RealGM Top 100 List #3

Owly · Post #41 » by **Owly** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 7:01 am

Texas Chuck wrote:Im confused. The Celtics SRS prior to Russell was .72. The year before that it was negative His first year it was 4.79 and they won the title. Seems like an immediate and obvious impact and was maintained long term.

Partly because there was other turnover at the same time, but primarily because Russell missed the first 24 games because he was playing in the Olympics and Boston went 16-8 without him (a better win percentage than with him, though the SRS with him is better). Even this though doesn't convey the full story as Frank Ramsey arrived from military service shortly after and playing a shade under 24 minutes per game (he ended up with just under half Russell's minutes for the season) and somewhat enhancing the only remaining gap in their HOF lineup (C: Russell, PF: Heinsohn, SG: Sharman, PG: Cousy).

I would agree that Iorak's tone " how do you explain ..." could be jarring, in terms of seeming to demand answers. But it does perhaps behoove those who believe strongly in Russell to enlighten/sway the skeptical if they explain what they think his impact that year is and why it is credible.

Texas Chuck wrote:Again this obsession with making Russell out to be a scrub offensively. He finished in the top 8 in assists 4 times from the center position. Finished top 5 in FG% 4 times. He scored 15 ppg and 16 in hte PS. He's not an elite offensive player, but you are acting like he's Gana Diop. He's not. And is the goal really to make the offense better or the team? Seems likely when you play without the best defensive player in the world if you still want to compete its easier to make it up on the offensive end. I would imagine the games would be coached/played differently without him. But who cares? The goal is to win the game, not have the best offense, or defense, or whatever.

Agree with the 2nd part, it's about net impact. But then if some people are posting just defensive numbers it might be worth trying to isolate his offensive impact too.

And then too I've seen him described (elsewhere) as a Walton-esque hub (yet Walton was conducive to a good offense (without players percieved to be offensive stars). The assist numbers (four times top 8/top 10) are nice but hardly the measure of a good offensive player (assist leaders like Guy Rodgers, Norm van Lier and Slick Watts aren't considered offensive stars). I will say they are some impressive numbers for that era, which was tight on assists (a possible counterargument would be that Harvery Pollack suggested Boston's scoreteam had padded Russell's rebound totals, they could have done so with assists, though this would be getting very much into conjecture).

When noting top 8, top 5 etc the context of the smaller league should also be considered. For field goal percentage he was reasonably impressive early, however (a) he's a center and (b) he was playing against a thin crop of centers (the best of the 50s were retired or playing low minutes and/or regressing, the best 60s bigs hadn't yet arrived) and (c) he was low usage.

later ...

For most of his career he was the worst or near worst ts% center (amongst those playing 30+ minutes) in the league and worst or near worst for usage
1961: 4 qualifying centers: 4th in fga/36, 3rd in ts% (ahead of Kerr) http://bkref.com/tiny/uwogY
1962: 5 qualifying centers: 4th in fga/36 (ahead of Kerr), 4th in ts% (ahead of Kerr) http://bkref.com/tiny/SU1Wr
1963: 6 qualifying centers: 6th in fga/36, 6th in ts% http://bkref.com/tiny/m16Yp
1964: 6 qualifying centers: 6th in fga/36, 6th in ts% http://bkref.com/tiny/LaIj9
1965: 9 qualifying centers: 9th in fga/36 , 6th in ts% (ahead of Jim Barnes -center status dubious-, Nate Thurmond, Reggie Harding) http://bkref.com/tiny/059SO
1966: 7 qualifying centers: 7th in fga/36, 7th in ts% http://bkref.com/tiny/qS3WW
1967: 8 qualifying centers: 8th in fga/36, 5th in ts% (ahead of Imhoff, Thurmond, LeRoy Ellis) http://bkref.com/tiny/fipMG
1968: 8 qualifying centers: 8th in fga/36, 8th in ts% http://bkref.com/tiny/16tyU
1969: 11 qualifying centers: 11th in fga/36, 10th in ts% (ahead of Thurmond) http://bkref.com/tiny/HeMin

Of course Russell was obviously and clearly worth the tradeoff, but for me the more credible pro-Russell voices are those that acknowledge his limitations.

drza · Post #42 » by **drza** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 7:10 am

(imported from the #2 thread to reply)

MisterWestside wrote:
drza wrote:"Goodness" may be inherent to some extent (obviously player quality changes over time, but speaking at any given moment) but our evaluation of that goodness is NOT inherent. In your example, The Cavaliers situation is NOT the only basketball situation there is. It's not even the only LIKELY scenario for LeBron. Therefore, you can't necessarily evaluate his global value just by determining how good he is in that one role (I really feel like I should be preaching to the choir with this post, as the kernel is one of the big arguments you've been using against Russell in this thread).

My take on player goodness is not limited to a player's use in one role (which imply value, by the way). I don't focus on roles. Using Russell as an example: I (and others) have stated elsewhere that was perhaps a better offensive player than his offensive value reflected (note the use of the superlative for goodness there). His skills on offense just weren't needed as much, given the role that he was asked to play in Boston. So, despite playing in one particular role in Boston, I can still rate Russell's basketball goodness on offense appropriately.

