RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,634
And1: 22,588
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#161 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:10 am

I thought you were more than fair there. More gracious than myself. I'm going to spoiler out the rest and just leave you last point visible, as it is good, and should be read.

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:I appreciate how you put that first sentence. I'm aware that I sometimes come across as presumptuous in my words. You started us off here magnanimously.

To answer: If Wilt had gone to a new team for the first time, changed his role, and had great success, it would have have been coherent to argue that the real difference was simply teammates, and that Wilt responded with amazing versatility.

But Wilt went to the new team, gave it his best shot as a score-first player, and then the new coach threw that player effectively in the bin never to return again, and Wilt's teams were better for it.

Because of this we have to ask ourselves whether Wilt was having vastly greater impact all those years on the Warriors than he was in his score-first start on the 76ers. And given that those Warriors never had an impressive offense, and Wilt showed in '65 he was fully capable of getting his stats while having no impact whatsoever, there's very little tying his huge scoring to actual impact, and ample evidence to suggest that Wilt's impact came elsewhere on the court.

Note that I'm not saying that Wilt never had a positive impact due to his scoring ability. The issue has to do with defenses' ability to chip away at the value added by Wilt-scoring attempts using strategy, and the fact that teams can better specialize strategy in the face of predictable opponent strategy along the tunnel vision that often comes with guys looking to score.

These are fair points. Your argument is that while Wilt's scoring did impact his early teams positively, it didn't match up with Russell's defensive impact for the Celtics. I think that's tough to argue against. In that era, Russell was able to enact more impact in the early 60's. Full disclosure, I put Wilt & Russell a notch above Mikan, and really struggle with equating their era to later ones. I just tend to feel Wilt gets dumped on a healthy amount in these discussions.

Re: What are we to think of Kareem. Well you're talking to a guy who basically made clear he thought Kareem is being considerably overrated by the voters here. He was however a far more effective scorer than Wilt along with a more consistent defender (though Wilt at peak focus was a considerably stronger defender).

Fair enough.

Re: punished for adapting. Well that's what we're talking about. Again, I'm not punishing him for adapting, I suppose though you could say I'm punishing him for the need to adapt in the first place.

If Phil Jackson had made the Bulls win titles by having Jordan score 20 PPG, I'd think less of Jordan's seasons scoring 30+. Simple as that.

To be clear though, it's the combination of the need to change how Wilt played with the fact that Wilt took to it inconsistently from that point on that's so problematic. Had Wilt enthusiastically played the '67 way in Philly until '75 and had the results been spectacular, it wouldn't make sense to me to knock Wilt. The knock on his prior impact could be chalked up only to primitive coaching strategy.

I would agree with you here. Consistently was Wilt's biggest issue. Its why he tends to fall toward the bottom of my Top 10 list. Argh, you're making it hard to play devil's advocate.

But in '68 Wilt decided he wanted to leave Philly to play in LA.
In '69 Wilt destroyed the best offensive scheme in the league in LA, the place he had pushed to come.

Wilt started making progress again in '70 eventually leading to that beautiful run in '72, by then he'd been in the league more than a decade playing most those years highly sub-optimally and earning a reputation as a flighty prima donna. None of this makes him something other than a legend and an all-time great, but competition is tough this high up on the GOAT list, and he's competing with a bunch of players who maxed out basically everything they could (and Shaq).

Can't argue with this. Great points

Oh he played "Red's way"?
Please point to the previous player Red worked with who played like Russell.
Please point to the roots of the defensive scheme the Russell Celtics used in the years before Russell arrived.

AUF you've been around here a while. You surely have read the interviews and anecdotes about the sheer unorthodoxy of Russell's play. It was considered the wrong way to play. Russell just kept right on doing it. He brought it with him to college, and then to the pros. He got away with it to some degree just because he was lucky. He couldn't have known that he'd so rarely get burned even in the NBA that his seemingly risk-heavy defensive approach would transform the game, he was just playing the way it came naturally to him.

This is not to say that I think Red had no influence over Russell, but it's frankly in my mind a really high compliment of Red to say that he adapted his team strategy to Russell rather than forcing Russell to play like other big men.

Re: Mikan already. Mikan, like Wilt, tried to do everything. We can look back now and say Mikan's teams won with defense, but back when MIkan was winning titles while leading the league in scoring people didn't understand this.

Russell thus doesn't represented the spearhead of winning with defense, but the spearhead of understanding that you're winning with defense.

