THE GREAT DEBATE: The #2 Greatest Player of All-Time

[WillC]

This thread is solely for nominations for the #2 Greatest Player of All-Time.

Any and all discussion regarding the rules and methodology of these rankings should be posted here: THE GREAT DEBATE: Ranking the Greatest Players of All-Time (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257)

Introduction:

One thing has become clear from recent 'greatest player' polls on ISH: the results are heavily influenced by modern fans acting like sheep to vote for their favourite players at the expense of more deserving - but less popular - alternatives. This skews the results in favour of popular and/or modern players.

Something else that I learned was that sometimes I find myself questioning my own judgement after reading a convincing argument written by someone else in favour of a different player.

Indeed, that is why I continue to come back to this forum. Despite the over abundance of childish posters with little knowledge, there is in fact a group of very knowledgeable members whose intelligence and common sense shines through.

All of the above helped me devise an unusual way of ranking players that I am excited about trialling here.

Rules:

- The goal is to establish an intelligently debated list of the greatest players of all-time.

- Each day, ISH members are invited to nominate a player of their choice.

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- You can only vote for one player per day/round.

- Each day, I will select the winning player based upon the most persuasive and convincing nomination.

- Your nominations might include statistics, quotes, descriptions, explanations and video clips (etc) to help justify your decision.

- If your player isn't selected, you can re-use your nomination the next day, if you wish.

Criteria for selecting players:

- It's completely up to you. NBA, ABA, pre-NBA, NCAA, individual awards, team success, peak, longevity, style, substance... it's up to you.

The Greatest Players of All-Time:

01 - Michael Jordan (nominated by: pauk)
02 -
03 -
04 -
05 -
06 -
07 -
08 -
09 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -

[WillC]

Note:

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- Try to be original. I was disappointed in the first round by the lack of convincing arguments for LeBron James, George Mikan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others. Meanwhile, the arguments for Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could have been more convincing. The argument for Larry Bird was considered. The arguments for Kobe Bryant were pathetic (i.e. lacked explanation).

[Psileas]

Note:

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- Try to be original. I was disappointed in the first round by the lack of convincing arguments for LeBron James, George Mikan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others. Meanwhile, the arguments for Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could have been more convincing. The argument for Larry Bird was considered. The arguments for Kobe Bryant were pathetic (i.e. lacked explanation).

I'm not participating in the project (it's a nice effort, btw), but I have to ask: What would happen if the thread on the GOAT (or #2, 3, it doesn't matter that much) consisted only of arguments like "its jordan, duh!" or "6 rings, baby!" and an excellent description of a great, but next tier great, like Elgin Baylor? Would you pick Baylor as the GOAT?

As a sidenote, I note that you mention that length isn't an issue, but your original post in the thread for #1 never changed the 200 word limit, while Pauk wrote all this essay (actually he copied this from a famous Jordan poster who used to post this multiple times for years, unless Pauk and that Jordan poster is the same person), which is way longer. You were also lenient for picking for him the best parts of the essay, while he should judge what to keep and what not by himself.

[WillC]

I'm not participating in the project (it's a nice effort, btw), but I have to ask: What would happen if the thread on the GOAT (or #2, 3, it doesn't matter that much) consisted only of arguments like "its jordan, duh!" or "6 rings, baby!" and an excellent description of a great, but next tier great, like Elgin Baylor? Would you pick Baylor as the GOAT?

Firstly, the above scenario is extremely unlikely to happy. However, if someone was able to intelligently argue that Baylor was greater than Jordan - and if that argument was stronger than all other arguments, which is clearly unlikely - then, yes, I would select their nomination as the winner.


As a sidenote, I note that you mention that length isn't an issue, but your original post in the thread for #1 never changed the 200 word limit, while Pauk wrote all this essay (actually he copied this from a famous Jordan poster who used to post this multiple times for years, unless Pauk and that Jordan poster is the same person), which is way longer. You were also lenient for picking for him the best parts of the essay, while he should judge what to keep and what not by himself.

A number of posters raised their concerns about the word limit. I therefore decided to simply select the most convincing argument. Frankly, pauk's post would have been better if he'd condensed it to 200 words. Regardless, it still contained the most convincing arguments for Jordan's merits at the greatest of all-time.

Sorry to those people who stuck to the rules more rigidly.

[SpecialQue]

I don't care what criteria is selected, we really don't need multiple threads on the Greatest Player of All Time. This has been done to death already, and no one is going to offer an argument that we haven't already seen a dozen times on this site.

I get that you're trying to be more "scientific" about it, but these debates are ridiculously subjective. If we're going by a LEADER who brought IMMEDIATE success to his team, a team that would not have won if he were not on it, then the only legitimate choice for GOAT would be Bill Russell.

[LeBird]

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?

[WillC]

I don't care what criteria is selected, we really don't need multiple threads on the Greatest Player of All Time. This has been done to death already, and no one is going to offer an argument that we haven't already seen a dozen times on this site.

I get that you're trying to be more "scientific" about it, but these debates are ridiculously subjective. If we're going by a LEADER who brought IMMEDIATE success to his team, a team that would not have won if he were not on it, then the only legitimate choice for GOAT would be Bill Russell.

Actually, I'm not trying to be at all scientific about it. Please read the introduction.

[TheMarkMadsen]

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?


This, unless OP is completly un biased (he's not) then the criteria for the voting is pretty absurd.

This idea has been beat to death, no new information to really be brought to the table at this moment. MJ is the clear cut GOAT of basketball, and after that # 1 ranking it's pretty much a toss up between 10 other players who's rankings will depend on who is rakning them & biase.

[AlphaWolf24]

Actually, I'm not trying to be at all scientific about it. Please read the introduction.


- same ol tired thread..we already have 100 threads a week about "Ish's" GOAT's GOAT'S

- we all get it.....please think of an original thread or GTFO!

- (really does facepalm......GOAT thread?...really)

[WillC]

This, unless OP is completly un biased (he's not) then the criteria for the voting is pretty absurd.

This idea has been beat to death, no new information to really be brought to the table at this moment. MJ is the clear cut GOAT of basketball, and after that # 1 ranking it's pretty much a toss up between 10 other players who's rankings will depend on who is rakning them & biase.

Hence some intelligent debate about those players could lead to more accurate rankings, rather than it just being a vote (which inevitably becomes warped due to each respective player's popularity).

I'm sorry you think I'm biased. Actually, I am fully open to selecting whoever has the strongest case based upon the nominations put forward.

[WillC]

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?

I don't recall naming these rankings on behalf of ISH.

[pauk]

Now #2 will be much more interesting...

[TheMarkMadsen]

Hence some intelligent debate about those players could lead to more accurate rankings, rather than it just being a vote (which inevitably becomes warped due to each respective player's popularity).

I'm sorry you think I'm biased. Actually, I am fully open to selecting whoever has the strongest case based upon the nominations put forward.


Of course you don't think you're biased, unless you're a robot you most likely are biased in some way.

Do you have a list in your head of who YOU think the top 10 players of all time are?

If so, when somebody goes to make an argument for a player to be in a certain spot and it doesn't match up to your pre conceived notion of the who should be where in the top 10, your biase will come in to play.

And yet you're the end all be all of who's arguments get chosen as the "best" or most "credible"

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

- same ol tired thread..we already have 100 threads a week about "Ish's" GOAT's GOAT'S

- we all get it.....please think of an original thread or GTFO!

- (really does facepalm......GOAT thread?...really)

Quit posting in topics you dont like. Simple solution.

[WillC]

Of course you don't think you're biased, unless you're a robot you most likely are biased in some way.

Do you have a list in your head of who YOU think the top 10 players of all time are?

If so, when somebody goes to make an argument for a player to be in a certain spot and it doesn't match up to your pre conceived notion of the who should be where in the top 10, your biase will come in to play.

And yet you're the end all be all of who's arguments get chosen as the "best" or most "credible"

Of course I have an opinion of the top 10. But I'm merely judging the arguments presented in front of me.

[ripthekik]

pauk copy and pasted from a website and now he's the guy that nominated? :oldlol:
so all we have to do is copy paste a bunch of articles for you to read now is it?

plus this thing is a joke.. why do you get the ultimate power and authority to decide on behalf of ISH? at least name the list "THE GREAT DEBATE: WILLC's Greatest players of all time"

[AlphaWolf24]

Quit posting in topics you dont like. Simple solution.


GOAT threads here are like Spam...every once in awhile you just can't help it.

especially this one..."hey guy's....l got a great idea!...lets do a GOAT thread.......copy and paste from the 1,000's of other GOAT's threads nd I will pick a answer....if it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside..."

(cue the music....)...duuuhh...duhh...dunnnnaa....dunnaaa.. .dunt...dunt.

[AlphaWolf24]

pauk copy and pasted from a website and now he's the guy that nominated? :oldlol:
so all we have to do is copy paste a bunch of articles for you to read now is it?

plus this thing is a joke.. why do you get the ultimate power and authority to decide on behalf of ISH? at least name the list "THE GREAT DEBATE: WILLC's Greatest players of all time"


not just him....but 90% of everyone else did too....

sp predictable.

[Gotterdammerung]

Since I put in Wilt Chamberlain as the greatest player of all time, this is my second greatest:

Ralph Sampson.

:D

Seriously, it is Bill Russell. The only player more competitive than Jordan, and the only player who maxed out his talent the NANOSECOND he entered the league, and the only player who stopped Wilt Chamberlain in his prime.

He revolutionized the game with his unique brand of defense. What was unique about his defense? He stayed on his feet UNTIL the shot left the offensive player's hand, and was quick enough to block or deflect it. At the same time, he kept the ball in play so he could fire off passes to streaking Celtics downcourt for easy buckets. That impact forced the opposing team's offense to shoot away from him, and into uncomfortable positions.

