Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[trex_8063]

If we are going to level the time playing field then let's level the height playing field.
But that is not fare to Larry bird who had slow feet. So let's level the speed playing field.

Now everybody has the advantage of modern training, everybody is seven feet tall and everybody is as quick as Iverson; so now who is the GOAT after we have leveled everything but skill level? Wait to be fare In need to level faking ability and shooting touch and every other advantage players have. I need to bring everybody up to the good aspect of Rodman's emotional intensity while simultaneously removing from everybody the bad aspects of Rodman's emotional intensity.

Now that everybody is equal seven foot seven robots with equal speed and equal skills and equal attitudes who is the GOAT.

Why would you want to Level the playing field?

Come on. This is a straw-man, and I think you know that. You're talking about a changing who a person is (e.g. "let's change him from 6'9" and make him 6'1"" or "he was slow, but let's make him fast" or similar). This is not what we're talking about. By "leveling the playing field" we're not talking about changing who players are at the basic genetic level and making everyone physical clones; we're talking about making all OUTSIDE INFLUENCES similar, nothing more.

[trex_8063]

As with most things, there is a median which we must go for. We can't merely use one or the other. The trick should be in how much weight we give to context in the era as well as the time travel conceit. When I hear someone say they don't understand the time travel conceit at all, that all that truly matters it what was accomplished in the particular era, I can't help but call shenanigans. Because no one does that. Even if they don't use a literal TARDIS, the actual conceit is just a short-hand way to express basic comparisons. Everyone does it to some extent.

I think you (specifically you, not everyone in the TM crowd) may just be having a semantic disagreement with myself, among others. What I (and others of the non-TM crowd) are talking about is to consider a player actually born in a different time, and thus subject to similar circumstances as other players born around that time. I think you're calling that a variant of the "time machine method"; if so, then yes, most all of us do that to some extent.

Just to clear up any semantic misunderstanding: most of us in this "non-TM crowd", however, don't consider that the "time machine method". Time machine (to us, of the non-TM crowd) means their date of birth and circumstances thru which they came up as players remains the same......they're simply plucked up quite suddenly and placed in a different time. For instance, Dwight Howard is still born in 1985 and developed as a player in the late 90's/2000's (and the circumstances/conditions therein), and that version of him is plucked and dropped in some other time. That's not how we of the "non-TM crowd" chose to consider it.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Really the anti- time machine position is the more irrational than the pro time machine position. Pro time Machine people want to objectively compare players from different eras. Anti time machine people say that the players from different eras can't be compared and the compare them anyway while partially ignoring the quality of the competition.

A few questions

1) Where does "rationality" come into the preferred methodology for how we compare basketball players from different eras?

Rationality into this thread for 2 very different reasons.
1 is my reaction to the phrase "the time machine crowd". I felt that there was a attempt to claim the sober intellectual high ground for the anti-time machine crowd as if the the pro time machine crowd were irrational LeBron James fan kids.

2 After step one got me thinking about the relative objectivity of the 2 approaches I realized that if the objective is really strictly focussed on saying who would be the greatest player in any era then actually the time machine approach is the more objective rational approach which is exactly contrary to what some anti-time machine people seem to be suggesting.

The first thing a GOAT discussion needs is the definition of GOAT to be used for that discussion.
Since the definition of GOAT is missing I assume it means what player added to all teams would result in the largest increase in championships and or wins for those teams.

2) How do you objectively, using time machine methodology, compare players from different eras? Under which rules are they playing? At what age are players placed in time machines etc

When thinking about top 100 lists I have a strong pro peak bias. I am willing to consider Bernard King based on 12 consecutive playoff games.

Sleepy Floyd had one great game. Sleepy Floyd's one great game is too short for me to think of that as Sleepy Floyd's peak.

But 2 playoff series plus a few months before the playoffs and a few months the next year is a long enough time period for me consider that a peak.

My top 100 hundred formula is about 10 parts quality of the short peak, 2 parts quality longevity, 1 part number of championships and one part how they changed the game.

Russell does real well on changing the game, longevity and championships. Bernard King does very well on his short peak.

How do I compare short peaks from different era's? I have to use the mental time machine.

Even within a year how do I decide how a player would do when playing for a different team? I have to make a mental projection of how a player would fit would other teams in order to see outside of the context of the team that he is playing for.

3) I haven't followed every post, and it may lumping people into camps doesn't really help but has anyone said "players from different eras can't be compared"? Or merely pointed out the limitations of doing so in "time-machine" manner, as opposed dominance within era, dominance within era with era strength adjustement, some combination of dominance, era strength and estimates of era portablity etc rather than being "pro time machine" which implies the best method of comparison is to ignore context and just place all players in one specific era's league (or hypothetical league or whatever variation thereof).

Bluntly I believe this is a strawman argument.

Nobody has said that players should not be compared. Real GM and sports talk radio would be severely reduced if people did not like comparing players.

People that have no interest in comparing players would probably have no interest in the GOAT topic.

Without defining GOAT how can you point out the limitations of the time machine method? I don't think any anti time machine method person has defined GOAT in this thread.

What I am hearing is essentially that it is unfair to compare the different eras without having a sliding scale that favours the past eras when comparing what you see on film.

I am saying don't rely on stats and championships to compare players from different eras, look at the film and use your mental time machine.

I don't see the attraction to the modern game is based on the previous game argument or that players from past eras would be better or even taller if they had modern advantages. They didn't have modern advantages. I don't care whether the reason modern players are better is because they have better training or better DNA. I don't even care if the modern players are taking steroids. Better is better.

Barry Bonds is not as tainted for me as he is for others. He took steroids and steroids made him a better ball player. Tall guys have DNA for being tall and that makes them better ball players.

4) Who has been ignoring levels of competition? And if anyone has, have they mislead anyone? If someone is/was open in talking about the most dominant players of all-time how is that a problem?

We the participants in this thread don't agree on comparative levels of competition and we the participants in this thread don't seem to agree on how much the different levels of competition should matter.

We also don't agree on whether the advantages of modern training should matter.

[Texas Chuck]

1 is my reaction to the phrase "the time machine crowd". I felt that there was a attempt to claim the sober intellectual high ground for the anti-time machine crowd as if the the pro time machine crowd were irrational LeBron James fan kids.

This is a fair complaint and as the guy who initially criticized that approach I'll take full responsibility. I don't ever want to claim some sort of intellectual high ground in player comparisons because I am aware of how much I don't know. I apologize if anyone feels like I treated them as inferior or a child.

That said I still don't understand that particular approach nor do I personally believe there is much if any value to be gained from it. I don't think those who choose to go that route are intellectually inferior, but I do wish anyone who takes it would listen to some of the flaws to the approach and make sure they are aware of them.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

If we are going to level the time playing field then let's level the height playing field.
But that is not fare to Larry bird who had slow feet. So let's level the speed playing field.

Now everybody has the advantage of modern training, everybody is seven feet tall and everybody is as quick as Iverson; so now who is the GOAT after we have leveled everything but skill level? Wait to be fare In need to level faking ability and shooting touch and every other advantage players have. I need to bring everybody up to the good aspect of Rodman's emotional intensity while simultaneously removing from everybody the bad aspects of Rodman's emotional intensity.

Now that everybody is equal seven foot seven robots with equal speed and equal skills and equal attitudes who is the GOAT.

