2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time: #1 selection

[elmouse03]

No one is saying be elite at everything and not have any flaws at anything.

For his position, Jordan was actually consistently a damn good rebounder. Didn't matter who u put around him because he was going to produce on BOTH sides of the ball on an elite level.

For His position, Bill Russell Was NOT a damn good scorer. He knew that he wasn't. Boston Knew that he wasn't and that he didn't have to be as long as they surrounded him with scorers. If u took some of those shooters/scorers away, you could expose his flaws easily.

That's the difference and I'm consistent with that in my rankings.

So, hypothetically, a person who blocked 50 shots a game and did literally nothing else wouldn't be in position for GOATness, correct?

Literally every criticism and disqualification you make of Russell would apply to this hypothetical player (and more so, since Russell could do some things offensively).

True? Or no? Why or why not?

Let's be reasonable, Bush4Ever. Russell isn't in consideration for GOAT on his shot blocking alone. Eleven rings and 4 MVPs in 13 years with setting the standard for modern defensive players is why.

Russell was never asked to score for the Celtics as Red promised him to have enough offense around him to get the job done as long Russell gets rebounds with great interior defense but he did average like 21 and 20 in college. So it's not like he couldn't score.

[Y2K]

So, hypothetically, a person who blocked 50 shots a game and did literally nothing else wouldn't be in position for GOATness, correct?

Literally every criticism and disqualification you make of Russell would apply to this hypothetical player (and more so, since Russell could do some things offensively).

True? Or no? Why or why not?

Let's be reasonable, Bush4Ever. Russell isn't in consideration for GOAT on his shot blocking alone. Eleven rings and 4 MVPs in 13 years with setting the standard for modern defensive players is why.

Russell was never asked to score for the Celtics as Red promised him to have enough offense around him to get the job done as long Russell gets rebounds with great interior defense but he did average like 21 and 20 in college. So it's not like he couldn't score.

Oh no, He was indeed decent in the scoring department. Deveral years he was top 5 in FG%. But Red Knew that he wasn't a polished basketball player on offense, as he'd barely taken up the sport before winning those national championships in college. He was put in the position to not be exposed offensively, which was very smart.

[Bush4Ever]

Let's be reasonable, Bush4Ever. Russell isn't in consideration for GOAT on his shot blocking alone. Eleven rings and 4 MVPs in 13 years with setting the standard for modern defensive players is why.

That's not relevant to the question, since the player would be disqualified for the same reasons you disqualify Russell. In fact for simplicity's sake, imagine Russell himself averaging 50 rebounds and 40 blocks per game, with 10 MVPs, and 13 rings, but carrying the same level of pure offense. Disqualified for GOATness? Why or why not?

I'm challenging the exclusion principles you all are using. Lots of times, the flaws in a principle are easier to see in extreme situations.

Saying a player who is not elite offensively is automatically disqualified from GOATness doesn't seem sound. Now, a non-elite offensive player will be slanted away from that position naturally, because offense is an important part of the game. However, it is hypothetically possible for a player's contributions in one or more areas of the game to compensate (or more) for their weaknesses in another area(s).

Which is why I continue to say the focus should be on net contribution, not the composition of that contribution. Now, if one said that Jordan's contribution on net was superior to Russell's...that would be a different argument, and one that would be entirely reasonable.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Bush4Ever being the cold analytical genius. Well done. By far the best poster on the board at divorcing personal biases and analyzing situations on pure merit.

[FPL]

Two things on Russ:

1) He was by no means a superstar scorer, but the Celtics offense was an equal opportunity system. I recently posted some quotes from Heinsohn and Havlixek, alog with data. It wasn't just Russ, it was the entire team scoring at that efficiency without a single high volume scorer. The goal was to get a greater number of shots off, even if they weren't of the highest quality.

2) I think Russ would translate well into today's game. Tremendous athlete (Olympic-level high jumper in particular, pre-Fosbury Flop), incredibly BBIQ, same frame as Hakeem (another dominant defender), and not strictly a shotblocker, playing the horizontal/floor game like KG (I posted some quotes on this as well, maybe someone can find the thread from last week). Here's a defensive play that very few defenders can make (on Oscar):

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the kind of stuff he was doing consistently from the tape we have. Competition isn't a huge issue for me either, since by the numbers the league was nearly 2/3 black by the time Russell retired (it's in the low 70s now).

