Who Are Your Current Top 10 Players Ever?

iggymcfrack · Post #41 » by **iggymcfrack** » Mon Oct 8, 2018 8:27 pm

1. LeBron
2. Jordan
3. Duncan
4. Shaq
5. Kareem
6. KG
7. Hakeem
8. Robinson
9. Curry
10. CP3

Statlanta · Post #42 » by **Statlanta** » Mon Oct 8, 2018 9:10 pm

The definitive list
MJ
Russell
Kareem
Duncan
LBJ
Shaq
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Kobe

Weird subjective rankings that don't matter

Spoiler:

Simple MJ is number 1 because nobody questioned him as the best player at his best(Peak/Prime). Some might say that is the media climate of the 90's or the luck he had in not facing superteams at his apex, I'd say he was that DAMN good.

People always had an argument for some other player better for all the other candidates within their prime besides Kareem. Kareem is a passive guy and it has shown in his play in his prime(1983) and as a big man he isn't the most ideal player for the position's ideal role(to be the best defender on the court at all times). Take the most confident player.

Why is LBJ at 5?
Every single player above him is a better leader(His team success compared to his numbers and Kyrie's trade request has put in some doubt towards this). Duncan curated a dynasty. Kareem facilitated one. Russell lead the greatest championship dynasty in sports history. MJ while probably a comparable or worse leader(I believe the former) is simply a better player. He has a chance to prove otherwise on the Lakers and that is why he can move up.

Why is Wilt so low?
Wilt had trouble consistently impacting his team on the highest level. Sure he puts up legendary numbers but it never translated to the team. Was he the reason for the lack of team success or was it his coaches? I'd split it 50/50.

Jaqua92 · Post #43 » by **Jaqua92** » Mon Oct 8, 2018 10:02 pm

Longevity doesn't just play this smallest role in determining my top 10, it doesnt even have a role.

10 best players ever.

Best. Players. Ever.

Dont understand the logic behind using longevity. In terms of determining who is best, I would argue these are the most important, in order

How good they were in their prime
How good their peak seasons were.

How many championships as the best player on the team.

If you want to rank legacy, sure.

But top 10 lists should be specific.

10 greatest, and 10 best are not the same

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

O_6 · Post #44 » by **O_6** » Mon Oct 8, 2018 11:01 pm

1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Kareem
4. Russell

5. Duncan
6. Wilt
7. Magic (Definitely would've been Top 5 and in Tier 1 if HIV didn't shorten career)
8. Shaq
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

11. Kobe
12. Oscar
13. Garnett
14. West

15. Dirk (Extremely close between Dr. J vs. Dirk vs. Mailman)
16. Dr. J
17. K. Malone
18. Robinson

Post #45 » by **GeorgeMarcus** » Mon Oct 8, 2018 11:17 pm

1. LeBron James
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Michael Jordan
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Bill Russell
6. Magic Johnson
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Larry Bird
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Oscar Robertson
...

Spoiler:

It was a sad day when I recently realized LeBon hurdled Wilt as my GOAT.

Post #46 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 12:19 am

Tentatively (haven't done serious work on LeBron v. Russell)

1. Russell -- most impact in his era by a healthy margin, era was not as strong as current era but stronger than 50s, 70s, or even early 80s.

2. LeBron -- passed Jordan in terms of longevity and greater professionalism; I've always had problems with Jordan's bashing of his teammates (though his taking a hiatus doesn't bother me that much except when people try to assume he would have won 2 more titles).

3. Jordan -- peaked higher than either Russell or LeBron but in addition to the above comment, he didn't seem to be willing to subordinate his scoring to team goals until Phil Jackson (my GOAT coach) convinced him that it was the best chance to win. I do think Jordan was always about winning, I just don't think he had Russell's instinctive grasp of what it took which you could see in Russell from year 1.

4. Wilt -- I still had him a little above Kareem the last time I did serious thinking though ElGee's analysis of longevity is another thing I need to work through better as Kareem dominates him in longevity. His defensive impact is a bit higher, his scoring relative to league is similar although Kareem's is superior due to his FT shooting and the skyhook's reliability, Wilt's rebounding is stronger, the era he played his prime in was appreciably stronger in my opinion, and his prime translates better into wins (when not facing Russell, who I tend to rank higher than most, he won over 80% of his playoff series against anyone else -- a slightly better percentage than Jordan though Jordan doesn't have to have any qualifiers to his winning). I think, like Garnett, Wilt suffered from bad coaching much of his career and unimpressive teams (look at his list of PFs at Philly; bleech) which has caused him to be downgraded.

5. Kareem

------------------------
(6-10 is much closer)

6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Magic
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe

Next time we work over the top 100 list, I'll do more serious thinking about it but not at the moment.

