Vote for top 50 all-time NBA/ABA players/careers

[Mike G]

A theory:
Before the shot clock, I think teams tried to get the ball to someone close to the basket, and ideally he gets fouled.
After 1954, "work for the best shot possible" was replaced with "take the first decent shot you can get".
After some years, clock management skills improved, among both players and coaches. Successful teams were those which took the best shot that the clock was likely to allow.

This past season, 2-point FG% was .483 . So this is unchanged since 1979 or so -- some 34 seasons -- in spite of the fact that the 3-point shot is supposed to open up the rest of the floor a bit.
Even with the prevalence of 3-ball, league eFG% was .496 last year, not any better than 1982, when nobody used it much. That's a 30 year lull.

It's good to know all this. When we are comparing players, seasons back to 1979 don't really need any adjustment regarding what was league average shooting, relative to that of any player in the meantime.

[jbrocato23]

A couple of things that I found:

I looked at all players who played at least 1000 minutes in both 1959 and 1963 (the before and after years of the huge shooting percentage boosts). There are 28 such players. Of them, 24 had a higher fg% in 1963. Half of them increased their fg% by at least 3%. Combined, these players had a fg% of 2.3% higher in 1963 than 1959. The overall difference between league fg% in the two years is 4.6%. I realize I didn't control for aging or number of fga, but still that data suggests that shot selection indeed must have improved across these seasons - or maybe more evolved offenses made for more open shot opportunities, or perhaps the higher pace made defenses weaker as a result of fatigue. Regardless, there seems to be more than just skill difference at play.

In support of the skill difference argument though, notable players that entered the league between 59 and 63 include Wilt, Oscar, West, Havlicek, Bellamy, Bill Bridges, and Debusschere. Notable players that were in the league in 59 but not in 63 include Arizin, Slater Martin, and Bill Sharman. Obviously, then, an influx of talent of the likes had never been seen before made difference too.

So I think the huge increase in fg% is actually a combination of more skilled players entering the league and better shot selection/opportunities, etc, but I think the latter is in play more given that nearly everyone who played both years had a higher fg% in '63.

[Mike G]

There was also a sudden shortage of great passers. From '56 to '57, league assists dropped from 24.3 to 18.9 per game.
League FG%, which had risen by some .010 per year for several years, suddenly stalled, and dropped to .380 .

I've called this the 1957 Assist Anomaly. Look at every team in the league, and you'll see that for most, their primary ballhandler(s) retired, went to the army, or suddenly lost their wheels. Celtics were a major exception.

By 1961, a new generation of passers had arrived, and FG% continued to rise, slowly and steadily.

[Mike G]

The Cousy stuff seems to be two different conversations. I never said anything about his shooting. I said he would be a star in any generation just as Stockton would...

The shooting is important, if you're to be a star in the NBA. Would Cousy, born 40 years later, shoot .200 higher than he did in the '50s-60s? Would he just shoot less, and not be a scoring threat?

Cousy took as many as 21 shots (FGA) per game in a year. He hit just 37% of them, in 1951-52.
The next-lowest FG% by a guard with as many as 20 FGA/G would be Goodrich in 1969, at 41%
Iverson chucked 23.4 times per game in 2004, at only a .412 eFG%. While such profligate misuse of the ball may not be permanently extinct, it may as well be.

Cousy shot a bit less (18.5 per game) in 1955 to reach a career-best .397 success rate.
The worst FG% at as high a FGA rate in the 1970s was Dave Bing's .414 in 1972.
In the '80s, we had Gus Williams with the Bullets, at .439 eFG% (1985)
In the '90s Iverson matched that (1999), and in the '00s he beat it.
In the current decade, the worst is Kobe Bryant's .462 in 2012, on 23 FGA/G

To be equitable, here's the whole list of NBA/ABA/BAA worst shooters on a given number of FGA.
Maravich's 28 shots per game is a season record; it so happens he was also bad.

