RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4

[Texas Chuck]

Sorry I read that as you saying, "You don't question those who don't have Duncan in your top ten?" And all the extra question marks meaning you thought that idea was crazy. Didn't catch on that the ???? were for a blank.

Ignore me. Oh and so this whole exchange isn't a total waste, you are doing a great job running this thing.

[An Unbiased Fan]

You don't "????" those people ranking him outside the top 10???

Defense isn't sexy and you can't quantify it nearly as easily as people believe they can quantify offense. It shouldn't come at a surprise with regards to Duncan or Russell that there are those who simply won't consider them at a certain level because they aren't offensive superstars.

Just like later we will watch guys like Deke and Ben Wallace face ridicule when they come into consideration because its just impossible for people to believe that a defensive player can have that much impact while offering very little at the other end. Strangely the reverse doesn't trouble them and there will be guys getting votes in this project who weren't even very good players, but they scored a bunch of points so....

End my minor rant about how underappreciated defense is. Even with this current Warriors team all the talk is about offense, yet their defense has been elite as well and is a big part of their success.

In general...
individual offensive > individual defensive
team defensive > team offense

A player like Deke or Big Ben can only impact the opposing offense so much since they can only defend a section of the court, whether it be the paint, a side, or man D. A great offensive player however can control the ball as much as they like, which is why great offensive players are more impactful in general. For Russell, his era rules afforded him more impact. Had he played later on then his poor offense would have been a liability, but in the 60's shooting was God awful. In 1962 for example, the NBA TS was 47.9%. In 2017 the TS was 55.2% . He still would have been a great defensive anchor though along the lines of Big Ben.

[scrabbarista]

4th. Bill Russell

5th. Tim Duncan

Already stated part of my reasoning for Russell in two threads: his individual impact stands up against the best of the best, while his team success needs little arguing, so he should be high on any ATG List - second or third, if the list was mine.

[THKNKG]

What I also think is worth discussing..those who value Duncan citing his "impact" for the culture they have in the Spurs, was it really him or Pop who had the bigger hand in that? Does being the consumate professional outweigh a player like Hakeem who is the closest direct comparison to Duncan, but was by all measures a better offensive AND defensive player. Are Duncan's intangibles legitimate, or is it a case of voter bias where the criteria isn't consistent since many don't attribute Kobe's team success to his contributions like they do for Russell/Duncan?

I really like Duncan's game as it is extremely portable, but for those who cite "best in their generation" argument, I don't think Duncan was the clear best player in the 2000s (this vote is generally split amongst Shaq/Kobe/Duncan and now KG here). For the record, I don't think you have to be the clear best player of your generation to have a stronger argument than anther because the top players could all come from one era theoretically and not era strength can be drastically different.

These are great questions. Duncan has always seemed to benefit from 2003, much like Hakeem benefited from 1994(far too much so for both players). That 2003 roster included, TP, Manu, DRob, Bowen, but gets labelled as "bad", which is wasn't. It was young yes, but talented, and the Spurs were expected to do well http://www.espn.com/magazine/vol5no23spurs.html . So by proxy, TD gets elevated largely on that one season. Here's the problem with that. Someone like Wilt or Shaq gets dissected left and right. The Spurs getting swept with HCA to LA in 2001 is overlooked. The Spurs losing in 5 to LA in 2002 is overlooked. The Spurs failing again to repeat in 2004 is overlooked. The 06 Spurs not repeating. In fact, if you bring up the 2008 Spurs getting run off the court by LA, people say TD was past-prime...but then what's his longevity? If team success is brought up for 60-win seasons or a 03 title, then team shortcomings should factor in as well, and for TD its pretty numerous for his era. If TD's prime counts as 99-07, what value to we place on the 08-16 seasons. Shaq gives you a prime from 95-04, Kobe goes 01-10, Dirk 05-12, KG 00-08. Don't really seem a special prime from Duncan length-wise.

TD is an all-time great defensive anchor, and great locker room influence. I tend to rank him higher than most, but hard-pressed to see detailed reasoning for him over others of his era so far. The Kobe/Shaq comparisons are obvious, but usually there's nice debate about TD vs KG vs Dirk and really haven't even seen that either. Step out of the post-lockout era and then you have guys like Magic/Wilt.

It wasn't like the early 00's Lakers were widely considered inferior teams, though. Shaq missed a ton of games in the RS, and Tim didn't, so that's part of why the Spurs had higher seeding. Just because a team has HCA doesn't necessarily mean they are widely considered the better team.

[trex_8063]

What I also think is worth discussing..those who value Duncan citing his "impact" for the culture they have in the Spurs, was it really him or Pop who had the bigger hand in that?

