RealGM Top 100 List #2

[Texas Chuck]

Russell just had a perfect storm that not many players enjoy. That's not to discredit the things he did very well, but it's not disputable that he had the best coaching at the time (yes, he has won titles without Red as the official coach) and also the best supporting casts relative to his league. That's for pretty much all of his career. But that's not really the issue when discussing a project like this although it does immensely contribute to the fact that he by far the most team success (his calling card) than any other great player. It's the era advantages that Russell had in relation to most other centers that bother me. All of these were already mentioned and discussed ad naseaum every time someone hinted Bill Russell so I won't single them out again.

And yes, I'm aware that other eras also offered advantages to different types of players, like the introduction of the three-point line and what not.

But let me ask a simple question. If you were a 60's team GM or whatever they were called back then, and had to pick either to sign Russell or Hakeem, you would take Russell why exactly?

I don't believe in punishing players because they had a good coach or good casts. Mike played for perhaps the GOAT coach and had great casts, but I don't recall you bringing it up against him. Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, KAJ, Magic etc... tons of guys played for great coaches. And tons of guys played on great rosters. Not only do I not believe in downgrading a guy for good circumstances you haven't made a compelling case for why Russell's situation was so much superior to other players.

I would take Russell because I believe Russell to be the better player than Dream. And it goes without mentioning that he's the better leader and would be better equipped to deal with the social issues of the day. I'd pick Bill over Dream in Dream's era or today as well tho.

[TrueLAfan]

I’m staying with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on this, although I completely understand the case and support for Bill Russell (like my post on page 8 indicates).

One thing I want to say … I enjoy and find value in the statistical work by ElGee and others to try and quantify Russell’s impact. I think it gives us a good jumping off point. But—and I say this with respect—it’s a jumping off point. Defensive metrics are tricky even when you have as much information as we have now. When you’re looking at players and season from half a century ago and earlier, the information gaps precludes anything approaching a definitive answer. That’s okay. I think ElGee and some posters have and are handling that rightly—by trying to couch the argument around the statistical analysis, rather than within it.

But I also think there are some other posters that are showing numbers and hanging a number of Bill Russell’s seasonal value, and then comparing it to a number hung on Kareem’s seasonal value (when Kareem’s statistics are also not as complete as would be helpful in doing a thorough analysis). That’s using statistical analysis as conclusive—which it is not. I think the numbers are useful—but they are part of the evidence, not the conclusion that you build around. For instance, I discussed Kareem’s DWS and DWS/48 and compared them to other historically great big men. I made it clear that I do not think the answers provided by the statistical analysis are concrete or definitive—they give us an idea to work from, an idea that can buttressed and supported by other evidence and discussion, and moved from that to describe where I place Kareem’s defensive value in general. I’ve seen almost no discussion of Russell’s 5 MVPs, and that he almost certainly would have gotten more (and a markedly higher award share) if the votes had been held after the playoffs.

In other words, I’m kind of making an argument for Russell. Again.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Raja Bell was an All-Defensive team selection and an efficient wing shooter with range. Clearly he was more valuable to a championship team than, say, Ben Wallace who may have played better defense but was the worst offensive player I've ever seen. Or for centers, Brendan Haywood was a good defensive center and a solid high percentage offensive player.

And yet . . . .

I've been reading the arguments from both sides, and I wanted to get a baseline for what's the point at which the offensive advantage is no longer enough to put a player ahead over the defensive advantage. Some concede Russell's defensive advantage, but the offense is what puts x player over the top, so to gain better understanding, I'm trying to find out where that ends.

Not too long ago, on the subject of two-way players, I asked whether Walt Frazier was better than Magic because he was a better two-way player, and the answer was that he wasn't because Magic had greater impact. So I'm wondering which two-way big represents the point at which their "two-wayness" doesn't exceed Russell's defensive impact. I know it isn't relevant to the Russell v. Kareem runoff, but I want to better understand the position.

Good question. While I think individual offense > individual defense, the specifics of the actual impact on both sides of the court need to be put into context.