I don't have to cite stats - they're largely context-dependent, but Bill Russell was one of the two or three greatest rebounders of all time: he rebounded DIAGONALLY. He rebounded in traffic, unlike most stat-padders. He rebounded intelligently, and fired off outlet passes in one motion. His stats rose across the board during the money season.

Basically, unlike greats like Wilt or Jordan, Russell sublimated his ego for the sake of winning alone and bagged 11 in 13 years. :bowdown:

[jlip]

Since I put in Wilt Chamberlain as the greatest player of all time, this is my second greatest:

Ralph Sampson.

:D

Seriously, it is Bill Russell. The only player more competitive than Jordan, and the only player who maxed out his talent the NANOSECOND he entered the league, and the only player who stopped Wilt Chamberlain in his prime.

He revolutionized the game with his unique brand of defense. What was unique about his defense? He stayed on his feet UNTIL the shot left the offensive player's hand, and was quick enough to block or deflect it. At the same time, he kept the ball in play so he could fire off passes to streaking Celtics downcourt for easy buckets. That impact forced the opposing team's offense to shoot away from him, and into uncomfortable positions.

I don't have to cite stats - they're largely context-dependent, but Bill Russell was one of the two or three greatest rebounders of all time: he rebounded DIAGONALLY. He rebounded in traffic, unlike most stat-padders. He rebounded intelligently, and fired off outlet passes in one motion. His stats rose across the board during the money season.

Basically, unlike greats like Wilt or Jordan, Russell sublimated his ego for the sake of winning alone and bagged 11 in 13 years. :bowdown:

Bolded are a couple of reasons I had in ranking Russell over MJ.

[Gotterdammerung]

Bolded are a couple of reasons I had in ranking Russell over MJ.
So Russell is your #2 guy as well? :D

[Freedom Kid7]

I have a feeling AlphaWolf will troll this thread by voting and arguing for Kobe, seeing as how his argumentitive skills are actually very good and he can be convincing. I think the reason for this though is instead of a silly poll, to create a debate and discussion, which I'm down for. You just can't take it too seriously.


Anyways, this is Kareem v. Magic v. Russell. I kind of wanna vote for Magic here seeing as how he helped push the Lakers into a Dynasty level creating a great duo with Kareem and being the most unique and skilled PG ever, but as many people have pointed out, his defense sucked and he was a sidekick/1b for a long time, and he never was able to make a team winners without Kareem (keep in mind while Magic played well without Kareem in '80, I doubt that team is in contention without Kareem). So with that said, I'll stop talking about Magic, who is still a top player of all time. I feel Russell has a case too, because honestly, he had the best intangibles of a ball player (seriously, Russell's mentality>Jordans). He had great BballIQ, great at passing and finding the open man, possibly the best defensive anchor of all time (he singlehandedly changed the Celtics defense forever), and made his teammates develop with the correct attitude. He was a ferocious rebounder as well Plus, he was the best Goddamn winner, the most clutch man in basketball, and would find a way to win however possible. However, I can't put him over the top considering the fact he was not as much of an offensive presence and did not shoot above .500 all that often, in addition to the fact you can always make an argument that Wilt was bettter (which is something I do not believe, but it is something to take into account)

Now onto Kareem. First off, he was gifted in basketball since highschool. He led his highschool team to a couple of New York Catholic City Championships, and having one team where they only lost two games or something ridiculous. But that's just highschool. In UCLA, Lew Alcindor (his original name) was absurdly good. He led the Bruins to 3 NCAA titles, got a bunch of College Player of the Year Awards, broke numerous records, got the MOP in the NCAA Tournament 3 times, and got the dunk banned from competition for a little while. This was an incredible blessing, for because of it, Lew developed the Sky Hook, made it his go-to-move, and is still probably the best go to move. Anyways, after college he got selected number 1 in the draft for obvious reasons and made the Milwaukee Bucks go from 27 - 55 to 56 - 26 in a year. Then Lew makes Milwaukee go 66 - 16 and he wins the Championship for Oscar Robertson, Milwaukee, and his teammates. He posts 32/16/3 in the RS and 27/17/3 in the playoffs. Gets MVP and FMVP The nest season he changes his name to Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I feel that things change for him here, but whatever. So throughout the years Milwaukee stays elite due to his incredible play where he posts 31/16/5 with 4 blocks in the 3 seasons after 71 and they go to the 1974 NBA Finals where he makes a gamewinner, but they frikkin lose the series so it's all for nothing. After a while and posting good numbers, he gets traded to LA and makes LA competitive again. Kareem stays elite. In 77, Kareem averages 26/13/4 with 3 blocks and plays great defense, shoots with incredible effeciency as always and all. However, he loses to Bill Walton. Even though this happens, Kareem stays elite and remains a great player for many years. Then, in 1980, he forms a great duo with Magic Johnson, gets MVP and gets robbed of a FMVP, but finally brings a championship to LA. Kareem stays the man in LA and wins two more rings for them in 82 and 85. Then Magic Takes ovver in 87, and they win 2 more rings. Kareem retires in 89. Now, you may be thinking, why the hell did I just post that? The reason is to point out what he did to teams and how he played on an individual level. He averaged incredible numbers and was a career 24/11/4 for 20 years. That's right. Twenty years. He was elite for I'd say 75% of them, a 20+/10+ center for Twelve years. He could score 20 or more points until Magic took over in 87. All this goes to show his impressive longevity that is unmatched. He had an impact on teams that were pretty ridiculous, such as making Milwaukee a title contender immediatly and reviving LA basketball and getting a chip (even if he needed help). He was an MVP for six years as well (his notable ones are in 71, 74, 77 and 80) and a defensive anchor and offensive mismatch (few can say they guarded Kareem well). So, what's the moral of my post. Kareem played for twenty years. That's unheard of. He was elite for about 15 of them and an all star for 19 of them. That's unheard of. He impacted teams in a way only a center could, and posted up great numbers (35/18/4/2/4 in the 77 playoffs at his peak... Goddamn crazy). He does get points marked down because he still did get beat at his peak, he could not win with an elite PG and I'd go onto say Walton's was better (call me crazy but whatever), but his longevity, legacy, skyhook, and impact make him a fantastic player.

TL;DR - Kareem's impact, longevity, legacy and skyhook are the reasons I'd say he's one of the greatest. He may have been a bitch at times, but he still has accomplishments that few rival, a longevity so unheard of, and has team accomplishment of improving a small market team so quickly and bringing home the gold for a small market team, something few can do.

[Asukal]

Bill Russell

Just my opinion. I cannot make factual statements since I didn't watch him but here are my thoughts:
- Greatest defensive anchor of all time.
- Most unselfish great.
- Ultimate team player.
- Held his own against Wilt despite being not on par with Wilt's physical abilities.

[andgar923]

Now #2 will be much more interesting...

This.

I'll take Bird based on all around skill, Kareem on his resume.

Either one can go 2.

[andgar923]

GOAT threads here are like Spam...every once in awhile you just can't help it.

especially this one..."hey guy's....l got a great idea!...lets do a GOAT thread.......copy and paste from the 1,000's of other GOAT's threads nd I will pick a answer....if it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside..."

(cue the music....)...duuuhh...duhh...dunnnnaa....dunnaaa.. .dunt...dunt.

I actually agree with him. :wtf:

[Freedom Kid7]

I actually agree with him. :wtf:
It's the offseason though. It's not incredibly surprising stuff like this is popping up

[DatAsh]

I have a feeling AlphaWolf will troll this thread by voting and arguing for Kobe, seeing as how his argumentitive skills are actually very good and he can be convincing. I think the reason for this though is instead of a silly poll, to create a debate and discussion, which I'm down for. You just can't take it too seriously.


Anyways, this is Kareem v. Magic v. Russell. I kind of wanna vote for Magic here seeing as how he helped push the Lakers into a Dynasty level creating a great duo with Kareem and being the most unique and skilled PG ever, but as many people have pointed out, his defense sucked and he was a sidekick/1b for a long time, and he never was able to make a team winners without Kareem (keep in mind while Magic played well without Kareem in '80, I doubt that team is in contention without Kareem). So with that said, I'll stop talking about Magic, who is still a top player of all time. I feel Russell has a case too, because honestly, he had the best intangibles of a ball player (seriously, Russell's mentality>Jordans). He had great BballIQ, great at passing and finding the open man, possibly the best defensive anchor of all time (he singlehandedly changed the Celtics defense forever), and made his teammates develop with the correct attitude. He was a ferocious rebounder as well Plus, he was the best Goddamn winner, the most clutch man in basketball, and would find a way to win however possible. However, I can't put him over the top considering the fact he was not as much of an offensive presence and did not shoot above .500 all that often, in addition to the fact you can always make an argument that Wilt was bettter (which is something I do not believe, but it is something to take into account)

