RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #2

[ardee]

1. Modern
2. 2000s
3. 60s (concentration of talent)
4. 90s
5. 80s (serious expansion weakening)
6. 70s (extreme expansion issues)
7. 50s (segregation)

Why 90s over 80s? IMO the main expansion happened in the latter half of the 90s where the league got severely diluted.

[ElGee]

I’m not sure how much I buy it, but I think the argument for Hakeem starts with Winning Bias and league expansion. Expansion makes it more likely to create “ringless” stars, and similarly stars that are saddled on marginal teams (hiding their “true” greatness). Maybe we need a name for this, like the Garnett Effect or something.

Anyway, if we risk slightly underrating players for multiple seasons, it’s possible that we’re overlooking one of these Jordan/Russell/LBJ sustained periods of all-time level play from like 85 or 86 to 95. We can all accept 93-95 Hakeem was a Sacred Peak, but the common narrative is that he was a substantially lesser player in the surrounding seasons. I certainly value him less, but, what if we’re slightly off because of the same biases that we know we have that make us remembering Jordan as “unbeatable?”

In 1985, rookie Hakeem joins the Rockets and they go from one of the worst defenses in the league to top-5. They improve 4.5 points, from -3.1 to +1.4. Hakeem basically replaces 33 yr old Caldwell Jones and Sampson is a year older, but otherwise a similar rotation (addition of 31 yr old Lionel Hollins/John Lucas at 24 mpg.) Hakeem plays 36 mpg, averages 20-12-3 on 1.12 per attempt, finishes 12th in MVP voting. Jordan finished 6th, and the Bulls improved 4.2 points, from -4.7 to -0.5 with a similar rotation. Right away, I’d ask myself if that’s a Scoring Blindess — 28 ppg gets more attention than Hakeem’s defense. (Even with that said, Hakeem's 4th in 86 MVP voting.)

I won’t go through his career, or all the data — it doesn’t scream that Olajuwon is GOAT — but what we’re looking at is a fantastic offensive center who seems to be completely resilient to defenses, and has a huge defensive effect/ceiling (if not GOAT-level in the 80s, certainly by 1990). Remember, efficiency wasn’t part of the vernacular yet, and in 90 the Rockets were 9th in points against, and the Pistons were first. Well, who won DPOY? Dennis Rodman. Go figure. (Hakeem was POTM in April…with gaudy scoring numbers)

I consider fatal an Hakeem expert. Here is a post from the last project on pre-93 Hakeem -- emphasis is mine:

I’ll try to contribute a bit on pre '93 Hakeem (especially 80s Hakeem). Some of the comments I read about him are bizarre. Yes, he wasn't the offensive anchor he would go on to become later, but this is still one of the best scoring/offensive big men of all time. From '86-'89 over 38 playoff games, Hakeem averages 28.4 ppg on 55 FG%/60 TS% in 38.9 mpg (36 ppg/100 poss). In terms of pure scoring that's up there with ANY big man, he demolished team after team in the playoffs. I've read young Hakeem described as offensively “raw”, which is a very liberal use of that word. Certain parts of his game were less developed than you'd like but "raw" isn't an accurate word to describe someone who already possessed all-time great scoring skills for his position, as 80s Hakeem did. If I had more time, I’d try to post more 80s Hakeem playoff games than there are on youtube. Here’s a typical good game from him: m

Watch on YouTube

m . Looks “raw”, doesn’t he? The play at 4:15, shrink him down 6 inches and you could pass it off as Jordan. m

Watch on YouTube

m against the best frontline of the era at the biggest stage. There's still a decent bit out there for people to get an idea of his skill-set at the early stages of his career. As always, game footage is preferable because it shows limitations as well. At worst offensively at this stage, he’s like a more physically gifted and considerably more skilled (especially in the post) Amare (who at his best was one of the best offensive big men of this decade).

Now Hakeem's offensive game did have some weaknesses in the 80s, he didn't quite read defenses as well as he did later on, he passed more to get rid of the ball when he couldn't do anything with it rather than to create a play, could take shots that would be best described as “ambitious”. However, he still brings a lot of value with great post scoring that demands double teams, excellent midrange shooting, maniacal offensive rebounding (avg’d 13.5 ORB% in 80s, which drew early comparisons to Moses), exceptional motor to get good position, strong finishing around the rim, very high skill-set to score one on one from many spots on the floor and the usual frenetic activity on both ends attributable to his insane motor. While we have come to associate Hakeem with finesse, young Hakeem had finesse combined with a bit of a power game, but his game was more unstructured compared to later. He was like a hyper aggressive bull who tried to dunk anything around the basket, reveled in physicality and possessed a very aggressive scoring mindset that relentlessly placed pressure on defenses whenever he got the ball, but he still possessed the soft touch, footwork and finesse of a guard, still operated on teams with baseline fadeaways and jump hooks, still had the ability to balance himself to get almost any kind of a shot off. His game was wild, watching some of these 80s Hakeem playoff games, at times it's like a loose circus elephant on a rampage (probably how the Lakers felt in '86). Lot of confidence, almost to the point of irrationality, makes you blurt out “who the hell does that?” (or as Heinsohn says “I tell ya, this guy Olajuwon, doesn’t know fear at all”). His talent was so supreme, his game so unconventional, that even early in his career, it appears teams could not consider dealing with him over a playoff series, his skill and unrelenting floor activity overwhelmed them, not some second rate teams either, but dynastic ones of the era like the Lakers and Celtics. The indefensible nature of his offensive game is still there, and it's a serious problem for teams over a series. Even at this stage of his career, I would say offensively at the center position, only prime Shaq and KAJ can be thought of as being clearly better. Some people write off his career pre-'93 as if he's some marginal player, especially offensively ("raw"), but he's still playing at a level that is above the peaks of the second tier centers and like usual, due to the nature of his game, he becomes even more dangerous come playoff time.