Walt was a great perimeter defender, but how much actual impact does that yield. How many defensive possessions is Walt effecting a game. Is Magic's defense a negative, or neutral due to his size, and ability to secure defensive rebounds. Also, how big was Walt's offensive impact? He scored 20 ppg on decent efficiency for just a few seasons, yes. Walt wasn't a big assist maker, nor did his teams set the world on fire offensively. I'd say Magic's offensive impact advantage is greater than Walt's defensive advantage in on court impact.

In terms of impact scale I see it like this, note I did this on the fly, and this isn't 100% how I feel:
10 - ATG offensive anchor(Magic, MJ, Kobe, KAJ, Shaq)
9 - ATG volume scorer or playmaker(Nash, Stockton, Durant),Russell's defense
8 - ATG defensive anchor(Hakeem, Duncan)
7 - Great scorer(Melo, Hakeem),DPOYcaliber(Dwight, Big Ben, Pippen)
6 - All-D (Kobe,Kirelenko, Tony Allen), Quality scorer(R. Miller, Ray Allen)
5 -
4 - Average/easily replaceable
3 -
2 -
1 - James Hardens defense

Raja Bell was an All-Defensive team selection and an efficient wing shooter with range. Clearly he was more valuable to a championship team than, say, Ben Wallace who may have played better defense but was the worst offensive player I've ever seen. Or for centers, Brendan Haywood was a good defensive center and a solid high percentage offensive player.

And yet . . . Wallace may have been the most valuable player on an NBA championship team.

LOL, come on man, you know that not what's being argued. Raja Bell never even reached 15 ppg, nor did he ever get 3 apg. His offensive impact was very low, and way below his defensive impact.

But way higher than the offensive impact of Ben Wallace whose offensive impact is negative. It is possible to have a defensive impact high enough (like Russell) over even another very good defender (like Kareem) that that defensive impact outweighs even a far superior offensive impact. I used a case where it's tough to argue that Bell is more impactful -- exaggerating the differential because it wouldn't make much sense to make the argument and have a lot of people read it and go . . . "but, Raja Bell and Brendan Haywood ARE more impactful than Ben Wallace."

Raja is way more skilled on offense, yes. But he didn't have much on court offensive impact. He was a on-dimensional roleplayer on that side of the ball. Big Ben was involved in more defensive possessions than Raja was on offense, and Wallace's defense was DPOY caliber, while Raja wasn't noteworthy on offense.

In his prime I would say Wallace was a 3 in offensive impact(soley based on offensive boards), and 8 in defensive impact, taking him to 11 on my scale.

Raja at this best was a 4 on offensive, and 5 on defense, taking his to 9 on the scale.

In comparison, I would say prime MJ was 10/7, Russell was 4/10(for his era), KAJ was 10/7 to start, but 9/6 for most of his prime. Magic is 10/4. Bird is 10/4. Prime Lebron is 9/6, could be 10 offensively if I didn't feel his style of play didn't marginalize others a bit. Peak Shaq was 10/7 maybe even 10/8 for 2000...but for most of his career he was more like 10/5, he had the potential to be GOAT, damn. Prime Kobe was from 10/6 to 10/5 depending on the year. prime Duncan is 6/8, maybe 6/9 for 2002-03. KG is 6/7, maybe 7/7 for 03-05. Wilt's hard to gauge frankly, on both off/def. 94-95 Hakeem was 7/8, and 7/9 in the playoffs.

As you can see, I don't think the margin for the Top players is all that great. Russell falls back a bit in comparison to the other Top 10 guys, as does Magic/Bird for me. But all 3 are still Top 10 caliber HOFers, and they have consistency in their favor too, where as many of the others didn't maintain 15+ scales for most of their careers.

[MacGill]

I don't believe in punishing players because they had a good coach or good casts. Mike played for perhaps the GOAT coach and had great casts, but I don't recall you bringing it up against him. Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, KAJ, Magic etc... tons of guys played for great coaches. And tons of guys played on great rosters. Not only do I not believe in downgrading a guy for good circumstances you haven't made a compelling case for why Russell's situation was so much superior to other players.

Just to add, does player talent help, of course it does but it isn't like one team has pro athletes and the other has construction workers?? Talent helps you compete but doesn't guarantee anything. In all pro sports we have seen so called on paper dynasties crumble, underperform, or just not work out at all. So much goes into creating a winning product and it goes far beyond just having good teammates.

