This was very well written and researched. As I said in the GARM thread, this is the best written description of Dream's game from both strengths and weaknesses.
Yeah, it's a tough one. There's so many stats now. Stats that look at stats that look at stats. The author looked at a ton. Relatively to basketball with full box scores, and plenty of game tape, if you/he was going to go super in depth, then he should have absolutely used stats and game tape to "Score" the eras. Yes, the Lakers also suffer from their early 2000's dominance being against relatively paltry competition, imo. It was the Spurs and the Lakers, generally head and shoulders above the rest, but for a pesky upstart here and there. I'm not sure why you're arguing stats. He was also the 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 4th, and 7th most prolific scorer on the team in the playoffs. Yeah, he upped his importance from a scoring perspective... A BIT. On a per 36 minute basis, his scoring is EXACTLY the same in the regular season and playoffs. Some stats are ever so slightly up. Mind you... I think people perhaps tend to overreact when certain people are analyzed. My comments aren't that Russell wasn't a great player, or the best player on that squad, or couldn't score at all, or not an all time great. Rather, it's just that as a basketball player he wasn't a top 10 player. From a basketball career perspective... I mean heck he's #1 then. His "career" is enviable. But... I think everybody realizes that. I am discussing his offense and scoring because that's 50% (+) of the game. But absolutely the Celtics won defensively. They were ALWAYS the top defensive team in the league, while OFTEN being in the bottom half offensively. In the bottom half of 8 teams, lol. See, while you might say many people don't realize the Celtics won defensively, I'd say most basketball fans 100% know that. Rather, I'd argue what most basketball fans don't know is that Russell played in a league mostly with 8 teams or 9 teams. In the back half of his career (like the last 3-4 years), they expanded to 9 or 10 teams and ultimately 14 teams when he retired. So sure, they won with defense, in a league of 8,9,10 teams, where they didn't have a shot clock, on a team stacked with talent relative to the rest of the league. It's absolutely fair to criticize Harden's defense and anyone that would ignore it is a fan-boy. Should he win an MVP? Yes. One, his defense, is better, two, its an MVP, not a top 10 ever discussion. I've provided analysis showing how Russell's teammates were simply better than others of the era. On an in their era only basis, in a league with single digit teams, the Celtics were stacked. And Russell was numero uno on that stacked squad, but it was stacked nonetheless. All that aside, the point remains... it's basically unfair - to current players and players of that call it pre-70's era - to even compare. There was "barely" a league. There was one stacked, dominant team. The rules were COMPLETELY different. Athletes grew up differently. and the videos and archival footage speaks for itself. The only thing I can say with 100% confidence, even though it can't be proven, is stuff like: Put Hakeem on that Celtics team instead of Russell and ABSOLUTELY he dominates. Put Shaq on any of those squads and ABSOLUTELY he dominates. Put Lebron, KD, MJ, Magic, Steph, Russ, Harden, etc, etc, etc. on any of those teams and ABSOLUTELY they dominate. Unfortunately, I have NO IDEA how any of those older guys would fare in the opposite... if you literally were just plucking them at their peak and putting them in the modern game. Could the bigs defend pick and rolls effectively? Would the guards ball-handling and shooting hold up - now in an era where there's much more defense/athletic defenders, etc.? I don't know. I mean, I absolutely believe the greats back then had the size and athleticism to be great today, HAD THEY GROWN UP in today's basketball obsessed culture. But I can't compare that or even do that hypothetical. I can only evaluate what I've seen. And that's a small league, where the overall talent was much lower, with a couple extremely dominant teams and players putting up 2k type stats, with video footage that looks like games, AT BEST, where they'd be competitive against some of today's better college programs. And that's all I can say. And again, one last time, it's not a criticism of Russell or anyone from that era. Evolution of the game is evolution of the game, and in many ways it'd be completely unrealistic to expect the players back than to even be able to be comparable. I mean it's not like baseball... where in the 1960's they still had 100+ years of baseball history to build on, where guys were still pitching or hitting. And even then, sure, absolutely, as the world and game has opened up, relatively speaking, baseball talent today compares favorably to the old time greats. Or same with football. JJ Watt or Clowney (both healthy) would absolutely freaking crush 1950's football. Of course. It just is what it is.