Now, I still think MJ is a viable candidate here (and perhaps the correct pick), but I do think Russell has a legitimate case for best ever.

[elmouse03]

Bush4Ever being the cold analytical genius. Well done. By far the best poster on the board at divorcing personal biases and analyzing situations on pure merit.

Doesn't matter to some out there.

[Y2K]

Let's be reasonable, Bush4Ever. Russell isn't in consideration for GOAT on his shot blocking alone. Eleven rings and 4 MVPs in 13 years with setting the standard for modern defensive players is why.

That's not relevant to the question, since the player would be disqualified for the same reasons you disqualify Russell. In fact for simplicity's sake, imagine Russell himself averaging 50 rebounds and 40 blocks per game, with 10 MVPs, and 13 rings, but carrying the same level of pure offense. Disqualified for GOATness? Why or why not?

I'm challenging the exclusion principles you all are using. Lots of times, the flaws in a principle are easier to see in extreme situations.

Saying a player who is not elite offensively is automatically disqualified from GOATness doesn't seem sound. Now, a non-elite offensive player will be slanted away from that position naturally, because offense is an important part of the game. However, it is hypothetically possible for a player's contributions in one or more areas of the game to compensate (or more) for their weaknesses in another area(s).

Which is why I continue to say the focus should be on net contribution, not the composition of that contribution. Now, if one said that Jordan's contribution on net was superior to Russell's...that would be a different argument, and one that would be entirely reasonable.

Bush, I never said that because Russell wasn't an elite scorer that he couldn't be considered the GOAT. I said that is easy for me to pick MJ over him because he was an elite two-way player who couldn't take a back seat or they'd lose. Russell could AND DID on offense and the Celtics could still win. He could simply be a productive role player, as kareem was for the lakers in 87-88, and the Celtics could still win.

MJ could never do that. That's why what he was able to accomplish holds a little more value in my opinion than what Russell accomplished.

But Russell is easily #2 on my list.

[elmouse03]

Let's be reasonable, Bush4Ever. Russell isn't in consideration for GOAT on his shot blocking alone. Eleven rings and 4 MVPs in 13 years with setting the standard for modern defensive players is why.

That's not relevant to the question, since the player would be disqualified for the same reasons you disqualify Russell. In fact for simplicity's sake, imagine Russell himself averaging 50 rebounds and 40 blocks per game, with 10 MVPs, and 13 rings, but carrying the same level of pure offense. Disqualified for GOATness? Why or why not?

I'm challenging the exclusion principles you all are using. Lots of times, the flaws in a principle are easier to see in extreme situations.

Saying a player who is not elite offensively is automatically disqualified from GOATness doesn't seem sound. Now, a non-elite offensive player will be slanted away from that position naturally, because offense is an important part of the game. However, it is hypothetically possible for a player's contributions in one or more areas of the game to compensate (or more) for their weaknesses in another area(s).

Which is why I continue to say the focus should be on net contribution, not the composition of that contribution. Now, if one said that Jordan's contribution on net was superior to Russell's...that would be a different argument, and one that would be entirely reasonable.

Bush, I never said that because Russell wasn't an elite scorer that he couldn't be considered the GOAT. I said that is easy for me to pick MJ over him because he was an elite two-way player who couldn't take a back seat or they'd lose. Russell could AND DID on offense and the Celtics could still win. He could simply be a productive role player, as kareem was for the lakers in 87-88, and the Celtics could still win.

MJ could never do that. That's why what he was able to accomplish holds a little more value in my opinion than what Russell accomplished.

But Russell is easily #2 on my list.

ahead of Kwame?

[Y2K]

That's not relevant to the question, since the player would be disqualified for the same reasons you disqualify Russell. In fact for simplicity's sake, imagine Russell himself averaging 50 rebounds and 40 blocks per game, with 10 MVPs, and 13 rings, but carrying the same level of pure offense. Disqualified for GOATness? Why or why not?

