RealGM Top 100 List #3

[MisterWestside]

Thanks for the response

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose about his mobility (I do think it was perhaps a greater asset for him than his rim protection, from what I've watched/read). In terms of comparisons to other all-time great defenders, I can definitely respect your opinion.

I'm a big skillset guy, and happen to think very highly of some guys from the era (have Russ as my GOAT, don't have a top 10 list really but I have Wilt as the best player after Russell and MJ, and Oscar as the GOAT PG), but do have an issue with some other other stars. But some players from that era do give me pause (and there are guys from any period prior to the present who give me pause as well). It's a tough balance though, I don't want to be inconsistent, and also am not incredibly confident in my scouting ability. But it's definitely fun and interesting to think about.

Oh, don't get me wrong; Russell could move around well. I'm sure you watched those famous clips of him blocking West's 15-foot jumper on the fast-break It's also Jerry West, though (a smaller player that he's more athletic than), and he still doesn't have to venture as far outside the paint as much. I'll also watch prime Olajuwon work like mad to chase a 7-footer out to the 3-point line, play perfect defense, and still get jumpers swished in his face. There's simply more athletic players, more creative players, more ways to attack the defense, more spacing, etc. Even if Russell takes advantages of the resources in this era, there are simply too many variables to assume that he'd just step in and dominate like he did in the '50s-'60s.

[SactoKingsFan]

I started out leaning towards voting for Wilt over Russell and Shaq due to Wilt’s GOAT level talent, rebounding and insane overall numbers. After re-reading several of the pro-Russell arguments and watching some more game footage, I’m now convinced that Russell was a slightly more impactful player than Wilt and Shaq.

In addition to having GOAT level defensive impact, I don’t think Russell would have had a negative offensive impact had he played in the modern NBA. As a 6’9” athletic freak (elite mobility, speed and vertical) who was also a great passer and offensive rebounder, Russell would most likely produce at least a marginally positive offensive impact.

Here’s some game footage that shows Russell’s athleticism, mobility and ball handling:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0#t=41[/youtube]


Although I can’t envision a modern version of Russell having much of a mid range game or very effective post moves, I could see him developing a decent/more efficient offensive game predicated on offensive rebounding, put backs, PnR and assists. IMO, Russell’s GOAT level defensive impact, intelligence and decent offensive production made him a slightly more impactful player than Wilt and Shaq.

VOTE: Bill Russell

[drza]

Re: Russell's impact, then and now

Then: Lorak has brought up some good questions about Russell's impact on those late 50s/early 60s Celtics. fpliii provided some very good information in response to those questions. Here are my current thoughts on the matter:

1) The previous body of evidence about Russell's defensive impact still holds sway for me in the face of the new information. Being able to trace the Celtics' success so directly to the team defense instead of the offense, having that defense so closely follow Russell's career, and having both the defense and the team success persist through more than a decade of interchanging parts still suggests strongly to me that Russell was the primary architect of that unit and the team's success.

2) Regarding 1959 in specific, I thought fpliii's post breaking down how the unit performances changed when Russell arrived was enlightening. Lorak has pointed out that the team was performing at a good level pre-Russell's arrival, which is both true and a fair point to raise. It also fits that (per fpliii's data) the pre-Russell team was having more success through the offense. Their personnel and improvements were primarily on the offensive side of the ball, led by their MVP point guard. However, I think the argument can also be made that there was not enough offensive upside with that unit to suggest that they could build a championship squad with that team make-up. There is gray area either way, but at the least I can say that there is no evidence that they could have built a championship squad in that way. Thus, though the team was successsful through those 24 games, I don't know that they had much upside.

On the other hand, according to fpliii's data, once Russell arrived we saw an immediate and pronounced change in the defense/offense ratio with the defense going from solid to elite. Lorak has focused on the net change with and without Russell, which is again both true and fair. However, the shift to the more defensive approach centered around Russell proved to be a championship-worthy model in that season. Thus, though there may have only been a small SRS improvement in the in/out data from 1959, I think it was a significant improvement because it improved the team to championship caliber.

Then, moving forward from 1959, we no longer have in/out data for Russell in a single season. However, we do know that the team results indicated a growing dependence on that elite defense that corresponded with consistently better and better team results along Russell's career arc. Taken as a whole, it makes sense to me that rookie Russell's overall impact was larger than the net result because his arrival allowed them to play their more defensive approach that the previous personnel didn't fit. This new approach raised the team's ceiling, and the impact of that defensive approach continued to grow from his rookie season on. I'll continue to evaluate if/when more data is brought to the table, but for now I'm still very satisfied that Russell's impact was real and massive...then.

Now. This has been a point of contention for many, who don't believe that Russell's impact would translate to the modern era. Translation isn't necessarily a required tenet for this project, but it is in play and I admit that it plays at least some part for me (e.g. it influences how I'll vote for Mikan in contrast to the way I'm voting Russell). So let me play out my thoughts on what Russell would look like these days.

