RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3

[RCM88x]

Question to any/all:

Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?

I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.

But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him.
Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?

Thoughts on this?

No in my opinion. LeBron is so good that even good lineups without him looks bad. Other thing is that maybe Kyrie and KLove aren't THAT good, they aren't able to carry a team

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

They aren't good fit together, simple as that. Neither are good defenders to start, but offensively Kyrie isn't a PG like Rubio where he looks to set up others. He'll go to score for himself and sometimes leave Love out there offensively without much to do.

I've always though that they need to work more on getting Kyrie and Love to play better together... but it's always Lebron and X. There isn't any reason why their 2 man - Lebron +/- numbers should be as bad as they are, even if they aren't a good fit together. They just haven't seemed to learn how to play off each other in three years, which is pretty disappointing. Granted, seems like one of them is always injured, or has been since 2015 so perhaps that's an excuse.

[trex_8063]

I agree that the talent from Euro and world talent has more than outmatched the expansion of the NBA as I've said; what I don't agree with it the idea that it did in the 70s/80s/90s.

I think there's a case for much of the 80's (and even into the early 90's???). I think they expanded too fast in the 1970's, but then the merger in '77 helped bridge the gap somewhat; and then over the next 11 seasons (as popularity soared and international players started making their way in, too), the league only expanded by ONE more team. I honestly feel that time period (late 80's) was one of the most talent-rich and talent-concentrated mini eras in NBA history.

They then expanded by four more teams over the next two seasons (between '88 and '90), which hurts it a touch; but at the same time the global popularity of the game was still expanding at a rapid rate, and a lot of top-tier players were hitting their respective peaks around this time. So idk.....there was so much high-end talent that had been rolling into the league in recent years, I still don't feel like it was a depleted/diluted league (at least not terribly so) in the early 90's.

But then some of the top tier stars begin declining and/or retiring, AND they choose that moment to add a couple more teams. So I do feel like the league talent-concentration was weakening in the mid-to-late 90's.

EDIT: wrt the 1970's (and how that pertains to the recently voted in Kareem), I guess I should also state that I don't feel that era was as talent-deplete as many appear to. While they certainly did expand too fast in the latter couple years of the 60's and early 70's, I still note they continued [at a slower rate] to become more integrated, and also skillsets were still evolving/improving, imo.

The idea that the 60s are like the 50s interms of lesser talent on each team is just plain wrong.

I agree (particularly as it pertains to the late 60's), and I didn't mean to imply 50's=60's.
However, Russell played in both. There are only two seasons separating his rookie year from the last year in which George Mikan was DOMINATING. It's a league where a 6'8" center like Neil Johnston was still an offensive juggernaut. I'm implying it's still a game just barely out of its infancy.

NOT saying it was that way his entire career, as I feel the game evolved RAPIDLY over the course of his career (from evolution of skillsets, popularization of jump-shot, rapid integration, sky-rocketing popularity [leading to rapidly expanding player pool], etc). Consequently, I see the mid-late 60's as a reasonably "grown up" league and game, with some fairly dense talent-concentration. The early 60's, as sort of a transition period, is somewhere in between.


And where impact is concerned, I'll refer to some of my prior thoughts regarding "impact" =/ "player goodness" (not entirely). At any rate, those are the primary reason I, personally, do not have Russell in my top 4.

[70sFan]

I just want to point out that we shouldn't discredit late 1950s because of 6'8 Neil Johnston offensive dominance. He's not smaller than Amare for example and he's probably better low post scorer. In fact we've seen plenty of small centers with great offensive success - Reed, Mourining, Howard, Amare... Johnston is not the only one.

BTW, I decided not to vote in this project. I'll try to help as much as I can. Discussion about Kareem impact was fantastic in first two threads. Although I really disagree with most points, it's always nice to see counter points. I don't change my mind, Kareem is still my GOAT, but some people might.

In my opinion, Russell and Duncan are the best candidates right now. What is strange for me is that some people voted for MJ in 1st thread and they don't vote yet for James. I don't see the big gap between them. Personally, I have Kareem and Russell higher than both. Duncan probably too. If you are not high on Kareem/Duncan longevity and don't like Russell era, then James must be your 2nd choice.

Anyway, I'm interested in who will be the number 3. I hope Russell will be in top 5, he deserves to be. Many people still don't realize how big gap is between him and second best defender ever (Hakeem, Admiral, Duncan... whoever you want). Neither James nor MJ are clearly the best offensive players.

[70sFan]

...

I have a question. Do you know any examples of players who didn't translate well from late 50s to mid-60s? This is not an attack, I want to see some good examples of your theory. Even if you don't know anyone like that, it doesn't mean that your point is wrong. Don't think this is my agenda, I just want to deep further into interesting point you made.

[penbeast0]

...

I have a question. Do you know any examples of players who didn't translate well from late 50s to mid-60s? This is not an attack, I want to see some good examples of your theory. Even if you don't know anyone like that, it doesn't mean that your point is wrong. Don't think this is my agenda, I just want to deep further into interesting point you made.

It sort of has to be the stars because the role players generally got replaced. Guys like Cousy and Sharman went from being elite offensive talents to being low efficiency chuckers (Heinsohn too but he only came in at the end of the era so he was really that all the time). Arizin and Gola played lesser roles though with Wilt scoring 40 a game that's to be expected (though there wasn't the jump in efficiency you would expect from the gravity of the all-time highest scoring player ever). Clyde Lovellette went from All-NBA to deep bench. Bob Pettit improved his efficiency as the league did (though not as much) and also were so dominant that they were still dominant into the 60s. Not a lot of guys played in 55 that were still playing in 63 to tell the truth.