So there are weaknesses in young Hakeem’s game if your expectation is to make him the focal point to run your offense through. At this stage, Hakeem needs a good point guard or perimeter player to help run the offense as well as create situations to take advantage of his broad offensive skills (particularly strong finishing ability and midrange shooting), which is fine because most big men are at the mercy of the perimeter players they play with who handle the ball, help create a more dynamic offense and also help put their bigs in good position to score (prime Hakeem needed a dynamic perimeter player less than most centers do, because his game by itself was so dynamic). Also a coach who adds a bit more structure to help him read and predict defenses at team level better would have been helpful. So younger Hakeem may not be as capable of carrying teams with average players, but his game brings a lot of value if you put him next to some half decent perimeter players (like most players in the top 10 had the benefit of being around for a longer portion of their career than Hakeem did). BTW I also think Hakeem’s game allows talented somewhat ball dominant guards to play more freely around him than other bigs, his skill-set and versatility doesn’t need to bog them down as much which is a slight problem for bigs who only play exclusively in the post and take a lot of clocktime to create scoring opportunities for themselves (with the right players, you can play a bit of small ball offense with Hakeem, with all 5 players capable of attacking and shooting, without actually sacrificing your defense, we saw that in ’95 playoffs for example). I'm not actually a fan of making bigs, especially those with rigid games, the centerpiece of the offense if you have decent talent elsewhere, it's only practical if the big scores on supreme efficiency, is incredibly reliable against various types of defenses, uncontainable in single coverage, or has the skill-set to fit in and “get his” around perimeter guys without needing to necessarily demand, hold and dribble dribble dribble to score. Hakeem at basically every stage of his career, passes that test.

Older Hakeem was wiser, more capable and his offensive game was more structured, but we shouldn't discount younger Hakeem offensively as he brought value in a slightly different way. Hakeem’s proponents aren’t exactly saying he would have played like ’93 all those years (at least not me), there are clear distinctions separating young Hakeem and the one of his peak years (though there’s a possibility he gets there sooner, I think by ’90 he was there). Instead, they are drawing attention to the fact that 80s Hakeem is still really damn good, like all-time good, able to lead teams to championships good. But due to what we call on this board “winning bias”, many have a manic-depressive way of evaluating careers. We often see this with Kareem and Hakeem, where they came on strong in their first few seasons, then are placed in bad situations (usually situation improves over time for a star player), and people sour on those parts of their career as if they were forgettable periods where they were incapable of leading teams to championships and call these as the meme goes; "black marks". Good situations make players look better than they are, and bad situations paint them worse than they are.

Additionally, his WOWY and WOWYR data is negatively impacted by the 1991 team, which Fatal discusses here:

This is basically the only time in Hakeem's career where his team put together a decent stretch without him. Some of the players just...really stepped up (though not sure how sustainable it was), streaky Maxwell had the best scoring stretch of his career put up a game where he scored 51 and a bunch of other really good scoring games (shot 41% from 3 in the stretch, a career 32% shooter). Thorpe had a great stretch, maybe the best, of his career. Sleepy Floyd the streaky player he was had some great scoring games off the bench (including a 40 pointer). Rockets also had a good defensive backup in Larry Smith. Is this sustainable for a longer stretch? When Hakeem is first out of the lineup, they struggle, but then they put together a hot stretch in February, going 9-2 before Hakeem came back. And when he came back, Rockets were even better, they won 13 straight and went 17-2 over the next 19, so it appears Hakeem built on how well they were playing and took them to another level when he came back. That stretch without him might have actually served as the reason for why they weren't getting Hakeem the ball in the playoffs despite the fact he was really effective when he got it, and gave the streaky perimeter players the green light (Maxwell leading the team with 19 shot attempts a game in the playoffs on sizzling 41FG%/49TS%). Anyways, from '92-'96, his teams were 7-27 without him, in '86 they were 7-7, and in '87/'88 they were 3-7. The in/out change list that’s usually posted around here shows very impressive numbers for Hakeem in basically every other situation (some of the highest in/out changes IIRC), it’s only in ’91 when the difference without him was marginal. I mean the very next season they go 2-10 without him. Ask yourself, is the anomaly worth obsessing over? If this was a trend we saw consistently, there would be something to worry about.

Secondly, I don’t actually think Hakeem is having a huge offensive impact during the Chaney years because of how poorly the offense is organized/structured. There’s really not much synergy between him and his teammates. Watching the Lakers series in ’90, when he’s getting an outrageous amount of defensive attention, Rockets are basically clueless on how to actually take advantage of all the defensive attention he is drawing. Even when the first pass by Hakeem was a proper one, the second and third passes by his teammates weren’t (very lazy, slow, indecisive passing that allows defense to recover despite how compromised it was). There is very poor player movement, the floor spacing is puzzling at times and the Rockets were known for being a very poor half court passing team (the guards not exactly a smart, altruistic bunch). In contrast, Lakers know exactly where the ball is going after Magic or Worthy (who btw undressed Buck Johnson in the series) kicks it out of a double team and the second and third guys make the quick hitting plays to get the right guy the ball. To be fair, Hakeem iirc was also was frustrated by the attention and forced bad shots at times, but it's alarming how incapable Houston was of exploiting such aggressive double/triple teaming.

In 91, Hakeem averaged 24 ppg before his injury and 18 after (same efficiency); clearly a structural shift occurred in the team. With Hakeem back, they rip off a 19-3 stretch with a +7.1 MOV. The previous 22g (without Hakeem) a +2.3 MOV stretch. The 22g before his injury +3.8 MOV. Is that just natural variance or a trend of an improving team? Hard to say, because while that is within the norm of variability there is ample evidence Houston jelled...or at least became more of a "team."

