RealGM Top 100 List #2

[trex_8063]

I am RE-affirming my vote for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, if that is necessary.

[Baller2014]

My vote goes to either Kareem or Wilt... Right now I didnt decide between the tho, but tomorrow I try to figure my vote.

Well, the good news is you have an extra 20 hours to decide

[Notanoob]

If we're doing a runoff between Russel and Kareem, I'll vote for Kareem. The man was absurdly good at his peak and so excellently skilled that he managed to stick around well past the point where any normal professional athlete should have been able to. I don't suppose that too much explanation is necessary.

[ceiling raiser]

And if not enough votes for Kareem are counted by the deadline, I believe that Russell should be declared the winner. I think that's how you're doing it, but just to make sure.

I just skimmed the project thread and didn't see any specifics one way or the other, but one would presume this is how it's being handled.

[therealbig3]

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.

I've been meaning to ask you about this.

Where do you put Russell offensively in that case? Compared to say, Kevin Garnett?

If Garnett (who had a very long prime and has plenty of sub-prime years where he's still an elite player) is a +5 on defense during his prime, and Russell in comparable circumstances is a +6...how do you rate each of them offensively? Also, how do you feel about the fact that Garnett wasn't afforded the chance to conserve energy on offense and focus most of his energy on defense until he got to Boston (and during his 2nd year in Boston, he gets injured and never quite gets back to his old form, so he didn't really get to spend more than a year of his physical prime focusing most of his talent on defense), while Russell had a stable supporting cast and coach that allowed him to do that pretty much his whole career?

[Doctor MJ]

And if not enough votes for Kareem are counted by the deadline, I believe that Russell should be declared the winner. I think that's how you're doing it, but just to make sure.

I second this approach. An extra day or so to turn plurality to majority is cool but at a certain point we'll have to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DannyNoonan1221]

Also, how do you feel about the fact that Garnett wasn't afforded the chance to conserve energy on offense and focus most of his energy on defense until he got to Boston

This is what I have a hard time with. I understand the situation- player A is being asked to do more in one area that doesn't fit his skill set to create the best possible situation for his personal impact on the game. I get that 100%.

However, I also see it like this: player A is not being asked to sell hot dogs or block inside gaps for the quarterback on top of his normal duties- he's being asked to play the game of basketball. The game is played at both ends of the court and everywhere in between. If player A is truly great, yes, he will have weaker parts of his game... But we haven't even voted on the second best player ever. At this point the second best player will have definite weak points but should be held to a certain degree everywhere on the court.

For me, the Russell supporters haven't brought to light enough information that would convince me his defensive dominance would carry over completely era to era and make up for his lack of impact at the offensive end. However, KAJ has proved his offensive game to be considered GOAT while being one hell of a defender- certainly not better than Russell, but undeniably very good in any era.

And then you throw in longevity...

And I'll end this with something I mentioned earlier. I believe to have a true discussion regarding best individual player in a team sport, it is completely necessary to weight each player to some degree on their fit with the roster they played with. In this case, I don't think there is a player ever in the history of (I want to say all sports but don't like baseball so I won't) basketball that fit into his roster better than Russell. Which is great for him but has a positive impact on his legacy that other players aren't lucky enough to have.

On a side note, I would argue that a close second would be emmitt smith and his cowboy rosters. Or Dennis rodman- not for a career but for short periods ( bad boys, bulls 3peat )

[Gregoire]

My vote goes to Kareem. Great offense beat great defense, even if its defense from Russell. And Kareem defense was itself to slouch. With extra longevity and more developed era of basketball... Yes, its raw thoughts, but the first impression often is right impression. Kareem is the winner for me.

[lorak]

Could the Celtics afford it though? I mean, just by ORTG, they were below the median in every single season of Russell's career save '67.

Because Russell was so bad offensive player. Every time he missed games Celtics were very good offensively (and of course very bad on defense).

And yet, Russell had approximately a +9 impact on their defense,

Based on what? Could you describe step by step how you came to the conclusion his impact was +9 on defense? (and what was his impact on offense?)

And I would really like all Russell's supporters to answer questions about 1957 (Boston with and w/o Russell - why improvement was so small, how valuable was Heinsohn), and then 1958 and 1959 (relatively small improvements in comparison to 1957 - why if Russell was GOAT level player?) and of course about how valuable Bill was on offense and thus how was his OVERALL impact? Because it seems most of people look only on his defensive impact, while kind of "ignoring" his negative offensive contribution and thus his overall impact is seen as better than it was in reality.

