PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #11 Player of All Time



ManRam
07-20-2014, 02:31 PM
Voting for #10 has concluded and PSD's Official #10 NBA Player of all time is....

Kobe Bryant

25.5 PPG | 5.3 RPG | 4.8 AST | .454% FG | 23.4 PER | 173.0 WS

Achievements:

16 time All-Star
5 NBA Championships
1 Time MVP
2 Time Finals MVP
11 Time All-NBA First-Teamer
9 Time All-Defense First-Teamer


Voting

Kobe Bryant 44
Bill Russell 15
Oscar Robertson 8
Jerry West 3
David Robinson 2
Dwyane Wade 1
Elgin Baylor 1
Kevin Garnett 1
Charles Barkley 0
Karl Malone 0
Moses Malone 0
John Stockton 0
Dirk Nowitzki 0
Julius Erving 0

The List:

1. Michael Jordan (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?868731-PSD-s-Official-1-Player-of-All-Time)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?868922-PSD-s-Official-2-NBA-Player-of-All-Time)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869144-PSD-s-Official-3-Player-of-All-Time)
4. Magic Johnson (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869307-PSD-s-Official-4-Player-of-All-Time)
5. Shaquille O'neal (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869509-PSD-s-Official-5-NBA-Player-of-All-Time)
6. Tim Duncan (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869984-PSD-s-Official-6-NBA-Player-of-All-Time)
7. Hakeem Olajuwan (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?870218-PSD-s-Official-7-Player-of-All-Time)
8. LeBron James (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?870493-PSD-s-Official-8-Player-of-All-Time&p=28768479#post28768479)
9. Larry Bird (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?870796-PSD-s-Official-9-Player-of-All-Time)
10. Kobe Bryant (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?871131-PSD-s-Official-10-Player-of-All-Time)

Please vote, explain and nominate...per the usual.

ThuglifeJ
07-20-2014, 02:34 PM
Now it get's interesting. Even tho the top 10 is pretty screwed...that's sort of expected for the NBA top 10

The next 50 spots are all going to be a lot of fun tho

ricky recon
07-20-2014, 02:44 PM
Bill Russell being out of the top 10 is unexpected. Definitely go with him.

ricky recon
07-20-2014, 02:45 PM
The only major flaw on the list so far is the disrespect for Bird, and the obsession with Shaq.

THE MTL
07-20-2014, 02:45 PM
I'm going with Julius Erving at #11. He is the original superstar who created the flash that later was perfected by Jordan, Kobe, Bron, etc. He made the dunk contest famous

His stats are incredible and his peak years in the ABA is one of the greatest basketball peaks of all time.

He has the championships, mvp awards, great teams, allstar appearances, and all-nba teams to back him up.

Most importantly if he played in today's age he would be ELITE. He would be the second best in the league before Durant/Melo due to his great defensive ability.

valade16
07-20-2014, 02:46 PM
I think Russell has been punished by the "he had great teammates but apparently MJ, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, LeBron and Kareem didn't" brigade.

Russell should get this spot easily.

THE MTL
07-20-2014, 02:51 PM
I think Russell has been punished by the "he had great teammates but apparently MJ, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, LeBron and Kareem didn't" brigade.

Russell should get this spot easily.

Russell gets disrespected because his game would NOT translate to the elite level in todays day and age. He would be a better version of a prime Ben Wallace in my opinion which is still great. But he would not be able to put a team on his back such as CP3, LBJ, and Durant

But you must look at him in terms of pure basketball ability and a full skillset. For that reason you cannot put him in the top 10 when every single one of those players are near flawless

Bruno
07-20-2014, 03:21 PM
...lets get Russ off the board.

Bruno
07-20-2014, 03:23 PM
I've got Moses Malone at #12 and Big O at #13.

I nominate Scottie Pippen.

Bruno
07-20-2014, 03:24 PM
Russell gets disrespected because his game would NOT translate to the elite level in todays day and age. He would be a better version of a prime Ben Wallace in my opinion which is still great. But he would not be able to put a team on his back such as CP3, LBJ, and Durant

But you must look at him in terms of pure basketball ability and a full skillset. For that reason you cannot put him in the top 10 when every single one of those players are near flawless

eh. too short. :)

ThuglifeJ
07-20-2014, 03:25 PM
I'd take Dr J over Russell anyday to start my franchise.

Plz let's give him respect like we failed Larry Legend

Chronz
07-20-2014, 03:34 PM
The only major flaw on the list so far is the disrespect for Bird, and the obsession with Shaq.

Nonsense, Shaq dominated at a higher level for a longer period of time and never disappeared in his prime the way Bird did come playoffs. EZ choice.


RUSSELL FTW THO

Minimal
07-20-2014, 03:37 PM
cant decide between karl malone and big o

Chronz
07-20-2014, 03:43 PM
cant decide between karl malone and big o

A choker vs an overwhelming talent/champion? Karl doesn't belong anywhere near this list.

XpLiCiTT
07-20-2014, 03:46 PM
Oscar Robertson should go here IMO.

Chronz
07-20-2014, 04:13 PM
Its either West, Big O or Russell.... then Moses

naps
07-20-2014, 04:26 PM
Most of us haven't seen enough of Big O just because there is not much of him in youtube but man I wonder how awesome that man was because pretty much every old school player/executives I have heard talk kept Big O in their top 5. They say he is so underrated in this generation because he is not hyped enough in the media and there's not enough clips available on his games unfortunately.

ThuglifeJ
07-20-2014, 04:52 PM
I'm going with Julius Erving at #11. He is the original superstar who created the flash that later was perfected by Jordan, Kobe, Bron, etc. He made the dunk contest famous

His stats are incredible and his peak years in the ABA is one of the greatest basketball peaks of all time.

He has the championships, mvp awards, great teams, allstar appearances, and all-nba teams to back him up.

Most importantly if he played in today's age he would be ELITE. He would be the second best in the league before Durant/Melo due to his great defensive ability.

Well maybe you should actually VOTE it then.

alexander_37
07-20-2014, 05:01 PM
Big O
Russell
DR J
Robinson/Malone/Baylor

Pablonovi
07-20-2014, 06:34 PM
Its either West, Big O or Russell.... then Moses

Hey High Horse,
I've got both West and Big "O" over Russell. I saw all of their entire careers. imo, both guards were greater than Russell. I also have Dr. J. over Russell.

One problem here (the same problem I have myself) is that the difference between "O" and West is so small - that they'll continually split / take votes away from each other. "O" was phenomenal on O (offense; and one wicked rebounder - thus his 5-entire-years of triple-double). If anybody has ever had "unlimited" range it was West; and his D was very strong (something O was never noted for).

West was crazy good in the Play-Offs but the Western Conference was usually inferior to the East back in the 60s; while O, in the East, basically never had good enough teams to get past Wilt and, especially, the Celtics All-Star Teams - so O never even whiffed the Finals (until very late in his career with KAJ and the Bucks - but that "O" was a relative shadow of his former Great Self).