So coming back to Scoring Blindness, it’s not that Olajuwon’s game dipped in 1991, it’s that his role changed, suppressing his scoring numbers, as the Rockets tried to figure out how to get more out of parts that really didn’t fit well. In 92, he had the infamous contract dispute with ownership before Rudy T came in and the perceived "jump" in 93 took place. He always had tremendous offensive ability and elite defensive ability - the polish and passing likely came as he hit his peak. But if I had to build an offense around a big, it would be peak Shaq, then peak Hakeem/Kareem, and I'd prefer Hakeem as I find Kareem to be prodding at times.

The take-home for me is how little team-building was going on in Houston and how poor the coaching/synergy was. In a good environment, like the 00 Spurs, Olajuwon might be a perfect second-fiddle offensive player, providing mid-range, post-scoring and iso 1-in-4-out offense when needed, while having full tank energy to anchor league-best defenses (playing the 4 or 5 seamlessly). Another way to ask this question is how much do you really believed Hakeem changed in 1993 (eg better court vision? figured out how to use shooters around him?), and how much changed around him (Rudy T? New players?). (Remember, contract dispute wasn’t settled until Mar 93).

Summarizing the argument: It's possible 85 to 95 is more like 11 years of an all-time defensive anchor, one of the best offensive/scoring bigs ever who is completely resilient to defenses (it seems) and polishes his offense from years 9-12. His playoff teams in his peak years constantly over performed and seemed resilient in 7-game series. Swap him with Duncan's career (98 being Hakeem's 85, pairing him with Robinson instead of rivaling against him) and it's easy to see Hakeem having a better argument than Duncan here, depending on poster's criteria.

[ElGee]

Anyone have estimated team O-Rating/D-Ratings in a list/spreadsheet for for pre-1974? I know ElGee published the Celtics' D-rating estimates for 1956 - 1970 on BackPicks. But I'd love to get my hands on the O-Ratings for that team as well, in addition to:

Celtics O-Ratings/D-Ratings 1955 & 1971
All of Oscar Robertson's teams, from year before he came to year after he left
All of Kareem's teams
All of Wilt's teams

(I could go further, but that'd be a great start. If anyone has any of this type of data available, I'd be much obliged to check it out)

BBR has them now. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/

[JordansBulls]

1. Modern
2. 2000s
3. 60s (concentration of talent)
4. 90s
5. 80s (serious expansion weakening)
6. 70s (extreme expansion issues)
7. 50s (segregation)

Why 90s over 80s? IMO the main expansion happened in the latter half of the 90s where the league got severely diluted.

No man, the 90's was the golden era. Only era where top 3 players in the league won league and/or finals mvp and olympic golds. No other era can say that.

[trex_8063]

I don't equate the two (insert: "impact" and "player quality"), exactly, but I do think impact is important. I feel like, the argument that used to be Ringzzz has evolved into impact. The whole point of the ringzzz approach was that, if a player was winning titles, he must be playing right. Then, that became ringzzz as the best player. Then, team success given teammate quality and situation. Then, trying to determine how much an individual was contributing to winning. Present day state of the art "impact stats" give some quantification to that idea, using correlation techniques to try to isolate how much an individual is affecting his team's scoring margins.

Is it the ONLY thing? No, especially given that there are still limitations to how accurate the approach can get. And there are a bunch of other sources of information, and context is so important. However, I do think that impact is extremely important. And, if the comp is "impact" vs "inherent goodness", I'd lean towards valuing impact higher because goodness unrealized doesn't really help anyone.

But how well a player's "goodness" is realized is---partially, at least---in the hands of coaching/management/teammates/etc. I guess that's the point I'm driving at. If a player isn't utilized in a manner that fully optimizes his potential impact, it's usually NOT 100% his fault (EDIT: in fact, could potentially even be largely not his fault).

[Gibson22]

1. Modern
2. 2000s
3. 60s (concentration of talent)
4. 90s
5. 80s (serious expansion weakening)
6. 70s (extreme expansion issues)
7. 50s (segregation)

Why 90s over 80s? IMO the main expansion happened in the latter half of the 90s where the league got severely diluted.

No man, the 90's was the golden era. Only era where top 3 players in the league won league and/or finals mvp and olympic golds. No other era can say that.

No. the 90s are obviously ass

[ardee]

1. Modern
2. 2000s
3. 60s (concentration of talent)
4. 90s
5. 80s (serious expansion weakening)
6. 70s (extreme expansion issues)
7. 50s (segregation)

Why 90s over 80s? IMO the main expansion happened in the latter half of the 90s where the league got severely diluted.

No man, the 90's was the golden era. Only era where top 3 players in the league won league and/or finals mvp and olympic golds. No other era can say that.

What does that have to do with anything

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[trex_8063]

In light of comments that I had cherry picked Kareem's clips from the 1976 All Star Game, and that he was actually bad defensively, I have gone over every defensive possession while he was on the court. Some important things:

1. Kareem's transition defense was quite good. He was beat down the floor once by his man but stopped the break multiple times. Even when having to defend multiple players at once.

2. He made fourteen good help rotations to just four bad (or missed) ones. And most of the "bad" help plays are arguably not bad.

3. He defended the PnR well seven times and poorly just twice. While defending the PnR, the only shots he allowed in the paint, he blocked. The East generally got bad shots, or no shots, when going at Kareem in the PnR.

4. Kareem did not give up ten offensive rebounds. There were four possessions where he didn't go for the rebound, but had he, would have had a decent chance at getting the board. The claimed ten offensive boards he gave up seems deceitful.

5. In the end, he influenced about 70% of defensive possessions while he was on the floor.

6. I'll stand by my claim that Kareem was exceptional defensively. He wasn't Duncan, or Russell, but the list of defenders better I think is very short.

