RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

Winsome Gerbil · Post #161 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:49 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:
Narigo wrote:(It occurred to me that Kareem has played against almost every HOF center ever.)

He missed, Mikan, Russell (by one year), Robinson (by one year), Shaq, and Dwight Howard (who, of course, isn't eligible yet).

That's it.

(EDIT: Well, Mutombo's in the Hall, but I imagine most people would have Howard ranked higher. But for the sake of accuracy...)

Yao, Zo?

ThaRegul8r · Post #162 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:52 am

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
ThaRegul8r wrote:
Narigo wrote:(It occurred to me that Kareem has played against almost every HOF center ever.)

He missed, Mikan, Russell (by one year), Robinson (by one year), Shaq, and Dwight Howard (who, of course, isn't eligible yet).

That's it.

(EDIT: Well, Mutombo's in the Hall, but I imagine most people would have Howard ranked higher. But for the sake of accuracy...)

Yao, Zo?

Ah, you're right. They're both in. Another oversight. Thank you.

You've reminded me I need to update that in my Kareem file since, as you pointed out, that's outdated.

THKNKG · Post #163 » by **THKNKG** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:33 am

OKAY SO APPARENTLY THIS IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST TWO PARTS - I WILL NOT BE THIS WORDY THE WHOLE TIME I PROMISE

Time to get into the nitty gritty. First, I’d like to discuss some of the underlying assumptions I make when analyzing players (my biases, you might say). Second, I’d like to discuss the areas of analysis I consider important when discussing player “greatness,” and why we should deem them important (a meta-analysis, if you will). Third, I will put these players in the context of these underlying assumptions and distinctions of greatness. Again, I’d like to note that if you disagree, make sure of what level at which you disagree with me, and address me there; that’s what I’ll do if I see a disagreement with you, is go to the root. I hope to set this all forth at the beginning, so that leaves me completely free to focus on the players (or other sets of criteria brought up by others).

Here’s a table of contents (I’m not writing a book, don’t worry – just something close to it).

I. Axioms

a. Defense

b. Offense

c. Offense vs Defense
i. RAPM study
ii. Scarcity theory

d. Playstyle

e. Longevity/Peak

f. Intangibles/No?

g. Era

II. How to assess greatness

a. Era
i. Era translation
ii. Era context

b. Team
i. Team contribution
ii. Team makeup

c. Player
i. Impact
1. Contribution to winning
2. Gravity/anti-gravity
3. Skill
a. Offensive/defensive factors
b. Portability/scalabiity

ii. Intangibles

d. Miscellaneous
i. Longevity/peak
ii. Walton-Parish Scale
iii. ALWAYS CONTEXT RULE

III. Greatness judgment applied

The reason I’m being so thorough with epistemology/meta-analysis is because I want to lay a firm foundation, so that everyone knows where I (and they) are coming from, and thus can discuss particular players freely.

With that being said, here goes:

Axioms

By this, I simply mean those things that we assume to be true, and are presuppositions we bring into any sort of dialogue – I hope to have identified mine, and either remove them or show why they are valid. (YAY EPISTEMOLOGY)

1. Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).

In fact, one could say that the higher one goes numerically in the positions, the more defensive impact they can have. Therefore a 1 (PG) has the least impact, and a 5 (C) has the most. This can be demonstrated in a couple ways.

First, common sense tells us this. A man who is significantly taller than the rest of the players in the game can alter more shots and produce a significant barrier to scoring. Additionally, they typically play around the goal, which is where most of shots are taken, and where the most reliable shots are taken. Therefore, being able to significantly impact the most efficient shot an offense can take increases a defender’s value.

Even in today’s game this holds true. It could be said that the two most valuable shots in today’s modern game are shots at the rim, and beyond the three point line. I’ve already established that big men are most effective at the rim. However, let’s say an elite perimeter defender is guarding an offensive player at the three point line, and he gets a good contest. He may reduce the player’s efficiency, but 1) he cannot reduce it as significantly as a big man can a shot at the rim and 2) he is guarding a much less efficient shot anyway, therefore reducing the defending value. Jump shot form is relatively consistent, with the shooter’s body under control, and at the rim this is not the case, with players often contorting their bodies in various ways to produce more effective shots. Therefore, by simple nature of a shot, a “rim protector” is more valuable than a “wing defender.”

Second, RAPM numbers tell us this. Looking at Doc’s SD spreadsheets again, over 3/4 of the top 50 players are big men. This is 2 positions occupying around 80% of the top spots. That’s significant.

2. Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.

First is again common sense. Perimeter players (especially the 1) have the ball in their hands more often, and require less setup than big men. They can essentially always create their own offense, whereas big men necessarily must do their own creation by proxy (they must receive an interior pass). Positioning and entry passes naturally make the job of an offensive big man more difficult. One interesting thing of note is that this rule does not apply to ATG offensive big men (Shaq, KAJ, etc.). However, the inverse is not true for defense – even an ATG perimeter defender cannot impact the game as much as a really good interior defender.

Second, RAPM numbers tell us this. Again, Doc’s SD spreadsheets – you know the drill. Around 70% of top 50 is positions 1/2/3. About 30% of this is the PG position. Not as strict a rule as my defensive axiom – more of a guideline (though a firm one).

I’ve touched on the first two rules here prior to this (though some of the information is not as airtight as what is posted above): - (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1541917)

I’ll post the main post in a spoiler below.

Spoiler:

3. Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).

The reason this is a necessary rule, is because many people put an inordinate amount of emphasis on offense, even as high as 80/20 or 75/25. I don’t think this is reasonable.

I’ll copy and paste a study I did that gave rise to this conclusion:

Okay, some quick numbers on RAPM (ORAPM vs. DRAPM), scarcity, etc. This is using Doc's SD numbers.

ORAPM:
Mean (-.06)
SD (.41)
Players 5 SD over the average (2.03+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 67
2.5+ RAPM: 24
3.0+ RAPM: 7

DRAPM:
Mean (-.02)
SD (.36)
Players 5 SD over the average (1.77+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 32
2.0+ RAPM: 6
3.0+ RAPM: 2

TAKEAWAY:

There were less than half the defensive players available that could match the (arbitrary) 2.0 benchmark. I picked 2.0 because it was 5 SD above for ORAPM, and basically the average SD of both times 5. Clearly offensive players can more consistently provide more upper value, but it can equally be argued that the scarcity of the defenders at that level make it more equal. According to my calculations, offensive players can provide ~25% more value as a whole, whereas the ratio for defenders at this level vs. offensive players at this level is only 34%. Personally, I feel it confirms what I was thinking - that it's reasonably close when you consider offensive impact/defensive impact along with rarity/value. It also seems that (according to this data at least) defenders can at least approach offensive impact levels, though not at the same frequency of occurrence. Does that support that offense is to some degree more effective than defense? Does it say that the scarcity of that level of defenders makes them comparable? I say yes to both.

Second, a study of 20 NBA finalists:
(https://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nba/offense-and-defensive-efficiency-of-nba-champions.aspx)

The conclusion of the article was that 12/20 finalists had offensive efficiency in the top ten, whereas 17/20 had defensive efficiency in the top ten. Should this not mean, minimally, that if a championship caliber team needs an elite defender, that defense should have at least equal value to offense?

4. Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.

This is particularly in reference to ball-dominant volume scorers (and ball-dominant playmakers to some degree). The general premise (proven by a look at the most successful offenses) is that:

Non ball-dominant > Elite ball-dominant playmaker > Elite ball dominant scorer

This can be seen when you look at which teams pervade the top of the list of best offenses – and which players led them: Stephen Curry, Steve Nash, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan.

This ties into the idea of portability/scalability. If you were to start a team, this axiom wouldn’t be too necessary. However, NBA teams don’t get the liberty of building a team from scratch, and must build a cohesive unit. Therefore, a player who can perform a variety of roles at a variety of team strengths is more valuable (typically) than one who can perform a singular job really well.

Another sidenote, which has already been discussed in the thread, is that defense is more additive than offense.

5. Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.

I’m not going to touch on this much, but Elgee has done a better job than I ever could with his championships added project:

Spoiler:

6. Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Tharegul8r has been an even bigger champion of this than I have, but these are grown men who make choices, and those choices affect people. I can’t quantify this as well as some others can, but I know

ThaRegul8r wrote:.

has some stuff on Duncan that further explains this that I’m looking forward to reading.

7. Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.

Again, I don’t have to prove that eras can be drastically different. It takes some degree of carefulness, so I want to be careful and be consistent.

PART II and PART III coming soon… Where I discuss actual factors to use to measure greatness, and begin the process of applying them in the project. (what have I done…)

Winsome Gerbil · Post #164 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:21 am

I was right with you until Part II(D)iiia.41c, then that blew the whole thing for me. :lol:

Post #165 » by **Outside** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:26 am

Added additional material and my picks to my post on page 7 (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=56377925#p56377925)

ThaRegul8r · Post #166 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:01 am

micahclay wrote:6. Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Tharegul8r has been an even bigger champion of this than I have, but these are grown men who make choices, and those choices affect people. I can’t quantify this as well as some others can, but I know
ThaRegul8r wrote:.

has some stuff on Duncan that further explains this that I’m looking forward to reading.

Okay, this is referring to what I said about Duncan's leadership style being related to the Spurs' success. So I was integrating what I found into my Duncan file and corroborating it with examples since I have over 1,200 pages to go through, but it started in Duncan's last game with a little over 9 minutes left, when Jeff Van Gundy said Duncan ushered in a different kind of leadership. Nate Duncan had tweeted:

Read on Twitter

In Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking , among the things Susan Cain talked about was "The Myth of Charismatic Leadership." She wrote that we overestimate how outgoing leaders need to be. “[T]he ranks of effective CEOs turn out to be filled with introverts," she wrote, "including Charles Schwab; Bill Gates; Brenda Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee; and James Copeland, former CEO of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.” She referred to “a famous study by the influential management theorist Jim Collins, many of the best-performing companies of the late twentieth century were run by what he calls “Level 5 Leaders.” I prefer primary sources to second-hand sources, so I searched for it myself and finally found it.

In his referenced study, Jim Collins and his research team “identified companies that made the leap from good results to great results and sustained those results for at least fifteen years,” and compared those companies to “a carefully selected control group of comparison companies that failed to make the leap, or if they did, failed to sustain it,” and “then compared the good-to-great companies to the comparison companies to discover the essential and distinguishing factors at work.” He found that “Level 5 Leaders,” which he defined as individuals who blend “extreme personal humility with intense professional will,” were found “at the helm of every good-to-great company during the transition era,” “self-effacing individuals who displayed the fierce resolve to do whatever needed to be done to make the company great.” Collins wrote:

Spoiler:

Jim Collins wrote:We were not looking for Level 5 leadership or anything like it. In fact, I gave the research team explicit instructions to downplay the role of top executives so that we could avoid the simplistic “credit the leader” or “blame the leader” thinking common today.

To use an analogy, the “Leadership is the answer to everything” perspective is the modern equivalent of the “God is the answer to everything” perspective that held back our scientific understanding of the physical world in the Dark Ages. In the 1500s, people ascribed all events they didn’t understand to God. Why did the crops fail? God did it. Why did we have an earthquake? God did it. What holds the planets in place? God. But with the Enlightenment, we began the search for a more scientific understanding—physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth. Not that we became atheists, but we gained deeper understanding about how the universe ticks.

Similarly, every time we attribute everything to “Leadership,” we’re no different from people in the 1500s. We’re simply admitting our ignorance. Not that we should become leadership atheists (leadership does matter), but every time we throw our hands up in frustration—reverting back to “Well, the answer must be Leadership!”—we prevent ourselves from gaining deeper, more scientific understanding about what makes great companies tick.

So, early in the project, I kept insisting, “Ignore the executives.” But the research team kept pushing back, “No! There is something consistently unusual about them. We can’t ignore them.” And I’d respond, “But the comparison companies also had leaders, even some great leaders. So, what’s different?” Back and forth the debate raged.

Finally—as should always be the case—the data won.

The good-to-great executives were all cut from the same cloth. It didn’t matter whether the company was consumer or industrial, in crisis or steady state, offered services or products. It didn’t matter when the transition took place or how big the company. All the good-to-great companies had Level 5 leadership at the time of transition. Furthermore, the absence of Level 5 leadership showed up as a consistent pattern in the comparison companies. Given that Level 5 leadership cuts against the grain of conventional wisdom, especially the belief that we need larger-than-life saviors with big personalities to transform companies, it is important to note that Level 5 is an empirical finding, not an ideological one.

How does this relate to Duncan?

Well, in 2007, before Game 4 of the NBA Finals against the Cavaliers, John Hollinger said that the Spurs “were the first basketball team to really operate like a corporation […].” In 2014, the International Business Times published an article that said that the Spurs operated like a high-level business.

Terance Wolfe, a professor of clinical management and organization at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, sees the parallel with how the Spurs achieved sustained success and how businesses thrive

So the Spurs were the first NBA team to operate like a corporation, and Brent Barry said that Tim Duncan would be the CEO of that corporation. Spurs general manager R.C. Buford said that “The truth is we all work for Timmy.” “We all see it R.C.’s way,” said Sean Elliott, who played 11 of his 12 seasons in the NBA with the Spurs (1989-90 to 1992-93, 1994-95 to 2000-01), the last four of those with Duncan. “We’re not dumb. We all know we wouldn’t have any rings without Timmy. Everybody understands that. We all feel like we’re working for Timmy.”

So the Spurs were the first NBA team team to operate like a corporation, Brent Barry said Duncan was the CEO of that corporation, and R.C. Buford and Sean Elliot both said that they all worked for Duncan.

Gregg Popovich wrote:Before you start handing out applause and credit to anyone else in this organization for anything that's been accomplished, remember it all starts with and goes through Timmy

Now to go back to Collins's research. Keeping in mind the parallels made between the Spurs and an organization/high-level business, every company Collins and his research team studied that made the jump from good to great and sustained that success for at least 15 years had Level 5 leadership. When Duncan retired last year, the Spurs had the longest run of sustained success in NBA history, 19 consecutive years.

Level 5 leaders display

Spoiler:

When Duncan announced his retirement last year, those adjectives were continually used to describe him in articles written about him. After reading this research, I went back in my Duncan file and made notes of it. After the Spurs won their third NBA title in five years and fourth overall in 2007 after sweeping the Cavaliers, Spurs general manager R.C. Buford said of Duncan, “In terms of humility, he’s a different animal in today’s world. I’m not sure the systems that are in place now allow someone to grow up that untainted. In that way, you may never see another like him.” During Duncan's rookie year, Gregg Popovich said of Duncan, "there's not an ounce of MTV in him." Also: "His approach is totally unique in today's world. […] He couldn't care less about himself." There's plenty more.

Bruce Bowen wrote:Even in a day and age of promoting the individual, he didn’t allow anything about himself to take away from the good of the group

He definitely fits the profile.

Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company

And while Duncan and the Spurs were doing what they were doing, the fans and the league continued to look at the larger-than-life personalities.

Another trait of Level 5 leaders is

Spoiler:

Being "The Man" or ceding offensive primacy, taking paycuts, even sitting on the bench, Duncan did whatever needed to be done in order to make the organization great.

Shaquille O'Neal is an unstoppable force, but Duncan is the one player in the post- Michael Jordan era who knows both how to make his teammates better and when to take over. (Dec. 15, 2003)

Adrian Wojnarowski wrote:The best player in the sport is still Tim Duncan, because everything he's ever done has been with winning as his motivation. There's never a peep out of his locker room about who's getting the most shots, getting plays run for them, nothing of the sort. The Spurs talk about one thing in San Antonio, and that's winning, because Duncan makes sure of it.

Most of the greats force the world around them to bend to their will. But Duncan morphed his greatness to fit what was around him, and because he did so, he made those who touched his greatness also great.

Duncan was the embodiment of the persona of selflessness that has become the overriding characterization of the Spurs, as he always provided what the team needed.

Whether that meant adjusting his role for the team or taking less money, he always did what was asked of him, as though it needed to be asked at all. He wasn’t just a great player; he was the greatest teammate ever.