Here's how I had/have the players in this GOAT range (and the next few groupings):
9. Jerry West (Unlimited range, great D, super-Play-Off Performer, incredible Finals Player)
10. Dr. J. (perhaps had the greatest "handles" of all-time on Offense; perhaps his ABA years were THE greatest Offensive display ever; then in the NBA he outplayed, imo, Bird)

WITHIN Each Following Groupm Any Order:
11-15: Big "O", Bird, Stockton, Karl Malone, Hakeem *
16-20: Russell (due to his awful shooting percentage at very close range); Baylor, KG, DRob, Rick Barry
21-25: Barkley, Moses Malone; Dirk Nowitzki; Gervin; J.Kidd
26-30: Dwyane Wade ; Hondo; Pettit; Cousy; DHoward

* In earlier threads in this NBA GOAT series, Hakeem was ranked GOAT #7 and Bird GOAT #9. Obviously I have them a few spots lower; replaced in my GOAT Top 10 with West & Dr J.

jerellh528
07-20-2014, 07:47 PM
I got james here.

Ebbs
07-20-2014, 07:50 PM
Russell I always feel bad leaving out of the top 10 but on my own personal list this is where I have him as well.

alexander_37
07-20-2014, 07:56 PM
Why are you still talking about Lebron James?

Russell here easily. Could have gone anywhere from 8-11 for me, so let's get him off the board.

Easily over Big O?

TheIlladelph16
07-20-2014, 08:01 PM
Easily over Big O?

As much as Russell is a bit overrated by the masses, it really, really tough for me to ignore 11 rings. Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about Big O's career, but Russell's accolades and dominance of his era speak for themselves.

XpLiCiTT
07-20-2014, 08:10 PM
I wonder where Russell would be ranked if he didn't get 11 rings on the best team in an 8-10 team league. People overrate him so god damn much.

Ebbs
07-20-2014, 08:11 PM
I wonder where Russell would be ranked didn't get 11 rings on the best team in an 8-10 team league. People overrate him so god damn much.

Or underrate him so much. He battled with arguably the best big of all time. Won 11 championships. . . I mean you can only knock him down so far.

XpLiCiTT
07-20-2014, 08:15 PM
Or underrate him so much. He battled with arguably the best big of all time. Won 11 championships. . . I mean you can only knock him down so far.

No I know, not trying to say he shouldn't be in the talks. But I just see another few guys I would personally have ahead of him. There are still a few guys that were flat out better players than him, accolades aside. He would fall to 14 or 15 for me.

Pablonovi
07-20-2014, 09:01 PM
No I know, not trying to say he shouldn't be in the talks. But I just see another few guys I would personally have ahead of him. There are still a few guys that were flat out better players than him, accolades aside. He would fall to 14 or 15 for me.

Hey XpLiCiTT,
I've got him in the GOAT #16-20 range. Why?
1) At his own position in his own era he was clearly 2nd best and by a lot. Russell barely held Wilt to less ppg and rpg than Wilt got against the rest of the League (and those other teams didn't have the Celtics All-Star teams helping out THEIR centers like Russ did helping him try to contain Wilt. They went head-to-head some 140 times - the hugest size sample in NBA history - and Wilt got 29+ and 29+ on Russ with all that help!)

2) He was just a terrible shooter from close to the rim. There's no two-ways around this.

3) In his own era, the 1960's, I have him as the #5 best-player after: Wilt, West-"O", and Baylor (who was far more complete than Russ).

Pablonovi
07-20-2014, 09:03 PM
I nominate Rick Barry (who, imo, is the best player not in this poll; AND better than a number of the guys who are on this poll.)

Hey ManRam, didn't we have Rick Barry on some of the earlier polls?

Pablonovi
07-20-2014, 09:39 PM
I'd like to say one other thing that I haven't said in this particular thread so far.

I don't believe that the gap between whoever we put at GOAT #11 and who we end up putting at GOAT #20 is all that great. If this is true, (and for me it is), then that pretty much removes all the tension/intensity/bitterness from this discussion/debate.

Right now it looks like Bill Russell is gonna be voted in GOAT #11 - I don't agree with it; but I can live with it.

We have 14 guys listed in this poll (15 if we could add Rick Barry). If ALL 14-15 end up getting voted into our GOAT Top 25, the ONLY TWO GUYS I would have any trouble with at all would be: Isiah Thomas and DWade - who I'd put a bit lower, just outside the GOAT Top 25. But, for me the difference between 25th and 30th is tiny. So even in their two cases, I can live with it.

In sum, the "hard work", the most important part, was building our GOAT Top 5-10. Pretty darned good list it is. The rest is a question of choosing an order amongst a bunch of guys that all pretty much belong - we can't lose or do any major wrong now.

Great for us.

KnicksorBust
07-20-2014, 10:24 PM
5 league MVPs and 11 rings. End of conversation. No one left touches that.

XpLiCiTT
07-20-2014, 10:43 PM
5 league MVPs and 11 rings. End of conversation. No one left touches that.

8 team league. Russell gets so much credit for his rings alone people don't even stop and think about who the better players were. Isn't this thread supposed to be best player of all time and not most accomplished?

FlashBolt
07-20-2014, 10:51 PM
Russell played in an era in which there was an average of 10 NBA teams... And considering how stacked his squad was, only 1-3 teams were actually competitive.. Give me a break. Oh yeah, him and Wilt were two of the four 6"8 or taller players at one point..

Kaner
07-20-2014, 11:21 PM
Seems criminal for Moses to not have a vote yet, all the statistical dominance of Oscar but in a tougher era, longer career, and more accolades including a finals MVP where he dominated #2 on this list.

thenaj17
07-21-2014, 08:48 AM
Bill Russell gets way too much individual praise. All those championships mean squat considering how few teams there were in the league and how stacked his team was relative to any of the modern era. When majority of players he played with are HoF, it says how much better they were than the competition. He wouldn't even be top 10 in the NBA as of now let alone all time.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-21-2014, 09:47 AM
I will go with Drob again.

todu82
07-21-2014, 11:45 AM
Bill Russell.

Minimal
07-21-2014, 12:01 PM
Bill Russell gets way too much individual praise. All those championships mean squat considering how few teams there were in the league and how stacked his team was relative to any of the modern era. When majority of players he played with are HoF, it says how much better they were than the competition. He wouldn't even be top 10 in the NBA as of now let alone all time.
exactly. russell is a career 18.9 per, .193 ws/48 player whose ts% was .467 and efg% only .433, just to compare wilt was career 26.1 per .247 ws/48 player with .547 ts% and .727 efg%. i dont care how many titles he won, he simply wasn't that really great of a player, and thats what matters in the first place

DR_1
07-21-2014, 12:55 PM
I think Big O is being really underrated so far

Chronz
07-21-2014, 01:02 PM
exactly. russell is a career 18.9 per, .193 ws/48 player whose ts% was .467 and efg% only .433, just to compare wilt was career 26.1 per .247 ws/48 player with .547 ts% and .727 efg%. i dont care how many titles he won, he simply wasn't that really great of a player, and thats what matters in the first place

His defense isn't reflected in those numbers tho

Hawkeye15
07-21-2014, 01:04 PM
West for me

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 01:09 PM
5 league MVPs and 11 rings. End of conversation. No one left touches that.

Hey KnicksorBust,
DISCLAIMER: I really HATE having to do this, because:
A) I HATE arguing against the Great Bill Russell (whose entire career I had the privilege of watching, including about a dozen times live at the Gaaaden.) He was a phenomenal athlete, a great TEAM-first player; and a Giant when it comes to Dignity. And besides, he had the GUTS to go out there and go head-to-head with the MONSTER-FREAK that was Wilt, ONE-HUNDRED AND FORTY (some) TIMES!