Post #47 » by **zimpy27** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 12:19 am

1. LeBron/Jordan
3. KAJ
4. Shaq
5. Russell
6. Hakeem
7. Duncan
8. Garnett
9. Magic
10. Bird

Don't have Wilt in my top 10 (he'd be number 11), not much footage of him, didn't win much (unlike Russell). Perhaps the greatest individual scorer of all time but not a great impact on the team offense. He may have been a victim of the time and coaching. COuld be argued into the top 10, I just didn't see enough footage.

Incidentally my NBA Mt. Rushmore is LeBron, MJ, KAJ and Russell.

Post #48 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 1:59 am

uberhikari wrote:
1. I can rate West and Wilt because our ability to gauge offensive impact is way better than our ability to gauge defensive impact. Russell was surrounded by an assortment of good/great defenders on the perimeter. How can I attribute all of Boston's defense to just Russell?

To the bolded above, I’d note that we don’t have a great deal of indication that Wilt was a big-impact [like all-time top 10-15ish level] offensive player. He scored a lot of points, yes; but so did Allen Iverson.
I’m not saying Wilt ~= Allen Iverson, because the thing is: Wilt also had a lot of defensive impact. Most of us [on this site] would agree that the lion’s share of Wilt’s impact came on the defensive end (the end that you’re saying is so difficult to gauge).

To the underlined portion, as always, semantics apply pertaining to exactly how liberal or literal you’re being with “surrounded by” and “good/great”, but I want to explore this question a little. Because if you’re questioning it, it’s worth looking into, and Russell is far too relevant a player to brush aside simply because the going gets tough, as it were.
So I’m going to delve into just how “surrounded by” he was [with “good/great” defensive help], as well as look for indications of how much of those great defenses we can attribute specifically to Russell. I’ll examine this in numbered stages (and I’ll state that I’m not sure what I’m going to find, as I’ve never looked into this to the degree that I intend to here).

But first, as sort of a one-off, I feel it’s only fair to mention that even if he did have some good perimeter defensive cores (question to be examined below), he was also paired with WEAK defensive PF’s pretty much his whole career (Tom Heinsohn ‘57-’65, Bailey Howell ‘67-’69). Let’s not forget that as we move thru this.

1) While I’ll also make mention of additional frontcourt players below, I’ll start with listing the principle "perimeter" players surrounding him:

*Bill Sharman (‘57-’61)
*Bob Cousy (‘57-’63)
*Jim Loscutoff (‘57-’64)
Frank Ramsey (‘57-’64)
Sam Jones (‘58-’69, though didn’t really play significant minutes in ‘58)
K.C. Jones (‘59-’67, though didn’t play significant minutes in ‘59)
**Tom Sanders (‘61-’69)
**John Havlicek (‘63-’69)
**Larry Siegfried (‘64-’69)
#Willie Naulls (‘64-’66)
**#Don Nelson (‘66-’69)
**Em Bryant (‘69)

*All three were present on the Celtics in ‘56 (before Russell’s arrival)
**These five were still around the year(s) after Russell’s retirement
#Not sure if these really count as "perimeter players", as they were more combo forwards (though Satch Sanders kinda was too, and I assume you were including consideration of him when you wrote the above underlined statement).

2) Let’s next look at each of these players individually from a defensive standpoint…..

Bill Sharman, by all accounts, was a tenacious and scrappy defender. Otoh, although reportedly a decent athlete [for the era, at least], he stood only 6’1” (sort of short for a SG even in that era), and weighed just 175 lbs. I suspect he was a positive impact defender for much of his career, though I’d be skeptical about any sort of elite or "great" status defensively, especially during the years next to Russell (where Sharman’s ability was no doubt declining due to age, while the median level of athleticism [and size] in the league was on the rise).

Bob Cousy was not a strong defender; in fact, many would even say he was a weak defensive player. The latter may be a fair characterization, too, at least for the last 2-3 seasons played with Russell (Cousy declining, while the league is improving). Even though he’s one of my all-time favorite players, I must acknowledge that he was never better than an average defender, and likely less than that for much of his time as Russell’s teammate.

Jim Loscutoff was 6’5”, built like a tank, and played SF (think of a PJ Tucker sort of body, basically). "Jungle Jim" was indeed a good (great?) defensive perimeter player. That was sort of the basis of his entire NBA career, because he was an utterly putrid offensive player. He could be characterized as tough, physical, and gritty on the defensive side, and also rebounded very well for a SF.

Frank Ramsey was a 6’3” SG (played some at SF, too). I’ve seen only a very limited amount of game footage of Ramsey (most of it very late in his career), but his defense was described as “savvy” in a NY Times article at the time of his death, and he did rebound fairly well for his position (also looks like he had fairly quick hands in the limited amount I’ve seen). However, the bulk of his [positive] reputation as a player comes from his accurate shot and clutch playoff performances, not from his defense. We can likely justifiably label him as a positive defender, though likely not a truly elite defender. Is also worth noting he never averaged as high as 30 mpg in any rs (limits his per game impact).