Some of the clips have comments. My plan was to make comments for all of them but I don't have the time.


_______________________________________Transition (11) _______________________________________

These possessions are transition plays where Kareem's assignment was in the play. The reason for this condition is it seems the fairest means to determine if Kareem should have been able to defend in transition. Generally, this only excludes true fast breaks, where the shot attempt happens after two or three seconds.

The Good (7)


Spoiler:
Kareem gets back in transition and contests the pull up forcing a dangerous pass.



Spoiler:
Kareem forces a 3-on-1 fast break to take a 12- or 13-foot jumper which he does a fair job pressuring.



Spoiler:
Kareem gets back and contests McAdoo's pull up.



Spoiler:
Kareem positions himself to stop the pass to the cutter. Although he doesn't help contest Smith, Cowens is cutting hard down the middle, so the choice to stay back seems appropriate.



Spoiler:
Kareem gets back to help cut off drive attempt.



Spoiler:
Kareem defends two players at once and blocks the layup.



Spoiler:
Kareem steals the ball, which is a little risky, but he wasn't going to win a foot race with Collins.


The Neutral (3)


Spoiler:
Kareem turns over the ball and is left defending against two players. He ends up getting a piece of the ball but it still goes in.



Spoiler:
Kareem makes a risky play at the ball and forces a tough shot. However, had Kareem rotated earlier, Rick Barry would have been defending two players underneath the basket, while at a size disadvantage.



Spoiler:
Kareem could have shown more hustle here, be he's not beat by his man, and this breakdown has much more to do with the guards.



The Bad (1)

Spoiler:
Kareem is beat back in transition.

______________________________________Pick and Roll (13)______________________________________

The Good (7)

Spoiler:
Kareem shows a little on this PnR, and when Havlicek drives, Kareem keeps with him and blocks the layup.



Spoiler:
Barry is picked off and Kareem switches onto Havlicek to stop any drive or jumper.



Spoiler:
Kareem shows on both PnRs, and on the second, strongly contests the pull up to force a dangerous pass.



Spoiler:
Kareem positions himself in anticipation of Tomjanovich curling off the screen, which turns into a PnR,
where Kareem shows enough to make Tomjanovich hesitate on the jumper and force a tough shot.



Spoiler:




Spoiler:




Spoiler:



The Neutral (4)


Spoiler:




Spoiler:




Spoiler:




Spoiler:



The Bad (2)


Spoiler:




Spoiler:

_____________________________________Help Defense (22)_____________________________________

The Good (14)

Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



The Neutral (4)

Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



The Bad (4)

Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:

________________________________Defensive Rebounding (13)________________________________

The Good (5)

Spoiler:
Kareem gets the defensive rebound.


Spoiler:
Kareem gets the defensive rebound.


Spoiler:
Kareem gets the defensive rebound.


Spoiler:
Kareem gets the defensive rebound.


Spoiler:
Kareem gets the defensive rebound.


The Neutral (4)

Spoiler:
Really bad bounce on this rebound.


Spoiler:
Another pretty bad bounce but this could at least be grabbed.


Spoiler:
Kareem knows Winters can get the rebound but probably should have grabbed it himself.


Spoiler:



The Bad (4)

Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:



Spoiler:

_______________________________________Man Defense (7)_______________________________________

The Good (3)

Spoiler:
Kareem contests the mid range jumper.



Spoiler:




Spoiler:



The Neutral (1)

Spoiler:
Kareem doesn't contest the long two but it's a shot that can be forfeited.


The Bad (3)


Spoiler:
Kareem's a bit behind McAdoo, possibly from shadowing the cutter, and doesn't get a hand up.



Spoiler:




Spoiler:

______________________________________Not Involved (27)______________________________________

These are possessions where the offense occurred away from Kareem and there's no missed help opportunities. Many of these are fast breaks. A fast break is typically only listed under "Not Involved" rather than "Transition" if neither Kareem nor his defensive assignment play a role. Thus, these are usually fast outlet passes, that result in buckets in just a few seconds. No commentary for these clips.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Just transferring this to the new thread, as obviously it's relevant here. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but I will tonight.

On a side-note, I've just started a little side-project for myself to watch any full or significant partial game footage of Wilt and Russell while doing some stat-tracking for my own information (which I'll perhaps share once I've collected a relevant amount). Stats I'm recording:
FG/FGA and shot-type tracking (curious to see how this looks wrt Wilt's fade-away and other shot types)
FT's and PTS (just for completeness of the usual box stuff)
OREB/DREB/TREB
AST/2ndary AST/Passes leading to FTA
STL
BLK (and blocks recovered by their team)
Shots altered and/or great contests
TOV (Wilt sustains some speculation that he may have been turnover-prone; am wanting to see if this appears true, if I can only kind a significant number of games for a decent sample)
Any other notes that are of interest to me as I watch


Have so far only done so for 2nd half of G4 '64 NBA Finals (Bos/SFW), and 4th quarter of G7 '69 Finals (Bos/LAL).

[penbeast0]

MODERATOR NOTE:

IF YOU ARE GOING TO QUOTE LONG SECTIONS OF A POST THAT HAS ALREADY APPEARED IN A THREAD, PLEASE EITHER PUT IT IN "SPOILER" OR EDIT OUT ALL BUT THE PIECE THAT YOU ARE RESPONDING TO. IT WILL MAKE IT MUCH MORE READABLE FOR EVERYONE. THANK YOU.

[Dr Positivity]

After widdling it down last thread the players I'm not voting for, my last 3 was Kareem, Lebron and Hakeem. (short version being Hakeem > Duncan/KG, Lebron > Magic/Bird, Shaq/Wilt = not great enough mentally, Russell = tough one but still too much one way player)

To vote for Lebron or Hakeem over Kareem, I would have to believe that at their peak they are outright superior players to Kareem. Clearly Kareem has greater longevity advantage as he comes into the league a superstar and then has the terrific back end years.