I'm going to quote some other information previously presented:

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.

From Pop's own lips:

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

Gregg Popovich himself appears to be [quite clearly, I would say] stating that anyone who wants to give him the lion's share of credit for the winning culture in San Antonio is flat wrong. Now maybe he's just putting forth some false modesty, but that's still a really strong statement......a statement which [as noted above] is being seconded by various teammates and the Spurs general manager. So.....

[An Unbiased Fan]

What I also think is worth discussing..those who value Duncan citing his "impact" for the culture they have in the Spurs, was it really him or Pop who had the bigger hand in that? Does being the consumate professional outweigh a player like Hakeem who is the closest direct comparison to Duncan, but was by all measures a better offensive AND defensive player. Are Duncan's intangibles legitimate, or is it a case of voter bias where the criteria isn't consistent since many don't attribute Kobe's team success to his contributions like they do for Russell/Duncan?

I really like Duncan's game as it is extremely portable, but for those who cite "best in their generation" argument, I don't think Duncan was the clear best player in the 2000s (this vote is generally split amongst Shaq/Kobe/Duncan and now KG here). For the record, I don't think you have to be the clear best player of your generation to have a stronger argument than anther because the top players could all come from one era theoretically and not era strength can be drastically different.

These are great questions. Duncan has always seemed to benefit from 2003, much like Hakeem benefited from 1994(far too much so for both players). That 2003 roster included, TP, Manu, DRob, Bowen, but gets labelled as "bad", which is wasn't. It was young yes, but talented, and the Spurs were expected to do well http://www.espn.com/magazine/vol5no23spurs.html . So by proxy, TD gets elevated largely on that one season. Here's the problem with that. Someone like Wilt or Shaq gets dissected left and right. The Spurs getting swept with HCA to LA in 2001 is overlooked. The Spurs losing in 5 to LA in 2002 is overlooked. The Spurs failing again to repeat in 2004 is overlooked. The 06 Spurs not repeating. In fact, if you bring up the 2008 Spurs getting run off the court by LA, people say TD was past-prime...but then what's his longevity? If team success is brought up for 60-win seasons or a 03 title, then team shortcomings should factor in as well, and for TD its pretty numerous for his era. If TD's prime counts as 99-07, what value to we place on the 08-16 seasons. Shaq gives you a prime from 95-04, Kobe goes 01-10, Dirk 05-12, KG 00-08. Don't really seem a special prime from Duncan length-wise.

TD is an all-time great defensive anchor, and great locker room influence. I tend to rank him higher than most, but hard-pressed to see detailed reasoning for him over others of his era so far. The Kobe/Shaq comparisons are obvious, but usually there's nice debate about TD vs KG vs Dirk and really haven't even seen that either. Step out of the post-lockout era and then you have guys like Magic/Wilt.

It wasn't like the early 00's Lakers were widely considered inferior teams, though. Shaq missed a ton of games in the RS, and Tim didn't, so that's part of why the Spurs had higher seeding. Just because a team has HCA doesn't necessarily mean they are widely considered the better team.

That's fair, but you still have TD getting outplayed in those series. For all of his individual defensive impact, it wasn't enough to stop Kobe's individual offense in 2001, 2002, 2004, or 2008. Sure he could slow a Shaq somewhat since postionally that's possible, but there's only one area a defender can cover, and a big can't really guard a small outside of a KG-type. The Spurs did win 60 games often, but as you point out, other teams suffered through more injuries on their rosters. In fact, while SA had a top regular season record, their playoff record was a bit behind LA during those years. 2017 Spurs still had the #1 defense without TD, just like 2016. So how much of that is Pop's system versus TD? Keep in mind that in 1995 & 1996 SA had Top 5 defenses, and that was before TD, but with Pop coaching.

[Outside]

Well, this whole top 100 thing is pretty easy when the guys you vote for don't get picked -- nominate, wash, rinse, reject, repeat.

Top choice: Bill Russell
Backup choice: Wilt Chamberlain

My criteria:

Spoiler:

For the most part, I've purposely avoiding all-time rankings up to this point. There are so many variables that can't be accounted for, like differences between eras and how to rate players I haven't seen play. Beyond the benefit of engaging in interesting discussions about the sport I love, this project has value for me because it forces me to establish criteria to reflect what I value in the game. It also has value to me and (I hope) everyone else who participates by educating ourselves about players we know little about and gaining new perspectives on players we know fairly well.

If I had the time, I'd put together a spreadsheet or database to quantify my criteria categories and come up with a total score for each player. However, I'm not going to sweat it because a) while I'd use statistics for part of my criteria, key aspects of my criteria are inherently subjective; and b) the weighting I would apply to each category would also be subjective. I use statistics to inform my rankings, but I don't adhere to a statistics-only approach.