Of course that's not what I really mean when I talk about Russell being a new thing. Mikan was a giant compared to his peers, and his peers were basically brand new to trying to become professional athletes. In the wake of Mikan, people THOUGHT that the league would be dominated by absolute behemoths and there was an article I believe Regul8r has posted showing a bunch of high school big men who were thought to be the future of the league. Of those profiled, only Wilt accomplished anything in the NBA.

What those involved with the NBA soon found is that with some basic strategy and skill improvements, you could avoid much damage from a slow big man.

Along came Russell. Quick as a guard, great motor, extremely long, and an astonishing intuitive feel for how to impact the game. All of that meant that he could dive out to the perimeter, or leap up to contest shots you were supposed to not leave your feet on, without getting his team burned. Once Red saw what he had, he adjusted team strategy to funnel opposing players like a Venus fly trap so that Russell could have his way with them.

By Red's way, I'm talking about playing in a professional system. these were the early days of the NBA, and Red as a coach was on a different level when it came to preparation. Russel was definitely an oddity with his defensive style, much like Mikan was the decade before with his post game. But I do feel Red's coaching helped to foster his mindset towards games, where as Wilt did his own thing.

I'm a big team system guy. Pretty much every successful NBA team has had a solid team system and players who fits it at an elite level. The Celtics were like putting Jim Brown on Lombardi's Packers.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#162 » by An Unbiased Fan » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:37 am

Jaivl wrote: In fact, I'd say it's about as impossible as dunking from the 3-point line.

Tom Chambers would like a word with you....
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
rebirthoftheM
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,787
And1: 1,858
Joined: Feb 27, 2017
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#163 » by rebirthoftheM » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:04 am

Texas Chuck wrote:
rebirthoftheM wrote:, which is not surprising because anyone who watched Shaq that season, knew his threats of not playing D were not idle- in fact he was not playing D all RS, and was only able to slightly recover his DRAPM (barely above 0 by the end), during the stretches where Kobe was out, and he played elite D because the entire team revolved around him again. This alone strongly indicates he tanked the team's D for most of the RS. Shaq also knew very well (and in fact he successfully did it) that he and his band of followers could easily shift all the lakers losses on Kobes head, thereby putting pressure on Kobe to cave.

. as soon as Kobe would sit/miss games, suddenly Shaq turned into a defensive beast.



These are major accusations that I assume you have some significant evidence to support then? Could you please provide it in detail? Thanks in advance because I know you don't want this to look like just a pro-Kobe, anti-Shaq created narrative.

For instance, one possible explanation for what you claim above is that Kobe was holding the defense back and thus it looked better when he was out rather than Shaq flipping a switch in an attempt to show Kobe up. So obviously you understand the need to back this up with some evidence, yes?


A lot of the references are per memory, which other Lakers fans here who were following at the time might recall also. Roland Lazenby did an excellent cover of these matters in his books. But briefly:

Re Shaq putting the teams failures all on Kobe: Something from Jan 2001 http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Shaq-Kobe-Feud-Threatens-Lakers-Reign-2964921.php Shaq demanded a trade because of Kobe's alleged selfish play. Also Kobe was very introverted and aloof this period, while Shaq was the outgoing personality. He controlled the narrative within the team and outside of it, and there were a lot of rumours that the old vets in particular were siding with Shaq.

http://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/4962/2001-when-the-near-perfect-lakers-almost-imploded cites the rumours flying around about Shaq wanting Kobe traded. I do not doubt its veracity

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/sports/pro-basketball-tension-between-o-neal-and-bryant-is-rising-every-day.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Shaq responding to an interview Kobe did (in response to Shaq's constant chirping) that he planned to turn his game up. Shaq threatened to stop playing defence.

Regarding Shaq's defense: We have the NPI DRAPM for the 01 season, and Shaq, the Laker anchor, was at 0.4 while Kobe was at 1.33 (the highest rating on the squad IIRC, other than D-Fish who missed most of the RS and came back as the Lakers were storming). This supports my own memory, and I'm sure other Laker fans can testify to Shaq's RS defense having severely dropped from his 00 standards and that Kobe was the only dude on the team who played significant minutes and was playing any semblance of valuable defense, in large part because he was taking that Michael Jordan chase seriously. The Lakers were a bottom 10 D that RS, and although the team was truly littered with horrific to below average defenders, when your anchor declines this much on the defensive side of the ball, the results are disastrous. The Lakers liked funnelling perimeter players into Shaq, but this fell apart in 01, as did their P & R D, perimeter D and pretty much everything.

Some numbers:

Through 52 Games, Kobe & Shaq played 44 games together (I'm choosing 2/20 v Dallas game as cut off point, as this was the period that covered most of their bickering+ Kobe started to miss games from this on point. Trying to capture Kobe/Shaq playing together while they were feuding).