Kareem led the league in blocks 4x (weren't tracked his first four years), was 1st team All Defense 5 times and some good gifs in last thread showed his mobility and versatility on D. With that in mind along with obvious offensive brilliance, I can't say that I am confident that Lebron or Hakeem are better than him, or if I do that it's by more than a marginal amount. So

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

2nd: Lebron James

[RCM88x]

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

#1 in WS (by a massive margin)
#7 in WS/48 (including 3 of the top 4 seasons all time)
#13 in BPM (not including his first 4 seasons)
#7 in VORP (not including his first 4 seasons, which if included would most likely put him #1)
#11 in PER

#4 in PS WS
#13 in PS WS/48
#21 in PS BPM (again, not including his first 4 seasons)
#9 in PS VORP (not including his first 4 seasons, would probably be 3rd or 4th if included)

NBA All-Time leading scorer, most MVP awards of all time, and most All-Star appearances all time.

When it comes to best "career", Kareem is hard to beat. Playing at an elite level for basically 15+ seasons, his longevity is simply unmatched. His total career value is not reached by any other player to this point and that combined with a possible top 5 peak and prime is a very strong case for the #2 spot. To me, his combination of elite offense and solid defense, in his prime puts him in any conversation for having one of the best seasons ever in 71-72 or 70-71.

Not to mention, he is probably the best HS player ever, and best College player ever, if you want to extend the argument outside of the NBA he has everyone beat in my opinion.

2nd Vote: Lebron James

[Texas Chuck]

I'm casting my official vote for Mr. William Russell.

My primary reasoning is really simple--he had the single greatest impact any player has ever had in-era and he did it for a length of time that completely validates his candidacy for GOAT. This impact was most largely seen through his combination of defensive intelligence, ingenuity, and physical ability. He simply thought and played defensive basketball at a level never seen before and unlikely we will ever seen again. And I think its a near certainty that we will never see someone that much further ahead of anyone else in any element of basketball.

We could stop there and he's a GOAT candidate imo. But then we look at his rebounding which belongs in a discussion of the greatest rebounders of all-time and almost certainly the most valuable rebounder of all-time because of what happened next. He didn't just hold the ball and wait for the PG to make himself available. No he jump-started their high-pace offense through his own ability to handle the ball, his intelligent pushing of the ball through the pass. And of course he didn't just pass the ball and glide his way up the court like most big men--he was a weapon in transition.

He gets killed for his offense here for reasons I still don't comprehend. This was an era of inefficient scoring. Nobody was shooting the ball well. But Russell was leading or second on his team in FG% nearly every season, he was in the top five in FG% in the entire league 4 years in a row. He wasn't a poor scorer by the standards of his day. And scoring was well down the list of what he brought to the team offensively. This "horrible" offensive player was putting up 20 points and 5 assists in the playoffs on 4 separate occasions.

His rap as a defense only player is undeserved. And while its subjective, I feel like it matters too and that's his unprecedented leadership as a player and then as a player-coach.

I went into this feeling like 5 players deserved my serious consideration for #1. Mike was one of them and he is in at #1. Will edit back in my vote for my 2nd choice at #2 after reading some more thoughts. Surprised Lebron isn't getting much traction yet, but I'm listening hard to the Duncan and Kareem stuff and am leaning Timmy over Kareem right now, but not ruling out Lebron just yet either.

[scrabbarista]

2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

If we look at primes via the prism of MVP Voting, Russell finished 1st or 2nd in seven out of eight years, and in that eighth year he finished 3rd. Kareem is close, but falls short, finishing 1st or 2nd in six out of seven years, and 5th in that outlier. So, through this one prism, we can argue that Russell was recognized as supremely dominant - the first or second (or third) best player in the league - for a stretch that extended even beyond Kareem's own impressive run. Because blocks and steals weren't recorded during Russell's day, and because advanced stats are sketchier the further back in time we go, it's important to recognize how dominant Russell was.

However, what really separates these players is their understanding of what goes into winning basketball games. Russell played for one team, and was the best player on (by my count) 8.5 championship teams (the half means he was equal to the team's other best player). That is probably a conservative estimate, but it is still more than four times as many times as Kareem achieved the same feat. Kareem played for two teams, and was a Best on Champ only twice.

Despite his obvious dominance immediately upon entering the league, Kareem was a loner and an intellectual. He was aloof. There is nothing wrong with this in general - it takes all kinds - but he was not a galvanizer, the kind of person that teammates were going to (forgive me) "run through a wall" for. I read somewhere that during the Celtics' championship run, they only made one or two trades in ten years. Everyone just stayed, then retired. Russell has to deserve much of the credit for that. He knew that he needed his teammates at their best in order to achieve his own goals, and he went about his daily life with that in mind. He understood that winning extends from relationships and partnerships that begin long before the game begins. He was kind of like Greg Popovich in that way. He just also happened to be perhaps the greatest defensive player of all-time. Kareem either lacked this understanding, or more likely, simply had other priorities. Kareem lived for personal excellence and would have done well in whatever he chose to do, while Russell lived for basketball, for his team, and for winning. He was so single-minded that he nearly played an entire career without ever not winning a championship.

I have had Duncan in the #2 spot before, and I would feel very comfortable with him there still. Based on my old formula that evaluated the Top 11 players differently than everyone outside the Top 11, I would still have him there. But with my new, more streamlined formula, one that seeks to give me more accurate rankings from 1-200 and beyond, I end up with Russell second. As Duncan was the Russell of his era (or vice versa), I'm fine with that. Especially because Russell won nearly twice as many championships as Duncan played in. Russell gets my vote for #2.