B) I HATE complimenting RED (whose absolute GENIUS as both a GM and as a COACH is unquestionable; but whose absolute ARROGANCE drove me crazy while it was happening).

C) I HATE being put in the position of "diminishing" in any way that MONSTER TEAM and its other Great Players (I remain in AWE of what they were able to accomplish).

Why do I say I hate all of the above?
Because I was raised to NOT hate anybody; especially, in sports, great: plays, players and teams (regardless of them not being by/on "my" team). I NEVER hated any NBA Great; and I don't like putting myself in the position to point out their weaknesses (which tend to pale in comparison to their Strengths and their overall Greatness).

It is ONLY because we are COMPARING All-Time Greats that I do this. In THIS case, you do have to "nit-pick" to distinguish between/among these MONSTERS of NBA Greatness.

The 11 Rings are a TEAM Thing.
I strongly believe the following:
1) Percentage-Wise Those Teams Should Truly Be Called: The Celtics ALL-STAR Teams
(never before, and never since, has ONE team had anywhere's near as high a percent of the ENTIRE League's best players. In a way, all you have to know is that Hondo was "only" their 6th-man!)

2) Bill Russell was NOT even the Best Player At His Own Position During His Own Era; in fact, in some years, he was arguably NOT the best player on that Celtics All-Star Team
(barnwell, who I readily admit outranks me on "All-Things Celtics", KNOWS this.)

Put another way: if you SWAP RUSS WITH WILT, the C's would have been even more dominant.
If you SWAP RUSS WITH NATE THE GREAT, the C's still win at least 10 Chips.

If you put Russ on HALF the teams of the '60's, (with Wilt or even Nate on the C's) Russ wins ZERO Chips!
If you put Russ in any other decade, after the '60's, his teams win few if any Chips.

Why? You can't win Chips with a Center who shoots that horribly from that close to the rim UNLESS IT'S AN ALL-STAR TYPE TEAM, OR it is a very-special, almost-unique team, like the Pistons that beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. They basically had not a single Great Player (Russ, on THAT team, in place of Ben Wallace; might NOT have won the fMVP).

3) Red Auerbach IS A SPECIAL CASE.
This guy was THE GM that BUILT those All-Star Teams in the first place.
This guy was THE COACH that managed all those All-Stars to near-perfection for over a decade.

I strongly believe that, without any doubt whatsoever, compared to his contemporaries:
A) Red was the Greatest, most-far-ahead-of-his-time GM ever;
B) Red was the Greatest, most-far-ahead-of-his-time Coach ever.

If I were to put a "number" on just how valuable his combined GM-ing PLUS Coaching were worth PER GAME, I'd guess it was AT LEAST 3 POINTS PER GAME; PROBABLY MORE THAN 5 POINTS PER GAME (possibly as many as 10 points per game - he was ALL THAT!).

Now, review how many close games the C's won in the Play-Offs; how many close series ... how much of that was the "Red Advantage"?

Or, put another way, you take Red OUT OF the C's FO; and OFF the C's bench: I bet they don't win half those Chips.

Further, you put Red IN Wilt's Team's FO's and ON Wilt's Team's benches: I bet they win 11 Chips in 13 Years - and more convincingly than the C's did.

JLynn943
07-21-2014, 01:35 PM
Russell gets far too much credit and weight put into his career for those championships. I take Big O here.

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 01:38 PM
About Bill Russell's 5 MVPs - imo, He Did NOT Deserve THREE Of Them ! (Remember MJ?)

Most NBA fans (including, especially, most NBA experts) acknowledge that MJ should have won more than 5 MVPs.

Consider the following about Bill Russell's 5 MVPs:
1) 1958 (1957-58 Season) Russell's 1st. He got out-voted by the Great Bob Pettit in the ALL-NBA 1st-Team Voting. I've read up on this; the ALL-NBA 1st-Team voting was more accurate than the MVP-voting was that year.

Pettit was one Great Player, being correctly chosen ALL-NBA 1st-Team for 10 consecutive years.

Heck, very legitimate arguments can and have been raised that that year Russ was not even the MVP of his own team! What about the Houdini Of The Hardwood - Cousy?! Cousy WAS ALL-NBA 1st-Team; Russ was ONLY ALL-NBA 2nd-Team.

2) 1961 Russell again got out-voted in the ALL-NBA 1st-Team Voting, this time by Wilt. Wilt "ONLY" averaged 38+ points per game that year. 1961-Wilt was truly one of the most-astonishingly DOMINANT seasons ever. As well as reading everything available back then (and since) I also "witnessed" that domination - it was not that close about who was the best NBA player.

Keep in mind, the year before, 1960, was Wilt's 1st Year. He WAS MVP (as well as ROY); and he was decidedly a better player this next year, in 1961.

3) 1962 Russell again got out-voted in the ALL-NBA 1st-Team Voting, again by Wilt.
1962 IS THE YEAR THAT WILL NEVER BE TOUCHED. Wilt went for 50.4 ppg, he played more than 48 minutes per game. WILT ANNIHILATED RUSS IN '62.

4) 1973 Dave Cowens wins the MVP but is out-voted in the ALL-NBA 1st-Team Voting by KAJ.
KAJ DID have the better season.

See a pattern here? THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN 4 YEARS WHEN THE MVP WAS NOT ALSO VOTED AS ALL-NBA 1st-Team, #1 AT EVEN HIS OWN POSITION: and every time, it was a Boston Celtics (Center)

I remember perfectly clearly the widespread talk amongst NBA experts about the "East-Coast" bias - in these four cases (especially the last three which I witnessed) I believe this was clearly the case with the MVP voting.

CONSIDER:
IF the ALL-NBA 1st-Team Voting was AND IS more accurate than the MVP voting, then:

Bill Russell ONLY Should Have Gotten TWO (not FIVE) MVPs - boy would that way-lower his reputation!

Wilt Chamberlain Should Have Gotten SIX (not FOUR) MVPs - boy would that way-higher his reputation!

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 01:47 PM
West for me

Hey Hawk
How Unfair! (hehe)

I mean, I voted West too.
But at least I laid out my reasons (for taking him, barely, ever-so-slightly, over "O"; and more so over Russ).

Couldn't you spare us a moment and "lend your obvious expertise" on this subject.

I really am (as always) dying to read what you have to say on this.

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 01:51 PM
Russell gets far too much credit and weight put into his career for those championships. I take Big O here.

Hey JLynn943,
I agree about Russ. I'd vote Big O over Russ.
But, would you mind saying why you take Big O over West?
(I am NOT making a big point of this at all. I switch my rankings of them almost every time I think about it - "O" was that Great. It's just that, unfairly *, West got many more Play-Off opportunities than did "O"; and BOY did West "go MJ" with those opportunities.)

Would really like to hear your thinking on this stuff.

* I say "unfairly" NOT because West did not "deserve" ALL the Play-Off success he and his team achieved. But BECAUSE "O" ALWAYS got beat by the Celtics All-Stars (when his teams weren't getting beat by Wilt's teams. Seeing as "O" was so Great; it just seem unfair that we never got to see him like that in the Finals (or even close much) (until he was well past his PEAK with KAJ and the Bucks, years later).