Half the time we're the ones who later go back and annoint what was once a decent team, a powerhouse or team for the ages. GOAT teams aren't impervious to injury, mistakes, and lower performance. I'd also like to go through the history book to see what players thought at the time because it isn't usually until the performances happen that then makes it easy to go back and say...look how lucky he was. Some players actually dictated where they went in the nba so then I guess they will have an automatic deduction in sponsorship here. What a coach does for one player he may not be able to do with another. The individuals who simply think that if you had PJ and LBJ today guarantees you a championship are out of touch with the actual reality on how a team game is played.

[microfib4thewin]

Raja Bell was an All-Defensive team selection and an efficient wing shooter with range. Clearly he was more valuable to a championship team than, say, Ben Wallace who may have played better defense but was the worst offensive player I've ever seen. Or for centers, Brendan Haywood was a good defensive center and a solid high percentage offensive player.

And yet . . . .

Funnily enough, I was thinking about Big Ben. If you stretched Big Ben's prime to 15 years and give him passing ability is he really that far off from Russell? How would this hypothetical Big Ben be compared to KG and Duncan? One could make an argument that KG and Duncan might not have the defensive impact of Russell if they play a 80 defense/20 offense role, but they were never given an opportunity to prove that when they were in their prime. KG got a chance in 2008 and led a legendary defense before age and injury caught up to him. Duncan only stopped being the cornerstone of the Spurs offense after 2010 and he was 34 by then. Both of these guys had to carry their team's offense and defense(moreso for KG) for the first 13 years of their career before they became more of a defensive specialist, and even then post-prime KG and Duncan are still doing just as much if not more than Russell on offense.

It is possible for a one-way player to triumph a two-way player, but after looking at the con-Russell arguments I am not sure if that applies to KG or Duncan.

[Mutnt]

I don't believe in punishing players because they had a good coach or good casts. Mike played for perhaps the GOAT coach and had great casts, but I don't recall you bringing it up against him. Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, KAJ, Magic etc... tons of guys played for great coaches. And tons of guys played on great rosters. Not only do I not believe in downgrading a guy for good circumstances you haven't made a compelling case for why Russell's situation was so much superior to other players.

I know all of this, but it doesn't negate anything I've said. Russell's situation is superior because he played in an 8-team league where advantages like this get magnified. I know you don't believe this and you'll probably say something along the lines of 'talent more condensed', 'had to face top tier players like Wilt more times' so it wasn't easier to which I'll reply negatively, saying that things don't work that way (I believe somebody already neatly explained why those two arguments are actually false, might have been this or the previous thread on this project). So I don't really see the point of dwelling into this any further.

I would take Russell because I believe Russell to be the better player than Dream. And it goes without mentioning that he's the better leader and would be better equipped to deal with the social issues of the day. I'd pick Bill over Dream in Dream's era or today as well tho.

And what's the basis of your claim? The fact that Russell was given the chance to make a greater imprint defensively in the 60's? Obviously not, because you also think Russell would be better than Hakeem in any era, so I'm really interested in hearing by which means would Russell specifically give you a better chance of succeeding?

[Owly]

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.

Celtics year by year

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Season    W    L    W/L%    SRS    Rel_ORtg    Rel_DRtg
1954-55    36   36   .500    -0.03    3.2    3.2
1955-56    39   33   .542    0.72    1.9    1.4
1956-57    44   28   .611    4.79    -0.4    -4.9
1957-58    49   23   .681    5.02    -0.8    -5.2
1958-59    52   20   .722    5.84    -0.7    -5.7
1959-60    59   16   .787    7.62    -0.1    -6.2
1960-61    57   22   .722    4.93    -3.4    -7.6
1961-62    60   20   .750    8.25    -1.5    -8.5
1962-63    58   22   .725    6.38    -2.9    -8.5
1963-64    59   21   .738    6.93    -4.5    -10.8
1964-65    62   18   .775    7.46    -2.7    -9.4
1965-66    54   26   .675    4.34    -2.6    -6.6
1966-67    60   21   .741    7.24    1.4    -5.1
1967-68    54   28   .659    3.87    -1.1    -4.4
1968-69    48   34   .585    5.35    -1.7    -6.4
1969-70    34   48   .415    -1.60    -1.7    -0.1
1970-71    44   38   .537    2.30    -0.2    -1.9