Some leaders of the comparison companies that didn't achieve sustained success had what was called “the ‘biggest dog’ syndrome—they didn’t mind other dogs in the kennel, as long as they remained the biggest one.” Duncan didn't care about being “the biggest dog” or “The Man.” And he allowed Popovich to treat him the same as the 12th man on the bench, which empowered Popovich and enabled him to coach.

Collins wrote that a key trait of Level 5 leaders is

Spoiler:

This is what the majority of basketball fans didn't get about Duncan. As I and others have said, the Spurs' continued success is part of his legacy. Antonio Daniels said:

Spoiler:

Duncan is a case study of Level 5 leadership in NBA basketball. Duncan brought Level 5 leadership to the NBA, and, as Level 5 leaders do, he set his team up for success after he retired, which sets him apart from every other all-time great in NBA history. He took less money to enable the Spurs to sign Aldridge, went to the recruiting pitch with him, and continued to support him as he was trying to acclimate himself to the Spurs' offense, because the ambition of Level 5 leader is toward the success of their corporations and their continued success even after they're gone rather than riches and personal renown. Duncan's paycuts to help the team and lack of interest in fame is typical of the Level 5 leadership required for a corporation to go from good to great and sustain that greatness for at least 15 years. That's why the Spurs were the longest-running dynasty in NBA history, because it was the only one with a Level 5 leader at the helm. Collins found that all corporations he looked at that went from good to great and sustained it for 15 years had Level 5 leadership. And Level 5 leaders don't even care if no one realizes that they were the root of their corporation's success.

But the average fan sees "falling apart without you" as a sign of greatness. Because this is an individualistic culture. It isn't about building something to last beyond you. And thus you see people on internet boards use the Spurs' success as proof that Duncan was overrated and nothing more than "a system player."

Spoiler:

Research also shows that Duncan's form of leadership fosters initiative, as opposed to more extroverted forms of leadership that results in passivity. I'm sure everyone can easily think of players who turn their teammates into passive bystanders, standing around and watching. When Tony Parker won the NBA Finals MVP award in 2007 after the Spurs swept the Cleveland Cavaliers, Parker said afterward, “I feel very privileged to play with him because he’s a superstar, and very unselfish. He gave me the opportunity to play my best basketball at the right moment.” That's what Level 5 leaders do, enable other people to succeed.

Cain wrote that a classically introverted U.S. Air Force wing commander Wharton management professor Adam Grant told her was one of the finest leaders he had ever met, wasn’t concerned with getting credit. In an interview for Dime Magazine in 2010, Tim Duncan said, “As long as we’re winning games, it doesn’t matter who gets credit for what.”

You told me once that you grew up a fan of the Lakers and Magic Johnson. Do you think team leaders have to be like a Magic, like a Michael Jordan?

“No, because I’m not built like them and I’d (still) consider myself a leader,” Duncan says. “I’m built different — I would guess. I’m a different type of leader. I try to lead by example, try to be the best player I can on the floor. I’m not a big locker-room speech guy. I don’t do that stuff. I think what I do is effective.”

Since this is an internet forum, I can't go on too much longer, as it's already TL;DR status. But Duncan was right when he said he didn’t think team leaders had to be like Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan, and he was right when he said he considered himself a leader, but was a different type of leader. The research validates his approach. “Level 5 leadership cuts against the grain of conventional wisdom, especially the belief that we need larger-than-life saviors with big personalities to transform companies […].”

Michael Williams wrote:Such findings appear to be at odds with traditional perceptions of effective leaders who are so often seen as — highly egotistical, ‘charismatic’, high-profile, colourful personalities.

As more rigorous research now seems to indicate, some of those narcissistic leaders, who set out to cultivate mythology about themselves, have their ‘brief, gaudy hour’ and may achieve short-term successes, while others may bring about necessary turn-around within their businesses. Yet, not too many of them leave legacies of long-term transformation and enduring success.

He was "different" and "unique" in the NBA that he played in, but the research shows that he's exactly the kind of leader corporations need to both become great and sustain that greatness for at least 15 years.

Spoiler:

Other NBA teams have had greater short-term success, but none have had the enduring success that the Spurs of the Duncan Era had. The Bulls had their pair of three-peats and were irrelevant both before and after that eight-year period. The Shaq and Kobe Lakers three-peated and—despite both being in their 20s and having an all-time great coach who'd already coached six NBA championship teams before he got there—were done two years later. They didn't endure because they didn't have the leadership needed for lasting success. The research showed that a lack of Level 5 leadership was a consistent pattern in comparison companies that were unable to sustain their greatness.

When Duncan announced his retirement, Kevin Arnovitz wrote on ESPN.com that Duncan was the most influential player of his time:

Spoiler:

Duncan was the most influential player of his time because he brought Level 5 leadership to the NBA, and after leading the Spurs to the longest run of sustained success in NBA history, the league became consumed with the adoption and implementation of organizational culture, trying to replicate the Spurs’ success. But as Zach Harper wrote, “When we say a team should adopt what the Spurs have done, what we’re really urging is for the star player of that team to adopt Duncan’s selflessness in the name of the fire burning inside of him to win.” And as Arnovitz wrote, Duncan was the essential ingredient all the teams seeking to replicate the Spurs’ success were missing. “[T]he key ingredient that allows a company to become great is having a Level 5 leader.” Recall that Level 5 leaders are “self-effacing individuals who displayed the fierce resolve to do whatever needed to be done to make the company great.”

Spoiler:

The research shows that the Spurs' success during the Duncan Era shouldn't be surprising. And that, no, you can't just plug in another player in Duncan's place and expect to get the same success. Five years ago, G35 said:

G35 wrote:The Spurs are the winningest team in pro sports since Duncan arrived. That is not a coincidence

It wasn't.

Basketball is just one of many interests that I have, and I like seeing the connections between different things. Some regard "intangibles" as something "peripheral" and "unimportant," and that's up for each person to decide for himself. But I can't ignore what I know to be true. The Spurs were the first NBA team to operate like a corporation, the International Business Times said that the Spurs operated like a high-level business, and a study which took five years to collect and analyze the data revealed that all the businesses looked at that made the transition from good to great and sustained that greatness for at least 15 years had exactly the type of leadership Tim Duncan provided. It wasn't a coincidence that Duncan's team sparked an interest in organizational culture in an attempt to replicate their success, and was also the first team in NBA history to have 15 consecutive years of success.

Even though leadership is viewed as "intangible," for the Spurs it has had decidedly tangible results.

kayess · Post #167 » by **kayess** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:38 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:
micahclay wrote:6. Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Tharegul8r has been an even bigger champion of this than I have, but these are grown men who make choices, and those choices affect people. I can’t quantify this as well as some others can, but I know
ThaRegul8r wrote:.

has some stuff on Duncan that further explains this that I’m looking forward to reading.

Okay, this is referring to what I said about Duncan's leadership style being related to the Spurs' success. So I was integrating what I found into my Duncan file and corroborating it with examples since I have over 1,200 pages to go through, but it started in Duncan's last game with a little over 9 minutes left, when Jeff Van Gundy said Duncan ushered in a different kind of leadership. Nate Duncan had tweeted:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

In Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking , among the things Susan Cain talked about was "The Myth of Charismatic Leadership." She wrote that we overestimate how outgoing leaders need to be. “[T]he ranks of effective CEOs turn out to be filled with introverts," she wrote, "including Charles Schwab; Bill Gates; Brenda Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee; and James Copeland, former CEO of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.” She referred to “a famous study by the influential management theorist Jim Collins, many of the best-performing companies of the late twentieth century were run by what he calls “Level 5 Leaders.” I prefer primary sources to second-hand sources, so I searched for it myself and finally found it.

In his referenced study, Jim Collins and his research team “identified companies that made the leap from good results to great results and sustained those results for at least fifteen years,” and compared those companies to “a carefully selected control group of comparison companies that failed to make the leap, or if they did, failed to sustain it,” and “then compared the good-to-great companies to the comparison companies to discover the essential and distinguishing factors at work.” He found that “Level 5 Leaders,” which he defined as individuals who blend “extreme personal humility with intense professional will,” were found “at the helm of every good-to-great company during the transition era,” “self-effacing individuals who displayed the fierce resolve to do whatever needed to be done to make the company great.” Collins wrote:

Spoiler:
Jim Collins wrote:We were not looking for Level 5 leadership or anything like it. In fact, I gave the research team explicit instructions to downplay the role of top executives so that we could avoid the simplistic “credit the leader” or “blame the leader” thinking common today.