I'm challenging the exclusion principles you all are using. Lots of times, the flaws in a principle are easier to see in extreme situations.

Saying a player who is not elite offensively is automatically disqualified from GOATness doesn't seem sound. Now, a non-elite offensive player will be slanted away from that position naturally, because offense is an important part of the game. However, it is hypothetically possible for a player's contributions in one or more areas of the game to compensate (or more) for their weaknesses in another area(s).

Which is why I continue to say the focus should be on net contribution, not the composition of that contribution. Now, if one said that Jordan's contribution on net was superior to Russell's...that would be a different argument, and one that would be entirely reasonable.

Bush, I never said that because Russell wasn't an elite scorer that he couldn't be considered the GOAT. I said that is easy for me to pick MJ over him because he was an elite two-way player who couldn't take a back seat or they'd lose. Russell could AND DID on offense and the Celtics could still win. He could simply be a productive role player, as kareem was for the lakers in 87-88, and the Celtics could still win.

MJ could never do that. That's why what he was able to accomplish holds a little more value in my opinion than what Russell accomplished.

But Russell is easily #2 on my list.

ahead of Kwame?

Yep, hate to say it.

[Y2K]

Two things on Russ:

1) He was by no means a superstar scorer, but the Celtics offense was an equal opportunity system. I recently posted some quotes from Heinsohn and Havlixek, alog with data. It wasn't just Russ, it was the entire team scoring at that efficiency without a single high volume scorer. The goal was to get a greater number of shots off, even if they weren't of the highest quality.

2) I think Russ would translate well into today's game. Tremendous athlete (Olympic-level high jumper in particular, pre-Fosbury Flop), incredibly BBIQ, same frame as Hakeem (another dominant defender), and not strictly a shotblocker, playing the horizontal/floor game like KG (I posted some quotes on this as well, maybe someone can find the thread from last week). Here's a defensive play that very few defenders can make (on Oscar):

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the kind of stuff he was doing consistently from the tape we have. Competition isn't a huge issue for me either, since by the numbers the league was nearly 2/3 black by the time Russell retired (it's in the low 70s now).

Now, I still think MJ is a viable candidate here (and perhaps the correct pick), but I do think Russell has a legitimate case for best ever.

He absolutely has a very legit case for GOAT. I pick MJ but I'm not in agreement with the "It's Jordan and it is not even debatable," statement.

[Bush4Ever]

Bush, I never said that because Russell wasn't an elite scorer that he couldn't be considered the GOAT. I said that is easy for me to pick MJ over him because he was an elite two-way player who couldn't take a back seat or they'd lose. Russell could AND DID on offense and the Celtics could still win. He could simply be a productive role player, as kareem was for the lakers in 87-88, and the Celtics could still win.

MJ could never do that. That's why what he was able to accomplish holds a little more value in my opinion than what Russell accomplished.

That's why I pointed out Jordan took a backseat on many things himself, including rebounding and interior defense. Russell took a backseat of sorts on offense. And?

Everyone takes a backseat on something in the course of a game. That is the nature of the game, and why it is completely arbitrary to limit that issue to offense. What would be wrong with saying I can't consider Jordan for GOAT because he could take a backseat on rebounding and interior defense issues and the Bulls could still win (see 1995 and 1996 for two contrasting examples) ?

I'm not challenging the conclusion, I just think there are better ways to think about the issue. Jordan is a reasonable pick for the top spot, and might even be my choice if I wasn't a Celtics fan, and a guy who grew up in a house where Russell/Red/Bird were practically demigods.

[Y2K]

That's why I pointed out Jordan took a backseat on many things himself, including rebounding and interior defense. Russell took a backseat of sorts on offense. And?

Everyone takes a backseat on something in the course of a game. That is the nature of the game, and why it is completely arbitrary to limit that issue to offense. What would be wrong with saying I can't consider Jordan for GOAT because he could take a backseat on rebounding and interior defense issues and the Bulls could still win (see 1995 and 1996 for two contrasting examples) ?

