Vote for the all-time top 85 players

[Mike G]

As I did with Russell and teammates in playoffs, here are Kareem's 9 trips to the Finals:

Code: Select all

Mil '71      WS   WS/48   PER        LAL '83     WS   WS/48   PER  
Kareem      3.3   .271   25.3       Kareem      2.1   .172   22.8
Oscar       2.3   .213   21.1       Magic       2.1   .156   20.6
McGlocklin  1.8   .174   13.6       Wilkes      1.0   .080   15.2
Dandridge   1.8   .157   17.9       
G Smith     1.7   .184   15.3        LAL '84     WS   WS/48   PER 
.                                   Magic       3.5   .198   22.8
Mil '74      WS   WS/48   PER       Kareem      3.3   .206   24.0
Kareem      4.7   .297   28.3       Worthy      2.1   .142   17.9
Dandride    1.9   .142   16.5       Cooper      1.9   .126   13.7
Oscar       1.5   .106   15.1
.                                    LAL '85     WS   WS/48   PER
LAL '80      WS   WS/48   PER       Magic       3.0   .210   22.3
Kareem      3.3   .253   27.9       Worthy      2.6   .199   19.7
Magic       2.8   .203   22.1       Kareem      2.5   .194   22.1
Wilkes      1.7   .127   15.8       
Nixon       1.5   .108   14.4        LAL '87     WS   WS/48   PER
.                                   Magic       3.7   .265   26.2
LAL '82      WS   WS/48   PER       Worthy      2.7   .190   21.0
Magic       2.7   .231   22.5       Kareem      2.0   .171   19.4
Kareem      1.5   .144   20.1       
Nixon       1.5   .131   16.9        LAL '88     WS   WS/48   PER
Cooper      1.2   .152   17.4       Magic       4.0   .198   22.9
.                                   Worthy      2.8   .148   20.3
.                               (7) Kareem      0.8   .054   13.8

Kareem was still co-leader of the Lakers dynasty at age 37, and still damn good at age 39 (1987).

[Mike G]

The Jordan Bulls' 8 playoff runs past the 2nd round:

Code: Select all

1989       WS   WS/48   PER      1996      WS   WS/48   PER
Jordan    4.0   .270   29.9      Jordan   4.7   .306   26.7
Grant     1.6   .122   13.1      Pippen   3.0   .195   19.4
Pippen    1.3   .104   14.4      Rodman   1.9   .149   14.1
                        
1990       WS   WS/48   PER      1997      WS   WS/48   PER
Jordan    4.0   .284   31.7      Jordan   3.9   .235   27.1
Pippen    1.9   .149   18.7      Pippen   2.3   .145   18.1
Grant     1.8   .137   15.4      Harper   2.0   .183   15.7
.                                Kukoc    1.3   .146   14.6
1991       WS   WS/48   PER               
Jordan    4.8   .333   32.0      1998      WS   WS/48   PER
Pippen    2.9   .197   22.0      Jordan   4.8   .265   28.1
Grant     2.6   .189   16.0      Pippen   2.9   .166   19.5
.                                Kukoc    2.4   .182   18.5
1992       WS   WS/48   PER               
Jordan    4.1   .216   27.2               
Grant     3.3   .184   16.3               
Pippen    3.1   .168   20.1               
                        
1993       WS   WS/48   PER               
Jordan    4.4   .270   30.1               
Grant     2.0   .180   17.0               
Armstrong 1.8   .137   13.2               
Pippen    1.4   .083   16.9               

Sometimes, Jordan's WS are more than the next 2 guys' combined.

[Mike G]

The other major candidate for the top 5, Wilt Chamberlain made 10 playoff forays past the 1st round.