I won't focus a ton on offense, because I think that's the area that requires the most speculation. We've seen these days that Kevin Love still has some success with outlet passing, that Joakim Noah has some positive results as a passing pivot from the high post, and that guys like DeAndre Jordan and Tyson Chandler have been able to forge a high efficiency/low usage living with mainly dunks and putbacks. So presumably these are some things that Russell could bring to the table. But we have no way to know whether Russell's other offensive skills might be more advanced if he came along today, and presumably even if it did he would still be primarily known for his defense. So let's get there.

If we look at Dr. MJ's spreadsheet of normalized RAPM results from 1997-98 to 2012, we get a good cross section of offensive and defensive RAPM values over a 15 year span in the modern NBA. The best 5-year offensive measurements over that span:

Steve Nash (average 5-year peak of normalized offensive RAPM: +9.1; avg. 3-year peak = +9.6)
LeBron James (5 yr pk avg: +8.1; 3 yr pk avg: +9.3)
Dwyane Wade (5 yr pk avg: +7.9; 3 yr pk avg: 8.7)
Shaquille O'Neal (5 yr pk avg: +7.6; 3 yr pk avg: 8.1)
Kobe Bryant (5 yr peak avg: +7.4; 3 yr pk avg: 7.8)

Overall: 5 yr peak avg: +8.0, 3 yr peak avg: +8.7

On the defensive side of things, excluding Jason Collins who had one massively measured year that skews his 5-year total, the best 5-year measurements over that span:

Dikembe Mutombo (5 yr peak avg +7.3; 3 yr peak avg = +8.7)
Kevin Garnett (5 yr peak avg +6.5; 3 yr peak avg = +7.1)
Tim Duncan (5 yr peak avg +6.2; 3 yr peak avg = 6.5)
David Robinson (old) (5 yr peak avg +6.2; 3 yr peak avg = 6.5)
Rasheed Wallace (5 yr peak avg +5.5; 3 yr peak avg = 5.7)
Ben Wallace (5 yr peak avg +5.5; 3 yr peak avg = 6.1)

Overall: 5 yr pk avg +6.2, 3 yr avg +6.8

A couple of observations:

*In general, the top offensive players measure out to have a bit more impact on offense than the top defensive players have on defense (by around 2 points).

*On the other hand, if you look at the 3 year peaks of Mutombo and KG, you see that they are much closer to the 3-year peaks of those top offensive stars. This is relevant because Mutombo has peak seasons prior to 1998 that may have been missed by the study, and KG's 3 year peak corresponded primarily to his time in Boston where he had a more defensive role even as his physical gifts eroded.

So now, let's look at Russell. By the measurement patterns of today he's 6-10 or 6-11, still an exceptional athlete in both the horizontal and vertical directions. At the very least, physically his gifts should closely replicate Garnett's. Stylistically, his horizontal game should also reasonably replicate Garnett's (pick and roll defense, area of help influence). However, Russell also was a demonstrated shot-blocker at least on the order of Mutombo. And if we're not postulating Russell to be a bigger offensive threat in today's NBA (which we didn't), then he should have at least the defensive emphasis of Mutombo or Celtics Garnett even while at his athletic peak. And Russell's genius about the game of basketball also translates.

Put those things together, and I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Russell's defensive impact could be as much higher than Mutombo's as Mutombo's was to Ben Wallace. Obviously I can't definitively state that this would be Russell's defensive impact, but based on my interpretation of the facts I speculate that to be a reasonable expected outcome. And if we use the marks that I described earlier, that would put modern-day Russell's peak defensive impact in the +11 - +12 range on this scale.

If you look at the total normalized RAPM results in the study, the top 3-year peak mark belongs to LeBron James at +11.8. Thus, playing out this thought experiment, I could very reasonably project modern-day Russell's defensive impact to be of a similar order to the highest peak overall impact we've seen in the past 15 years of modern NBA basketball. With the 3-point line. And modern rules.

Again, is this scientifically rigorous? Of course not...it couldn't possibly be. But I invite you to really work the experiment through on your own, and see if you come to a dramatically different conclusion. And again, Russell wouldn't have to have the same impact today as he did in his time to be worthy of a top vote. However, the fact that I can very reasonably project that he could have that level of impact makes it much easier for me to vote for him this high with confidence.

[lorak]

I don't understand. if their offense was result of defensive philosophy, then what it really changes? I mean, net impact matters, so if they sacrifaced some offense, to got better on defense, then why should we give them credit for defense, but at the same time don't penalize them for offense? SRS does exactly that, so why we can't?

That's the thing though, I disagree that their offense was a result of their defense philosophy, and don't believe they sacrificed offense for defense.

The style of defense they played enabled them to play an up-and-down tempo game, but it didn't force them to do so.

Two other teams for example that played pressure defense were the Holzman Knicks and the Chicago Bulls. Their press probably wasn't identical to the Celtics, but they also looked to execute in the half court. By the admission of Heinsohn and Havlicek (I linked the quotes earlier in this thread), Boston didn't care about their offensive efficiency because they had more possessions offensively than did their opponents. But, just because they chose to play that style (and it worked), doesn't mean they were pigeonholed into doing so.