I also love the idea promoted by several others that this is a ranking of individuals within a team game and that performance within the team concept is a foundational tenet of my ranking method. I know it is, and it seems sorta obvious, but yeah, that's worth repeating.

If I were to give a numerical ranking to each category, it would likely be from +5 to -5 rather than 0-10. I know that they can be considered essentially the same, but I using the +5/-5 scale in my head gives me clear separation between a player who benefits his team in a particular category versus a player who hurts his team in that category. Going with a 0-10 scale puts me more in a mindset of trying to measure benefit only.

So here are my criteria. Please note that these are not necessarily in order of how I would weigh them.

1. Offensive dominance. How dominant is the player relative to other players in his era? How much does the opposing defense gameplan to stop him? How much does the player open up opportunities for teammates? Guys like Wilt, Jordan, and Bird shine here for their individual ability, guys like Magic, Stockton, and LeBron for how they create for others, with some obviously doing well in both areas. A third or fourth scorer on a good team gets a reduced bump.

2. Defensive dominance. This includes both individual defensive play -- one on one, helping off the ball -- and the impact the player has within the team defensive scheme. How versatile is the player defensively? Russell is the gold standard, as are DPOY-level players, but I also look to recognize players like Bird who weren't necessarily intimidating defenders one on one but were smart and effective within the team concept. This is a challenging area to assess for players who were known primarily for their offense -- are they solid defenders, or are they traffic cones?

3. Playoff performance. The regular season matters, but the playoffs are when the truly great players separate themselves. Shrinkage in the playoffs can be a negative for a player. Lack of appearances in the playoffs can also be a negative because, over the course of a career, great players should get there, and someone who doesn't carries the implication that they didn't contribute to making a playoff-worthy team. Their playoff struggles may not be all their fault, but Tracy McGrady and Chris Paul take a hit for me here.

4. Longevity. Did the player exhibit elite performance levels over many years? Kareem and Karl Malone set the bar here. Players who were good but not elite and maintained that level over a long career like Robert Parish and Dikembe Mutumbo get a bump.

5. Peak performance. As we discussed in another thread, a guy like Bill Walton deserves recognition for achieving an exceptionally high peak even if his longevity was poor. Anyone who had an exceptional peak performance deserves a bonus bump in the ranking. Anyone who had an exceptional peak that lasted for years deserves a max bump.

6. Historical impact. Did the player affect the way the game is played? Guys like Mikan, Russell, and Wilt deserve credit here, but I temper it a bit for them because part of their impact was due to the fact that the game was still in its relative infancy and more easily impacted. An obvious more recent example is Steph Curry, who accelerated the onset of three-point centric offenses. This is really a minor consideration, maybe 1% in my overall thinking, but can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating players at similar spots in the rankings.

7. Intangibles. Does a player make his teammates better, or is he a stat-grabbing anchor to team success? How does the player rank for selflessness, fitting within a system, leadership, clutchness, and other squishy factors?

8. Titles. Winning matters. It's not the only thing, but it makes a difference on where a player lands in the rankings.

9. Eyeball test. As if I don't have enough subjectivity in my criteria, but to say that I don't include this in my wetware ranking method would be disingenuous.

In short, my rankings are informed by statistics and include a diverse set of factors but are ultimately highly subjective. I haven't spent the time to develop a statistical formula like many others have, but even if I did, I wouldn't rely on a formulaic outcome exclusively because some important factors can't be distilled to a number (unless you subjectively assign a number), and the weighting of factors is also inherently subjective.

For Russell, here's the information I included in the threads for spots 1 and 2.

Spoiler:

Offensive dominance -- generally a poor shooter who benefited greatly by having a diverse group of offensively capable teammates and an all-time great coach. However, he is too easily dismissed as poor offensively because he wasn't a good shooter, but he does have significant arguments in his favor offensively. He was all-time great at transition offense by igniting the fast break through his rebounding prowess, being a great shotblocker who had control and awareness to turn blocks into outlet passes, and using his world-class athleticism to outrun others and finish on the break. Considering that those Celtic teams relied on the fast break as much as any team in history, that makes his impact offensively huge.

Also, despite being limited offensively in a conventional sense, he consistently improved his production in the playoffs, was the leading playoff scorer in one championship season, second twice, and third in other seasons on teams that featured great scorers like Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. You can mitigate his scoring (15.1 RS, 16.2 PO) based on pace and minutes played -- pace for those Celtics was above 120 compared to low 100s for Showtime Lakers, around 100 for this year's Warriors, and low 90s for Jordan's Bulls -- but even so, he was significantly more productive than true defensive specialists like Ben Wallace (5.7 RS, 7.2 PO) and Dikembe Mutumbo (9.8 RS, 9.1 PO).