Code: Select all

62 PhW     WS   WS/48   PER      69 LAL     WS   WS/48   PER
Wilt      3.1   .260   29.7      West      4.3   .274   25.2
Meschery  1.3   .125   15.8      Wilt      3.1   .177   18.3
Arizin    1.1   .115   16.4      Egan      1.6   .131   13.9
                        
64 SFW     WS   WS/48   PER      70 LAL     WS   WS/48   PER
Wilt      3.8   .323   31.3      West      3.2   .184   21.1
Thurmond  1.2   .136   12.9      Wilt      2.5   .140   20.3
Meschery  1.2   .142   15.9      Baylor    1.5   .107   17.4
                        
65 Phl     WS   WS/48   PER      71 LAL     WS   WS/48   PER
Wilt      2.5   .222   27.1      Goodrich  1.4   .131   20.0
Greer     1.5   .139   17.3      Hairston  1.3   .134   16.7
Walker    1.3   .137   14.6      Erickson   .9   .143   14.2
.                                Wilt       .8   .070   19.1
67 Phl     WS   WS/48   PER               
Wilt      3.8   .253   25.3      72 LAL     WS   WS/48   PER
Walker    2.3   .201   17.6      Wilt      3.0   .205   17.8
Greer     1.9   .131   16.1      Goodrich  2.0   .166   17.7
.                                Hairston  1.8   .148   15.2
68 Phl     WS   WS/48   PER      McMillian 1.4   .111   13.1
Wilt      2.5   .191   22.7      West      1.0   .078   18.8
Greer     1.7   .147   17.6               
Walker     .9   .086   13.8      73 LAL     WS   WS/48   PER
.                                Wilt      2.7   .162   16.7
.                                West      2.4   .184   22.7
.                                McMillian 1.6   .120   15.9
.                                Goodrich  1.5   .119   16.8

It took Wilt a few years to make the Lakers "his team".

[jbrocato23]

@jbrocato23

I think this is what you want. 2001 Finals, MVP, allstars and MVPs, NBA team awards, ROTY, rookie all-star mvp , simple box-score career stats, scoring titles, leading the league in steals, minutes etc.

Not exactly what I want, considering the guys I named (and you left out) have wayyyy more accolades. FWIW, I think Paul and Wade are absurd top 5 picks too, but at least they have arguably the top 2-3 peaks for their respective positions. I'm very skeptical that Iverson was even a top 5 sg. He was a good scorer, sure, but he's notable for his inefficiency and high turnover rates. He also got steals but he was too small to play even above average perimeter D on large point guards. His highest ever prior informed rapm was +3.1 in 2008, good for 23rd in the league, and his long term rapm (the 12 year iteration from 2001-2012) was +1.9

However if you want my real reason why I think he is among top 5 ever, he's only one of the 2 people could carry a whole team into Finals by largely himself in NBA history.

This is more what I'm looking for, but I think it's misguided. In 2001, the top 4 regular season teams were out west, and that's not including the Lakers, who were the best team that year but suffered from championship hangover/lazy regular season Shaq. The best team the 76ers beat in those playoffs were the Milwaukee Bucks (in 7 games), the 7th best regular season team. They also beat the 11th best Raptors (in 7 games) and 18th best Pacers. To put it simply, the East was terrible in the early 2000s. Were Kidd's Nets teams that much better?

The Sixers themselves were a +4.7 per 100 possessions in the regular season. That's from +0.6 on offense and +4.1 on defense. Sure, without Iverson the offense would have probably been substantially worse. But clearly, the team's strength was it's defense. And it's no wonder: it was anchored by an all-time elite defensive center (Mutombo) - and an elite interior shot blocker before the trade (Ratliff). And the roster had a number of defensive-specialist type players (which of course required Iverson to carry the offense).

I'm by no means saying Iverson wasn't a good player or that he wasn't the clear leader of that 76ers squad, but I don't think one year of taking a not-so-great team to the finals against weak competition propels him over some truly transcendent players.

[jbrocato23]

I'm pretty surprised that Russell isn't (at least closer to) unanimous. The guy won titles in 11 of his 13 seasons.

So he should rank ahead of Robert Horry.

Except Russell was clearly the best player on all those teams and Horry was never better than a 3rd wheel (at best). Btw, I'm not going to subscribe to any argument that suggests Russell wasn't the best Celtic because he didn't always lead his team in PER when the creator of the metric has specifically noted its HUGE shortcomings on measuring defense...and the same goes for ws48 there. I don't usually buy ringzz arguments, but when a guy is considered among the best in the league and he leads his team to the championship in 11 of his 13 years, there's something to that no matter how good his teammates were. Consider Wilt, who joined Jerry West and Elgin Baylor on the Lakers in 1969 right after leading his 76ers to the promised land just two years prior, and still couldn't beat a past-his-prime Russell in Russell's final NBA season. Or LeBron who joined Wade and Bosh in Miami and couldn't win the big one right away. Russell's teams won 11 out of 13 years with somewhat rotating supporting casts (obviously, or someone else would have 11 titles too).