But HOW do you "appropriately" rate something like that? To me, "rating" something connotes some type of quantification...you're evaluating on some type of scale that would allow you to rate one entity vs. another. I think that one can evaluate what a player did in his circumstances somewhat quantiatively. From there, you can try to extrapolate how a player may do in different environments. But rating the speculation is difficult, and requires that those in the discussion be able to find common ground on both the rating and the interpretation of that rating. I think that's hard to do, but the more I can understand of your methods the more likely it is to resonate with me.

MisterWestside wrote:
This all ties into the concept of portability. Portability doesn't mean that you make a player play in ways that are contrary to their nature (like your Russell shooting perimeter shots example). No, portability is closer to what you suggested...it's the concept of how many situations and on how many different (but realistic) types of teams can a player make a maximal impact.

I reject the notion of portability simply because it brings value back into the mix (part of this concept includes looking at how many teams need your skills, which can vary). I do look at a player's versatility, however. And while versatility is part of a basketball player's goodness, it's also important to be dominant in those skills. Take two players, A and B. A is a so-so player in areas such as shooting and posting-up. B can't shoot, but he's an all-time great in the post. I would call B the better player, because B's dominance in his one skill offsets A's fringe talents across more skills. So, I take both versatility and dominance into account.

This sounds, to me, like a largely semantical argument that is sliding away from the point without really rebutting anything, and I don't understand your basis for rejecting the use of "value". Take your example. In most reasonable scenarios a player with an all-time great post game would measure out as a more impactful player than a "so-so player" who happens to be more versatile if all else were equal. If Player B is better, it should show up in his value over time. If, on the other hand, player B is an all-time great in the post as far as having outstanding moves but he's a black hole/ball-stopper that causes his team's offense to bog down and he also isn't very good on defense...while player A may be a so-so player as far as shooting and posting up but he's great at moving without the ball, setting picks and making excellent passes while playing excellent defense...then player A might just end up with the higher value in more scenarios, and if so I'd say he's the better player.

But either way, the way the player is able to translate their skill set into helping their team (and the ability to quantify that value) are crucial elements to determining that player's goodness. And I don't grasp yet where/why you disagree with that.

MisterWestside wrote:
In your LeBron example, he showed he could have a historical impact in his time in Cleveland and a still league-leading impact in his time in Miami which suggests very good portability. But the fact that pairing him with another high quality ball dominant wing lessens his impact shows that some of his package of goodness might reasonably be replicated on good teams and that thus his portability might not be as good as some others.

And this is exactly why I don't consider the concept of "portablility". In a league full of LeBron Jameses, his package of goodness can be reasonably replicated on good teams. That has nothing to do with James's goodness; it doesn't lessen it.

Think about Bill Russell, and the era he played in. Now think about the modern era, and the relatively larger number of athletic defenders that can more or less protect the rim and cover ground. Do you think he'd be as portable in the modern era, in which his package of goodness can be reasonably replicated on good teams? Do you think I'd rate him as a lesser basketball player because of it?

More later.

Something I've hammered on before is that we have to look at realistic scenarios. Barring a sudden evolution in mankind or some type of huge scientific advancement, there will never be a league full of LeBron Jameses. He is at the absolute extreme end of the genetic genepool. Now, it's fair IMO to ask how LeBron might look next to another great wing (like Wade, or Bryant, or Dr. J, or even Magic Johnson) because it is realistic for a good team to have that scenario. Similarly, it is fair to ask how Kareem or Russell might do on a team with another big that somewhat replicated their skill set as that's also possible. We've seen the Olajuwon/Sampson and Duncan/Robinson twin towers, so it's possible a team gets a crack at two of the top bigs of a given time period. So I think it's reasonable to consider that when looking at portability.

As far as your last question, I addressed a similar question from Mutnt. And in my response I pointed out that my comparisons of Russell to Walton, a player with a lot of similar skills to Russell that applied them in similar ways, suggested to me that Russell WOULD in fact have been able to replicate his impact in the exact era that the player he was being compared to at the time (Kareem) played.

And I've also pointed out that yes, I think Russell would be extremely portable in the modern game. Looking at realistic scenarios where at least one starting big slot is open, I can't imagine a team that wouldn't be immensely helped by an ultra-athletic 6-10 or 6-11 monster defender and rebounder that could also help facilitate the offense with passing skills without requiring shots. Not to mention that he's a basketball savant and coach on the floor. ESPECIALLY in this modern 3-point era where offenses can be more spread out and perimeter defenders have been neutered with the handcheck emphasis, a defensive big with the ability to cover huge amounts of space is vital, valuable and (still) a rare commodity. His best-in-the-game horizontal defense in conjunction with his other gifts would be a landscape changer these days. So yes, I think his portability would be intact in any era.

ceiling raiser · Post #43 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 7:30 am

lorak wrote:I see people are still voting for Russell, but no one explaind some key things and I would like Russell's supporters to do that:

- how do you explain Russell's first three seasons? why he didn't improve Celtics more than by ~1.5-2 SRS?

- how valuable were players like Joneses, Hondo, Sanders, Heinsohn or Howell? (it's important to understanting how much credit Russell should get for mid 60s Celtics teams)

- how do you explain that during last several years Celtics offense in the playoffs was as important as defense?