[Xherdan 23]

Spoiler:

Kareem at #2 is terrible! I'm leaving the project!!


A different take on LeBron vs Russell:
[spoiler]Why LeBron over Russell:
It's not only the fact that at this point he has more longevity, or that his game is more between portable between different contexts/eras.

I think LeBron has superior impact, each on their own era.

"LeBron has never lead a team as good as xxxxx"
This year's Cavs topped as one the best offenses of all time in the playoffs. Remember how good they looked when LeBron sit? Yeah, not very much. That team had a -5 relative ORtg without LeBron on court (on the RS). And on the Playoffs... We've seen it! Like a week ago. Those stretches of bad play when LeBron was out. A FINALS GAME lost because LeBron had to rest for 2 minutes. And some people have the nerve of calling this a superteam.

LeBron offensive plus/minus +19.9
Irving/Love offensive plus/minus +2.1/+1.5 (and those are the second and third best players!)

His total +/- in the postseason tops +30, +17 on the regular season. That's on an offensive ATG team, +12 SRS on the playoffs. That's higher quality than any of Russell's teams. And when that load isn't supported on LeBron's shoulders, it falls to the ground, badly. The same happened in the last years of the Heat, by the way.

Russell took a team that without him was around a -2 defensively (1957) and took them to -4... and even to -10 GOAT defenses. That's massive: a team built mostly on his shoulders (I'm not gonna enter the narrative of "Russell was surrounded by HOF's!!" because I don't buy it: most of those are HOF's because of Russell). But... that's not enough when you compete against something that just made more with less.
LeBron "doesn't work well with other stars":
[spoiler]If you have LeBron and Wade in the same team (similar roles), you play through LeBron (the better player) and Wade has to adapt to another role. Just like if you had Russell and Ben Wallace in the same team... yeah, Wallace better start learning to shoot 3s or something, because he is not gonna play center.

Love isn't worse than before: Love has changed his role. In fact he is better with LeBron, he just shoots less:

Code: Select all

                     min   TSA   PTS   TSA/36   PTS/36   PPS

Love   with LeBron   6402   2811   3209   15.81   18.04   1.142
Love      w/o LeBron   1726   968   1026   20.19   21.40   1.060


Boxscore numbers don't make you a better player.

Vote: LeBron James[/spoiler]

And since I have him in my top 5 anyway and I don't mind being "that guy":[/spoiler]
Second vote: Kevin Garnett

The case for Kevin Garnett over Bill Russell:

Spoiler:

-Around 15 years of proven superstar impact (Russell: 12 years) + additional years as a solid piece.

-Proven impact on both ends, on different roles:
*Played as a 4 and as a 5, maybe even the 3 at some point.
*Played as a jack-off-all-trades on offense, horizontal defender (mid-decade Wolves), with worse-O-better-D quasi LeBron levels of impact (average around +7, peaked as +10 -higher than Bron-). <- outside of LeBron, probably the better scrub-carrier of all time
*Played as a defensive anchor and secondary/tertiary scorer (Celtics) on a contender, with Mutombo/Russell-esque levels of impact, considering era (+0 off +6 def) - and arguably outside his prime!
*At close to 40-years old, still a valuable contributor off the bench on defensive duties with a reduced offensive role.

-Has the physical qualities and IQ to quasi-replicate the impact of Russell in his era (similar mobility, greater length but worse verticality, top-tier defensive instincts, nightmare on switches) while Russell doesn't have the additional tools KG has (better finishing, mid-range proficiency, better offensive orchestrator).

-Doesn't have the GOAT-tier leadership of Bill, but it's one of the ones that are closer.

The case for Tim Duncan over Bill Russell:

Spoiler:

tomorrow if I have time

Since you're the first vote for KG (unless I missed someone) I'd like to ask you this:
How can he get a pass for missing the playoffs three years in a row?
Basketball is where a single player has the most impact even with a sub-par team.

His supporting cast wasn't the best so I'm not expecting championship runs but it also wasn't as awful as people make it out to be.
In these same 3 years Kobe only missed the playoffs once in the same WC while playing with Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and Chris Mihm.

Dirk took his team to the playoffs 3 times, one of these years they made the finals.
Was his supporting cast THAT much better? It's not like Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels are on a different level to Wally Szczerbiak, Ricky Davis or Latrel Spreewell.

Were KG's teammates worse than DRob's in the '90s?

Is there another top 20 (even top 30) player that missed the playoffs 3 years in a row in their prime?

Basketball is a team game and KG did some great things in his career but this is something that shouldn't be ignored in top 10 discussion and there's no way he can be top 3 all time IMO.

[Outside]

Question to any/all:

Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?

I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.

But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him.
Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?

Thoughts on this?

I do believe LeBron deserves blame for the current Cavs being so dependent on him.

I've explained this on other threads, so please excuse me if it seems like a repeat, because it is. I also want to say up front that I think LeBron is a tremendous player, and I have him at 8 on my all-time list. Others may consider it terrible to have him that low, but I have him in an elite group at the top of all players in NBA history, and while people can differ on who they put at 1-3 versus who they put at 7-10, just being in that top 10 group is a tremendous honor.

Back to your question.