To use an analogy, the “Leadership is the answer to everything” perspective is the modern equivalent of the “God is the answer to everything” perspective that held back our scientific understanding of the physical world in the Dark Ages. In the 1500s, people ascribed all events they didn’t understand to God. Why did the crops fail? God did it. Why did we have an earthquake? God did it. What holds the planets in place? God. But with the Enlightenment, we began the search for a more scientific understanding—physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth. Not that we became atheists, but we gained deeper understanding about how the universe ticks.

Similarly, every time we attribute everything to “Leadership,” we’re no different from people in the 1500s. We’re simply admitting our ignorance. Not that we should become leadership atheists (leadership does matter), but every time we throw our hands up in frustration—reverting back to “Well, the answer must be Leadership!”—we prevent ourselves from gaining deeper, more scientific understanding about what makes great companies tick.

So, early in the project, I kept insisting, “Ignore the executives.” But the research team kept pushing back, “No! There is something consistently unusual about them. We can’t ignore them.” And I’d respond, “But the comparison companies also had leaders, even some great leaders. So, what’s different?” Back and forth the debate raged.

Finally—as should always be the case—the data won.

The good-to-great executives were all cut from the same cloth. It didn’t matter whether the company was consumer or industrial, in crisis or steady state, offered services or products. It didn’t matter when the transition took place or how big the company. All the good-to-great companies had Level 5 leadership at the time of transition. Furthermore, the absence of Level 5 leadership showed up as a consistent pattern in the comparison companies. Given that Level 5 leadership cuts against the grain of conventional wisdom, especially the belief that we need larger-than-life saviors with big personalities to transform companies, it is important to note that Level 5 is an empirical finding, not an ideological one.

How does this relate to Duncan?

Well, in 2007, before Game 4 of the NBA Finals against the Cavaliers, John Hollinger said that the Spurs “were the first basketball team to really operate like a corporation […].” In 2014, the International Business Times published an article that said that the Spurs operated like a high-level business.

Terance Wolfe, a professor of clinical management and organization at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, sees the parallel with how the Spurs achieved sustained success and how businesses thrive

So the Spurs were the first NBA team to operate like a corporation, and Brent Barry said that Tim Duncan would be the CEO of that corporation. Spurs general manager R.C. Buford said that “The truth is we all work for Timmy.” “We all see it R.C.’s way,” said Sean Elliott, who played 11 of his 12 seasons in the NBA with the Spurs (1989-90 to 1992-93, 1994-95 to 2000-01), the last four of those with Duncan. “We’re not dumb. We all know we wouldn’t have any rings without Timmy. Everybody understands that. We all feel like we’re working for Timmy.”

So the Spurs were the first NBA team team to operate like a corporation, Brent Barry said Duncan was the CEO of that corporation, and R.C. Buford and Sean Elliot both said that they all worked for Duncan.

Gregg Popovich wrote:Before you start handing out applause and credit to anyone else in this organization for anything that's been accomplished, remember it all starts with and goes through Timmy

Now to go back to Collins's research. Keeping in mind the parallels made between the Spurs and an organization/high-level business, every company Collins and his research team studied that made the jump from good to great and sustained that success for at least 15 years had Level 5 leadership. When Duncan retired last year, the Spurs had the longest run of sustained success in NBA history, 19 consecutive years.

Level 5 leaders display

Spoiler:
A Compelling Modesty

In contrast to the very I-centric style of the comparison leaders, we were struck by how the good-to-great leaders didn’t talk about themselves. During interviews with the good-to-great leaders, they’d talk about the company and the contributions of other executives as long as we’d like but would deflect discussion about their own contributions. […] It wasn’t just false modesty. Those who worked with or wrote about the good-to-great leaders continually used words like quiet, humble, modest, reserved, shy, gracious, mild-mannered, self-effacing, understated, did not believe his own clippings; and so forth. […] The good-to-great leaders never wanted to become larger-than-life heroes. They never aspired to be put on a pedestal or become unreachable icons. They were seemingly ordinary people quietly producing extraordinary results.

When Duncan announced his retirement last year, those adjectives were continually used to describe him in articles written about him. After reading this research, I went back in my Duncan file and made notes of it. After the Spurs won their third NBA title in five years and fourth overall in 2007 after sweeping the Cavaliers, Spurs general manager R.C. Buford said of Duncan, “In terms of humility, he’s a different animal in today’s world. I’m not sure the systems that are in place now allow someone to grow up that untainted. In that way, you may never see another like him.” During Duncan's rookie year, Gregg Popovich said of Duncan, "there's not an ounce of MTV in him." Also: "His approach is totally unique in today's world. […] He couldn't care less about himself." There's plenty more.

Bruce Bowen wrote:Even in a day and age of promoting the individual, he didn’t allow anything about himself to take away from the good of the group

He definitely fits the profile.

Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company

And while Duncan and the Spurs were doing what they were doing, the fans and the league continued to look at the larger-than-life personalities.

Another trait of Level 5 leaders is

Spoiler:
Unwavering Resolve ... to Do What Must Be Done

It is very important to grasp that Level 5 leadership is not just about humility and modesty. It is equally about ferocious resolve, an almost stoic determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the company great.

Being "The Man" or ceding offensive primacy, taking paycuts, even sitting on the bench, Duncan did whatever needed to be done in order to make the organization great.

Shaquille O'Neal is an unstoppable force, but Duncan is the one player in the post- Michael Jordan era who knows both how to make his teammates better and when to take over. (Dec. 15, 2003)

Adrian Wojnarowski wrote:The best player in the sport is still Tim Duncan, because everything he's ever done has been with winning as his motivation. There's never a peep out of his locker room about who's getting the most shots, getting plays run for them, nothing of the sort. The Spurs talk about one thing in San Antonio, and that's winning, because Duncan makes sure of it.

Most of the greats force the world around them to bend to their will. But Duncan morphed his greatness to fit what was around him, and because he did so, he made those who touched his greatness also great.

Duncan was the embodiment of the persona of selflessness that has become the overriding characterization of the Spurs, as he always provided what the team needed.

Whether that meant adjusting his role for the team or taking less money, he always did what was asked of him, as though it needed to be asked at all. He wasn’t just a great player; he was the greatest teammate ever.

Some leaders of the comparison companies that didn't achieve sustained success had what was called “the ‘biggest dog’ syndrome—they didn’t mind other dogs in the kennel, as long as they remained the biggest one.” Duncan didn't care about being “the biggest dog” or “The Man.” And he allowed Popovich to treat him the same as the 12th man on the bench, which empowered Popovich and enabled him to coach.

Collins wrote that a key trait of Level 5 leaders is

Spoiler:
ambition first and foremost for the company and concern for its success rather than for one’s own riches and personal renown. Level 5 leaders want to see the company even more successful in the next generation, comfortable with the idea that most people won’t even know that the roots of that success trace back to their efforts. As one Level 5 leader said, “I want to look out from my porch at one of the great companies in the world someday and be able to say, ‘I used to work there.’ ”

In contrast, the comparison leaders, concerned more with their own reputation for personal greatness, often failed to set the company up for success in the next generation. After all, what better testament to your own personal greatness than that the place falls apart after you leave?

This is what the majority of basketball fans didn't get about Duncan. As I and others have said, the Spurs' continued success is part of his legacy. Antonio Daniels said:

Spoiler:
Antonio Daniels wrote:"I think this is a testament to Tim Duncan. When people are constantly comparing Duncan's career with other careers, my argument to them is look at the state Tim Duncan left the Spurs in. If you go to other organizations where certain players leave that have era after their names, they're in the lottery, rebuilding, and trying to start over."

Spoiler:
Largely because of Duncan -- as well as calculated moves from the front office -- the Spurs won’t have to start over the way many franchises do at the end of such a long run of success. Thanks in large part to the stability and success Duncan has provided, San Antonio has been able to stash away overseas draft prospects and bring them into the fold once they’re ready to contribute, while Duncan and the rest of the Spurs continued to seriously contend for titles.