Defensive dominance -- unparalleled in this area. The concept of offensive gravity has emerged for players like Steph Curry and Shaq, but Russell exerted defensive gravity, creating a wide bubble around the basket where opponents had to be constantly aware of him. Great rebounder, which is essential to finish a defensive possession. He was a great shotblocker, but he had a greater impact getting into the opponents' heads, making them so concerned about him that they'd miss shots or not even take them. He used a combination of supreme athleticism, IQ, will, and ferocity to dominate the game defensively.

Playoff performance -- was in the playoffs every season. Changed the Celtics from a good team that lost in the first or second round to one that failed to reach the finals only once. Consistently upped his performance in the playoffs. Was the playoff leader in rebounds per game in seven seasons.

Longevity -- played 13 seasons, which is significantly fewer than guys who played around 20 like Kareem, Karl Malone, and Robert Parish, but was a long career by the standards of the day.

Peak performance -- his scoring declined in his last few seasons, but he otherwise maintained a high level of performance throughout his career. Averaged at least 10 points and 20 rebounds every postseason. In RS, averaged at least 12.9/21.0 in seasons 2-11, 14.7/19.6 his rookie season, and 12.5/18.6 and 9.9/19.3 his last two seasons.

Historical impact -- changed the role of center from floorbound plodder to athletic leaper. Essentially introduced the concept of a shotblocker. Changed the notion of how defense impacts the game. Set the standard for winning with 11 titles in 13 seasons. This is a small factor but still relevant.

Intangibles -- consistently elevated his teammates' performance, turning marginal role players into significant contributors and good players into even better ones. Whenever to opportunity arose, sacrificed individually for the betterment of team goals. Top marks in leadership, IQ, clutch play, and will to win.

Titles -- 11 in 13 seasons.

Eyeball test -- he and Hakeem were the best athletes to ever play the center position. Was the foundation of teams that were the epitome of how the game is played at its peak level, the central defensive anchor that allowed his teammates to extend defensive pressure outward, and part of a offense that mixed fast breaks with halfcourt offense that maximized effectiveness by utilizing everyone as a capable scorer.

I also have extensive information for Russell and Wilt here: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1581476

Rather than rely on what's already been said about Russell, maybe the right approach to take is asking what you DON'T like about Russell (that seemed to work for LeBron in the last thread, so what the heck, I'll try it for Bill).

What do you think are his weaknesses as a candidate? If you're considering voting for someone else, why do you prefer that player?

My hope is that a give-and-take discussion will be more effective than a manifesto droning on about why I think Russell is deserving.

(There are already posts to this effect, including other players, such as Shaq vs Wilt, and I hope to participate in those discussions also.)

[Doctor MJ]

Hopefully this can serve as my explanatory post for 4) Wilt, 5) Russel:

So no, the guy who never won 2 titles in a row couldn't have won 8 like Russell. He couldn't keep focused on this child's game that intently even if he could keep playing for many years effectively.

.

RUSSELL v. WILT
The point about Russell v. Wilt is that Wilt would not HAVE to keep focused if he benefitted from being in the 60s Celtics cocoon.

That's silly. The whole point is that winning the title in '67 deprioritized winning titles in Wilt's mind in a way it did not with Russell.

Again, it's a psychological difference. Wilt's psychology isn't necessarily less healthy, but since we're just focusing on basketball, Russell being utterly focused on sustaining himself to win titles needs to be front and center in the minds of anyone evaluating these players.

Basically Russell, like any cog in a great team with a great coach, had it easy comparatively. They all do, not just Russell. When your coach is great, when your teammates are all great, your individual responsibility is lesser. The pressure on you every game is lesser. You can have an off game. You don't face the same amount of defensive attention. You don't have to take shots when you're not feeling it. You can, in the modern setting, take a few rest days off to freshen your legs or nurse injuries without it completely finishing your team's chances.

If "casual" Wilt could just b-slap the game around and drop 40 while stifling a yawn and picking the three women he was was going to be with that night out of the crowd, he could certainly play a role much more like he did after he got old and his knees went. That does not require nearly the game to game and play to play discipline. You can be off and your team can still win. You can score without the whole team jumping you.

There was nothing casual about it. Wilt was obsessed with his statistics and made a point to rack up big numbers in the second half when the game was already basically decided, whether it would be for a win or a loss. This was also why he played more minutes than Russell. When a guy like Russell is playing 44 MPG, quite clearly the time he's missing is going to largely be garbage time.

You don't average more than 48 minutes in a 48 minute long game if you're leaving the game when the game is determined.