Team Offensive/Defensive Ratings sourced from BBALLREF:

Team ORTG: 108.9 (would rank 1st in the L)
Team DRTG: 107.1 (would rank 26th in the L)
Team Record: 29-15


Shaq/ Kobe’s numbers during this period
Shaq: PPG= 28, FGA= 19.2 (-1.9 from 00), FTA= 13 (+2.6 from 00), FT%= 43, TS% 55.5, MPG=40 (same)
Kobe: PPG=29, FGA= 22.6 (+4.7 FGA), TS% 55.9, MPG=42 (+4 from 00)

Usage also barely declined. When you factor in Shaq’s increased FTAs because of the increased popularity of hack-a-shaq, there was marginal movement in terms of Shaq’s shot attempts over the two periods. Shaq simply couldn’t hit free-throws and at one point was even hovering around the 20% mark, hence Kobe’s higher TS%. His claims that Kobe was taking shots away from him was essentially a lie. If anything, Kobe had eaten up shots from the offensive challenged non kobe/shaq Lakers.

Now admittedly, Kobe was defs. more trigger happy and ball dominant during this stretch, and did break the triangle offense more often than he had in the past, but he was producing at a very high rate, and the Lakers offense was firing despite trotting out below average line-ups sans Kobe/Shaq. Kobe had worked on his game all off-season while Shaq was busy partying- you would think he would have been happy that Kobe was keeping the team on point on O, but no, it was not meant to be. But back to the defense..

Re defense: As mentioned above, Kobe's DRAPM was very high this season, and he was a well deserved 2nd all nba team defender, and to be honest should have been first. Shaq's DRAPM meanwhile was at 0.4, and had threatened to not play defense. Me thinks Shaq, the anchor, had a major role in this, but let's test it out:

Lakers Defensive Ratings minus Shaq- 8 Games- Kobe played in all 8

Team DRTG: 100.59 (-1.62 DRTG spread against their opponents- they held their opponents to below average offensive performances)
Offenses faced: 102.21 ORTG (-0.79 league average)- marginally below average

Fisher, who alongside Fox was the most effective perimeter defender along with Kobe, did not play any games during this period. Lakers went with a Foster/Grant/Madsen/Horry front line, with Rider and Mike Penberthy also getting some time extra time because the team was undermanned. Old man Ron Harper, who was on his last legs also played in the back-court with Kobe, because the team was undermanned. Basically not a great defensive squad at all, yet the spread would have them 8th in the league. Small sample size yes- but again, it makes sense within context of that season. The results are not surprising.

Laker Defensive Ratings minus Kobe- 15 games (I am including a Knicks games on 4/1 when Kobe played for a quarter)- Shaq played in all 15

Team DRTG: 105.8 (+2.65 DRTG spread- they were giving up more points per 100 than these teams averaged out to over the whole season)
Offenses faced: 103.15 ORTG (+0.15 league average)- marginally above average offenses

Now there's no doubt that the perimeter dudes minus Kobe were generally awful on D in the 01 RS. But the defensive numbers during this stretch are no indictment on Shaq... Shaq's individual DRTG was 101 during this time, and this is supportive of the eye test and threading narratives together- that Shaq really rallied on D when he was on the Court because everything was now revolving around him. He just had no support, which goes to show you how valuable Kobe was on the perimeter that season.

This really brings Shaq’s season long DRAPM into focus- if he was playing great D during this 15 game stretch sans Kobe, and he was barely over the 0 mark in DRAPM for the season, I wonder what it would say about his D in the first 44 game stretch with Kobe? I doubt it would be pretty.

Shaq came into 01 out of shape, and supposedly had physical problems. But he never cited this as a reason for the awful defense or why he wasn’t trying, which leads to me to the conclusion: Shaq tanked on D because he was attempting to force Kobe’s hand. His constant chirping publicly, and blaming Kobe's offense for the teams failures lends weight to this.

So combine the probable tanking on D+ demands to be trade+ rumblings that Kobe ought to be dealt, and we have a dude who was going to blow-up a mini-dynasty in the making, because Kobe didn’t validate him. Awful.

And even despite this, I have him in my top 5. But Ish like this is what makes me appreciate dudes like TD/Russell.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,551
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#164 » by therealbig3 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:28 am

Where I stand on the whole Bill Russell thing: I think he was an exceptional athlete, and I agree that he would be seen as such today. However, I don't think he's an outlier athlete compared to some of the other physical specimens we've seen come along, like Robinson, Hakeem, KG, Shaq, and even a guy like Kevin Durant, who is a 7 footer with the mobility and skills of a wing.