- what you think was Russell's offensive impact (and why you think so), especially in light of data presented by Colts (w/o Russell Boston's offense was very good), and thus what was his overall impact?

So here are the major changes in playing time (>10mpg) from year-to-year (SRS change, Rel_ORtg change, Rel_DRtg change in parentheses, negative is better for Rel_DRtg):

1956->1957 (+4.07, -2.3, -6.3)

Spoiler:

1957->1958 (+0.23, -0.4, -0.3)

Spoiler:

1958->1959 (+0.82, +0.1, -0.5)

Spoiler:

1959->1960 (+1.78, +0.6, -0.5)

Spoiler:

1960->1961 (-2.69, -3.3, -1.4)

Spoiler:

1961->1962 (+3.32, +1.9, -0.9)

Spoiler:

1962->1963 (-1.87, -1.4, 0.0)

Spoiler:

1963->1964 (+0.55, -1.6, -2.3)

Spoiler:

1964->1965 (-0.53, +1.8, +1.4)

Spoiler:

1965->1966 (-3.12, +0.1, +2.8)

Spoiler:

1966->1967 (+2.9, +4.0, +1.5)

Spoiler:

1967->1968 (-3.37, -2.5, +0.7)

Spoiler:

1968->1969 (+1.48, -0.6, -2.0)

Spoiler:

1969->1970 (-6.95, 0.0, +6.3)

Spoiler:

The major change in terms of both SRS and Rel_DRtg was from 1956-1957. Heinsohn, Russell, Phillip, and Ramsey were introduced.

There are minor improvements (and no major offensive changes) each year until 1960-61—Sanders' first year—when there's a bigger jump (coupled with a huge fall-off offensively). There's another sizable jump in his second year, which coincided with Sharman's and Conley's departure.

Havlicek comes in from 1962->1963, but there's no change defensively, and the team gets worse offensively. His minutes increased as seasons went on, so he may be linked to the offensive improvements in the playoffs.

There is a nice sized change from 1963->1964 after K.C. Jones takes over PG duties from Cousy. This could mean one of two things IMO:

1) Cousy, by the end of his career, was poor defensively, and it was addition by subtraction (note that Boston's offense got worse this year).
2) K.C. Jones playing PG allowed Boston to play completely differently on both sides of the ball.

The defense declines significantly the next three years (coinciding with Ramsey departing, Heinsohn departing/Nelson arriving, and Howell arriving), and decreases slightly when K.C. Jones retires (the offense also gets much worse, offsetting the huge gains from 1966->1967). From 1968->1969, the defense improved, before collapsing when Jones and Russell were replaced with Finkel and White.

1) The major change occurred with the arrival of Heinsohn, Russell, and Ramsey. I think the four dynasty Boston teams (57-60) played very similarly, and most of the roster changes were inconsequential. I don't think Heinsohn/Russell/Ramsey improved or declined substantially during these first four years.

2) Value of various players:

S. Jones - Not a huge part of Boston's offense at first, but a good defender, and a very clutch scorer. He was a bigger part of the offense after Cousy and Sharman left, and is probably a big part of the improved playoff offensive performances.

K. Jones - Second biggest part of Boston's defense IMO. In his books, Russell describes the two of them in college visualizing/hypothesizing myriad ways to deal with anything the offense can throw at them. Interestingly enough, when he leaves, the offense takes a bigger hit than the defense. Furthermore, each year after he takes over Cousy''s job, the defense gets worse (by good sized amounts). I think this is due to a combination of the beginning of Russell's decline, and the shock value wearing off from the first season with Jones starting in the backcourt.

Hondo - Doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the defense, though I think he, along with Sam Jones, was a big part of the offensive successes in the playoffs.

Sanders - The first appreciable jump after the first four years of the dynasty coincides with Sanders' arrival. I think he was responsible for a good portion of the defensive improvement, but some of it is probably Russell entering his prime.

Heinsohn - I'm not sure how I feel about him. The defense improved when he arrived, and got worse when he left. The thing is, those years coincide with Russell's arrival and decline as well. Very tough call.

Howell - Boston has its best offensive year with his arrival. That being said, he seems like he was very much the same player in the final three years of the dynasty, so I don't know if he was as valuable as Jones or Havlicek to the offense.

3) I think it's a combination of Russell's decline (perhaps partially due to the burden of coaching) and Jones/Havlicek being more featured in the offense. There seem to be three phases to the dynasty:

57-63: A lot of the same, with the focus shifting more towards defense (more defensive players are added to the roster, and Russell approaches his peak)
64-66: Jones replaces Cousy, stronger defensive lineup.
67-69: Russell as head coach. Each of the three seasons is very, very different. The first year, the defense continues to get worse, but the offense improves drastically (Russell names Havlicek captain halfway through the year). The next year, both the offense and defense get worse, with K.C. Jones retiring. The third season, by all accounts Russell has a throwback year, and the defense improves to near the same level it was when Auerbach was last coach

4) Well, I'm not quite sure. I think there are two possibilities:

Possibility 1 - He'd be a Marc Gasol like player. Not much analysis (more so playing with numbers), but looking at some RAPM data in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=40377344#p40377344

it's unlikely Russell would be so bad offensively that he would be in his own bucket, beyond the lowest group of qualifying players. I found Marc Gasol in the past two years to be the center closest to the middle of the lowest range, and according to GotBuckets, he's been a -0.65 (http://www.gotbuckets.com/statistics/rapm/2013-rapm-2/) and -1.33 (http://www.gotbuckets.com/statistics/rapm/2014-rapm/) in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

Possibility 2 - Boston's offensive strategy really distorted the offensive abilities of its players:

viewtopic.php?p=40285907#p40285907

since the goal was to take more shots, and not necessarily higher quality shots.