Sadds The Gr8
07-21-2014, 02:04 PM
5 league MVPs and 11 rings. End of conversation. No one left touches that.

this is sort of my problem when it comes to these kind of debates. Are we strictly just doing the player? and/or how much should resume skew a player's ranking? Looking at the list right now, it seems like it's favouring just doing the player, because Kobe shouldn't be behind of Lebron, and Russell shouldnt be this low if resume is a big factor of the discussion.

I think ranking the actual player and stats should be a different subject than ranking the careers.

FYL_McVeezy
07-21-2014, 02:13 PM
next 2 should be Russell then Big O.....

Should have been off the board....

KnicksorBust
07-21-2014, 02:26 PM
8 team league. Russell gets so much credit for his rings alone people don't even stop and think about who the better players were. Isn't this thread supposed to be best player of all time and not most accomplished?

Yeah it was an 8 team league. And his team dominated that 8 team league more than any other team in the history of professional basketball. It's not even close. 11 titles in 13 years. You remember the last time a team won 4 titles in a row? Oh yeah it was Bill Russell's team because no modern team has done it... Oh and Bill Russell's team was being 4-peating... twice in a row. How's an 8-peat sound? How can you throw the teams in the league at me? How many titles does having 8 teams take away? Seriously.

XpLiCiTT
07-21-2014, 02:48 PM
Yeah it was an 8 team league. And his team dominated that 8 team league more than any other team in the history of professional basketball. It's not even close. 11 titles in 13 years. You remember the last time a team won 4 titles in a row? Oh yeah it was Bill Russell's team because no modern team has done it... Oh and Bill Russell's team was being 4-peating... twice in a row. How's an 8-peat sound? How can you throw the teams in the league at me? How many titles does having 8 teams take away? Seriously.

No modern team has won 4 titles in a row because its damn near impossible to when there are 30 teams you're competing against. How do you not realize that being in an 8 team league on the most stacked team in NBA history makes it easier to win championships? Only 2-3 teams were competitive in that league, includings Russells.
John Havlicek has 8 rings, he isn't even nominated yet. Sam Jones has 10 rings, he isn't even nominated yet. Cousy has 6 rings, not even nominated yet. These are the guys that helped Russell win all these rings, they're not even getting recognized for it because he is getting all of the credit.

The only true reasoning I've seen anyone vote for Russell is "he has 11 rings", or "lets get him off the board". There is no true argument to why he is the BETTER PLAYER than some of these other guys. I guess "11 rings and 5 mvps" is all you need. Lets not acknowledge there were 8 teams in the league and he played for the best one.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-21-2014, 03:05 PM
West for meglad to see your a mod again ;)

DR_1
07-21-2014, 03:16 PM
The reason I like Russell is because he changed the game with his defensive prowess.

XpLiCiTT
07-21-2014, 03:23 PM
The reason I like Russell is because he changed the game with his defensive prowess.

Agreed, but take into account he was one of just a handful of guys that came close to matching his size. Have you ever played pickup basketball and there is one guy that isn't necessarily better than everyone but since he is the tallest guy out there he gets all the rebounds and blocks some shots? It was easy for Russell, it wouldn't translate to todays game.

I'd love to see what David Robinson would do if he played in that era, he's one of the guys that should be ahead of Russell here.

KnicksorBust
07-21-2014, 03:35 PM
This guy never mails in a response does he? :)


Hey KnicksorBust,
DISCLAIMER: I really HATE having to do this, because:
A) I HATE arguing against the Great Bill Russell (whose entire career I had the privilege of watching, including about a dozen times live at the Gaaaden.) He was a phenomenal athlete, a great TEAM-first player; and a Giant when it comes to Dignity. And besides, he had the GUTS to go out there and go head-to-head with the MONSTER-FREAK that was Wilt, ONE-HUNDRED AND FORTY (some) TIMES!

Phenomenal athlete and great TEAM-first player. Sounds like a guy who would have a great career. I'm listening.


B) I HATE complimenting RED (whose absolute GENIUS as both a GM and as a COACH is unquestionable; but whose absolute ARROGANCE drove me crazy while it was happening).

Okay.


C) I HATE being put in the position of "diminishing" in any way that MONSTER TEAM and its other Great Players (I remain in AWE of what they were able to accomplish).

I agree it was awe-inspiring. Legendary. Epic. Something that would require a top 10 player of all-time to accomplish perhaps?


Why do I say I hate all of the above?
Because I was raised to NOT hate anybody; especially, in sports, great: plays, players and teams (regardless of them not being by/on "my" team). I NEVER hated any NBA Great; and I don't like putting myself in the position to point out their weaknesses (which tend to pale in comparison to their Strengths and their overall Greatness).

I sincerely wish we were all this open-minded.


It is ONLY because we are COMPARING All-Time Greats that I do this. In THIS case, you do have to "nit-pick" to distinguish between/among these MONSTERS of NBA Greatness.

In my experience this nit-picking is more aptly done in a comparison of accomplishments.


The 11 Rings are a TEAM Thing.
I strongly believe the following:
1) Percentage-Wise Those Teams Should Truly Be Called: The Celtics ALL-STAR Teams
(never before, and never since, has ONE team had anywhere's near as high a percent of the ENTIRE League's best players. In a way, all you have to know is that Hondo was "only" their 6th-man!)

I think this is where I fundamentally disagree with a lot of people. 11 Rings is partially a team thing but it's also an individual accomplishment. In 165 career playoff games, Bill Russell averaged 45.4 minutes per game. He impacted that team on offense and defense for all but 2.6 minutes and people want to take away from that because his teammates were good? Magic had Kareem. Jordan had Pippen. LeBron had Wade/Bosh. The history of the league is littered with stacked teams. Bird had McHale/Parish/DJ/etc. The list goes on and on. The irony is this dream team that he played with will get no credit in this poll.


2) Bill Russell was NOT even the Best Player At His Own Position During His Own Era; in fact, in some years, he was arguably NOT the best player on that Celtics All-Star Team
(barnwell, who I readily admit outranks me on "All-Things Celtics", KNOWS this.)

Him not being the best player at his own position doesn't prove he's not worthy of the #11 spot. The guy you put ahead of him already went in the poll.


Put another way: if you SWAP RUSS WITH WILT, the C's would have been even more dominant.

You think they would have won 12 out of 13 titles or you think they would have won all 13? I find it so interesting that the greatest "team" would have just gelled so easily with arguably one of the most difficult teammates of all-time. Someone who routinely clashed with coaches, chased stats, and changed his game to fit his whims. His record of never fouling out of a game is one of my favorite examples of this flaw.


If you SWAP RUSS WITH NATE THE GREAT, the C's still win at least 10 Chips.

I know about Kareem and Wilt's quotes but I still have to say... How can you reasonably assume this? Thurmond was less efficient than Russ and not nearly as good a passer. His numbers also got worse in the playoffs while Russell's got better. Also, subbing in another hall of fame center and saying he would win almost as many doesn't convince me that Russell is less deserving. I could say the 90s Bulls would have won at least 4 chips with Kobe and no one could prove I was wrong and even if I'm right, it wouldn't take away a damn thing away from MJ's legacy.


If you put Russ on HALF the teams of the '60's, (with Wilt or even Nate on the C's) Russ wins ZERO Chips!
If you put Russ in any other decade, after the '60's, his teams win few if any Chips.

Purely Hypothetical. How can I argue against a hypothetical? My comeback "Russ would have maximized the potential of any team he went to and won more titles than any other player in his era no matter what team drafted him." An argument with no proof holds little weight.


