Start the Debates: Who is your Top-25 All-Time?

[foucault87]

I guess I’m wondering what people are basing their choices on?

Cant speak for others but I basically value how good a player was relative to his peers over his career in the regular season and how well their skill translated into potential playoff success. Team accomplishments are important, but fewer rings or a "bad" finals record is out of the hands of any individual player, ie. I dont penalize Bron for losing in 07, 17, or 18 with shit teams. I am more interested in how good that player could have been if we re-ran their career many times with the same overall progression of their skills/health/etc but that way we can ignore luck factors like injuries.

 

[NMCav]

My disclaimer is this: Curry is quite possibly the greatest “shooter” this game has ever seen. But if we are talking pure PGs he falls behind (IMHO) Magic, Nash, Zeke, Stockton, Payton, Parker, CP3 and I might even throw in Mo Cheeks!

Naming point guards and forget Jason Kidd. Prime Kidd was better then Payton, Parker, CP3 and Cheeks.

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Naming point guards and forget Jason Kidd. Prime Kidd was better then Payton, Parker, CP3 and Cheeks.

OMG!!!! You are absolutely RIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!! I totally forgot about Kidd!! Add him to that list!

 

[Stark]

Your list is null and void without Russell

Put Jarrett Allen on those 60's Celtics teams and they're just as good, if not better.

Bill Russell was a great leader. He was also a great winner (when the NBA had like eight teams). He's probably not in my top-50 in terms of pure talent.

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Put Jarrett Allen on those 60's Celtics teams and they're just as good, if not better.

Bill Russell was a great leader. He was also a great winner (when the NBA had like eight teams). He's probably not in my top-50 in terms of pure talent.

WOW!!!! Your take is incredible!!! JA will never even sniff the HOF in his lifetime!
A wise man once said:
“Never get into a war of words with an unarmed man”!

 

[Stark]

Jarrett Allen vs. Bill Russell career highs (per-36):

PPG: 18.0 vs. 15.6
RPG: 13.0 vs. 21.3
FG%: 67.7 vs. 46.7
FT%: 77.6 vs. 61.2
PER: 23.0 vs. 22.8

WS/48: .225 vs. .238
TS%: 69.8 vs. 50.0

Is Jarrett Allen "better" than Bill Russell all time? Of course not, but Russell was not very skilled offensively compared to big men that started playing even in the early 1970s and racked up insane rebounding numbers and a ton of rings against ungodly mediocre competition on one of basketball's pioneer dynasties.

If there were per-100 metrics available for Bill's era that would help adjust for the pace of the times, the only thing that Bill would have over Allen in terms of raw numbers is rebounding. Allen is a far more skilled offensive big man and is way more efficient than Bill ever could of been. Allen is putting up those far more efficient numbers with Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic, Rudy Gobert, Bam Adebayo, and Karl Anthony-Towns all trudging around in the paint too. Russell's only competition was Wilt, and his numbers declined whenever he played him.

And I'm not keen on the "well nobody was efficient back then" excuse that I've heard before, because Wilt was incredibly efficient in the same era. That's why he's so high up on my all-time list.

Again, I don't dislike Bill Russell. I have a fair amount of respect for him as an ambassador of the game. If I was ranking top-25 guys in terms of what they accomplished throughout their career and what they "did" for the game, then Russell is in my top-10, probably my top-5.

If I'm starting a franchise from scratch with every player in NBA history at their absolute peak, I can list off a solid fifty guys that I would take before Bill Russell, probably more than that.

 

[foucault87]

Jarrett Allen vs. Bill Russell career highs (per-36):

PPG: 18.0 vs. 15.6
RPG: 13.0 vs. 21.3
FG%: 67.7 vs. 46.7
FT%: 77.6 vs. 61.2
PER: 23.0 vs. 22.8

WS/48: .225 vs. .238
TS%: 69.8 vs. 50.0

Is Jarrett Allen "better" than Bill Russell all time? Of course not, but Russell was not very skilled and racked up insane rebounding numbers and a ton of rings against ungodly mediocre competition on one of basketball's pioneer dynasties.

If there were per-100 metrics available for Bill's era that would help adjust for the pace of the times, the only thing that Bill would have over Allen in terms of raw numbers is rebounding. Allen is a far more skilled offensive big man and is way more efficient than Bill ever could of been.

And I'm not keen on the "well nobody was efficient back then" excuse that I've heard before, because Wilt was incredibly efficient in the same era. That's why he's so high up on my all-time list.

I think you are grossly underselling Russell's value as a passer and defender. He played defacto pg for the Celtics for a few years in the latter part of his career.

Beyond that he is almost definitely the best defensive center ever. Every star center he played against was well below their normal efficiency and scoring volume while being played by Russell.

You can't compare stats across eras without accounting for the incredible evolution in rules and strategy that has happened since the mid 60s. No three point line, more restrictive dribbling, extremely basic play design. I mean Russell coached himself to two championships!!

 

[Stark]

I think you are grossly underselling Russell's value as a passer and defender. He played defacto pg for the Celtics for a few years in the latter part of his career.