ThaRegul8r · Post #44 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 8:20 am

fpliii wrote:There is a nice sized change from 1963->1964 after K.C. Jones takes over PG duties from Cousy. This could mean one of two things IMO:

1) Cousy, by the end of his career, was poor defensively, and it was addition by subtraction (note that Boston's offense got worse this year).
2) K.C. Jones playing PG allowed Boston to play completely differently on both sides of the ball.

I'm saving posts and adding stuff I have around it, and Jerry West wrote of the '63-64 Celtics:

Jerry West wrote:Cousy, Ramsey, and Jim Loscutoff retired, and Willie Naulls was the only player of consequence they added, but I honestly believe this was the best team I’ve seen since I’ve been in the NBA.

Cousy was great. Unfortunately, I saw him only at the end of his career when he undoubtedly was past his peak, but I could see why he was regarded as the most spectacular little man ever to play in the NBA. He was a brilliant and flashy ballhandler and the greatest long passer I ever saw, though Oscar was and is the best short passer. Bob was also well regarded as a person, sort of the unofficial spokesman for the players in the league, so Boston undoubtedly missed his leadership. But he did not seem to me to be an outstanding defensive ball player and when Boston got K. C. Jones into the regular lineup, and off the bench where he was being wasted, the Celtics’ defense became tough all over the court, their greatest asset, and their team play seemed to pick up.
— Jerry West with Bill Libby, Mr. Clutch: The Jerry West Story [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969], p. 122

ceiling raiser · Post #45 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 8:21 am

Doctor MJ wrote:http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/chamberlain-theory-the-real-price-of-anarchy-in-basketball/

So for those not familiar with criticisms of Wilt, one thing I'd request you reed is my post above. I'd post the whole thing here but this is easier for me where I am.

I certainly understand the criticisms of Wilt (one being the impact trends, the other being concerns about how he'd translate into today's game as a scorer based on his low post technique), and he wouldn't be my pick over Russell, but there are a few questions I have...

1) How big of an issue was the lack of shooters on Wilt's early teams? Which guys were able to space the floor, to prevent defenders from cheating towards the paint? I think this is no longer an issue after the trade, but while playing for the Warriors, was this a huge problem (how does the lane widening before 64-65 figure into this)?

2) How do we feel about Wilt's "horizontal game" defensively? Obviously he doesn't approach Russell in that regard, but what about compared to Bucks Kareem (both in terms of Wilt before and after the injury in 69-70)? How about other all-time great defensive big men?

3) How do we feel about Wilt's longevity? In a different era, does he continue playing after his 72-73 season?

---

I don't think too highly about Wilt's first four years, as in addition to the spacing problem, I really feel like playing that first season with Hannum in SF helped Wilt develop as a player:

http://www.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/6086 ... hamberlain

Here are the playoff-only numbers (all columns should be self-descriptive except for the final two...O=ORtg-avgD, D=DRtg-avgO):

So, in a volume scoring role, Wilt only played two seasons with what seem to have been decent supporting casts of shooters, 65 and 66. The team was tremendous offensively in 65 (though they didn't deliver on defense), though in 66 this wasn't the case. Wilt was a no-show to Sixers' practices before each of the final two games of the Boston series. He had good shooting teammates, but they weren't hitting their shots this season.

Wilt from 64-69 (from when he was first coached by Hannum until the injury that ended his prime) is a very interesting player to study. Incredibly inconsistent in every way.
---

Anyhow, certainly not advocating Wilt over Russell, but I'm very curious about my questions above. I think it would take more time to do research than we have for this project, but if anyone has done an in-depth analysis regarding the impact of shooters on low-post isolation-heavy offenses, I'd definitely be interested in reading.

(BTW Doc, not asking you in particular to answer these questions.

I'm just thinking aloud mostly, trying to get an idea of where I stand on Wilt.)

ThaRegul8r · Post #46 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 9:30 am

fpliii wrote:So here are the major changes in playing time (>10mpg) from year-to-year (SRS change, Rel_ORtg change, Rel_DRtg change in parentheses, negative is better for Rel_DRtg):

[...]

Could you do the same for Wilt in Philadelphia? In my notes on Wilt/Shaq, I'd like to compare their defense, but basketball quantitative analysis lies outside my area of knowledge. Looking at my notes:

Spoiler:

With this, since we know Shaq anchored the best defense in the league in 2000, and the best postseason defense in 2001, I'd like to compare with Wilt, if possible.

ceiling raiser · Post #47 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 9:40 am

So, I was wondering about 56-57, since we have a lot of games without Russell.

