than the other approaches. Maybe that's because the other approaches are more traditionally used...folks have always trusted their eye tests, and folks have been checking the box scores forever. But the statistical impact approach is a relatively newer phenomenon, so maybe that's why it encounters more resistance.

When I was younger, the "impact" approach did actually exist. The problem was that there was no resolution to it at all...the "impact" approach was to simply count rings. There was a definite school of thought that if a player had great skills and put up great box score stats, but was never on a championship team then they obviously couldn't have been winners. And since winning was the name of the game, that was really all that mattered. And there are still a lot of people for whom "the ring is the thing", and if a player doesn't have enough (or any) rings then that must mean they weren't that good.

In fact, as I tease it out, the "impact" stat approach is actually an interesting melding of those that liked stats and those that liked to look at team results. The entire approach, in fact, is an attempt to quantify how important a player is to his team, and put numbers to it. That is a VERY attractive approach for some of us, for whom neither the box scores nor the ring count were sufficient. But on the other hand, it also sets up the situation where the "impact approach" might not fully be accepted by adherents of either of the afore-mentioned crowds. That it's different enough to be kind of anathma to both.

I don't know. As I indicated at the start, this is kind of a free-thought post which lends itself to rambling. But I feel like there's something here worth getting at. Because I'm finding that there's more push-back among folks I respect than I think is positive (and probably, vice versa, you or sp6r=underrated may feel like there's too much emphasis being placed on this impact approach for your tastes). I'd like to think that we all know that value in a particular situation isn't the exact same thing as goodness, just as much as I'd like to think that we all know that what the box scores record also isn't the same as goodness. But I feel like, even in the short time since this project has begun, I'm already sensing folks lining up to defend their process more than they are debating the players. And I don't think that's really the most efficient way for us to proceed. We'll still get somewhere cool regardless, but I don't know, I guess I'm hoping that folks don't just end up arguing past each other instead of honestly debating (and listening).

Anyway. /Ramble

[trex_8063]

Double-checking the votes:

Bill Russell: 21 (penbeast0, MacGill, fpliii, DQuinn1575, JordansBulls, HeartBreakKid, DHodgkins, magicmerl, batmana, Texas Chuck, Quotatious, Jaivl, ardee, Doctor MJ, D Nice, PCProductions, GC Pantalones, rich316, drza, rico381, Dr Spaceman)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 17 (Baller2014, colts18, Greatness, Dr Positivity, DannyNoonan1221, Basketballefan, SactoKingsFan, TrueLAfan, trex_8063, ronnymac2, therealbig3, Owly, Mutnt, Narigo, kayess, An Unbiased Fan, O_6)

Hakeem Olajuwon: 1 (90sAllDecade)

Last vote counted: O_6 for Kareem, post #279


Votes that didn't count: RayBan-Sematra (Kareem), Imon (Kareem), Clyde Frazier (Kareem), eliasrapp98 (Kareem)...sorry, I don't see your names on the voting list...I mean, I actually know two of you through your posting history (RayBan-Sematra and Clyde Frazier) and I know that both of you are great posters, and maybe I missed seeing it (totally possible), but I don't see your names here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924

Get lorak's vote (he IS on the list) and that makes 18 for KAJ. I wasn't cross-checking against the participation list when I counted......if those guys had signed on that would totally swing to vote in favor of KAJ. Technicalities; it's like the 2000 US national election all over again.....

[therealbig3]

Edited the list for lorak's vote. Don't know why I missed that.

[Doctor MJ]

My feeling is really that Russell's more one-sided specialization needs to be viewed by flipping the assumed causality. He just kept going more and more in that direction because it worked, and worked better than the more static approach of having your star be the focus of all aspects of your team.

I think also that recognition of specialization is now largely the established opinion in basketball if you think about it.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I wonder if the line of thinking you apply to Russel is also somehow attached to Nash and what he did in Phoenix?

Nash as the focal point of an offense was able to produce all-time great offenses (similar to Russell, just that Bill did it on the defensive side) which made Phoenix an elite team. Now, how to put contextual and other factors in perspective when judging the value of what a 'specialized' player's potential optimal output in a given scenario is compared to someone who's value isn't such visibly distributed in just a single area, or in areas that intertwine with each other, but contrarily in several different areas and several different aspects of the game? That's where the tricky part is.

