2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time: #1 selection

[Y2K]

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.

No one player can be the entire team. We're not talking about that.

We're talking about how Bill Russell wasn't always a major contributer on both ends of the court WHEN THEY WON championships. Offensively he simply wasn't good enough to be that player. But he didn't have to be. He had Hondo, who was an elite, two-way player and carried the bigger load in the latter years. Even at age 35, mike still has to be THE GUY.

Mike did it on BOTH ends of the court because he had to in order for then to win championships....and they did.


There's nothing left for me to add. Understanding that these lists are subjective, I have no problem with anyone selecting Russell... but I won't.

[Bush4Ever]

We're talking about how Bill Russell wasn't always a major contributer on both ends of the court WHEN THEY WON championships. Offensively he simply wasn't good enough to be that player. But he didn't have to be. He had Hondo, who was an elite, two-way player and carried the bigger load in the latter years. Even at age 35, mike still THE GUY.

Mike did it on BOTH ends of the court because he had to in order for then to win championships....and they did.

I'm saying you can't make a leap from the above information that Jordan is a better player than Russell. It doesn't follow logically, because there is nothing mutually exclusive about a) being a better player and b) playing on a better team. They can both exist at the same time quite easily.

What is implied in the above is that you can simply change up a player's teammates, and the intrinsic value of the player as an individual changes. Did Jordan suddenly become an intrinsically worse player in the summer of 1992, when he played on a (Dream) team where he could literally do nothing and have his team coast to wins? Of course not.

And again, I'll just echo what I said before about the composition issue. The relevant question is whether he had more impact on net than Russell. Not the composition of that net impact. Like I said before, a player who did nothing but block 40 shots a game would be the greatest player in history, even if he was the most limited player in history as well. Versatility/Well-roundedness does not correlate perfectly to effectiveness and performance. It just doesn't, and versatility is not a proxy for performance.

[Y2K]

We're talking about how Bill Russell wasn't always a major contributer on both ends of the court WHEN THEY WON championships. Offensively he simply wasn't good enough to be that player. But he didn't have to be. He had Hondo, who was an elite, two-way player and carried the bigger load in the latter years. Even at age 35, mike still THE GUY.

Mike did it on BOTH ends of the court because he had to in order for then to win championships....and they did.

I'm saying you can't make a leap from the above information that Jordan is a better player than Russell. It doesn't follow logically, because there is nothing mutually exclusive about a) being a better player and b) playing on a better team. They can both exist at the same time quite easily.

What is implied in the above is that you can simply change up a player's teammates, and the intrinsic value of the player as an individual changes. Did Jordan suddenly become an intrinsically worse player in the summer of 1992, when he played on a (Dream) team where he could literally do nothing and have his team coast to wins? Of course not.

And again, I'll just echo what I said before about the composition issue. The relevant question is whether he had more impact on net than Russell. Not the composition of that net impact. Like I said before, a player who did nothing but block 40 shots a game would be the greatest player in history, even if he was the most limited player in history as well. Versatility/Well-roundedness does not correlate perfectly to effectiveness and performance. It just doesn't, and versatility is not a proxy for performance.

I disagree with your analysis. No disrespect intended, brother.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Thanks again to Bush4Ever and fpliii for some really good thought provoking analysis in this thread. Really well done gentlemen.

[Bush4Ever]

I disagree with your analysis. No disrespect intended, brother.

It's not really an analysis. It's more related to logic.

What are you contesting exactly?

1. Versatility/well-roundedness is not perfectly correlated with effectiveness/performance
2. You can be a superior player while also playing on a superior team

Or something else?

Edit: Actually never mind, I am probably going to be leaving soon, so no rush on an answer. It was a good discussion regardless, and I liked it very much.

[Y2K]

Thanks again to Bush4Ever and fpliii for some really good thought provoking analysis in this thread. Really well done gentlemen.

I was wondering when the discussion would pick up. Glad that it did finally.

[Bush4Ever]

Hey, why did Russell have the mental fortitude to win 11 titles in the Jim Crow era, in a racist city, while being profiled by the FBI for being an "uppity Negro", while Jordan mentally broke down after 3 titles, in a non-racist city, while being blown by at least 90 percent of the media on a daily basis?

I'm not trying to start anything, just trying to add another wrinkle to the discussion.

[Y2K]

I disagree with your analysis. No disrespect intended, brother.

It's not really an analysis. It's more related to logic.

What are you contesting exactly?

1. Versatility/well-roundedness is not perfectly correlated with effectiveness/performance
2. You can be a superior player while also playing on a superior team

Or something else?