Let's also not forget Russell also won 2 NCAA titles at SAN FRANCISCO (!!!)

This is something I posted in an earlier thread:

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.

Btw, MW00's argument that the Celts' offense suffered because of Russell is an interesting one, and I'll look into that some more when I get more time.

[permaximum]

@jbrocato23

I have explained his shoothing percentage and turnovers in my previous post.

As for his defense, at his prime he couldn't make it to the defensive team but got votes regularly. Also he lead the league in steals 4 seasons I think. Sure, he wasn't the best defender but he was a good defender.

For RAPM values, what was your lambda? How did you find it? What was the prior? Was your matchup data 100% correct? I'm checking JE's prior informed RAPM now and I see +3.5 for Iverson in 2005-06. In my calculations lambda was bigger and the results were even more different because I didn't use any priors. How can we trust these values if it changes for person to person? However, I agree that RAPM is the best metric in theory.

Last but not least 2001 season. 76ers was the second best in NBA. That team won a game at LA despite the fact that Lakers had 14-0 run (11 in playoffs) if I remember right. Super defensive sixers allowed Shaq to score 44 and Kobe 25 but they still won the game. I don't think Snow or Mutombo made it happen. I don't think other players made it happen while Iverson was scoring 50+ constantly in Raptors series. Or Bucks series. Wasn't Ratliff traded for Mutombo? Sixers didn't have them both.

You say all of the teams Sixers faced in playoffs were not that great. Haven't that happened in NBA history before? I'm pretty certain it had. Then why didn't we see someone carry his team single-handedly before? Recent examples: T-mac, Carter, Paul Pierce, Garnett, Kobe. None of them could make it alone.

I do defend Iverson passionately because I always thought he was underrated in his whole career. Before he left the sixers he was the first in all-time PPG in playoffs and 3rd in regular season behind Jordan and Chamberlain. We're talking about a 5-11 guy who won the scoring title 4 times.

As for Paul and Wade, they're not even today's best players. They have never been the best player in any time of basketball history.

In the end yes, Magic-Iverson-Jordan-Bird-Chamberlain is my pick for top 5. These long discussions only prove there has always been a bias against Iverson.

[onlxn]

I'm a Russell voter who's close to withdrawing that vote... people are poking some pretty compelling holes in the idea that he was the core engine of those Celtics teams (or at least the idea that we can *prove* he was the core engine of those Celtics teams). However, I will defend the idea that a hypothetical Russell who *was* that core engine -- whether or not that Russell actually existed -- would be worthy of top-five status. The two main reasons:

1) Eleven rings is a lot;

2) His teams consistently beat Wilt's teams to get those rings.

There's certainly such a thing as overweighting championship credentials. I don't think Robert Horry is a top-level guy just because he has seven rings, and I don't think Karl Malone is a historically irrelevent player just because he has zero. And yet... there's also such a thing as underweighting championship credentials, and I think that does occur in stathead circles. The obvious reason is that focusing on rings gives short shrift to all the fascinating and underanalyzed data from regular seasons. A more hidden reason, I think, is the legacy of sabermetrics in sports statistics. Baseball players tend not to show a sustainable ability to perform better in high-leverage situations, and no single player can really drive their team to a championship... the structure of the game doesn't allow anyone that kind of significance. Any evaluation that places Derek Jeter above, say, Barry Bonds (chemical mischief aside) would be ridiculous.

But in the NBA, a player really can go out and be the primary driver of a championship win... we just saw LeBron do it, we've seen Duncan and Jordan do it. One shouldn't chalk that all up to magic, but one shouldn't just consider those regular old games, either. How much more should a transcendent Game Seven performance count than a regular season performance? Twenty? Two hundred? We'll never agree on a number, but to me, that number should be pretty damn high.

The Celtics of Russell's won eleven titles in thirteen tries. You'll never see anything like that in baseball... you never saw anything close even in the pennant-only days, when it theoretically should've been easier for the best teams to win out against the vagaries of randomness. Eleven in thirteen is insane. I don't think those Celtics were magical winner-dragons, and I think they had their share of luck, but I also don't think eleven out of thirteen just happens, and I don't think 10-0 in Game 7s just happens either. I think those teams had a sustainable ability to beat out their competitors when they absolutely had to, not a foolproof ability, but an extremely strong ability. And since the goal of the game isn't top-seeding year after year, but the trophy at the end, I think a team that demonstrates that ability deserves a ton of credit for winning. How that credit is apportioned amongst the players is of course an open question, but for now we're presuming a hypothetical Russell that deserves the lion's share of it...