In order to calculate estimates for ORtg/DRtg with and without Russell, we need four things, using B-R's methodology (http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20 ... 1951-1973/), Tm MP, Tm FGA, Tm FG, Tm FTA. We can get Tm MP based on the number of games and overtimes, and Tm FG is found here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... 7/gamelog/

Tm FGA and Tm FTA are a little tougher. What I did was sum up the FG and FT columns from the gamelog both before and after Russell starts playing (game 25 of the season), then did the following:

• divided FG sum before by Celtics FG% excluding Russell (.379) to get FGA before
• divided FT sum before by Celtics FT% excluding Russell (.784) to get FTA before
• divided FG sum after by Celtics FG% including Russell (.383) to get FGA after
• divided FT sum after by Celtics FT% including Russell (.750) to get FTA after

Just to double check, I calculated ORtg/DRtg over the whole sample, and my numbers were close enough to B-R:

For the estimates, the totals of the above over the 72 game season differ by +0.7 in pace, -0.1 in ORtg, -0.1 in DRtg. Not exact, but a decent enough calculation to play around with.

So in 56, Boston was +1.9 offensively, +1.4 defensively. In 57 before Russell comes in (but with Heinsohn), they were approximately +1.2 offensively, -2.7 defensively. With Russell plus Heinsohn, they were approximately -1.3 offensively, -6.1 defensively.

ceiling raiser · Post #48 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 10:09 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:
fpliii wrote:So here are the major changes in playing time (>10mpg) from year-to-year (SRS change, Rel_ORtg change, Rel_DRtg change in parentheses, negative is better for Rel_DRtg):

[...]

Could you do the same for Wilt in Philadelphia? In my notes on Wilt/Shaq, I'd like to compare their defense, but basketball quantitative analysis lies outside my area of knowledge. Looking at my notes:

Spoiler:
“All NBA teams win with their defenses now,” Red continues. “They learned its importance from the Celtics and now they all work at it. Even their scouting habits have changed. They still may send a man out to scout a boy because he’s a great shooter. But they also want that man to report on the boy’s quickness, ability to run backward, mental concentration and anticipation on defense.”

As far as the best defensive players in the league, Auerbach says the toughest centers to score against are former Kansas University star Wilt Chamberlain of the Philadelphia 76ers, Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics and Nate Thurmond of the San Francisco Warriors. Luke Jackson of the 76ers and Tom Sanders of Boston are rated as the best defensive forwards in the league. Lennie Wilkens of St. Louis and Wally Jones of the 76ers are Red’s guard picks.

Spoiler:
[T]heir defense, with Chamberlain clogging up the middle and Wally Jones pressuring the man with the ball, is outstanding. (Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 22, 1968)

There have been roughly five great defensive guards in the modern history of professional basketball and Lennie has to be one of them. Of the other four only Wally Jones of the Philadelphia 76ers is still active. Larry Costello quit in the middle of the season because of injuries. K.C. Jones retired last year and Slater Martin who always gave Cousy so much trouble stopped playing five or six seasons ago.
(Mar. 28, 1968)

“Even when 6ft. 9 in. Luke Jackson of the Philadelphia 76ers has a big scoring game, which is basically not his job, the superlatives invariably go to someone else. [...] This is the best defensive forward in pro basketball. Yet except for his teammates and those rival players he regularly intimidates he could go on being a nonentity for years.” (Apr. 18, 1968)

On Jerry West: “His defense, while not quite on a par with either Wally Jones (Philadelphia) or Lennie Wilkens (St. Louis), nevertheless shows at both ends of the floor.” (Apr. 29, 1968)

[Wally] Jones and New York's Walt Frazier are probably the two best defensive guards in the league.
(Nov. 17, 1970)

Wally Jones seldom starts in the backcourt anymore, a victim of Archie Clark's more consistent scoring. But Jones is still one of the best defensive men in the league.
(Dec. 16, 1969)

With this, since we know Shaq anchored the best defense in the league in 2000, and the best postseason defense in 2001, I'd like to compare with Wilt, if possible.

Sure thing:

1964->1965 (+3.62, +1.3, -2.3)

Spoiler:

1965->1966 (+4.29, -0.1, -4.0)

Spoiler:

1966->1967 (+4.34, +5.0, +1.2)

Spoiler:

1967->1968 (-0.54, -4.1, -3.4)

Spoiler:

1968->1969 (-3.17, +1.3, +4.0)

Spoiler:

Post #49 » by **Quotatious** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 10:32 am

Bill Russell is my vote here - I'm actually quite shocked that Kareem got the #2 spot over him, considering how clear-cut the #1 results were, with MJ getting 22 votes, BR 11 and KAJ just 4, thought it would translate to the #2 thread - I don't think I really have to lay out a ton of reasons for that - I could just as well quote my posts from the #1 or #2 threads, but I'll just say that Jordan, Russell and Kareem have been kind of an "immortal 3" for me, for quite some time, and while there's been some amazing discussion so far, it was basically all about Russ and Kareem, thus I don't see any reason to rank anyone over the guy who remained here - Russell.

john248 · Post #50 » by **john248** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 10:37 am

If I had a vote, I'd pick Bill Russell. He was a player so gifted defensively that it proved to be so dominant in his era even if offensively he wasn't on the level as some who came after him. Much has already been said about his vertical ability to protect the rim and horizontally covering a lot of ground while also leading his teammates on the defensive end. His dominance stayed the same even with roster changes and the league player pool as a whole changing due to more AAs in the league and the sport being viable to making a living off of. This only makes me disagree with those saying that a player who came after him, who may be an elite 2 way player, is better than Russell simply because they weren't as dominant.