The Spurs also owe a debt of gratitude to Duncan for playing a key role in establishing a culture of selflessness and team basketball that makes San Antonio one of the NBA’s most coveted destinations for top talent. Duncan made that talent more attainable, too, by taking team-friendly deals throughout his career. Remember the hometown discount Duncan gave the Spurs last year when he re-upped for $10.8 million over two years?

Because of that, the team’s new core of Leonard, Aldridge, Parker and Gasol should be strong enough to carry the franchise into a future.

[…]

The thing is, all those positive attributes will continue to resonate long after Duncan’s departure and will influence nearly every player donning the silver and black for the next several years.

Spoiler:
During his time with the Spurs, Duncan was committed to winning. Whether that meant taking less money or altering his role on the team, he kept his ego in check for the sake of the team. Even in retirement, he still participates in practices to help the players improve. This continued dedication to his team is what makes Duncan an even bigger Spurs legend.

Spoiler:
We’ve seen legends leave franchises in shambles, from Michael Jordan to Larry Bird to Kobe Bryant (while he was still active!) to LeBron James. Duncan’s presence, his personality and his unselfishness wouldn’t allow that to happen to the Spurs. He had the grace and humility to cede touches and shots to Ginobili and Parker as far back as 2004, giving them the room and opportunity to grow and flourish, without jealousy or resentment, and it made the whole team collectively better while simultaneously lengthening all of their careers because no one got worn down. He allowed them to mature, not just players, but as leaders of the team. And we’re seeing the fruits of that maturity now, as they’re role players mentoring the young stars of the next generation.

Duncan is a case study of Level 5 leadership in NBA basketball. Duncan brought Level 5 leadership to the NBA, and, as Level 5 leaders do, he set his team up for success after he retired, which sets him apart from every other all-time great in NBA history. He took less money to enable the Spurs to sign Aldridge, went to the recruiting pitch with him, and continued to support him as he was trying to acclimate himself to the Spurs' offense, because the ambition of Level 5 leader is toward the success of their corporations and their continued success even after they're gone rather than riches and personal renown. Duncan's paycuts to help the team and lack of interest in fame is typical of the Level 5 leadership required for a corporation to go from good to great and sustain that greatness for at least 15 years. That's why the Spurs were the longest-running dynasty in NBA history, because it was the only one with a Level 5 leader at the helm. Collins found that all corporations he looked at that went from good to great and sustained it for 15 years had Level 5 leadership. And Level 5 leaders don't even care if no one realizes that they were the root of their corporation's success.

But the average fan sees "falling apart without you" as a sign of greatness. Because this is an individualistic culture. It isn't about building something to last beyond you. And thus you see people on internet boards use the Spurs' success as proof that Duncan was overrated and nothing more than "a system player."

Spoiler:
Jim Collins wrote:My hypothesis is that there are two categories of people: those who do not have the seed of Level 5 and those who do. The first category consists of people who could never in a million years bring themselves to subjugate their egoistic needs to the greater ambition of building something larger and more lasting than themselves. For these people, work will always be first and foremost about what they get—fame, fortune, adulation, power, whatever—not what they build, create, and contribute.

The great irony is that the animus and personal ambition that often drive people to positions of power stand at odds with the humility required for Level 5 leadership. When you combine that irony with the fact that boards of directors frequently operate under the false belief that they need to hire a larger-than-life, egocentric leader to make an organization great, you can quickly see why Level 5 leaders rarely appear at the top of our institutions.

Research also shows that Duncan's form of leadership fosters initiative, as opposed to more extroverted forms of leadership that results in passivity. I'm sure everyone can easily think of players who turn their teammates into passive bystanders, standing around and watching. When Tony Parker won the NBA Finals MVP award in 2007 after the Spurs swept the Cleveland Cavaliers, Parker said afterward, “I feel very privileged to play with him because he’s a superstar, and very unselfish. He gave me the opportunity to play my best basketball at the right moment.” That's what Level 5 leaders do, enable other people to succeed.

Cain wrote that a classically introverted U.S. Air Force wing commander Wharton management professor Adam Grant told her was one of the finest leaders he had ever met, wasn’t concerned with getting credit. In an interview for Dime Magazine in 2010, Tim Duncan said, “As long as we’re winning games, it doesn’t matter who gets credit for what.”

You told me once that you grew up a fan of the Lakers and Magic Johnson. Do you think team leaders have to be like a Magic, like a Michael Jordan?

“No, because I’m not built like them and I’d (still) consider myself a leader,” Duncan says. “I’m built different — I would guess. I’m a different type of leader. I try to lead by example, try to be the best player I can on the floor. I’m not a big locker-room speech guy. I don’t do that stuff. I think what I do is effective.”

Since this is an internet forum, I can't go on too much longer, as it's already TL;DR status. But Duncan was right when he said he didn’t think team leaders had to be like Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan, and he was right when he said he considered himself a leader, but was a different type of leader. The research validates his approach. “Level 5 leadership cuts against the grain of conventional wisdom, especially the belief that we need larger-than-life saviors with big personalities to transform companies […].”

Michael Williams wrote:Such findings appear to be at odds with traditional perceptions of effective leaders who are so often seen as — highly egotistical, ‘charismatic’, high-profile, colourful personalities.

As more rigorous research now seems to indicate, some of those narcissistic leaders, who set out to cultivate mythology about themselves, have their ‘brief, gaudy hour’ and may achieve short-term successes, while others may bring about necessary turn-around within their businesses. Yet, not too many of them leave legacies of long-term transformation and enduring success.

He was "different" and "unique" in the NBA that he played in, but the research shows that he's exactly the kind of leader corporations need to both become great and sustain that greatness for at least 15 years.

Spoiler:
In the Spurs' day-to-day operations, Duncan's emotional intelligence was the connective tissue that held together Popovich's disciplined structure. Duncan would readily pass the mantle to Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, then celebrate their success as if it was his own.

"The thing that amazed me about how Timmy built relationships was how subtle it was -- the touch, the arm around the shoulder, the thing that would look like little or nothing to outsiders," Budenholzer says. "It affected people, maybe because it was subtle and under-the-radar."

Blake Griffin, who has admired the way Duncan carries himself, sought out Duncan's counsel a few years back. Griffin was part of a Los Angeles Clippers team that now had several loud voices and wanted to glean how quiet leadership could make a difference.

"The thing I took away the most was this idea that a leader isn't the guy who's pounding the chest, or huddles or giving motivational speech," Griffin says. "It was really reassuring to me as a younger guy, that you don't have to be something you're not. Of many things you can say about him, that's the thing that sets him apart -- he never tried to see who wasn't. And it works.

"At any time, there's always the one guy they'll use as an example. Maybe it's Russell Wilson for a year or two. Then they move on to Tom Brady or [Kevin Garnett]. But [Duncan] has been the guy you constantly hear about who's constantly doing it right. He's the guy who deserved the shine, but was riding underneath it."

[…]

Tim Duncan invented the NBA's modern vision of team culture. Now the rest of basketball is trying to imitate the guy nobody found fashionable.

Other NBA teams have had greater short-term success, but none have had the enduring success that the Spurs of the Duncan Era had. The Bulls had their pair of three-peats and were irrelevant both before and after that eight-year period. The Shaq and Kobe Lakers three-peated and—despite both being in their 20s and having an all-time great coach who'd already coached six NBA championship teams before he got there—were done two years later. They didn't endure because they didn't have the leadership needed for lasting success. The research showed that a lack of Level 5 leadership was a consistent pattern in comparison companies that were unable to sustain their greatness.

When Duncan announced his retirement, Kevin Arnovitz wrote on ESPN.com that Duncan was the most influential player of his time:

Spoiler:
Kevin Arnovitz wrote:Inside the league, Tim Duncan became the most influential player of his generation. Though he had little public appeal outside central Texas over his two decades in the league, Duncan ushered in cultural change in NBA practice facilities, locker rooms and executive suites.

The present-day NBA has become singularly consumed with the adoption and implementation of organizational culture. Forever looking for competitive advantages, franchises have turned to workplace culture as a bulwark. We might not be able to attract a top-line free agent, or hit the jackpot in the draft, but there are 44 games in an NBA season that can be won if we value the right things.