That as great as Russell Was on defense and as unselfishness as he was, his overall value to his team winning championships isn't higher than MJ because he didn't always have to be the great two-way player and the best player on the court for his team to win. Most of his career, he was.

That didn't hold true for Mike ever in Chicago. That made Mike's role and production more valuable to the success of his Bulls teams.

No other player accomplished what Mike did while ALWAYS being THE GUY for his Bulls teams.

I'm only referring to Jordan and Russell. I don't care about hypothetical situations.

But as usual Bush4Ever, it's nice to have a great discussion.

[Y2K]

Hey, why did Russell have the mental fortitude to win 11 titles in the Jim Crow era, in a racist city, while being profiled by the FBI for being an "uppity Negro", while Jordan mentally broke down after 3 titles, in a non-racist city, while being blown by at least 90 percent of the media on a daily basis?

I'm not trying to start anything, just trying to add another wrinkle to the discussion.

[vcsgrizzfan]

I disagree with your analysis. No disrespect intended, brother.

It's not really an analysis. It's more related to logic.

What are you contesting exactly?

1. Versatility/well-roundedness is not perfectly correlated with effectiveness/performance
2. You can be a superior player while also playing on a superior team

Or something else?

That as great as Russell Was on defense and as unselfishness as he was, his overall value to his team winning championships isn't higher than MJ because he didn't always have to be the great two-way player and the best player on the court for his team to win. Most of his career, he was.

That didn't hold true for Mike ever in Chicago. That made Mike's role and production more valuable to the success of his Bulls teams.

No other player accomplished what Mike did while ALWAYS being THE GUY for his Bulls teams.

I'm only referring to Jordan and Russell. I don't care about hypothetical situations.

But as usual Bush4Ever, it's nice to have a great discussion.

I would argue that no Russell and no titles. Not one out of those eleven is won without Russell.

We even got a bit of a sample of that in his second season. He got hurt in the finals, missed two games and was far less effective in the balance and the Celtics lost to the same team they beat the prior season.

Keep in mind as fpliii has already noted, the Celtics won with a mediocre offense and a great defense. They had the highest defensive rating in the NBA in 12 of Russell's seasons and 2nd the other time.

The seasons prior to Russell joining, they were near the bottom of the NBA in points allowed and defensive rating.

The year after Russell retired, they gave up more than 10 more points per game and went from champions to the lottery. Pretty steep drop.

[Y2K]

It's not really an analysis. It's more related to logic.

What are you contesting exactly?

1. Versatility/well-roundedness is not perfectly correlated with effectiveness/performance
2. You can be a superior player while also playing on a superior team

Or something else?

That as great as Russell Was on defense and as unselfishness as he was, his overall value to his team winning championships isn't higher than MJ because he didn't always have to be the great two-way player and the best player on the court for his team to win. Most of his career, he was.

That didn't hold true for Mike ever in Chicago. That made Mike's role and production more valuable to the success of his Bulls teams.

No other player accomplished what Mike did while ALWAYS being THE GUY for his Bulls teams.

I'm only referring to Jordan and Russell. I don't care about hypothetical situations.

But as usual Bush4Ever, it's nice to have a great discussion.

I would argue that no Russell and no titles. Not one out of those eleven is won without Russell.

We even got a bit of a sample of that in his second season. He got hurt in the finals, missed two games and was far less effective in the balance and the Celtics lost to the same team they beat the prior season.

Keep in mind as fpliii has already noted, the Celtics won with a mediocre offense and a great defense. They had the highest defensive rating in the NBA in 12 of Russell's seasons and 2nd the other time.

The seasons prior to Russell joining, they were near the bottom of the NBA in points allowed and defensive rating.

The year after Russell retired, they gave up more than 10 more points per game and went from champions to the lottery. Pretty steep drop.

In '67 he was hobbled with injury but Wilt Chamberlain Wasn't gonna be denied that year.

No doubt Russell Was the glue that brought it all together. And his defensive presence was missed in '70 and offensively they were very young. Sam Jones had retired in '69 as well. Hondo and Howell were all that was left.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Sam Jones was never considered some great defender. His retirement would not have been why the Celtics suddenly gave up 11.4 more points per game. That's why the Celtics went from the penthouse to the outhouse.

[Y2K]

Sam Jones was never considered some great defender. His retirement would not have been why the Celtics suddenly gave up 11.4 more points per game. That's why the Celtics went from the penthouse to the outhouse.

I was also referring to how they went from champions to chumpions in a span of an offseason.

[thedangerouskitchen]

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.

We've had our disagreements before on the matter; however I stand on my opinion that an "all-time elite" perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender for the fact that the perimeter guy is responsible for covering a larger portion of the floor and is often-times counted on to guard 2-3 different position players, not to mention help defense and (with a guy like Pippen for example), defend the post / paint as well.