I don't really see the connections you postulating here. I mean, I get that Nash can be seen as a flipped Russell in some ways but Nash's physical limitations are clear cut whereas with Russell people often wonder why his offensive numbers dwindled so.

While I do think that it makes sense for players to specialize in their strongest areas I don't actually think Nash did this to a far greater degree than your typical offensive superstar. There are plenty of analyses out there that actually point out that Nash goes out there and does his job on defense. He's not one of these guys who just lets his man roam and he makes smart decisions on D just like he does in his wheelhouse. And this is why he's actually not far from a neutral impact on D where people assume it's far worse.

As far as the team-granted ability to specialize, oraybe more aptly the encouragement given to a player to assume primacy in his wheelhouse in triage above other responsibilities, yes this is something to be thinking about in the value/goodness function generally.

However in regards to this specific debate I would ask people to consider where Kareem would have gone if we were to say that a rigid structure were holding him back from his personal basketball enlightenment. People have called Kareem a safe bet and I might suggest this is precisely because of his more generalist leanings. Leanings which make him less suited to the kind of extreme optimization that we saw with Russell.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[batmana]

Also folks mentioning that the dominance Russell had with a team winning 11 of 13 (a .769% of championships) has never been done before is also arguably not totally true considering Mikan won 7 of 9 (a .778% of championships) during his playing years.

Just wanted to let you know that the math is a bit off, clearly 11 of 13 is a better percentage than 7 of 9, in fact 11 of 13 is .846 (or 84.6%). Still, I see your point and I agree on the topic about Mikan. BTW, as far as I understood, Mikan is allowed to be voted in this project, am I right?

[90sAllDecade]

Why can't we have late new comers (with a verified posting history on the PC board or however method) post in the sign up thread and vote from that point onward?

Not my rules and ultimately up to the Mods, but I'm just curious why we should exclude other potential contributors who'd like to participate on a technicality?

Either way though, I'm enjoying the project content so far.

[90sAllDecade]

Also folks mentioning that the dominance Russell had with a team winning 11 of 13 (a .769% of championships) has never been done before is also arguably not totally true considering Mikan won 7 of 9 (a .778% of championships) during his playing years.

Just wanted to let you know that the math is a bit off, clearly 11 of 13 is a better percentage than 7 of 9, in fact 11 of 13 is .846 (or 84.6%). Still, I see your point and I agree on the topic about Mikan. BTW, as far as I understood, Mikan is allowed to be voted in this project, am I right?

You're right, I'm not a true stat person and I'm adapting to this method for others who value such things. But I'm glad you got my message as I think the main idea still stands.

There is no way to quantify team support, rule impact or competition level so I think since people can't do that, they throw that out entirely on player evaluations.

I think there is a lot of "statistical error" as far as the blind spots of team impact in heavily weighting it as a measurement tool if we consider all the context.

[MisterWestside]

Value is not goodness however goodness is nothing more than the ability to contribute value. The distinction is merely in the recognition that a player's actual value achieved does not in and of itself define the Expected or Optimal Value his goodness would allow.

Agreed, of course. But the distinction is something that many people take for granted. Even some statisticians.

While considering Russell, his extreme success, and his team's indisputable dependence on him far beyond any other teammate, I would say the question to ask is whether you really thought Kareem or any one else could have such impact. Or whether you infer that such would simply have to be possible based on your perception of the superiority of a more two-way star.

In the same era and in environments that optimize the skillsets of both players, yes. I'll pick Abdul-Jabbar, and beat your Russell-led team by one point.

My feeling is really that Russell's more one-sided specialization needs to be viewed by flipping the assumed causality. He just kept going more and more in that direction because it worked, and worked better than the more static approach of having your star be the focus of all aspects of your team.

Be careful when you say "he". Because that is actually an organizational job, and it depends on many other factors and actors besides the actions of one indivudal.

One of the most famous examples of this that we have today? See: Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Scott Brooks, and Sam Presti.

I think also that recognition of specialization is now largely the established opinion in basketball if you think about it.