key changes:

from 1956 to 1957

Code: Select all

                              
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
2354      27         Macauley
1451      26         Barrett
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
2150      22         Heinsohn
1695      22         Russell
1476      34         Phillip
807      25         Ramsey (23 MPG in playoffs)
               


from 1957 to 1958

Code: Select all

               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
2220      26         Loscutoff
1055      23         Hemric
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
594      24         S. Jones
               
also: Russell +945 minutes, Ramsey +1240, Tsioropoulos +1149 and Phillip -312
               
               


from 1958 to 1959

Code: Select all

               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
1224      31         Nichols
1164      35         Phillip
1119      33         Risen
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
609      26         KC Jones
               
               
also: Loscutoff +1624 minutes, S. Jones +872, Tsioropoulos -1331   
               


from 1959 to 1960
KC +665 minutes, Conley +667, Sharman -466, Loscutoff -1144

from 1960 to 1961

Code: Select all

               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
1084      22         Sanders
               
also: S. Jones +516 minutes, Loscutoff +617   
               
               


from 1961 to 1962

Code: Select all

                  
                  
lost                  
minutes   years old   name            
1538      34         Sharman   
1242      30         Conley   
                  
also: Sanders +1241 minutes, Cousy -354, KC +449      
                  


from 1962 to 1963

Code: Select all

added               
minutes   years old   name         
2200      22         Hondo
               
also: Heinsohn -379 minutes, Ramsey -372, Loscutoff -539   
               
               


from 1963 to 1964

Code: Select all

               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
1975      34         Cousy
               
               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
1409      29         Naulls
               
               
also: Hondo +387 minutes, KC +479, Ramsey -314   
               


from 1964 to 1965

Code: Select all

               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
1227      32         Ramsey
               
               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
699      23         Thompson
572      23         Counts
               
also: S. Jones +504 minutes, Hondo -418, Heinsohn -334, Siegfried +735
               


from 1965 to 1966

Code: Select all

               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
1706      30         Heinsohn
               
               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
1765      25         Nelson
               
               
also: S. Jones -730 minutes, Sanders -563, Siegfried +679, Counts +449, Thompson -627
               


from 1966 to 1967

Code: Select all

new coach               

               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
1433      31         Naulls
1021      24         Counts
               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
2503      30         Howell
729      29         Embry
               
also: Hondo +427 minutes, Nelson -563      
               


from 1967 to 1968

Code: Select all

                  
                  
lost                  
minutes   years old   name            
2446      34         KC Jones   
                  
also: Russell -344 minutes, Hondo +319, Howell +298, Nelson +296, Embry +359


from 1968 to 1969

Code: Select all

               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
1088      30         Embry
               
               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
1388      30         Bryant
               
               
also: Russell +338 minutes, Siegfried +623, Howell -274, Hondo +253, Sanders +203, S. Jones -588, Nelson +275, Graham -683
               


from 1969 to 1970

Code: Select all

new coach               
               
lost               
minutes   years old   name         
3291      34         Russell
1820      35         S. Jones
               
               
               
added               
minutes   years old   name         
1866      27         Finkel
1328      23         White
               
also: Nelson +451 minutes, Siegfried -479, Howell -449, Sanders - 568, Bryant +229, Chaney +630, Johnson +735, Barnes +454
               


Celtics with and without Russell

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        SRS         
Gs w/o  with  w/o   diff  years
24      5.4   3.6   1.8   1957
28      6.1   -2.3  8.4   1958-1969


(source: ElGee, viewtopic.php?p=40345652#p40345652 )

Code: Select all

                                     SRS         
Gs w/o   Ws w/o   Ls w/o   MOV w/o   with   w/o   diff   years
52        26        26      1.54     5.4    0.7   4.7   ‘57-'69


114.3 PPG (against opponent D of 108.6, so +5.7) w/o vs 110.7 PPG with (so -3.6)
112.8 PPG allowed (against opponents O of 107.0, so +5.7) w/o vs 104.8 PPG allowed with (so -8.0)

without Russell vs. Overall:
O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)

Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go:
O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference)
D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)

the same without Russell’s rookie year:

10-18 W-L
-2.03 SRS
122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)


Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics:
-2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)

122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)

123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)

So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).