This is the league's guiding principle in 2016, from Atlanta and Salt Lake City to Oklahoma City and Brooklyn, where disciples of the Tim Duncan era learned the art and science of team-building in San Antonio. They've applied the findings and sculpted them to suit a particular roster or market. Some have enjoyed modest success while others are just getting started. But try as they might to replicate the Spurs' recipe, all of them are forced to concede at a certain juncture that they're missing one essential ingredient:

They don't have Tim Duncan.

Duncan was the most influential player of his time because he brought Level 5 leadership to the NBA, and after leading the Spurs to the longest run of sustained success in NBA history, the league became consumed with the adoption and implementation of organizational culture, trying to replicate the Spurs’ success. But as Zach Harper wrote, “When we say a team should adopt what the Spurs have done, what we’re really urging is for the star player of that team to adopt Duncan’s selflessness in the name of the fire burning inside of him to win.” And as Arnovitz wrote, Duncan was the essential ingredient all the teams seeking to replicate the Spurs’ success were missing. “[T]he key ingredient that allows a company to become great is having a Level 5 leader.” Recall that Level 5 leaders are “self-effacing individuals who displayed the fierce resolve to do whatever needed to be done to make the company great.”

Spoiler:
Jim Collins wrote:Not long ago, I shared the Level 5 finding with a gathering of senior executives. A woman who had recently become chief executive of her company raised her hand and said, “I believe what you say about the good-to-great leaders. But I’m disturbed because when I look in the mirror, I know that I’m not Level 5, not yet anyway. Part of the reason I got this job is because of my ego drives. Are you telling me that I can’t make this a great company if I’m not Level 5?”

“I don’t know for certain that you absolutely must be a Level 5 leader to make your company great,” I replied. “I will simply point back to the data: Of 1,435 companies that appeared on the Fortune 500 in our initial candidate list, only eleven made the very tough cut into our study. In those eleven, all of them had Level 5 leadership in key positions, including the CEO, at the pivotal time of transition.”

The research shows that the Spurs' success during the Duncan Era shouldn't be surprising. And that, no, you can't just plug in another player in Duncan's place and expect to get the same success. Five years ago, G35 said:

G35 wrote:The Spurs are the winningest team in pro sports since Duncan arrived. That is not a coincidence

It wasn't.

Basketball is just one of many interests that I have, and I like seeing the connections between different things. Some regard "intangibles" as something "peripheral" and "unimportant," and that's up for each person to decide for himself. But I can't ignore what I know to be true. The Spurs were the first NBA team to operate like a corporation, the International Business Times said that the Spurs operated like a high-level business, and a study which took five years to collect and analyze the data revealed that all the businesses looked at that made the transition from good to great and sustained that greatness for at least 15 years had exactly the type of leadership Tim Duncan provided. It wasn't a coincidence that Duncan's team sparked an interest in organizational culture in an attempt to replicate their success, and was also the first team in NBA history to have 15 consecutive years of success.

Even though leadership is viewed as "intangible," for the Spurs it has had decidedly tangible results.

And there you were nearly not participating in this project. Absolutely masterful post. I feel like if:
(1) the drivers of what make a level 5 leader a level 5 leader can be statistically validated
(2) it can be shown duncan is the de facto leader of the organization (ie, actual decision making), and
(3) he is a level 5 leader

Then he has to be by far, the GOAT right? Because that means his expected championships accumulates beyond even his playing career. That's insane.

Blackmill · Post #168 » by **Blackmill** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:44 pm

First Vote: Kareem
Second Vote: Duncan

I write this without explanation only because I'm unsure if voting will still be open tomorrow. I will give my reasoning then regardless of whether voting has closed or not. I just finished parsing the videos, and it's nearly 5:45 AM here, so I need some sleep.

Dr Spaceman · Post #169 » by **Dr Spaceman** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:50 pm

janmagn wrote:
BasketballFan7 wrote:
janmagn wrote:A question for the guys who consider Russell their GOAT: how much you do that based on his championships? Yes, he has the most championships, but I think you have to consider the situation. Russell played in a team that had one of the GOAT coaches and had teammates, that couldn't be matched by other team in the league. That wasn't even close. Also with his lack of offensive game, I don't see it. Any other criteria for Russell being the GOAT?

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

I believe that there are strong arguments. To be brief:

- Impact (has been shown to be outstanding... he was the driving force behind the dynasty, not the surrounding players and coach [Russell was player-coach later on, obviously, and still won after that first year])
- Consistency (his defense oriented impact was consistent on a game to game, season to season basis and not as impacted by variance as a volume scorer's impact, who can have a bad night shooting the ball and see his impact reduced greatly)
- Durability / Availability (this is huge for me, Russell was anchoring his teams during his entire career and had a seemingly incredibly consistent, extended prime from 1959-1966; he only missed significant regular season games in 1957 as a rookie and 2 playoff games in his second year; Jordan missing 1985, 1994, 1995 is grossly undervalued IMO)
- Portability / Scalability / Resilience / Scarcity - all the words being used in this thread, Russell checks every box due to the method of his impact
- Intangibles (clearly GOAT level in this area, if you value that sort of thing)

When comparing Russell, to say Robinson, we can see a great defensive impact. But Robinson had much better offensive impact. Was Russell that much better than Robinson impact wise?

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

He clearly was. Matter of fact, Russell clearly was more impactful than Michael Jordan, by a substantial enough margin that if we don't adjust for era, there's no GOAT debate. The question is whether Russell could replicate his own success in other eras or whether modern players could replicate his success in his.

Dr Spaceman · Post #170 » by **Dr Spaceman** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:59 pm

Don't have a ton of time to contribute right now unfortunately. I am planning to vote for Bill Russell. His in-era impact was obscene, and frankly blows away every other player on the list. We saw other superstars in that era and none of them looked like Russell did. 11 titles in a 13 year career and ended it with defeating the first ever super team as player-coach. The cast around him kept changing, the success didn't, Russell is the constant. Unlike Jordan, he never lost the hunger, never got bored of basketball. Unlike LeBron, there was never any doubt as to whether the best version of him was showing up. I think if people truly understood the day to day focus, intensity and drive to do what Russell did, they'd have a lot more appreciation for him. Russell is my GOAT.

#2 is a toss up for me between Jordan/LeBron. I'll look at some arguments.

BasketballFan7 · Post #171 » by **BasketballFan7** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:16 pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
janmagn wrote:
BasketballFan7 wrote:
I believe that there are strong arguments. To be brief:

- Impact (has been shown to be outstanding... he was the driving force behind the dynasty, not the surrounding players and coach [Russell was player-coach later on, obviously, and still won after that first year])
- Consistency (his defense oriented impact was consistent on a game to game, season to season basis and not as impacted by variance as a volume scorer's impact, who can have a bad night shooting the ball and see his impact reduced greatly)
- Durability / Availability (this is huge for me, Russell was anchoring his teams during his entire career and had a seemingly incredibly consistent, extended prime from 1959-1966; he only missed significant regular season games in 1957 as a rookie and 2 playoff games in his second year; Jordan missing 1985, 1994, 1995 is grossly undervalued IMO)
- Portability / Scalability / Resilience / Scarcity - all the words being used in this thread, Russell checks every box due to the method of his impact
- Intangibles (clearly GOAT level in this area, if you value that sort of thing)

When comparing Russell, to say Robinson, we can see a great defensive impact. But Robinson had much better offensive impact. Was Russell that much better than Robinson impact wise?

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

He clearly was. Matter of fact, Russell clearly was more impactful than Michael Jordan, by a substantial enough margin that if we don't adjust for era, there's no GOAT debate. The question is whether Russell could replicate his own success in other eras or whether modern players could replicate his success in his.

Yes. As I noted in my post on page 1, I was extremely conservative with respect to Russel's impact and he still came out number one for me by a decent margin. I could have easily gave him a "10" impact from 59-66 and a 9 from 67-69. And I don't understand the era translation concerns at all, so... *shrugs.*

Post #172 » by **TrueLAfan** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:17 pm

This has been a terrific discussion and I have enjoyed pretty much every post I've read on here. Props and thanks to everyone.