But didn't they chose that style because of Russell? (if not, then what was the reason? Why team on purpose chose to play worse if can play better?) Bill was the reason why they had more possessions offensively than their opponents (what BTW, technically speaking isn't possible, because both teams have the same amount of possessions with +/-2 margin in a game), so it seems that with Russell their offense was result of their defense. And remember that every time Russell missed time, then Celtics offense was significantly better. All of that is IMO clear indicator that Russell negatively affected Boston's offense and so far I don't see reason to think otherwise.

SRS does penalize them, and rightfully so, because it gives us an idea of their level of play. But I do believe that their offensive philosophy marginalized their offensive talent, and did so independently of their defense.

Ok, but what are the reasons you believe so? Because honestly I don't see it and would like to change that.

Good point, we don't know that. They probably did play the fast break extensively, though Russell's rebounding/outlet passing perhaps enabled them to do so more. I can't say anything definitively here though, without evidence. I'll have to see if I can find anything (or maybe someone else has quotes) on how their fastbreak ran pre-Russell (which would probably be similar 57 before Russell played, unless Macauley was integral to their running of it).

So it seems like argument you used in previous post (2) They got somewhat better, but when Russell game in, he allowed them to play their fast break style, so they were playing like a completely different team. Now, if we can determine that there was no substantial playstyle change when Russell arrived after 24 games, that would be very telling.) doesn't have value right now? (no offense fpliii, I'm just trying to do it as much detailed step by step as possible.)

OTOH, that's one data point...and Russell's just a rookie. I can still view him a +3 or +4 player while still thinking he only maybe brought an additional 1-point boost or so to a top-shelf team.

Why you think he was +3 or +4 player as a rookie? Could you explain step by step your reasoning here, how did you came to such conclusion?

[magicmerl]

But didn't they chose that style because of Russell? (if not, then what was the reason? Why team on purpose chose to play worse if can play better?)

In a game where the first team to score wins, a bad team is much more likely to beat a better team (still less than 50%, but almost a coin flip). But if those two teams play each other for a million possessions, it's overwhelmingly likely that the minor edge the better team has will be reflected in the final score.

The more possessions there are in a game, the lower the variance. So if you are the better team then theoretically, you want to have more possessions to increase your chances of winning. That sounds to me like a reason for wanting to play in a way that increases the number of total possessions.

[lorak]

But didn't they chose that style because of Russell? (if not, then what was the reason? Why team on purpose chose to play worse if can play better?)

In a game where the first team to score wins, a bad team is much more likely to beat a better team (still less than 50%, but almost a coin flip). But if those two teams play each other for a million possessions, it's overwhelmingly likely that the minor edge the better team has will be reflected in the final score.

The more possessions there are in a game, the lower the variance. So if you are the better team then theoretically, you want to have more possessions to increase your chances of winning. That sounds to me like a reason for wanting to play in a way that increases the number of total possessions.

True. But did they know that at the end of the 50s?

[ceiling raiser]

But didn't they chose that style because of Russell? (if not, then what was the reason? Why team on purpose chose to play worse if can play better?) Bill was the reason why they had more possessions offensively than their opponents (what BTW, technically speaking isn't possible, because both teams have the same amount of possessions with +/-2 margin in a game), so it seems that with Russell their offense was result of their defense. And remember that every time Russell missed time, then Celtics offense was significantly better. All of that is IMO clear indicator that Russell negatively affected Boston's offense and so far I don't see reason to think otherwise.

I'm not sure exactly why they chose it, perhaps they were indeed using it before he arrived as well?

Regarding the number of offensive possessions, that's true, sorry. Maybe I should've said scoring opportunities instead (since offensive rebounds extend possessions, and forced turnovers still count as possessions).

Ok, but what are the reasons you believe so? Because honestly I don't see it and would like to change that.

I feel this way because of the Heinsohn/Havlicek quotes, the existence of other pressure defenses who didn't necessarily use a quantity-over-quality philosophy in terms of shooting (Holzman Knicks, Jackson Bulls), and the fact that the offensive results don't seem consistent with the offensive talent (though the last reason admittedly might not be very good).

So it seems like argument you used in previous post (2) They got somewhat better, but when Russell game in, he allowed them to play their fast break style, so they were playing like a completely different team. Now, if we can determine that there was no substantial playstyle change when Russell arrived after 24 games, that would be very telling.) doesn't have value right now? (no offense fpliii, I'm just trying to do it as much detailed step by step as possible.)

No offense taken. That italicized statement is still valid, but when I mentioned playstyle I was referring not to just the fast break, but the fact that they'd take the first available shot offensively. Though I guess those are pretty similar, I feel like you can still play a lot of fast break basketball without taking as many bad shots as they did (I posted the relative FG% of non-Russell players in thread #1, and it didn't match their offensive reputations as a whole...though as I said, relying on offensive reputations might not be a good idea maybe).