Now onto Kareem. First off, he was gifted in basketball since highschool. He led his highschool team to a couple of New York Catholic City Championships, and having one team where they only lost two games or something ridiculous. But that's just highschool. In UCLA, Lew Alcindor (his original name) was absurdly good. He led the Bruins to 3 NCAA titles, got a bunch of College Player of the Year Awards, broke numerous records, got the MOP in the NCAA Tournament 3 times, and got the dunk banned from competition for a little while. This was an incredible blessing, for because of it, Lew developed the Sky Hook, made it his go-to-move, and is still probably the best go to move. Anyways, after college he got selected number 1 in the draft for obvious reasons and made the Milwaukee Bucks go from 27 - 55 to 56 - 26 in a year. Then Lew makes Milwaukee go 66 - 16 and he wins the Championship for Oscar Robertson, Milwaukee, and his teammates. He posts 32/16/3 in the RS and 27/17/3 in the playoffs. Gets MVP and FMVP The nest season he changes his name to Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I feel that things change for him here, but whatever. So throughout the years Milwaukee stays elite due to his incredible play where he posts 31/16/5 with 4 blocks in the 3 seasons after 71 and they go to the 1974 NBA Finals where he makes a gamewinner, but they frikkin lose the series so it's all for nothing. After a while and posting good numbers, he gets traded to LA and makes LA competitive again. Kareem stays elite. In 77, Kareem averages 26/13/4 with 3 blocks and plays great defense, shoots with incredible effeciency as always and all. However, he loses to Bill Walton. Even though this happens, Kareem stays elite and remains a great player for many years. Then, in 1980, he forms a great duo with Magic Johnson, gets MVP and gets robbed of a FMVP, but finally brings a championship to LA. Kareem stays the man in LA and wins two more rings for them in 82 and 85. Then Magic Takes ovver in 87, and they win 2 more rings. Kareem retires in 89. Now, you may be thinking, why the hell did I just post that? The reason is to point out what he did to teams and how he played on an individual level. He averaged incredible numbers and was a career 24/11/4 for 20 years. That's right. Twenty years. He was elite for I'd say 75% of them, a 20+/10+ center for Twelve years. He could score 20 or more points until Magic took over in 87. All this goes to show his impressive longevity that is unmatched. He had an impact on teams that were pretty ridiculous, such as making Milwaukee a title contender immediatly and reviving LA basketball and getting a chip (even if he needed help). He was an MVP for six years as well (his notable ones are in 71, 74, 77 and 80) and a defensive anchor and offensive mismatch (few can say they guarded Kareem well). So, what's the moral of my post. Kareem played for twenty years. That's unheard of. He was elite for about 15 of them and an all star for 19 of them. That's unheard of. He impacted teams in a way only a center could, and posted up great numbers (35/18/4/2/4 in the 77 playoffs at his peak... Goddamn crazy). He does get points marked down because he still did get beat at his peak, he could not win with an elite PG and I'd go onto say Walton's was better (call me crazy but whatever), but his longevity, legacy, skyhook, and impact make him a fantastic player.

TL;DR - Kareem's impact, longevity, legacy and skyhook are the reasons I'd say he's one of the greatest. He may have been a bitch at times, but he still has accomplishments that few rival, a longevity so unheard of, and has team accomplishment of improving a small market team so quickly and bringing home the gold for a small market team, something few can do.

Great Post.

[DatAsh]

bump

[Gotterdammerung]

I'm confused. If the OP decides on the best argument for the best player, then that player is eliminated from future threads. Right? :confusedshrug:

[Owl]

I'm confused. If the OP decides on the best argument for the best player, then that player is eliminated from future threads. Right? :confusedshrug:
Yup. Best argument takes the spot, so naturally that player isn't eligible for the next spot.

[Gotterdammerung]

Yup. Best argument takes the spot, so naturally that player isn't eligible for the next spot.:biggums:
Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell? :facepalm

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot? :facepalm

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments. :facepalm

[Owl]

:biggums:
Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell? :facepalm

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot? :facepalm

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments. :facepalm
OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257
Though if he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

[DatAsh]

:biggums:
Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell? :facepalm

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot? :facepalm

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments. :facepalm

His logic is correct. Who do you feel should be ranked at number 1?

[DatAsh]

OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257
Though if he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

I'd actually really like to hear a good argument for Wilt. He's without a doubt one of the hardest all time greats to make a good case for(I don't mean that in a bad way) because of the eratic nature of his career, and the drastically different roles he played. You really have to know the ins and outs of Chamberlain's career to be able to accurately discern what was going on at the time to undestand why he won/lost when he did.

I have him ranked #3 all time after Jordan and Russell, so I'll probably be attempting to put forth a case for him in the next thread, but I do feel like theres other people out there that haven't spoken up yet that are more capable than myself. Where's JLauber when you need him?

[Owl]

The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a

[DatAsh]

The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a “versus Russell” because there have been multiple Russell advocates, though personally I think Chamberlain over Jabbar is closer and a tougher argument)

The most dominant player ever.
He was arguably the most dominant scorer leading by an extra 32% (approx) on the next top scorer twice (or 60% in ’62 if you don’t count Elgin Baylor who played 48 games). Michael’s greatest lead was 28% more than Nique in ’87, his next biggest lead 14% (again over Nique in ’88) is a smaller advantage than four of Wilt’s seasons. So adjusting for pace and minutes he might not be at Jordan’s level but then again he might. Chamberlain was also consistently in the top 10 in true shooting %, something Jordan only achieved once (in 1989).

He’s the most dominant rebounder who wasn’t a specialist and has 2,304 rebounds more than any other player ever collected.

He led the league in assists (though not apg), and still stands as not only the only center, but the only non-point guard to do so.

To be at the top on the pantheon you need to have no substantial areas of your game that are only middling. Bill Russell’s offensive game was, bluntly, middling. Unexceptional points per game, slightly low points per minute, spent several years below the league average field goal percentage despite being a center, and a low usage one (took less than one shot every 3 minutes), good passer, a lousy free throw shooter, though a little better than Wilt, and a good offensive rebounder. In total his offensive game was okay but not remarkable enough to warrant being ranked over Wilt (or indeed Jabbar) even though he was the greatest defender ever.
Russell has the MVP edge. But in the years they were both in the league it’s 4 each. And that’s just the player vote for MVP (Wilt might have irritated a few of his peers). Wilt made the all-league team 7 times during that period, Russell just twice. Wilt had two other claims for MVPs. In’64 it went to Oscar Robertson, but Wilt claimed the U.S. Basketball Writers’ Association MVP (we don’t have full records for this), and in 1962 (when Russell claimed the MVP) Wilt won the Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award [NBA MVP] (again records are incomplete). But in no cases did any other player win any MVP type award (of those we are aware of), or take the center spot on the all-NBA First Team when Wilt won his official MVPs. When Wilt won the MVP he was the clear cut best. In the Wilt era Russell was only decisively superior in ’63 and ’65, wheras Wilt has four such years.
Ah but surely Russell outplayed Wilt in the playoffs.
Well head to head their numbers were
Chamberlain: 25.7ppg, 28.4 rpg
Russell: 14.9 ppg, 25.4rpg
And though I don’t have the numbers I’d be willing to bet Wilt shot better (his career playoff fg% is 52.2% to Russell’s 43%). But surely Russell raised his game, his points increased etc. Well some years, his productivity didn’t shift that much though as his career points per36 is the same in the playoffs as in the regular season (12.8). This in itself is an achievement against tougher competition. But the much hyped Russell extra scoring gear for the playoffs seems to be at least partially a mirage based on extra minutes.

There’s a suggestion that Russell did what he needed to, or what he was asked to do to win. This is true. But there is sometimes the implication that Russell could have done more, that Russell had the unique ability that if he had chosen to he could have defied Dean Oliver Skill curve and gone from (slightly?) below average usage, average efficiency (lowish for a center) to scoring superstar if that were what was required. Simply put, he could not, or he would have done so. Russell was certainly integral to the Celtics but this was not a one way street, the low roster turnover, the elite coaching, the elite talent that the Celtics provided a culture (to which Russell undoubtedly contributed significantly) that enabled the Celtics to win.

There is the myth that Wilt was a greedy stat padder, but he too was fulfilling the roles asked of him by his coaches. He was just required to do more. If his numbers had been empty would the Warriors have won 49 games and lost only 31 in Wilt’s 50ppg team, or carry a team to four seasons winning at least 58% of their games.

Goliath could not win alone, but he won two titles in a dominant fashion going through two dominant defending champs (the Celtics who added Bailey Howell and actually improved their record six games going 60-21 despite their new powerhouse competitors) and the Milwaukee Bucks (who compiled the greatest single season SRS in ’71 and the greatest non-title winning SRS in ’72). Had the Warriors retained their full core healthy core (especially Cunningham but also a healthy Jackson, Wilt and maybe even Costello from the prior year) I believe they would have bested the Celtics and perhaps stayed together. With a team of quality and a team that fit (Wilt was beyond his apex anyway, but the Laker teams with Baylor and Wilt did not represent a team with synchronicity, and coach van Breda Kolff made it worse in his year as coach by insisting on wedging Wilt into his motion offense, rather than accommodating his new star).

Was Wilt easy to “handle”? No. He was complex, and if he didn’t respect his coach (i.e. usually ex-pros popular with the fanbase but no prior coaching experience and no later coaching success, or an inflexible system coach who didn’t want Wilt) then your team might not be too harmonious. But with a respected/good coach he nearly unseated the Celtics with what had been a losing team prior to his arrival and with talented and balanced squads he could (and did) play a large role in overcoming truly great teams. His team accolades aren’t what they might have been if he had landed in a Celtics-like environment (coaching, talent, balance, low turnover), but in some cases the stats, accolades and awards even the amount teams were willing to pay him show must show that Wilt was if not the greatest player at least the greatest center and a worthy claimant to the number two spot on the all time list.

Overall, great post.

One thing that often get's misconstrued in my opinion about Wilt's scoring is the reason behind his often drastic ppg drops from RS to PS. I can't find the quote I'm looking for right now, but I'm sure I've read at least several quotes that attribute that drop to a general post season coaching strategy. Maybe someone else can chime in with the quote I'm looking for. I have a database of Wilt quotes, but I don't have that one.

To me, one of Wilt's greatest strengths is his absolutely monolithic peak in 67'. I see 67' Wilt as an almost guaranteed championship barring him being on an absolutely bottom of the barrell team.

I've decided to start working on another Russell argument, not as a counter argument to this, but just in general. Hopefully I can get it in on time.

[Gotterdammerung]

OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257
Though if he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

Actually, I won't repost my post in the other thread, cuz that argument was for Wilt at #1.