(source: colts18, viewtopic.php?p=32974450#p32974450 )

Celtics In the playoffs

Spoiler:

Year = year
Pace = team pace in playoffs (calculated using this methodology: http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20 ... 1951-1973/)
lgOD = league average ORtg/DRtg
PTS/G = team ppg
OPP/G = opponent ppg
ORtg = relative team ORtg during playoffs
avgD = average relative defense faced in playoffs
DRtg = relative team DRtg during playoffs
avgO = average relative offense faced in playoffs
O = sum of ORtg and avgD columns (positive is better)
D = sum of DRtg and avgO columns (negative is better)

(source: fpliii, viewtopic.php?p=40283574#p40283574 )

Black players in 50s, 60s and 70s

Spoiler:

(source: fpliii, viewtopic.php?p=40282613#p40282613 and viewtopic.php?p=40286112#p40286112 )

All that data shows several interesting things:
1. Celtics in 1957 season were already +3.6 SRS team before Russell joined them. And it shouldn’t be surprise, because they also added Heinsohn and veteran PG Phillip. So there’s no sense in comparison of 1957 Boston with 1956 version and saying that Russell improved them by +4 SRS, because other important changes also happened and they clearly improved Celtics. So Russell’s impact as a rookie seems to be around 1.5-2 SRS

2. But he was just a rookie – someone might say. It’s obviously true, but not forget that top rookies back then were more like rookie Duncan – after full 4 years in college (with rare exceptions like Wilt) and with immediately big impact.

3. But even if you disagree with point no 2, then what would you say about Celtics SRS during Russell’s first three years? 4.8, 5.0 and 5.8 – why Boston didn’t improve more if Russell was really +6 or more player since his second year? They lost some players, sure, but usually from previous era, white old veterans, some of course valuable (Phillip), but they also added both Jones and increased minutes of Ramsey. IMO all that suggest that Russell wasn’t more impactfull during his first three seasons than +2.5 SRS player.


4. Next year Celtics improved a lot (~ +2 SRS), but in 1961 regressed again (~ -2.5 SRS), so I’m not so sure what to think about these seasons.

5. Celtics became consistently really good since Russell’s 6th year (1962). IMO main reason of that (except of Russell, of course) is that 50s players retired (for example Sharman) or their role was reduced and shortly after also retired (Cousy), when at the same time roles of new players, especially defensive oriented (KC, Sanders, but also Sam and shortly after that Hondo) increased. Sure, everything was built around Russell, but we can’t ignore how Celtics improvement is consistent with so important roster changes. IMO Russell at this point was +4.5 SRS player, maybe +5.5 during his peak season.


6. Why so low? Because he was awful offensive player. Look at data provided by Colts. No doubt he was really great defensively, but a lot of his defensive impact was lost by his offensive anti-impact.

7. We have two with/without samples: from Russell’s rookie year and from rest of his career combined. Unfortunately second sample covers so big period of time (over a decade) that it’s very noisy, much more than one season samples, and thus it can’t provide reliable information. But even if someone would like to use it as main argument it still wouldn’t say that Russell was more than around +7 SRS player (Celtics were better with him by +8.4, but without him -2.3, so that “8.4” isn’t improvement on neutral, 0 team.). In other words that’s his absolute ceiling and it’s not GOAT like impact (but rather top 10-15 all time).

8. Celtics also regressed A LOT (-7 SRS!) after Russell retired. But they also lost Sam Jones and had new coach. Fatigue of core players after so many runs to the finals also is a factor here, as well as really bad replacement center or less minutes of important players like Howell or Sanders. In 1971, when they added normal center (Cowens) Celtics were +2.3 SRS team with some core players the same as in 1969. I think it’s similar case like with 1994 Bulls. We shouldn’t compare them to 1993 version, but to 1992. The same here: comparison of 1969 team to 1971 tells more, because of how drastic changes (both mentally and physically – roster, coach) happened after 1969 and team needed one year to recover.

