A bit of kibitzing inspired by what I think is a highly problematic statement in Mike G's last reply.
Taking a bit closer look at the 50 poll choices, I was curious as to how the selection offered would be at variance with the list suggested by +/- criteria. Between 2001 and 2013, 10 of the 50 players on this list played their prime years within that period. (I am taking the age range of 26 to 31 to represent the prime, as suggested by Jeremias' aging curve, but the results I am discussing aren't really sensitive to this criterion.)
If you look at J.E.'s seasonal numbers from 2001 to 2013, and you take the straight xRAPM average of these prime years, you find that 7 of the top 10 players are included in the poll list, but three are not. One, Rasheed Wallace, at #10 might be properly replaced by Tracy McGrady, as the latter is punished by the definition of the prime years. (Conversely, a more malleable definition of a player's prime, catering to the actual prime, might mean that the overlooked Steve Nash should rightly be on the list of the top 10 of his generation.) And Allen Iverson and Vince Carter aren't in the running by any career definition.
So, who are the other two overlooked players. At #6, the anti-Argentine bias comes to the fore. We have Manu Ginobili, with a 5.73 average (just a touch behind #5 Dirk Nowitzki at 5.75. But this is not the most egregious oversight. #3 anyone? A moment for your consideration...
A hint. Not only is he
clearly the third best player of his generation on this peak criterion (with an average rating of 7.9. He is probably the most accomplished specialist of his generation.
The answer, of course, is Ben Wallace - the very underappreciated Ben Wallace. I say "very", not because he was just good at defense, but because the RAPM numbers say he was excellent. In fact, the numbers say that he was the most excellent "skill" player of his generation, defining skill most broadly as aptitude for either offense or defense. Of the players of his generation, he owns the top three component ratings: 9.8, 9.2, and 8.9. (This is followed by Dwyane Wade with an offensive 8.2.) And he also realized six of the top eight (his 7.6 in one year tying with a similar mark for Tracy McGrady).
The question is, in this day and age, why the achievements of BW still aren't appreciated? Because he is a specialist? No, if so, Dwyane Wade would be analogously eliminated from consideration. It is, of course, because defense isn't properly appreciated. And this, ironically, despite the fact that the most excellent players of this generation owed their success mostly to defense. I speak, of course, of Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett.
Anyway, this brings me back to Mike's problematic statement
Mike G wrote:I'm kind of surprised Russell is unanimous, given that Wilt and Oscar are not. Isn't it well understood that Russell had loads of help winning titles -- perhaps the best coach and some luck, too -- and those others did not?
Egads. At long last, the context of Russell winning should be well understood, and it almost surely is the case that he didn't have loads of help winning titles (relative to any best player on a team who won a title) and as for the best coach and some luck, well, who really knows about that.
I have been intermittently harping about this historical point for decades now: The Celtics won championships because of their defense, and not their offense. Period. Their offense was never anything particularly special, but their defense was. That they led the league in scoring in several years of their run is owing to pace, not productivity. One cannot pin this down precisely, given the lack of data on offensive rebounds and turnovers, but, there are no reasonable estimates of these variables that would alter this story. (And to the extent to which the difference were split, this would also redound to Bill Russell's benefit in part, as he was pretty good at collecting rebounds, offensive and otherwise.)
The final point is this: the only thing surprising about Russell being unanimous in the poll results is that this occurs despite the anti-defense bias that permeates the conventional wisdom. And the Ben Wallace oversight speaks strongly to this point.