If Wilt Chamberlain is regarded as one of the best offensive centers ever, Russell had his numbers. Numerous times I've seen on this forum of articles written about how Russell would at times outscore Wilt in the 1st half or limit Wilt to well below his season PPG for much of the game only to see Wilt score in garbage time to get his scoring numbers up. Then there are team DRTG and SRS ratings that show Russell's impact.

I don't penalize him due to era either. He closed his career with a title while the next season Kareem opened his with an MVP, who played in a weak 70s era. If I were to dock points to Russell, I'd likely have to do the same for Kareem and maybe even Jordan though I find myself not doing this because as a basketball player, Russell and players from his era still did great things even if rules, strategy, and athleticism are all ever evolving.

ThaRegul8r · Post #51 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 10:51 am

fpliii wrote:
ThaRegul8r wrote:
fpliii wrote:So here are the major changes in playing time (>10mpg) from year-to-year (SRS change, Rel_ORtg change, Rel_DRtg change in parentheses, negative is better for Rel_DRtg):

[...]

Could you do the same for Wilt in Philadelphia? In my notes on Wilt/Shaq, I'd like to compare their defense, but basketball quantitative analysis lies outside my area of knowledge. Looking at my notes:

Spoiler:
“All NBA teams win with their defenses now,” Red continues. “They learned its importance from the Celtics and now they all work at it. Even their scouting habits have changed. They still may send a man out to scout a boy because he’s a great shooter. But they also want that man to report on the boy’s quickness, ability to run backward, mental concentration and anticipation on defense.”

As far as the best defensive players in the league, Auerbach says the toughest centers to score against are former Kansas University star Wilt Chamberlain of the Philadelphia 76ers, Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics and Nate Thurmond of the San Francisco Warriors. Luke Jackson of the 76ers and Tom Sanders of Boston are rated as the best defensive forwards in the league. Lennie Wilkens of St. Louis and Wally Jones of the 76ers are Red’s guard picks.

Spoiler:
[T]heir defense, with Chamberlain clogging up the middle and Wally Jones pressuring the man with the ball, is outstanding. (Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 22, 1968)

There have been roughly five great defensive guards in the modern history of professional basketball and Lennie has to be one of them. Of the other four only Wally Jones of the Philadelphia 76ers is still active. Larry Costello quit in the middle of the season because of injuries. K.C. Jones retired last year and Slater Martin who always gave Cousy so much trouble stopped playing five or six seasons ago.
(Mar. 28, 1968)

“Even when 6ft. 9 in. Luke Jackson of the Philadelphia 76ers has a big scoring game, which is basically not his job, the superlatives invariably go to someone else. [...] This is the best defensive forward in pro basketball. Yet except for his teammates and those rival players he regularly intimidates he could go on being a nonentity for years.” (Apr. 18, 1968)

On Jerry West: “His defense, while not quite on a par with either Wally Jones (Philadelphia) or Lennie Wilkens (St. Louis), nevertheless shows at both ends of the floor.” (Apr. 29, 1968)

[Wally] Jones and New York's Walt Frazier are probably the two best defensive guards in the league.
(Nov. 17, 1970)

Wally Jones seldom starts in the backcourt anymore, a victim of Archie Clark's more consistent scoring. But Jones is still one of the best defensive men in the league.
(Dec. 16, 1969)

With this, since we know Shaq anchored the best defense in the league in 2000, and the best postseason defense in 2001, I'd like to compare with Wilt, if possible.

Sure thing:

1964->1965 (+3.62, +1.3, -2.3)
Spoiler:
L.Jackson(PF/C) +2590
W.Chamberlain(C) +1558
D.Gambee(SF) +1066
L.Costello(PG) +830
B.Warley(SF/PF) -840
P.Neumann(PG) -873
L.Shaffer(SF) -1013
R.Kerr(C) -1128

1965->1966 (+4.29, -0.1, -4.0)
Spoiler:
W.Jones(PG) +2196
W.Chamberlain(C) +2179
B.Cunningham(SF/PF) +2134
B.Warley(SF/PF) -894
D.Gambee(SF) -925
P.Neumann(PG) -1170
R.Kerr(C) -1810
L.Costello(PG) -1967

1966->1967 (+4.34, +5.0, +1.2)
Spoiler:
L.Costello(PG) +976
A.Biacnhi(PG) -1312

1967->1968 (-0.54, -4.1, -3.4)
Spoiler:
no major additions/subtractions

1968->1969 (-3.17, +1.3, +4.0)
Spoiler:
D.Imhoff(C) +3460
A.Clark(SG) +2144
B.Cunningham(SF/PF) +1269
L.Jackson(PF/C) -1730
W.Chamberlain(C) -3836

Thanks!