[ceiling raiser]

BTW do we have WOWY numbers for Heinsohn and Ramsey? I think they would be useful in helping get an idea about the first few Celtics teams.

(Also, I have an early tee time soon, so apologies in advance if I don't respond immediately to posts. )

[batmana]

I voted Bill Russell for No. 2. Since he didn't win it and my mind hasn't changed on this one, I am voting him for No. 3.

My vote goes to Bill Russell.

I'd like to point out that I am voting Russell here (and have him No. 2 on my list) because this is a "Greatest" list, and not a "Best" list. I genuinely believe several players (Shaq, Duncan, Kareem, Wilt, probably Hakeem) were better players than him but he gets a little benefit from his era (which I don't doubt any of the abovementioned could have dominated if they had the chance) and from winning an insane number of titles. Please, don't take this as "I'm voting Russell here only because of 11 titles" but certainly I am voting him higher than I would have if he had only 2 titles.

I am already considering my next votes and I'd like to mention that even though Kareem was voted at No. 2, I still have him below Shaq and Duncan on my list. After reading this thread, I think Duncan may have climbed over Shaq (I knew that Duncan outscored Shaq in their meetings but I had forgotten that he outscored him in their playoff matchups which is huge for me). I guess I'll get into this argument in the next thread though.

Just to reiterate why I'm voting Russell here - he is probably the GOAT defender and arguably one of the 2-3 GOAT rebounders ever; he is one of the greatest leaders; he performed at an incredible level throughout his career; he won when his team was expected to win, and when it was expected to fail; he won again and again with different supporting casts; he was truly an extension of the head coach on the floor. He found ways to beat his biggest rival Wilt almost every time despite Wilt being insanely dominant on his own. Unlike Shaq, Russell kept his fire, he didn't have off-years and found ways to impact the game even beyond his basketball abilities. He is (in my book) surpassed only by the one player who was comparable as a leader, as a winner and was clearly a better basketball player and that is Michael Jordan.

[Baller2014]

Since Russell is going to win, I'm going to save most of my anti-Shaq arguments for the next thread, but I think anyone who plans to vote for Shaq next time around needs to really look at his negatives, and ask what sort of a penalty they're invoking for all his antics. Much later in this project, the same sort of question needs to be asked about guys like Kobe too. Wilt's problems are about as bad as Shaq's issues. I always want to be careful with factoring this into a player evaluation, because it's hard to measure fairly, and as long as they perform on the court I'm cool. However, in the case of Shaq, Wilt and especially Kobe, it led to serious on-court negatives that are well documented. I don't see how we can ignore those things.

[Owly]

So you didn't even read my post in previous thread ;(, because if you did, you would have know, that Celtics in 1957 were already about 3.5 SRS team BEFORE Russell joined them. And it was so because of additions of Heinsohn and Phillips.

.

No I did read it. Did you read where I pointed out that the SRS the previous 2 full seasons showed the team to be considerably worse than with Russell? Do you really expect everyone to just automatically agree that your very small sample to start his rookie year is more telling than what happened over a much more meaningful period of time.

The thing is you didn't acknowledge the point, so it would be easy to interpret that as not having read it.

And people are discussing Russell with/without numbers with a very similar number of games (25-28) over the rest of his career as evidence of his impact. Are you going to argue that too.

And the reason I personally would advocate taking '57 in an albeit limited sample over '56 and '55 is that it bears a much greater resemblence to the Russell teams. Sure Cousy and Sharman are there (and Dick Hemric remains in the same, small, role), but (from '56) Macauley is gone, Nichols' minutes are significantly cut (32.7 to 22.5 mpg), Risen plays only 43 games, Loscutoff's minutes are up by almost ten a game, Ernie Barrett is gone, Red Morrison is gone and Togo Pallazi's already low minutes are substantially cut.

In come Heinsohn and Phillip, later Ramsey and Russell. It's a stretch to claim that '56 makes an accurate baseline when there's so much roster/rotation turnover in all but the starting backcourt.

With/without is noisy. And what's being (attempted to be) gauged here is his rookie impact, which you would expect to grow. But with such a huge reputation and it being primarily based upon team success it's important that credit is apportioned accurately.

My vote count (assuming all votes are counted)
Russell: 18 (+2 pre-voters)
fpliii
Texas Chuck
PCProductions
magicmerl
SactoKingsFan
Doctor MJ
JordansBulls
penbeast0
DHodgkins
GC Pantalones
TrueLAfan
Quotatious
Mutnt
DQuinn1575
Greatness
ardee
RSCD3_
batmana

Chamberlain: 3
Owly
Gregoire
trex_8063

Shaq: 3
colts18
RayBan-Sematra
therealbig3

Hakeem: 1
90sAllDecade

Magic:1
Basketballefan

Duncan:1
Baller2014

So Russell here is a given, though the debate should continue to be interesting. The other options are split, and with Russell taking such a large proportion of votes, 4th is wide open.