LeBron in his second stint with the Cavs exerts the most power over a franchise of any player in history in any sport. He came back to Cleveland only after he got concessions from Dan Gilbert in every area that he (LeBron) wanted. A promise to spare no expense to get players necessary to compete for a championship. Get Kevin Love. Sign James Jones and Mike Miller. Sign two straight 1+1 contracts so he could opt out and leave after each season if he didn't like how things were going. Replace David Blatt with favored assistant Tyronn Lue. Leave for two weeks in the middle of the season to go to Miami to rest and recharge. Overpay Tristan Thompson (5 years, $82 million, the same as Draymond Green) and JR Smith (4 years, $57 million) because they're represented by LeBron's high school friend, Rich Paul.

Part of all that is that he got the Cavs to construct the roster around him. He is the primary ballhandler and playmaker. Other players' roles are established by how they fit around him. Roster changes are made to bring in players to space the floor around him, so that he has more room to operate when he drives. The offense is structured around him driving and scoring or driving and kicking to a perimeter shooter or to someone like Tristan Thompson on the interior. The defense is set up to minimize his individual responsibilities so that he can be a roving help defender or just rest to save himself for offense. The Cavs are created completely in his image, to serve his talents in the way that he wants.

This is different than his first stint in Cleveland, where LeBron was the star player who did the best with the roster he had but didn't have the power to control the makeup of the roster or the offense or defense the team ran. In Miami, he was first among the superfriends, especially by the end with Wade's decline, but Pat Riley was the most powerful figure in the franchise, and he and Eric Spoelstra decided what offense and defense to run and how best to use LeBron's talents in that system.

Gaining power over the franchise was a key reason why he left Miami and returned to Cleveland. He'd never have that power in Miami, and with the Cavs' descent into suckatude after he left, he had a golden opportunity to exert power when he came back.

All that leads to a team that is designed to operate around him, but it also leads to a team that is terrible when he's not on the court. You look at the roster and say that a team with Kyrie, Love, Thompson, and a bunch of three-point shooters should be pretty good without LeBron, but they apparently don't know what to do when he's not on the court. The fact that they are so dependent on LeBron is by LeBron's design, so yes, he bears most of the responsibility for that.

The analogy I've used is a table. The Warriors, for example, are like a table with four legs; if you remove one of the legs, you can shift the stuff on the table around and the table still stands. The Cavs, on the other hand, are a pedestal table; if you remove the pedestal, the table falls no matter what you do. It's an overly simplistic analogy, but I do think there is a ring of truth to it. LeBron is the one who decided he wanted to be the pedestal that the Cavs were built on, and part of that deal is that the table doesn't hold up without the pedestal.

[Texas Chuck]

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

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

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

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

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

2nd place vote: Tim Duncan

[Texas Chuck]

Question to any/all:

Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?

I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.

But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him.
Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?

Thoughts on this?

It's a very tough question. I start by reminding myself that Kyrie and Love led mediocre at best teams pre-Lebron and other than that one year with the Wolves, they led truly awful teams. Now Kyrie was just a kid so he might do a bit better now, but its my opinion that neither of these guys are good enough to build a franchise around. Does putting 2 of them together make the basis for a playoff team? Maybe, but you would need quality depth around them and the Cavs don't have that. Nor do they have a coach imo who can scheme the team to play above their talent.

I think the team is utterly and totally dependent on Lebron just from a pure talent standpoint. Now Doctor MJ has been harping for years now that Lebron's chosen style of play limits those around him, but imo he doesn't when he's on the court. He elevates them in fact imo. So how much blame do I give Lebron? Well it better be the same blame I give KG later. A huge part of KG's case is based on RAPM and its affiliates and much of that is based on just how bad the Wolves in particular were without him on the court. It can't be a plus for KG and a negative for Lebron if we are to show consistency.

Ultimately for me I'm not holding Lebron very accountable for how dependent his teams are on him. A little his first year in Miami since he was part of the orchestration of the team which required Miami to dump all depth but Haslem and Mike Miller. And maybe a little now in Cleveland since he's been part of FO decisions, but given their options its hard to fault him or the FO--they have spent big money trying to have some depth around him.

Bottom line is Love and Kyrie are complementary players in their own right. Very talented ones, but complimentary none the less.

[Tesla]

1st vote: Lebron James
2nd vote: Bill Russell

I voted Lebron for the #2 spot with Kareem next, but I was on the fence with Kareem/Lebron, I cetainly was ok with it either way in my own standings.

Again for Lebron I will repeat that he has 11 years (12 years if you count this year) in top 5 of MVP voting, which only Kareem (voted in already) and Kobe (not as high of a peak) exceed or match. That is incredible value of a prime. He has been one of the five best players (typically one of the best 2 or 3, and several as the best) in the leauge for over a decade and it has coincided with making 8 finals trips, 3 championships,tremendous regular season success, and ridiculous on court production. He also has had a "greatness" impact on the league, he has from his rookie year been one of the most talked about players, I would argue the most successful player individually of his generation, and one of three (TD, Kobe) most successful in his generation in terms of team success. He has statistical production arguably second to nobody, and its already one of longest primes ever.

[Joao Saraiva]

Question to any/all:

Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?

I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.

But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him.
Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?

Thoughts on this?

I do believe LeBron deserves blame for the current Cavs being so dependent on him.