Sam Jones…..I’ve never heard/read anything positive nor negative stated specifically regarding his defense. Red Auerbach is on record lauding Jones’s work ethic in general, and also said Sam would “do anything you asked him.” So hopefully some of that general sentiment also applies to him on the defensive end. From what I’ve seen of him (there are perhaps a dozen or thereabouts Celtics games I’ve watched with him in them [ranging from ‘61 to ‘69]), he looks like a capable defender: doesn’t jump off the screen as any sort of obviously positive impact defender, but nor does he look bad.

K.C. Jones, by all accounts, is one of the best defensive PG’s of his generation. One-time teammate Willie Naulls once called him “the best defensive guard in the history of the game” in a 2015 interview.

Tom Sanders was 6’6” (though to my eye looks like his effective length [with his reach] might be more like a 6’7” or 6’8” player), of sort of wirey strong build, and played mostly SF (a little PF). Sanders was indeed, first and foremost, a defensive role player who also rebounded pretty well for his position. Fairly assuredly a positive impact defensive player overall (and likely significantly so in some years).

John Havlicek was [likely] also a positive impact defender most years of his career. Quick and physical with unrelenting endurance, he was keyed in pretty much every defensive possession in the games I’ve watched.

Larry Siegfried has a decent defensive reputation (described as “sticky” in his obituary article in the NY Times), though he’s certainly more remembered for his solid shooting and taking good care of the ball. At 6’3” and fairly limited athleticism [even for the time], he doesn’t really jump out at me as someone who looks like a major defensive factor, though I could believe that he may have been a small positive defensively [some years, at least].

Willie Naulls was 6’6” with a decent build, and was something of a combo forward (bbref lists him mostly as a SF (some PF), though other sources classify him as a “PF/C”). He rebounded well for a SF/combo forward (probably NOT so well for a PF/C, if that is indeed more accurate). He has some history playing for teams that favoured pressure defense, though I cannot find any statements specifically about his defensive acumen (good or bad), and I don’t have enough “eye-test” to say one way or the other on him. At any rate, he was just an 18-20 mpg role player as a Celtic, so overall it’s perhaps fair to characterize him as an “average” defender????

Don Nelson was 6’6”, somewhat thick build, but mediocre athlete; played combo forward (though mostly SF, if I’m not mistaken). Though I found one account referring to him as “tough” [in a general sense], most of his reputation as a player comes from being an efficient scorer (and from having that wildly comical FT shot); and I must admit I’ve never noted anything about his play that skewed my opinion toward “defensive stopper” or similar. Also, looking at a lot of his coaching trends (which erred toward offense > defense philosophies), it’s hard for me to peg him as anything better than an average defensive player (even that may be generous???).

Em Bryant was small (6’1”), but a pretty good athlete. I can't find specific indications/comments regarding his defense either way, but I will note that upon graduating from DePaul he was drafted both by the New York Knicks as well as the Dallas Cowboys (as a defensive back). I don’t know if defensive back prowess necessarily translates to being good at basketball defense (though I kinda want to hedge toward “yes” on that). I need to re-watch the ‘69 Finals to better shape an opinion.

So it’s true that Russell had some good perimeter defenders around him during his tenure in the league, though not completely “surrounded” by them. For the first half of his career, anyway, there was fairly consistently one potential weak spot in the perimeter defensive core [Cousy], as well as periodic other average defenders (Sam Jones, Willie Naulls, Don Nelson, perhaps select years of Siegfried or Ramsey).

3) But anyway, now that we’ve looked at each individual perimeter defender----and have listed above what years they played with Russell (and which ones were Celtics before/after Russell’s career)----let’s look at some Celtic team defensive trends in context of roster changes to see if we can tease out just how much Russell is to “blame” for their elite defense (vs crediting these perimeter players [or others])......

I’ll try to use changes in DRtg wherever possible, though I’ll occasionally look at differences in ppg allowed. I suspect, however, that shifts in ppg allowed is going to be less reliable as it’s fairly well established that Red looked to Russell to ignite the fast-break (off a block or DReb and outlet pass), and otherwise wanted shots going up in a hurry when Russell played: this strategy based on the vague notion that with Russell anchoring the defense, the more possessions they could force per game would equate to a larger point-differential; even if they have to take a lot of bad shots, their offense still won’t be as bad as that of their opponent [because of what Russell does defensively]. That’s why I don’t like it when people use the Celtic ORtg’s as the end-all of criticism against Cousy…..but I digress.

3a) Moving from ‘56 to ‘57…….
*the Celtics basically retained their primary perimeter core (lost a 20 mpg Ernie Barnett, but retained ALL THREE of the top-minute perimeter players from ‘56 [Cousy, Sharman, and Loscutoff], as well as a partial season from 11 mpg SF Togo Palazzi). Frank Ramsey was also added, though he wouldn’t arrive until mid-season (and avg just 23.1 mpg).

**Heinsohn replaced most of the minutes at PF (I don’t know if Jack Nichols was any good on defense, but it’s a safe bet that Heinsohn was NOT an improvement defensively).

***Otherwise, the only major roster changes were Bill Russell replaced Ed Macauley/Arnie Risen at C (Macauley traded away).