Beyond that he is almost definitely the best defensive center ever. Every star center he played against was well below their normal efficiency and scoring volume while being played by Russell.

You can't compare stats across eras without accounting for the incredible evolution in rules and strategy that has happened since the mid 60s. No three point line, more restrictive dribbling, extremely basic play design. I mean Russell coached himself to two championships!!

He was an above average playmaker for sure amongst big men -- I hadn't heard of the defacto PG thing before since they had Jones, Sigfried, and Hondo doing a lot of ball handling in his later years, so I'll have to take your word for it on that one.

He was a great defender for his era but like I said, the only true superstar terror that he had to line up against in terms of big men was Wilt Chamberlain, who averaged 30 PPG and 28 RPG on only slightly lower than career average shooting when he matched up against Russell.

Chamberlain played in the same exact era and was dropping 50 PPG seasons. Chamberlain had a 24/23/8 season on 59.5% shooting in 1967 and he was just as good of a post defender as Russell. There were 115 games where there was shot-blocking tracking for Wilt, and he averaged 8.8 BPG. Russell had something like 77? tracked games and he averaged 8.6.

Bob Petitt played against Russell 68 times in his career and Russell was a primary defender on him most of the time based on the little bit of info I could scour about it. Pettit averaged 28.7 PPG against Russell in his career (FG% numbers are unavailable unfortunately, so I have no clue about the efficiency), but that was two points higher than his career average. Walt Bellamy (24.4 PPG) also averaged above his career high when matched up against Bill Russell (again, I don't have the efficiency). The only "star" big man that I can find from the era that had a significant drop in stats when playing against Russell was Nate Thurmond (16.3 PPG on some paltry shooting numbers).

Russell was 6'10, 215 pounds. Some of that has to do with the era where weightlifting and nutrition didn't sniff what we have today, but like I said, if I'm given the all-time pool of players and all of them are at their absolute peak, I'm going to take prime 6'10 and 265 pounds of muscle Dwight Howard over Russell.

Russell coaching himself to two championships is something I'd file under my original point in terms of overall career accomplishments - something where I'd probably have him in the top-10 for everything that he accomplished and did for the game.

If I'm drafting a team to go out and play tomorrow, Russell isn't even the first center from the 1960s I'm taking.

 

[foucault87]

He was an above average playmaker for sure amongst big men -- I hadn't heard of the defacto PG thing before since they had Jones, Sigfried, and Hondo doing a lot of ball handling in his later years, so I'll have to take your word for it on that one.

He was a great defender for his era but like I said, the only true superstar terror that he had to line up against in terms of big men was Wilt Chamberlain, who averaged 30 PPG and 28 RPG on only slightly lower than career average shooting when he matched up against Russell.

Chamberlain played in the same exact era and was dropping 50 PPG seasons. Chamberlain had a 24/23/8 season on 59.5% shooting in 1967 and he was just as good of a post defender as Russell. There were 115 games where there was shot-blocking tracking for Wilt, and he averaged 8.8 BPG. Russell had something like 77? tracked games and he averaged 8.6.

Bob Petitt played against Russell 68 times in his career and Russell was a primary defender on him most of the time based on the little bit of info I could scour about it. Pettit averaged 28.7 PPG against Russell in his career (FG% numbers are unavailable unfortunately, so I have no clue about the efficiency), but that was two points higher than his career average. Walt Bellamy (24.4 PPG) also averaged above his career high when matched up against Bill Russell (again, I don't have the efficiency). The only "star" big man that I can find from the era that had a significant drop in stats when playing against Russell was Nate Thurmond (16.3 PPG on some paltry shooting numbers).

Russell was 6'10, 215 pounds. Some of that has to do with the era where weightlifting and nutrition didn't sniff what we have today, but like I said, if I'm given the all-time pool of players and all of them are at their absolute peak, I'm going to take prime 6'10 and 265 pounds of muscle Dwight Howard over Russell.

Russell coaching himself to two championships is something I'd file under my original point in terms of overall career accomplishments - something where I'd probably have him in the top-10 for everything that he accomplished and did for the game.

If I'm drafting a team to go out and play tomorrow, Russell isn't even the first center from the 1960s I'm taking.

Ben Taylor makes the argument much more eloquently than I can, but there are a few reasons he gets to in the video below why Russell's impact is better than Wilt and why I think he is in the GOAT tier.

Wilt is a strong candidate too and in the back half of my top 10 but leaving Russell out of the top 25 is really spicy and imo fallacious

 

[Stark]

Ben Taylor makes the argument much more eloquently than I can, but there are a few reasons he gets to in the video below why Russell's impact is better than Wilt and why I think he is in the GOAT tier.

Wilt is a strong candidate too and in the back half of my top 10 but leaving Russell out of the top 25 is really spicy and imo fallacious

I'll give that a watch.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[foucault87]

I'll give that a watch.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Looks to me like we are evaluating this from a different stand point too. Correct me if I am wrong, but your list is based on who you would start your team with, right?

