2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time: #1 selection

[Bush4Ever]

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.

[Bush4Ever]

I get that and agree, but I think in order to be considered GOAT you have to be both dominant and transcendent.

Russell quite literally transformed the way people played defense. An easy example is leaving his feet to alter and block shots, which use to be a big no-no prior to the Russell era.

He WAS a transcendent player. He WAS dominant. The composition of that transcedence and dominance was just very unusual (i.e. slanted towards rebounding/defense, and "intangibles").

[Deez]

Russell maybe is top 3, maybe. #1? Sorry guys everybody always says it's more than just about rings or it's more than just stats etc etc. Russell was purely defense. that's it. I have a hard time putting a guy with not even a top 100 offense ever as a goat.

[Bush4Ever]

Russell maybe is top 3, maybe. #1? Sorry guys everybody always says it's more than just about rings or it's more than just stats etc etc. Russell was purely defense. that's it. I have a hard time putting a guy with not even a top 100 offense ever as a goat.

First of all, Russell was not a non-offensive player. He frequently scored in the high teens, and sometimes low 20s across regular seasons and playoffs, and was considered an exceptional passer for a big, especially from the high post. He wasn't a star offensive player, but he definitely wasn't a non-player, or even average on offense. He was reasonably good.

Second, I still don't understand why one would care about the composition of someone's contribution to the bottom line, rather than just the overall net impact to the bottom line.

If Russell benefited his team 15 points on defense and 6 on offense, he is doing better than a player who benefited his team 12 points on offense and 8 on defense, for example (obviously those are made up numbers, it's just to show the principle).

This is leaving out leadership, and intangible type issues, where Russell was probably the greatest ever, even above Jordan/Bird/Magic.

[Deez]

Russell maybe is top 3, maybe. #1? Sorry guys everybody always says it's more than just about rings or it's more than just stats etc etc. Russell was purely defense. that's it. I have a hard time putting a guy with not even a top 100 offense ever as a goat.

First of all, Russell was not a non-offensive player. He frequently scored in the high teens, and sometimes low 20s across regular seasons and playoffs, and was considered an exceptional passer for a big, especially from the high post. He wasn't a star offensive player, but he definitely wasn't a non-player, or even average on offense. He was reasonably good.

Second, I still don't understand why one would care about the composition of someone's contribution to the bottom line, rather than just the overall net impact to the bottom line.

If Russell benefited his team 15 points on defense and 6 on offense, he is doing better than a player who benefited his team 12 points on offense and 8 on defense, for example (obviously those are made up numbers, it's just to show the principle).

This is leaving out leadership, and intangible type issues, where Russell was probably the greatest ever, even above Jordan/Bird/Magic.

So when Jordan benefits his team 28-30 on offense plus 8 defense that's still less than Russell?

[Deez]

Oh and for the Record, Russell averaged 15 for his career and on a whopping 44% shooting as a big man. Dont' tell me he was all this above average offensively. He was a defensive player with an average offense. He has the rings and that's the only argument for him. Cut his rings down to 6 and people aren't discussing him in the top let alone possibly the top 5.

[Bush4Ever]

So when Jordan benefits his team 28-30 on offense plus 8 defense that's still less than Russell?

No, no, I'm not applying certain numbers. I said I made them up. I'm just illustrating the principle.

The principle being the composition of a player's contribution to the bottom line is not as important as the volume of contribution to the bottom line.

Now, if one thinks Jordan contributed more on net than Russell, that's fine and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of that idea. But it's not a good principle to say a player whose contributions are more lopsided on one side or the other are disqualified from a particular spot.

To give an exaggerated example, a player who blocked 30 shots a game while doing literally nothing else would be the greatest player in history, even though his contribution would be limited to one aspect of the game.

People confuse versatility with effectiveness all the time. Versatility is a means to an end (i.e.-better performance). It's not the end itself. That's why Shaq was a better offensive player than Hakeem, why Magic is considered a top 5 player despite being a rather mediocre defensive player most of his career, etc...

I'm not really arguing for Russell over Jordan as much as I am trying to clarify some of the ideas floating around that I don't think make much sense.

[Deez]

So when Jordan benefits his team 28-30 on offense plus 8 defense that's still less than Russell?

No, no, I'm not applying certain numbers. I said I made them up. I'm just illustrating the principle.

The principle being the composition of a player's contribution to the bottom line is not as important as the volume of contribution to the bottom line.

Now, if one thinks Jordan contributed more on net than Russell, that's fine and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of that idea. But it's not a good principle to say a player whose contributions are more lopsided on one side or the other are disqualified from a particular spot.

To give an exaggerated example, a player who blocked 30 shots a game while doing literally nothing else would be the greatest player in history, even though his contribution would be limited to one aspect of the game.

People confuse versatility with effectiveness all the time. Versatility is a means to an end (i.e.-better performance). It's not the end itself. That's why Shaq was a better offensive player than Hakeem, why Magic is considered a top 5 player despite being a rather mediocre defensive player most of his career, etc...