Yeah, I agree... it's hard / impossible to compare, imo. And to be fair to the author, he is calling his list The Backpicks GOAT: The 40 Best Careers in NBA History ... so its not about the best players ever, but more about the best careers. And on that basis, its easier to compartmentalize the era a player played their career in and assess it in that light.
I think you're selling the Western Conference of that era short. Selling the Suns and Mavs, specifically, short. And that same stat went even higher in the Finals. As a whole, you were underplaying his scoring. That was my issue. Comparing it to Clint Capela. On a surface level, sure, 4th highest scorer, just like Capela. However, Capela doesn't have the scoring ceiling as Russell in terms of leading an important team in scoring in any significant playoff run. Or even an important game. Russell had a 30/40/5 game seven NBA Final. It's just not fair to compare many of these types of centers like Clint to Russell when Russell was capable of so much more than he showed on average. Scoring isn't 100% of offense, though. After Cousy retired, the Celtics never replaced his playmaking with a legit point guard. Russell played a lot of point-center after that. Which is why you see him close to leading the team in assists. My overall point in championing Russell's scoring and overall offense is not to say that he was a great scorer, not even close, or even a great offensive player, but to say that Russell's scoring and overall offense are underrated. Exactly! And they were that great defensively because of Russell! I ain't rolling with that. Most people would say that Russell was like a reverse AI, surrounded by great offensive players, so he could just defend and rebound and the Celtic high-powered offense would take care of itself. Red Auerbach himself would say that they had a great offense. They drafted Russell because he thought they just needed a little defensive help. They in fact were not a great offense. The only way they could ever win with that offense was if they had a great defense. I think the stats bear that out. Russell provided the bulk of that great defense. The few teams in the league is literally one of the first arguments used against Russell and the sixties in general. Next is white guys. Next is 6-5 centers. Next is set shots. Next is one-handed dribblers. Next is no dunking. Next is halftime smoking. No one has ever said they didn't have a shot clock, though. Cause that ain't true. It would be stupid to criticize his defense, IMO, because of all he does on offense. He is an absolutely incredible offensive player. The Rockets' offense is incredible. And why is that so? Because NO ONE could stop them from scoring. And why is that so? Mostly, because of James Harden. Let me ask you this, who contributes more, peak Russell to the Celtic's offense, or current Harden to the Rocket's defense? I don't see much of an argument for Harden there. That was my point in bringing up Harden. Just because a player's offense or defense isn't great, doesn't mean their impact can't be the most valuable and sometimes legendary. I think that analysis was flawed. No Russell and most of those players are lost in time. The championships shined a light on them over similar players of that era. Again, K.C. Jones, Satch Sanders, and Frank Ramsey. All Hall of Famers. No All-Star selections. Why? Because they have rings for every finger except their pinkies. Exactly. That's why I agreed when you said Wilt and Russell don't belong in the top 10. At least not in the context of putting them all on the same basketball court and judging them in a modern light.