[Gregoire]

Since Russell is going to win, I'm going to save most of my anti-Shaq arguments for the next thread, but I think anyone who plans to vote for Shaq next time around needs to really look at his negatives, and ask what sort of a penalty they're invoking for all his antics. Much later in this project, the same sort of question needs to be asked about guys like Kobe too. Wilt's problems are about as bad as Shaq's issues. I always want to be careful with factoring this into a player evaluation, because it's hard to measure fairly, and as long as they perform on the court I'm cool. However, in the case of Shaq, Wilt and especially Kobe, it led to serious on-court negatives that are well documented. I don't see how we can ignore those things.

How do you evaluate Shaqs peak impact? Was 2000 Shaq top-3 peak? Who you would choose ahead of his 2000 version?

[trex_8063]

Despite the lesser voter turnout for this one, if that is indeed the count I might suggest we award Russell #3 and move on (in the interest of finishing the project before the 2015 playoffs have started).

[Baller2014]

Shaq's peak impact was great, for the year or so it lasted. After that the consequences of being that big hit him hard with constant niggling injuries.

Then there is the off the court stuff. Do people understand just how ridiculous some of Wilt and Shaq's antics were? They clearly hurt their teams play at different points with their selfishness.

[ThaRegul8r]

Since Russell is going to win, I'm going to save most of my anti-Shaq arguments for the next thread, but I think anyone who plans to vote for Shaq next time around needs to really look at his negatives, and ask what sort of a penalty they're invoking for all his antics. Much later in this project, the same sort of question needs to be asked about guys like Kobe too. Wilt's problems are about as bad as Shaq's issues. I always want to be careful with factoring this into a player evaluation, because it's hard to measure fairly, and as long as they perform on the court I'm cool. However, in the case of Shaq, Wilt and especially Kobe, it led to serious on-court negatives that are well documented. I don't see how we can ignore those things.

I'm into a balanced evaluation, so I've been taking points down from the pros and cons for further deliberation to see if I can come up with what I find to be acceptable ranges for players if I put a list together. There are issues though, with all three that I have.

I don't have an all-time list; I haven't done anything more than rank two players relative to each other. But:

I suppose if I were to write it down it would look something along the lines of:

1) the ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one's team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, and the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose.
2) the ability to both identify what the team needs at any given moment in order to realize the ultimate objective of winning and provide it.
3) possession of the rational self-interest to put aside ego in order to do #1, and #2, disregarding the opinions of irrelevant others who are not on the team and so have no effect on the team's success.
4) the ability to block out distractions and anything irrelevant to the maximization of the team's chances of victory.
5) the ability to raise one's game during big games and crucial moments in order to bring about the ultimate objective of winning, and the mental fortitude to do so.

I'll think to see if I've missed anything I consider relevant, or whether any of the criterion needs further refinement.

How much they help their team win.

That's the only thing I care about. I couldn't care less about stats, as they're team-dependent, which few people seem to realize. And doing what your team needs to win may require sacrificing individual stats. A player is not lowered in my evaluation for putting the needs of the team above his own stats. On the contrary, it shows he has the right priority.

Rings are only relevant so far as the player's contribution to his team winning the title that year. For instance, Mitch Richmond has a ring, but he made no contribution to it. His presence was irrelevant as far as his team winning the title that year, as he played all of four minutes that postseason. So the ring he won is just as irrelevant to me as he was to the Lakers that year. A ring means a player's team won it all, but I want to know what the player's contribution to that ring was. Richmond didn't contribute to his, so he gets no "boost" against a ringless player. I don't care about a player bandwagoning his way to a title. Just going along for the ride means nothing to me.

I don't care how a player helps his team win, I only care that he does it. I want him to use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. Different players have different abilities, so the means employed will vary. I'm interested in results.

Since I'm only interested in how a player helps his team win, that means I'm looking at that player's performance. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player doesn't get a boost for his teammate bailing him out.

Focusing on anything other than helping your team win lowers a player in my evaluation. Your job is to help your team win. That's it. Nothing else matters or is relevant. These players are grown men, and they make choices. They have the right to make whatever choice they want, but with action comes consequence. I will honor that choice and evaluate them on the basis of that choice, whether it's beneficial or detrimental to the team's chances of winning.

I don't need an award to tell me how much a player helped his team win. An example I often use is the 1970 NBA Finals. I don't need any award to tell me that Walt Frazier made the biggest contribution to help his team win, and I evaluate him accordingly. That he didn't win an award means nothing to me.

I believe that covers it, unless something comes to me later that I've missed.

All three of them lack something on my criteria, and I haven't decided where I would put them relative to each other.

[lorak]

I'm not sure exactly why they chose it, perhaps they were indeed using it before he arrived as well?