And I kind of maintain that it's damn near impossible to have much more impact defensively in the modern era than what Robinson or Hakeem or KG showed. And the best response I've gotten back about that is that Russell was even more of a freak athlete than those guys were, so he would be able to push the limits of defense beyond what they achieved. I don't know if I buy that. Robinson is in the conversation of being the greatest physical specimen in NBA history, right up there with Wilt or Jordan or LeBron...Russell wasn't even considered the greatest physical specimen of his own era, that was Wilt.

Now, the response to that could very well be: "why are we trying to transport players between eras, why not just judge them based on the era they played?", to which I'd respond: good point. I don't actually have a good reason not to do that...however, context must be applied. Just like we shouldn't discriminate against older players for perceived weaknesses of their era, since they can only play with the competition and the rules and the knowledge that was available at that time, we should also be careful not to punish more modern players for simply being born later...a few people seem to completely rule out the possibility of them being on Russell's tier as a defender, since nobody has seemed to come close to replicating his kind of defensive impact, but maybe this is simply because it's just impossible to have that kind of impact in the modern era, and maybe they COULD have done what Russell did if the environment they played in was similar to Russell's era?

But we're never gonna know the answer to that question, so my bottom line: meh.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,551
And1: 16,106
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#165 » by therealbig3 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:30 am

I also don't think Russell being ranked behind Jordan, Kareem, and LeBron is some kind of insult to Russell lol.
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#166 » by ThaRegul8r » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:03 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:In general, from rank to rank, I notice that posters really tend to focus on the strengths of who they prefer, while not really touching on the flaws. For other players the focus is on the flaws, and the strengths aren't really touched upon. I'm sure we'll hear of the many strong points of Wilt/Shaq/Magic/Kobe/Bird and so on going forward, but for the most part shouldn't the strong points of the major choices dominate discussion. In a peak projects it would be a must due to the purpose of that project. When finding the greatest players of all-time, people really need to widen their scope quite a bit to compare the greats. Can't say I've even heard much of Magic's name at this point, or heard comparative reasons why TD is over him for example. TD vs Shaq, TD vs Kobe, TD vs Bird. These are all interesting debates to have, but not really seeing much depth given.

This comment isn't directed at you Regul8r, you always give detailed thoughts on multiple players. Just musing outloud because the Top 10 should have way more analysis going on, and far more players discussed.


I agree with you 100%. I said during the last project:

ThaRegul8r wrote:As I've said before, I have no GOAT list, so I go into this with an open mind, willing to consider various arguments, both the pros AND the cons. Since people are presenting their candidates, they must, of course, present them in the best possible light in order to garner votes.

My interest isn't in the list, but in this discussion, as it could help me come to a decision on a list on my own. In order to come to a decision, however, I need information. There isn't enough presented for me, as it's designed to sway voters rather than invite objective discussion. I need more information than is sufficient for most people.


People presented whoever they were championing in the best possible light, and weren't willing to look at both the pros and cons as I was pressing for, but, for others it's like a political campaign. As I said then, people weren't going enough in depth sufficiently for me. In the 2011 Top 100 project, I wrote a post on Kareem and Wilt that was merely intended to start discussion, and another poster said:

Okay, well I think we've seen just about hands down the GOAT post regarding Wilt vs. KAJ. No reason to have a project about that. A lot to chew on.


What I had posted with the intent of starting discussion instead ended it. That wasn't the "GOAT" anything. It was simply a conversation starter. But as you said, and as fatal9 has commented on before, people don't go into depth. That attempt failed in the 2011 project, an attempt to generate Shaq vs. Wilt discussion failed in the 2014 project, so I'm not even going to bother this time, as, as has been attributed to Albert Einstein, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I had some comparisons I'd made in my files, but history's already shown people aren't interested in that, as what's in my files are much more detailed than the feelers I put out in the last two projects. It's one reason I don't vote in projects anymore.

An Unbiased Fan wrote:I'm being very critical mainly because I feel TD isn't getting much scrutiny. #4 is too high based on where I put him, and especially since his ranking amongst his peers is in question. But also to balance out things for Wilt/Shaq who get hyper-analyzed.


I don't have any problem so long as it's consistent. That's been the thing I've been constantly saying since the last Top 100. Whatever you do, be consistent.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,896
And1: 16,416
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#167 » by Dr Positivity » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:37 am

I'm really stumped on this one, I think the top 3 were the right guys, and then after that it's VERY close for the next group.