For #2, even though Owl already posted a great argument for Wilton Norman Chamberlain, here's mine, which is an argument AGAINST the common criticisms of Wilt playing in an "inflated era":


I don't give much credit to "pace," or the balderdash espoused by paceologists like most ISH posters here. Why?

1. There's no accurate way to adjust for the relative competition that the guys in the 60s or 70s and the modern players faced. Since the 60s/70s was a smaller league with fewer players per team, then it follows to reason that they played against tougher competition. Then again, the counterpoint is that the modern player is blessed with superior knowledge about nutrition, training, and he faces more players from different countries due to the global expansion, so he faces stiffer competition. Now, one can argue for either side, but the best position is neither one. Moreover, neither position can account for the possibility whether the best athletes were more likely to play professional basketball in the 60s/70s as opposed to the modern era.

2. As for the concept of pace itself - people are not robots. Making more field goals and more free throws over 80-82 game season requires more energy and increases the likelihood of fatigue and injury. Therefore, the capability of a Kobe Bryant scoring 35 points per game in 2006 tells us exactly zippo about his ability to score 45 or 55 in 1962 at a faster pace, even without factoring in the difference of competition and diet, nutrition, travel/schedule/equipment/gyms/etc.

3. The NBA has been here since 1947, but nobody has even come with a spitting distance of Chamberlain's statistics - not just in scoring but also rebounding and passing. If pace was the only factor, then it stands to reason that during higher pace eras, there would be far more examples of other guys competing with Chamberlain in the 60s. The fact is that Chamberlain exceeded 40 points per game in 4 different years, but nobody has even come close to averaging 40 ppg once.

Conclusion: Pace is not a sufficient explanation for how far ahead Chamberlain's accomplishments are of other players, but also how much more dominant his performances are than the record setting performances of the very greatest ever in other sports. Example: Gretsky scored 92 goals in 1982. In order to exceed Gretzky by Chamberlain margins (36% over Jordan's highest scoring season), a NHL player would have to score 125 goals. :eek:

Incidentally, the average height of NBA players over the past 40 years has pretty much remained consistent. If you take the height of guys on the 1972 Lakers and the 2006 Miami Heat, there were indistinguishable.

[Legends66NBA7]

Great posts by Owl and Gotterdammerung, although:


The most dominant player ever.

I only exempt that and reserve it for Michael Jordan. Jordan dominated all forms in the regular season, playoffs, and finals than Chamberlain did.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Outscored by Sam Jones in all 4 game 7s vs Boston. 2-4 in the Finals with massive chokes. That's what you call "Most dominant" :applause:

[Asukal]

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play? :confusedshrug:

[DatAsh]

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play? :confusedshrug:

It wasn't as if there eras were that far apart, and it was pretty clear at the time that Russell and Wilt were in a completely different league than those guys.

[DatAsh]

Does anyone know if I can straight up post into this forum from a text editor? Or will I need to do significant post paste editing to make it come out right?

[jlip]

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play? :confusedshrug:

Of those mentioned only Mikan IMO would have a legitimate case for top 5 all time. The knock against him is definitely the fact that his period of dominance was before the shot clock and very short lived.

[SyRyanYang]

Wow this is so original.

[Deuce Bigalow]

It wasn't as if there eras were that far apart, and it was pretty clear at the time that Russell and Wilt were in a completely different league than those guys.
Mikan won 5 Championships in the NBA, 2 in another league before there was such thing as the NBA, so how is exactly are they in a different league?
Mikan dominated more than Wilt when it mattered, rings are proof of that, and don't use the teammates excuses because Wilt played with 13 HOFers, and in 12/14 seasons had at least 2 HOFers on his team.

[DatAsh]

The Case for Bill Russell

I'd like to begin the case with a somewhat off topic yet relevant discussion about box score stats and how they can be misleading without proper context and simultaneous impact analysis. Like I said, it's somewhat off topic, but I feel that it's very relevant for players like Russell or Walton who's box score stats just don't do them proper justice.

Here is an article that does a much better job of articulating what is that I'm trying to show – http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1801.pdf

If you're too lazy and don't want to read the article(which I would advise against), I'll do my best to summarize the main points below

Summary:

The purpose of this article is to show that initial intuition with concerns to the apportion of shots a particular player should take is often wrong. For example, it might be intuitively reasonable to assume that the 62 Warriors should have allowed Wilt to shoot even more than he did. Why not? He was shooting a higher TS% than anyone else on his team and a higher TS% than the team in general. Wouldn’t taking some of those shots away from Wilt and giving them to players who shoot at a lower efficiency in essence be wasting possessions and lower the overall team efficiency? It might not be immediately obvious why this is false, but the article I’ve provided goes into great detail explaining why it is in fact the case. For those of you who are mathematically inclined, it’s a great read that winds up making intuitive sense by the end of the article. For those of you who aren’t so mathematically inclined, hopefully the analogies the author provides along with my summaries should suffice. After you’ve read the first article I suggest reading this next article http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/braesss-paradox-and-the-ewing-theory/ which does a great job of further explaining these reasonings and putting them within perspective.

The article describes something called the “Nash Equilibrium” in which player’s take a short sighted approach to the game of basketball and focus and making the best possible decisions at the time in an effort to win the game. Logically “It may seem like common sense to say that every play in a basketball game should be run in the way that gives it the highest probability of success. But, as this section will demonstrate, such a strategy is like the “selfish” Nash equilibrium in the previous section, and it is not necessarily the one that leads to the highest overall efficiency. A team that contents itself with making the highest-percentage play each time down the court does not consider the game-wide implications of its strategy can pay a significant price of anarchy for its “short-sighted approach””

A team’s offense can be characterized by a series of lines that represent a play from the beginning with the start of a possession and ending with a shot attempt. “Each line connecting the beginning of the possession to the shot attempt represents a different player, who is treated as a possible path by which points may come. Each player(labeled i=1,2,…5) has a particular scoring efficiency fi that depends on his frequency of use xi”

It is intuitively reasonable to imagine that there exists “an inverse relationship between offensive usage and offensive efficiency”. Phrased differently, the more a player looks to shoot, the less efficient he will be on those shots overall. It is very difficult to define the specifics of this relationship because “a great player will not spend much time taking less than 10% of his team’s shots, and a mediocre player will not spend much time taking more than 50% of his team’s shots.” However, what research we have so far suggests that this relationship trends towards being linear. We define this relationship as a “skill-curve”. As an example, here is Ray Allen’s skill curve which represents a plot of his “TS% as a function of the fraction of his team’s shots x that he took while on the court”(fi(xi) )

The author proposes a scenario in which Ray Allen is surrounded by four teammates who all shoot a worse TS% than he. It would be commonsensical to assume that Allen should be the one on the team shooting the most shots, given the fact that he is the team’s most efficient shooter. As it turns out, the team is at its most efficient when Allen is taken an almost even amount of shots in comparison with the rest of the team. Paralleling this to our Chamberlain scenario, this conclusion suggests that the 1962 Warriors might have improved their overall efficiency as a team by reallocating some of Chamberlains 39.5 FGA to some of the other players, despite the fact that the reallocation destination shooters would score less efficiently.

A great analogy to football is made – “In American football, every professional team produces more yards with the average passing play than with the average running play(see Alamar,2006). Nonetheless, teams continue to employ less efficient running plays as a means of ‘keeping the defense honest’. That is, the immediate success of a given play is sacrificed in order to maintain the high efficiency of a team’s offense as a whole.”

The purpose of this first section is to show why “stat’s arent everything” and do so by providing a plausible scenario in which player A can help his team’s offense more by putting up statline x than by putting up statline y, despite the fact that statline y is objectively greater than statline x. It’s not all that difficult to believe in reality. In fact we’ve seen it time and time again with superstars over the ages like Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, and Lebron whose best statistical seasons didn't correspond with their best actual play.

Now before we move on specifically to Russell himself, I'd like to address one final point(sorry for the asides, but I do think they're important). It's the age old question.


Does Defense Really Win Championships?

The following is a blog post from the editor of Basketball Reference

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7276

Again, if you're too lazy to read, here are some key points.

- All other things held constant, a good defense is statistically more likely to win a championship than an equally good offense

- The expected probably that a -10.0 defense will win a championship is 80.1% while the odds of a +10 offense winning a championship are only 32.3%

- The Bill Russell Celtics were so defensively dominant that they skew the results quite drastically in favor of good defenses.

- Even with the Russell Celtics removed from the picture, a -10.0 defense is still more likely to win a championship than a +10.0 offense, at 63.9% and 43.8% respectively.

Now that I've layed out the case for why box score stats aren't everything, and shown how important good defense is for winning championships, I'll move on to actually analyzing Bill Russell.

(continued below)

[DatAsh]

Measuring Russell's Defensive Impact

A good way to go about measuring a particular player's impact on his team is by looking at games in which that player missed and then comparing how his team did without him vs how his team did with him. Obviously, the more games a player misses over the course of a career, the more accurate the statistical picture our results paint will be. Bill Russell missed 52 games over the course of his career, unfortunately for us, 24 of those games occurred during his rookie year because of the Olympics. Since most player's rookie years aren't indicative of the impact they'll be having in their prime years, this relatively large percentage of missed games coming within his rookie year(46%) skews the overall results in a somewhat negative manner. Even still, Russell's impact on his team is obvious.

In total, the Boston Celtics were 26-26 without Russell(.500), and had an overall SRS of 0.7; with Russell the Boston Celtics were 690-262(.725), and had an overall SRS of 5.38.

In case you were wondering, the Simple Rating System(SRS) is a metric that uses average point differential and strength of schedule to to evaluate a team's strength. It's generally a more accurate gauge of how “good” a team is, both going forward and looking back.