Suns had some great runs, but also fundamental flaws (defense). The # of HOF players on their squad is 1. Mavs had some great runs, but ultimately lacked talent. It was Dirk and.... Josh Howard? I'm not trying to make fun of guys or teams. Rather, I'm just pointing out the league was like 5% worse. 1 less Tier 1 team. 1 less Tier 2 team, etc. I'm not doing anything other than pointing out the facts. Could he score?? Absolutely. But he just didn't do it, relative to his teammates, for his entire career, be it regular season or playoffs. Again, its not to say he couldn't score, or isn't an all time great. I mean he's got Steve Nash on there at 19, and Nash is a similar story. Never a high volume scorer, but dude could have put up 30 if he wanted to. Of course, Nash generally was top 3 in scoring on his team and then was putting up 10+ apg seasons. Anyway, again, I'm just pointing out facts. I don't really see the point in arguing what a player was capable of doing, or pointing to some games here or there. Certainly those individual games and specific moments add to the lore. Obviously. I don't disagree with any of that. Again, Russell was a really really really good player, offensively and defensively.... I mean I'd go even further than you. I think he was a great offensive player. A HOF level offensive player for his era. Smart. Not selfish. Etc. But we're arguing about top 10... and per this guy's list specifically, apparently top 5. I mean, obviously. But again, stacked team, small league I think most NBA fans that are somewhat intelligent, but not great historians or anything, compare Russell with Wilt, and recognize/think of Russell being the defensive, rebounding, team oriented guy, with Wilt being the offensive, me-first (except when he wanted to dispel that) guy. So not sure what we're discussing, lol, but in other words, I think the general view of the Celtics would be analogous to 08 Celtics, or Pistons that won (04?.. plus add an all time great). Eg. a bunch of great great great HOF players and an all-time great that played SPECTACULARLY SOLID basketball. I don't proclaim to be a great NBA historian... but in the years before Bill arrived, the Celtics were actually better offensively, relative to the rest of the league. ORtg rankings in the six years before Russell of no worse than 3rd best in the league every year, and multiple times #1. So they were very good offensively. But they were not as good defensively. Russell wasn't the only change from those teams. But with Russell it kind of become the opposite. I don't really know what this says about Russell, and his offense, or the Celtics, or the league at the time, or whatnot. Again, just stats. Yes, rightfully so. Don't need to be a statistician to understand the impact of that one. Again, this simplifies it, but if I'm building a list of the "best" NBA players ever, and some guys dominated in a era that otherwise relatively "sucked", I'm going to take that into account in my ranking. Yikes! My bad. Thought it was introduced late 50's, not early/mid 50's. One should ABSOLUTELY criticize Harden's defense. And the end of the day, net +/- is all I care about, but that's pretty hard to isolate for an individual player, obviously. In either case, you can be ABSOLUTELY sure, when its all said and done, even if Harden wins 3 championships and 2 MVPs, when it comes to ranking all time greatest players 20 years from today, his defensive shortcomings will come up. Harden should win the MVP this year, for sure. But in a discussion of which of these all time all time greats deserves a spot in the top 10 of all time, as for Russell for example this is, well if that player is obviously not as dominant in one area of their game than the others on that list... that's going to be taken into consideration... no doubt. I've gone into my KG disagreement. But otherwise so far the guy has Magic, Wilt, KG, Duncan, Hakeem in the top 10. Which leaves Shaq, Lebron, MJ, Russell and Kareem. For the most part we're not talking about really great two way players, we're talking about all time dominant two way players. Again the KG thing confuses the f out of me. Cause he's just not there offensively. Shaq wasn't great defensively like Hakeem, but clogged the lane and protected the paint very effectively for much of his career. But nobody has been as much a negative on one side of the court as Harden has been defensively thus far in his career. To your point, Russell was definitely more competent offensively than Harden defensively. But I would take all of the other guys (KG excluded) offensively over Russell everytime. And I'd take some of the other guys defensively against him, too... but that's an era comment more than anything. Yeah, it's always difficult to conceptualize who was great on their own and who just tagged along. Not sure about the no all star selections comment. Tommy Heinsohn is a 6 time all star (and a 2 time HOFer... once as a coach, smart player). Interestingly, Heinsohn was an all star his rookie year, which was the same year Russell was a rookie. Russell wasn't an all star that year. Bill Sharman had multiple all star appearances with Russell. Bob Cousy. Sam Jones. Etc. That said, again, I recognize it was a bit of a flawed voting process. Again, Russell didn't make the all star game as a rookie, which is insane. By all accounts and measures, Russell was on the stacked team of the era. He was the best on that team, but it absolutely was just head and shoulders more talented than the other teams. Just is what it is. I mean Russell wasn't even ROY his first year, Heinsohn was. Russell wasn't MVP his first year, because his teammate Bob Cousy was. Etc. Here's a take by the guy that wrote the book Ball Don't Lie: http://yagocolas.com/index.php/2014...on-russell-and-chamberlains-supporting-casts/ Of course, Bill Simmons obviously disagrees. But then, here's a pretty good analysis of how useless Simmons conclusions were: https://courtsideanalyst.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/constructing-bad-basketball-arguments/ Yeah, this is all in good fun! We're generally in the same lien of thought. I think you appreciate and rank Russell higher than I would, assuming you were ranking all the eras together. And that's ok.