[RSCD3_]

Vote: Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Kareem Abdul Jabbar was a close counter for #1 for me but Jordan's offensive resiliency over his period of time and playoff vitality sold me over. However I think Kareem's prime and length of prime plus subprime longevity is above the rest of the others here.

In his prime he was a complete player who had a ton of things he could very well, scoring at an ATG level, Great Rebounding, Excellent Passing, arguably one of the best rim protectors in the NBA with his size, instincts and mobility. Of course if he had expressed all of his best features at once he would be the undisputed GOAT but with what he did and his capacity to effect the

I'd like to do a little more comparison than I did last time and luckily I'm typing on a keyboard so I wont kill my fingers hahaha.

My #3 overall and 2nd vote, LeBron James

Over the course of their first respective 14 years, I would have LeBron's 2004-2017 over Kareem's 1970-1983. I think his years from 84-89 make the difference especially the 84-87, though the gap isn't that far in total. In terms of Prime Vs Prime Kareem and LeBron both have multiple phases, Kareem had 3 phases where his offense improved at a similar rate to his defensive and rebounding efforts going down, but I think his overall play level stayed the same for 71-80 (maybe you argue later). But using SSB's rating efforts I'd say kareem was a +7.5 (4.5->5.5/3.0->1.5) though as a lot of older players do he did dial up his efforts in the playoffs. Kareem at his best either played a slightly below LeBron offensively while still providing good defensive value, or at the rate of a great offensive player while putting up defensive efforts arguably better than LeBron over a complete season and over the course of a game. Head to head LeBron had the better peak seasons but it wasn't a huge gap or anything and there are still situations where he would be more effective.

VS Bill Russell. Bill Russell understandably is a GOAT candidate for his incredible impact alone and how he changed the game. I think he was probably the defensive GOAT for his time and unlikely to be surpassed but I have a few concerns.

1. ERA conversions

I understand the pushback of "well we take this person back in time and they have a job in the summer, or we give jerry west modern equipment and a much looser dribble and he looks like Russell off the bounce." BUT I think there's a real deal that the competition and talent pool has increased a lot and this issue isn't so much of a deal vs Jabbar but how Jabbar managed to adjust his impact and put up great roleplayer years so long into time makes me less hesitant to judge him vs modern defenses/offenses.

2. Longevity

Bill Russell played 7 less seasons and per my previous argument he would have to have more value in his 1957-69 than LeBron did from 2004-2017 and while Russell certainly started better and at near MVP or MVP level I wouldn't put him LeBron in terms of TOTAL IMPACT "IN A VACUUM". I feel what he did was very high in general, he just didn't have enough seasons compared to guys like Jabbar or how high of a peak compared to Jordan or LeBron.

3. Offense.

I know some value him as an offensive player because of his capabilities to lead the break and his FG% lead. I think most of his value is in passing but on his own I don't see how valuable of an offensive player he is

PER ERA he might have been +3/+7 in his prime but nowadays I'd but him at +1.5->2.0/6.0->5.5, still near the top of the league defensively and overall but not quite at the level needed to be a two way superstar. His 56 FT% is also a negative in today's era and compared to other superstar big's with FT struggles his overall ability as a scorer IMO wasn't that impressive, to use a modern day equivalent think joakim noah with more athleticism and finishing ability.

OVERALL I would say LeBron is missing 1 or 2 years of superstar impact away from surpassing kareem and in regards to Bill Russell the level of primes of both of them aren't that far apart but kareem was able to give extra years that nudged him ahead bit by bit.

2nd Vote LeBron James

[RSCD3_]

I'm casting my official vote for Mr. William Russell.

My primary reasoning is really simple--he had the single greatest impact any player has ever had in-era and he did it for a length of time that completely validates his candidacy for GOAT. This impact was most largely seen through his combination of defensive intelligence, ingenuity, and physical ability. He simply thought and played defensive basketball at a level never seen before and unlikely we will ever seen again. And I think its a near certainty that we will never see someone that much further ahead of anyone else in any element of basketball.

We could stop there and he's a GOAT candidate imo. But then we look at his rebounding which belongs in a discussion of the greatest rebounders of all-time and almost certainly the most valuable rebounder of all-time because of what happened next. He didn't just hold the ball and wait for the PG to make himself available. No he jump-started their high-pace offense through his own ability to handle the ball, his intelligent pushing of the ball through the pass. And of course he didn't just pass the ball and glide his way up the court like most big men--he was a weapon in transition.

He gets killed for his offense here for reasons I still don't comprehend. This was an era of inefficient scoring. Nobody was shooting the ball well. But Russell was leading or second on his team in FG% nearly every season, he was in the top five in FG% in the entire league 4 years in a row. He wasn't a poor scorer by the standards of his day. And scoring was well down the list of what he brought to the team offensively. This "horrible" offensive player was putting up 20 points and 5 assists in the playoffs on 4 separate occasions.

His rap as a defense only player is undeserved. And while its subjective, I feel like it matters too and that's his unprecedented leadership as a player and then as a player-coach.

I went into this feeling like 5 players deserved my serious consideration for #1. Mike was one of them and he is in at #1. Will edit back in my vote for my 2nd choice at #2 after reading some more thoughts. Surprised Lebron isn't getting much traction yet, but I'm listening hard to the Duncan and Kareem stuff and am leaning Timmy over Kareem right now, but not ruling out Lebron just yet either.