I'm not really arguing for Russell over Jordan as much as I am trying to clarify some of the ideas floating around that I don't think make much sense.

I fairly agree with that. I think you have to look at an individual all around. So many things to look into. How clutch they are in late game situations, offense, defense, leadership and so forth. There are so many things you could look at that could take forever trying to compare every individual.

[Bush4Ever]

Oh and for the Record, Russell averaged 15 for his career and on a whopping 44% shooting as a big man. Dont' tell me he was all this above average offensively. He was a defensive player with an average offense. He has the rings and that's the only argument for him. Cut his rings down to 6 and people aren't discussing him in the top let alone possibly the top 5.

In the first half of his career, he averaged roughly 17-19 points per game in the regular season and 16-22 in the playoffs.

Those are not "average" numbers, nor are his career averages if you want to go that route, especially when you take passing into account, with Russell finishing in the top 10 in assists multiple times. Average bigs don't do that.

As far as FG percentages go, FG percentages were generally depressed in that era for everyone. You have to evaluate that relative to era. Again, Russell wasn't a genius offensively, but he definitely contributed and was not a non-offensive player ala Ben Wallace or Bulls Rodman, etc...

[Deez]

Oh and for the Record, Russell averaged 15 for his career and on a whopping 44% shooting as a big man. Dont' tell me he was all this above average offensively. He was a defensive player with an average offense. He has the rings and that's the only argument for him. Cut his rings down to 6 and people aren't discussing him in the top let alone possibly the top 5.

In the first half of his career, he averaged roughly 17-19 points per game in the regular season and 16-22 in the playoffs.

Those are not "average" numbers, nor are his career averages if you want to go that route, especially when you take passing into account, with Russell finishing in the top 10 in assists multiple times. Average bigs don't do that.

As far as FG percentages go, FG percentages were generally depressed in that era for everyone. You have to evaluate that relative to era. Again, Russell wasn't a genius offensively, but he definitely contributed and was not a non-offensive player ala Ben Wallace or Bulls Rodman, etc...

Yeah he wasn't a Rodman offensively and i wasn't stating that. His FG% was below average for it's time as a big. Hell the league average back when he played overall was like 45-46% and that number is probably down because of guards. Russell has never been known for offense. He was great defensively but offensively he wasn't there. How many HOF teammates did he play along side also to get those 11 rings? How many teams did he have to compete against?

My bad on FG% I glanced at the wrong year when i picked it out. He would have been a little above average for the NBA during that time.

[Bush4Ever]

How many HOF teammates did he play along side also to get those 11 rings? How many teams did he have to compete against?

On the HOF topic, you have to understand issues of causality. How many of those HOFers are HOFers *because* they played on those Celtic teams and won titles in the first place. A classic example is K.C. Jones, who was inducted as a player in 1989. His career averages ? 7 points, 4 assists a game on 39 percent shooting.

What points even more in that direction is the relatively middling status of the Celtics (they won roughly 52 percent of their games the previous two seasons) prior to Russell's arrival, which had many of the same players that would be later counted in these HOFer totals, not to mention them going off the deep end when Russell left (again, with some of the same HOFers Russell played with).

I think it's relatively obvious who the driving force and causal agent was behind them winning so much. His teammates and opponents (who voted him MVP 5 times) seemed to have the same perception.

Edit: I forgot about the 8 teams thing. That *is* a more valid point, and one I would pursue if I were on the "Jordan side". However, it should be understood that while it does mean there were fewer teams to get through, the expansion factor means less at the upper ends of the scale, where the great teams were. In other words, Russell didn't have to really go through the equivalent of poor to average teams at the same pace, but he still had to go through extremely tough teams at the end to win titles, just like anyone else.

[Y2K]

I think y2kator has enough data to move on to #2 all time.

I probably do, but I'll give it until the afternoon, probably no later than 3 o'clock, to see if more votes are tallied that would make things more interesting.

[Bush4Ever]

I think y2kator has enough data to move on to #2 all time.

I probably do, but I'll give it until the afternoon, probably no later than 3 o'clock, to see if more votes are tallied that would make things more interesting.

You are going to ask for "who the best is" out of the remaining players when you ask for 2, 3, 4th, etc...and not "who do you think is number 2, 3, 4th, etc...", correct?

Otherwise, you could get into some funky scoring.

[Y2K]

So when Jordan benefits his team 28-30 on offense plus 8 defense that's still less than Russell?

No, no, I'm not applying certain numbers. I said I made them up. I'm just illustrating the principle.

The principle being the composition of a player's contribution to the bottom line is not as important as the volume of contribution to the bottom line.

Now, if one thinks Jordan contributed more on net than Russell, that's fine and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of that idea. But it's not a good principle to say a player whose contributions are more lopsided on one side or the other are disqualified from a particular spot.

To give an exaggerated example, a player who blocked 30 shots a game while doing literally nothing else would be the greatest player in history, even though his contribution would be limited to one aspect of the game.

People confuse versatility with effectiveness all the time. Versatility is a means to an end (i.e.-better performance). It's not the end itself. That's why Shaq was a better offensive player than Hakeem, why Magic is considered a top 5 player despite being a rather mediocre defensive player most of his career, etc...