Why? You can't win Chips with a Center who shoots that horribly from that close to the rim UNLESS IT'S AN ALL-STAR TYPE TEAM, OR it is a very-special, almost-unique team, like the Pistons that beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. They basically had not a single Great Player (Russ, on THAT team, in place of Ben Wallace; might NOT have won the fMVP).

Could Ben Wallace dribble like Russ? Could Ben Wallace pass like Russ? Could Ben Wallace run the floor like Russ?


3) Red Auerbach IS A SPECIAL CASE.
This guy was THE GM that BUILT those All-Star Teams in the first place.
This guy was THE COACH that managed all those All-Stars to near-perfection for over a decade.

Do you downgrade Michael Jordan's legacy for having Phil Jackson? Do you downgrade Tim Duncan's legacy for having Gregg Poppovich?


I strongly believe that, without any doubt whatsoever, compared to his contemporaries:
A) Red was the Greatest, most-far-ahead-of-his-time GM ever;
B) Red was the Greatest, most-far-ahead-of-his-time Coach ever.

Even if I concede this point, I don't agree that this should effect where Bill Russell is ranked on an all-time list.


If I were to put a "number" on just how valuable his combined GM-ing PLUS Coaching were worth PER GAME, I'd guess it was AT LEAST 3 POINTS PER GAME; PROBABLY MORE THAN 5 POINTS PER GAME (possibly as many as 10 points per game - he was ALL THAT!).

Now, review how many close games the C's won in the Play-Offs; how many close series ... how much of that was the "Red Advantage"?

Or, put another way, you take Red OUT OF the C's FO; and OFF the C's bench: I bet they don't win half those Chips.

First of all, how about when Bill Rusell became the coach and they won the title with him as a player-coach? Do I have to take away his accomplishments because he was such a good coach?

Second of all, I would argue that the actual coaching of the game at that level was far less sophisticated than it is today and that the game has always been a player's league.

Third of all, I still don't agree that having a great coach should hurt the legacy of a player. How do we know that the player's skill didn't enhance the coach's ability to produce a winning team? Rather than make an impossible choice with which we are ill-prepared and ill-informed...the coach made the player better or the player made the coach better... I always think it is preferable to just give both the credit they deserve.


Further, you put Red IN Wilt's Team's FO's and ON Wilt's Team's benches: I bet they win 11 Chips in 13 Years - and more convincingly than the C's did.

I respect your opinion but again this is purely speculation on your part and you have no evidence to support it. If it was so easy to win a title than Barkley, Ewing, Malone-Stockton, Durant, Dwight Howard, etc. would each have won their own. Instead, the amount of excuses for why they haven't could fill novels. I don't think it would be nearly as easy as you believe for Wilt to duplicate the level of team success of 11 titles in 13 seasons with all of his individual issues and desires as a player.

KnicksorBust
07-21-2014, 03:47 PM
this is sort of my problem when it comes to these kind of debates. Are we strictly just doing the player? and/or how much should resume skew a player's ranking? Looking at the list right now, it seems like it's favouring just doing the player, because Kobe shouldn't be behind of Lebron, and Russell shouldnt be this low if resume is a big factor of the discussion.

I think ranking the actual player and stats should be a different subject than ranking the careers.

The very first post in this thread:


Voting for #10 has concluded and PSD's Official #10 NBA Player of all time is....

Kobe Bryant

25.5 PPG | 5.3 RPG | 4.8 AST | .454% FG | 23.4 PER | 173.0 WS

Achievements:

16 time All-Star
5 NBA Championships
1 Time MVP
2 Time Finals MVP
11 Time All-NBA First-Teamer
9 Time All-Defense First-Teamer


Kobe's justification for his ranking is based on his stats and career accomplishments. The list isn't "killer crossover, lights out defender, sweet fro in his early years."

KnicksorBust
07-21-2014, 03:53 PM
No modern team has won 4 titles in a row because its damn near impossible to when there are 30 teams you're competing against. How do you not realize that being in an 8 team league on the most stacked team in NBA history makes it easier to win championships?

When did I say it didn't make it easier? I'm just saying it's not easy.


Only 2-3 teams were competitive in that league, includings Russells.
John Havlicek has 8 rings, he isn't even nominated yet. Sam Jones has 10 rings, he isn't even nominated yet. Cousy has 6 rings, not even nominated yet. These are the guys that helped Russell win all these rings, they're not even getting recognized for it because he is getting all of the credit.

The irony is that the most popular argument against Russell is that "Cousy was so great," "Havlicek was so great," "Sam Jones was so great," so Bill Russell couldn't be that great!

Am I the only one that sees the flaw in that logic?


The only true reasoning I've seen anyone vote for Russell is "he has 11 rings", or "lets get him off the board". There is no true argument to why he is the BETTER PLAYER than some of these other guys. I guess "11 rings and 5 mvps" is all you need. Lets not acknowledge there were 8 teams in the league and he played for the best one.

I'm fully comfortably acknowledging that there were less teams and that he played for the best one. They were the best because he was on the team. That adds to his legacy in my book.

XpLiCiTT
07-21-2014, 03:59 PM
When did I say it didn't make it easier? I'm just saying it's not easy.

You were comparing it to modern teams, saying why haven't modern teams won 4 titles in a row, as if it was equivalent.



The irony is that the most popular argument against Russell is that "Cousy was so great," "Havlicek was so great," "Sam Jones was so great," so Bill Russell couldn't be that great!

Am I the only one that sees the flaw in that logic?


Just saw your edit. That is not my logic. I think Bill Russell is great. But you are using his 11 rings as your reasoning for him being the 11th best player of all time. There were better players than him that should be going ahead of him. I'm not saying he isn't a top 15-20 talent guy, but he gets far too much credit without any reason as to why he was a better player than some guys.


I'm fully comfortably acknowledging that there were less teams and that he played for the best one. They were the best because he was on the team. That adds to his legacy in my book.

If you're actually looking at who the best players are, Bill Russell getting 11 rings in an 8 team league while playing for the most stacked team in NBA history wouldn't add to his legacy all that much. There wasn't much competition at all.

Like I said, Havliceck, Jones, and Cousy haven't even been NOMINATED yet. Russell gets too much credit.

KnicksorBust
07-21-2014, 04:32 PM
You were comparing it to modern teams, saying why haven't modern teams won 4 titles in a row, as if it was equivalent.

Just a quick correction before we continue. In Bill Russell's last season where he was player-coach and the Celtics won the title, there were 14 teams in the NBA. The NBA was adding teams as he kept winning. Therefore, if we compromise and live under the assumption of say 10 teams per season, that would imply that it was about 3x easier to win a title. Even with that crude and ugly math, he still would have won about 4 titles. That's ignoring that the modern game has more "dead" teams than any league in history. There is also the fact that with less teams you have condensed talent. It's been documented how loaded some teams were during that era. His 11 rings is not as impressive as 11 rings today but how can you realistically balance the tables on how much they are worth? My point is simple, we can't but it's worth a lot.


Just saw your edit. That is not my logic. I think Bill Russell is great. But you are using his 11 rings as your reasoning for him being the 11th best player of all time. There were better players than him that should be going ahead of him. I'm not saying he isn't a top 15-20 talent guy, but he gets far too much credit without any reason as to why he was a better player than some guys.