I've explained this on other threads, so please excuse me if it seems like a repeat, because it is. I also want to say up front that I think LeBron is a tremendous player, and I have him at 8 on my all-time list. Others may consider it terrible to have him that low, but I have him in an elite group at the top of all players in NBA history, and while people can differ on who they put at 1-3 versus who they put at 7-10, just being in that top 10 group is a tremendous honor.

Back to your question.

LeBron in his second stint with the Cavs exerts the most power over a franchise of any player in history in any sport. He came back to Cleveland only after he got concessions from Dan Gilbert in every area that he (LeBron) wanted. A promise to spare no expense to get players necessary to compete for a championship. Get Kevin Love. Sign James Jones and Mike Miller. Sign two straight 1+1 contracts so he could opt out and leave after each season if he didn't like how things were going. Replace David Blatt with favored assistant Tyronn Lue. Leave for two weeks in the middle of the season to go to Miami to rest and recharge. Overpay Tristan Thompson (5 years, $82 million, the same as Draymond Green) and JR Smith (4 years, $57 million) because they're represented by LeBron's high school friend, Rich Paul.

Part of all that is that he got the Cavs to construct the roster around him. He is the primary ballhandler and playmaker. Other players' roles are established by how they fit around him. Roster changes are made to bring in players to space the floor around him, so that he has more room to operate when he drives. The offense is structured around him driving and scoring or driving and kicking to a perimeter shooter or to someone like Tristan Thompson on the interior. The defense is set up to minimize his individual responsibilities so that he can be a roving help defender or just rest to save himself for offense. The Cavs are created completely in his image, to serve his talents in the way that he wants.

This is different than his first stint in Cleveland, where LeBron was the star player who did the best with the roster he had but didn't have the power to control the makeup of the roster or the offense or defense the team ran. In Miami, he was first among the superfriends, especially by the end with Wade's decline, but Pat Riley was the most powerful figure in the franchise, and he and Eric Spoelstra decided what offense and defense to run and how best to use LeBron's talents in that system.

Gaining power over the franchise was a key reason why he left Miami and returned to Cleveland. He'd never have that power in Miami, and with the Cavs' descent into suckatude after he left, he had a golden opportunity to exert power when he came back.

All that leads to a team that is designed to operate around him, but it also leads to a team that is terrible when he's not on the court. You look at the roster and say that a team with Kyrie, Love, Thompson, and a bunch of three-point shooters should be pretty good without LeBron, but they apparently don't know what to do when he's not on the court. The fact that they are so dependent on LeBron is by LeBron's design, so yes, he bears most of the responsibility for that.

The analogy I've used is a table. The Warriors, for example, are like a table with four legs; if you remove one of the legs, you can shift the stuff on the table around and the table still stands. The Cavs, on the other hand, are a pedestal table; if you remove the pedestal, the table falls no matter what you do. It's an overly simplistic analogy, but I do think there is a ring of truth to it. LeBron is the one who decided he wanted to be the pedestal that the Cavs were built on, and part of that deal is that the table doesn't hold up without the pedestal.

So by your logic, LeBron built a franchise that took down the 73 win Warriors. He should get extra credit then, right?

You also say that those players can only operate arround him. Then if they're 100% dependent on him, you have to give him solo credit for the win vs the Warriors, and for making it to the other two finals.

Wow that's an incredible achievment. He's the only player in NBA history you'd give 100% credit for a championship, right?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bill Russell

Alt: LeBron James

The next guys on my radar after these two are Duncan & KG, both of whom I could see giving serious argument for over Kareem, but it's hard for me to see them over the two above.

I've focused on Russell the last 2 times so I think my reasoning is well known. I think it's appropriate to say a little about LeBron here because last time I had him below Duncan & KG. He has surpassed them, and while that's probably nothing shocking to people I should try to put into words the why.

There's something about the certitude I feel about LeBron. This sense that he could go anywhere and make the team good. That's ironic given that I've argued prolifically for KG in the past and said it was absurd to think others couldn't have been in the same 33-win boat KG was in with a bad supporting cast. I don't see a true contradiction here. LeBron couldn't take a bunch of children to 45 wins.

But damned if I don't feel like LeBron can make a bad team good like no other player could in today's game.

And given that LeBron has now been in the league 14 years, that makes it challenging to argue anyone over him. I do so for Russell & Jordan for reasons already given, I just don't see Duncan, or KG...or Kareem as guys on the same level.

[trex_8063]

I just want to point out that we shouldn't discredit late 1950s because of 6'8 Neil Johnston offensive dominance. He's not smaller than Amare for example and he's probably better low post scorer.

As to him not being smaller.....that's not quite true (though somewhat splittin' hairs). Let's give him credit for 6'8" without shoes; he's still listed at 210 lbs (and from the photos I've seen, I don't think that changed substantially over his career; up to 215 lbs maybe).

Amare, as a 19-year-old [did he grow a pinch more after??], measured 6'8.5" without shoes and weighed in at 233 lbs (before pro trainers, diet coaches, etc). He also had a standing two-footed vert of 32" (36.5" one-footed vert, iirc), which I'm pretty sure outstripped everyone in the 1950's NBA (save maybe Jim Pollard), at least until Bill Russell showed up.

So these are not truly similar physical specimens.