...which leads to the Wilt point. I'd rate the quality of play in the 1960's NBA far below the quality of play in subsequent generations, but if any achievement from that time does move the needle for me, it's beating the player who's making everybody else look like children. Now, obviously you can argue that *being* Wilt is more of an achievement than *beating* Wilt... I don't have a problem with anyone rating Wilt ahead of Russell. But it's murky. Imagine a more contemporary example. Imagine that, say, Reggie Miller's Pacers beat Jordan's Bulls seven times out of nine in the Eastern playoffs, and that Reggie ended up with four or five rings to Jordan's one or two. Jordan was excellent in those playoffs series, still more productive than Reggie, but less so than he usually was, and Reggie executed better in high-leverage moments than Jordan did. Jordan's overall numbers still dwarfed Reggie's by the degree that they do. Which would matter to us more, Jordan's easy dominance in regular seasons, or Reggie's better results in the phase of the game that the regular season is all about reaching?

I think postseason achievement should weigh heavy, and I think a guy who carried eleven different teams to championships would be a completely legitimate choice for top-five status. The actual Bill Russell may not have been that carrier... he may have received undue credit for those championships. But championships are nothing to sneeze at. This ain't baseball.

[Need To Argue]

Some silly examples that I won't jump on, but if starting a team, my first pick is Russell and I'd be fine with any of the other guys at other positions.

[Philosopher]

I know it won't be popular, but I will stick with Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Bird, Magic.

You don't think Jordan is one of the top-5 players of all time? I don't think that's defensible.

My votes, for what it's worth, were Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell. I struggled with who to put fifth, and selected Magic, but also considered LeBron, Bird, and Duncan. All of those four (Magic, LeBron, Bird, or Duncan) seem like reasonable choices in my eyes. And there are others as well (Oscar Robertson, West, etc.).

[Statman]

In the end yes, Magic-Iverson-Jordan-Bird-Chamberlain is my pick for top 5. These long discussions only prove there has always been a bias against Iverson.

Just because no one believes AI is top 5 all time hardly implies "bias" vs AI.

I have a feeling you've gotten into debates/arguments in the past with Dave Berri type followers. If memory serves, Berri's work had AI as an average NBA player (his best seasons a somewhat above average, his lesser seasons well below) - his lowerish efficiencies trumping his elite level usage rates. Plus, Berri's stuff ALWAYS tended towards rebounders.

For the most part, I've felt most here understand at the player level there's much more to offensive performance/impact than shooting efficiency. I don't think there are many anti AI guys here - but I am about certain you are the only one here that would have AI in the top 12, let alone top 5, all time.

[jbrocato23]

For RAPM values, what was your lambda? How did you find it? What was the prior? Was your matchup data 100% correct?

I used J.E.'s previously published prior informed rapm, which used the previous season's rapm as a prior.

Last but not least 2001 season. 76ers was the second best in NBA. That team won a game at LA despite the fact that Lakers had 14-0 run (11 in playoffs) if I remember right. Super defensive sixers allowed Shaq to score 44 and Kobe 25 but they still won the game. I don't think Snow or Mutombo made it happen.

So now we're making this about a single game? The Sixers very nearly got swept in that series.

Wasn't Ratliff traded for Mutombo? Sixers didn't have them both.

Yes, I was saying they had Ratliff before the trade, then Mutombo, both elite rim protectors (Mutombo one of the best ever)

You say all of the teams Sixers faced in playoffs were not that great. Haven't that happened in NBA history before? I'm pretty certain it had. Then why didn't we see someone carry his team single-handedly before? Recent examples: T-mac, Carter, Paul Pierce, Garnett, Kobe. None of them could make it alone.

I gave an example last post: Jason Kidd. I don't think his Nets teammates were that much better than Iverson's 76ers teammates and yet the Nets made the finals twice because of a weak eastern conference. Hell, LeBron did it against relatively strong competition. Now that I think about it, Duncan won a title with a weak supporting cast in '03. And so did Hakeem in '94.