If I had the opportunity to argue for Bill Russell sooner, I would have brought a lot more to the table. We've barely touched his defensive impact on those Celtics team which is arguably as impressive as any offense or defensive change to a team in history. To me, at this point in the rankings, I don't need to even bring that up. The 11 rings is half of the argument. The 5 League MVPs is the other half. If I can't sell you on rings, I better be damn sure able to sell you on more MVPs than Wilt.


If you're actually looking at who the best players are, Bill Russell getting 11 rings in an 8 team league while playing for the most stacked team in NBA history wouldn't add to his legacy all that much. There wasn't much competition at all.

Like I said, Havliceck, Jones, and Cousy haven't even been NOMINATED yet. Russell gets too much credit.

If they haven't even been nominated yet then wouldn't that presume that he was by far the best and most important member of the greatest dynasty in professional sports? Also, wouldn't that making him worthy of being ranked as one of the 10 greatest players in that sport?

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 04:54 PM
The very first post in this thread:



Kobe's justification for his ranking is based on his stats and career accomplishments. The list isn't "killer crossover, lights out defender, sweet fro in his early years."

Hey KnicksorBust,
But he does sort of make the case for "lights out defender" with "9 Time All-Defense First-Teamer" - you gotta be pretty damned good on D to be ranked that high 9 separate years.

I agree ManRam's "summation" is incomplete - but I don't think he was trying to rehash all the best arguments for Kobe - which would probably end up re-opening up what was already a contentious enough debate (over the threads where his name came up.)

Chronz
07-21-2014, 05:03 PM
Since this one should go down without much fight, can someone explain why they are voting for Big-O over the Logo?


Might as well get my argument for either West or Moses ready now.

Bruno
07-21-2014, 05:05 PM
Since this one should go down without much fight, can someone explain why they are voting for Big-O over the Logo?


Might as well get my argument for either West or Moses ready now.

i'd be torn, and would be looking to be convinced myself.

big man favoritism wants me to put Moses in front of either...?

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 05:27 PM
Please note: I haven't figured out how to do the "spread-out-the-quotes so you can respond inbetween thing"; so I'm gonna intersperse my comments in bolding. (My bad!)


This guy never mails in a response does he? :)
PABLO: Let's see if I can make mine shorter than yours - at least that'd be a start? hehe



Phenomenal athlete and great TEAM-first player. Sounds like a guy who would have a great career. I'm listening.
PABLO: Thanx. (imo, subsequently, I did alright.



Okay.
PABLO: Okie-dokie.

I agree it was awe-inspiring. Legendary. Epic. Something that would require a top 10 player of all-time to accomplish perhaps?
PABLO: I've got Russ in the GOAT 3s 16-20 range. I always say that the gap, for ME, between #11 and #20 or #25 is relatively very small: so in my humble opinion, I'm giving Russ big-time Kudos.
I DO have a kind of "eliminatory criteria": if you were NOT THE BEST player at your own position in your own era, you can't be in the GOAT Top 10. That's how I see it. Based on the overwhelming majority of polls I've seen over the decades; I'm in a small minority here (as usual).



I sincerely wish we were all this open-minded.
PABLO: You said this about my attitude towards "others": players, teams, competitors, etc. Me TOO.
I can't really claim much credit - my dad was almost unique with that attitude back in the 1950's - I was GOAT lucky with him. (All I've really done is never deviate from super-tolerance.)



In my experience this nit-picking is more aptly done in a comparison of accomplishments.
PABLO: I think we agree here; but this confuses me a bit.


I think this is where I fundamentally disagree with a lot of people. 11 Rings is partially a team thing but it's also an individual accomplishment. In 165 career playoff games, Bill Russell averaged 45.4 minutes per game. He impacted that team on offense and defense for all but 2.6 minutes and people want to take away from that because his teammates were good? Magic had Kareem. Jordan had Pippen. LeBron had Wade/Bosh. The history of the league is littered with stacked teams. Bird had McHale/Parish/DJ/etc. The list goes on and on. The irony is this dream team that he played with will get no credit in this poll.

PABLO: I'd be surprised if Hondo doesn't rank pretty high here (pretty much right outside the GOAT Top 25). I've got Cousy in that next group too. Sam Jones Top 50. That's 3 guys plus Russ in the Top 50 = All-Star Team (without even counting some other fine additional "pieces").



Him not being the best player at his own position doesn't prove he's not worthy of the #11 spot. The guy you put ahead of him already went in the poll.

PABLO: Logically true. See my earlier comments about having Russ #s 16-20 and me not having much of a gap between #11 and #20. Oops, oh well, I've pretty much just repeated it here, sorry!



You think they would have won 12 out of 13 titles or you think they would have won all 13? I find it so interesting that the greatest "team" would have just gelled so easily with arguably one of the most difficult teammates of all-time. Someone who routinely clashed with coaches, chased stats, and changed his game to fit his whims. His record of never fouling out of a game is one of my favorite examples of this flaw.

PABLO: This is the ONLY part of you most very-fine post that I strongly disagree with. I've heard these claims that Wilt was a "most difficult teammate of all-time." BUT, I also KNOW that he regularly did exactly what his coaches asked of him. After he had averaged 37.0 points a game in his first two seasons, his coach told him that with that squad, that ppg was NOT going to be enough - that he should score as much as possible to give his TEAM the best chance to win. He did that (50.4 ppg; while also doing so much more on "O" and "D").

Later on, with the Lakers, his coach asked him to cut way back on the scoring and concentrate much more on the other aspects of the game. He did exactly that - leading the league, from the Center position, in assists!

Back in those days, I read everything that was available about the NBA. There were plenty of contemporary commentary on his TEAM-play; particularly from his own TEAM-mates.



I know about Kareem and Wilt's quotes but I still have to say... How can you reasonably assume this? Thurmond was less efficient than Russ and not nearly as good a passer. His numbers also got worse in the playoffs while Russell's got better. Also, subbing in another hall of fame center and saying he would win almost as many doesn't convince me that Russell is less deserving. I could say the 90s Bulls would have won at least 4 chips with Kobe and no one could prove I was wrong and even if I'm right, it wouldn't take away a damn thing away from MJ's legacy.

PABLO: This is funny; cause I don't think I know what you mean by the reference to KAJ/Wilt quotes.
I agree as usual with most of what you say here. I do not INTEND to say that Russ is less deserving, etc. he did what (about everything) his team most needed to do. btw, I wouldn't be surprised if Kobe could have won 6 Chips in those 6 MJ-Chip years with that near-perfectly built team of excellent complimentary players for a great SG. PLUS, assuming Kobe does NOT QUIT TWICE for 4.8 years, I'd assume they might have won more Chips with him than they did with MJ.



Purely Hypothetical. How can I argue against a hypothetical? My comeback "Russ would have maximized the potential of any team he went to and won more titles than any other player in his era no matter what team drafted him." An argument with no proof holds little weight.

PABLO: I AGREE that "Russ would have maximized potential". My ONLY problem: his horrible close-to-the-rim shooting percentage. Have you addressed this particular question?



Could Ben Wallace dribble like Russ? Could Ben Wallace pass like Russ? Could Ben Wallace run the floor like Russ?
PABLO: Yes you are right; NO, Ben couldn't. I have occasionally said he'd be a "Glorified Ben Wallace" - meaning an improved version of him.