Of Russell vs Wilt I lean pretty strongly towards Russell based on Wilt mental hang-ups and how for me, Philly not staying together and being a dynasty falls on him not having that winner leader gene that Russell has. Likewise I'm going to say I can't vote for Shaq over Russell, Magic, Bird, etc. with his immaturity.

That leaves some tough ones

Magic vs Bird: I'm not that moved by the longevity difference, Bird is still playing after his injury. I consider Magic the greatest offensive career both in his stats and more consistent playoff shooting while Bird had some down years in playoff efficiency. I now believe Bird is underrated defensively and therefore in mid 80s when his offense did approach GOAT level may have had a higher peak. I'm going to side with Bird based on leaning towards his peak being higher and importance of two way play when it comes to having the highest ceiling.

Hakeem vs Duncan: I started this project thinking Hakeem over Duncan, because I feel his playoff clutch performances that swung those titles was a level above TD dynamism wise. I'm bothered by some Spurs losses such as 04 and 06 that prevented a 5 year all out domination by Duncan/Manu/TP era and I wonder if Duncan could have swung 1-2 of those years. But on the other hand Duncan has leadership value that Hakeem doesn't, and part of the reason for regrettable playoff losses is the Spurs were contenders so often. I'm swayed by the stats showing how Spurs low possession underrated how dominant Duncan was on offense in his MVP years peak and that 03 run. And again it goes back to the idea that with players this close in skillset, I like the idea of leaning on character and leadership. So I'll go with Duncan over Hakeem.

Between Russell, Duncan, Bird. Starting with Russell vs Bird - I favor Russell's defense over Bird's offense. Maybe Bird got close to him in 84-88 but when considering the whole career and some of the down playoff shooting, I think the immense impact of Russell's D gets the edge. What is better, Russell's offense or Bird's defense? Seems comparable but either way I like the advantage Russell has on defense enough vs Bird offense to get the overall edge.

Duncan vs Russell - Russell has to be better than an ATG defender in Duncan enough to make up for the offensive advantage in the latter's favor. I'm somewhat dubious Russell can be more than +1, +2 better than Duncan in rough RPM terms, and I think I like Duncan's offensive advantage more than that. Furthermore Duncan has longevity advantage, like Russell he comes into the league impact ready but his 13th season is 2010, then his last 6 years is still a lot of value. For both reasons it's difficult for me to vote Russell over Duncan.

Vote: Tim Duncan

2nd: Bill Russell
Liberate The Zoomers
Gibson22
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,921
And1: 912
Joined: Jun 23, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#168 » by Gibson22 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:11 am

trex_8063 wrote:Thru post #135:

Bill Russell - *12 (*Arman_Tanzarian, ardee, BasketballFan7, Doctor MJ, drza, JordansBulls, kayess, Outside, penbeast0, SactoKingsFan, scabbarista, Tesla)
Wilt Chamberlain - 6 (wojoaderge, Winsome Gerbil, Narigo, mischievous, lebron3-14-3, Joao Saraiva)
Tim Duncan - 4 (Clyde Frazier, Hornet Mania, micahclay, trex_8063)
Hakeem Olajuwon - 1 (janmagn)


*Arman_Tanzarian - I cannot count your vote unless you provide some manner of justification or arguments for Russell.

This thread will be open for about 16 more hours for any who want to get their comments and votes in.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbini wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

PockyCandy wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

andrewww wrote:.

colts18 wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.


Freighttrain wrote:.

Doormatt wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

Wavy Q wrote:.


Don't count my vote, I decided to just read the threads and maybe ask some questions here and there
Cyrusman122000
Analyst
Posts: 3,600
And1: 2,919
Joined: Jun 21, 2013
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#169 » by Cyrusman122000 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:05 pm

Official 1st place vote: Tim Duncan

His resume is outstanding and only comparable to the likes of Jordan, Kareem
5x NBA Champion
Rookie of the year
3x Finals MVP (T-2nd most with Magic and Shaq,Lebron)
2x MVP
15x all star
15x All-NBA Team (T-1st most with Kareem and Kobe)
15x All-Defensive Team (most in NBA history)
Career records are also outstanding and he's on the top of numerous playoff records as well
Longevity that rivals Kareem (look at his last 4 playoff run prior to 2016), and he was still an amazing defensive presence in the league up until age 39.
Anchor of one of the greatest dynasty in the modern era of sports
Duncan's teams always had a winning record on the road, and won 50 games in every season but 1999 simply because there were only 50 games.
Put up a PER of at least 20 in 18 of his 19 seasons!
When you take into consideration the team success, personal success, longevity, and the fact that he played for one team his whole career to me he's the greatest draft pick in NBA history.