That being said, I don't want to get into a debate on that subject since it really doesn't matter because my point overall is that Jordan's impact (or "contributions") on Offense and Defense combined were > Russell's... and I really don't see how that point can be argued.

[wailuaFC]

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.

We've had our disagreements before on the matter; however I stand on my opinion that an "all-time elite" perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender for the fact that the perimeter guy is responsible for covering a larger portion of the floor and is often-times counted on to guard 2-3 different position players, not to mention help defense and (with a guy like Pippen for example), defend the post / paint as well.

That being said, I don't want to get into a debate on that subject since it really doesn't matter because my point overall is that Jordan's impact (or "contributions") on Offense and Defense combined were > Russell's... and I really don't see how that point can be argued.

Did you really just say perimeter defenders can impact the game as much as paint defenders? I know you're completely agenda based but my god

[Y2K]

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.

We've had our disagreements before on the matter; however I stand on my opinion that an "all-time elite" perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender for the fact that the perimeter guy is responsible for covering a larger portion of the floor and is often-times counted on to guard 2-3 different position players, not to mention help defense and (with a guy like Pippen for example), defend the post / paint as well.

That being said, I don't want to get into a debate on that subject since it really doesn't matter because my point overall is that Jordan's impact (or "contributions") on Offense and Defense combined were > Russell's... and I really don't see how that point can be argued.

Did you really just say perimeter defenders can impact the game as much as paint defenders? I know you're completely agenda based but my god

In some instances, they indeed can.

[thedangerouskitchen]

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.

Fair enough... so let's look at where Russell ranked in Offensive WS among his teammates, year by year (regular season / playoffs):

5th / 8th
3rd / 5th
2nd / 3rd
2nd / 3rd
3rd / 1st
4th / 4th
2nd (tied) / 1st
5th / 3rd
4th / 11th
2nd / 2nd
6th / 2nd
5th / 5th
7th / 7th
6th / 7th

So there's a couple seasons where Russell was more than just a role-player on Offense... otherwise his impact was minimal.

Jordan's impact was never minimal... not on Offense or Defense.

Put another way Boston was still winning 90% of the time whether Russell scored or not. The Bulls weren't winning crap if MJ wasn't playing both elite Offense and Defense.

[thedangerouskitchen]

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.

We've had our disagreements before on the matter; however I stand on my opinion that an "all-time elite" perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender for the fact that the perimeter guy is responsible for covering a larger portion of the floor and is often-times counted on to guard 2-3 different position players, not to mention help defense and (with a guy like Pippen for example), defend the post / paint as well.

That being said, I don't want to get into a debate on that subject since it really doesn't matter because my point overall is that Jordan's impact (or "contributions") on Offense and Defense combined were > Russell's... and I really don't see how that point can be argued.

Did you really just say perimeter defenders can impact the game as much as paint defenders? I know you're completely agenda based but my god

Did you really fail (again) to read what I said...?

Why yes, you did.

[wailuaFC]

We've had our disagreements before on the matter; however I stand on my opinion that an "all-time elite" perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender for the fact that the perimeter guy is responsible for covering a larger portion of the floor and is often-times counted on to guard 2-3 different position players, not to mention help defense and (with a guy like Pippen for example), defend the post / paint as well.

That being said, I don't want to get into a debate on that subject since it really doesn't matter because my point overall is that Jordan's impact (or "contributions") on Offense and Defense combined were > Russell's... and I really don't see how that point can be argued.

Did you really just say perimeter defenders can impact the game as much as paint defenders? I know you're completely agenda based but my god

Did you really fail (again) to read what I said...?

Why yes, you did.

"An all-time perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender"
So are you saying that elite wing defenders have the same impact as elite interior defenders or are you saying elite wing defenders can impact the game as much as Ryan Anderson?

[thedangerouskitchen]

Did you really just say perimeter defenders can impact the game as much as paint defenders? I know you're completely agenda based but my god

Did you really fail (again) to read what I said...?

Why yes, you did.

"An all-time perimeter Defender (not the average Joe) can impact the game just as much as an interior Defender"
So are you saying that elite wing defenders have the same impact as elite interior defenders or are you saying elite wing defenders can impact the game as much as Ryan Anderson?

To clarify: An all-time elite perimeter defender CAN have the same impact as an all-time great interior defender... especally nowadays when the game is so much more perimeter-oriented.

I'm not saying this is always the case mind you, or that it's even common. What I am saying, however, is that fplii's statement ("a perimeter player can only have a fraction of the defensive impact of a big man") is not always the case.