So much of the issue with Wilt isn't that he purposefully gave less effort, but that he expended his effort only in areas you could attach concrete meaning to. Wilt isn't the only one to do this, virtually all players do this. But few players fixate on specific stats the way Wilt did, and few players oscillated between world class defense and apathetic defense with such predictability.

Undoubtedly part of Hannum's success with Wilt in getting him to change was the ability of Wilt at that time to focus on other statistics like APG and FG%.

Additionally it has to be noted there that since it's clear in retrospect that there was a better way than just having Wilt score so much, Wilt (and those who encouraged him) were essentially forcing extra exertion on him in places that yielded poor gain.

Re: "women". Everything I've heard from those who knew Wilt says that this was just another tall-tale Wilt enjoyed being perpetuated. Wilt absolutely COULD have slept with as many women as he wanted, but his friends say he spent a lot of time alone.

I think it would be helpful to think about Wilt a bit like Prince. Wilt enjoyed being a character. He thought about mythology creation. He wanted to be known as the greatest all-around athlete in history, and I for one, am totally convinced: There has been no physical specimen in humanity that was his equal in athletic settings.

But Wilt did that by being bigger than basketball, and this is a ranking about basketball.

WILT'S MISUSE
Regarding Wilt being misused: Wilt led the league in FG% 9 times in his 14 seasons. He led the league in FG% while averaging 44.8pts a game one season. That's insane.

Even taking into account his poor FT shooting, he was annually one of the very best in the league at TS%. He was 5th in 1961, 4th in 1962, 5th in 1963, 8th in 1964, 12th in 1965, 4th in 1966.

Here are his PPG, FG% and TS% ranks through those the first 7 years in which he led the league in scoring each season:
59-60 37.6pts -- FG%: 6th, TS%: 16th
60-61 38.4pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 5th
61-62 50.4pts -- FG%: 2nd, TS%: 4th
62-63 44.8pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 5th
63-64 36.9pts -- FG%: 3rd, TS%: 8th
64-65 34.7pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 12th
65-66 33.5pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 4th

So basically you get past his rookie season, and not only is Wilt the most prolific scorer in the NBA (and indeed in NBA history) for the next 7 years, he's just about the most efficient scorer too. And none of the handful of guys more efficient in a given year played for Wilt's teams. So how exactly is giving the ball to the most prolific and most efficient scorer, not only on your team, but even in the league, misuse? Who exactly would you rather have shooting those shots?

You're responding to me after I just got done talking about how all analysis involving Wilt need to deal with '67 by showcasing your infatuation for the years before then. My response to this is already included in my prior post.

[SactoKingsFan]

Vote #1 Bill Russell

Vote #2 Tim Duncan

I'll mention a bit about my criteria since I missed the first few threads.

Spoiler:

I try to rank players based on cumulative career value (peak, prime, pre and post prime if relevant) by looking at impact data, box score metrics and game footage.

Longevity is valued quite a bit, which is why I don't have Walton in my top 100. Era strength is taken into account but only to a certain degree. Players like Mikan that dominated for a few years but lack longevity and played in a weak era are not ranked very high. I also value portability but all-time portability isn't enough for Reggie Miller to leapfrog a less portable but superior player like Chris Paul. Players who consistently underperformed during the playoffs like Karl Malone are knocked down at least a tier from their regular season ranking. Don't care all that much about accolades.

Before the start of the project I could have gone with Duncan, Russell, Shaq or Wilt at this spot. Compelling cases can be made for each candidate. However, after reading several of the pro-Russell arguments from 2014 and the beginning of this years project, I’m more convinced that Russell should be considered a legit GOAT candidate.

Russell had unparalleled defensive impact while anchoring the most historically dominant defenses.  He'd be the perfect modern defensive big due to his athleticism, lateral and vertical defense and off the charts defensive IQ. He provided so much defensive impact for so many years that he'd have to be a huge offensive liability to not be in the GOAT discussion.

Was clearly limited as a scorer but I highly doubt Russell would be a minus on offense had he played in a more modern era. He was a 6’9” athletic freak (elite mobility, speed and vertical) who was also a very good passer and ballhandler and great offensive rebounder. His passing and ballhandling were more than good enough for Russell to initiate fast breaks and be an effective offensive hub when needed.

This YouTube video shows some examples of Russell’s athleticism, ball handling and mobility:

Watch on YouTube

Can’t really envision a modern version of Russell being anything special as a scorer, but I could see him developing a more effective offensive game based on offensive rebounding, put backs, Pick n Roll and his underrated passing and ballhandling.

[THKNKG]

I come bringing gifts!