The result: their rDRTG improved from +1.4 to -4.9 (a -6.3 improvement, which proportionally is even a little more impressive than a 6.3-shift would be today), despite the fact that Russell didn’t even join the team until nearly two months into the season (as he’d been helping Team USA win gold at the Olympics).
That’s a helluva defensive improvement, and I’m going to be assertive and state it almost certainly was NOT a result of Tom Heinsohn. So that basically leaves the arrival of Bill Russell as principle factor in that change.
Unless one wants to argue that the half-season [23 mpg] of Frank Ramsey played a big part in it. That’s a hard sell, though, given Ramsey WAS around for ‘55 but missed ‘56 due to military service, but their rDRTG did NOT worsen without Ramsey in ‘56; in fact, it improved by 1.8.
Now to be fair, that improvement seen in Ramsey’s absence may have been the result of the addition of C Arnie Risen (who had a good defensive reputation) in ‘56. Risen was still there in ‘57, too, however; he was the guy filling in as starting C while Russell was at the Olympics. Fwiw, the Celtics allowed 100.6 ppg in the first 24 games of ‘57 with Risen [again: a more than capable defensive big man] playing big minutes in Russell’s absence; the Celtics allowed 100.0 ppg in the last 48 with Russell starting (despite a likely faster pace for reasons mentioned above).

3b) ‘58
They still had the starting backcourt of Cousy and Sharman, and they get the full season of Frank Ramsey this year, too. Rookie Sam Jones arrives, but doesn’t play relevant minutes. Probably their single-best perimeter defensive player on the team, Jim Loscutoff, misses basically the entire year. Other good defensive perimeter players haven’t yet arrived (as indicated previously), and perhaps worth mentioning that Arnie Risen (in this, his final season) was 33 years old before the rs even started [i.e. likely in decline]. But this doesn’t damage the team’s defensive performance. No, in fact their rDRTG improves marginally [-0.3] to a -5.2, likely a result of having Russell for a full season, instead of just ⅔ of it. I’ll also suggest that Russell likely improves thru his first few/several seasons; this is both common of most players, but also perhaps especially likely for Russell in particular, as he was a very cerebral and studious player. Just putting that out there as something to bear in mind as we move along.

3c) ‘59
Jim Loscutoff is back this season, and K.C. Jones is a rookie (though hardly playing relevant minutes); on the flip-side, aging Arnie Risen has retired. Sam Jones is getting a little more playing time (which is probably neither here nor there wrt defense).
rDRTG improves another -0.5 to -5.7. Fwiw, this was the year Red Auerbach convinced Russell that he didn’t need to be a conventional [scoring] offensive hub, and that he was happy if Russell focused his energies on defense (and we do see a noticeable drop in his shot-attempt rates this year, down to a rate it would sort of level off at before declining still further late in his career--->never returning to the relative higher shot-rates of his first two seasons). Russell also playing more minutes than the previous two seasons.
You parse out the credit as you see fit for the defensive trend here.

3d) ‘60-’63
In ‘60, K.C. Jones is getting more regular playing time (though still only like 17 mpg off the bench), though Jim Loscutoff again misses much of the season. rDRTG improves another -0.5 to -6.2.
In ‘61, K.C. Jones getting marginally more minutes than last year (~20 mpg), Loscutoff is back (though from here on out would be a more limited-minute bench role player, barely getting relevant minutes by '63), and Sam Jones now up to ~26 mpg as Sharman [final season] is in decline; Cousy maybe on the front end of decline, too. A rookie Tom Sanders has arrived (though still playing limited minutes), and Russell’s playing time increases still marginally further (from 42.5 to 44.3). rDRTG improves another -1.4 to a now fairly ridiculous [especially proportionally, as league avg was only around 92] -7.6.
In ‘62 (again: Russell continually improving throughout these years to this point--->a year some consider his peak) Russell’s playing time hits a career high 45.2 mpg. Sharman (a supposedly good perimeter defender) has retired, K.C. Jones now playing closer to 26 mpg (Sam Jones playing a little more too), and Tom Sanders is also a starter playing 29 mpg. rDRTG improves another -0.9 to -8.5.
In ‘63, Sanders, K.C. Jones, and Frank Ramsey all play at least marginally fewer minutes to make room for rookie John Havlicek. rDRTG holds steady at -8.5.

3e) ‘64 and ‘65
In ‘64 Bob Cousy [who’d likely been a poor(ish) defender in his final season] has retired and Frank Ramsey (in his final season) is playing somewhat fewer minutes than years passed. These minutes are largely replaced by the addition of Willie Naulls----an [average??] defender----and increased playing time for K.C. Jones, John Havlicek (who likely improved in his 2nd season, too), and Tom Sanders--->very good defenders these three. rDRTG improves to an historically great -10.8. (The addition of rookie Larry Siegfried doesn’t really bear mentioning, as he barely played as a rookie).
In ‘65, with basically the same roster composition except that Ramsey and Loscutoff have now retired (the latter wasn't really a consistent rotational player in '64)----their minutes replaced by 2nd-year Siegfried and increased time for Sam Jones (career high 36.1 mpg this year); also near-irrelevant minutes from rookie back-up C Mel Counts----their rDRTG drops somewhat to a still stellar -9.4.