I'm not challenging the conclusion, I just think there are better ways to think about the issue. Jordan is a reasonable pick for the top spot, and might even be my choice if I wasn't a Celtics fan, and a guy who grew up in a house where Russell/Red/Bird were practically demigods.

Jordan was a guard, Bush4Ever. They're not expected to be elite post defenders and rebounders as a big man would be. But even then, Mike was damn good at rebounding so it is not like he wasn't doing so.

Any position can expect to have elite scorers....especially in Russell's era.

Bill scored well as well as played great defense and they won. He scored very little and played great defense and they won. There's a reason why Russell Wouldnt have been FMVP in several of those championships.

That doesn't hold true for Mike. If he didn't score and play great defense, they lost. That's the difference between the two.

[Bush4Ever]

Jordan was a guard, Bush4Ever. They're not expected to be elite post defenders and rebounders as a big man would be. But even then, Mike was damn good at rebounding so it is not like he wasn't doing so.

So what?

The outputs of the game aren't dependent on size. It's not like you get bonus points for doing well as a team relative to your size.

Certain important (to winning) aspects of the game are actually biased towards bigs in the first place.

Bill scored well as well as played great defense and they won. He scored very little and played great defense and they won. There's a reason why Russell Wouldnt have been FMVP in several of those championships.

That doesn't hold true for Mike. If he didn't score and play great defense, they lost. That's the difference between the two.

So essentially, Russell playing on a team that covered his relative weakness from day one means he wasn't as good an individual player as Jordan? That doesn't follow. It's perfectly possible to be a better player AND also play with better teammates. Why couldn't that be the case here?

The Bulls lost primarily on mental weakness/conflict, interior defense, and rebounding when they lost in the Jordan era. They didn't win until those aspects started to get developed, and they lost when those aspects were mostly removed in the form of Horace Grant. And of course they won again when those aspects were added in the form of Rodman.

Jordan had gaps in his game that were real, tangible, and important to the bottom line, just like Russell did. It just took a different (and more traditional for a guard) form.

[thedangerouskitchen]

but I guess Offense / Scoring only matters when Russell's name isn't involved.

Why you continue to not understand very simple points is beyond me.

It's not hard to understand. The only thing that counts is a player's NET contribution to the bottom line (i.e.-winning). The COMPOSITION of that contribution, the variety of it, etc...is all pretty irrelevant.

Like I said before, a player who did nothing but block shots would be the greatest player ever if he blocked 30 shots a game, even if he did literally nothing else on the court.

Now, if you want to argue Russell's NET contribution (including offense, defense, intangibles, etc...) doesn't match Jordan's, that's perfectly fine, and reasonable arguments can be made either way. But the way you are framing the discussion is ridiculous.

Russell's Offensive Win Shares per year (regular season / playoffs):

1.6 / -0.1
3.7 / 0.2
4.7 / 0.3
4.9 / 1.1
1.7 / 0.4
3.9 / 1.4
1.0 / 0.7
1.3 / -0.3
2.4 / 1.0
0.3 / 1.0
3.0 / 0.0
0.4 / 0.1
1.0 / 0.2

His "contribution" to the Offense was next-to-nothing, at best.. and his "contribution" to the Offense was downright embarrassing in the Playoffs.

Yet this is overlooked because he played elite Defense.

Guess what?

So did Jordan... and I don't think we need to post MJ's Win Shares to show just how VASTLY SUPERIOR was MJ as a two-way player.

Hence, MJ = the GOAT... and there's really no argument to the contrary.

[FPL]

but I guess Offense / Scoring only matters when Russell's name isn't involved.

Why you continue to not understand very simple points is beyond me.

It's not hard to understand. The only thing that counts is a player's NET contribution to the bottom line (i.e.-winning). The COMPOSITION of that contribution, the variety of it, etc...is all pretty irrelevant.

Like I said before, a player who did nothing but block shots would be the greatest player ever if he blocked 30 shots a game, even if he did literally nothing else on the court.

Now, if you want to argue Russell's NET contribution (including offense, defense, intangibles, etc...) doesn't match Jordan's, that's perfectly fine, and reasonable arguments can be made either way. But the way you are framing the discussion is ridiculous.