I took the top 10 candidates that are PF/C and compared them (Russell/Wilt/Hakeem/DRob/Shaq/Duncan/KG/Dirk).

Sheet 1 is advanced stats
Sheet 2 is shooting stats from various ranges for all of them
Sheet 3 is +/- and with/without stats

I hope to give some thoughts on it tomorrow. Check it out and give me your thoughts!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mgbS7rUoZkySOuFqD_N7lIoAyhoxsPqoiTSdNMv80Bw/edit?usp=sharing

[Arman_tanzarian]

It's Russ for me. Very close though between him and number 5..heck 6 and 7 too.

[Winsome Gerbil]

What I also think is worth discussing..those who value Duncan citing his "impact" for the culture they have in the Spurs, was it really him or Pop who had the bigger hand in that?

I'm going to quote some other information previously presented:

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.

From Pop's own lips:

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

Gregg Popovich himself appears to be [quite clearly, I would say] stating that anyone who wants to give him the lion's share of credit for the winning culture in San Antonio is flat wrong. Now maybe he's just putting forth some false modesty, but that's still a really strong statement......a statement which [as noted above] is being seconded by various teammates and the Spurs general manager. So.....

Pop is going to be humble. But here's the thing: the Spurs were a major winning franchise for a solid decade before Timmy even showed up. In the four years before Duncan was drafted the Spurs won 55, 62, 59 and 20 (the Admiral injury/tank year). In the first year post Duncan the Spurs went ahead and won 61.

Does Tim Duncan deserve credit for absolutely being a major part of a hugely successful long term franchise? Sure. But let's not pretend he either made the Spurs or broke them when he left. They were an elite franchise before he arrived, an elite franchise while he was there, and still an elite franchise after he left.

[trex_8063]

It's Russ for me. Very close though between him and number 5..heck 6 and 7 too.

We need some degree of argumentation for why he's your pick. Also would like you to state who your 2nd choice would be. Again, if you haven't yet read the OP of the sign-up thread, please do so.

[Narigo]

Sure, the Celtics offense did indeed suck. But Russell had alot of help on defense. K.C Jones, Hondo, and Sanders were excellent defenders.

[Winsome Gerbil]

WILT'S MISUSE
Regarding Wilt being misused: Wilt led the league in FG% 9 times in his 14 seasons. He led the league in FG% while averaging 44.8pts a game one season. That's insane.

Even taking into account his poor FT shooting, he was annually one of the very best in the league at TS%. He was 5th in 1961, 4th in 1962, 5th in 1963, 8th in 1964, 12th in 1965, 4th in 1966.

Here are his PPG, FG% and TS% ranks through those the first 7 years in which he led the league in scoring each season:
59-60 37.6pts -- FG%: 6th, TS%: 16th
60-61 38.4pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 5th
61-62 50.4pts -- FG%: 2nd, TS%: 4th
62-63 44.8pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 5th
63-64 36.9pts -- FG%: 3rd, TS%: 8th
64-65 34.7pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 12th
65-66 33.5pts -- FG%: 1st, TS%: 4th

So basically you get past his rookie season, and not only is Wilt the most prolific scorer in the NBA (and indeed in NBA history) for the next 7 years, he's just about the most efficient scorer too. And none of the handful of guys more efficient in a given year played for Wilt's teams. So how exactly is giving the ball to the most prolific and most efficient scorer, not only on your team, but even in the league, misuse? Who exactly would you rather have shooting those shots?

You're responding to me after I just got done talking about how all analysis involving Wilt need to deal with '67 by showcasing your infatuation for the years before then. My response to this is already included in my prior post.

I'm responding to you by showing how your argument against pre-1967 doesn't address Wilt's overwhelming efficiency/production combination.

Arguments that guys should shoot less typically center upon efficiency issues which were simply non-existent here. There almost were no more efficient shots for Wilt's teams (or any team) than feed it another time to Wilt. Even if a player is so special that you can turn him around, have him work as the first great passing post, and go out and win even more games, that hardly makes previous usage of the best FG% shooter in the game as the most productive scorer in the league inept. Its an obvious and entirely appropriate usage.

[trex_8063]

I come bringing gifts!

I took the top 10 candidates that are PF/C and compared them (Russell/Wilt/Hakeem/DRob/Shaq/Duncan/KG/Dirk).

Sheet 1 is advanced stats
Sheet 2 is shooting stats from various ranges for all of them
Sheet 3 is +/- and with/without stats

I hope to give some thoughts on it tomorrow. Check it out and give me your thoughts!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mgbS7rUoZkySOuFqD_N7lIoAyhoxsPqoiTSdNMv80Bw/edit?usp=sharing

Can you provide links to Dipper's shooting range numbers? I gotta say I find it hard to believe that Wilt and Russ BOTH shot >65% from 3-10 ft.....which is better (by more than 10%) that ANYONE has done since 2000.