Code: Select all

.chucker          yr    tm  FGA/G   eFG%
Pete Maravich    1977  NOJ   28.0   .433
Allen Iverson    2001  Phl   27.8   .422
Allen Iverson    2004  Phl   23.4   .412
Gail Goodrich    1969  Phx   21.6   .411
Bob Cousy        1952  Bos   21.0   .369
Bob Cousy        1958  Bos   19.4   .353
Frankie Baumholz 1947  CLR   19.0   .298
Ernie Calverly   1947  Pro   18.7   .293
Ernie Calverly   1948  Pro   17.8   .271
Don Putman       1947  STB   10.9   .246

I'll stop there, as it just gets uglier. Cousy was a clear upgrade on those before him, but since that time it's largely been very bad teams that let a guy miss that many shots.

[MW00]

My take, for what it's worth, on the thread so far

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?

I think most will agree that Russell's teammates were not in fact much better than the teammates of his contemporaries. The biggest argument supporting the point of view that he did have better teammates was their hall of fame pedigree, but I'm confident that if they hadn't had Russell, they wouldn't have won nearly as many (if any) championships, and most wouldn't have been in the hall of fame at all.

The 1969 season does well to debunk this "better teammates" myth, as Wilt joined forces in Los Angeles with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who were both considered to be better than any of Russell's teammates, and yet Russell's Celtics still managed to defeat the Lakers in the championship.

As schtevie pointed out, those Celtics won championships because of their defense (as I posted a while ago, five of the ten best defenses of all time belonged to Russell's Celtics), and Russell is the premier defensive player in history. I'm confident Russell was the huge driving force in the Celtics' defensive success by looking at the numbers: Historical Offense, Defense, and Efficiency Differential. Before Russell arrived in 1956, the Celtics were an estimated -1.3 per 100 on defense. In Russell's first year they bumped to a +4.9. They never dipped below +4 during Russell's tenure in Boston, and in fact were substantially better than that (getting to +10.9 !! in '64). In Russell's last year they were a +6.5, and the following year they fell to a +0.2. These numbers are inexact, of course, but they are reasonably close, and suggest that Russell was not only the best defensive player of all time, but was by probably a huge margin.

As Mike said, I think very few (at least outside this forum, I don’t know about here) have suggested Russell’s teammates weren’t much better than those of his rivals (i.e. Chamberlain, Robertson, West and Baylor).
You can certainly be confident Boston would have less titles (sans Russell). If the debate is as I understood it, Wilt versus Russell (from Mike being surprised Wilt isn’t unanimous but Russell is) then even those favouring Chamberlain would typically acknowledge Russell would still be a legend, just lower in the all time top ten. So this is uncontroversial. But then you say “if any”. Boston had a better record in 56-57 before Russell’s arrival than with him so to conjecture that they would not have won any titles is dubious. Especially if we don’t just remove him from history after Boston acquire him but give Boston Hagan (an all time great, 2nd best SF of the 60s) and the aging Macauley.
Given that Boston were clearly the best team of that era by SRS, even without Russell (where given Hagan) I would favour them to claim the 50s titles and have a chance at others.
The ’69 finals hardly debunks “this myth” (of Boston typically having more talent beyond Russell) as:
a) It’s just one year
b) It (LA) was a poorly constructed team in terms of complementary skill sets
c) It was a poorly constructed team in terms of having a coach/system aligned to the specific roster talent (and arguably given his coaching elsewhere in the pros, just a bad pro coach)
d) In large part as a result of the above, LA had a fractious locker room
e) Baylor was a shadow of his former self, statistically much worse than in his early career(still scoring but %s collapsing relative to league norms, rebounds falling badly too) and due to this injuries his decreased agility and harmed his defense too. Baylor is better known, a bigger star than, and a better all-time player than Bailey Howell, but that year I would state Bailey was better than Baylor, the stats suggest substantially so.
f) Top to bottom I would argue that minus the starting centers Boston had a comparable and arguably better roster
lets match them up (trying to get players of reasonably similar relative status and position)
Havlicek vs West
Howell vs Baylor
Sam Jones vs Johnny Egan
“Satch” Sanders vs Mel Counts
Don Nelson vs Keith Erickson
Larry Siegfried, Em Bryant and Don Chaney versus Tom Hawkins, Freddie Crawford and Bill HeWitt
Certainly West over Havlicek, maybe Counts over Sanders (maybe, some would argue, and it’s hard to know without strong info on individual defensive influence, but I’d say no), otherwise the rest look like (clear?) Boston victories.
g) Boston squeaked the series in seven games despite being narrowly outscored (744-741).
So the idea that Boston had a large advantage over most rivals at 2nd to 12th(ish) man throughout most of their dynasty is hardly shattered. In 66-67 (when Cunningham got good) the 76ers are at least comparable, their regular season rosters are again the next year (substantially less to in the playoffs for the Philly-Boston series with Cunningham out, and few other lesser ailments), and then in ’69 LA, covered above, in the same ballpark on paper, but after adjusting for circumstances Boston would be favoured before factoring in the center position.