Why would you want to Level the playing field?

Come on. This is a straw-man, and I think you know that. You're talking about a changing who a person is (e.g. "let's change him from 6'9" and make him 6'1"" or "he was slow, but let's make him fast" or similar). This is not what we're talking about. Byg the playing field" we're not talking about changing who players are at the basic genetic level and making everyone physical clones; we're talking about making all OUTSIDE INFLUENCES similar, nothing more.

Didn't Dennis Rodman have to live in an airport bathroom. Should we raise Dennis Rodman a few levels higher on our top 100 list because of the hardships that he faced?

If we don't elevate Rodman for his hardships why do we elevate 1960s players for not having the advantages of modernity? How many 1960s players would have been destroyed by cocaine if they lived in the 1980s?

Don't elevate anybody. Look at the film and use the same mental tools you use to guess what college players would do in the pros to guess what 1960s player would be able to do in the modern era. Use the same mental tools to guess what modern players could do in the 1960s.

Don't create hypothetical adjusted players.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

1 is my reaction to the phrase "the time machine crowd". I felt that there was a attempt to claim the sober intellectual high ground for the anti-time machine crowd as if the the pro time machine crowd were irrational LeBron James fan kids.

This is a fair complaint and as the guy who initially criticized that approach I'll take full responsibility. I don't ever want to claim some sort of intellectual high ground in player comparisons because I am aware of how much I don't know. I apologize if anyone feels like I treated them as inferior or a child.

That said I still don't understand that particular approach nor do I personally believe there is much if any value to be gained from it. I don't think those who choose to go that route are intellectually inferior, but I do wish anyone who takes it would listen to some of the flaws to the approach and make sure they are aware of them.

If you were comparing the a current NBA player to a European league player you are not just going to compare stats and championships.

The modern game is built one the previous versions of basketball but so what.

Modernity has given modern players advantages but so what. We are comparing the players that actually existed not what they could of been if they were born in a different time. Maybe that seems unfair since I am plucking players out of their time and placing them in a different time. Even I think I need to give players an imaginary year to adjust to the different styles of play and different officiating.

when NBA players play the international game they must adjust to international rules.

Dominance in an Era vs dominance in any Era? Which matters more and how much depends on how you define GOAT or top 100.

If everybody has their own definition of GOAT and their own definition of top 100 then of course their results will differ.

What do you do with George Mikan? Everybody is free to rank Mikan by whatever criteria they want to use in their top 100 list but their thinking would be more aesthetically pleasing to me if they apply the same criteria to Chamberlain, Russel, Oscar and Baylor. Obviously lie I know 1960s ball was much better than early 1950s ball; I just mean make the same sort of proportional adjustment that is used to get Mikan out of the top 5 player list and make a smaller adjustment to lower tha status of the 1960s players.

Was it you who said you don't think Mikan was one of the 200 most talented players but you still put him at 25 on your top 100 list?

I have barely watched Mikan. I don't know how much talent he had but if he was not one of the 200 best players of all time I am not sure that I want him on my top 50 players list.

Before I call Russell or Chamberlain or Oscar part of the top five players of all time I want to feel reasonably certain that they would be one of the top five players of this year if they were inserted into the NBA last year at the age one year prior to their peak. Chamberlain is the only one of those 3 players that I am quite sure would be amoung the top 5 players in the NBA this year if plunked down into the modern NBA under those conditions.

I see the greatness of Bill Russell but if Ignore what he accomplished in his time and just look at the ball player I am seeing then I am not sure that peak Bill Russel separates himself from peak Marcus Camby and from peak Serge Ibaka. I am not saying that it is easy to decide just how inferior the 1960s ball was but I saw Bill Russell blocking shots that nobody in the current NBA would take because the shots were too blockable.

[ceiling raiser]

This is a fair complaint and as the guy who initially criticized that approach I'll take full responsibility. I don't ever want to claim some sort of intellectual high ground in player comparisons because I am aware of how much I don't know. I apologize if anyone feels like I treated them as inferior or a child.

That said I still don't understand that particular approach nor do I personally believe there is much if any value to be gained from it. I don't think those who choose to go that route are intellectually inferior, but I do wish anyone who takes it would listen to some of the flaws to the approach and make sure they are aware of them.

Chuck - I understand wholeheartedly your issue with the time machine method, and agree that there are flaws (saying this as a guy who relies 100% on the time travel method). Some of the most glaring (IMO at least) are:

1) Lack of operational definitions. What exactly are we attempting to do?

a) Transplanting a guy into today's game, and complete sequestering him for all time before/after the game?

b) Transplanting a guy into today's game, and letting him adapt slowly, over time (with benefits of the advances of modern training, medicine, knowledge, scouting, strategy, etc.)?

c) Giving a guy a year (or some other predetermined amount of time) to adjust, and then suiting him up?

d) Taking the guy from when he was drafted, and dropping him into the league?

e) Grabbing the guy at birth, and raise him in today's era?

I can't get behind (a), but I feel like that's what most who project players into different eras use. You're putting players in an impossible situation, and it really makes no sense. If we're doing this, instead of comparing Bill Russell to LeBron James for instance, we're instead comparing Bill Russell+60s context to LeBron James+00s context, but confusing the results of the latter comparison with what we perceive to be those of the former. That bothers me immensely, as even if we can't do a perfect job of separating players from context, we can do better than just watching game tape and assuming somebody would play exactly the same.

(b) and (c) are less common, but a bit more realistic. Kind of a sink vs. swim approach, and this benefits guys who had very modern games (which I think is a positive). It also hurts guys who had modern talents, but who worked his entire life to develop his skill set, and is unable to adapt due to the sheer amount of time. I don't have a huge issue with (c) though, since guys are tasked with changing their games immensely over a short period of time (in transitioning from college to the NBA, adjusting for injuries, adding new elements to their games after a disappointing playoff elimination, etc.). This probably has to be the preferred means of comparison when comparing individual peak years.

I'm a huge advocate of (d), and I'll discuss it in the context of (e). In the latter, we're really asking if a guy has the talent to play in today's game. I'm not sure when the starting point of the modern NBA is, but it seems most use the advent of the shot clock (I do think racial integration and the league-wide move from the set shot to the jump shot are also key developments, but both are kind of fuzzy introductions...at least with the shot clock we have a clearly defined start date). Whichever starting point we're using, there are probably going to be generational talents in the player pool pretty consistently over time.

I don't think it's fair or even reasonable to just choose the first player we're comfortable with, and presume there were no generational talents in the league beforehand. Seems a bit short-sighted, since mankind hasn't evolved in 50 years, and it's pretty arbitrary to just choose the guy we're most comfortable with (say KAJ, though some people side with Magic/Bird), and categorically dismiss players from earlier. (d) makes some sense to me if we're looking at team-building exercises, since there is a culture shock when guys transition from the NCAA to the NBA in any era. Besides, if we project a guy from his birth, are we really comparing the same player? I'm not going to get into the nature/nurture debate, but there's a good chance the subject of our comparison will no longer exist.

So personally, I think (c)-(e) all have some value, depending on the question we're asking.

2) Determining how a player translates. How do we attempt to identify/separate context?

This is a very tough question, and the bulk of comparisons. It's not as huge a problem as (1) in my opinion, because the answer is going to be necessarily subjective, but we do need to have some sort of consistent criteria, and not just hand-waving projections to suit arguments.