3f) ‘66
Tom Heinsohn has now retired. Tom Sanders is largely shifted down to PF to cover that (marginally undersized for the task, though still a very capable defensive player, right?). Don Nelson [average defender at best???] has been added to the roster; he too plays a little PF as the Celtics to some degree “go small” (at PF, anyway; Willie Naulls played a little PF, too). Hondo is the SF, Sam Jones is starting SG, K.C. Jones at PG has his career high in mpg (33.9). Siegfried, now in his third year, is also playing very relevant minutes. Mel Counts gets a little more court-time too.
Team rDRTG falls to -6.6 (despite career-high minutes for K.C. Jones, >30 mpg from Hondo, >26 mpg from Sanders). Bill Russell turns 32 around mid-season, and might be at the very front edge of athletic decline (we do see his rate metrics fall this year).

3g) ‘67-’69 (The Bill Russell player/coach years)
In ‘67, Willie Naulls has retired and Mel Counts has left the club; Bailey Howell [weak defender] has joined the club, and also joining the club this year (though just 10 mpg) is big Wayne Embry as back-up C. Embry stood just 6’8”, but was built kinda like Chuck Hayes (thick and sturdy). I’m not finding a ton of written accounts on his defense, but my own eye-test and memory (iirc) of what I’ve read on this forum indicate he was a tough and physical low-post defender, but not a rim protector at all; decent rebounder.
Sanders plays slightly reduced minutes this season, though Havlicek plays the highest mpg he’d yet done in his career, K.C. Jones has his 2nd-highest mpg avg (31.4), Larry Siegfried (supposedly also a solid defender) has his career high (to that point) in mpg, too.
Russell drops his minutes marginally (nearly 3 mpg) from the previous season, and I recall reading (in The Rivalry by John Taylor) some implications of distraction in his first season as player/coach; also, did I mention something about potential age-related decline? He would turn 33 mid-season.
The team rDRTG falls a bit further to -5.1.

In ‘68 Russell reduces his own minutes 2-3 minutes more, while increasing Howell’s [weak defender] by 2-3 per game. K.C. Jones has retired, which is presumably a big loss (as he averaged 31.4 mpg in his final season). Havlicek, Siegfried, Embry, Nelson, and Sanders all have their minutes increased a little to fill the void, though. The rDRTG falls slightly further to -4.4.

In ‘69 an aging Sam Jones takes a significant reduction in minutes, and Wayne Embry is no longer with the team. Havlicek and Nelson get slightly more minutes, and new back-up PG Em Bryant is added to the roster (limited minutes, like 17 mpg). Aging (turns 35 mid-season), but determined (and now more comfortable in the player/coach role) Bill Russell increases his own playing time by nearly 5 mpg over ‘68.
rDRTG improves to -6.4 (improvement of -2.0 from prior year).

3h) ‘70 (after Russell)
So, Russell has retired (along with Sam Jones). They still had a prime John Havlicek (who would in this season play more minutes than ever before). They still have Tom Sanders too (though he’d miss 25 games, but was otherwise playing more mpg than he had in any of the previous FOUR seasons). Still had Em Bryant (possibly decent defender as above), who played a little more minutes than in ‘69. Still had Larry Siegfried (his minutes reduced from ‘69) and Don Nelson (his minutes increased from ‘69). Bailey Howell (WEAK defender) had his minutes REDUCED significantly. Rookie Jo Jo White (fairly decent man defender to my eye) is now present, too. And Don Chaney (arguably one of the greatest defensive SG’s of all-time, 5-time All-Defensive 2nd team) is in his 2nd year and now getting limited (but significant) minutes off the bench.
Overall [though debatable] I would say the defensive acumen of those filling the time at PG/SG/SF/PF improved marginally from ‘69 to ‘70. But Russell’s minutes at C were replaced by a combination of Hank Finkel, Jim Barnes, and Rich Johnson. And the end result was that the defense worsened by a staggering +6.3 (from -6.4 to -0.1)! Their SRS fell from +5.35 to -1.60.

3i) And beyond….
From ‘71 and beyond the Celtics would continue to have big minutes from John Havlicek, increasing role for defensive specialist Don Chaney, would add Dave Cowens (arriving in ‘71) and subsequently defensive specialist Paul Silas at PF (arriving in '73).......and yet they would never again reach the heights of defensive dominance that they had in Bill Russell’s FINAL (old, post-prime) season: they peaked at a -5.8 rDRTG (in ‘73), and even that was somewhat an outlier---> they’d otherwise never even manage better than a -3.0 rDRTG (significantly worse than the WORST defense of Russell’s 13 seasons).