Mike, I don't think you are getting the underlying point. At least you are not responding to it. (And appropriate apologies for thread drift; that is if a poll string can have thread drift.)

(1) The Russell-led Celtics had two primary characteristics: they were, on average, average, mediocre, nothing to write home about on offense, at the same time that they were above-average on defense. These are two facts that are simply established (owing to the fact that sufficiently precise estimates of team possessions can be made). Any narratives one wishes to construct about the Celtics and their constituent members must be organized around these two, true facts. Period.

(2) Any narrative so told, what includes "all-NBA" status of teammates, must fit these aforementioned facts. If such narratives don't accord with such facts, they are necessarily false. And if "all-NBA/HoF" status doesn't fit these aforementioned facts, so much the worse for the perceptivity of the sportswriters of the time (or whoever were the electors).

(And in this vein, I would be happy to recount the story of the perceptivity of the so-called "Dean of NBA Sportswriters" in the context of the expected competitiveness of the 2007-08 Celtics, upon the acquisition of KG. This was the moment when it became clear to me that sportswriters should be assumed to be quite worthless in their opinions until proved otherwise. Especially when it comes to appreciating the value of defense.)

(3) Of the list you present, for Russell's "supporting cast", I see a bunch of folk whose reputations (as I understand them) are based upon perceived offensive prowess - this while there was no offensive prowess exhibited by the team. For there to be some significant, net positive to apportion to these HOFers, Russell, plus the other teammates, must have truly sucked offensively. And given that Russell played virtually all of every game, if he didn't suck offensively, that leaves few position minutes to have seriously sucked. Perhaps so. But that leaves the specific question open: was Bill Russell a drag on offense?

My guess is that he was either of no particular offensive benefit or perhaps a slight positive. We know that he was a very good passing center. And it is reasonable to believe that he was well above average in getting offensive rebounds. I have no idea about his propensity to turn the ball over, but we do know that he was a slightly below average scorer (in terms of TS%). So what does that all mean? Well, I organize my views in +/- terms, and if you try to look for offensive analogues since 2001, we are looking at a Joakim Noah/Marcus Camby type in their better years, and if this is apropos, Bill Russell wasn't a drag on offense and might even have had a net positive contribution.

If so, this leaves the following possibilities. For the "non-Russell, all-NBA"ers listed to have been all that AND their reputations to have been properly based on offensive prowess, all non-named Celtics must have been really atrocious on offense. Or, if the reputations of Bob Cousy and the like were based upon their well-rounded play, then Bill Russell wasn't the defensive phenom that accords with general acclaim, and the fact that he was the common element in the Celtics championship run - what corresponded with exhibited defensive prowess.

History is written by victors, and the Celtics were surely that. This doesn't mean that the quality of the first (and lingering) drafts of history are worth believing. The underlying facts are simple, and it is in accordance with these that the story must be told.