If we exclude Russell's rookie year from these results we get

Boston SRS without Russell : -2.03
Boston SRS with Russell : +5.88
Boston record without Russell : 10-18(.357)
Boston record with Russell : 682-246(.735)

No matter how you slice it, a +7.91 SRS impact is an incredible difference. To put that into perspective, that's similar to the difference between the Thunder and the Timberwolves this past year. The counterpoint is obviously the relatively small sample size, but given the overall sum of the data presented below, this piece in particular doesn't seem to be overly eristic.

I posted this spreadsheet that I made in the previous thread, but I'll post it here again for emphasis.

http://i50.tinypic.com/e0pph5.png

It should be quite obvious that Russell was having an absolutely massive impact on the defensive end by looking at this data. The Celtics gained 6 relative points, 8 absolute points, 18 defensive win shares, jumped from the 6th all the way to 1st, and their SRS went up by 4.07. As Russell continued to improve as a player, the Celtics defense continued to improve as a team, indicating to me that Russell was a major influence on that. When Russell retired in 69' the Boston Celtics once again plummeted, dropping 6.4 relative points, 10.1 absolute points, 18.5 defensive win shares, and nearly 7 SRS points. One question I find myself asking is, “If a 35 year old Bill Russell was defensively worth that much, how much then was a prime Russell(64,65) worth?”.

Also of interest here is just how defensively dominant the Celtics were in the mid 60's, which coincidentally(or not) just so happens to coincide with what most basketball historians consider to be Russell's absolute peak(64-65). Going by the data, in 1965 the Boston Celtics were defensively 8.1 points better than the second best defensive team in the league. To put this in perspective with modern times, 2012's best defensive team, the Boston Celtics, were 8.1 points better than the Detroit Pistons, the 22nd best defensive team. What the 1964 Celtics did on the defensive end is akin to a team posting a 93.1 defensive rating in 2012.

I'm sure a lot of people probably consider Magic Johnson to be the best offensive player that's ever lived, and for good reason – go look at those showtime Laker offenses, but how does Magic's offensive contributions to compare to that of Russell's defensive contributions. Here's a quote from another poster on another board who sums it up quite nicely.

http://i46.tinypic.com/300fkud.png

“As I said, I mentally give Russell more credit for individual impacting defense at that time than Magic individually impacting the Lakers offense. With that said, even if you gave Magic *all* the credit and Russell 80% of the credit, Russell's impact still looks larger. It's almost impossible to conclude that Russell's impact wasn't at the very least comparable to Magic's on the other side of the ball. Personally, I think it exceeded Magic's impact on offense.

Coming full circle back to Neil's post at B-R, according to his all-time offense/defense estimations, Magic's peak offenses from 85-87 are the 8th, 15th and 23rd best offenses ever. Again, Russell's peak defenses ranked 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 22nd and 23rd.” - Elgee

(continuted below)

[DatAsh]

Now it might be pointed out that Russell wasn't solely responsible for those great Celtic defenses, and while that's true, I'd argue that given the wealth of statistical evidence – the Celtics huge defensive improvement upon Russell's arrival, their huge drop off upon his retirement, their year by year defensive improvement when Russell was improving, their year by year decline as Russell started to decline, their sub-par performances without him in 1962,


“If anyone doubts the value of Bill Russell to the Boston Celtics, the performance of the three-time National Basketball Association champs in the last four games may change their mind."

Russell, considered the best defensive player in the game, has missed the last four games because of a foot injury and the Celtics have lost every one.

Their four game losing streak matches their longest since March, 1957”

their sub-par performances without him in 1969(0-5), along with all of the anecdotal evidence from the time -


“You just don't get those tap-ins with Russell in there. Too many teams make the mistake of trying to drive through the middle on Boston and Russell's always there.”


“There is still no one on the horizon who can counteract the things Bill Russell can do to you, the Celts will be strong until they lose him”


“For the uninitiated, goateed Bill Russell is the difference between winning and losing for the Boston Celtics baskeball team. It has been like that for six years now”

, that Russell's defensive contributions were large enough to justify the usefullness of these statistics. Also, while Russell's teammates were obviously no slouches on defense, were they really all time great, like they would need to be for Russell to not be the primary contributor to these historic defenses? Havlicek was the only one I would consider to be a great defender, as in someone on that “Lebron” , for lack of a better modern comparison, level. Most of them were average to slightly above average, akin to the likes of Chalmers and Wade. A few others like Satch Sanders were considered to be pretty good and arguably great, but make no mistake that a this isn't some modern Chicago Bulls defense. Ask yourself these questions. Did Russell have more defensive help than Magic had offensive help? Was Magic better defensively than Russell was offensively. For me, that's two nos. Also, how much of their defense can be attributed to Russell himself? Russell had an absolutely brilliant defensive mind


“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot. "


“One of my jobs is to be steerer for our team...I can steer most everybody in this league. Say they're rolling in toward me, and I want them to go to their right. First, I've got to get them thinking instead of playing naturally. I fake directly toward them with my head, and with my left arm extended-pointed straight toward their chest-and my weight on my left foot. This is not exactly the prettiest posture in all the world, and immediately they think, 'Ah hah, Russell has his weight on the wrong foot.' and sure enough, they swerve right every time to go around me. Now I can whirl completely around quickly enough off the left foot(which turns out to be the right, or correct foot after all), plant all my weight on my right foot, leap up, and when I'm at the peak of my jump, guess who has just shot-if my timing is correct. If I want them to move left, I swing my left arm over a little more to their right. You follow me here? I have very long arms, and they have got to move left.”

Like any good player with a great defensive mind, I'm sure he shared some of that knowledge with his teammates. I imagine playing along side Bill Russell to be like playing along side an on court defensive coach at all times, if you're not sure what to do, or where to go, just ask Bill. Furthermore, how much of that great defensive guard play was due to the increased pressure they could apply because of the fact that they had big Bill back there protecting the rim and correcting their mistakes? It doesn't seem outlandish to assume that Russell's presence alone allowed his guards to play their guys up tight and better contest outside shots, especially when you consider that Boston's entire defensive game plan centered around the guards playing their counterparts up close in an attempt to goad their man into driving to the lane and thereby forcing them to meet Russell at the rim.

Here is a Sport's illustrated article in which Tommy Heinsohn, the then(1970) Celtics head coach describes how he is implementing a similar gameplan to that of which his former Boston team used to play, with two crucial differences.


“Two major differences are that the defense no longer tries to funnel opponents into the middle, even though Cowens is a good shot blocker, and all five players go for defensive rebounds instead of just one or two. Both adjustments have been made simply because Russell is no longer in there.”


Going back to the stats that I posted, it should also be quite obvious that this team was winning primarily because of it's defense, for which Bill Russell is by far the largest contributor. For example, in 1964, a year in which many consider to be part of Russell's absolute peak, they were winning almost 90% of their games on the defensive end. In fact, one could make the argument that the Celtics were so good defensively that they were winning in spite of their offense. Here are the Boston Celtics offensive rankings during those years.

1957 – 87.2 (5th of 8)
1958 – 85.5 (7th of 8)
1959 – 88.3 (5th of 8)
1960 – 90.2 (5th of 8)
1961 – 87.5 (8th of 8)
1962 – 91.6 (7th of 9)
1963 – 92.6 (9th of 9)
1964 – 89.3 (9th of 9)
1965 - 92.9 (7th of 9)
1966 – 91.7 (8th of 9)
1967 – 97.7 (4th of 10)
1968 – 95.8 (8th of 12)
1969 – 93.2 (9th of 12)


“The Celtics are great because their defense is great, and defense is the name of the game”

As I mentioned the Olympics earlier in this section. Check out what Russell was doing defensively in the 56' Olympics, and keep in mind that Russell was 1 of just 2 future NBA players on that team(kudos to a poster from another board for pointing this out)

“Phillipines scored 94 and 77 in first 2 games but 53 against USA;
Japan 61 and 70... 40 against USA;
Thailand 55 and 50... 29 against USA;
Soviet Union 82 vs the rest... 110 vs USA... in two games (55 average)” - bastillion


Finally, I'd like to touch base with an interesting question that was posed in the previous thread. Just how many of the eleven championships was Russell the “main man” for? I think the only years really in question would be those fringe years, 57, 68, 69. I won't go into too much detail as to why I feel he was the most important player for all 11 of those championships(though I don't think he deserves 11 FMVPs), but I will provide some quotes from the years in question.

1957


“Russell beat us all by himself—with his brilliant defensive play.”


“it was Russell who beat us, nobody else. If he hadn’t batted down all those shots in the first half, we’d have taken such a commanding lead, they’d have given up.”


“Russell is as awesome a player as basketball has ever seen and everybody now has given up hope of any strategy working against him steadily.”


“The professional basketball season is barely under way but already the Boston Celtics are making a farce out of what must laughingly be described as a “race” because of a guy named Bill Russell. Because of his absolutely amazing defensive abilities he may wind up as the most valuable player in the history of pro basketball.”


“When he’s around the basket he demoralizes your team. A fellow gets by his man and goes in for an easy shot and—whoom!—up goes Russell and he blocks it. It happened to Sparrow eight or nine times in one game. To beat the guy, you have to have three fellows hitting from outside. Nobody can have a bad night. It’s a tall order. Another thing, you play without your center. Everybody else has to go that much longer without relief. If you’re lucky, you beat him now and then. But it whacks your club out.”


“But he[Mikan] never ran a game like Bill Russell. Nobody in history ever ruined you like Russell.”