2nd place vote; Shaquille O'neal
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,088
And1: 11,888
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#170 » by eminence » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:29 pm

Yay, a different vote from micah!

Doc MJ I feel touched on this a bit, but honestly I feel that Russell's (and by extension Wilt's) case was hurt in this thread. I'm a younger generation NBA fan who barely got to see second 3pt Jordan, let alone some of the original greats. So much of how I can evaluate these players has to be by word of mouth, and when supporters turn to hyperbole and tall tales (14ft reach, PG duties, good midrange jumpshot) it really makes it hard to fully buy other things they're saying. With that doubt in my mind of, "Can I believe Russell and his supporters", it makes it tougher to see him this high over other great players that I can easily fully evaluate on my own. Faith that his defense really is, not just the best ever, but 2-3 whole tiers higher than anyone else simply needs to be there to have him as a top tier GOAT contender. His offense (by film and any stat you care to look at, individual or team) is simply not a needle mover at this level.

Anywho, on to my actual votes:

1st Ballot: Tim Duncan
Short summary of past ballots:
-Incredibly long career, effective for all of it.
-Great defense entire career.
-Very good offensive player in prime, good 'role player' in later years.
-The example for leadership. Reg's stuff on that has been great. Still tend to credit Pop pretty strongly there.

2nd Ballot: Kevin Garnett
-He and Duncan played excellent foils to one another for their entire careers.
-Equally, possibly even more skilled.
-Had a couple more injury issues/faded a bit earlier.
-Doesn't have quite the leadership resume of a Tim D.
-Looking back on it I feel his first few years in Minnesota ('97 to '99 or so) were badly underappreciated. He was carrying cruddy rosters to ~40 wins a year starting in his second year and received almost no recognition for it.

Don't currently feel good enough about accounts from the 60's to put Wilt/Russell above these guys. Will be in contention with the next crew down (Shaq et al).
I bought a boat.
O_6
Rookie
Posts: 1,178
And1: 1,586
Joined: Aug 25, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#171 » by O_6 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:57 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Where I stand on the whole Bill Russell thing: I think he was an exceptional athlete, and I agree that he would be seen as such today. However, I don't think he's an outlier athlete compared to some of the other physical specimens we've seen come along, like Robinson, Hakeem, KG, Shaq, and even a guy like Kevin Durant, who is a 7 footer with the mobility and skills of a wing.

And I kind of maintain that it's damn near impossible to have much more impact defensively in the modern era than what Robinson or Hakeem or KG showed. And the best response I've gotten back about that is that Russell was even more of a freak athlete than those guys were, so he would be able to push the limits of defense beyond what they achieved. I don't know if I buy that. Robinson is in the conversation of being the greatest physical specimen in NBA history, right up there with Wilt or Jordan or LeBron...Russell wasn't even considered the greatest physical specimen of his own era, that was Wilt.


I made a post regarding Russell being a better athlete than Robinson/Russell. But that's not the sole reason I feel like he could have more defensive impact today.

His BBIQ was on another level from Hakeem and Robinson. As much as I love Hakeem, he was not a textbook fundamental defender at all. He relied greatly on his pogo stick jump. IMO this is a major reason why Hakeem's "post-prime" defensive RAPM numbers are dissapointing.

One thing that strikes me about Russell is his positioning. Despite his athleticism, he was more similar to Duncan than he was Robinson/Hakeem as a defender. Whereas Hakeem and Robinson seem greatly dependent on their athleticism, Russell seems like he relies on it less due to how great his positioning and floor awareness is.

IMO, Russell's Olympic track training really helped him become extremely efficient with his movement.

You say that "I can't imagine someone having more impact that Hakeem/Robinson on D in the modern era".

If we didn't have any advanced numbers and extremely limited video of MJ, we'd say a similar thing about Kobe. If you look at RAPM, Kobe has an argument as the best offensive force of the last 20 years especially among wings. But MJ was a tier above athletically + much smarter with his shot selection. This results in MJ being clearly a better offensive player. I see Russell vs. Hakeem/Robinson as similar. Just like MJ on O, Russell on D provided an IQ/athleticism combo that trumped even other legenderary defenders.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,645
And1: 99,051
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#172 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:00 pm

I'm honestly stunned that a throwaway line is literally impacting how people evaluate Bill Russell.

Especially since the original source of that line in this discussion is a poster known for supporting his positions in excruciating detail and not relying on hyperbole or narrative alone. Mind you I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I feel like his bonafides as a basketball analyst are well established.

Kobe is going to get all kinds of absurd narrative posts--I mean ardee already bumped another thread leading into this project that is the greatest example of that in the history of this board. But I feel its my duty not to dismiss Kobe because his supporters exaggerate. That wouldn't be remotely reasonable imo.