9. It’s really interesting that after 1964 Celtics offense in playoffs was as important as defense! Except of one year – 1967, when they lost.

tl,dr
Russell’s OVERALL impact wasn’t GOAT like, more like top 10-15 player of all time. His negative offensive impact is overlooked, as well as importance of some Celtics players (Heinsohn, KC, Sanders, Hondo) and how Boston was doing during Russell’s first 5 seasons.

To your points about '57, Frank Ramsey arrived shortly after Russell (he had been on military service). So the SRS bump for Russell is really the upgrade both at center (Russell backed up by Risen, rather than Risen backed up by Nichols) and on the wing (Ramsey perhaps taking minutes from backups from SG to PF inasmuch as the forward positions were differentiated, perhaps primarily solidifying the forward minutes next to Heinsohn). Now it shouldn't be overstated. Ramsey played just 807 minutes to Russell's 1695. But the baseline for their upgrades and the Ramsey factor should be accounted for when assigning Russell credit.

[Colbinii]

In comparison, I would say prime MJ was 10/7, Russell was 4/10(for his era), KAJ was 10/7 to start, but 9/6 for most of his prime. Magic is 10/4. Bird is 10/4. Prime Lebron is 9/6, could be 10 offensively if I didn't feel his style of play didn't marginalize others a bit. Peak Shaq was 10/7 maybe even 10/8 for 2000...but for most of his career he was more like 10/5, he had the potential to be GOAT, damn. Prime Kobe was from 10/6 to 10/5 depending on the year. prime Duncan is 6/8, maybe 6/9 for 2002-03. KG is 6/7, maybe 7/7 for 03-05. Wilt's hard to gauge frankly, on both off/def. 94-95 Hakeem was 7/8, and 7/9 in the playoffs

I am really curious how you have LeBron as a player who "marginalized" talent around him when Scottie Pippen had his best 2 years without MJ.

Just curious that you didn't bring it up for MJ. Pippen was best in his career as a 26-27% usage guy, yet when he played with MJ, was only a 19-24% usage guy.

This is the best thread I have ever read on this forum. Lot's of great knowledge and excellent posters with knowledge of players before my time. Keep up the good work

[MisterWestside]

Not only do I not believe in downgrading a guy for good circumstances you haven't made a compelling case for why Russell's situation was so much superior to other players.

Because it (mainly the era and the organization's emphasis on defense) allowed him to maximize his defensive value, which, for some on this board, is the underpinning of their argument for Russell.

Did everyone play with that same situation? No.

I would take Russell because I believe Russell to be the better player than Dream. And it goes without mentioning that he's the better leader and would be better equipped to deal with the social issues of the day. I'd pick Bill over Dream in Dream's era or today as well tho.

I can respect that view. Perhaps you're correct as to Russell's inherent basketball goodness compared to Olajuwon. It's a close call.

[MacGill]

In comparison, I would say prime MJ was 10/7, Russell was 4/10(for his era), KAJ was 10/7 to start, but 9/6 for most of his prime. Magic is 10/4. Bird is 10/4. Prime Lebron is 9/6, could be 10 offensively if I didn't feel his style of play didn't marginalize others a bit. Peak Shaq was 10/7 maybe even 10/8 for 2000...but for most of his career he was more like 10/5, he had the potential to be GOAT, damn. Prime Kobe was from 10/6 to 10/5 depending on the year. prime Duncan is 6/8, maybe 6/9 for 2002-03. KG is 6/7, maybe 7/7 for 03-05. Wilt's hard to gauge frankly, on both off/def. 94-95 Hakeem was 7/8, and 7/9 in the playoffs.

As you can see, I don't think the margin for the Top players is all that great. Russell falls back a bit in comparison to the other Top 10 guys, as does Magic/Bird for me. But all 3 are still Top 10 caliber HOFers, and they have consistency in their favor too, where as many of the others didn't maintain 15+ scales for most of their careers.

So, I know we will all be getting into this but.....you detract on LBJ because you feel his style of play marginalizes his teammates even though we have the eye test and the statistical data to offset your accusation. But you then say Kobe was a 10/6/5 dependant on year even though the statistical data and eye test only match this in select years but you'll use the All-D (perception) award as back-up to your claim? Further, you then use eye test (athestics) to say why he is a 10 offensively because of his ability to take difficult shots and array of moves, which is > than efficiency btw, right?