I want to briefly talk about two of the three players getting consideration here ...actually, the two I didn't vote for. I want to bring up some things to remember--good and bad--about Russell and Jordan.

We have to remember with Russell that the Celtics had a ton of great players. We can argue about their value and portability, but the fact is that people who watched other Boston players thought Man, these guys are really good. Between 1957 and 1966, the Celtics had a player in the top 10 of MVP voting not named Bill Russell every year. Five times, the other player was in the top 5 of voting. Twice they had two other players in the top 10. These are the individual stars—Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Jones, Havlicek. The role players were pretty great too—Satch Sanders and Frank Ramsey and K.C. Jones and Bailey Howell and Don Nelson and Larry Siegfried. Even if you somehow factored in racial bias in MVP voting (sadly, a factor), that’s a lot of great play. So how does the value get divvied up? Russell gets the Lion’s Share … but what does that mean? I think the Celtics rotation was the best in the league for a good 75-80% of the time Russell was in the league. You have to account for that. And what about Red? Red Auerbach was great. And he was consistent. Russell played for two coaches in his career—one of whom was William Felton Russell. How much does that sort of consistency help? Ask the Spurs. Ask the Showtime Lakers. Ask Phil Jackson’s three peat teams. You have to give Red some of the juice too. The question is … how much?

Well, it’s 11 titles in 13 years—and even with all of those other factors, Russ was the consistent piece. So, I rate Russell over Michael Jordan. It’s very close. I don’t think you can go wrong in the top three. And I absolutely do not downgrade Jordan for his teams often being mediocre in his first 5 years. I think Jordan was about as good or Magic or Larry in those years. Nobody in history could have taken the 1987 Bulls to 50 wins. MJ’s sustained brilliance is statistically verifiable and continued throughout his 11 year peak (1985, 1987-93. 1996-98). He won six rings in two sets of three. He was, and is, in every way amazing.

Some of the issues with Russell you can also state about Jordan, though. Coaching consistency—when Phil showed up, the Bulls started winning titles. A top 10 player alongside in most every championship year. Great rotations…I’d actually say the Russell Celtics had better rotations overall than the Jordan/Jackson Bulls most of the time. But not all the time … and Russell won more. And I think Phil is better than Red, though it’s pretty close.

And while I don’t ding MJ at all for occasionally playing on weaker teams, I’m more and more displeased about the baseball hiatus--and I'm glad it's being brought up. This is something that was kind of brushed under the rug in previous votes, much to my displeasure. We often hear about Jordan’s incredible will to win and dominate. So, what, it went away? He took a break? Really? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Bill Russell didn’t look around in 1962 and say, “You know, I could train and win a Gold Medal in 1964!” and bolt from the Celtics. After the 1985 season, Kareem didn’t say “Wow...that’s my fourth ring, and I got the Finals MVP, and I’m 37 and I’ve played the second most minutes in NBA history. I think I’ll call it a day.” He wanted more. If Jordan had continued to play in those two seasons, he may or may not have won two (or three) more titles. We don’t know. But we know that he chose not to—and that is not something that is subject to era differential or teammates or portability. That’s walking away. I drop him down for that—not much, but enough to slide under Russell.

eminence · Post #173 » by **eminence** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:23 pm

Alright, should probably get something resembling votes up before work today, so here goes. Post might be a bit on the shorter side, as I like to get my thoughts out in smaller chunks throughout the thread (also, it's hard to focus too long while in charge of a baby).

First, a list of honorable mention guys I briefly considered and then a brief explanation for why that consideration was brief:
Bird - not quite the playoff performer legends make him out to be and no longevity to speak of (past the standard 10 or so years that everyone that is getting mentioned at this level has).
Kobe - couldn't come up with any way to put him above Jordan (spoiler Jordan isn't my #1 pick), so set aside until I vote for Jordan.
Oscar - feel like I've been underrating him some lately, but still not quite as high on his Bucks years as some (lorak), and his troubles with Cousy don't look great to me.
Magic - had a prime up there with almost anyone, but got cut off by unfortunate circumstances, think a case could be made, but it's a bit of a would've/should've case
Dirk/West - felt I should list them here because I feel they're the same class of player as these other guys, but never really considered them for #1 and can't quite put my finger on why.
Robinson - I'm really high on his later years so he earns a mention here, but I'm lower on his earlier years offense so this is as high as he goes.
Shaq - Dominant at his best, but feel that that best was a bit too short and the rest of the time a bit inconsistent (mostly in whether or not he was present), and unfortunately feel that was mostly his own fault.
Hakeem - Not high on his offense in early years, also fell off pretty quickly after a brilliant peak.
Wilt/KG - Put these two together because I think a good case can be made that they were the two most talented players ever, but due to situations were miscast for the first half of their careers, changed teams and had one brilliant season before suffering injuries and returning to have more great, but not quite GOAT level seasons. Honestly consideration on these guys wasn't all that brief, but they came up a bit short of my top 5.
Mikan - shoutout to the first top end superstar. But can't see ranking him this high due to competition/short career.

So that left Jordan, LeBron, Duncan, Russell, KAJ, and Ingles (I kid I kid).

Bit higher on Russell than pre-project due to A) a tiny shift towards defense from discussion in this thread and B) Curry helping me accept that a 'one-way' player could match the level of even the best 'two-way' players.

Russell/Jordan/LeBron had (probably in that order - sorry Mikan) the three most dominant prime stretches in league history by my estimation, with both them and their teams consistently at the top of the league hierarchy. But KAJ and Duncan are just a step below that and at this point both still have considerable edges with extra contributing seasons (LeBron's coming for the consensus GOAT crown though it feels). So it comes down to what I wanted to value more, the better primes or longevity. I went with the longer longevity and have Duncan/KAJ as my top two.

Vote: Tim Duncan
-Very strong offensive player for his prime, and a valuable role player on that end in his post prime years. Always a decent efficiency scorer, and a key cog in many different versions of the Spurs machine through his good passing, movement, rebounding, and a bit of spacing out to the midrange (those bankshots).
-Obviously an ATG on the other end. When he got good defensive help they turned in ATG defenses (or even when he was the help in early years with Robinson) and when the help was less helpful they still ranked towards the top of the league. 5 1sts, 4 2nds, 2 3rd, 1 5th in Drating from '98 to '09 for the Spurs. Feel that his defensive longevity was probably more effective than Kareem's on the other end being the main tie-breaker between the two.
-I credit Pop the most for the Spurs culture, but it's certainly a positive for Duncan as well. Together they helped to create a level of team success matched only by the Patriots in recent years. His main competition for this spot (KAJ) did have some troubles in this area.

2nd Choice: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

RCM88x · Post #174 » by **RCM88x** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:50 pm

I'm surprised how many dissenting votes we are getting. Interesting to see nonetheless, but suprising.

Post #175 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:10 pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:Don't have a ton of time to contribute right now unfortunately. I am planning to vote for Bill Russell. His in-era impact was obscene, and frankly blows away every other player on the list. We saw other superstars in that era and none of them looked like Russell did. 11 titles in a 13 year career and ended it with defeating the first ever super team as player-coach. The cast around him kept changing, the success didn't, Russell is the constant. Unlike Jordan, he never lost the hunger, never got bored of basketball. Unlike LeBron, there was never any doubt as to whether the best version of him was showing up. I think if people truly understood the day to day focus, intensity and drive to do what Russell did, they'd have a lot more appreciation for him. Russell is my GOAT.

#2 is a toss up for me between Jordan/LeBron. I'll look at some arguments.

I can be lenient wrt amount of content provided, as it seems I caught a lot of people off guard with the early start. Please specify who the second pick is soon, though.

Post #176 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:16 pm

1st place votes thru post #175:

Michael Jordan - 11
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 8
Bill Russell - 6
Lebron James - 1
Tim Duncan - 1

We're nearly at the 48-hour mark, but will leave this one open another 12-24 hours to give people a little more time to come in with votes and/or further arguments/materials, since I know I sort of jumped the gun a little on the start-time. Try to get your stuff in as soon as possible, though.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Quotatious wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbini wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

PockyCandy wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

andrewww wrote:.

colts18 wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Freighttrain wrote:.