Nor do I feel it reasonable in this case. Tho admittedly I have a pro-Russell bias which I'd better acknowledge (tho I think its already known) since I've already been called out on this issue.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,645
And1: 99,051
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#173 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:04 pm

Oh and I kinda hate the argument that well its impossible for a guy in teh 60's to have been better than a guy now because well it just is rings really hollow to me.

If we are talking about athletes in general then sure I agree the modern athlete simply has too many advantages and so collectively they are going to be superior to their predecessors. But we are talking about one individual. Is it really impossible to consider that maybe he was a superior athlete? I feel the dismissal isn't based on anything more than a modern bias.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
THKNKG
Pro Prospect
Posts: 994
And1: 368
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#174 » by THKNKG » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:48 pm

Russell vs Duncan years ranked by RDrtg z score (distance below zero because I didn't want to write negative signs on each one). It has all but Duncan's last I believe.

Russell
2.3
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7

Duncan
2.3
2.3
2
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1
.5
.4

Russell was certainly better defensively, but there wasn't as much separation as I initially felt, especially prime vs prime, and then Duncan continued for years after that at solid value. Relative to their peers, Duncan comes close enough for me to avoid feeling like I am betraying Russell by not voting against him haha.
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)

PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis
SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan
SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen
PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams
C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,088
And1: 11,888
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#175 » by eminence » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:57 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:Oh and I kinda hate the argument that well its impossible for a guy in teh 60's to have been better than a guy now because well it just is rings really hollow to me.

If we are talking about athletes in general then sure I agree the modern athlete simply has too many advantages and so collectively they are going to be superior to their predecessors. But we are talking about one individual. Is it really impossible to consider that maybe he was a superior athlete? I feel the dismissal isn't based on anything more than a modern bias.


Could he have been better? Yeah, I absolutely believe it. The quote in question though is akin to claiming he could actually run the 100m significantly faster than Usain Bolt. Doug Thomas, 6'9'' former Hawkeye (7'0'' wingspan and narrow shoulders, likely around a 9ft standing reach), is the only player I've ever seen video evidence of even getting to the 13 ft mark, and he just barely got there.

For reference:
Howard - 9' 2.5'', 40 in vertical, can get to 12' 6''
Russell - 9' 4'', ???, 14'? - would require a 56 inch vertical, over 10 inches higher than the combine record
I bought a boat.
User avatar
THKNKG
Pro Prospect
Posts: 994
And1: 368
Joined: Sep 11, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#176 » by THKNKG » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:16 pm

eminence wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:Oh and I kinda hate the argument that well its impossible for a guy in teh 60's to have been better than a guy now because well it just is rings really hollow to me.

If we are talking about athletes in general then sure I agree the modern athlete simply has too many advantages and so collectively they are going to be superior to their predecessors. But we are talking about one individual. Is it really impossible to consider that maybe he was a superior athlete? I feel the dismissal isn't based on anything more than a modern bias.


Could he have been better? Yeah, I absolutely believe it. The quote in question though is akin to claiming he could actually run the 100m significantly faster than Usain Bolt. Doug Thomas, 6'9'' former Hawkeye (7'0'' wingspan and narrow shoulders, likely around a 9ft standing reach), is the only player I've ever seen video evidence of even getting to the 13 ft mark, and he just barely got there.

For reference:
Howard - 9' 2.5'', 40 in vertical, can get to 12' 6''
Russell - 9' 4'', ???, 14'? - would require a 56 inch vertical, over 10 inches higher than the combine record


It's not the athleticism for me. I think he's a top 5 NBA athlete ever, possibly top 3. It's that I don't think the degree of defensive greatness is large ego ugh to circumvent the similarish impact defensively by Duncan with better offense and longevity.
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)

PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis
SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan
SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen
PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams
C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,645
And1: 99,051
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#177 » by Texas Chuck » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:22 pm

eminence wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:Oh and I kinda hate the argument that well its impossible for a guy in teh 60's to have been better than a guy now because well it just is rings really hollow to me.

If we are talking about athletes in general then sure I agree the modern athlete simply has too many advantages and so collectively they are going to be superior to their predecessors. But we are talking about one individual. Is it really impossible to consider that maybe he was a superior athlete? I feel the dismissal isn't based on anything more than a modern bias.


Could he have been better? Yeah, I absolutely believe it. The quote in question though is akin to claiming he could actually run the 100m significantly faster than Usain Bolt. Doug Thomas, 6'9'' former Hawkeye (7'0'' wingspan and narrow shoulders, likely around a 9ft standing reach), is the only player I've ever seen video evidence of even getting to the 13 ft mark, and he just barely got there.