I'm 99% sure they did. And I think it was way before 1957, actually Celtics used fast break style since Cousy's second year:

Code: Select all

Season    SRS       Pace    Rel_Pace ORtg    Rel_ORtg    DRtg    Rel_DRtg       
1971-72    4,4      116,1   4,1      99,3   1,4      95,2   -2,7
1970-71    2,3      120,2   5,1      97,0   -0,2      95,3   -1,9
1969-70    -1,6      117,5   0,4      97,3   -1,7      98,9   -0,1
1968-69    5,4      117,5   0,6      93,8   -1,7      89,1   -6,4
1967-68    3,9      121,1   1,3      95,7   -1,1      92,4   -4,4
1966-67    7,2      121,2   -0,4      97,5   1,4      91,0   -5,1
1965-66    4,3      122,0   0,6      92,3   -2,6      88,3   -6,6
1964-65    7,5      123,6   6,3      90,9   -2,7      84,2   -9,4
1963-64    6,9      125,0   8,2      90,1   -4,5      83,8   -10,8
1962-63    6,4      127,3   7,7      93,0   -2,9      87,4   -8,5
1961-62    8,3      130,8   4,6      92,1   -1,5      85,1   -8,5
1960-61    4,9      134,4   6,7      88,7   -3,4      84,5   -7,6
1959-60    7,6      136,3   10,2      91,0   -0,1      84,9   -6,2
1958-59    5,8      128,7   9,8      89,5   -0,7      84,5   -5,7
1957-58    5,0      124,8   5,1      88,0   -0,8      83,6   -5,2
1956-57    4,8      118,0   6,9      88,5   -0,4      84,0   -4,9
1955-56    0,7      114,5   5,7      92,2   1,9      91,7   1,4
1954-55    0,0      108,6   5,7      93,0   3,2      93,0   3,2
1953-54    2,0      93,0   3,0      92,5   5,0      90,0   2,5
1952-53    1,9      94,7   2,3      91,7   3,7      89,3   1,6
1951-52    3,6      100,0   4,9      90,4   3,5      86,4   -0,5
1950-51    -0,4      95,9   -1,5      87,3   2,2      87,6   2,5



Of course with Russell or maybe rather with Heinsohn, Russell and Ramsey (in that order) they played even faster, but it wasn't anything new for that team. And look how they played fast before Russell and how offense regressed when Bill joined team. And then how pace fall down after 1965, but offense was still bad, even worse than in late 50s. All that (+ Colts data I presented in previous thread) indicates that Russel's impact on offense was negative and we can't justify it by saying that "this was Celtics philosophy".

BTW, I'm in the process of rewatching all available Celtics games and Russell is nothing close to Marc Gasol as a passer. The main difference is that even late Russell played most of the time with his back back to the basket. I mean, typical Celtics set with Russell as passer looked that he got the ball at FT line and had basket behind his back. Gasol (or Walton for that matter, to whom Bill also was compared as passer) usually plays face up game, what is far more valuable, because he sees much more floor that Russell did. Marc is also a threat as midrange shooter and he quite often uses it to fakes defender and then he dribbles into the paint and defense collapses - that's really good creation wise, Russell didn't do it. And yet Gasol is negative offensive player according to RAPM.

Other way bigs can impact offense is offensive rebounding. But from data we have (Dippers "shot charts" thread) Russell averaged about 3.5 ORB per 100 possessions. That's not much, for example Tyson Chandler (to whom Bill also was compared) averages 5.8 in a career (and last several years is negative or slightly positive on offense according to RAPM). Russell obviously also wasn't a scorer, wasn't dangerous from outside of rim area and basically his biggest offensive weapon was transition and some sort of p&r game (but they didn't use it often back then). So from watching game tape I really don't see from where positive offensive Russell's impact was coming from. I don't see it when I watch games or when analyze available data. With defense it isn't the case, as it's seen in both: data and game tape.

[ThaRegul8r]

Shaq's peak impact was great, for the year or so it lasted. After that the consequences of being that big hit him hard with constant niggling injuries.

Then there is the off the court stuff. Do people understand just how ridiculous some of Wilt and Shaq's antics were? They clearly hurt their teams play at different points with their selfishness.

I've been looking at the arguments, and I have a question that I suspect won't be answered, as people will naturally present their side as favorably as possible while going after the other side.

With selective talk of competition and era, it must be done across the board if it's going to be done and not just for the opposing candidate. I addressed this on my Wilt/Shaq post when I tried to lay out some pros and cons, but no one's touched it.

At the time the Lakers' season opened on November 2 for the 1999-2000 season, Shaq was was 27 years, 241 days old.

• Olajuwon was 36 years, 285 days old
• Robinson was 34 years, 88 days old
• Ewing was 37 years, 89 days old

• Mutombo was 33 years, 130 days
• Mourning was 29 years, 267 days old
• Wallace was 25 years, 53 days old

Now.

Top opponent Center FG% defense from 98-13:
00 Lakers: 40.7 FG% (Shaq)
99 Spurs: 41.1 FG% (Duncan/Robinson)
99 Hawks: 41.9 FG% (Mutombo)
Shaq’s teams finished #1 in 00 and 05, #2 in 01, 02 and #3 in 98 and 06.