I’ll also add Elgee’s regressed WOWY studies, where Russell has a career WOWYR of +6.2 (which is in company of the career marks of guys like David Robinson, John Stockton, Russell Westbrook, Steve Nash, Wilt Chamberlain, and Dolph Schayes).

If all of the above (in addition to the near-countless statements by professional peers) doesn’t provide the “extraordinary evidence” you’re looking for…….well, I just don’t know what else to say. The colloquialism “you can lead a horse to water….” comes to mind; I'm being a bit cheeky there, but [and some of this is news to me, as I've never before looked at it to this degree of depth] all that I've laid out above seems fairly clear to me.

migya · Post #49 » by **migya** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 4:41 am

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:
migya wrote:Jordan is #1 because no one player ever performed and won like him with as little to work. Can't see how Magic is higher than Bird because he had Kareem and yet his team didn't win that much more than Bird's. Think West might actually be ahead of Robertson. As much as I don't like the way he played, Kobe is top 10, he won too much and after Shaq left he did quite well with teams that were no more talented than Jordan's.

Can't get behind this logic. Kareem exited his prime after the '81 season - he was still very good afterwards but he was more at a high end all-star level than GOAT caliber player.

While I agree that Kareem's prime ended in 81 he was still better than high end all star after that until about 86. Top 5 mvp finishes in 84-86. More importantly though he could still come up very big in the playoffs during those years. Averaged 27ppg in the 83 playoffs and 26ppg in the 85 playoff/title run. Top 10 player in the league which is better than all star.

That's right, Kareem was far better than anyone Bird had on his team. Magic was alltime great but nor better than Bird. Though I rank them the same, Bird's better defense could rank him higher.

SinceGatlingWasARookie · Post #50 » by **SinceGatlingWasARookie** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 5:16 am

trex_8063 wrote: Wilt, Ramsy, Nelson, Sanders

Wilt had more offensive impact than anybody. My problem with Wilt is that I don't trust the level of the leargue he played in. When adjusted for modern lying about heights the centers were big enough but were they athletic enough? The power forwards were smaller current power forwards other than Draymond Green and Tucker. Luke Jackson was a big power forward.

I don't like some of the defeense played against Chamberlain. Chamberlain was being allowed to score too easily. Fouks were called tighter and that helped the offensive players except offensive fouls were also called tighter.

Still Wilt was an offensive force; particularly young Wilt. Forget about older Wilt that is shown on Video more. Older Wilt Did not play the same style as Young Wilt. Even by 1967 Wilt had lost a lot of his Athleticsm. Young Wilt was fast.

Wilt could pass as well as score.

Celtics,
Ramsey was relentless. From the game film I saw he was running constantly and applying pressure both on offense and defense. Ramsey was probably Havlicek's role model. Havlicek played the same way.

I saw very little help defense from 1960s players other than the centers. Satch Sanders was an exception. Satch Sanders showed my some help defense and showed some Draymond Green like defensive skills.

Sharman was fine for his era. He was considdered one of the greates shooters but by modern standards Sharman was a bad shooter most years. Sharman was too slow and too small by modern standards but his defensive effort was fine. Sharman and the rest of the league stuck to their men and did not look to give help.

Nelson played power forward and Small forward. Sanders also played power forward and small forward.

Bailey Howell was an important scorer.

pandrade83 · Post #51 » by **pandrade83** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 11:53 am

migya wrote:
Cavsfansince84 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:
Can't get behind this logic. Kareem exited his prime after the '81 season - he was still very good afterwards but he was more at a high end all-star level than GOAT caliber player.

While I agree that Kareem's prime ended in 81 he was still better than high end all star after that until about 86. Top 5 mvp finishes in 84-86. More importantly though he could still come up very big in the playoffs during those years. Averaged 27ppg in the 83 playoffs and 26ppg in the 85 playoff/title run. Top 10 player in the league which is better than all star.

That's right, Kareem was far better than anyone Bird had on his team. Magic was alltime great but nor better than Bird. Though I rank them the same, Bird's better defense could rank him higher.

Through '85, I think this is true - & I'd rank Bird ahead of Magic clearly.

'86 forward, I'd take McHale over anyone on LA and during this stretch I think the gap between Magic & Bird was pretty large in Magic's favor - more than off-setting Bird's edge on the front half - the "defense" argument in favor of Bird also fades.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #52 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 2:47 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
migya wrote:
Cavsfansince84 wrote:
While I agree that Kareem's prime ended in 81 he was still better than high end all star after that until about 86. Top 5 mvp finishes in 84-86. More importantly though he could still come up very big in the playoffs during those years. Averaged 27ppg in the 83 playoffs and 26ppg in the 85 playoff/title run. Top 10 player in the league which is better than all star.

That's right, Kareem was far better than anyone Bird had on his team. Magic was alltime great but nor better than Bird. Though I rank them the same, Bird's better defense could rank him higher.

Through '85, I think this is true - & I'd rank Bird ahead of Magic clearly.