the celtics have very weird ORtg and DRtg stats. many years russell was there they finished last or near last in offense. and yet their D finished first. first by so much it was way way ahead of their league-worst offense. it's like their O and D were shifted and they were in a different league. like if there was an 8 point spread between the league-best and league-worst offense and league-best defense and league-worst defense, all jumbled up around the same center, the celtics offense was at the very bottom of that jumble and then there was another 8 points down to the celtics defensive numbers. since O/DRtg rely on turnovers and offensive rebounds and those weren't stats back then, they have to be estimated. it would certainly seem the estimate greatly overestimates their number of possessions. either they hardly turned it over or they grabbed a ton of offensive rebounds would be my guess. otherwise their number just don't look like anyone else's from history. it would be weird if such a talented team was really that bad at offense. while you obviously can't judge the past in absolute terms without being unfair to the past, even in a relative sense i think that league strength definitely has to be taken into account. but i don't really know how you do it. some estimate of the talent pool versus roster spots might be the way to go. in other words, there were 3 to 4 times fewer teams and thus 3 to 4 times fewer roster spots back in the 60's (and really guys played so many minutes that there were probably significantly fewer people actually playing in games per team), but what was the talent pool back then? the population was smaller, though not 1/4. certainly almost all sports have gotten much bigger than they were back then and cable tv wasn't making it so profitable to play sports. basketball was presumably much further behind baseball and football back then. and there was no international talent. was the talent pool 1/4 of now? i would say not even close. so i would say it was easier to stand out as a player back then. how much? who knows. twice, three times, 1.5 times? to me the best way is to simply compose your list with the relative number of players from each era based on where you think the talent pool/roster spot ratio was. obviously though we'll all have different ideas of the ratio. i would say garnett was better offensively than bird or magic were defensively. i do think all-time great offense and ability to take over does mean something even more than usual when talking about all-time greats and i wouldn't have KG over either of them (or maybe even top 15 but i'd have to think more about it), but a big man like kg can have such an enormous impact defensively that being the worst offensive players of the top 10/11 doesn't automatically make him the worst of the top 10/11 to me. as for bill russell, who knows how to rank him. he's just an outlier. a guy who almost certainly couldn't have won hakeem's championships as the centerpiece of an offense, and yet who won not only 11 championships in the nba, but won 2 in college. he literally just won. even as dominant as the celtics are considered, their regular season win totals weren't that crazy. duncan i believe had a better win percentage than russell despite the fact russell basically won the title every year. his team played in 10 game 7's. and as if we needed more evidence that he ate horseshoes and crapped rabbit's feet, he won all 10 of them. maybe a couple of those go differently and he has 7 titles and maybe there's a different discussion around him instead of the invincible aura he has now. but hey, he won those games. kind of like hakeem his teams seemed to outperform in the playoffs and won elimination games. now does that mean they could've done more in the regular season or they were just that great in the playoffs? who knows. i feel like you could say the 60's were a great time to be an all-time great big (him and wilt) and the dominance wouldn't be so gaudy now and you could put russell #20 based on not having much offense, or you could look at the wins and put him #2 and i couldn't say you were that wrong on either count.
shaq and hakeem is interesting. i can't really argue with anyone putting shaq ahead. dude had back-to-back 30/15 playoff runs. ahead of even hakeem in playoff PER. warped the floor like crazy. turned decent centers into warm bodies collecting 6 fouls. no one ever posted him up and backed him down (even yao just usually ended up with a fadeaway). won a lot. on the other hand, got swept a bunch (not that easy to get swept if you are a competitor), always had a great wing to be the closer/share the load, had very few great centers to go against (not that the league is just always littered with HOF centers), certainly played with plenty of talent to get his wins. i was thinking about the fact hakeem was our closer on offense. how many bigs have been their team's closer and won the title? duncan certainly wasn't for the last 3 spurs titles, and while i guess he was the closer by default in 1999 and 2003, it really felt like the spurs D was the closer and their O was just holding on). maybe back to kareem in '84 for a big whose offense was relied on for a title team? hakeem was that guy on 2 straight title teams. that's a big thing in favor of hakeem to me (not that guys like shaq and duncan weren't getting the ball in the 4th). but really i can go either way. but duncan over hakeem, i can't abide that.