1) Whilst I would certainly say that the Celtics titles were won more on D than O without turnover numbers is there enough evidence to state that the Boston offense was mediocre. My understanding was in getting off quick shots they traded fg% for decreased turnovers.
2) If one does have to fit with a entirely (rather than just primarily) defensive oriented Boston dominance (and I wouldn’t discount all-NBA selections so quickly) that wouldn’t necessarily require Russell to be not only the greatest defender of all time but orders of magnitude beyond all others. How one splits credit between him and the likes of K.C. Jones, Sanders and Havlicek would also have to be resolved.
3) Havlicek and Sharman had substantial defensive reputations.
And Russell relative to other 30+ minute centers shot a lower ts% and scored less per minute than most/all the others starting in the early 60s and presumably all the way to his retirement, thus in scoring terms he would appear to have been a significant drag on his team’s scoring efficiency in individual terms (relative to average production from the position). Certainly he was an active passer though the value of this is uncertain.

History is written by the victors whilst titles may have helped HOF bids for players at the margin, this effect has also allowed Boston players (notably Cousy and Heinsohn, notably not Sharman and K.C. ie those who worked with Wilt) to canonize Russell and vilify Wilt. Also it made media members who put consistently put Wilt 1st Team all-NBA over Russell, call Russell the player of the decade.

Mike, apparently I have not made my point sufficiently clear. There is a hard budget constraint for performance that must be respected in apportioning credits and debits. Period. Whatever a team's rating (be it on offense, defense, or net) the sum of individual contributions must equal this rating. Noting that certain players were ultimately voted into the Hall of Fame doesn't give a free pass to ignore the arithmetic.

And even though we are discussing the pre-modern, statistical world of pre-1974, we can still make some pretty definitive statements about team offense and defense. And this is because we have enough information to estimate possessions with sufficient precision. Consider 1969, the last year of the Russell dynasty. (We could consider any year, and the basic story would be the same.) We see that the Cs scored, 111.0 ppg, compared to the league average of 112.3, making theirs tenth best out of a 14 teams. It terms of points allowed, it was 105.4, second best in the league. But what was their strength on a per possession basis, that is abstracting from pace? This is what we care about.

Well, we don't know super-precisely, because no stats were kept for offensive rebounds or turnovers. However, in the formula for possessions, these two terms are relatively small (compared to field goal attempts and the fraction of free throw attempts representing possessions) and offsetting, such that if we use estimates informed by the not-so-far-off 1973-74 season, we cannot be very far off.

When I do this I calculate the net of (TO - 1.07*OR) to be about 5% of (FGA + 0.4*FTA) for the league average (the ratio equalling 0.049) and the range between best and worst isn't so large, -0.027 to +.025. Call this 0.050 +/- 0.025, and we can apply these factors to the 1969 numbers, confident that we cannot be very far off the true marks.

What we get, first applying 0.050 throughout, is that the league PPP equals 0.946, the Cs offensive PPP equals 0.924 and is still ranked tenth but that the defense rises to first best with a PPP allowed of 0.878. Alternatively, if one takes the correct view that good teams tend to turn the ball over less and get more offensive rebounds, one might prefer to apply the low-range factor of 0.025 (0.050 - 0.025) to the Celtics' 1969 numbers. This has the effect of making its offense that year strictly average (0.947) and its defense a bit worse (0.899) but still ranked number one. In either case, the net rating is about the same, the Celtics were about 0.047 or 0.048 points superior to their competition per 100 possessions.

So, this digression completed, what is the story one wishes to tell? Or more to the point, what is the story that one is able to tell? The 1969 Celtics, in the last year of the Russell dynasty, had four future HORers on its roster. So what? These plus the "role players" yielded a strictly mediocre offense and a pretty darn good, but not historically exceptional defense. And if we believe that Bill Russell was all that and a bag of chips on D (and he played over 42 minutes per game) this simply doesn't leave much, or anything at all, in the way of net positive to apportion to the sum of all players not named Russell. (Indeed it is not implausible, given what we know about the greatest 34 year old defensive players of the xRAPM era, that the total defensive contributions of his supporting cast could have been negative.)

And echoing my previous post, if one accepts the argument that Bill Russell's specialized role on offense (rebounder and facilitator primarily) left him with no particularly net effect, the consequence is that all other players were, on net, strictly average offensively.