Looking at the ages of the centers who were Shaq's competition for All-NBA teams before he reached his absolute peak in '00, what two-way center was there to contend with a 27-year-old 7-1, 330 lb Shaq at the height of his powers in order for the Lakers' opponent center field defense statistic to be meaningful? Help defense is fine, as disrupting the opposing team's offense will help your team win, but as the opposing centers (individual matchup) are specifically mentioned, that's something in my notes that will need answering in order to help me make up my mind on this. Especially since eras and competition, specifically, has been brought up as a point.

I've been reading some posters talk about two-way centers that will make x center work. So, with that, my question is, who, looking at the ages listed above, was going to make Peak Shaq—playing the best defense he ever would over the course of a full season—work on defense? Feel free to add any pertinent name I may have missed, along with their age as of the '99-00 season. Man defense is specifically a point brought up for Shaq, yet, at his zenith, all the great offensive centers as of '99-00 are on the wrong side of 30. Mourning and Wallace are defenders. Shaq's at his peak. This is a detail I find lacking in the case I'm reading in my notes.

I'll leave it at that right now to keep it simple.

[Baller2014]

Just to refer back to a post I made on Wilt earlier on thread #2:

Wilt was happy as long as everyone was willing to call him “the best individual player”, he got his stats, and he got his money. Here’s a guy who openly called the NBA a “bush league”, didn’t care who he played for as long as he got the most money, who feuded with coaches, and was often booed by his own teams fans. Some of the stuff Wilt pulled is surreal. If he’d tried it today, he’d have been the most hated player in the NBA. For instance, when playing for Philly Wilt informed the team he wouldn’t live in Philly… because he wanted to party it up on NY, where he would often stay up all night and sleep with some of the 20K women he enjoyed in his lifetime. So Wilt commuted into Philly each day they had a game or practise, then commuted back. The team had to move practises to the evenings and afternoons to accommodate Wilt’s schedule. Wilt would run up to scorers and tell them “you counted that right? That was a rebound”. He wasn’t dumb, he knew big records and gaudy padded numbers would get him bigger contracts. Once Wilt was in a contract dispute with ownership, and watched the games from the stands with a faux injury. One game Wilt was annoyed at the team’s play, and bored, so he jumped off the stands and had the coach sub him in to play the 2nd half. Ridiculous. He finally started to get it and focus on D and rebounding and team ball later in his career, but as soon as that team dominated to win a title in 67 he started to talk his way out of town, and was gone by 69.

Shaq's just as bad. Here's a guy who came into every new situation with all the goodwill in the World. The Magic were thrilled to have him, the Lakers loved him, the Heat gave him the key to the city before he played a game with them, etc, etc. Yet in every case Shaq burnt all his bridges and left the teams on bad terms, usually after falling out with the team. A lot of this spilled out into on the court stuff too, and while he didn't cause half as many problems as Kobe, it's hard to understate how many he caused. Like Kobe, Shaq tried to force his way to the Lakers before he played a single game in the NBA. I won't hold that against him, but his constant talk of going to LA after he was on the Magic? I'll hold that against him for sure. Heck, it was only after 1 year on the Magic that his first book came out (Shaq Attack), in which he basically threw Orlando under a bus and said he yearned to play for the Lakers. It was pretty incredible stuff. He demanded trades multiple times, took games off, missed time, lazed about on D and stopped boxing out or running up and down the court as much, chewed out team mates, cheated his physicals, etc, etc. There was a lot of underachievement with Shaq.

[ceiling raiser]

I'm not sure exactly why they chose it, perhaps they were indeed using it before he arrived as well?

I'm 99% sure they did. And I think it was way before 1957, actually Celtics used fast break style since Cousy's second year:

Code: Select all

Season    SRS       Pace    Rel_Pace ORtg    Rel_ORtg    DRtg    Rel_DRtg       
1971-72    4,4      116,1   4,1      99,3   1,4      95,2   -2,7
1970-71    2,3      120,2   5,1      97,0   -0,2      95,3   -1,9
1969-70    -1,6      117,5   0,4      97,3   -1,7      98,9   -0,1
1968-69    5,4      117,5   0,6      93,8   -1,7      89,1   -6,4
1967-68    3,9      121,1   1,3      95,7   -1,1      92,4   -4,4
1966-67    7,2      121,2   -0,4      97,5   1,4      91,0   -5,1
1965-66    4,3      122,0   0,6      92,3   -2,6      88,3   -6,6
1964-65    7,5      123,6   6,3      90,9   -2,7      84,2   -9,4
1963-64    6,9      125,0   8,2      90,1   -4,5      83,8   -10,8
1962-63    6,4      127,3   7,7      93,0   -2,9      87,4   -8,5
1961-62    8,3      130,8   4,6      92,1   -1,5      85,1   -8,5
1960-61    4,9      134,4   6,7      88,7   -3,4      84,5   -7,6
1959-60    7,6      136,3   10,2      91,0   -0,1      84,9   -6,2
1958-59    5,8      128,7   9,8      89,5   -0,7      84,5   -5,7
1957-58    5,0      124,8   5,1      88,0   -0,8      83,6   -5,2
1956-57    4,8      118,0   6,9      88,5   -0,4      84,0   -4,9
1955-56    0,7      114,5   5,7      92,2   1,9      91,7   1,4
1954-55    0,0      108,6   5,7      93,0   3,2      93,0   3,2
1953-54    2,0      93,0   3,0      92,5   5,0      90,0   2,5
1952-53    1,9      94,7   2,3      91,7   3,7      89,3   1,6
1951-52    3,6      100,0   4,9      90,4   3,5      86,4   -0,5
1950-51    -0,4      95,9   -1,5      87,3   2,2      87,6   2,5