It's important to watch as much tape as possible and get a feel for a player's game, though with some guys (particularly everybody before KAJ), our ability to do so is limited by the amount of footage available within the community. Not all of us are equally talented/perceptive in scouting (I for one struggle a bit at times), which is another hurdle. Fortunately qualitative scouting reports (Zander Hollander's books are terrific, and span a long period of time) and some quantitative studies (thanks to researchers like Dipper 13) can help us gain insight into abilities/tendencies.

In addition, we do have some terrific data to use as a starting point. ElGee has been kind enough to check players from across different eras, and produce WOWY SRS (along with different splits, error projections, etc.), and share his research. We don't have complete digitalized play-by-play going back to the inception of the league so we can't use other impact metrics (RAPM, net on-off, and the like) to identify guys who were doing great things that we might not have noticed from reputations or the box score, but ElGee's numbers are of immense value, since they provide us with information orthogonal to our knowledge that can't be gained elsewhere.

Now, by scouting players and looking at data could we miss out on some talented players? Perhaps, but I don't think there is much else we can do. Again, this step is close to 100% subjective, but if we can't justify our projections of a guy based on qualitative or quantitative information, it's possible (and perhaps likely) that we're letting our biases cloud our judgment.

While on the topic, I think it's important to address the elephant in the room...why do we only project players using the time machine method forward, as opposed to players from today into the past? I think we do a little of both sometimes, since historic similars can provide us with valuable insight as to how guys would perform, if we identify them as having comparable games from scouting. But for the most part, the league has evolved in one direction (player pool growing larger, strategy and skillsets constantly improving, rules and ref guidelines moving away from those of earlier eras as opposed to re-converging, etc.).

3) Lack of consistency. Why do we only question certain players?

I touched on this above in (1). Obviously if we go back a great deal, there are going to be more and more questions, but why at a certain point do we just decide the differences are minute enough that we don't need to project how players translate?

The vast, vast majority of us grew up watching 80s-90s ball. The memories from watching games/experiencing the league climate at the time are assets that can't be gained by any other means. I started watching in 1992 (Shaq's rookie year), and will never fully grasp the intricacies of the league from a decade earlier, let alone 30 years prior. Problem is, this produces an inherent bias that can cloud one's opinions of guys from other eras. This is surely a topic on its own, but this really plays into the time machine question.

Because we watched certain players/teams during our formative years, our biases generally preclude players from those eras from time machine comparisons. In reality, the league didn't stop growing/changing when we started watching, it's a continuum and constantly evolving. I've seen the argument presented that the league has changed more from the early 90s to the present (due to the influx of international players, innovations in modern defense, prevalence of spacing, AAU ball becoming bigger and bigger, etc.), than it did from the late 60s/early 70s to the early-mid 80s. I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate, and perhaps my own bias will prevent me from admitting this, but it is something to consider.

The amount of times Russell is questioned when compared to say Magic/Bird, who entered the league only 5 or 6 years after some of Russell's superstar peers (West/Oscar) retired is mind-bogglingly disproportionate. As I noted, I'll never be able to be able to fully appreciate the league in the 80s since I wasn't watching the NBA at the time, so I'm sure some posters who did will take my previous statement as ludicrous/disrespectful. But I'm sure guys who were watching the league in the 60s/70s feel similarly when those of us who grew up on 80s/90s ball constantly question guys from earlier eras, but not from our own. Additionally, I'm sure all of us look pretty silly to posters who got into the league in the 00s, who don't have the same biases we have (though they do have their own, of course), who can easily identify that the league is constantly changing.

---

A bit of a rant, apologies. I understand completely those who are hesitant to attempt time machine comparisons, but I do think this approach has some merit. Even if we're not able to come up with solid, concrete answers, I think watching available tape/looking at the data can provide us with a decent feel for players' games from eras we weren't able to experience live. Tis all does come back to the notion "greatness" vs "goodness". Some are interested in evaluating the former, while others prefer the latter. This does create a bit of conflict at times on a board like this, but I think this is mostly due to the intermingling of the concepts (which is why it's important, before attempting to answer a question to fully understand/appreciate what is being asked).

Just one last note, it is important to understand that translation exercises don't have to necessarily be negative. Larry Bird IMO is the poster boy for this, as a player who would be able to make use of the modern emphasis on the three-pointer, and wouldn't be tasked with guarding quicker, smaller forwards as often since he'd spend the majority of his time at the four in today's lineups (not going to touch on the effects of modern medicine on his career, I'll leave that up to someone else).

[Doctor MJ]

Okay so, when I rate guys on a GOAT list fundamentally what I'm trying to do is have a function of how dominant they guy was, and how tough it was to do that given the context. The context basically includes everything that can be stated by a general rule, and can be imagined to "map" the guy between contexts.

So, examples:

It is appropriate to "give" a player from a prior era the benefit of being able to train like a modern player if you're going to judge him against modern players, and to the extent necessary, do so in the other direction.

It is appropriate to consider the impact of strategic shifts would have in helping and hurting a player in era shifts, and then it is absolutely necessary to do so in the other direction to have a symmetric comparison.

It is inappropriate to give the player something he could have had in his own era but didn't. So, Bill Walton, maybe in the modern era he has no serious injury problems, but we cannot simply "imagine" more MVPs and championships for him in a serious GOAT list which is based on actual achievement.

Now to clarify: It may not be clear with what I've said where players from earlier eras get shifted down.

I look at George Mikan, and a lot of the players from his era, and I just think that they don't have the talent to do what they did in the modern era even if they have every benefit modern players get. The reality is that there has been an improvement in talent pool in the NBA from the beginning even many tend to go too far with that.

And so, this does factor in with Russell, but not as much as people would think. I look at the "hockey stick" part of the basketball's growth as basically happening from the star of the NBA through the '60s. I see that from stat development, and I also go by how the superstars' did as they aged. There's basically no reasonable opinion that says Kareem's talent was anything but top tier by any era because we saw what he could do even in the '80s, and the same applied to Wilt in the '70s. Similarly, it's Russell's ability to dominate well into his 30s that makes it silly in my book to put him in another category.

One might say: Well you don't know about Mikan then, maybe he could have done the same! Sure. I never "know" anything. But what I do know is that the NBA was exploding in quality while Mikan was declining at an age players don't typically decline, and that everyone had Mikan in mind as the archetype for bigs when Russell came along and left people in shock of his agility. This tells me that Mikan really wouldn't strike us as an outlier physically today, and while people do say he was a smart player, it was his physical presence that everyone remarked upon most.

Back to Russell, those who are skeptical of him in a way they aren't with Wilt see him as someone to small to be a modern center. What I've always maintained is that the ideal size for a defensive big has always remained roughly Russell-like. Is that sufficient to stop Shaq 1-on-1? No, but no one can do that, not even Mutombo. The way to battle such a player, in the rare circumstances that you must, is with smart teamwork.

Russell stands at the top of my GOAT list because I see him as a clear cut top tier talent, and one of a hard-to-find stripe. Think Hakeem could have been a better version of Russell? Okay, but there aren't a lot of these type of guys. Super-long, super-agile guys, with super high field intelligence? They just don't come along very often.