Do you downgrade Michael Jordan's legacy for having Phil Jackson? Do you downgrade Tim Duncan's legacy for having Gregg Poppovich?



Even if I concede this point, I don't agree that this should effect where Bill Russell is ranked on an all-time list.



First of all, how about when Bill Rusell became the coach and they won the title with him as a player-coach? Do I have to take away his accomplishments because he was such a good coach?

Second of all, I would argue that the actual coaching of the game at that level was far less sophisticated than it is today and that the game has always been a player's league.

Third of all, I still don't agree that having a great coach should hurt the legacy of a player. How do we know that the player's skill didn't enhance the coach's ability to produce a winning team? Rather than make an impossible choice with which we are ill-prepared and ill-informed...the coach made the player better or the player made the coach better... I always think it is preferable to just give both the credit they deserve.

PABLO: My only point vis--vis Red, is that his role was UNIQUE, only and exactly because he was so damned far ahead of the other GMs and other Coaches. I seriously doubt anyone will ever come close to being either of those two things, much less both simultaneously and for more than an entire decade. For me, that counts for a lot. It was a HUGE advantage.


I respect your opinion but again this is purely speculation on your part and you have no evidence to support it. If it was so easy to win a title than Barkley, Ewing, Malone-Stockton, Durant, Dwight Howard, etc. would each have won their own. Instead, the amount of excuses for why they haven't could fill novels. I don't think it would be nearly as easy as you believe for Wilt to duplicate the level of team success of 11 titles in 13 seasons with all of his individual issues and desires as a player.

PABLO: I respect both your well-thought out opinions and your strength-of-character in sticking to your guns. I KNOW it is NOT easy to win Titles. I DO think that Wilt was enough-superior to Russ in enough areas; that, presented with the possibility to win "endlessly" (like Russ did); Wilt would have done what was necessary to ensure that happening. He was neither a fool; and he had more "unlimited" capacity than anybody before or since. He would have gotten it done (especially surrounded by that breadth and depth of talent of players and Coach.)

Fine post.

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 05:34 PM
Hey KnicksorBust,
I believe you have re-stated your emphasis on Russell's 5 MVPs. I did do a post, earlier in this thread (Post #44 a little ways up on this very page, if you're seeing 40 posts per page like I am), which specifically addresses that question.

In it, I claim (with "supporting" facts/analysis) that for as many as 3 of those MVPs Russ did not really deserve them. If you don't mind tracking that post down; I'd love to hear your response.

Pablonovi
07-21-2014, 05:37 PM
i'd be torn, and would be looking to be convinced myself.

big man favoritism wants me to put Moses in front of either...?

Hey Bruno & High Horse,
West & "O" had such deep respect for each other "forever". But, in these thread, they're gonna be killing each other by splitting votes. I have no idea what to do about that - especially because I can hardly decide myself - though I tend slightly towards West (because his Play-Offs work was Jordan-esque).

Moses is the guy, in my GOAT Top 25, with whom I have the most "trouble"; I have ranked him all over the place and don't know how I'll vote when he becomes a prime candidate.

bootypants
07-21-2014, 06:17 PM
5 league MVPs and 11 rings. End of conversation. No one left touches that.

Nobody touches that in the whole poll, not just who is left, so why didn't you have the same reaction voting him for #1?

bootypants
07-21-2014, 06:20 PM
Why is West so underrated is my question....

All everyone talks about on this forum is play when it matters.

Playoffs & Finals.

Have you guys no clue about West in the Playoffs? I can't name a handful of players more dominant in playoffs.

mightybosstone
07-21-2014, 07:26 PM
A choker vs an overwhelming talent/champion? Karl doesn't belong anywhere near this list.

:nod:

mightybosstone
07-21-2014, 07:28 PM
I'm so glad to see Russell finally come off the board. I'm shocked he got beat that badly by Kobe in the last round. I would have thought it would have been a hell of a lot closer than that.

mrblisterdundee
07-22-2014, 12:57 AM
The only major flaw on the list so far is the disrespect for Bird, and the obsession with Shaq.

Shaquille O'Neal between 1992 and 2003 could destroy any center from any point in time in the NBA. So far, he's the most physically dominant player of all time. How does that not warrant obsession, or even a top-5 spot?
If he played better defensively, I'd probably rank him second. That's a real big knock on him for me bad pick and roll and man-to-man defense, although his sheer physicality made him a great rim protector. Dwight Howard should already be considered a better all-around, all-time defender than O'Neal.
As an aside, I'd like to present-day Shaq take on Sim Bhullar.

Chronz
07-22-2014, 11:12 AM
i'd be torn, and would be looking to be convinced myself.

big man favoritism wants me to put Moses in front of either...?

Its a great comparison (Oscar vs West), much harder than comparing Bird vs Magic, but like those 2 they entered the league at the same time/age only they retired together as well. Makes for a nice and neat breakdown. Look forward to that debate

KnicksorBust
07-22-2014, 11:38 AM
5 league MVPs and 11 rings. End of conversation. No one left touches that.

Nobody touches that in the whole poll, not just who is left, so why didn't you have the same reaction voting him for #1?

Of course MJ and KAJ not only "touch" but surpass that in career accomplishments.

KnicksorBust
07-22-2014, 11:44 AM
Hey KnicksorBust,
I believe you have re-stated your emphasis on Russell's 5 MVPs. I did do a post, earlier in this thread (Post #44 a little ways up on this very page, if you're seeing 40 posts per page like I am), which specifically addresses that question.

In it, I claim (with "supporting" facts/analysis) that for as many as 3 of those MVPs Russ did not really deserve them. If you don't mind tracking that post down; I'd love to hear your response.

On my phone. Will check later. :)

ManRam
07-22-2014, 11:48 AM
Certainly the time with Russell. This list has more or less gone exactly how I would have hoped. It's quite unconventional I'd imagine, but in the right way. I figured I'd be way more active with this than I have been, but I just haven't felt too argumentative.

Mostly confounded by the fact that Oscar has so many votes. I'll take on that task tomorrow!

valade16
07-22-2014, 01:16 PM
Hey KnicksorBust,
I believe you have re-stated your emphasis on Russell's 5 MVPs. I did do a post, earlier in this thread (Post #44 a little ways up on this very page, if you're seeing 40 posts per page like I am), which specifically addresses that question.

In it, I claim (with "supporting" facts/analysis) that for as many as 3 of those MVPs Russ did not really deserve them. If you don't mind tracking that post down; I'd love to hear your response.

Here's the problem with that, you claim KAJ is the GOAT over MJ in part because of his career accomplishments and achievements.

If you are going to amend the amount of MVPs Russell deserves based on merit, the. You have to do that for everyone and MJ would easily have the most MVPs ever, thus discrediting your argument for KAJ as the best ever. It's a 2-way street is my point...

Pablonovi
07-22-2014, 02:51 PM
Here's the problem with that, you claim KAJ is the GOAT over MJ in part because of his career accomplishments and achievements.

If you are going to amend the amount of MVPs Russell deserves based on merit, the. You have to do that for everyone and MJ would easily have the most MVPs ever, thus discrediting your argument for KAJ as the best ever. It's a 2-way street is my point...