Of course with Russell or maybe rather with Heinsohn, Russell and Ramsey (in that order) they played even faster, but it wasn't anything new for that team. And look how they played fast before Russell and how offense regressed when Bill joined team. And then how pace fall down after 1965, but offense was still bad, even worse than in late 50s. All that (+ Colts data I presented in previous thread) indicates that Russel's impact on offense was negative and we can't justify it by saying that "this was Celtics philosophy".

BTW, I'm in the process of rewatching all available Celtics games and Russell is nothing close to Marc Gasol as a passer. The main difference is that even late Russell played most of the time with his back back to the basket. I mean, typical Celtics set with Russell as passer looked that he got the ball at FT line and had basket behind his back. Gasol (or Walton for that matter, to whom Bill also was compared as passer) usually plays face up game, what is far more valuable, because he sees much more floor that Russell did. Marc is also a threat as midrange shooter and he quite often uses it to fakes defender and then he dribbles into the paint and defense collapses - that's really good creation wise, Russell didn't do it. And yet Gasol is negative offensive player according to RAPM.

Other way bigs can impact offense is offensive rebounding. But from data we have (Dippers "shot charts" thread) Russell averaged about 3.5 ORB per 100 possessions. That's not much, for example Tyson Chandler (to whom Bill also was compared) averages 5.8 in a career (and last several years is negative or slightly positive on offense according to RAPM). Russell obviously also wasn't a scorer, wasn't dangerous from outside of rim area and basically his biggest offensive weapon was transition and some sort of p&r game (but they didn't use it often back then). So from watching game tape I really don't see from where positive offensive Russell's impact was coming from. I don't see it when I watch games or when analyze available data. With defense it isn't the case, as it's seen in both: data and game tape.

You raise some interesting points. I'm not sure how I feel about the passing (though the faceup vs back to the basket point is interesting), I'll have to rewatch tape. Regarding the offensive rebounding, I wonder if it's a sample bias, though if it is, that would just take away from his defensive rebounding (which would no longer be at 30%+ with higher offensive rebounding). I wonder if on a slower team, the offensive rebounding would be more of a strength for him.

My questions for you:

1) I've seen one or two clips of Russell driving to the basket. Was this a legitimate weapon for him from what you've seen? Or we're these just rare plays? How do we feel about Russell's ball handling in general?

2) Do you think Russell's offense was consistent, or do you think it changed over the years?

3) What sort of big men do you think Russell is comparable to offensively in the RAPM era? Somebody recently made the claim that bigs have a greater range of value on defense when compared to perimeter players (i.e. a bad defensive big will hurt you a lot more than a bad defensive perimeter player). Do you agree with this, and if so, do you think the opposite holds for offense (that is to say, perimeter players have a greater range of value on offense than do bigs, and a bad offensive perimeter player hurts you more than a bad offensive big)?

[DannyNoonan1221]

My vote is for Chamberlain Most of my argument has been spit out already regarding his numbers. I'm still unclear as to why Russell gets every benefit of the doubt and Wilt gets the back seat consistently. While Russell anchored the more successful TEAM, this is an individual list. And I know you guys have been really hashing out the impact of each player but it's still not enough to convince me otherwise.

Chamberlain was massive- and as much as you can say Russell was a great athlete, I personally think Wilt was/is the greatest Athlete of all time. The guy was 7' 2", an unbelievable track athlete, volleyball player and stronger than arnold. I don't care what era he played in- those things are carrying over for the rest of time.

I guess i'm not so upset that Russell is going to get the 3 spot. He did what a lot of basketball fans love- work hard, play unbelievable defense and win. While Wilt on the other hand did everything that people tend to despise- care about numbers, embrace the fame and lose (if you count winning two titles losing). I think these filters that people tend to have while analyzing them is understandable but at the same time unfair for a project such as this.

But I truly believe that supports wilt's case. While he will always be remembered for maybe not maxing out his potential, lacking the killer instinct and losing to russell, for almost all of the players on this list those things would have been enough to knock them back into the 20s or 30s in this list and left them championship-less. But Wilt is so superior he is still a top 3 GOAT in many peoples' eyes and won 2 titles.

And I don't even want to start on my anti-shaq speech. I cannot believe Shaq would be mentioned in this spot. For all the parts of Wilt that have knocked him from the number 3 spot, Shaq is identical with less talent but somehow people are ignoring those factors. Doesn't make sense and is certainly not fair to Wilt. If Wilt falls out of the top 5, in my opinion, Shaq better not crack the top 15.