The only way Shaq over Hak is if you put an unthinkable bias to his 4 rings to dream's 2. One to one and the body of work they put in, no sane reason to choose someone with a glaring weakness and was swept by the other. This is just wrong and a bad list prettied up and made to look more reasoned out than it did. If it was to compare someone like George Mikan and Joel Embiid than no one can say anything absolute but two players at the same position where their careers overlapped, went head to head in the biggest stage? Hakeem played against some of the best centers, Shaq battled Divac, an aging Sabonis, Mutombo, Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman. Editted to add Ben Wallace
Hakeem is my all-time favorite player, and I would probably put him above Shaq, but your reasoning about the head-to-head matchup is a bit of cherry picking. Hakeem should definitely get the edge because when he was in his prime he swept third-year Shaq's team? Do you realize that Shaq put up a 28/12/6/2.5 stat line on close to 60% shooting in that series? Is there a good reason to count that series but not count the only other time those two faced off in the playoffs (1999)? In that series, Shaq's team won 3-1 and he dominated Hakeem. Shaq's stat line: 30/10/4/4. Hakeem's: 13/7. Yes, Hakeem was past his prime by then, but he still drastically under-performed relative to the regular season. I don't think it's more unfair to count that against Hakeem than to count the 1995 series against Shaq.
There are plenty of sane reasons to go either way in the ordering. That’s why the author said he could see putting Hakeem 5th (and he did rank him ahead of Shaq in 2014). In any case, dismissing the list because you think two players are out of order is really just missing the main point of this series. The list could have been completely unordered and the detailed breakdown of each player’s game would still make this a fantastic read for any long-time NBA fan. Also, the 95 rockets were a championship team going against an inexperienced Magic team. Shaq was in his third year. Any argument that Hakeem was “better” over his career cannot rest on the result of that series. And the reality is that Hakeem and Shaq basically canceled each other out in that series. Neither dominated over the other. Shaq was double teamed throughout that series (hence him averaging over 6 assists per game). The Magic weren’t swept because of the disparity between the two centers.
In fairness if someone sees Shaq one spot over Hakeem I can live with that decision. A lot of people forget a little of Shaq's prime years because he played about 4 years too long -- old, fat, injured Shaq sticks in your mind and some of the early years fade. I personally think both Hakeem and Shaq are top five all time -- I would have Hakeem at #4 and Shaq at #5.
Some people are somehow still confused about what this list is. At no point was this a "if Player A played against Player B, who would come out better" This isn't even a new list, he's been doing this for months. Shaq had a better CAREER than Olajuwon. I could name 10 players easily I think are better players than Shaq, Olajuwon being amongst them, but didn't have as good a career.
I find it hard to believe anybody can say the C position was a wash in the '95 finals when Shaq himself said Hakeem spanked em. When they scored vs. how they scored vs. defensive performance skewed towards Hakeem, and Shaq knew it. I can see arguments for Shaq over Hakeem however. It'll be like voting for Durant for MVP when Durant said Harden deserves it. But idk tho, dyor.
I think you're only the few people who have pointed it out. Yes I know. For some reason, using the term career makes it permissible for the jumble up. Which is why I don't hold this list as highly regarded as some. I enjoy the write up, but if I disagree with it, I'll bring it up for discussion sake. Like the GOT S7 thread. So you think Duncan had a lesser career than Shaq?
I enjoy the write ups as well, it's a nice trip back. But this isn't the only rankings that bother me. If you like it that's fine. Magic Shaq in his best playing shape against some of the best big men and during his Lakers where he let himself go, partly due to laziness, but partly because there wasn't anyone of Hakeem's caliber, I wouldn't think there'd be a world of difference.