As to the latter ("better low post score"), I'd have a hard time qualifying that, given there's almost no available footage of Johnston, and given he was 44.6% from the field in his prime. That was great for the time period, but again goes to show the difficulty in comparing and making stretched statements that he was [in a vacuum, presumably] a better low-post scorer. From what I've read of Johnston and the scant 2-3 plays of highlight videos I've seen, he appeared to have a little baby jump-hook from the post, and was a decent set-shooter from the outside (like 14-19' range); all shots easy to get off against bigs who are taught to not leave their feet. Russell of course changed that, and Johnston did appear to struggle a little against him based on H2H search.

[Narigo]

Vote: LeBron James
Second Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

I'll edit this post later

[trex_8063]

...

I have a question. Do you know any examples of players who didn't translate well from late 50s to mid-60s? This is not an attack, I want to see some good examples of your theory. Even if you don't know anyone like that, it doesn't mean that your point is wrong. Don't think this is my agenda, I just want to deep further into interesting point you made.

First off, some of what I stated wrt changes happening between the start of Russell's career and the end of Russell's career is not "theory"; some of it is well-documented fact.

I don't have figures for each and every year, but in '55, the NBA was 7.7% black. By '61, it was 28.0% black. In '67, it was 49.7% black (and I believe it was the very next year that it crossed the 50/50 mark). Rapid integration (as I stated) was a flat fact of that time period, not something I'm merely speculating on.

Exploding popularity of the game: if I have time later I will see if I can find the figures I had somewhere regarding average attendance at games, average player salaries, and TV contract values (think I had some stuff regarding basketball participation in gyms and YMCA's around the country, too). But suffice to say they ALL indicated the same thing: that the popularity of basketball was on a meteoric rise throughout the late 50's and 1960's. For obvious reasons, that effects the size of player pool.

Can go thru other myriads of details that indicate evolution of the game (from equipment improvements, to popularizing the jump shot, etc).


wrt to players that didn't translate well from one decade to the next, yes I have a few examples, but I'll have to come back to that because I have an engagement I've got to get to.

[LA Bird]

1. LeBron James
James has the best peak of the remaining players and his 10 year prime is the best in history (2nd if Jordan hadn't retired). Offensively, LeBron gets criticized for many things (no jumper, teammate marginalization for example) but the results speak for themselves and he has been leading some of the best playoff offenses while ranking first/second in JE's 15 year ORAPM right next to Steve Nash. LeBron's ball dominance isn't an issue for me since he never really played with a top passing point guard and he has shown the ability to play off ball with a pass first guard like Delly instead of Kyrie (117.1 ORtg, 99.5 DRtg over 2268 possessions). Defensively, LeBron is one of the top perimeter defenders even though he has never been DPOY level over an entire season.
His defense combined with his GOAT-level offense puts him at #1 for me at this stage.

2. Tim Duncan
His prime is underrated due to the Spurs slow pace deflating his box scores but this is partly offset by him playing relatively low minutes each season right after his peak. Duncan is the 2nd best defensive player all time (behind Russell) but he provides more than enough offensive value to bridge the defensive gap.

Speaking of Russell, I will repeat what I posted last round.

Russell is getting plenty of support already but I won't be voting for him any time soon due to concerns about his dominance in the late 50s and 60s. Nash's Suns are criticized for sacrificing defense for more offense by going small but when it comes to Russell, the fact that the Celtics sacrificed offensive efficiency by running a ridiculously fast pace to maximize their defense seems to be overlooked. One cannot credit Russell for Boston's dominant defense and then absolve him of blame for their poor offense.

Just to show my point, this is a scatter plot of career team playoff relative ORtg/DRtg of some of the top 50 or so players all time



Almost all the point fit into a rectangle in the middle but there are two clear outliers - Russell (excellent defense, poor offense) and Nash (excellent offense, poor defense). I have hidden the axis labels for now and I challenge anybody to look at the plot and identify which of those two point is Russell/Nash and whose impact on their end of the court is more impressive. To be clear, I still have Russell top 10 all time but I feel like his championship rings has shielded him from the same criticisms that Nash received for the team emphasis on only one end of the court.

[Cyrusman122000]

Official 1st place vote:

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 vote: Lebron James

[BasketballFan7]

No change for me. I disagree with Jordan at one. I thought that the pro-Jordan arguments were less nuanced than the pro-KAJ and pro-Russell ones that I heard from other posters. That said, Jordan at one was the expected outcome and can't be critiqued too much.

My first choice remains Bill Russell.

My second choice remains LeBron James (who I have a bit further ahead of number 3 than before following the KAJ discussion to this point).

First of all, I will say that I don't agree with the emphasis on era translation that so many posters tend to have. I think introducing unnecessary hypotheticals is messy, unfair, and susceptible to bias of one sort or another. If I discuss the greatest presidents in US history, I don't ask myself how George Washington would have adapted to Twitter. If I discuss great military generals, I don't penalize Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar for never interacting in gunpowder based warfare. I don't wonder how Michelanglo would have done with computers. For me number one is:

BIll Russell

My "criteria."