'86 forward, I'd take McHale over anyone on LA and during this stretch I think the gap between Magic & Bird was pretty large in Magic's favor - more than off-setting Bird's edge on the front half - the "defense" argument in favor of Bird also fades.

I don't see the gap between Magic and Bird being all that large in 86-88. Bird was still widely seen as still better in 86 and I think they were basically even until Bird got the surgery on his feet. Magic has 89-91 clearly above Bird though.

pandrade83 · Post #53 » by **pandrade83** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 5:29 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:
migya wrote:

That's right, Kareem was far better than anyone Bird had on his team. Magic was alltime great but nor better than Bird. Though I rank them the same, Bird's better defense could rank him higher.

Through '85, I think this is true - & I'd rank Bird ahead of Magic clearly.

'86 forward, I'd take McHale over anyone on LA and during this stretch I think the gap between Magic & Bird was pretty large in Magic's favor - more than off-setting Bird's edge on the front half - the "defense" argument in favor of Bird also fades.

I don't see the gap between Magic and Bird being all that large in 86-88. Bird was still widely seen as still better in 86 and I think they were basically even until Bird got the surgery on his feet. Magic has 89-91 clearly above Bird though.

I don't think this is unreasonable; I was merely stating:

Bird first half of career ('80-'85) > Magic
Magic 2nd half of career ('86-'91) > Bird by a larger margin

Magic overall > Bird

Arman_tanzarian · Post #54 » by **Arman_tanzarian** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 5:48 pm

1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. KAJ
4. Russ
5. Duncan
6. Wilt
7. Magic
8. Shaq
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

Whopper_Sr · Post #55 » by **Whopper_Sr** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 5:49 pm

With new data and information my list keeps changing but here's the current:

1. LeBron
2. Russell
3. Jordan
4. KAJ
5. Duncan
6. Wilt
7. Magic

8 to 10 are much tougher. I'm considering KG, Shaq, Bird, and Hakeem for those 3 spots.
If I had to leave one out, it would probably be Bird. Maybe Shaq.

Post #56 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 7:57 pm

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:
Wilt had more offensive impact than anybody.

I feel like this statement needs some qualifying. Unless we're conflating offensive production with offensive impact. If you're using the terms interchangeably, then I semantically disagree but otherwise would not argue against you. But if you indeed mean "impact" as most of us interpret the word, then I just don't see it (or even close to it).

In '60, with the addition of rookie (MVP) Wilt Chamberlain, the Warriors's rORTG improves by only a modest +1.1 (from -3.5 to a still pretty poor -2.4--->ranked 7th of 8 teams). They had basically the exact same roster as in '59, except that Wilt was added. And on paper, the offensive supporting cast doesn't appear awful. I mean, they were still allowing a fair number of minutes and shots to Woody Sauldsberry (who was horrid offensively), but they otherwise had Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, and Guy Rodgers (admittedly, I'm not near as high on Guy Rodgers as some appear to be, but just putting his name out there). If we're truly talking about the single greatest offensive impact player that basketball has EVER seen, how on Earth is he not able to lead an average offense (or even particularly close to it) with this cast? And why do they improve only a small amount by adding him?

In '61 they manage to improve by +1.5, to a still somewhat poor -0.9 rORTG. They'd gotten rid of Woody Sauldsberry (which might have a lot to do with the improvement, frankly); still have Arizin, Gola, and Rodgers (and no one as sapping of offense effectiveness as Sauldsberry was).......still a below average offense (ranked 6th of 8).

In ‘62, with Paul Arizin (aging, final season), Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola (a little banged up this year), 2nd-year Al Attles, and rookie Tom Mescherry, they go heavily to Wilt (his 50 ppg season) and they finally manage an offense that is above average [barely] at +0.9 rORTG (4th of 9 teams).

In ‘63, Arizin has retired and Gola misses much of the year. They have a fair bit of roster shake-up as a result, adding in rookie Wayne Hightower, a half-season of Willie Naulls, a new bench wings in Gary Phillips and George Lee, and also some limited minutes from the offensively gifted forward Kenny Sears. And they still have Guy Rodgers, Al Attles, and Tom Mescherry as consistent big-minute players carried over from the previous year. The team rORTG again dips below average at -0.7 (5th of 9).

In ‘64 they have the same roster as in ‘63 except that Gola is now gone (he’d missed most of ‘63 anyway), and they’ve obtained rookie Nate Thurmond. The team does very well this year, but NOT on account of its offense (the basis of our discussion here). No, in fact, the offense was [again] a rather poor -1.6 rORTG (7th of 9 teams).

In ‘65, with largely the same roster, the quality of their play goes down the toilet, especially on offense. For the year, they were a -5.9 rORTG (dead last in the league). Now, Wilt was only around for half of that season, though it should be noted they were 11-33 in the 44 games before the trade (on pace for 20 wins), 10-28 in the 38 games he actually played in a Warriors uniform that year (on pace for 21 wins). They did average +4.9 ppg before the trade, though.
The Sixers, who Wilt was traded to mid-season, were 21-21 before the trade, 19-19 after the trade. They averaged 112.2 ppg before obtaining Wilt, 112.9 ppg after. The Sixers overall were a +0.5 rORTG (5th of 9 teams).