Compared to the list of 2014
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. LeBron James

It's crazy how these 3 years by LeBron may have only moved him up 1-2 spots

[Texas Chuck]

Compared to the list of 2014
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. LeBron James

It's crazy how these 3 years by LeBron may have only moved him up 1-2 spots

Well moving up spots that high should be tough. But yeah he's only added 3 serious value seasons to his tally. I think he's a mortal lock to pass Shaq and I think he probably gets by Wilt too. Duncan seems to be gaining traction despite adding far less value the past 3 years, tho I think we are seeing as we re-visit him that we were underrating him. And views on Russell vary so highly that I expect he is danger of falling on this list.

But I wouldn't have batted an eye if Lebron was #1. I think he already has that case.

[Narigo]

Vote: Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Second Vote: LeBron James


My personal top 10 ranking from from 1970 to 1987.

Spoiler:

1970
1.Jerry West
2.Willis Reed
3.Walt Frazier
4.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5.Oscar Robertson
6.John Havlicek
7.Wes Unseld
8.Billy Cunningham
9.Connie Hawkins
10.Elvin Hayes


1971
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Walt Frazier
3.Jerry West
4.Oscar Robertson
5.John Havlicek
6.Willis Reed
7.Dave Bing
8.Wilt Chamberlain
9.Wes Unseld
10.Billy Cunningham


1972
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Walt Frazier
4.Jerry West
5.John Havlicek
6.Paul Silas
7.Chet Walker
8.Tiny Archibald
9.Dave Cowens
10.Oscar Robertson


1973
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Walt Frazier
4.Tiny Archibald
5.Jerry West
6.John Havlicek
7.Dave Cowens
8.Wes Unseld
9.Rick Barry
10.Elvin Hayes

1974
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Bob Lanier
3.Rick Barry
4.Bob McAdoo
5.Walt Frazier
6.Elvin Hayes
7.Dave Cowens
8.John Havlicek
9.Lucius Allen
10.Nate Thurmond

1975
1.Rick Barry
2.Bob Mcadoo
3.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4.Bob Lanier
5.Wes Unseld
6.Dave Cowens
7.Elvin Hayes
8.Walt Frazier
9.Tiny Archibald
10.Phil Chenier

1976
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Bob McAdoo
3.George McGinnis
4.Wes Unseld
5.Bob Lanier
6.Dave Cowens
7.Rick Barry
8.Elvin Hayes
9.Alvan Adams
10.Paul Westphal

1977
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Bill Walton
3.Bobby Jones
4.Artis Gilmore
5.Bob Lanier
6.Julius Erving
7.Elvin Hayes
8.Bob McAdoo
9.Paul Westphal
10.Alvan Adams

1978
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Bill Walton
3.Artis Gilmore
4.Julius Erving
5.George Gervin
6.Dave Cowens
7.Rick Barry
8.David Thompson
9.Bob Lanier
10.Marques Johnson

1979
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Moses Malone
3.Marques Johnson
4.Artis Gilmore
5.Walter Davis
6.George Gervin
7.Wes Unseld
8.Julius Erving
9.Elvin Hayes
10.Gus Williams

1980
1.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2.Julius Erving
3.Moses Malone
4.Larry Bird
5.Magic Johnson
6.Marques Johnson
7.Gus Williams
8.Cedric Maxwell
9.George Gervin
10.Paul Westphal

1981
1.Julius Erving
2.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3.Moses Malone
4.Marques Johnson
5.Larry Bird
6.Robert Parish
7.Artis Gilmore
8.Adrian Dantley
9.George Gervin
10.Bobby Jones

1982
1.Moses Malone
2.Julius Erving
3.Magic Johnson
4.Larry Bird
5.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
6.Sidney Moncrief
7.Artis Gilmore
8.Jack Sikma
9.Robert Parish
10.Adrian Dantley


1983
1.Moses Malone
2.Magic Johnson
3.Larry Bird
4.Sidney Moncrief
5.Julius Erving
6.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
7.Robert Parish
8.Alex English
9.Larry Nance
10.Marques Johnson

1984
1.Larry Bird
2.Magic Johnson
3.Sidney Moncrief
4.Julius Erving
5.Adrian Dantley
6.Isiah Thomas
7.Jack Sikma
8.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
9.Bill Lamibeer
10.Moses Malone

1985
1.Larry Bird
2.Magic Johnson
3.Michael Jordan
4.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5.Isiah Thomas
6.Sidney Moncrief
7.Paul Pressey
8.Hakeem Olajuwon
9.Moses Malone
10.Terry Cummings

1986
1.Larry Bird
2.Magic Johnson
3.Hakeem Olajuwon
4.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5.Kevin Mchale
6.Charles Barkley
7.Sidney Moncrief
8.Isiah Thomas
9.Dominique Wilkins
10.Adrian Dantley

1987
1.Magic Johnson
2.Michael Jordan
3.Larry Bird
4.Hakeem Olajuwon
5.Charles Barkley
6.Kevin Mchale
7.Dominique Wilkins
8.Fat Lever
9.Clyde Drexler
10.Larry Nance

Kareem was a top 10 player from 1970 to 1986. That was 17 seasons

[Blackmill]

Blackmill's contention (and correct me if I misrepresent it), is that Kareem had the skillset to be that defender in space all of the time at his peak. BUT, that since he didn't have the support he needed (either in team talent, or in another big like Kermit) that Kareem didn't often take advantage of those in-space defensive skills in the actual NBA games.

[...]

BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT HE ACTUALLY PLAYED! Not full time. And that's worth noting, and circling in our minds.

I understand your concern. But, is that not how he played, or is that not how he played in the footage we have? Samurai is largely responsible for my advocacy of Kareem. His insights on Kareem are among the reasons why I started watching games from the 70s.

But as a Buck and pre-Magic Laker, he was as good or better of a help defender as anyone, including Thurmond and Hakeem (I only saw Russell play 2 games in his last year so I won't compare prime Kareem's defense to Russell). If you only saw Kareem in the 80's, he was nowhere close to the defender that he was from 69-77...