I'm not really arguing for Russell over Jordan as much as I am trying to clarify some of the ideas floating around that I don't think make much sense.

Shaq being better than Hakeem is very debatable. But it's so difficult to compare the two because one became elite and physically imposing on the levels of Wilt Chamberlain. The other player was something that the league hadn't seen before, and really still hasn't. Granted, his FG% was lower as he was not just strictly a post player. Dude was a legit big man with guard capabilities.

On just straight up scoring, Shaq has that edge. No doubt. To me, there's more to offense than scoring buckets.

But then on the flip, that's what great bigs were known for...scoring in the paint. Hakeem's game was not what common big men were supposed to be able to do.

[Bush4Ever]

I think Shaq's advantage on offense over Hakeem is *fairly* obvious, but even if you disagree, that wasn't the thrust of my comment.

The thrust of that comment was meant to say that versatility is not another word for effectiveness or performance. Nor does versatility or "well-roundedness" correlate *perfectly* with performance. Oftentimes it does not.

To give a generic example, I would rather have a big man who is constantly putting up 30/13/0 assists, than a big who might average 19/10/5 assists, or something like that, all else equal, even if the later is more well-rounded with less visible gaps in his game.

[Y2K]

I think Shaq's advantage on offense over Hakeem is *fairly* obvious, but even if you disagree, that wasn't the thrust of my comment.

The thrust of that comment was meant to say that versatility is not another word for effectiveness or performance. Nor does versatility or "well-roundedness" correlate *perfectly* with performance. Oftentimes it does not.

To give a generic example, I would rather have a big man who is constantly putting up 30/13/0 assists, than a big who might average 19/10/5 assists, or something like that, all else equal, even if the later is more well-rounded with less visible gaps in his game.

I Understood the premise of your post towards TDK. That comparison is one that stands out in my mind... like Magic vs Jordan used to.

[americaninfidel]

I get that and agree, but I think in order to be considered GOAT you have to be both dominant and transcendent.

Russell quite literally transformed the way people played defense. An easy example is leaving his feet to alter and block shots, which use to be a big no-no prior to the Russell era.

He WAS a transcendent player. He WAS dominant. The composition of that transcedence and dominance was just very unusual (i.e. slanted towards rebounding/defense, and "intangibles").

Yeah, I get all that. My point was that I think in order to be considered the GOAT, you'd have to be dominant in any era. I think prime Jordan would easily be the best player in the league right now; prime Russell, I'm not convinced. And I'm not saying he wouldn't be good at all, only that I'm not sure he could dominate today the way he did when he played.

[Bush4Ever]

Yeah, I get all that. My point was that I think in order to be considered the GOAT, you'd have to be dominant in any era. I think prime Jordan would easily be the best player in the league right now; prime Russell, I'm not convinced. And I'm not saying he wouldn't be good at all, only that I'm not sure he could dominate today the way he did when he played.

It's all subjective obviously, but you are definitely biasing things towards modern players if you view it that way, since the more removed from the origins of the game a player is, the more they will have to build on in the first place.

It's similar to saying how a modern PhD level scientist is a greater scientist than Newton, because he unquestionably knows more about the universe than Newton did. It seems off to me.

[Y2K]

I get that and agree, but I think in order to be considered GOAT you have to be both dominant and transcendent.

Russell quite literally transformed the way people played defense. An easy example is leaving his feet to alter and block shots, which use to be a big no-no prior to the Russell era.

He WAS a transcendent player. He WAS dominant. The composition of that transcedence and dominance was just very unusual (i.e. slanted towards rebounding/defense, and "intangibles").

Yeah, I get all that. My point was that I think in order to be considered the GOAT, you'd have to be dominant in any era. I think prime Jordan would easily be the best player in the league right now; prime Russell, I'm not convinced. And I'm not saying he wouldn't be good at all, only that I'm not sure he could dominate today the way he did when he played.

I get what you're saying. But honestly, very few players from the 60s and 70s would easily transcend to today's game. West, Wilt, Walton, Oscar, and Kareem come to mind first.

On pure offensive basketball skill, Russell was not better than any of them. He's not better than anyone in the top 10 by far. But his defense, bb IQ, athletic ability and unselfishness is what will always transcend.

[americaninfidel]

Yeah, I get all that. My point was that I think in order to be considered the GOAT, you'd have to be dominant in any era. I think prime Jordan would easily be the best player in the league right now; prime Russell, I'm not convinced. And I'm not saying he wouldn't be good at all, only that I'm not sure he could dominate today the way he did when he played.

It's all subjective obviously, but you are definitely biasing things towards modern players if you view it that way, since the more removed from the origins of the game a player is, the more they will have to build on in the first place.

It's similar to saying how a modern PhD level scientist is a greater scientist than Newton, because he unquestionably knows more about the universe than Newton did. It seems off to me.

I guess it depends whether "greatest" means "best" or "most influential". Maybe it's a combination of the two. I still think Jordan takes it.