[PaulieWal]

I am really curious how you have LeBron as a player who "marginalized" talent around him when Scottie Pippen had his best 2 years without MJ.

That's his bit when it comes to LeBron and saying he "marginalizes players". Yesterday (on GB) he tried to argue that LeBron marginalized Shaq, the same broken down Shaq who only played 52 games in Cleveland and retired the next season with Boston after limping through 2 seasons.

[An Unbiased Fan]

In comparison, I would say prime MJ was 10/7, Russell was 4/10(for his era), KAJ was 10/7 to start, but 9/6 for most of his prime. Magic is 10/4. Bird is 10/4. Prime Lebron is 9/6, could be 10 offensively if I didn't feel his style of play didn't marginalize others a bit. Peak Shaq was 10/7 maybe even 10/8 for 2000...but for most of his career he was more like 10/5, he had the potential to be GOAT, damn. Prime Kobe was from 10/6 to 10/5 depending on the year. prime Duncan is 6/8, maybe 6/9 for 2002-03. KG is 6/7, maybe 7/7 for 03-05. Wilt's hard to gauge frankly, on both off/def. 94-95 Hakeem was 7/8, and 7/9 in the playoffs

I am really curious how you have LeBron as a player who "marginalized" talent around him when Scottie Pippen had his best 2 years without MJ.

Just curious that you didn't bring it up for MJ. Pippen was best in his career as a 26-27% usage guy, yet when he played with MJ, was only a 19-24% usage guy.

This is the best thread I have ever read on this forum. Lot's of great knowledge and excellent posters with knowledge of players before my time. Keep up the good work

Pippen's skillset was fully utilized next to MJ. He was a point-forward on those teams, and his production was pretty much the same too. Sure he had more USG% considering MJ was gone in 94/95, but that's a far cry from someone like Bosh who was a 24/10 MVP candidate in 2010, and then a one-dimensional spot up shooter next to Lebron.

This is one of the things I praised Russell for earlier, because besides defense, he was GOAT level at utilizing the talent around him. In stark contrast to Wilt who was putting up the great boxscores, but not getting the most out of his casts, especially in Philly.

[Mutnt]

[
So, I know we will all be getting into this but.....you detract on LBJ because you feel his style of play marginalizes his teammates even though we have the eye test and the statistical data to offset your accusation. But you then say Kobe was a 10/6/5 dependant on year even though the statistical data and eye test only match this in select years but you'll use the All-D (perception) award as back-up to your claim? Further, you then use eye test (athestics) to say why he is a 10 offensively because of his ability to take difficult shots and array of moves, which is > than efficiency btw, right?

Pretty much, he has been doing this even before LeBron became a 2-time NBA champion, I might say even before LeBron joined Miami and will likely continue on this path until both players retire. The dude just believes Kobe was a superior player and nothing will change his mind.

[An Unbiased Fan]

In comparison, I would say prime MJ was 10/7, Russell was 4/10(for his era), KAJ was 10/7 to start, but 9/6 for most of his prime. Magic is 10/4. Bird is 10/4. Prime Lebron is 9/6, could be 10 offensively if I didn't feel his style of play didn't marginalize others a bit. Peak Shaq was 10/7 maybe even 10/8 for 2000...but for most of his career he was more like 10/5, he had the potential to be GOAT, damn. Prime Kobe was from 10/6 to 10/5 depending on the year. prime Duncan is 6/8, maybe 6/9 for 2002-03. KG is 6/7, maybe 7/7 for 03-05. Wilt's hard to gauge frankly, on both off/def. 94-95 Hakeem was 7/8, and 7/9 in the playoffs.

As you can see, I don't think the margin for the Top players is all that great. Russell falls back a bit in comparison to the other Top 10 guys, as does Magic/Bird for me. But all 3 are still Top 10 caliber HOFers, and they have consistency in their favor too, where as many of the others didn't maintain 15+ scales for most of their careers.

So, I know we will all be getting into this but.....you detract on LBJ because you feel his style of play marginalizes his teammates even though we have the eye test and the statistical data to offset your accusation. But you then say Kobe was a 10/6/5 dependant on year even though the statistical data and eye test only match this in select years but you'll use the All-D (perception) award as back-up to your claim? Further, you then use eye test (athestics) to say why he is a 10 offensively because of his ability to take difficult shots and array of moves, which is > than efficiency btw, right?