This, incidentally, was why I was so excited about Anthony Davis as a prospect. He's one of that rare breed, and hence whenever we do have someone who truly surpasses Russell, he's basically going to look like Davis did. (And maybe Davis is the one to do it but regardless, it will be someone like him.) And how many guys are like him? Look at guys like Drummond and Noel. Look at how they mentally struggle. There's every reason to believe that someone shaped like Russell was with a huge brain would be huge today even if not AS huge as he was back then.

What about the scoring issues? Well first think on the "symmetric" aspect of the analysis that I stated before. It is beyond debate that Russell molded his game in a particular direction for maximum impact. That's why his scoring fell off like it did. Ask yourself then how well others could have done what Russell did with the kind of exponentially increasing impact he had.

To me that's a big deal, and the fact that you might say he'd need to do it differently today doesn't change that. I've said before that it would be tough for me to draft Russell above LeBron for today's game, and that's a real factor certainly, but it's not everything.

Additionally understand how volume scoring has fallen off considerably in perceived importance particularly for bigs. Realistically your ideal 2-way big at this point is probably scoring like 20 PPG efficiently while having mega-defensive impact. I think Russell focused on doing that probably could pretty dang close to it, all while giving us passing that would make us blush. In some ways I imagine Russell as being Marc Gasol with a hyper-agile body and without any of the reticence that has taken years for him to truly shed.

Last: With the above paragraph you're probably thinking not for the first time, "Oh yea, what about Davis?" Davis might be the one who breaks the rules, and as mentioned, I'm basically poised to crown him over Russell once he gets there. It's frankly easy to imagine him doing something even more than Russell did back in Russell's era...but we can't get ahead of ourselves. We've yet to see him lead even a decent defense let alone something incredible.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

This is a fair complaint and as the guy who initially criticized that approach I'll take full responsibility. I don't ever want to claim some sort of intellectual high ground in player comparisons because I am aware of how much I don't know. I apologize if anyone feels like I treated them as inferior or a child.

That said I still don't understand that particular approach nor do I personally believe there is much if any value to be gained from it. I don't think those who choose to go that route are intellectually inferior, but I do wish anyone who takes it would listen to some of the flaws to the approach and make sure they are aware of them.

Chuck - I understand wholeheartedly your issue with the time machine method, and agree that there are flaws (saying this as a guy who relies 100% on the time travel method). Some of the most glaring (IMO at least) are:

1) Lack of operational definitions. What exactly are we attempting to do?

a) Transplanting a guy into today's game, and complete sequestering him for all time before/after the game?

b) Transplanting a guy into today's game, and letting him adapt slowly, over time (with benefits of the advances of modern training, medicine, knowledge, scouting, strategy, etc.)?

c) Giving a guy a year (or some other predetermined amount of time) to adjust, and then suiting him up?

d) Taking the guy from when he was drafted, and dropping him into the league?

e) Grabbing the guy at birth, and raise him in today's era?

I can't get behind (a), but I feel like that's what most who project players into different eras use. You're putting players in an impossible situation, and it really makes no sense. If we're doing this, instead of comparing Bill Russell to LeBron James for instance, we're instead comparing Bill Russell+60s context to LeBron James+00s context, but confusing the results of the latter comparison with what we perceive to be those of the former. That bothers me immensely, as even if we can't do a perfect job of separating players from context, we can do better than just watching game tape and assuming somebody would play exactly the same.

(b) and (c) are less common, but a bit more realistic. Kind of a sink vs. swim approach, and this benefits guys who had very modern games (which I think is a positive). It also hurts guys who had modern talents, but who worked his entire life to develop his skill set, and is unable to adapt due to the sheer amount of time. I don't have a huge issue with (c) though, since guys are tasked with changing their games immensely over a short period of time (in transitioning from college to the NBA, adjusting for injuries, adding new elements to their games after a disappointing playoff elimination, etc.). This probably has to be the preferred means of comparison when comparing individual peak years.

I'm a huge advocate of (d), and I'll discuss it in the context of (e). In the latter, we're really asking if a guy has the talent to play in today's game. I'm not sure when the starting point of the modern NBA is, but it seems most use the advent of the shot clock (I do think racial integration and the league-wide move from the set shot to the jump shot are also key developments, but both are kind of fuzzy introductions...at least with the shot clock we have a clearly defined start date). Whichever starting point we're using, there are probably going to be generational talents in the player pool pretty consistently over time.

I don't think it's fair or even reasonable to just choose the first player we're comfortable with, and presume there were no generational talents in the league beforehand. Seems a bit short-sighted, since mankind hasn't evolved in 50 years, and it's pretty arbitrary to just choose the guy we're most comfortable with (say KAJ, though some people side with Magic/Bird), and categorically dismiss players from earlier. (d) makes some sense to me if we're looking at team-building exercises, since there is a culture shock when guys transition from the NCAA to the NBA in any era. Besides, if we project a guy from his birth, are we really comparing the same player? I'm not going to get into the nature/nurture debate, but there's a good chance the subject of our comparison will no longer exist.

So personally, I think (c)-(e) all have some value, depending on the question we're asking.

2) Determining how a player translates. How do we attempt to identify/separate context?

This is a very tough question, and the bulk of comparisons. It's not as huge a problem as (1) in my opinion, because the answer is going to be necessarily subjective, but we do need to have some sort of consistent criteria, and not just hand-waving projections to suit arguments.

It's important to watch as much tape as possible and get a feel for a player's game, though with some guys (particularly everybody before KAJ), our ability to do so is limited by the amount of footage available within the community. Not all of us are equally talented/perceptive in scouting (I for one struggle a bit at times), which is another hurdle. Fortunately qualitative scouting reports (Zander Hollander's books are terrific, and span a long period of time) and some quantitative studies (thanks to researchers like Dipper 13) can help us gain insight into abilities/tendencies.

In addition, we do have some terrific data to use as a starting point. ElGee has been kind enough to check players from across different eras, and produce WOWY SRS (along with different splits, error projections, etc.), and share his research. We don't have complete digitalized play-by-play going back to the inception of the league so we can't use other impact metrics (RAPM, net on-off, and the like) to identify guys who were doing great things that we might not have noticed from reputations or the box score, but ElGee's numbers are of immense value, since they provide us with information orthogonal to our knowledge that can't be gained elsewhere.

Now, by scouting players and looking at data could we miss out on some talented players? Perhaps, but I don't think there is much else we can do. Again, this step is close to 100% subjective, but if we can't justify our projections of a guy based on qualitative or quantitative information, it's possible (and perhaps likely) that we're letting our biases cloud our judgment.

While on the topic, I think it's important to address the elephant in the room...why do we only project players using the time machine method forward, as opposed to players from today into the past? I think we do a little of both sometimes, since historic similars can provide us with valuable insight as to how guys would perform, if we identify them as having comparable games from scouting. But for the most part, the league has evolved in one direction (player pool growing larger, strategy and skillsets constantly improving, rules and ref guidelines moving away from those of earlier eras as opposed to re-converging, etc.).

3) Lack of consistency. Why do we only question certain players?

I touched on this above in (1). Obviously if we go back a great deal, there are going to be more and more questions, but why at a certain point do we just decide the differences are minute enough that we don't need to project how players translate?