Spoiler:

I want to have some sort of numerical system so that I can try to not let bias overwhelm my voting. I don't plan on the system being very scientific or at all revolutionary. I only desire to be able to create it so that my ranking thought process is transparent. I looked at the past 50 championship teams to form tiers of players that have been on championship team. I will use other poster's arguments to tweak my system. I will look at individual seasons from the perspective of a GM or coach. Can I count on this player, during X season, to:

- Tier 1A: Be the clear best player on a championship team and provide GOAT-level impact throughout the RS and PS (11 points, example 88-93, 00-03 Shaq, 02 and 03 Duncan, 93-95 Hakeem, etc)
*I cut off level 10 after the top seasons of Magic and Bird
- Tier 1B: Be the clear best player on a championship team (9 points, example 08-10 Kobe, 99,05,07 Duncan, 15 Curry, 83 Moses Malone, 11 Dirk, 06 Wade) *Must have reached playoffs
- Tier 1C: Be a potential best player on a championship team (8 points, the player missed the playoffs; examples 75 and 76 KAJ, 05 Garnett), or one who had that level of play in the RS but not in the PS, example 10 Chris Paul, 94 and 95 Robinson, 85 Bird)
- Tier 1D: Be a co-best player on a championship team (7 points, example Karl Malone, non-peak versions of Malone, Dirk)
- Tier 2A: Be a quality second best player on a championship team (5 points, example John Stockton, 91 Pippen, 00 Kobe, 05 Manu, 85 Kareem)
- Tier 2B: Be a second best player on a championship team (3 points, example 05 Parker, 16 Irving, 14 Duncan, 15 Klay Thompson, 87 Kareem)
- - Tier 2C: Be a decent role player on a championship team (1 point, example 15 Bogut, 15 Livingston, 16 Duncan, 88 Kareem)

I don't give any credit for seasons where the player missed more than 50% of the regular season games or the playoffs.

Other point bonuses:

Flag Bearer(player played entire career with one team; examples Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant) - 5 points
Icon (player gives some significant value to basketball outside of the court) - 5 points
Ring Counting (won a ring as the best player on the team by MVP shares) - 2 points
Ring Counting 2 (won a ring as an all-star) - 1 point
MVP (MVP award shares) - 2 points x MVP award shares (rounded down)
Peak Bonus - Based on the RealGM peaks project; top 5 (7 points), top 11 (5), top 25 (3), and top 40 (2); my reasoning is that I believe the 4 GOAT peak contenders are MJ, LeBron, Shaq, and Wilt. I then see the next small gap following Magic and Bird at #11.

Offense v. Defense
For players who I deem to be best player on a championship team caliber, I value offense for any player I judge outside of the 1960's because it seems to me that it is generally a necessity for your best player to be a capable scorer. I nevertheless

Portability
I don't care about cross era portability. For upper echelon players, I don't care about portability at all as anything other than a tie breaker. It is the responsibility of the role-players to fit around them and the responsibility of the GM to find the pieces to make it work. I would likely only subtract value in an extreme case. Perhaps with a player such as 17 Russell Westbrook. The stars dictate. As player quality drops, I do value portability and scores will be adjusted accordingly,

Box Score Statistics
I don't use box score advanced statistics unless I a comparing a.) player's in similar circumstance and of the same position or b.) a player's ability to maintain his own production into the postseason or from season-to-season. For instance, I may compare a player's regular season PER with his postseason PER, but I won't do that without examining the context. Or I will view a player's decline through the decline of his own box score stats. I won't compare Ben Wallace and Steve Nash with PER. I won't compare Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, and Chris Paul with PER.

Impact Statistics
I like impact stats. I can be convinced by them. I like the overall per minute value over the offensive and defensive splits. I don't think they have that sorted out yet. Where impact stats are not available, I will still take "impact" into consideration. I won't lean entirely on box score for years in which impact data isn't readily available.

Playoffs vs. Regular season
For top tier players, I definitely value the playoffs greatly. I cannot give a player the benefit of the doubt if they do not make the playoffs. Not in a "greatest players / careers" list. I could do that in a "best seasons" list. But, for careers, I would essentially be saying that I would view Chris Paul, David Robinson, Karl Malone, or Kevin Garnett, to use some examples, as better players if they missed the playoffs altogether.

Accolades
As for accolades, I am using MVP award shares to determine who was the best player on each team and for adding points to player scores.

Intangibles
I don't want to value them heavily because I know zilch about these players personally. So they won't have a big impact. I will say that what I know about these players may give them the benefit of the doubt in some situations, or it may make me do the opposite.

Durability
I don't count seasons where a star player ended the season missing the playoffs or when he missed over half of the regular season. I don't expect to win a championship (or have a chance to) under those circumstances. As for missed games, I don't really care if a player missed a few games a year. I am looking at seasons that I gave credit for in which the player missed 10 or more games. I am adding the missed games in such seasons together and subtracting one point from the players total score for every 20 missed games during these seasons. This is essentially the Shaq rule. His score is inflated without it. I don't care about missed RS games much, but he missed a lot.

Please inform me on inconsistencies or suggestions for my system. I don't want it to be precise. I simply want to be consistent and have it reflect what I value.

I'm not adverse to changing my scores upon review by other posters or picking a player with a lower score if it's close and I have a preference for one over the other.

For Bill Russell, the score came out to 156.

Spoiler:

Bill Russell
1957 Tier 1D 7
1958 Tier 1C 8 (injury in finals, missed 2 games)
1959 Tier 1B 9
1960 Tier 1B 9
1961 Tier 1B 9
1962 Tier 1a 10
1963 Tier 1B 9
1964 Tier 1a 10
1965 Tier 1a 10
1966 Tier 1B 9
1967 Tier 1D 7
1968 Tier 1D 7
1969 Tier 1D 7
111


Seasons with 10+ missed games – 1 (1957, 24 games) – minus 1 point
Flag Bearer – 5
Icon – 5
MVP Award Shares – 4.8 (2) = 9.6 = 9
Ring Counting I – 11(2) = 22
Peak – top 11 peak – 5
45

156

*Obviously it is more difficult to rank the seasons with a player who played in the 50s and 60s. I believe I was conservative with his numbers. Because I don't care about portability, I could have given Russell a 10 every year from 59 to 66. Everything that I have read says that he was incredibly consistent from year to year. The only criticism I find for his impact is that he was a negative or at best neutral offensive player and that that doesn't really translate across eras. I was conservative with his impact and he still came out on top. I only gave 2 points per ring and without the ring count he is still right there. He has a significant score lead.