ThaRegul8r · Post #52 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 10:56 am

Quotatious wrote:Bill Russell is my vote here - I'm actually quite shocked that Kareem got the #2 spot over him

ThaRegul8r wrote:Russell will fall. #2 was the highest he could possibly reach, and he's going to fall with the next project. Some of the people who voted him #2 last time have lowered their opinions of him since then, which will help...
Kareem, who will rise to #2, taking Russell's spot. There are some people like MacGill who don't rank him highly, but more of the people in the project do, and there are people in the project like ronnymac2 and TrueLAfan who have him #1, so he'll finish behind Jordan

I would just like to take this opportunity to pat myself on the back for publicly calling it before the fact, as those were the only two spots I specifically gave a numerical ranking. It's satisfying to know my predictive abilities are still in tact.

john248 wrote:I don't penalize him due to era either. He closed his career with a title while the next season Kareem opened his with an MVP, who played in a weak 70s era. If I were to dock points to Russell, I'd likely have to do the same for Kareem and maybe even Jordan though I find myself not doing this because as a basketball player, Russell and players from his era still did great things even if rules, strategy, and athleticism are all ever evolving.

This can be hypocritical and selective, as people have said the '60s were a weak era, but then people have also said the 70's were a weak era because the talent was split between two leagues. And then—as I have the articles—people were saying the 90's were a diluted era as action was taking place rather than after the fact, but that doesn't get mentioned (unless it's by Kobe fans). Either Russell, Kareem and Jordan all get docked, or you evaluate what they did when they did it. People pick and choose when to use the "weak era" card depending on who they're defending.

Or maybe we can just say that since this is the best era, the best players now are the best ever because we already know what they could do today so there's no need to speculate. So LeBron, Durant, and go down the line.

ThaRegul8r · Post #53 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 11:23 am

TrueLAfan wrote:IWhat strikes me about Wilt is that he needed to be told things. And when he did what he was told, and it didn’t work out, he took the blame. That is not the dnmic personality suited to big game basketball. In the 1968 EC finals, when his teammates weren’t doing anything, Wilt kept passing them the ball. Yes, Alex Hannum should have said something. But Wilt was on the court. And Wilt was passive. Wilt should have done something.

Wilt sometimes gets a bad rap (like when Bill Simmons wrote, “nobody has any clutch stories about Wilt Chamberlain. If they existed, I’d pass some of them along” (The Book of Basketball, p. 79), evidently unaware of when Chamberlain led the Lakers back from a 3-1 deficit against Phoenix in 1970, blocking 10.1% of the Suns’ field-goal attempts over the last three games, or of his block of Norm Van Lier in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals that propelled the Lakers into the Finals in 1973) and unfair criticism. But one thing that's frustrating about him—which I've spoken on before in the past, and I remember ronnymac2 talked about in the last Top 100 Project—is how sometimes he couldn't see what needed to be done and do it. You're the player, you're the one on the court, so sometimes you need to identify what needs doing and do it.

Spoiler:

Michael Mandelbaum wrote:Because the game requires coordination, the basketball coach, the chief coordinator, exercises considerable control. Like the football coach, he has the responsibility for preparing his or her (unlike in football, many basketball coaches, usually of women’s teams, are women) players to play. As in football, he or she inculcates the necessary skills in practice sessions dominated by repetitive drills. Like the football coach, the basketball coach designs the offensive and defensive schemes that his or her team employs during games. Like his or her counterpart in football, the basketball coach sometimes orders that the team put into operation a particular play—a preset routine the purpose of which is to score.

Basketball coaches are important enough that, as in football, the team’s victories are credited to them. They are important enough that the most successful ones at the college level have remained at the same institutions for decades, compiling hundreds of victories and, like football coaches, in a few cases having the arenas in which their teams play named for them. Basketball coaches, like football coaches, write books and give lectures distilling the secrets of their successes on the court and applying them to other fields of endeavor, notably business.

Still, a basketball coach does not exercise as much authority as a football coach because, since basketball is a continuous game, he or she cannot dictate in advance everything a player does, as a football coach, who presides over a sequentially paced game, is able to do. The coaching staff in both sports, like the general staff of an army, is the brain of the organization. But a basketball team further resembles post-industrial organizations in that decisionmaking power is also decentralized rather than concentrated exclusively in the coaching staff. The need for spontaneous coordination partly shifts the power of decision making during a basketball game from the coach to the players.

ThunderDan9 · Post #54 » by **ThunderDan9** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 12:32 pm

Quotatious wrote: I'm actually quite shocked that Kareem got the #2 spot over him, considering how clear-cut the #1 results were, with MJ getting 22 votes, BR 11 and KAJ just 4, thought it would translate to the #2 thread

I'm just an eager reader of this great project... but that's a phenomenon which happened quite regularly in the last Top100 project as well. That's why I liked Elgee's proposal of voting in "5-unit-groups" (1-5, 6-10 etc.).
In this current format, it's not unlikely that some player A gets a bunch of votes for #1, comes in as second, then he is beaten for #2 again, then maybe for #3 again... etc. depending of the secondary/tertiary etc. preferences and the actual "head-to-head" matchups which shape the discussion and well... also some voting tactics.

Mutnt · Post #55 » by **Mutnt** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 1:38 pm

My vote for the #3 spot goes to: Bill Russell

I've been pretty vocal on Russell and how I think that his impact was highly affected by numerous things all mentioned in the last two threads and how I believe quite a few players are actually better than Russell but at the same time, it's not his fault things unfolded the way they did. He was put in a situation and he made the utmost out of it and for that I think he deserves to be celebrated as one of the greatest ever.