“The Boston Celtics set their sights on a four game sweep over Philadelphia today while the Warriors remained in awe of the mighty Bill Russell.”(The Telegraph, Mar. 24, 1958)


“Boston’s chances in the National Basketball Assn. championship playoffs well may rest on how quickly Bill Russell can recover from an ankle injury.” -(Tuscaloosa News, Apr. 3, 1958)


“Losing Russell hurts a lot in rebounding,” and “It will eliminate our usual fast break almost entirely”


(continued below)

[DatAsh]

1969


“You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed[him]. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have every played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one on one players...Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been overlooked.”


“As usual, center Bill Russell, their player-coach, holds the key to Boston’s success, and he dominated the Philadelphia series”.


“Boston’s mighty defense, led by Player-Coach Bill Russell, was the difference as the Celtics edged the Knicks 97-96 Sunday before a crowd of 13,506 and a national television audience.”

When asked how his team lost game 1 of the Easter Division semi-finals, Jack Ramsey(76ers Coach) said
“Bill Russell”, and he went on to say
“he was the difference, He's always the difference when we play Boston.” - In that game, Russell only scored two points, but he blocked 13 shots, grabbed 15 rebounds and dished out 8 assists.

This was also the year that the Russell went down with an injury and the Celtics went 0-5 in his absence. Russell was also the team coach at the time, which has to be taken in to consideration. Here are some coaching insights from Russ at the time.


“See everybody still talks about the fact that Wilt only took two shots. They still almost won the game, right? And the key was that Chet Walker had been killing us. And I knew that I could guard him. And the reason I knew I could guard him is his moves were very deliberate. As part of my teaching myself, I learned -- we had six plays and nowadays they number those positions. One is point guard, two is shooting guard, three is a small forward, four is a power forward, five is a center. Well, I made a point to learn how to play all those positions on all six plays. Now not that I ever wanted to or hoped to play in those other positions, but in knowing those positions I know the problems that go with that position. So that if my teammate needed help I can help. And on defense I watched these guys, how they play defense, and I know how to guard almost any position. And I physically took over Chet.”

Here's more from that same interview in which Russell is asked about his stellar defensive performance on Wilt(by limiting him to only two shots)


“That's not true at all. That was a coach's decision. There was a forward on their team named Chet Walker, and he was hurting us badly, okay? So I had my backup center, it was a guy named Wayne Embry. Now Embry had been in the league seven or eight years, and he played against Wilt all those years. So at half time I said to him, "Wayne, I'm going to try something. It's not new. I want you to guard Wilt. Okay? I have to take care of Chet Walker." And see, when I made that substitution everybody thought it was trying to stay out of foul trouble, something like that, which was to me the best part of that because I made adjustments that they didn't know what I was doing. So they couldn't make a counter adjustment. You see if you make an adjustment, and they know what you're doing, well they can just counter it. But I made an adjustment, they thought it was to get off of Wilt. They didn't know it was to get on Chet. Now Wilt had a game plan, but his game plan was counting on me trying to guard him. When we put Wayne on him, he guarded him a completely different way.”

Playing devil's advocate against myself, I'd say that 1957 is the year with the strongest case for Bill Russell not being the most important player on his team. I think one poster pointed out that they were actually better off without him that year than they were with him, which isn't really true

without Russell +4.54
with Russell +5.77
playoffs with Russell +7.20

, even still, it's not nearly the same impact that we're seeing in other years.

Given the strong statistical surge and drop-off the Celtics experienced upon Russell's arrival and retirement, respectively, I would say this anecdotal evidence goes a long way towards supporting the notion that Russell was the most important Celtic, even as a newcomer and 34 year old player-coach.

Now that I've made the case for Russell's defense, both statistically and anecdotally, I'd like to move on to his “lackluster” offense.

(continued below)

[DatAsh]

Just how bad was Bill Russell's Offense?

I have a feeling that Russell's offense often gets overlooked, and for a variety of reasons. He didn't put up a lot of points, true depending on what you consider to be a lot for that time, he wasn't very efficient, not true – he was almost always above league average, he wasn't known for his offense, true, but can you really fault him for that, considering just how brilliant he was defensively? While he's offensively the worst player of the consensus top ten, that's an elite bunch - most of whom can't hold a candle to his defensive impact – I do think he was easily an above average offensive player. Consider the context and the nature of those Boston team's and the role that Bill played over the years. He holds an NBA finals record for highest fg% in a finals series at 70.2% for a series in which he put up a 23/25/10 on 91%FG game.

The 1960s Celtics were truly a “team”, in every sense of the word. They never had a superstar offensive scorer taking an abnormally large percentage of the shots. Their general offensive philosophies revolved around sharing the rock, shooting the first good look you get, and running the fast break as often as possible. Russell was THE key factor and offensive anchor behind them running the fast break. His job, along with anchoring the defense, was to rebound the ball and start the fast break. He was Bill Walton before there was ever Bill Walton – Bill Walton with less scoring ability, but much better defensive ability. Just like Bill Walton, Bill Russell not only started their fast breaks, but he acted as the team's offensive hub. Extending beyond Bill Walton, Russell's offensive characteristics draw many parallels to what his contemporary, Wilt Chamberlain was doing with the 76ers. Russell is right up there with 67' Wilt, prime Walton, prime Sabonis and many others as the leagues all time best passing big men. While the offense is unlikely to collapse in his absence, unlike the defense, they were forced to run a different offense without him, and ultimately his outlet passing

“They just got to running.*They know Russell is going to control the backboards, so they just take off downcourt—all four of the others.”
and halfcourt passing were a critical part of Boston's schema.


“You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed[him]. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have every played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one on one players...Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been overlooked.”


"In my modest opinion, shooting is of relatively little importance in a player's overall game. Almost all of us in the NBA are All-Americas. We became All-Americas by averaging 20 points or more a game, so by the layman's standards all of us can shoot. It's the other phases of the game that make the difference. If you're going to score 15 and let your man score 20 you're a deficit. If your value to the team is strictly as a shooter, you are of very little value. Offense is the first thing you learn as a kid in any sport: catch a pass, dribble, bat, shoot. You learn the offensive aspects of a game long before you learn there even are defensive aspects. These are the skills you come by naturally. Defense is hard work because it's unnatural.”

Whatever team he was on, his halfcourt and outlet passing helped his teammates to score baskets.


“But [Jerry] Lucas said he couldn’t have made his 25 points without the help of Bill Russell.”



“Bill helped my shooting accuracy (12 of 19) with his set ups,”

Part of the usual argument against Russell has to do with the fact that he generally played with teammates who were good enough on the offensive end to cover up his shortcomings. People see “9 HOF” teammates and immediately assume that Russell was playing with a peak “showtime” supporting cast from day one up until the day he retired. But, and it's a big but, how many of those hall of fame teammates are really hall of fame teammates? How many of those teammates are in the hall of fame BECAUSE they played with Russell, and not based on their own merit?

Here's a quote from a very knowledgeable poster who posts on these boards from time to time and from whom I got a lot of these quotes.


Prior to 1980, only two other Celtics besides Russell were in the Hall of Fame—Bob Cousy, elected in 1970, seven years after his retirement in his second year of eligibility, and Bill Sharman, elected in 1976, 15 years after his retirement in his ninth year of eligibility. After 1980—when Russell was voted the greatest player of all time, six Celtics from those teams were inducted to the Hall: Frank Ramsey in 1981, 17 years after his retirement in his 11th year of eligibility; John Havlicek in 1984, six years after his retirement in his first year of eligibility; Sam Jones in 1984, 15 years after his retirement in his ninth year of eligibility; Tom Heinsohn in 1986, 21 years after his retirement in his 15th year of eligibility; K.C. Jones in 1989, 22 years after his retirement in his 16th year of eligibility; and Bailey Howell in 1997, 26 years after his retirement in his 20th year of eligibility. (Hall of Famer Clyde Lovellette played on Boston in 1962-63 and ’63-64, but played only 9.3 and 9.7 minutes per game—he made the Hall for his play on Minneapolis and St. Louis.) Havlicek was a bona fide HoFer, and made it first ballot. However, look at the others. Any coincidence that the majority didn't make the hall until after Russell was named GOAT? Look at how long it took. What made them HoFers when they never were before? Some of them weren't even All-Stars during their careers. They just got in under Russell.


"Cousy no doubt was a HOFer given his status pre-Russell. I don't see any reason to believe Sharman, Jones or Heinsohn were locks for HOF though. I mean Sharman moreso, but it's because of the 50s racism rather than his actual skills... and still he was a 4-time all-star, 3-time all-NBA player before Russell came around. SGs like him are rather common - high scoring, perimeter oriented and one dimensional. do you really need to dig to find these ? pretty much the same applies to Sam Jones.

was it really that hard to find a shooting/scoring wing ? in an 8-team league almost every team had just as good or better guard: Oscar, West, Guerin, Greer, Monroe, Wilkens, Gene Shue, Dave Bing, Hudson... every single one of them played at some point in the 60s so it's not like Russell had this game-changing advantage bc of Jones. his backcourts were rather alright, but nothing to brag about (especially considering that KC Jones was a PG without a jumper so he was pretty bad).

and don't get me started on Heinsohn... poor rebounder, non existent on defense AND a chucker. seems more like a old school Jamison (only without rebounds and on worse efficiency). and again, there were numerous forwards that played at similar or higher level than Heinsohn: Pettit, Baylor, Schayes, Arizin, Barry, Bob Boozer, Cunningham, Lucas, Twyman. I don't see how Russell had any advantage here over any other team either.”

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say he played with scrubs. Of the consensus top 10 he is among the luckier ones, but I don't think he's any luckier than guys like Kobe, Duncan, Bird, or Magic. All of those guys were very blessed with the personnel they were surrounded with over the course of their careers, but it's really only with Kobe and Russell do we see any sort of criticism from that angle.