[THKNKG]

I come bringing gifts!

I took the top 10 candidates that are PF/C and compared them (Russell/Wilt/Hakeem/DRob/Shaq/Duncan/KG/Dirk).

Sheet 1 is advanced stats
Sheet 2 is shooting stats from various ranges for all of them
Sheet 3 is +/- and with/without stats

I hope to give some thoughts on it tomorrow. Check it out and give me your thoughts!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mgbS7rUoZkySOuFqD_N7lIoAyhoxsPqoiTSdNMv80Bw/edit?usp=sharing

Can you provide links to Dipper's shooting range numbers? I gotta say I find it hard to believe that Wilt and Russ BOTH shot >65% from 3-10 ft.....which is better (by more than 10%) that ANYONE has done since 2000.

I will in the morning, but he had it listed just as "in the paint" I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[drza]

Re: Bill Russell's athleticism and potential for max impact, even in today's game

One thing that holds Russell back on some ballots is the idea, which is generally accepted as truth, that he couldn't have the same impact on the current NBA game as he did in his era. And perhaps this is true. However, I don't think it's a given. For a few reasons, actually. Starting with:

1) Absurd athleticism. There is a possibility that Bill Russell wasn't just an absurd athlete for his time, but that he would be just as absurd of an athlete in today's game. Now, all of this can't be verified, but some of it can. The first is a quote that I saw attributed to Russell, presumably from one of his books, but I don't have the book and I can only site a message board for it (maybe someone like ThaRegul8r can verify, if they're familiar):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597

Leaping high had hooked me. Two years later, during the off-season at USF, some friends and I tested how high I could reach from a running start. I left chalk dust from my fingertips at a point fourteen feet above the floor—four feet above the basket and a foot above the top of the backboard. I loved jumping. It would have been easy for me to dunk the ball even in a twelve foot basket

Now, until verified, this is internet hear-say. And, even if shown to be an accurate quote, we'd have only Russell's word for it. But still..

HOLY CRAP.

Here's another quote from Russell, this time in a Boston Globe article, so it's more easily verifiable: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/1999/05/26/bill-russell-pride-celtics-center-stage-again/lydlO6RBgV8GqnoQVfcUgN/story.html

"I could kick the net and jump up and touch the top of the backboard,’’ he points out. "I introduced the vertical game to basketball.’’

Once again...HOLY CRAP!

Now, while we can't verify the 14 feet chalk mark or kicked net, we CAN verify that Russell was a 6-10 high jumper in 1956 that could have made the Olympic team as a high jumper, but turned it down to play basketball instead. Track and Field News ranked him as the #7 high jumper in the world, and he was ranked #2 in the United States at the time.

In addition to the great leaping ability, Russell was also an outstanding sprinter. There's a John Havlicek quote floating around where he says that Russell "did the hurdles in 13.4." Now, again, this is hearsay and unsubstantiated. We don't even know which hurdles Havlicek is talking about, and 13.4 would have won the 110 high hurdles in the 1956 Olympics so I'm assuming he's talking about a different distance or height. But either way...the point is that he was a great sprinter, with the kind of footspeed that you just don't see in an NBA big man these days.

Put that with his height...I've seen it said that Russell was listed as 6-9 5/8" without shoes in a 1955 Sports Illustrated article, which would translate to a height of 6-11 in today's NBA measuring terms.

Put this together, and we could very legitimately be talking about a 6-11 center that jumps like (higher than?) peak Shawn Kemp/Dwight Howard, but has end-to-end floor speed similar to LeBron James. There is not a single big man in the league with that type of length and athleticism, today. Which would mean that, physically and athletically, Russell would have the ability to do things that the current generation of bigs can't.

2) Russell's defensive tool kit. In addition to the absurd athleticism, Russell had a toolkit of defensive abilities that has proven successful across NBA eras, and would (on paper) be ideal to make maximal defensive impact in today's game as well. First, Russell was a basketball/defensive genius and innovator. I don't think those terms are too strong. He's widely credited with coming up with the concept of jumping to block shots, and if you ever read any of his interviews/books about the psychological warfare that he employed in his battles with Wilt Chamberlain, it'd seem that he should have a degree in psychology. But the point is...when you mate elite size/length, all-history athleticism AND an incredible basketball IQ, you would expect that player to be impressive no matter when.

But, take it further and look for some historical analogs. Bill Walton topped out the WOWY scale in 1977 and 1978, especially on defense, utilizing a very mobile, horizontal defense that could get away from the rim, all the way out to the 3-point line, disrupting action.