But from 69-77 he was as good as anyone in the game at cleaning the defensive glass... He wasn't as great a rebounder as Wilt, Moses, or Rodman because those guys were monsters both on the offensive and defensive boards, but Kareem was a fantastic defensive rebounder in his prime.

No doubt part of my assessment is based on Kareem being a center, and a C during that time period just had more ways to impact/dominate a game than a SF (or C) does from 06-today... Kareem was just on another level than mere mortals during that time, particularly if you saw him play frequently.

And when I watched the 1976 All Star Game, everything Samurai had said seemed validated, as we saw a totally different Kareem defensively. Thus, I've chosen to believe him.

Back to WOWY, at peak

I mentioned the genesis of ElGee's WOWY work from the RPoY project, but of course he went on to develop it in much more detail across NBA history. As such, I can reference that work and find single-year WOWY runs, across multiple seasons during their peak years, for each of Kareem, Walton and Duncan. Let's take a look:

Kareem 1975 (16 games missed): SRS in 2.6, SRS out -4.5
Kareem 1978 (20 games missed): SRS in -3.4, SRS out -1.7

Duncan 2004 (10 games missed): SRS in, 8.5; SRS out, 5.3
Duncan 2005 (12 games missed): SRS in, 9.3; SRS out, -1

Walton 1977 (16 games missed): SRS in, 7.8; SRS out, -2.6
Walton 1978 (10 games missed): SRS in, 9.4; SRS out, +1

[...]

But, just looking at the raw data for these runs, two seasons each, right around each of their peaks...both Walton and Duncan seemed to be having significantly larger impacts on their team's fortunes at their peaks than Kareem did.

While I value on/off data I have to wonder how stable these numbers are. A while back I did some simulations of what a +0 player looks like playing with a bunch of +0 teammates, according to plus minus, when playing 36 minutes per game at a 100 pace for various lengths of time. The results really made me back off from using anything but very large samples.

The simulation worked by treating shot attempts, rebounds, free throws, and so on as Binomial random variables. League averages were used for the success probabilities of the binomial random variables. The individual possessions were simulated recursively with a successful offensive rebound beginning the recursion.

Ten-thousand simulations gives the following distribution over +0 players, playing for two seasons, since during which the player would have missed about as much time as Duncan, Kareem, or Walton did in your examples.

Note: Each data point is a player who played 164 games. Thus, well over a million games were simulated.

-20:____0_________0.0
-18:____0_________0.0
-16:____0_________0.0
-14:____0_________0.0
-12:____1_________0.0001
-10:____2_________0.0002
_-8:____26________0.0026
_-6:____157_______0.0157
_-4:____604_______0.0604
_-2:____1611______0.1611
_-0:____2607______0.2607
__0:____2602______0.2602
__2:____1616______0.1616
__4:____593_______0.0593
__6:____159_______0.0159
__8:____21________0.0021
_10:____1_________0.0001
_12:____0_________0.0
_14:____0_________0.0
_16:____0_________0.0
_18:____0_________0.0
_20:____0_________0.0

As you can see, there's a lot of natural variance, as a +0 player is within 2 points of his true impact barely half the time. Now, we can parameterize the sampled distribution as a normal distribution with sample mean (-0.0098243902439) and sample standard deviation (2.83281267766), and compute the probability that two random samples from this distribution differ by at least 2 points. The computed percent probability is above 90%. What about a 4 point difference? The computed percent probability is still above 80%. Here's the distribution:

|X| > 1 : 0.9503
|X| > 2 : 0.9008
|X| > 3 : 0.8517
|X| > 4 : 0.8032
|X| > 5 : 0.7554
|X| > 6 : 0.7085
|X| > 7 : 0.6627
|X| > 8 : 0.6182
|X| > 9 : 0.575
|X| > 10 : 0.5332

Thus, given the sample size, I think saying Walton or Duncan had a "significantly larger" impact than Kareem is a hasty conclusion. Especially in Duncan's case (who I voted #2 last thread) since his best registered rating only differs by about two points from Kareem's.

[penbeast0]

It seems the Russell voters talk a lot about actual impact on the league; the Kareem voters talk about longevity and dismiss Russell for not scoring a lot . . . almost all the Kareem voters have LeBron second (one Duncan). Interesting highlight on what criteria people think is important. I am pleased we haven't had much of the time machine discussion though one or two posts in #1 thread talk about how players would translate to today's game without a corresponding discussion of how players would translate BACK to the 60s (or even the 50s) which seems a clear case of recency bias. (Not that I am suggesting it; I think it's unfair to players like Curry or Reggie Miller who evolved their game for the conditions of the day just as the 50s/60s greats evolved their game for the conditions of theirs.)

[lorak]

But otherwise, considering the sample size, you don't see this as kinda result oriented thinking?

You talk about sample size when I analyzed KAJ, but you didn't say a word, when Blackmill did pro KAJ case using cherry picked plays... And except of that game (which, keep in mind, Blackmill called the most important, because of talent around him, KAJ could finally play the best defense he was capable of) I also provided full seasons defensive data, which is consistent with that game - in both cases KAJ looks much below ATG level on defense and great on offense.

I really would like to see explanation (other than with/without can't be trusted) of at least these numbers:

Code: Select all

1975, 17 G without

with 99.3 ORTG, 97.8 DRTG
w/o 92.8 ORTG, 98.4 DRTG
net +7.4 (+6.5 ORTG, -0.8 DRTG)

Code: Select all

1978, 20 G without

with 111.9 ppg, 107.9 opp ppg
w/o 105.3 ppg, 106.7 opp ppg
net +5.4 (+6.6 offense, +1.2 defense)

Why with/without "sees" how great KAJ was on offense, but at the same time doesn't see his ATG defense?