In ‘66---with a supporting cast of Hal Greer, Chet Walker, rookie Billy Cunningham, as well as minutes from passable offensive players such as Luke Jackson and Dave Gambee----Wilt led a barely above average +0.4 rORTG (though ranked just 6th of 9 teams).

****We’re now halfway thru his entire career, and yet to see any evidence that he is even a potential top 10 all-time in offensive impact, much less the GOAT in this respect.*****

In ‘67, with much the same supporting cast as in ‘66 (except they added some limited bench minutes from savvy veteran Larry Costello), we FINALLY see a legit elite Wilt-led offense: +5.4 rORTG. So it’s elite, and arguably even in an all-time sense: although it doesn’t even crack top 25 all-time, as measured by rORTG, it is the highest rORTG seen in the league prior to ‘71). Although it’s the first time we’ve seen something historic or elite offensively around Wilt, and with a pretty darn good offensive supporting cast, too (Greer/Walker/Cunningham is a heck of a trio for being #2-4 on the team).

The same basic cast would manage only a +1.3 rORTG in ‘68.

In ‘69, the Sixers trade Wilt away, getting Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff in return…..and their rORTG improves by +1.3 (to +2.6, 4th of 14 teams). It would remain just marginally better than their ‘68 rORTG for the following two seasons as well.
The Lakers were the team that received Wilt in ‘69 (again, trading away Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff for him); they also got rid of Gail Goodrich, and obtained Keith Erickson and Johnny Egan that year. Perhaps also worth noting that they got 61 games out of Jerry West in ‘69, vs just 51 in ‘68. Their offense gets worse by -1.9 (dropping from +4.9 to +3.0); given all the player turnover, I’m not exactly sure how to interpret that. I will say it doesn’t even remotely suggest all-time great level offensive impact for Wilt.

In ‘70 Wilt misses most of the year. They obtained Happy Hairston this year (most of the season, too), and a rookies Dick Garrett and Rick Roberson also got serious playing time. It does reflect well on Wilt that their offense fell to a +0.1 rORTG (not reflective of anywhere near all-time greatest offensive impact, but still good).

In ‘71 Wilt is back for the full season (yes, I know we’re not really talking about truly prime-level Wilt anymore). An aging Baylor misses the whole year, but on the flip-side Gail Goodrich is back with the team. Roster is otherwise same as ‘70, except for limited minutes for rookie Jim McMillan. Their offense improves to +1.6 rORTG.

In ‘72 they have the same roster as in ‘71, except a somewhat improved 2nd-year McMillan is playing mroe. We again (for the 2nd and final time in Wilt’s career) see an elite-level offense (though not exactly one that is “led by” Wilt: he’s only 4th on the team in ppg and 3rd in apg [despite being first in mpg]).

And in his final season they’d be a +2.6 rORTG.

So certainly there’s [usually] indication of positive impact on offense (occasionally even substantially so); just nothing remotely close to GOAT offensive impact player.

bledredwine · Post #57 » by **bledredwine** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 8:29 pm

I prefer players who have a mixture of - winners, outliers who changed the rules and the way the game is played, offensive and defensive impact/beasts, players who won all of their matchups, won/stepped up in important moments, championships, pioneers of moves/style, accolades and so on.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Lebron
7. Hakeem
8. Bird
9. Shaq
10. Duncan

Something like that.

Missing Rings · Post #58 » by **Missing Rings** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 9:03 pm

bledredwine wrote:I prefer players who have a mixture of - winners, outliers who changed the rules and the way the game is played, offensive and defensive impact/beasts, players who won all of their matchups, won/stepped up in important moments, championships, pioneers of moves/style, accolades and so on.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Lebron
7. Hakeem
8. Bird
9. Shaq
10. Duncan

Something like that.

So basically you curated your desires so Jordan would always be first since you jump through more hoops than a 3rd grade gym class.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

Ainosterhaspie · Post #59 » by **Ainosterhaspie** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 9:42 pm

--GOAT TIER--
1. James
2. Jordan
3. KAJ
4. Magic
5. Duncan
--GRANDFATHERED INTO GOAT TIER--
6. Russell
7. Wilt
--
8. Shaq
9. Bird
10. Hakeem.

Post #60 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Tue Oct 9, 2018 9:44 pm

Jaqua92 wrote:Longevity doesn't just play this smallest role in determining my top 10, it doesnt even have a role.

10 best players ever.

Best. Players. Ever.

Dont understand the logic behind using longevity. In terms of determining who is best, I would argue these are the most important, in order

How good they were in their prime
How good their peak seasons were.

How many championships as the best player on the team.

If you want to rank legacy, sure.

But top 10 lists should be specific.

10 greatest, and 10 best are not the same

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

So with that said, who's your top 10 all time?