For reference:
Howard - 9' 2.5'', 40 in vertical, can get to 12' 6''
Russell - 9' 4'', ???, 14'? - would require a 56 inch vertical, over 10 inches higher than the combine record


is it possible to move on from that one quote? I mean let's pretend for a second that it's true. Does it change anything at all about about we perceive Russell as a basketball player? For me it doesn't change a thing. Now let's go worst case scenario, not only is it not true, but Russell knew it wasn't remotely true when he wrote it, but he included it anyway in an attempt to intentionally deceive and elevate his legend. And then let's go the direction Doc wants to go and question everything Russell says in the light of it. Does that really change much of anything about how Russell actually played basketball?

Even if you now want to dismiss his psychological warfare against Wilt as pure crap now in the light of this one quote or no longer credit him for having one of the greatest basketball IQ's of all-time, how does any of that change the actual impact he had on the court?

I'm just struggling here with how much weight is seemingly being placed on something so insignificant. And this becomes a slippery slope because I promise you I can find all kinds of isolated quotes or anecdotes about probably every single player we will consider in this project. Shaq and Wilt alone made all kinds of Bunyanesque claim. Isn't it on me to take those for what they are and not say well now it calls into question their entire career?
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,088
And1: 11,888
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#178 » by eminence » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:24 pm

micahclay wrote:
eminence wrote:It's not the athleticism for me. I think he's a top 5 NBA athlete ever, possibly top 3. It's that I don't think the degree of defensive greatness is large ego ugh to circumvent the similarish impact defensively by Duncan with better offense and longevity.


Slightly lower opinion of his defense was indeed the reason for me not voting for him, but the reason for my opinion of his D dropping was a combination of pre-existing doubts, Lorak's continued pounding of the '57 Celtics defensive improvement prior to Russell, and then this defense of a clearly ridiculous statement was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.
I bought a boat.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,634
And1: 22,588
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#179 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:27 pm

eminence wrote:Yay, a different vote from micah!

Doc MJ I feel touched on this a bit, but honestly I feel that Russell's (and by extension Wilt's) case was hurt in this thread. I'm a younger generation NBA fan who barely got to see second 3pt Jordan, let alone some of the original greats. So much of how I can evaluate these players has to be by word of mouth, and when supporters turn to hyperbole and tall tales (14ft reach, PG duties, good midrange jumpshot) it really makes it hard to fully buy other things they're saying. With that doubt in my mind of, "Can I believe Russell and his supporters", it makes it tougher to see him this high over other great players that I can easily fully evaluate on my own. Faith that his defense really is, not just the best ever, but 2-3 whole tiers higher than anyone else simply needs to be there to have him as a top tier GOAT contender. His offense (by film and any stat you care to look at, individual or team) is simply not a needle mover at this level.


Eh, to be clear, the 14 foot thing is really different than the others.

I mean, Russell did take over a good amount of playmaking duties when Cousy retired, and he was always strong at kickstarting the offensive possession after he got the rebound or block. He worked more in the high post, which was why he spent less time getting easy buckets and scored less.

In general, people from the past always have issues with "back in my day" syndrome. Taking what they say with a grain of salt when they talk about something that doesn't seem possible is pretty much just normal, but that doesn't mean you can just apply that same grain of salt other things that are actually doable and may well be verifiable.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #4 

Post#180 » by ThaRegul8r » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:31 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:I'm honestly stunned that a throwaway line is literally impacting how people evaluate Bill Russell.

Especially since the original source of that line in this discussion is a poster known for supporting his positions in excruciating detail and not relying on hyperbole or narrative alone. Mind you I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I feel like his bonafides as a basketball analyst are well established.


Well, it should be instructive.

People need to better evaluate whatever it is they're going to use rather than simply using anything they happened to find that's pro-whoever-it-is-that-they're-championing. I already voiced wondering what it had to do with what goes on in a basketball game. The fact of the matter is that it was a player who's already hurt by era as it is, and so using that actually damaged the case supporters were trying to make, as posters have voiced. I've seen a lot of internet posters not know how to use quotes. Such as when posters post a quote of a coach saying his player is the best ever or something—he's his coach, what in the world would one expect him to do, not support his player? That's not an unbiased source. It doesn't matter how much information is on the internet if one can't properly evaluate what they find.

And the original source was actually a basketball forum where finding intelligent discussion is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and where posters will literally do anything in favor of whoever their favorite player is, including lying and outright fabricating quotes.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown

Return to Player Comparisons