The vast, vast majority of us grew up watching 80s-90s ball. The memories from watching games/experiencing the league climate at the time are assets that can't be gained by any other means. I started watching in 1992 (Shaq's rookie year), and will never fully grasp the intricacies of the league from a decade earlier, let alone 30 years prior. Problem is, this produces an inherent bias that can cloud one's opinions of guys from other eras. This is surely a topic on its own, but this really plays into the time machine question.

Because we watched certain players/teams during our formative years, our biases generally preclude players from those eras from time machine comparisons. In reality, the league didn't stop growing/changing when we started watching, it's a continuum and constantly evolving. I've seen the argument presented that the league has changed more from the early 90s to the present (due to the influx of international players, innovations in modern defense, prevalence of spacing, AAU ball becoming bigger and bigger, etc.), than it did from the late 60s/early 70s to the early-mid 80s. I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate, and perhaps my own bias will prevent me from admitting this, but it is something to consider.

The amount of times Russell is questioned when compared to say Magic/Bird, who entered the league only 5 or 6 years after some of Russell's superstar peers (West/Oscar) retired is mind-bogglingly disproportionate. As I noted, I'll never be able to be able to fully appreciate the league in the 80s since I wasn't watching the NBA at the time, so I'm sure some posters who did will take my previous statement as ludicrous/disrespectful. But I'm sure guys who were watching the league in the 60s/70s feel similarly when those of us who grew up on 80s/90s ball constantly question guys from earlier eras, but not from our own. Additionally, I'm sure all of us look pretty silly to posters who got into the league in the 00s, who don't have the same biases we have (though they do have their own, of course), who can easily identify that the league is constantly changing.

---

A bit of a rant, apologies. I understand completely those who are hesitant to attempt time machine comparisons, but I do think this approach has some merit. Even if we're not able to come up with solid, concrete answers, I think watching available tape/looking at the data can provide us with a decent feel for players' games from eras we weren't able to experience live. Tis all does come back to the notion "greatness" vs "goodness". Some are interested in evaluating the former, while others prefer the latter. This does create a bit of conflict at times on a board like this, but I think this is mostly due to the intermingling of the concepts (which is why it's important, before attempting to answer a question to fully understand/appreciate what is being asked).

Just one last note, it is important to understand that translation exercises don't have to necessarily be negative. Larry Bird IMO is the poster boy for this, as a player who would be able to make use of the modern emphasis on the three-pointer, and wouldn't be tasked with guarding quicker, smaller forwards as often since he'd spend the majority of his time at the four in today's lineups (not going to touch on the effects of modern medicine on his career, I'll leave that up to someone else).

And this sir is why you are a legend. Just a great post in every respect.

The issues you address are all issues I have with the process. I agree that some element of trying to project players into different eras can be of value--tho as you say its pretty subjective. And my personal lack of confidence in making reasonably accurate projections should not reflect on the ability of others to do so intelligently.

I just think the idea of picking a player up at some specific moment in time: his rookie year, his prime, his peak, whenever and just dropping him forward(or backward tho that is rarely done except to say duh he would dominate those scrubs) without any of the advantages the modern player has and then concluding him inferior is flawed to the point to be essentially worthless. There is no legitimate circumstances where a real life person would ever face this scenario.

Some of those other versions you mention, I would not label as "time machine". Because I have no issue whatsoever with logical attempts to compare cross-era players including discussing whether or not a player could compete physically or against superior competition.


But as always, mad respect for fpliii

[Johnlac1]

I haven't read all the posts, but this must be about the 100th Bill Russell post I've seen since I started frequenting this forum. I'm only slightly exaggerating.
At any rate, my feeling remains the same...Russell today transported from the early to mid sixties would still be an outstanding center with no changes to his game.
But young posters are always pointing out flaws in old player's games, and Russell had his, mostly on offense. He was, scoring-wise, only mediocre. A number of centers from that era were superior scorers. But that ignores the fact that Russell today would undoubtedly seek to improve his off. game. He didn't have a bad-looking jump shot. He just didn't see fit to practice it much.
Why should he? He won eleven titles in thirteen years with what he had.
Like many players from that era, Russell took summers off. He had a host of other interests other than basketball.
Today there would much more pressure on him to improve the weak parts of his game.
Russell today would most likely still be a formidable def. center with a better off. game. Probably still not a great scorer, but a more reliable scorer and still a smart off. player with an extremely high bb IQ.

I don't doubt that Russell would be a great player in today's league. How much better than Camby and Ibaka would Russell be?

Being a moderate upgrade on Camby and Ibaka is great and can get a player onto a top 50 of all time list but it won't get them called the GOAT even if they do get 6 rings like Robert Horry.

Not to demean those two, but Russell is one of the top five smartest players in league history. He was not only a great individual player, he was the heart and soul of the Celtics system which Auerbach built around Russell's talents. More than any other player in the history of the NBA, Russell and the Celtics are intertwined.
Even when the Celtics in the second half of the sixties were no longer the best or most talented team, they still won titles. They were a little fortunate as far as avoiding major injuries to their three key players (Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones), but while Russell was playing, the Celtics were always in contention.
Getting back to comparing him to Camby and Ibaka, both real good players, they simply didn't/don't have Russell's overall court presence.
Russell didn't just block a lot of shots and rebound well, he was the team leader and director from which everything on the Celtics revolved around.

[Warspite]

Completely agree with the last poster on the pro time-machine position.

At best people who say you can't compare players from the different eras have to say there is no way to come up with a GOAT list. Otherwise we have the benefit of hindsight and more easily say that MJ could go back in time, but it doesn't work the other way around.

In addition, when people bring up the argument, "he was an innovator for his time", it ignores the fact that innovation is relative: when people in the 1960s took a bunch of bad shots to tire out the other team it's not rocket science to address that strategy, while someone trying to compete with the 2014 Spurs team would have a much bigger challenge in trying to stop a team that plays that well together.

The fact that teams couldn't adjust to Russell's relatively basic strategies was more indicative of the fact that those players and teams weren't very good. This is why these types of simple strategies work in high school, but not in the pros today, http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/1 ... ss-theory/.

If people like Kobe and Lebron can study the game and learn complicated plays and systems it seems absurd that they wouldn't figure out the basic things that Russell did intuitively. I think it's much easier to assume that people who can pick up complex systems would be able to handle simple ones using instinct, but it's not clear that you can make the opposite assumption. This is like saying that someone who is phenomenal at arithmetic would be great at higher-order math because someone who is great at higher-order math is great at arithmetic.

We know that today's players went through much more intense competition to get to where they are then someone would have in 1965: the game is relatively more popular by a large margin; this means more people play it and gaining and edge is more difficult; by extension it's not a leap to assume these players would excel if we went back in time.

We know that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter of all time. Perhaps Jesse Owens could beat him today with the same level of conditioning--the fact is we don't know. Given the fact that Bolt is the world's fastest man and everyone today has access to the same information it's more likely that Jessie Owens wouldn't beat him in a race, even with the same conditioning. The anti-time machine crowd is assuming that the conditioning, additional knowledge, etc. would have the same effect on Russell as it has on his contemporaries, which very well may not be the case.

Instead of looking at the what-ifs, which require assumptions we can never verify, the GOAT discussion should look at the final product. If players evolve and there is a 7' guy with Lebron-like skills in 2050 then he gets that advantage in the GOAT discussion just as anyone today does relative to people in the past.