(continued below)

[DatAsh]

Summary

Wrapping it all up, Bill Russell was the kind of player who couldn't care less about personal stats; all he cared about was winning. He cared so deeply about winning that he would throw up in the restrooms before games. He was the kind of player that other players wanted to play with, the kind of player that made the players around him better. He was the kind of player that would do anything and everything to win, and it's by no coincidence that winning followed him wherever he went.


Rusell turns the game of defense into a high art. Russell’s skills are as recondite as a plumber’s. They don’t show in the record book. They show in the scorebook. He has never-ever-played on a losing team. Wherever Bill Russell showed up in sneakers and a gym suit, his team was a winner. From McClymonds Hight, to San Fransisco U., to the Boston Celts, the only time a team of his failed to win a national championship was when he was in the hospital. (The Free Lance-Star Mar 1, 1966)

It boils down to the fact that he won, and continued to win, despite the situation, regardless of the teammates he was surrounded with, and he did so 11 times in 13 years,


“And that is the way it is. Some Celtics play alongside Russell, some sit on the bench, some retire and come back to shake hands. The spokes change. Each supporting star leaves, as Sam Jones will now and the soothsayers forecast doom.” and yet "The wheel keeps rolling.”

[fpliii]

great posts DatAsh :applause:

it's too bad that I can only rep you once, each post is spot on

[ThaRegul8r]

Here's a quote from a very knowledgeable poster who posts on these boards from time to time and from whom I got a lot of these quotes.

The first paragraph is mine, beginning with "Prior to 1980," and ending with "They just got in under Russell." However, the subsequent paragraphs were not written by me and so should not be attributed to me. I remember reading them, but it was not I who authored them. If you compare them with the first paragraph, you can see that the writing style isn't the same.

[DatAsh]

The first paragraph is mine, beginning with "Prior to 1980," and ending with "They just got in under Russell." However, the subsequent paragraphs were not written by me and so should not be attributed to me. I remember reading them, but it was not I who authored them. If you compare them with the first paragraph, you can see that the writing style isn't the same.

Gotcha, I'll make the correction

[DatAsh]

great posts DatAsh :applause:

it's too bad that I can only rep you once, each post is spot on

Thanks, I've been meaning to to rep a post of yours for several weeks now, but I'm far too slow at spreading around this rep.

[G.O.A.T]

Sanders I can somewhat agree with, the other two not so much, K.C was good, but Sharman was nothing spectacular and I've even heard him mentioned as a below average defender, based on what I've read.

While defense was not a major focus of 1950's basketball, Sharman was regarded by his peers and those who wrote about the game as one of the elite defensive guards. Only Slater Martin has a better reputation from the books and articles I've read.

Sharman was ahead of his time in numerous ways. He was always well conditioned. Preferred tea to coffee and cigarettes. Implemented pre-game shoot=arounds as a coach before anyone else. He was an underrated contributor to the early Celtics success.

[DatAsh]

Agreed. One of the interesting things I've found about Russell, when researching his block numbers the past few months, is that once the Jones boys, Hondo and Satch had replaced Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman and Ramsey as the teams core around Russell (c. 1964) Russell adjusted his style and stayed in the paint a lot more because of how much better the defenders in front of him were. Previously he'd come out and pick up perimeter players, even block 18-22 foot jump shots fairly regularly.

Early in the 1963-64 season there were a number of articles about Russell blocking less shots than previously. In each players being interviewed agreed that he was just as dangerous as ever. As Si Green put it when asked if Russell was slipping a bit: "He must have lost some stamina after all these years. But it doesn't show in tough spots. If he has to block shots, he'll block them. The Psychological edge he has over men in this league is something."

Neat quote, I'll add that one to my database. Do you happen to have the source?

Here's how I view Russell's teammates defensively

great - Havlicek, Sanders(to a lesser extent)
very good - K.C. Jones
average - Sharman
below average - Sam Jones, Cousy(for awhile)
bad - Howell, Heinsohn

There are some other guys who I'm completely unsure how to rank like Jim Loscutoff and others.

[G.O.A.T]

Neat quote, I'll add that one to my database. Do you happen to have the source?

Here's how I view Russell's teammates defensively

great - Havlicek, Sanders(to a lesser extent)
very good - K.C. Jones
average - Sharman
below average - Sam Jones, Cousy(for awhile)
bad - Howell, Heinsohn

There are some other guys who I'm completely unsure how to rank like Jim Loscutoff and others.

We're not far off Here'd be my conclusions as of now on the major rotation guys:

Very Good to Elite: Satch Sanders
Good to Very good: Hondo, Jones, Sharman
Average to Above Average: Sam Jones, Seigfried
Below Average: Howell, Ramsey, Nelson
Poor: Cousy, Heinsohn,

Loscutoff was a defensive forward, but he was a 50's defensive forward. A guy like Earl Lloyd or Red Rocha or Sweetwater Clifton to a lesser extent (as Clifton was a center forced to play forward on offense for reasons of racism) that basically means enforcer. He wasn't going to shut anyone down, but he was going to harass the oppositions best scoring forward.

A couple years ago I did a retroactive all-defensive team after scouring the books from the early era (The rivalry, Tall Tales, 24 seconds to shoot etc.) the Si and Sport magazine archives and the Google News archives.

Here's what I came up with: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190405

[jlip]

For my opinions, read DatAsh's posts.

[DatAsh]

We're not far off Here'd be my conclusions as of now on the major rotation guys:

Very Good to Elite: Satch Sanders
Good to Very good: Hondo, Jones, Sharman
Average to Above Average: Sam Jones, Seigfried
Below Average: Howell, Ramsey, Nelson
Poor: Cousy, Heinsohn,

Loscutoff was a defensive forward, but he was a 50's defensive forward. A guy like Earl Lloyd or Red Rocha or Sweetwater Clifton to a lesser extent (as Clifton was a center forced to play forward on offense for reasons of racism) that basically means enforcer. He wasn't going to shut anyone down, but he was going to harass the oppositions best scoring forward.

A couple years ago I did a retroactive all-defensive team after scouring the books from the early era (The rivalry, Tall Tales, 24 seconds to shoot etc.) the Si and Sport magazine archives and the Google News archives.

Here's what I came up with: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190405

Great list; I agree with most of it.

I see that you changed your first team in 67' from Russell to Wilt. What made you decide to make that switch? I've read a few quotes going both ways, but statistically I just don't see the argument for Wilt that year.

The Celtics were the best defensive team in the league (1 of 10) and the 76ers were just middle of the pack(5 of 10), and it's not like Wilt was surrounded with scrubs that year like in years prior.

Hal Greer was pretty damn good, and from what I've read a great defender with his overall speed and athleticism.


Sometimes I stay up all night thinking about defense

[G.O.A.T]

Great list; I agree with most of it.

I see that you changed your first team in 67' from Russell to Wilt. What made you decide to make that switch? I've read a few quotes going both ways, but statistically I just don't see the argument for Wilt that year.

The Celtics were the best defensive team in the league (1 of 10) and the 76ers were just middle of the pack(5 of 10), and it's not like Wilt was surrounded with scrubs that year like in years prior.

Hal Greer was pretty damn good, and from what I've read a great defender with his overall speed and athleticism.

While I do agree with your conclusions, I don't give any credence to the defensive team stats you mentioned. To me they are 100% bullshit and even if they weren't I find them useless.

Long before anyone contrived or considered those stats people knew the Celtics defense was one of the greatest of all-time. Why do we need numbers to tell us something we already know? But if I look at where some of the other all-time great defenses rank when held up against the same or similar metrics, I see how misleading they are. The 76ers were better defensively than the Celtics in 1967. Even Russell said so. If the stats don't back that up, that just means the made up formula is wrong.

I'm glad that people like you are smart enough to understand the numbers in a way that you can explain them to so many people, but I'm not wasting my time because in 25 years, there will be a whole new set of made up stats that people put more stock in. Meanwhile I'll just keep listening to the people who played, coached and followed the game. Right or wrong, this is by my measure, the best way to judge players/teams rather you seen them play a good amount of games or not.

As for why I changed my decision in 1967 it came down to reading more about the season and understanding how injured and wore down Russell was and how focused and consistent Wilt was.

Here's the article that tipped the scales in Wilt's favor for me: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1079750/index.htm

Perhaps the reason for the Sixers not showing as a great defensive team is how much they scored. I think they were under 100 once all year (Boston did the honors of course). Also they caused a lot of turnovers. My guess is they had the most combined blocks and steals of any team all-time. There are multiple box scores that have Wilt and Luke combining to block "more than two dozen" shots. They basically played like the Celtics because they could since Wilt was content to impersonate Russell on the defensive end and pick his spots better on the offense end. Passing to help the team, not just his stats.

[DatAsh]

While I do agree with your conclusions, I don't give any credence to the defensive team stats you mentioned. To me they are 100% bullshit and even if they weren't I find them useless.

Long before anyone contrived or considered those stats people knew the Celtics defense was one of the greatest of all-time. Why do we need numbers to tell us something we already know? But if I look at where some of the other all-time great defenses rank when held up against the same or similar metrics, I see how misleading they are. The 76ers were better defensively than the Celtics in 1967. Even Russell said so. If the stats don't back that up, that just means the made up formula is wrong.

I'm glad that people like you are smart enough to understand the numbers in a way that you can explain them to so many people, but I'm not wasting my time because in 25 years, there will be a whole new set of made up stats that people put more stock in. Meanwhile I'll just keep listening to the people who played, coached and followed the game. Right or wrong, this is by my measure, the best way to judge players/teams rather you seen them play a good amount of games or not.

As for why I changed my decision in 1967 it came down to reading more about the season and understanding how injured and wore down Russell was and how focused and consistent Wilt was.