Okay, so the gist is overall credit should match overall team performance. Agreed. Boston’s substantial positive value was gained primarily on D. Again agreed, though to what degree we might disagree (or at least I might say we can’t be certain). But then that (a) the credit should go almost entirely to Russell on teams when several historically notable defenders (specifically K.C., Havlicek and Sanders, though the Celtics had a number of other players with positive defensive reputations, the latter two active if we’re focusing specifically on ‘69), and that (b) the assumption should be Russell was a net none-effect on offense.
If Russell’s effect can clearly be isolated from that of others it would be persuasive. If Russell’s inability to score was clearly counteracted by offensive rebounds (though his ability to grab offensive boards might be precisely because of lack of “gravity”, i.e. he wasn’t boxed out because he wasn’t be guarded, because he was a minimal threat) and playmaking to make him neutral on O, that would be make the argument more persuasive.

from 46-47 to 55-56 (10 years) when mikan (ages 22-31) played in the baa, nbl, and nba, he scored 22% more points than any other single player, and 803 different players played in the 3 leagues during that time. this not to mention he did not play in one of those years (54-55). his teams won 7 titles (4 nba titles)...

from 94-95 to 03-04, shaq scored the 2nd most total points (karl malone had the most) of all 1052 players that played in the league during that time. his teams won 3 titles...

the bottom line is that from 51-52 to 59-60 only 15% of all minutes played in the regular season were played by players in their 30s (at the start of a season). but from 91-92 to 99-00 over 28% was played by players age 30+...

so if you are going to use longevity as one criteria in a poll for the greatest nba players across eras, you are already skewing your results to more recent players...

It all depends on what you consider "greatest" to mean. Is there any doubt Shaq would have absolutely dominated in Mikan's place, in an era where black players were as scarce as people over 6'8" in the league(s)? Or that in their team matchups, is there any doubt that Shaq would embarrass Mikan? Yes, I understand Mikan was the best of his era, and that he is immensely important and influential to the evolution of the game. But at some point you have to consider portability, and Mikan would probably only dominate in his specific era while Shaq would be dominant in literally every era.

Well if you drop him in a time machine and let him play his ordinary role, no Shaq is clearly bigger and more athletic, wheras Mikan would probably be a peripheral player in the modern NBA (cf: Charley Rosen http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Answ ... -questions http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/030214.html, though Bill Walton and Mike Gminski are more positive in The Experts Decide ...). But what’s Shaq’s rep if (a) he plays for the Globetrotters, (b) the NBA bans the “unskilled” (it’s perception at the time) dunk, (c) he gets ignored on offense like early black players, or (d) he gets consistently beat up on and unfavourably reffed. All that assuming Shaq has the personality to play in the early pro game (perhaps he goes into movies?), that Shaq grows to his modern size on a 1930s/40s black family budget.
The gist of the above is the time machine stuff certainly can be factored in, but I’m not sure you “have to” include it.

... Watch shooting techniques back then, they're ridiculous.

So why isn't this obvious to everyone?
I admit I haven't tried to watch whole games. "Technique" only matters insofar as it's effective or not.

I probably overstated my case with the whole "technique" thing. Since FT% is generally the same across all eras, the disparity in shooting percentages probably can be mostly attributed to shot selection. It'd be an interesting thing to look into. From the late 50s to the early 60s, FG% rose sharply and generally stayed consistent from the mid-60s on. Were Bob Cousy's poor shooting numbers a result of the circumstances or his own inability to shoot? It really is hard to say.

Given FT% consistency I’d say the evolution of the types of shots taken is the greater factor than any skill increase, at least in terms of outside shooting. Maybe more dunking and better finishing at the basket too?