IMO, KAJ's CAREER Was Clearly Greater Than MJ's

Hey valade,
Actually this is NOT a problem for me.
1) I do NOT consider the MVP voting as nearly as useful and/or indicative of who the best players were each year as the ALL-NBA voting (which has historically been a good deal more accurate: see Russell getting 3 less All-NBA 1st Teams, while MJ got 4 more All-NBA 1st Teams than they did MVPs). Additionally, very few people are voted on in the MVP voting, while there have always been 10 who received ALL-NBA 1st+2nd-Team honors - thus it is a much better "describer" of the true "spread" of excellence each year.

2) I am fully aware of both that MJ should have gotten more MVPs AND that he already leads in MVP shares (which would not change that much if he had gotten an additional MVP - because his share that/those years was not much lower than the MVP winner's share was).

3) For me, THE F-I-R-S-T Argument/Criteria Is PRIME, and the longer the PRIME the better. I "define" PRIME as the number of years a player got voted in as the 1st or 2nd best at his own position, as embodied by the ALL-NBA (/ABA/NBL) 1st-Team & 2nd-Team Selections. KAJ had 15 PRIME Years (out of his first 17, in fact, he was =3rd best center the 3 years out of his first 18 ! that he was not #1 or #2 - this is astonishing, phenomenal, especially because it's at THE toughest/greatest position and because he played simultaneously with 13 or so Great Centers - and DOMINATED ALL OF THEM (except the last two: Hakeem and Ewing - he didn't dominate them, but he was BETTER THAN THEM in his 16th and 17th seasons than they were early in their careers).

Further, I have analyzed each of the 2 years during KAJ's 17-Year PRIME when he was NOT voted ALL-NBA 1st-Team. In both cases, I believe a very strong case could be made that he was at least 1b if not 1a to the guy who actually won. (These were the two years when he broke his hand and missed up to 20 games each season; he still played so great and produced such great numbers that I think he should have been 1st-Team).
-----
For me, beyond PRIME (in MY order of importance) are such things as:

4) TEAM-work (where I strongly believe that KAJ beats MJ - because I do not consider MJ as an All-Time Great TEAM-mate. (Punching a smaller teammate in the face; QUITTING on his team for 4.8 seasons; having well-earned the reputation for being a lousy TEAM-mate while he was playing; whereas KAJ, the Cap, was a quiet but outstanding TEAM-mate throughout his 20 year career).

5) PEAK (where I strongly believe KAJ beats MJ: best 1 year KAJ kills him; best 3-year period = KAJ, best 5-year period =KAJ (but only this one is even close).

6) "Clutch" (where I strongly believe that KAJ easily beats MJ: KAJ's career shooting average is a good deal higher than MJ's; and, in clutch time, KAJ could ALWAYS get off his Sky Hook (it was virtually unblockable); whereas MJ was "ALWAYS" facing double even triple-teams AND the shot-clock, under those circumstances, his shooting percent must have gone down (probably a lot!)

7) "Unique-nesses" (where I strongly believe KAJ definitely beats MJ. Imo, MJ was the League's greatest assassin; but KAJ trumps that with the Sky Hook - THE UNIQUE SHOT, virtually-impossible for anybody else to even learn; virtually-unblockable and unstoppable AND THE Highest-Percentage (Non-Dunk, Non-Finger-Roll) Shot Ever.

and lastly, the thing that relatively-speaking, MOST depends on TEAM performance as compared to INDIVIDUAL performance:

8) Play-Off Results: (even here I believe that KAJ beats MJ):

a) 10 Finals to 6 Finals (MJ lost 4 times EARLIER THAN the Finals in each's top 10 Play-Off Years)

b) Non-Finals Team Success: KAJ advanced to higher rounds more times and with higher frequency than did MJ;

c) Making the Play-Offs: KAJ's teams made the Play-Offs more times and with higher frequency than did MJ

d) fMVPs: ONLY HERE does MJ TRUMP KAJ. (I would note that Magic's first fMVP should have gone to KAJ - KAJ's terrific play in the first 5 games was better, was worth more, than Magic's play in all 6 games - they just awarded it to Magic because KAJ was not at that 6th & deciding game).

9) Quality of Teams / Team-mates: Lastly, we must address the question of WHO they played with. KAJ played 14 years with Magic (who was greater than Pippen); but KAJ's PEAK was with the Bucks and the Big "O" (who didn't play ALL those years) THEN was a shell of his former Great self. That Bucks team was a brand-new EXPANSION TEAM; KAJ, in his very first year, turned them into a mighty contender in only their 2nd year!; and led them to the Chip in only his 2nd year and their 3rd year. NOBODY has ever come anywhere's close to doing for an brand-new expansion team what KAJ did for the Bucks.

MJ's teammates during his PEAK were DECIDEDLY BETTER than KAJ's were during his PEAK.

valade16
07-22-2014, 06:17 PM
^ That was too long to quote but I think you have an uphill battle saying KAJ's peak is better than MJs.

1st his massive win shares are from seasons where they had very incomplete stats. No blocks, no steals, no offensive or defensive rebounds and no turnovers... They aren't infallible. Is it any wonder that outside of MJ the top 15 best win share seasons all occurred before they started incorporating steals, blocks, and turnovers, etc.

Look at Kareem. 3 straight seasons before steals, blocks, etc. were counted he had .300+ WS/48 and as soon as they start incorporating those stats his #'s plummet and he never comes close to .300 WS again.

JordansBulls
07-22-2014, 06:53 PM
A choker vs an overwhelming talent/champion? Karl doesn't belong anywhere near this list.
Who would the choker be? Because Big O only led a team to 50+ wins once as the man.

Pablonovi
07-22-2014, 07:38 PM
^ That was too long to quote but I think you have an uphill battle saying KAJ's peak is better than MJs.

1st his massive win shares are from seasons where they had very incomplete stats. No blocks, no steals, no offensive or defensive rebounds and no turnovers... They aren't infallible. Is it any wonder that outside of MJ the top 15 best win share seasons all occurred before they started incorporating steals, blocks, and turnovers, etc.

Look at Kareem. 3 straight seasons before steals, blocks, etc. were counted he had .300+ WS/48 and as soon as they start incorporating those stats his #'s plummet and he never comes close to .300 WS again.

Hey valade,
It's just not true he never came close to .300 WS/48. He got a .2835 in '77 (deep into his career); that's plenty close and few players have ever done better.

I admit I am far from an advanced stats geek; but if the figures are so flawed, why do the MOST prestigious sites display them? And how can they be radically flawed, if the people who put them together do their best to "get it right?"

Earliest in his career, when he had those great WS seasons, he was getting lots of blocks, a modest amount of steals and a modest amount of turnovers. Why should the WS stat be far off?

He had just come out of college as THE GREATEST COLLEGE PLAYER EVER (even as a Freshman, his frosh team was better than the "BEST" team in the country, the UCLA Varsity. Why wouldn't he be expected to "take the NBA by storm" and wrack up impressive numbers. He DID completely turn around a brand-new expansion team in only its second year and his first.

ManRam
07-22-2014, 08:14 PM
I'm gonna post #12 tomorrow morning so I can get back on the morning schedule. It's way easier for me to keep up with it in the AM.

AntiG
07-22-2014, 08:56 PM
well if this poll is going to have Wade and Dirk on it, Clyde Drexler certainly deserves to be nominated. You can make a legit argument that for quite a few seasons during the late 80s through mid 90s, after Michael and Charles he may have been the best player in the league.