My list is based on which player would have in a vacuum been most conducive to winning championships in their respective era, trying to adjust out for team and luck factors. Its actually very similar to the methodology Ben Taylor outlines at the end of his video, though not as nuanced.

 

[Stark]

Looks to me like we are evaluating this from a different stand point too. Correct me if I am wrong, but your list is based on who you would start your team with, right?

My list is based on which player would have in a vacuum been most conducive to winning championships in their respective era, trying to adjust out for team and luck factors. Its actually very similar to the methodology Ben Taylor outlines at the end of his video, though not as nuanced.

Correct - my list is based on everybody being at their absolute peak in a vacuum all against one another.

One thing that Russell has against him no matter what is his size against other legendary big men. That's not necessarily all his fault; it's not like he's a midget or anything. He's just not a "big" big man and I think more modern day guys like Embiid, Shaq, Howard, and Cousins would have absolutely bodied him down low. Hell, I think Russell would have an absolute hell of a time trying to stop LeBron or Durant down in the post.

Bill Russell is listed at 15 pounds lighter than Cedi Osman.

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Jarrett Allen vs. Bill Russell career highs (per-36):

PPG: 18.0 vs. 15.6
RPG: 13.0 vs. 21.3
FG%: 67.7 vs. 46.7
FT%: 77.6 vs. 61.2
PER: 23.0 vs. 22.8

WS/48: .225 vs. .238
TS%: 69.8 vs. 50.0

Is Jarrett Allen "better" than Bill Russell all time? Of course not, but Russell was not very skilled offensively compared to big men that started playing even in the early 1970s and racked up insane rebounding numbers and a ton of rings against ungodly mediocre competition on one of basketball's pioneer dynasties.

If there were per-100 metrics available for Bill's era that would help adjust for the pace of the times, the only thing that Bill would have over Allen in terms of raw numbers is rebounding. Allen is a far more skilled offensive big man and is way more efficient than Bill ever could of been. Allen is putting up those far more efficient numbers with Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic, Rudy Gobert, Bam Adebayo, and Karl Anthony-Towns all trudging around in the paint too. Russell's only competition was Wilt, and his numbers declined whenever he played him.

And I'm not keen on the "well nobody was efficient back then" excuse that I've heard before, because Wilt was incredibly efficient in the same era. That's why he's so high up on my all-time list.

Again, I don't dislike Bill Russell. I have a fair amount of respect for him as an ambassador of the game. If I was ranking top-25 guys in terms of what they accomplished throughout their career and what they "did" for the game, then Russell is in my top-10, probably my top-5.

If I'm starting a franchise from scratch with every player in NBA history at their absolute peak, I can list off a solid fifty guys that I would take before Bill Russell, probably more than that.

And you would lose every year!!!! JA and not of the players you mentioned would have ever survive in this league playing against the likes of Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Lanier or Gilmore. One stat for you….11 titles in 13 trips to the finals! And Jarrett isn’t half the defensive player Russell was.

 

[Stark]

And you would lose every year!!!! JA and not of the players you mentioned would have ever survive in this league playing against the likes of Russell, Shaq, Wilt, Lanier or Gilmore.

Which league are you talking about? Russell and Wilt played in the 60s. Shaq dominated the late 90s and early 2000s. Gilmore played in the late 70s and early 80s.

Joel Embiid would 100% be able to hang with Lanier and Gilmore. He just had a season that shit on anything either of those guys ever did this year.

11 titles in 13 trips to the finals!

Guess he's better than Jordan, Kareem, and LeBron too if the eleven titles (most of them coming with seven other teams in the league) are the benchmark we're measuring everybody against now.

Hell, Robert Horry is too.

Screw it, lets throw Satch Sanders and Frank Ramsay above them too for a laugh.

 

[bronko]

Correct - my list is based on everybody being at their absolute peak in a vacuum all against one another.

One thing that Russell has against him no matter what is his size against other legendary big men. That's not necessarily all his fault; it's not like he's a midget or anything. He's just not a "big" big man and I think more modern day guys like Embiid, Shaq, Howard, and Cousins would have absolutely bodied him down low. Hell, I think Russell would have an absolute hell of a time trying to stop LeBron or Durant down in the post.

Bill Russell is listed at 15 pounds lighter than Cedi Osman.


As a Wilt fan, I was agreeing somewhat with your perspective in Russell, if I found it a bit harsh. Russell benefits from the Celtics dominating the era, but the knowledge he gained from being in a great system shouldn't be minimized. Russell's basketball IQ was equal or superior to anybody who has ever played. Lebron/Magic level or better. He made smart plays at both ends of the court day in and day out. And he was a fierce competitor and fine athlete, using speed and quickness to become the guy John Wooden called "the best defensive player I've ever seen." Two college ncaa titles at a non powerhouse school like the U of San Francisco, shows me that he helped make the Celtics as much as they made him. To not have him top 25 is funny, not top 50 is absurd, and to say you'd take prime Dwight Howard over prime Bill Russell, well........I can't help it if you want to go there.