An Extended possible field, roughly by decade and position, cutoffs were are largely arbitrary, bolded indicates chosen in the top 25
George Mikan
Arnie Risen
Joe Fulks
Bob Feerick
Bobby Wanzer
Max Zaslofsky
Bob Davies
Neil Johnston
Ed Macauley
Clyde Lovellette
Larry Foust
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Harry Gallatin
Vern Mikkelsen
Paul Arizin
Bill Sharman
Frank Ramsey
Bob Cousy
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Walt Bellamy
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Bailey Howell
Jerry Lucas
Tommy Heinsohn
Connie Hawkins
Dave DeBusschere
Elgin Baylor
Chet Walker
Cliff Hagan
Jack Twyman
Jerry West
Sam Jones
Hal Greer
Oscar Robertson
Lenny Wilkens
Richie Guerin
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Bob McAdoo
Dan Issel
Wes Unseld
Alvan Adams
Dave Cowens
Bill Walton
Elvin Hayes
Spencer Haywood
Julius Erving
Rick Barry
John Havlicek
Billy Cunningham
Bobby Jones
George Gervin
Dave Bing
Earl Monroe
Paul Westphal
Gail Goodrich
Walt Frazier
Nate “Tiny” Archibald
Calvin Murphy
Moses Malone
Robert Parish
Jack Sikma
Bill Laimbeer
Kevin McHale
Larry Nance
Dan Roundfield
Buck Williams
Tom Chambers
Terry Cummings
Maurice Lucas
Calvin Natt
Larry Bird
Adrian Dantley
Dominique Wilkins
Alex English
Marques Johnson
James Worthy
Bernard King
Kiki Vandeweghe
Mark Aguirre
Sidney Moncrief
Walter Davis
World B Free
Magic Johnson
Isiah Thomas
Maurice Cheeks
Gus Williams
Lafayette “Fat” Lever
Dennis Johnson
Shaquille O’Neal
David Robinson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Patrick Ewing
Alonzo Mourning
Dikembe Mutombo
Brad Daugherty
Vlade Divac
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Shawn Kemp
Horace Grant
Scottie Pippen
Grant Hill
Detlef Schrempf
Chris Mullin
Michael Jordan
Clyde Drexler
Reggie Miller
Jeff Hornacek
Joe Dumars
Mitch Richmond
John Stockton
Gary Payton
Kevin Johnson
Tim Hardaway
Terry Porter
Rod Strickland
Mark Price
Terrell Brandon
Mark Jackson (didn’t feel like he belonged on the list but has high career added value-metrics and I wanted to include Penny, who’s below him)
Daron “Mookie” Blaylock
Anfernee “Penny” Hardaway
Players deemed predominantly 2000s are not (yet at least) included as I haven’t got the same level of data for them (critics rankings wise or career metric, added value wise)

Not all of the above are legit top 50 candidates, just a very rough top top 125(ish) for all players up to those from the 90's (probably a bit thin on 50s players). Players aren't (at least necessarily) listed in my ranking order but probably at least some order from some value in my spreadsheet.

Peripheral
Jim Pollard (on reputation he’d be in, the numbers are quite poor though)
Pete Maravich (could also be listed in injuries, makes most critics lists but injuries and inefficiency score him low
Derek Harper
Dennis Rodman (could also be listed in defense)

Injuries (but with substantial productive careers)
Maurice Stokes
James Silas
David Thompson
Drazen Petrovic
Arvydas Sabonis
(Penny Hardaway should probably be here really, maybe Connie Hawkins and Grant Hill)

Defense
K.C. Jones
Tom “Satch” Sanders
Norm van Lier
Don Buse
Bruce Bowen
Michael Cooper
Jerry Sloan
Mark Eaton
Alvin Robertson
Paul Silas
Don Chaney
Paul Pressey

[schtevie]

OK, let's take these one by one:

1) Whilst I would certainly say that the Celtics titles were won more on D than O without turnover numbers is there enough evidence to state that the Boston offense was mediocre. My understanding was in getting off quick shots they traded fg% for decreased turnovers.

There is enough evidence. No, we don't have actual turnover and offensive rebound data, but we can stipulate an upper-bound for best possible performance in this area, and see what it implies. The results of just such an exercise were discussed for the 1968-69 season, and the claim was that as went '69, so it was for the other years of the Russell dynasty.

The only counterargument is that the Celtics were proportionately even more excellent in the net of offensive rebounds less turnovers than the best team of 1973-74. Perhaps, but my sense is that there is no reasonable estimate of this factor that would overturn the stipulated result.