As to the argument that the league was more concentrated back then. even if there are 3x the number of roster spots, the game is a lot more popular: this is entirely offset by the fact that the pool of potential players today is much more than 3x what is was in the 1960s when you consider the massive increase in racial integration and international expansion. Basketball wasn't popular in the 1960s and didn't have the same kind of feeder systems that exist today.

A few points

1. Shutting down the 2014 Spurs is not that difficult. You simply port them into 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s rules. The Spurs were only tough to beat because of the current rules. Change the rules and you change the outcome.

2. Today fewer teenage men play basketball than at any time in the last 60 yrs and declining population of basketball playing nations will continue. The greatest population of young men playing basketball was the late 60s to early 80s. The baby boomers who are now in their 50s and 60s were the ones who had the most competition. If you ever wondered why so many JFK and MLK high schools exist it was because they were being built all over in the 50s and 60s. Today they are closing schools and consolidating school districts.

Your racial integration is a myth. The league went from 80% white to 80% black. Its just as segregated as it was in the 50s except now its in favor of a group which is only 13% of America instead of 80%. So therefore the talent pool is 7% of 300mil instead of 40% of 150 mil. The exclusion of white america from organised basketball is not a good thing. I visited a high school last year with 1400 students of which 9 were African American. All 9 of them were on the basketball team.

3. Jesse Owens vs Bolt is a very bad example. Owens was in the 1936 Olympics almost 2 generations before Bill Russell won his last title. Furthermore the difference in shoes, track conditions account for 90% of the difference and PEDs over 10%. Olympic track and fields job is to break records in order create interest. Every new Olympic stadium is designed to create better results. In essence its like the NBA lowering the rim every 4 yrs to encourage better dunks.

4. 99% of todays NBA runs either Woodens 60s offense or Tex Winters 50s offense. If todays players are so advanced why havent they invented a new offense? We like to think that the stretch 4 is innovative but its just adopting Dean Smiths 4 corners offense to the 3pt line.

There is no such thing as a new mousetrap just better ones based on previous builds.

[turk3d]

Completely agree with the last poster on the pro time-machine position.

At best people who say you can't compare players from the different eras have to say there is no way to come up with a GOAT list. Otherwise we have the benefit of hindsight and more easily say that MJ could go back in time, but it doesn't work the other way around.

In addition, when people bring up the argument, "he was an innovator for his time", it ignores the fact that innovation is relative: when people in the 1960s took a bunch of bad shots to tire out the other team it's not rocket science to address that strategy, while someone trying to compete with the 2014 Spurs team would have a much bigger challenge in trying to stop a team that plays that well together.

The fact that teams couldn't adjust to Russell's relatively basic strategies was more indicative of the fact that those players and teams weren't very good. This is why these types of simple strategies work in high school, but not in the pros today, http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/05/1 ... ss-theory/.

If people like Kobe and Lebron can study the game and learn complicated plays and systems it seems absurd that they wouldn't figure out the basic things that Russell did intuitively. I think it's much easier to assume that people who can pick up complex systems would be able to handle simple ones using instinct, but it's not clear that you can make the opposite assumption. This is like saying that someone who is phenomenal at arithmetic would be great at higher-order math because someone who is great at higher-order math is great at arithmetic.

We know that today's players went through much more intense competition to get to where they are then someone would have in 1965: the game is relatively more popular by a large margin; this means more people play it and gaining and edge is more difficult; by extension it's not a leap to assume these players would excel if we went back in time.

We know that Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter of all time. Perhaps Jesse Owens could beat him today with the same level of conditioning--the fact is we don't know. Given the fact that Bolt is the world's fastest man and everyone today has access to the same information it's more likely that Jessie Owens wouldn't beat him in a race, even with the same conditioning. The anti-time machine crowd is assuming that the conditioning, additional knowledge, etc. would have the same effect on Russell as it has on his contemporaries, which very well may not be the case.

Instead of looking at the what-ifs, which require assumptions we can never verify, the GOAT discussion should look at the final product. If players evolve and there is a 7' guy with Lebron-like skills in 2050 then he gets that advantage in the GOAT discussion just as anyone today does relative to people in the past.

As to the argument that the league was more concentrated back then. even if there are 3x the number of roster spots, the game is a lot more popular: this is entirely offset by the fact that the pool of potential players today is much more than 3x what is was in the 1960s when you consider the massive increase in racial integration and international expansion. Basketball wasn't popular in the 1960s and didn't have the same kind of feeder systems that exist today.

A few points

1. Shutting down the 2014 Spurs is not that difficult. You simply port them into 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s rules. The Spurs were only tough to beat because of the current rules. Change the rules and you change the outcome.

2. Today fewer teenage men play basketball than at any time in the last 60 yrs and declining population of basketball playing nations will continue. The greatest population of young men playing basketball was the late 60s to early 80s. The baby boomers who are now in their 50s and 60s were the ones who had the most competition. If you ever wondered why so many JFK and MLK high schools exist it was because they were being built all over in the 50s and 60s. Today they are closing schools and consolidating school districts.

Your racial integration is a myth. The league went from 80% white to 80% black. Its just as segregated as it was in the 50s except now its in favor of a group which is only 13% of America instead of 80%. So therefore the talent pool is 7% of 300mil instead of 40% of 150 mil. The exclusion of white america from organised basketball is not a good thing. I visited a high school last year with 1400 students of which 9 were African American. All 9 of them were on the basketball team.

3. Jesse Owens vs Bolt is a very bad example. Owens was in the 1936 Olympics almost 2 generations before Bill Russell won his last title. Furthermore the difference in shoes, track conditions account for 90% of the difference and PEDs over 10%. Olympic track and fields job is to break records in order create interest. Every new Olympic stadium is designed to create better results. In essence its like the NBA lowering the rim every 4 yrs to encourage better dunks.

4. 99% of todays NBA runs either Woodens 60s offense or Tex Winters 50s offense. If todays players are so advanced why havent they invented a new offense? We like to think that the stretch 4 is innovative but its just adopting Dean Smiths 4 corners offense to the 3pt line.

There is no such thing as a new mousetrap just better ones based on previous builds.

Another excellent post in this thread (one of many). Props to all of you who have taken the time to contribute.

[JeepCSC]

Yeah Im not sure why you didn't just come with that from the beginning. I'm assuming that since you are so concerned about my opinions on Mikan that you went back and read teh top 100 project threads where I was involved in discussing him. You will clearly be able to read my take and judge for yourself if I used Time Machine Analysis on him.

If you don't want to take the time to do that and are simply trying without basis to accuse me of a self-serving agenda re: Russell well I guess you can do that too, but don't expect me to continue to engage with you if that's the case.


I think Mikan is one of the most significant players in NBA history and in an all-time ranking of "greatness" I think he deserves to be pretty high. But understand that for me "greatness" and basketball talent are not one in the same. I don't think Mikan is one of the 25 most talented players ever. Heck he might not be in the 250 most talented players ever.

If your whole argument is that you think modern players are superior in general to those from the 60's, obviously I agree. I just disagree that they are "greater".