Hakeem and Robinson were two of the elite defenders of the late 80s/90s with a combination of length, quickness, mobility and timing.

As recently as the late 2000s/early 2010s, Kevin Garnett was utilizing that same formula...length, quickness, mobility, timing and horizontal defense to lap the field in terms of measured defensive impact according to the +/- stats. Doc MJ had a blog where he used a Russell quote to come up with the concept of "horizontal defense", which seems to be the way to maximize defensive impact for bigs in any era...including this one. https://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/howard-is-the-dpoy-but-hes-no-garnett/

3) Try to quantify it. In DocMJ's scaled PI-RAPM spreadsheet, Garnett topped out with defensive impact marks between +7 and +7.5 in the healthy years between 2008 - 2011. In that same spreadsheet (from 1999 - 2012), the highest offensive impact marks for a 5-year span were +9.1 for Nash, +8.1 for LeBron, +7.9 for Wade, +7.6 for Shaq and +7.4 for Kobe.

Now. I think it is very reasonable to assume that peak Russell enjoyed a basketball IQ, understanding of the game and passion for defense at least as strong as Celtics Garnett, and that's being conservative. But he also had athleticism and motor significantly beyond anything that KG was bringing to the table in his 30s. I see no reason why Russell, in his peak in that type of defense-first role, couldn't have been making a larger defensive impact than Celtics Garnett. I can't quantify how much larger, but even a point or two beyond Garnett's defense would put him in the range of the biggest offensive impacts of the current era.

Summary. This exercise may do nothing for many of you. Some don't care at all about era translation. Some do, but don't want to speculate. Whatevs, I can't make anyone believe anything that they don't want to. But to me? I think that Russell was, in fact, the largest in-era impact player on the board. But, I also think that he had the tools to be a max-impact player in any era. So...I don't have any hesitation at all in making him my vote, for the fourth thread in a row.

Vote: Bill Russell
2nd: will edit to add someone, if it becomes clear that Russell won't finish in the top-2

[Outside]

1) Absurd athleticism. There is a possibility that Bill Russell wasn't just an absurd athlete for his time, but that he would be just as absurd of an athlete in today's game. Now, all of this can't be verified, but some of it can. The first is a quote that I saw attributed to Russell, presumably from one of his books, but I don't have the book and I can only site a message board for it (maybe someone like ThaRegul8r can verify, if they're familiar):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=299597

Leaping high had hooked me. Two years later, during the off-season at USF, some friends and I tested how high I could reach from a running start. I left chalk dust from my fingertips at a point fourteen feet above the floor—four feet above the basket and a foot above the top of the backboard. I loved jumping. It would have been easy for me to dunk the ball even in a twelve foot basket

Now, until verified, this is internet hear-say. And, even if shown to be an accurate quote, we'd have only Russell's word for it. But still..

HOLY CRAP.

Here's another quote from Russell, this time in a Boston Globe article, so it's more easily verifiable: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/1999/05/26/bill-russell-pride-celtics-center-stage-again/lydlO6RBgV8GqnoQVfcUgN/story.html

"I could kick the net and jump up and touch the top of the backboard,’’ he points out. "I introduced the vertical game to basketball.’’

Once again...HOLY CRAP!

Russell's remarkable athleticism is something that's difficult to convey. We have so little video of him compared to contemporary players, and a huge difference with the video we do have is that we don't have the floor-level view that really shows how high Russell could jump. Instead, all we have is the view from high above the floor. As anyone who has sat courtside can tell you, it gives you an appreciation for how big and fast players are and how high they jump that you don't get when sitting in row 50.

For many people, the notion of Russell jumping that high seems ridiculous. But consider this video:

Watch on YouTube

That's Gerald Green, a current player, showing that it is indeed possible to jump so high that you can look down into the basket.

Russell was taller than Gerald Green and had a 7-4 wingspan, so that's how you get a guy who can touch the top of the backboard, kick the net, and do other seemingly ridiculous things.

And as drza mentioned in his post, Russell would be considered 6-11 by today's standards. As I mentioned in another thread, if you saw Russell together with Durant at the finals award ceremony, they were comparable in height, and this despite Russell's age and with lots of people casually tossing around the notion that Durant is seven feet tall.

Combine that athleticism with an all-time levels of basketball IQ, defensive ferocity, will to win, clutch performance, and dedication to team goals -- that's Bill Russell.

Holy crap indeed.

[Joao Saraiva]

On the Duncan subject... I don't those many people ranking him outside the top 10.

I think there's a word missing from that sentence: You don't "????" those people ranking him outside the top 10.....

I don't think there are those many people ranking him outside the top 10