*I like that Russell came out on top. I love the consistency. I think the intangibles sound great. He was a winner, resilient, and loyal. I think he is the GOAT from a GM's perspective. If I am team building, Jordan missing what amounts to 3 seasons (86, 94, 95) is troubling. LeBron is so demanding of ownership and his surroundings that he is a constant threat to depart. KAJ left for LA. Shaq and Wilt moved around. For me, I ask myself "How many years can I count on this player to anchor my roster?" Russell shines. He gives a prolonged window where he is constantly available and performing.

Some post mining:

Spoiler:

His ability to block/alter shots AND clean the defensive boards. Based on the available (limited) video footage, he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage. To be that dominant in either one of those areas is something, but to be that dominant in both? Keep in mind how shot blocking tends to take you out of proper rebounding position. Below are the career leaders for block percentage and defensive rebounding percentage. To think Russell might be near or at the top on both of these lists is amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html


He was basically rebounding the defensive glass like Rodman and blocking shots like Hakeem/Robinson. You talk about a guy who not only doesn't have a defensive weakness, but is so dominant at virtually every area on that side, that is Bill Russell.

1966 Celtics defensive highlights -

Watch on YouTube

;t=36m47s



Plus he may the be the best at keeping his hands up on defense, even after jumping. This is something you rarely see with contemporary big men. Below we can see how Russell keeps his arms up when defending after a fake, both in a practice drill and in playoff competition vs. Willis Reed. Have we ever seen such a fundamentally sound defensive player since?

Watch on YouTube

;t=2m32s

Watch on YouTube

;t=17m44s



Russell also had the best reflexes of any player ever at any position and a unique shot blocking style where he used his wrist to deflect shots rather than swat it out of bounds. Very seldom have we seen other big men do this with the same consistency.

Watch on YouTube

;t=12m55s

Spoiler:

If you take out Russell's rookie year, the impact difference is huge. Here is how they did without him from 58-69:

10-18 W-L
-2.03 SRS
122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)

Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics:
-2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)

122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)

123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)

So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).


*this doesn't take into account pace and its likely they played at a higher pace without Russell.

Spoiler:

It's hard to say. I mean the Celtics in 1960 were at an insane 136 possessions per game. The Celtics weighted pace during this period was 121.54. For the 58-69 period, its 124.4 pace. So here is O rating and D rating based on that:

O rating 98.18 (+3.59 relative to league average)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42 to league average)

without Russell vs. Overall:
O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)

Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go:
O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference)
D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)

So either way the offense was still better without Russell, but Russell made a huge defensive impact.

I will relish any criticism.

My 2nd ballot goes to LeBron James, who I have scored at ~147 right now.

[Bad Gatorade]

Okay, so my vote is being casted for LeBron James.

Frankly, I think that he's got a really good case for GOAT, but I haven't had much time to vote.

Looking at LeBron's career, he's been a wonderful player for quite some time now. He's had a bunch of seasons in contention for GOAT peak (2009 and 2013 being two of the more popular ones). His 2009 and 2010 regular seasons are arguably the two greatest carry jobs we've ever seen in the regular season, and he's had some playoff runs (the past 2 years, 2009's non-finals run) that are straddling the GOAT tier, and a whole heap of others that aren't very far off at all.

He's exceeded 7.3 BPM in every playoff year he's had, and he's exceeded 10 BPM in 9 playoff seasons. His raw playoff production is consistently remarkable, save for a couple of bad series (e.g. Miami 2011). LeBron's by far the leader in playoff VORP, 3rd in PER (behind MJ and Mikan) and the leader in Win Shares. He's got some ridiculous playoff consistency, probably exceeded only by MJ in this regard. His regular season career is arguably better than MJ's thus far due to longevity. Quite frankly, I think that LeBron's combination of regular season + playoff career is extremely comparable to MJ's already.

LeBron has been either the best player in the league (in years like 2009, 2013, it's not even arguable), or in very legitimate contention (e.g. vs Stephen Curry for the past couple of seasons), for almost a decade now - his "#1 in the league contention" run is absolutely absurd. Only MJ and Kareem can really make the same sort of "truly elite" longevity claim that LeBron can, and they've both been voted in already.

One of the criticisms of LeBron is that he tends to marginalise other stars, or that his teams fall apart without him on the court. The thing is... LeBron is so good, that it's almost nonsensical to run the team through anybody that isn't LeBron. Miami didn't lose a beat with Dwyane Wade starting to face injury/playing worse in general beyond 2011, and it's partially because Wade's game morphed towards a more slash-heavy game, giving LeBron further primacy. In fact... when LeBron left Miami, Wade/Bosh's efficiency actually plummeted!

He might marginalise other stars to an extent (e.g. Kevin Love isn't going to be the same interior force, obviously) but LeBron, who is arguably the best dribble drive playmaker of all time (and a wonderful interior finisher) is almost uniformly the best option to occupy the interior on a team, so it makes sense that guys like Kevin Love aren't going to be scoring at the same rate.