I read your pre-list and saw where you had him. I didn't go through all the pages of the actual project to find your arguments however. You pre-ranking him at 50 seemed to suffice. You hold his era against him. His greatness is not the same as talent, or at least not 1:1. You realize being great in the 1950s is not the same as what Lebron is accomplishing now or Kareem accomplished in the 1970s. You realize titles and accomplishments and revolutionizing how the game is played and thought of does not end the discussion. You realize you have to, on some level, take the context of the era into account, that there is no way to compare players across the decades without at least some semblance of "time-traveling" involved. Mikan can not be judged solely on what he accomplished in his era. None of them can.

[Texas Chuck]

yeah taking note that the 50's isn't the strongest era of basketball isn't at all the same thing as "time machine". Obviously I take into account the strength of the era they played in. But that is a completely different thing altogether.

I think Bill Russell is the GOAT for a variety of reasons--including how he dominated his era like no other player ever dominated his(save perhaps your boy Mikan, but Russell obviously did so longer). I also understand that the era Russell played in is not the strongest era of all-time. That shouldn't preclude him from being in GOAT conversation tho.

You do realize that 3 other players this board consider to be among the 15 greatest of all-time played at the same time including Wilt at 4 who Russell faced repeatedly h2h right? So acting like there was no talent is flat wrong.

[JeepCSC]

I think you (specifically you, not everyone in the TM crowd) may just be having a semantic disagreement with myself, among others. What I (and others of the non-TM crowd) are talking about is to consider a player actually born in a different time, and thus subject to similar circumstances as other players born around that time. I think you're calling that a variant of the "time machine method"; if so, then yes, most all of us do that to some extent.

Just to clear up any semantic misunderstanding: most of us in this "non-TM crowd", however, don't consider that the "time machine method". Time machine (to us, of the non-TM crowd) means their date of birth and circumstances thru which they came up as players remains the same......they're simply plucked up quite suddenly and placed in a different time. For instance, Dwight Howard is still born in 1985 and developed as a player in the late 90's/2000's (and the circumstances/conditions therein), and that version of him is plucked and dropped in some other time. That's not how we of the "non-TM crowd" chose to consider it.

Now there is perhaps truth in here. There seems to be specific meanings with "time travel" discussion here that I am not aware of. I assumed it was mostly used as shorthand for direct comparison, and that the intricacies of details (born, simply dropped into the draft, etc) were mostly local color. I just saw arguments which seemed to me leaning very hard on Russell's accomplishments (which are 100% era-defined), and that seemed disingenuous since Mikan wasn't afforded the same respect.

[Mutnt]

And so, this does factor in with Russell, but not as much as people would think. I look at the "hockey stick" part of the basketball's growth as basically happening from the star of the NBA through the '60s. I see that from stat development, and I also go by how the superstars' did as they aged. There's basically no reasonable opinion that says Kareem's talent was anything but top tier by any era because we saw what he could do even in the '80s, and the same applied to Wilt in the '70s. Similarly, it's Russell's ability to dominate well into his 30s that makes it silly in my book to put him in another category.

Right, I think Russell mostly likely would be dominant defensively in any era, it's just his individual defensive impact drops significantly in the modern era due to the drastic improvements and or changes in talent/strategy/rules etc. which were still pretty much different (dare I say more tailored towards someone like Russell) in the later stages of his career. Does that mean a team couldn't produce a dominant league-leading defense with Russell at the helm nowadays and even win championships? Well, not really. We've seen a lot of teams utilize that sort of approach (most successfully the Pistons). But Big Ben was still miles away from rivaling Russell on the defensive end. The Pistons did it far more collectively than just ''Big Ben, you shut down the paint, block every shot, get 20 rebounds, and we will worry about the offense''. In fact, Boston probably did it a lot more collectively too than people give them credit, but nevermind. Ok, so Big Ben wasn't the same type of player that Russell was, but neither did guys more similar (arguably better athletes) like D-Rob or Hakeem rival Russell. At some point you just got to realize that not everyone was 3 levels below Russell in NBA history in terms of defense, but that Russell just had an amazing situation going for him in Boston at that time. A lot of it (most of it, honestly) is due to himself, sure, but a lot also isn't.

In essence, the problem here isn't merely a question of whether Russell would dominate or not. The problem is how much would he dominate relative to his own era. This isn't some slight towards Russell, I also firmly believe Wilt would be less dominant in the modern era as well, but I think his ceiling, under the right conditions, would certainly be higher than Russell's.

Back to Russell, those who are skeptical of him in a way they aren't with Wilt see him as someone to small to be a modern center. What I've always maintained is that the ideal size for a defensive big has always remained roughly Russell-like. Is that sufficient to stop Shaq 1-on-1? No, but no one can do that, not even Mutombo. The way to battle such a player, in the rare circumstances that you must, is with smart teamwork.

Oh, I'm skeptical of Wilt too. Not only in a context of impact but individually, Wilt was someone who feasted on people through being an athletic anomaly like few others in his time. Sure, he seemed to have little trouble even against the Russell's and Thurmond's of the era, but even then he still relied on his athleticism to get himself anywhere. He could do that today as well, it just wouldn't be enough to be AS dominant. You see someone like Howard out there, who is amongst the most physically gifted players in the league and he needs to use actual skill to have a chance of scoring, unlike Wilt who would mostly just throw a weird looking flip shot at the hoop, no biggie, I'll rebound it, throws another shot, misses, no biggie, I'll get it again, and then dunks it on someone... Like could you imagine Wilt getting blocked or stripped as much from the weak side as Howard does. No way.

Russell stands at the top of my GOAT list because I see him as a clear cut top tier talent, and one of a hard-to-find stripe. Think Hakeem could have been a better version of Russell? Okay, but there aren't a lot of these type of guys. Super-long, super-agile guys, with super high field intelligence? They just don't come along very often.

There weren't/aren't a lot of these type of guys but there were/are enough in the history of the game to sufficiently claim not a single one of them (no matter the shape/size/breed) came close to doing what Russell did in Boston. Here's where people stop and ponder - Was it that Russell was so much better than everyone else or did the circumstances he played under heavily influenced what was going on. Choose the more likely one.

This, incidentally, was why I was so excited about Anthony Davis as a prospect. He's one of that rare breed,
and hence whenever we do have someone who truly surpasses Russell, he's basically going to look like Davis did. (And maybe Davis is the one to do it but regardless, it will be someone like him.) And how many guys are like him? Look at guys like Drummond and Noel. Look at how they mentally struggle. There's every reason to believe that someone shaped like Russell was with a huge brain would be huge today even if not AS huge as he was back then.

See, you're searching for the ''new Russell'' by looking at which players potentially have the best combination of traits that resembled Russell's own where in fact, no one is coming close to doing what Russell did, no matter how they look, because that is impossible today as you (hesitantly?) acknowledged in the final line of the paragraph. So how is that not a legitimate point of concern when talking about Russell relative to other players? The way he could and did impact the game from a defensive standpoint is not replicable anymore, thus giving him an advantage over a huge pool of players in NBA history. Yes, I realize Wilt,Thurmond and everyone else back then had every opportunity to do the same as Russell but didn't, but those guys represent only a fraction of NBA players. What about KG, Duncan, D-Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Mutombo? Why don't you think those guys, based on what you've seen from them, wouldn't be able to replicate what Russell did or at least come within the vicinity if they played back then? That's not even mentioning the impact they'd be having on the offensive end as well.