Am I crazy, but does play from 1952 Lakers/Piston game look better. BTW, Mikan was a beast.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cRVwe3EPgs[/youtube]

Yes, that game looks better than games from 60s. Tempo is different because of lack of shot clock and thus both teams looks as better organized, much more half court game, better Xs & Os. It really shows that differences between pre shot clock and 60s are smaller than between 60s and 90s+XXI century.

Here's another game, with more live action, I really encourage all people to watch this, especially if you think 50s basketball was so much different than 60s:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkD4GRGdCZI[/youtube]

[therealbig3]

Looks like it's a tie at 21 apiece for Kareem and Russell now, with one voter picking someone else (90sAllDecade) and 13 voters who haven't had the chance to join in yet.

[Warspite]

Bill Russell:

I had the chance to meet both a few yrs back. We were in a ball room with 200 HoF players. It was annouced by Stern that the FMVP would be the Russell award. Bill Russell was one of the epicenters of the room. Every player I listened to talked about how much they respect Russell (even more than RealGM did at the time) and how he was the player that had the GOAT impact.

Sitting in the corner sulking was KAJ. He was a grade A ahole who didnt want to talk to anyone.

Bill Russell, Magic and DrJ ran that room and every player was in awe of them. Even Rick Barry had nothing but glowing things to say about Russell.

If Barry thinks your a GOAT then Im inclined to believe it.

My argument for Russell is pretty simple and in light at looking at the 2014 Heat who are burned out, exhausted and mentally drained Im even more in awe that he was able to win the title yr after yr.

[HeartBreakKid]

I believe from here on it is a majority vote (as the point of the extra time is to make sure people who voted for 3rd parties get to stake their preference in the two winning parties).

[Doctor MJ]

Also, how do you feel about the fact that Garnett wasn't afforded the chance to conserve energy on offense and focus most of his energy on defense until he got to Boston

This is what I have a hard time with. I understand the situation- player A is being asked to do more in one area that doesn't fit his skill set to create the best possible situation for his personal impact on the game. I get that 100%.

However, I also see it like this: player A is not being asked to sell hot dogs or block inside gaps for the quarterback on top of his normal duties- he's being asked to play the game of basketball. The game is played at both ends of the court and everywhere in between. If player A is truly great, yes, he will have weaker parts of his game... But we haven't even voted on the second best player ever. At this point the second best player will have definite weak points but should be held to a certain degree everywhere on the court.

For me, the Russell supporters haven't brought to light enough information that would convince me his defensive dominance would carry over completely era to era and make up for his lack of impact at the offensive end. However, KAJ has proved his offensive game to be considered GOAT while being one hell of a defender- certainly not better than Russell, but undeniably very good in any era.

And then you throw in longevity...

And I'll end this with something I mentioned earlier. I believe to have a true discussion regarding best individual player in a team sport, it is completely necessary to weight each player to some degree on their fit with the roster they played with. In this case, I don't think there is a player ever in the history of (I want to say all sports but don't like baseball so I won't) basketball that fit into his roster better than Russell. Which is great for him but has a positive impact on his legacy that other players aren't lucky enough to have.

On a side note, I would argue that a close second would be emmitt smith and his cowboy rosters. Or Dennis rodman- not for a career but for short periods ( bad boys, bulls 3peat )

So walk with me a minute.

In this thread, if you've read it all, you know that Russell had a complete turnover in his roster during his career. This resulted in Russell very much shifting his role and basically inventing the point enter position along the way while at times playing with entirely platooned teammates of a variety if different shapes and sizes. And if course he won titles with all of them

Meanwhile Kareem spent his entire career basically just doing the same thing.

Yet you reach the conclusion. Ttg that Russell benefitted from an insanely lucky fit.

Sir I'm afraid that's called cognitive dissonance.



I get the skepticism about era issues but I really don't think there's anything any one can say to you until you get past the bias you're coming in with



Oh also the whole notion if Kareem as GOAT in offense seems pretty far off to me. He was great but his limitations relative to perimeter players are pretty clear.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

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.

I've been meaning to ask you about this.