Russell's Offensive Win Shares per year (regular season / playoffs):

1.6 / -0.1
3.7 / 0.2
4.7 / 0.3
4.9 / 1.1
1.7 / 0.4
3.9 / 1.4
1.0 / 0.7
1.3 / -0.3
2.4 / 1.0
0.3 / 1.0
3.0 / 0.0
0.4 / 0.1
1.0 / 0.2

His "contribution" to the Offense was next-to-nothing, at best.. and his "contribution" to the Offense was downright embarrassing in the Playoffs.

Yet this is overlooked because he played elite Defense.

Guess what?

So did Jordan... and I don't think we need to post MJ's Win Shares to show just how VASTLY SUPERIOR was MJ as a two-way player.

Hence, MJ = the GOAT... and there's really no argument to the contrary.

TDK - Refer to the relative team offense and defense numbers posted last week. The teams were mediocre to abysmal offensively, but were lapping the league on defense. Russell's teammates were predominantly offensive players, and if you look at the year-to-year trends, they didn't move the needle when they came/went.

I think MJ is a great pick here, and maybe the best ever defender among all superstar guards. But a perimeter player can only have a fraction of the defensive impact of a big man, and the results bare it out. If we're comparing all players, then there is no handicap per position (otherwise Russell would get bonus points for playing point-center when Cousy retired, since his passing and ball-handling were tremendous for a big man).

No disrespect intended my good man BTW, you're entitled to your opinion. I just strongly disagree.

[Bush4Ever]

TDK, the reason why you are minimizing (some of) those numbers, is because you aren't really viewing them from a relevant baseline. For example:

1965 Celtics Offensive Win Shares (Playoffs):

1. Sam Jones 1.2
2. Bill Russell 1.0

1962:

1. Bill Russell 1.4
2. Sam Jones 0.7

And so on...just flipping through some of the years, I see many years with Russell at or very near the top for playoff offensive win shares for those Celtics (he was down the list in some years as well).

A real quick glance at the regular season totals places him as high as 2nd on the Celtics, and usually in the top 3-4. You also have to keep in mind that like Fplii said above, the Celtics offense was in large part "by committee", which generally lead to a lot of players having contributions that were very close to each other and clustering together. For example:

1964 Celtics Regular Season Offensive Win Shares:

1. Sam Jones 3.7
2. Hondo 1.6
3. Tom Sanders 1.5
4. Bill Russell 1.3

So a grand 0.3 difference between the 4th and 2nd place.

I actually don't know how those win shares were even extrapolated from the older eras. I would have to read up on it. In any event, you have to view them from a baseline that has some meaning, and not compare across context.

[FPL]

Bush - Win Shares don't exist in their present form before 77-78 on offense, and 73-74 on defense because the stats used in calculations weren't recorded:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not a fan of box score stats and metrics derived thereof in general, but setting my preference aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to compare the estimates to the actual calculations.

[wailuaFC]

To sum up the thread, bulls fans think Jordan is goat and it isn't even close, laker fans (for the most part) think kaj is the goat, and fans of other teams have either Jordan, kaj, or Russell as goat

[Bush4Ever]

Bush - Win Shares don't exist in their present form before 77-78 on offense, and 73-74 on defense because the stats used in calculations weren't recorded:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not a fan of box score stats and metrics derived thereof in general, but setting my preference aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to compare the estimates to the actual calculations.

That makes sense. I wouldn't compare directly across eras either. But perhaps one could compare within year to teammates to get a sense of rank within team?

What do you mean by actual calculations?

[FPL]

Bush - Win Shares don't exist in their present form before 77-78 on offense, and 73-74 on defense because the stats used in calculations weren't recorded:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not a fan of box score stats and metrics derived thereof in general, but setting my preference aside, it doesn't seem reasonable to compare the estimates to the actual calculations.

That makes sense. I wouldn't compare directly across eras either. But perhaps one could compare within year to teammates to get a sense of rank within team?

What do you mean by actual calculations?

Sorry, I was a little unclear. Using actual values as opposed to estimates for the missing data.