Like I said, that scale is just an estimate, and was made in response to the post wondering how much more impact a great offensive player has in comparison to a great defender. Also, it had little to do with "the eye test", and everything to do with on court play. The "All-D", "DPOY" labels, and so on, are just to illustrate the relative level of impact I was estimating.

Keep in mind, this is pretty much the same thing that's been done with Russell for the first 2 votes. We've been debating what his actual defensive impact was, and how it compares to other greats. Does Russell's offensive/defensive impact trump KAJ's offensive/defensive impact...I don't see it. KAJ also has more career value since his prime was longer.

[An Unbiased Fan]

[
So, I know we will all be getting into this but.....you detract on LBJ because you feel his style of play marginalizes his teammates even though we have the eye test and the statistical data to offset your accusation. But you then say Kobe was a 10/6/5 dependant on year even though the statistical data and eye test only match this in select years but you'll use the All-D (perception) award as back-up to your claim? Further, you then use eye test (athestics) to say why he is a 10 offensively because of his ability to take difficult shots and array of moves, which is > than efficiency btw, right?

Pretty much, he has been doing this even before LeBron became a 2-time NBA champion, I might say even before LeBron joined Miami and will likely continue on this path until both players retire. The dude just believes Kobe was a superior player and nothing will change his mind.

Strange, I thought I was giving Lebron alot of credit because he's right amongst the top players on my scale. Not sure how my analysis of 12 players became about LBJ/Kobe.

[MacGill]

[quote="An Unbiased Fan"] Like I said, that scale is just an estimate, and was made in response to the post wondering how much more impact a great offensive player has in comparison to a great defender. Also, it had little to do with "the eye test", and everything to do with on court play. The "All-D", "DPOY" labels, and so on, are just to illustrate the relative level of impact I was estimating.

Keep in mind, this is pretty much the same thing that's been done with Russell for the first 2 votes. We've been debating what his actual defensive impact was, and how it compares to other greats. Does Russell's offensive/defensive impact trump KAJ's offensive/defensive impact...I don't see it. KAJ also has more career value since his prime was longer.[quote]

Well, from what I know about you as a poster, you don't just make estimates without believing what you're writing Case and point, you knew you'd be called out for this. And isn't eye test part of on court play?
I mean, what do you think most use to come up to the conclusion of Kobe's impact persay? Cause if they were looking at advanced stats...that would tell you.......I understand you like Kobe, but you need to keep your bias from overflowing to detract other players for that sole purpose.

As for the rest of your post, you can challenge whatever you like my friend. But some of your statement are like saying KAJ wasn't over 7 feet tall.

[HeartBreakKid]

Was Kareem's prime actually longer than Bill's? His career was, but could you really say Kareem's prime was much longer than 13 seasons?

[lorak]

Was Kareem's prime actually longer than Bill's? His career was, but could you really say Kareem's prime was much longer than 13 seasons?

Russell's prime definietly wasn't as long as 13 seasons, because for at least his first three years he wasn't in his prime.

[HeartBreakKid]

Was Kareem's prime actually longer than Bill's? His career was, but could you really say Kareem's prime was much longer than 13 seasons?

Russell's prime definietly wasn't as long as 13 seasons, because for at least his first three years he wasn't in his prime.

Then Kareem's first 3 seasons he wasn't in his prime either. (which I don't agree with, but I don't understand the basis that Bill wasn't in his prime in his 3rd season)

Doesn't really change anything, Kareem was good for a very long time, but I don't see how he has a longer prime than Bill Russell.

What is Kareem's prime years and what is Russell's prime years?

[lorak]

Was Kareem's prime actually longer than Bill's? His career was, but could you really say Kareem's prime was much longer than 13 seasons?

Russell's prime definietly wasn't as long as 13 seasons, because for at least his first three years he wasn't in his prime.

Then Kareem's first 3 seasons he wasn't in his prime either. (which I don't agree with,

So why you say that...?

but I don't understand the basis that Bill wasn't in his prime in his 3rd season)

Look at Celtics SRS - it improved by only 1.5 when Russell joined them and stayed the same next two years.