Divisonal-of-labor is great for team building. However, I'm also of the belief that it can be double-edged sword: being entirely reliant on one player can be detrimental to winning. It's nice to have a player that is super-valuable for your squad (when his skills are used properly) and can carry your team, but it's also a bitch to maintain that level of play when your star is injured or tired. It makes sense that your team isn't as good when your main guy is off the floor, but still. Balance is key, and you should seek it as much as possible.

Back to the Thunder example: Durant's value was capped with the presence of James Harden on the squad, and (keeping his own development as a player in mind) his value went up with Harden's trade to Houston. You still don't trade the guy. They learned that vs. the Grizzles in '13, and whenever their offense stagnates because of "Russ-ball".

[RayBan-Sematra]

Votes that didn't count: RayBan-Sematra (Kareem), Imon (Kareem), Clyde Frazier (Kareem), eliasrapp98 (Kareem)...sorry, I don't see your names on the voting list...I mean, I actually know two of you through your posting history (RayBan-Sematra and Clyde Frazier) and I know that both of you are great posters, and maybe I missed seeing it (totally possible), but I don't see your names here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924

I believe penbeast said he would count the votes of good contributors who didn't make the original signup and then add our names to the list when he has time.

[Notanoob]

I'm going to go ahead and cast my vote for Wilt Chamberlain.

I know that it's a bit nuts to vote for him ahead of Russel, but I firmly believe that Wilt was a better basketball player, and that his losing had to do with his personality. Certainly, you have to consider that when you're evaluating players- good teammates vs. bad ones, but consider what a total @sshole Jordan was, and how lucky he was to have Phil-we don't dock him for his clear issues. He was a natural hero-baller who blamed his teammates openly to the media and ripped on management for making him play with bums. He was arrogant and hard to work with. I think that there is a good chance that he would have been ringless if he didn't have such a good situation to play in- Phil as his coach and Scottie as his #2 guy.

Wilt, in my opinion, happens to be a Jordan who didn't have a perfect situation. We did get to see him put it all together though. In 67, we saw a stud passer at center who lead his team to a title and beat down the Celtics in 6. He scored very efficiently on still decent volume, leveraged his incredible combination of height, reach, leaping, and speed to be a high impact defender and is one of the GOAT rebounders in history- better than Russel.

He wasn't entirely selfish, changing his game regularly, and accepting significantly smaller roles as time went on. He was generally a nice person. I think that he is a bit unlucky to play against Bill Russel and have his career framed as "stats vs. wining" or "selfishness vs. team ball". IMO. Sorry to the Kareem guys for not giving him a crucial vote, but I figured it's best to be honest.

[microfib4thewin]

Where do you guys find clips of Russell and Kareem? Not one of the voters but I am interested in knowing more about those two.

[therealbig3]

Votes that didn't count: RayBan-Sematra (Kareem), Imon (Kareem), Clyde Frazier (Kareem), eliasrapp98 (Kareem)...sorry, I don't see your names on the voting list...I mean, I actually know two of you through your posting history (RayBan-Sematra and Clyde Frazier) and I know that both of you are great posters, and maybe I missed seeing it (totally possible), but I don't see your names here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924

I believe penbeast said he would count the votes of good contributors who didn't make the original signup and then add our names to the list when he has time.

Ah well then that's up to him to decide whether to count the votes or not.

I can't really say much about the other two voters, haven't really interacted with them that much, but I'd definitely recommend that you and Clyde Frazier be included.

[MisterWestside]

I enjoy your posts drza, and you provide lots of food for thought. I'll just address one of your points at the moment and leave the rest for another time:

First, I feel like I could make the same statement about pretty much any characteristic and have it be just as true.

Skill set =/= Goodness

A player can have all of the talent in the world, be able to do any number of amazing things. But if those skills don't translate into improvement of the team, I'd question their relevance in determining goodness.

LeBron James in 2011. The man had more or less the same set of skills that he had in Cleveland the previous season. He had more or less the same talent. He did more or less the same amazing things. His value dropped as he moved to his new team. The same skills that improved his old team by leaps and bounds didn't translate as much into the improvement of new team. No casual fan, aficiando, coach, analyst, or statistician using an advanced +/- model would deny this.

But how in the world could one question James's goodness before and after the move when James himself did not change?