In the end yes, Magic-Iverson-Jordan-Bird-Chamberlain is my pick for top 5. These long discussions only prove there has always been a bias against Iverson.

There's no bias against Iverson. Iverson led his teams to exactly zero titles. He won one MVP. Compare that to Russell's 11 and 5 or Kareem's 6 and 6 or or Duncan's 4 and 2 or LeBron's 2 and 4 etc etc

Iverson's place in NBA history isn't among the top 5 because he simply wasn't a dominant superstar.

[Mike G]

...the idea that he was the core engine of those Celtics teams (or at least the idea that we can *prove* he was the core engine of those Celtics teams).

OK, count me as one who understands Russell was all that. Win Shares and PER be damned. He was Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle, or whomever for the Yankees when they were winning 9 times in 13 years or whatever.

A team that is deep at every position is going to be a contender, and someone is going to be their best player. That still doesn't describe Russell's situation, quite. But there are also a couple of arithmetical conditions to keep in mind.

In a league of 8-10 teams, it's mathematically much easier to win a title than it would be later. The Celts were a bastion of lineup stability -- winning begets winning -- they just needed a shrewd deal or 3 (adding Nelson, Siegfried, Howell ...) to keep their edge vs the league.

Put another way: The Celts needed 2 playoff rounds to win most of their titles, and 3 rounds for the last 2. Therefore, a Title in 1960 is roughly equivalent to reaching the conference finals in 2010. This is something that a number of recent players have done with regularity.

And that just assumes overall league quality is equivalent.

http://bkref.com/tiny/mGERp
Russell ranks 9th in playoff minutes -- ahead of Jordan, behind Wilt. He's 25th in PO games.

And yes, each series can come down to a Game 7, and additional playoff games means your best players tended to do well at those clutch moments. In recent times, I'd nominate Tim Duncan as most Russell-like in his ability to ensure his teams' advancement through the playoffs. He's perhaps not the rebounder or defensive wizard, but he's about twice the scorer and perhaps equal passer.

To my thinking, the transcendent part of Russell's career were his last 2 years. He was also the coach; they had no other great rebounder, they no longer had multiple high scorers off the bench, they no longer got the 1st-round bye. But they won the '68 and '69 titles -- through sheer experience? -- and he went 46 mpg.

I'll also say it's hard to imagine he was actually a drag on the offense. He led his team in assists, and you had to keep him off the glass. Contrast with someone like Ewing, who took mid-range jumpers and seldom got to the glass. Russell was the designated O-Rebounder.

[Mike G]

It's Tuesday, but we still have some unsettled-ness.
There's no clear top 5, and there are ties within the top 6. After 16 voters and 80 votes:

Code: Select all

14   Michael Jordan        4   Shaquille O'Neal
11   Lebron James          3   Tim Duncan
10   Kareem AbdulJabbar    3   Oscar Robertson
10   Wilt Chamberlain      2   Larry Bird
9    Magic Johnson         1   Allen Iverson
9    Bill Russell          1   Karl Malone
.                          1   Hakeem Olajuwon
.                          1   Chris Paul
.                          1   Dwyane Wade

I think we should disqualify Russ and Magic (for straddling the line, it's an over-and-back), and have a runoff between Shaq and Malone.

[Bobbofitos]

I'll echo an earlier thought, that I just don't understand the Magic love without an equal share of Bird.

Do people just love triple doubles or something? I'd drop Magic off the top 5; I'm OK with him being inserted over Duncan (although I don't agree, it's not by enough of a margin) but over Bill Russell!? Nooooo.

[Mike G]

I'll go out on a limb and suppose it's a position thing.
PG: Magic has 9 votes, Oscar 3, Paul 1: total 13
SG: Jordan 14 + Iverson + Wade = 16
SF: LeBron 11 + Bird 2 = 13
PF: Duncan? (3) + Malone = 4
C: 34 votes. Total 38 votes for 'bigs'.

Malone may have the best PF resume' of all time, but he's pushed aside by centers who were arguably better, and also by smaller players without any argument at all.

If you're the best PG of all time, you "have to be" in the top 5 all time. But not so for PF.

People are putting playoff 'success' ahead of overall (including playoff) performance. If you played for a star-studded team, that somehow makes you 'better'. If you had just one or two good teammates, you were an "underachiever".