Where do you put Russell offensively in that case? Compared to say, Kevin Garnett?

If Garnett (who had a very long prime and has plenty of sub-prime years where he's still an elite player) is a +5 on defense during his prime, and Russell in comparable circumstances is a +6...how do you rate each of them offensively? Also, how do you feel about the fact that Garnett wasn't afforded the chance to conserve energy on offense and focus most of his energy on defense until he got to Boston (and during his 2nd year in Boston, he gets injured and never quite gets back to his old form, so he didn't really get to spend more than a year of his physical prime focusing most of his talent on defense), while Russell had a stable supporting cast and coach that allowed him to do that pretty much his whole career?

Russell vs Garnett and others of a similar mold is a great thing to ponder.

My issue with Garnett in this particular debate is the shot locking. I'm just not convinced that it isn't a weakness. And since that Russell's signature it's a big deal.

What of Garnett's offense? We'll Garnett's offensive impact fell off a lot in Boston. That's why hi speak impact overall wasn't in Boston. Hence while but in Minmy.

His portability is amazing but he's still not as capable of that seemingly exponential defemsive specialization pact Russell achieved.

Doesn't mean Russell could necessarily match peak Garnett in Minny today but neither could Garnett have matched what Russell did.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[therealbig3]

Garnett was obviously a different player in Boston, with a reduced offensive role...but as I pointed out, he only spent 1 year of his physical prime in Boston (2008), before getting injured and losing some of his explosiveness, which resulted in him specializing even more so on just defense, and basically becoming a jump shooter, (illegal) screen-setter, and high post passing hub on offense. He was no longer a legitimate low post scorer anymore. Maybe it was for the best, but then again, Boston's offensive ranks:

08: 10th
09: 6th

Following Garnett's injury:

10: 15th
11: 18th
12: 27th
13: 24th

Looks like after Garnett got hurt and became a very complementary player on offense, the Celtics offense took a nosedive (partly because now that Garnett wasn't the same force he used to be, and Pierce and Allen were aging, they put the ball in Rondo's hands more, and there's a clear ceiling on offense when someone like Rondo is leading the way).

Furthermore, KG's ORAPM after coming to Boston:

08: +3.0
09: +1.8
10: +0.5
11: +1.3
12 (NPI): +1.8
13: +1.4

The stats support that narrative...+3.0 on offense is still a legitimate offensive player, even if his defense is clearly greater (+5.2). He doesn't look that great in subsequent years, but still a clear positive impact player on the offensive end.

Again, I don't think it's fair to ignore a player's offensive ability just because their defensive ability is much greater. The reason Russell's offense is being ignored is because...he doesn't really have much offense. There's legitimate reason to believe he's a neutral offensive player AT BEST. When comparing him to someone like Garnett, he's clearly not someone whose offense is negligible. He's a comparable passer (at least), with a MUCH better outside shot, and MUCH better FT shooting. That alone makes him a far more competent offensive player than Russell...this isn't to mention his ability to score, which is not useless, even if it's on a better team with better offensive options...sometimes you need to go at certain matchups, and you can't ask Paul Pierce or Ray Allen to take every shot on offense either. Having a guy who you CAN give the ball to in the post who CAN create his own shot and score is a valuable asset that even the best offensive teams use (Tim Duncan still gets low post touches in the Spurs offense, and occasionally goes at his man...it gives the defense a different look, and it ensures that they don't get away with playing obvious mismatches on any player).

[therealbig3]

And I think it's kind of missing the point to just focus on ONE aspect of defense like shot blocking...KG is a less prolific shot blocker than a lot of the best defensive players in his era, even guys with similar athletic gifts (Ben Wallace, Dwight Howard), and yet he's consistently measured out to be a comparable or better defender than they are.

It's not like KG was a poor shot blocker either, he averaged 1-2 a game throughout his prime, and he also played PF rather than the typical C position (in a time where there are a lot of stretch 4s), even playing SF at times, meaning he was away from the basket more. But his court coverage, intelligence, and timing is clearly more important than his shot blocking...if you want to argue that Russell provided all of that + shot blocking, cool, I understand that argument...but how much better impact does 2-3 more bpg give you? And does it compensate for the fact that KG is clearly a far better offensive player, especially in his prime?