I'm happy putting him at #3 so we can move on because I'm really looking forward to future conversations regarding players that will follow. My three main candidates for the next three spots are Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan. To me those three separate themselves from the others.

Post #56 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 2:21 pm

Owly wrote: but for me the more credible pro-Russell voices are those that acknowledge his limitations.

Seems unnecessary, but OK.

I freely acknowledge he's not a great offensive player. I just refuse to believe he's incompetent.

Post #57 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 2:25 pm

ThunderDan9 wrote:
Quotatious wrote: I'm actually quite shocked that Kareem got the #2 spot over him, considering how clear-cut the #1 results were, with MJ getting 22 votes, BR 11 and KAJ just 4, thought it would translate to the #2 thread

I'm just an eager reader of this great project... but that's a phenomenon which happened quite regularly in the last Top100 project as well. That's why I liked Elgee's proposal of voting in "5-unit-groups" (1-5, 6-10 etc.).
In this current format, it's not unlikely that some player A gets a bunch of votes for #1, comes in as second, then he is beaten for #2 again, then maybe for #3 again... etc. depending of the secondary/tertiary etc. preferences and the actual "head-to-head" matchups which shape the discussion and well... also some voting tactics.

I don't think its that surprising nor do I think its necessarily nefarious. The guys who value offense/stats/skeptical of 60s basketball tended to take Mike and thus it shouldnt shock anyone that many of those votes converted over to KAJ. Note still many of those guys still arent voting Russell. He's a unique case and I can appreciate how some guys just don't think as highly of him.

Process still seems fine, especially if the guy who was attempting to manipulate isnt going to be participating any longer.

DQuinn1575 · Post #58 » by **DQuinn1575** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 3:34 pm

I vote for Bill Russell at #3

So far I've seen support for Wilt,Duncan,Magic,Hakeem, and Shaq

Those 5 were each MVP once on a championship team.

He was MVP of the league on 4 championship teams.
Only other player who has 4 is Jordan

I'll address some questions about him:

1956-1957
In 1956-57 Russell joined a 16-8 team that was better than any other team in the league.

After he joined them they went 28-20, a worse %, why:

1. Bob Cousy, the league MVP missed 8 of those games - they were 3-5 without him.
2. For whatever reason, the Celts with Russell were 3-6 against Syracuse, including one loss without Cousy. Maybe Red was setting them up, as the Celts swept Syracuse in the playoffs.
3. Red also coached the old Washington team in the BAA that had won 17 straight and had a great record but lost in the playoffs. The Celts won 10 straight early. I think Red might have learned that the goal is to win the playoffs and not the regular season.

OFFENSE
Russell was in the top of FG% his first years - most of the low FG% of the era was due to hurried offense and shot selection, not skill - Note the league shot 75.6% from the line in 1959 and 2014 - Also note the league average height went from 6-6 to 6-7 from 1964 to today - not really a big change.
Russell was a plus offensive player, just not a great one.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... stats.html

COMPETITION

In his last season, while past his prime, he outrebounded Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Elvin Hayes, and Walt Bellamy. All of them would probably be considered the best center in the league over Noah in the present day.

TEAMMATES

They were good - Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Cousy are all Top 100 players. They probably would have won a couple of titles without Russell, especially before Wilt, Oscar, and Baylor/West arrived. But my best guess is 3 without Russell, and I know 11 with him. Nobody else can give a with and without of 8, and no one can claim being the best player on 10 champions (I'll give Cousy the first one)

Greatness · Post #59 » by **Greatness** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 4:12 pm

Vote: Bill Russell

What can I say about him that hasn't already been said? He's the greatest winner in NBA history and completely dominated his era. While his era does have question marks, he still distanced himself from other players of that time with his success. Greatest defensive player of all time with unbelievable impact on that end. Also while not great on that end, he was an underrated offensive player. Great outlet passer, could run and finish the break, post up when needed. GOAT intangibles and mental toughness. Even MJ couldn't keep his mental edge after his first 3peat and needed a break. Russell reeled off 8 in a row and 11 out of 13.

I just can't see the justification for anyone else in this spot if we are truly comparing guys relative to their era (which is the best way to do this in my opinion). If this was a best player of all time list, I'm not sure where Russell would be ranked on my list (probably not too high). But since this is a greatest career list, he has to rank top 3 and I think this is the perfect spot for him. Not ahead of MJ or Kareem but no one else has a career that can compare.

Owly · Post #60 » by **Owly** » Fri Jul 4, 2014 4:32 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Owly wrote: but for me the more credible pro-Russell voices are those that acknowledge his limitations.

Seems unnecessary, but OK.

I freely acknowledge he's not a great offensive player. I just refuse to believe he's incompetent.

That comment isn't targeted (at you), it was just a general statement. Those who suggest Russell could do whatever might be required of him, that he was a Walton-like hub, that a low usage low percentage guy in his own era would translate into and efficient scorer today without any explanation of why, other than noting his athletic skills, the sort he shares with Ben Wallace (all arguments I've seen with Russell, though not together and not particularly here). The Wallace mention here isn't to say he's offensively strongly analogous with Russell only that athletic tools don't mean you'll be an efficient offensive player.

Though I would go a fair bit further than "not great".