In fact, LeBron is not only the best floor raiser of all time (his 2009/2010 seasons were ridiculous) but he also tends to produce ridiculous top-level team offences in the playoffs. The past 7 or so years, LeBron has been at the forefront of some of the best playoff offences ever. And it shows me that for all the talk of LeBron "marginalising" other stars, he's incredible at enhancing the effects of role players. And really, LeBron has shown that not only can he bring a ragtag bunch of misfits to 60+ wins, but that when he's paired with other stars the past 7 years (and that's used a bit loosely too - guys like 2014 Wade hardly constituted "superstars" anymore), he has literally been in the finals every single year. Eastern conference or not, that's an amazing feat. Whether or not a team chooses to supply the team with other stars, 3 point shooters, defensive role players etc, it's actually not that hard to create a finals/championship level team around LeBron. His effect on championship odds is incredible, and that's why he's actually my pick for GOAT, and why he wins my vote in this thread.

Number 2 - Tim Duncan.

In regards to other players in contention, I don't know how I feel about Wilt just now. He seems like he was capable of doing anything on the court whenever he felt like it, but I don't know how much he actually improved championship odds throughout his career. Would love to read a bit more on Wilt advocates.

Not that high on Russell, honestly - I don't see why a guy like Tim Duncan or Hakeem Olajuwon (rim protectors in the 3 point era) wouldn't have been able to achieve exceptional defensive results coupled with very impressive offensive results too with the absence of the 3 point line. I'm obviously really impressed with Russell's D, but I don't know if there's the same impact gap on defence between Russell and these guys as there is on offence.

I'm struggling a bit on how to tackle longevity for older players vs younger players - I'm of the current belief that the health advancements of the modern era mean that these guys are able to play for longer, but with a less congested league in the 60s, it's easier for players to be, say, top 5 players for long periods back then. Although the 60s may have been just as competitive as the modern era (i.e. the quality of the average player might be very similar to the quality today), I wonder if the much smaller pool of players meant that there are simply less "good players" to be compared against back then, so the top guys tend to be the same group of guys. A bit hard to explain, but think about this - if a guy in the 60s dropped to 80% of his "peak" level, there probably aren't as many players overtaking him ranking wise as, say, a guy in the modern era dropping to 80% of his peak. Hopefully one of the more literate guys here understands what I mean and can help explain this a bit better

[ThaRegul8r]

Speaking of Russell, I will repeat what I posted last round.

Russell is getting plenty of support already but I won't be voting for him any time soon due to concerns about his dominance in the late 50s and 60s. Nash's Suns are criticized for sacrificing defense for more offense by going small but when it comes to Russell, the fact that the Celtics sacrificed offensive efficiency by running a ridiculously fast pace to maximize their defense seems to be overlooked. One cannot credit Russell for Boston's dominant defense and then absolve him of blame for their poor offense.

Where did the assumption that they ran a fast pace to maximize their defense come from?

I ask this because I was the one who posted the excerpt people reference about the Celtics running a fast pace on this board to begin with. It was new to the posters here when I posted it. So as I know what it said due to having exposed everyone here to it in the first place, I'm wondering where in the explanation was there any mention of doing it to help their defense.

Just to show my point, this is a scatter plot of career team playoff relative ORtg/DRtg of some of the top 50 or so players all time



Almost all the point fit into a rectangle in the middle but there are two clear outliers - Russell (excellent defense, poor offense) and Nash (excellent offense, poor defense). I have hidden the axis labels for now and I challenge anybody to look at the plot and identify which of those two point is Russell/Nash and whose impact on their end of the court is more impressive. To be clear, I still have Russell top 10 all time but I feel like his championship rings has shielded him from the same criticisms that Nash received for the team emphasis on only one end of the court.

Nash is criticized because he never won a championship. If he'd won, there wouldn't be any criticism. That's the way it goes.

If something doesn't inhibit a team's chance of winning, it doesn't matter. The Bulls didn't have a dominant center, but since that lack didn't prevent them from winning six championships, it's irrelevant. Now, people can talk about how it would put them in a disadvantage against historic teams, but that's some completely different side issue, as the Bulls were facing the teams in front of them, not teams from other eras. LeBron's Miami Heat were dead last in the league in rebounding, but their weakness on the boards didn't prevent them from winning the championship, so it didn't matter.

With the Suns it mattered because of stuff like this:

A fourth-quarter rally fueled by layups, dunks and 3-pointers is to be expected in a game featuring the Phoenix Suns.

Yet it was the San Antonio Spurs who did it Sunday in the opener of the Western Conference finals.

Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Brent Barry and the Spurs proved that defense might be their best thing, but not their only thing. Beating the league’s top offense at their own style, San Antonio used its inside-outside scoring practically to perfection in the final period to beat Phoenix 121-114.

The Suns got outscored. Their offense scored 114 points, so that wasn't the problem, but their defense allowed more, so they lost. That didn't happen with the Celtics' defense. In '64, for example, the Celtics had the worst shooting percentage in the postseason, but it didn't matter, because they held their opponents to an even worse percentage. They faced the highest-scoring team in the league and reduced its offense by 18.7%.

I've said the same thing when people on The General Board talked about Jordan's 3-point shooting as a weakness. If it didn't inhibit his team's ability to win during the time that he played, it doesn't matter.