Here's the article that tipped the scales in Wilt's favor for me: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1079750/index.htm

Perhaps the reason for the Sixers not showing as a great defensive team is how much they scored. I think they were under 100 once all year (Boston did the honors of course). Also they caused a lot of turnovers. My guess is they had the most combined blocks and steals of any team all-time. There are multiple box scores that have Wilt and Luke combining to block "more than two dozen" shots. They basically played like the Celtics because they could since Wilt was content to impersonate Russell on the defensive end and pick his spots better on the offense end. Passing to help the team, not just his stats.

Ahh, yeah I've read that article before. It's a telling article and I generally agree with the premise - that Philly was in a different overall class that year - but I'm still not seeing the evidence for them being the better defensive team.

Maybe I hang my hat too much on statistics, but it's hard not to when I see time and time again that most advanced statistics tend to support common beliefs. Coming from another perspective, I can completely understand not having much faith in advanced statistics; I know there's a lot of people that feel that way, but I wouldn't really call defensive rating a "made up stat". Technically it is made up, but that's like saying points per 36 min is made up.

Defensive rating is just points allowed per 100 possessions, that's it. It's the go to defensive stat for measuring team defense and there's really no better way to go about measuring defensive strength and I don't see that changing in the next 25 years.

The bolded I simply can't agree with. If it were somewhat close I still probably wouldn't agree, but I could at least chalk it up to a lack of effort on Philly's part in the RS - though I don't think they lacked effort at all that RS. The Celtics were 4 points better on defense though, which is akin to the difference between the the Miami Heat and the Toronto Raptors.

That Philly team was amazing that year because there offense was astronomically good, +6.7 relative to league average, and +4.2 above second place. That's like the very best of Showtime Lakers good.


Long before anyone contrived or considered those stats people knew the Celtics defense was one of the greatest of all-time. Why do we need numbers to tell us something we already know?

There's only so much faith I can put in the human mind when it comes to accurately tracking and discerning differences like this over an 82 game season. Team statistics are useful because they can confirm what we think we know, measure differences between teams that our brain just isn't equipped to measure, and show us bits of our personal beliefs that might be wrong.


But if I look at where some of the other all-time great defenses rank when held up against the same or similar metrics, I see how misleading they are.

What other team's do you feel Drtg inaccurately represents? From my point of view it's almost the complete oppossite - the team's I rate amongst the best ever tend to have the best defensive ratings.

The top ten defenses relative to era(difference)

1. 64' Celtics
2. 65' Celtics
3. 63' Celtics
4. 04' Spurs
5. 62' Celtics
6. 08' Celtics
7. 93' Knicks
8. 64' Celtics
9. 94' Knicks
10. 04' Pistons

That seems like a pretty accurrate list in my opinion. Which of those do you disagree with?

I think Wilt was better defensively in 68' than he was in 67', and the statistics back that up - Philly was the best defensive team in the league that year 0.2 ahead of Boston.

[Owl]

Great case by DatAsh for Russell.

My responses and counterpoints would be

The opening link doesn't work if you just click the hyperlink because you've posted a full stop immediately after it and includes that as part of the URL.

Don't have the math skills (or time) to fully comprehend Nash theory etc (though I grasp the Braess's paradox stuff about individual non-cooperating/non-comunicating self-interested "rational" route optimisers making the system sub-optimal on average). My ideas in the general area are as follows:

Skill curves are more or less an accurate idea. But you can't say take one less shot per game and you'll shoot a higher percentage. Basketball being so organic and random it's difficult to create an optimum offense especially one for against all teams, and still harder to prove whether it was optimal. On the whole though with good teams, you don't get the sense that they pass up good shots. Shot creation is a real skill (though perhaps overvalued by some) especially where you do so at high percentages. An inability to create ones own shot places the burden of creating (for you or themselves) onto other players and means they will face increased defensive attention.

On does defense win championships?
I've always been adamantly in the "no more so than offense" camp. In large part because one teams offense is inevitably another team's defense. These things things don't occur in a vacuum.
As to whether good defensive teams win more often than good offensive teams (and if this is true it would seem to be a marginal difference) this doesn't prove cause and effect only a correlation. I vaguely recall some stuff about whether good defense (more so than offense) is a good indicator of cohesion and good coaching which would itself be the cause of greater success, I had thought it was on basketball-reference but it might just have been this http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/19578/how-does-defense-win-championships

The Russell leap occurs in a year with significant other turnover. As well as replacing Macauley with Russell there was the addition of Heinsohn and the return of Frank Ramsay.

I wouldn't exclude his rookie year from any samples of with/without Russell because

1) I haven't yet seen justification for doing so.
2) It's the largest sample.
3) It's a sample where (despite the loss of Macauley), the team hasn't built a strategy centered around and dependent on Russell. When Russell was gone for short periods, they weren't going to radically change roles for a couple of weeks then change back when Russell came back.

Regarding his departure it was not just him leaving, but also Sam Jones, and a change of coach and a change of focus from winning to developing talent. Plus Bailey Howell falling off a cliff (though it might be argued that that was Russell making his teammates better, though it is at least as plausible that a combination of age and motivation on sub .500 team were the main factor).

I don't doubt Russell as the main factor in Boston's defense, or his claim to be the greatest defensive player of all-time. But I would argue against Russell being briefly replaced by an aging (never a great defender) Lovellette or in some cases shifting Heinsohn to center, representing accurately Russell's value.

Sanders and K.C. Jones have called the best defensive forward and guard in the league by those covering the league at the time. Havlicek's all-D team appearances speak for themselves. Sharman, who was frequently in the top ten in ts% as a fairly high usage guard,
considered myself to be a better defensive player than offensive and there are plenty of other sources (pretty much every profile of Sharman will mention his defense and toughness). Those are the very good defenders, I don't know as much about but only the last few years of Cousy seem to be below average.
I

[fpliii]

We're not far off Here'd be my conclusions as of now on the major rotation guys:

Very Good to Elite: Satch Sanders
Good to Very good: Hondo, Jones, Sharman
Average to Above Average: Sam Jones, Seigfried
Below Average: Howell, Ramsey, Nelson
Poor: Cousy, Heinsohn,

Loscutoff was a defensive forward, but he was a 50's defensive forward. A guy like Earl Lloyd or Red Rocha or Sweetwater Clifton to a lesser extent (as Clifton was a center forced to play forward on offense for reasons of racism) that basically means enforcer. He wasn't going to shut anyone down, but he was going to harass the oppositions best scoring forward.

A couple years ago I did a retroactive all-defensive team after scouring the books from the early era (The rivalry, Tall Tales, 24 seconds to shoot etc.) the Si and Sport magazine archives and the Google News archives.

Here's what I came up with: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190405

just looked at that link, amazing thread

you mentioned you have a DPOY file...have you thought about DPOYs from 69 to 82?

[ThaRegul8r]

just looked at that link, amazing thread

you mentioned you have a DPOY file...have you thought about DPOYs from 69 to 82?

He already did this, actually.

[DatAsh]

Just wanted to pop in real quick to say that those top 10 numbers I posted an hour ago may be off, I haven't had time to check them, and I won't be at my comuter for awhile, but I'll check them when I get back. The team's should still be mostly correct, but the order may be off.


*Edit - @Owl, I read your post but don't really have time to respond to it at the moment, but I will when I get back. I agree with much of what you said, though I just have a few points of contention.

[crisoner]

Kareem Abdul Jabar

Before I write just look at his stats for his entire basketball career.

[LIST]
6

[Owl]

just looked at that link, amazing thread

you mentioned you have a DPOY file...have you thought about DPOYs from 69 to 82?

He already did this, actually.
And with a little googling, here it is
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190992

[G.O.A.T]

just looked at that link, amazing thread

you mentioned you have a DPOY file...have you thought about DPOYs from 69 to 82?



He already did this, actually.


The Goods (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190992)

I think it's time to reopen the debates, any interest?

[fpliii]

The Goods (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190992)

I think it's time to reopen the debates, any interest?

ah well, I've been busy dumping archives from ProQuest recently (my man KG215 should be expecting an e-mail tonight or tomorrow RE: Walton), but I'd love to read the conversation (the retro Finals MVP also needs some work) so I'm all for it

BTW have you considered doing a similar list for the ABA, or do you think it's not worth it?

[G.O.A.T]

ah well, I've been busy dumping archives from ProQuest recently (my man KG215 should be expecting an e-mail tonight or tomorrow RE: Walton), but I'd love to read the conversation (the retro Finals MVP also needs some work) so I'm all for it

BTW have you considered doing a similar list for the ABA, or do you think it's not worth it?

totally worth it, just a lot harder to fins information and video to make determinations from.

If there is enough interest though, like you, I'm game for any type of research and discussion.

Did you get a chance to check out the Russell blocks spreadsheet?

[fpliii]

totally worth it, just a lot harder to fins information and video to make determinations from.

If there is enough interest though, like you, I'm game for any type of research and discussion.

Did you get a chance to check out the Russell blocks spreadsheet?

yes I did, thanks for sharing it with me

ideally we'd like 10+ records per season, but we're in good shape right now...I'll look through the archives and see if I can find anything else to add

nice work

[Freedom Kid7]

Man, I liked to make an argument for Kareem again, but DatAsh made a great argument for Russell :applause: :applause: .

[WillC]

The winning nomination for the 2nd Greatest Player of All-Time goes to DatAsh's Bill Russell series of well-researched posts.


Summary

Wrapping it all up, Bill Russell was the kind of player who couldn't care less about personal stats; all he cared about was winning. He cared so deeply about winning that he would throw up in the restrooms before games. He was the kind of player that other players wanted to play with, the kind of player that made the players around him better. He was the kind of player that would do anything and everything to win, and it's by no coincidence that winning followed him wherever he went.



It boils down to the fact that he won, and continued to win, despite the situation, regardless of the teammates he was surrounded with, and he did so 11 times in 13 years,