2) If one does have to fit with a entirely (rather than just primarily) defensive oriented Boston dominance (and I wouldn’t discount all-NBA selections so quickly) that wouldn’t necessarily require Russell to be not only the greatest defender of all time but orders of magnitude beyond all others. How one splits credit between him and the likes of K.C. Jones, Sanders and Havlicek would also have to be resolved.

If I am understanding this point, it is not true. Just because the Celtics typically got (almost) all of their margin of victory from defense, doesn't mean that Russell needed to be the greatest defender of all time (never mind by orders of magnitude beyond all others). And it doesn't mean that there couldn't have been other good/very good defenders on the team. All we do know is that the all defensive contributions need to sum to the actual defensive rating. And within the roster, there were almost surely Celtics players who had negative contributions.

And for context, we only need to look at the post-2001 data where we have ample historical analogs, of great defensive players (always "centerish") sometimes having and sometimes not having teammates providing defensive help.

3) Havlicek and Sharman had substantial defensive reputations. And Russell relative to other 30+ minute centers shot a lower ts% and scored less per minute than most/all the others starting in the early 60s and presumably all the way to his retirement, thus in scoring terms he would appear to have been a significant drag on his team’s scoring efficiency in individual terms (relative to average production from the position). Certainly he was an active passer though the value of this is uncertain.

You don't have to take my word for it, but basketball-reference.com and http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com allow you to contextualize your intuitions. Go to the former site and search for post-2001 players who had Russellesque offensive stats that we specifically know (TS% and Assist% conditioned by playing starter minutes) and stats that we consensually imagine (OR% and Usage%) and see who such players are, the go to Jeremias' site and see what the offensive ratings of these players are. I believe that you will find that I gave a fair estimation of the range of effect that Bill Russell had on offense.

[jbrocato23]

schtevie,

I don't think Mike is counting your Wallace and Mutombo votes unless you make it clear you'd like to write them in.

Mike,

I think it's time to move on (it's been some time since there have been any new votes). With interest waning as we go further into obscurity, I think maybe we should stop at at top 50 and try to next resolve who is in the top 15 or 20 out of those voted into the top 50. And maybe we should do it in a new thread so people aren't intimidated by the size of this thread or think it's something they already voted in.

Also, your count has 2 votes for B.Wallace (which I'm assuming omits schtevie's potential vote), but I count 3: one from me, one from Bobbofitos, and one from fpliii.

[Mike G]

In their 12 trips to the Finals, the Russell Celtics totaled .412 FG%, while their opponents totaled .416
The Celts out-rebounded their Finals opponents by 4.8 per game. This includes being out-rebounded by the Lakers in their last 2 meetings: by 1.1 RPG in '68 and by a whopping 5.3 RPG in '69.
After Russell, the Celts' best rebounder at the end was Don Nelson.

Somehow, the Celts' got an additional 7.6 FGA/G over 72 Finals contests. This is slightly offset by 2.0 FTA/G advantage by rivals. The total is about 6.7 TSA (true shot attempts) advantage to Boston.

This indicates that a couple of extra turnovers per game went Boston's way against their Finals' opponents. Against average NBA teams in regular seasons, the advantage was likely even greater.

[Mike G]

Final balloting for round 2 (top 50), with 7 voters casting 165 votes:
7 - Ewing, Gilmore, Pettit
6 - Barry, Cowens, Drexler, Dwight, Kidd, McHale, Payton
5 - Frazier, Hayes, Mikan, Nash, Pierce, Schayes, Isiah
4 - Cousy, Iverson, McGrady, Parish, Paul
These 22 will be put into the voters' top 50.
The following players will then remain in voting for round 3 -- along with others from my top 100:

3 - Cunningham, Durant, Issel, Lanier, Mourning, Ben Wallace, D Wilkins
2 - Carter, English, Gasol, Gervin, Ginobili, Miller
1 - Ray Allen, Billups, Kemp, Marion, McAdoo, McGinnis, Mutombo, Nance, Parker, Sikma, Thurmond, Rasheed, Webber, Worthy
0 - Boozer, Cummings, Divac, Johnston