What about the scoring issues? Well first think on the "symmetric" aspect of the analysis that I stated before. It is beyond debate that Russell molded his game in a particular direction for maximum impact. That's why his scoring fell off like it did. Ask yourself then how well others could have done what Russell did with the kind of exponentially increasing impact he had.

Russell wasn't really a good scorer no matter how he or Boston choose to play. He just wasn't, no real point in trying to cover that up and even if the Celtics gave him more opportunities at that end of the floor in wouldn't matter in the grand scheme.

Sadly, a lot (most?) NBA greats did not have the luxury of being able to 'mold or model' their game in a certain way. That on top of already playing in a vastly more competitive era. Hakeem had to anchor the defense and then come down the floor, get position in the post and do his thing almost every single time he was on the floor. That's really, really, taxing and under-appreciated.

To me that's a big deal, and the fact that you might say he'd need to do it differently today doesn't change that. I've said before that it would be tough for me to draft Russell above LeBron for today's game, and that's a real factor certainly, but it's not everything.

That changes everything actually.

Additionally understand how volume scoring has fallen off considerably in perceived importance particularly for bigs. Realistically your ideal 2-way big at this point is probably scoring like 20 PPG efficiently while having mega-defensive impact. I think Russell focused on doing that probably could pretty dang close to it, all while giving us passing that would make us blush. In some ways I imagine Russell as being Marc Gasol with a hyper-agile body and without any of the reticence that has taken years for him to truly shed.

Ideally, you don't even need your big man to score and still get away with being a dominant team, but that ''ideal'' is not what most of situations will look like. Like I said, Hakeem didn't have an ideal situation in any case, he didn't have enough offensive talent on his team to offset his opposition without actually asserting himself on offense. I mean, honestly, it really depends on how a team functions. I think it's pretty irrelevant to be setting things in stone like ''the big needs to ideally do this and this and focus on that''... The big needs to do whatever the team requires him to do as long as the results show an overall improvement in overall play.

Last: With the above paragraph you're probably thinking not for the first time, "Oh yea, what about Davis?" Davis might be the one who breaks the rules, and as mentioned, I'm basically poised to crown him over Russell once he gets there. It's frankly easy to imagine him doing something even more than Russell did back in Russell's era...but we can't get ahead of ourselves. We've yet to see him lead even a decent defense let alone something incredible.

Really, Davis doing more than Russell did back in his era? Defensively? Wow. No offense but I sometimes find your expectations to be rather, well, wild, for lack of a better term.

[JeepCSC]

You do realize that 3 other players this board consider to be among the 15 greatest of all-time played at the same time including Wilt at 4 who Russell faced repeatedly h2h right? So acting like there was no talent is flat wrong.

I guess, in my mind, the "time machine" is simply the fairest way to overcome era issues. Looking at a player individually and trying to see how they'd fit into a different era. Merely saying the 50s were weaker tells me less about Mikan than looking at his skill set and projecting in some fashion how it would compare out.

[turk3d]

One thing to point out here which I don't think has been which is relative to era is the effect of the 3 pointer in the modern era. The biggest impact overall imo is that it has "neutralized" the effect of the "big man" in today's game. Where bigs without a doubt had the most impact in pre-3 point advent, the 3 point shot has changed the game dramatically in favor of the smaller players.

Should this in any way change the way that we look at the bigs of the pre-3 era? Absolutely not I say. Would it effect guys like Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, etc.? Absolutely so as they would not be as dominant (see D Howard for example). It would also affect Kareem imo. However, this does not diminish in the least what those guys accomplished during their heyday.

[payton2kemp]

1. Shutting down the 2014 Spurs is not that difficult. You simply port them into 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s rules. The Spurs were only tough to beat because of the current rules. Change the rules and you change the outcome.

They adapt to the rules of the day. The Spurs are a team that are designed to work well around the current paradigm, which is why Pop is a genius. You presume that he couldn't adapt his personnel and game strategies to deal with offenses that "took bad shots to tire the other team out?" He also doesn't resort to clogging toilets to try and get an edge over the other team or turning up the heat like Red did.

Today fewer teenage men play basketball than at any time in the last 60 yrs and declining population of basketball playing nations will continue. The greatest population of young men playing basketball was the late 60s to early 80s. The baby boomers who are now in their 50s and 60s were the ones who had the most competition. If you ever wondered why so many JFK and MLK high schools exist it was because they were being built all over in the 50s and 60s. Today they are closing schools and consolidating school districts.

Where is the data that supports greater participation in the 1960s then today? Nothing indicates a significant decline in the US either, http://old.nfhs.org/CoachingTodayContent.aspx?id=5911. Also the trends are the opposite internationally, http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajesso ... opularity/, where basketball is growing quickly in popularity.

Your racial integration is a myth. The league went from 80% white to 80% black. Its just as segregated as it was in the 50s except now its in favor of a group which is only 13% of America instead of 80%. So therefore the talent pool is 7% of 300mil instead of 40% of 150 mil. The exclusion of white america from organised basketball is not a good thing. I visited a high school last year with 1400 students of which 9 were African American. All 9 of them were on the basketball team.

This is absurd. African-Americans were systemically excluded from participating in the NBA (and broader society) in the 1950s, and wers still seen as second-class players when Russell played. This is one of the issues that caused tension between Russell and the NBA. Red also wouldn't be seen as pioneer by picking non-white players if this wasn't during a period of segregation.

The notion that white America is excluded from basketball today due to discrimination is ludicrous and one anecdote doesn't mean anything. You're essentially saying that a white school put black kids on the team because they don't want qualified white players? This is utter nonsense.

Scouting is much better today then it was in the 1950s and 1960s. We know today that wingspan plays much more important part in a players performance than in the past for example, http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... d_and.html.

99% of todays NBA runs either Woodens 60s offense or Tex Winters 50s offense. If todays players are so advanced why havent they invented a new offense? We like to think that the stretch 4 is innovative but its just adopting Dean Smiths 4 corners offense to the 3pt line.

The rules are different and people have made incremental changes to those offenses. Also, you presume that a new offense would yield the best bang for the buck, which is not necessarily the case. There are bigger gains in using advanced metrics and adapting offenses because using those as a baseline are fine. This is why you don't see so many of the terrible shots today that people took in the 1950s and why there are fewer teams that run isolation offenses today then in the 1990s.

Jesse Owens vs Bolt is a very bad example. Owens was in the 1936 Olympics almost 2 generations before Bill Russell won his last title. Furthermore the difference in shoes, track conditions account for 90% of the difference and PEDs over 10%. Olympic track and fields job is to break records in order create interest. Every new Olympic stadium is designed to create better results. In essence its like the NBA lowering the rim every 4 yrs to encourage better dunks.

First, how did you do the 90/10 split? Why aren't PEDs 50% of the difference? The answer is because you pulled it out of thin air. Second, my point was you don't know why Usain Bolt is faster, just that he is faster. You don't know if Owens would be as fast with PEDs on the same track as Bolt. We know that Bolt holds the world record.

[CablexDeadpool]

I do not understand this time machine thinking when it comes to ranking players for the GOAT.

It's just idiotic sounding. There are too many variables when it comes to this magical time travel thinking. I am not gonna sit here and wonder if Bill Russell was playing today, how tall he would be or how much he would weight and etc etc etc.

Compare players based on era and their dominance of that era and their stats and accomplishments. Once you get out of that line of thinking, you not talking about basketball.