And if you want horizontal + vertical...then I come back to Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson. Substitute their names for Kevin Garnett, and the argument stands.

[fatal9]

Could someone link me to posts that have all the latest up to date data which is mainly used to reinforce Russell's case (ie. year by year defensive rating of the Celtics, in/out data of Russell)? And is bball reference's team rating data of the 50s/60s accepted as legitimate around these parts? After acquiring a better holistic understanding of the Celtics of that era, I have some questions that hopefully I get time to ask tomorrow.

[RSCD3_]

My vote goes to Kareem

One of the greatest offensive centerpieces in nba history. Great post moves , Amazing go to shot , smart and celebral player , good ft shooter, great court vision for a big

Had GOAT longevity and a very long prime and Was an integral part of many championship level teams

Much like the argument Russell could have done more on offense with more capable defenders, if Kareem didn't have to supply so much volume scoring his defense could have improved.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[An Unbiased Fan]

So walk with me a minute.

In this thread, if you've read it all, you know that Russell had a complete turnover in his roster during his career. This resulted in Russell very much shifting his role and basically inventing the point enter position along the way while at times playing with entirely platooned teammates of a variety if different shapes and sizes. And if course he won titles with all of them

Meanwhile Kareem spent his entire career basically just doing the same thing.

Woah, wait a sec. Did you really say, "Kareem spent his entire career basically just doing the same thing", while praising Russell for dealing with complete roster turnovers, and shifting roles?

1) Kareem played across two separate eras. Without a 3pt line, and with one at high levels. From the 70's Bucks style, to the Showtime Lakers.

2) Russell had the most set role of pretty much all the ATG players. He was a defensive anchor, and a 4th option on offense. For the 1st half of his career he had the benefit of a narrow lane. At no point did he ever deal with a 3pt line and the fundamental change in floor spacing that caused.

3) Not sure what the "point enter position" is.

4) Yes, Russell won titles with all his teamamtes.....who happened to be HOF caliber, and on the Celtics who had only one comparable rival late into the 60's. I posted the SRS of the teams the Celtics faced, but it deserves repeating...

Celtic playoff opponents SRS:
1957:
Syracuse -1.02
St. Loius -0.26

1958:
Philly 0.21
St. Louis 0.82 (lost)

1959:
Syracuse 3.74
Lakers -1.42

1960:
Philly 2.77
St. Loius 1.77

1961:
Syracuse 1.92
St. Loius 2.98

1962:
Philly 2.63
Lakers 1.80

1963:
Royals 1.24
Lakers 2.67

1964:
Royals 4.43
Warriors 4.41

1965:
Philly -0.13
Lakers 1.70

1966:
Philly 4.16
Lakers 2.76

1967:
Knicks -2.74
Philly 8.50 (lost)

1968(12 team):
Detroit -1.70
Philly 7.96
Lakers 4.99

1969
Philly 4.79
Knicks 5.48
Lakers 3.84

^
So sure, the Celtics dominate that era, but there weren't facing a long list of great teams. Kareem dealt with tough Knick, Portland, Philly, Boston teams throughout his years. He didn't have the benefit of being on the most talented squad in a 8-12 team league.

[SactoKingsFan]

Dr MJ: My issue with Garnett in this particular debate is the shot locking. I'm just not convinced that it isn't a weakness. And since that Russell's signature it's a big deal.

I don't consider shot blocking a weakness for KG, especially since he was such a versatile defender and often had to carry the offense in MIN. And peak KG (2004) blocked 3 shots per 100 poss. He certainly wasn't an all-time great shot blocker, but it wasn't a weakness.

Dr MJ: What of Garnett's offense? We'll Garnett's offensive impact fell off a lot in Boston. That's why hi speak impact overall wasn't in Boston.

KG's offense didn't fall off a cliff during his first season in BOS. He still averaged 30.3 PTS per 100 poss. and 20.7 per 36 mins. with a .588 TS% while focusing more on defense. The Celtics were consistently blowing teams out with a 10.2 point differential. This allowed Doc to rest KG and play him 6-7 less minutes per game than prime KG played in MIN. 2009 is when KG slipped offensively and was clearly no longer in his prime.

KG is a really interesting player since he has all-time +/- numbers, was so versatile defensively and was no slouch on offense. However, he's not considered a consensus top-15 player. Should be very interesting when we really start discussing KG.