Doormatt wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

Wavy Q wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #177 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:28 pm

I am going to break my own rule and address something I see as flat insupportable:

Tim Duncan is not remotely a GOAT candidate.

And certainly not for the reasons occasionally thrown out. The "longetivity" argument in particular makes little sense.

When "longetivity" is used to trumpet Kareem's GOATiness, there is at least meat to that argument. Through Kareem's longetivity he piled up all time stat totals. And his longetivity was legitimate. He played the most minutes in NBA history, a full 10,000 minutes more than Tim Duncan played. The #2 guy at that all time was Karl Malone, who few on this board like as a Top 10 guy, and yet who's longetivity numbers again dwarf Duncan's (54,000min to 47,000min).

Duncan meanwhile did NOT have a tremendously long peak/prime. This was not Mailman scoring 20+ as his team's #1 option until he was 38. He declined into support player status fairly early, missed chunks of many seasons, was on minutes watch etc. And in fact Duncan's "longetivity" left him with roughly the same career minutes as Wilt Chamberlain, and barely 6000 more than Shaq or Jordan.

And because Duncan lingered as a support player rather than as a star, he didn't do nearly as much with those minutes. What exactly is the GOAT point of playing in games or piling up minutes if you aren't producing numbers? Compare:

Kareem 57446min 24.6pts 11.2reb 3.6ast --> 38387pts 17440reb 5660ast
Mailman 54852min 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast --> 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast
Kobe 48637min 25.0pts 5.2reb 4.7ast --> 33643pts 7047reb 6306ast
Wilt 47859min 30.1pts 22.9reb 4.4ast --> 31419pts 23924reb 4643ast
Duncan 47368min 19.0pts 10.8reb 3.0ast --> 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
LeBron 41271min 27.1pts 7.3reb 7.0ast --> 28787pts 7707reb 7461ast
Jordan 41011min 30.1pts 6.2reb 5.3ast--> 32292pts 6672reb 5633ast

Tim Duncan did not have GOAT level longetivity or production in his longetivity. By the time you hit the GOAT level guys, guys had more productive careers while playing fewer minutes, or far more productive careers while playing more minutes.

Duncan's longetivty/production peers are the second tier guys in the borderline Top 10 discussion, but not the GOAT discussion:

Duncan 47368min 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
Hakeem 44222min 26946pts 13748reb 3058ast
Garnett 50418min 26071pts 14662reb 5445ast
Moses 45071min 27409pts 16212reb 1796ast

JordansBulls · Post #178 » by **JordansBulls** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:32 pm

Winsome Gerbil wrote:I am going to break my own rule and address something I see as flat insupportable:

Tim Duncan is not remotely a GOAT candidate.

And certainly not for the reasons occasionally thrown out. The "longetivity" argument in particular makes little sense.

When "longetivity" is used to trumpet Kareem's GOATiness, there is at least meat to that argument. Through Kareem's longetivity he piled up all time stat totals. And his longetivity was legitimate. He played the most minutes in NBA history, a full 10,000 minutes more than Tim Duncan played. The #2 guy at that all time was Karl Malone, who few on this board like as a Top 10 guy, and yet who's longetivity numbers again dwarf Duncan's (54,000min to 47,000min).

Duncan meanwhile did NOT have a tremendously long peak/prime. This was not Mailman scoring 20+ as his team's #1 option until he was 38. He declined into support player status fairly early, missed chunks of many seasons, was on minutes watch etc. And in fact Duncan's "longetivity" left him with roughly the same career minutes as Wilt Chamberlain, and barely 6000 more than Shaq or Jordan.

And because Duncan lingered as a support player rather than as a star, he didn't do nearly as much with those minutes. What exactly is the GOAT point of playing in games or piling up minutes if you aren't producing numbers? Compare:

Kareem 57446min 24.6pts 11.2reb 3.6ast --> 38387pts 17440reb 5660ast
Mailman 54852min 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast --> 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast
Kobe 48637min 25.0pts 5.2reb 4.7ast --> 33643pts 7047reb 6306ast
Wilt 47859min 30.1pts 22.9reb 4.4ast --> 31419pts 23924reb 4643ast
Duncan 47368min 19.0pts 10.8reb 3.0ast --> 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
LeBron 41271min 27.1pts 7.3reb 7.0ast --> 28787pts 7707reb 7461ast
Jordan 41011min 30.1pts 6.2reb 5.3ast--> 32292pts 6672reb 5633ast

Tim Duncan did not have GOAT level longetivity or production in his longetivity. By the time you hit the GOAT level guys, guys had more productive careers while playing fewer minutes, or far more productive careers while playing more minutes.

Duncan's longetivty/production peers are the second tier guys in the Top 10 discussion, but not the GOAT discussion:

Duncan 47368min 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
Hakeem 44222min 26946pts 13748reb 3058ast
Garnett 50418min 26071pts 14662reb 5445ast
Moses 45071min 27409pts 16212reb 1796ast

Also with Duncan we are talking from after his 10th year in the league he didn't finish any higher than 7th in MVP voting. Whereas guys like MJ and Malone were winning MVP in there 13th year in the league.

kayess · Post #179 » by **kayess** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:35 pm

Vote for now:

1: Russell
2: Kareem

I do think era should be accounted for, but just can't find a 100% objective argument for it. So for now, Russell is my GOAT, and Kareem second (no arguments against his defensive prowess in the thread as of yet - this can change).

eminence · Post #180 » by **eminence** » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:04 pm

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
Spoiler:
I am going to break my own rule and address something I see as flat insupportable:

Tim Duncan is not remotely a GOAT candidate.

And certainly not for the reasons occasionally thrown out. The "longetivity" argument in particular makes little sense.

When "longetivity" is used to trumpet Kareem's GOATiness, there is at least meat to that argument. Through Kareem's longetivity he piled up all time stat totals. And his longetivity was legitimate. He played the most minutes in NBA history, a full 10,000 minutes more than Tim Duncan played. The #2 guy at that all time was Karl Malone, who few on this board like as a Top 10 guy, and yet who's longetivity numbers again dwarf Duncan's (54,000min to 47,000min).

Duncan meanwhile did NOT have a tremendously long peak/prime. This was not Mailman scoring 20+ as his team's #1 option until he was 38. He declined into support player status fairly early, missed chunks of many seasons, was on minutes watch etc. And in fact Duncan's "longetivity" left him with roughly the same career minutes as Wilt Chamberlain, and barely 6000 more than Shaq or Jordan.

And because Duncan lingered as a support player rather than as a star, he didn't do nearly as much with those minutes. What exactly is the GOAT point of playing in games or piling up minutes if you aren't producing numbers? Compare:

Kareem 57446min 24.6pts 11.2reb 3.6ast --> 38387pts 17440reb 5660ast
Mailman 54852min 25.0pts 10.1reb 3.6ast --> 36928pts 14968reb 5248ast
Kobe 48637min 25.0pts 5.2reb 4.7ast --> 33643pts 7047reb 6306ast
Wilt 47859min 30.1pts 22.9reb 4.4ast --> 31419pts 23924reb 4643ast
Duncan 47368min 19.0pts 10.8reb 3.0ast --> 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
LeBron 41271min 27.1pts 7.3reb 7.0ast --> 28787pts 7707reb 7461ast
Jordan 41011min 30.1pts 6.2reb 5.3ast--> 32292pts 6672reb 5633ast

Tim Duncan did not have GOAT level longetivity or production in his longetivity. By the time you hit the GOAT level guys, guys had more productive careers while playing fewer minutes, or far more productive careers while playing more minutes.

Duncan's longetivty/production peers are the second tier guys in the borderline Top 10 discussion, but not the GOAT discussion:

Duncan 47368min 26496pts 15091reb 4225ast
Hakeem 44222min 26946pts 13748reb 3058ast
Garnett 50418min 26071pts 14662reb 5445ast
Moses 45071min 27409pts 16212reb 1796ast

I'm sure we've gotten into this more than once before, but points/rebounds/assists don't even begin to adequately account for production on the basketball court in my book. When you reference someone like 38 year old Malone as an example of productive longevity and then go on to say that Duncan was only a support player later in his career I can't help but laugh at how ridiculously far off our two perceptions are. That gap isn't being bridged anytime soon.