NBA titles leaders are usually trotted out in discussions of the best players in the history of the league. Bill Russell regularly comes up in this respect because the media love to mention that he won 11 out of 13 titles when he was in the league. He's often called the best player or one of the top three best in the history of basketball for that fact alone. However, there were less than ten teams in the league during most of his playoff run. Even conferences today are much larger. In order to contextualize title leaders from different eras, you need to make some simple adjusments.
Methodology
In order to adjust championship titles, first I found the number of teams every year of the league. This was pretty easy, and there are some surprising numbers. There were only eight teams throughout much of the 60's, but after the NBA and ?BL merged in 1950 there were 17 teams. The league soon dropped some teams, but for most of its history new organizations were steadily added until the mid-90's as the Charlotte Bobcats are the only new one.
Next I put together a list of every player for a championship winner since the first title in 1947 when the league was known as Basketball Association of America (BAA). I included everyone who tallied playing time in the playoffs. Unfortunately, that does not include bench guys who didn't receive any minutes, but I don't think it actually matters in the greater context of this study. Teams can give rings to pretty much whoever they want -- even guys who operate the shot clocks have gotten them -- yet I think when looking at who's collected the most titles I think it's more proper to only include the guys who actually played in the playoffs. There are extenuating circumstances like Caron Butler with the Mavericks last year as he got injured before the title run, but ultimately it doesn't affect much of the top standings.
The first method of adjusting titles is to simply rate a title based on how many teams there are in the league. Winning an eight-team league is much easier; there's no debate there. I adjusted each title win to present standards meaning a win in a ten-team league is worth 10/30 or 0.33 titles. I know some will argue that winning a title before the league was "diluted" is more impressive, but you also have an influx of international players and a much larger US population. Basketball also wasn't very popular until the 80's. Another consideration: expansion teams typically take guys from each team, so the level of parity isn't heavily distorted in the years with new teams as one might think. Then a player's adjusted title for each year is added together.
The second method attempts to reward guys who contribute to winning teams as opposed to role players who ride the coattails of better ones to a title. For production, I used Win Shares as it helps guys who play large minutes and those that lead their teams. It's not perfect, obviously, but it separates Hakeem Olajuwon from, say, Rick Fox well. That year's entire playoff Win Shares were used instead of only the finals because it's a larger sample set and producing for the entire playoff run is more important. Then you take the percentage of that player's Win Shares out of his team's for the playoffs and multiply it with that season's adjusted title (teams/30) for the WS title score. Last step is to add a player's WS title scores for each championship year.
Results
In the table below, you can see how the total adjusted titles compare to the traditional total titles leaders. Instead of hall of fame center Bill Russell it's ... Robert Horry. It's surprising, but in some ways it isn't. In a previous study I found that he's the greatest playoff performer in terms of increasing his PER score from the regular season. He's been compared to the NBA's Forrest Gump, always in the right place at the right time, winning championships with Olajuwon, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan, providing big shots in big moments. A critic of the adjusted titles method would say Horry at the top is enough evidence to sink the list, but he has the most titles out of any non-60's and 70's era Celtic, and the only player who's won multiple titles on three different teams.
More appropriately, Michael Jordan is second on the list with his teammate Scottie Pippen. I think there are many people who consider winning 11 titles in Russell's era than 6 in Jordan's, but there's enough reason to overturn that reasoning. One is that, obviously, it's easier to win when there are less teams in the league, which is what the adjusted titles does, but it's also an era with more rules to spread talent among teams evenly and one with heavier scouting and advanced defense. The Bulls weren't exactly stacked either; Jordan deservedly receives a lot of credit.
The leaders for the adjusted total titles are mostly Lakers and Bulls players at the top, while for the total titles it's Celtics and a few Lakers. One could argue that adjusting for the number of teams in that season is unfair to winners, but again I'd argue that looking at total titles it's unfair to those in the present.
Rank
|
Player
|
Adjusted total titles
|
Last title year
|
Rank
|
Player
|
Total titles
|
Last title year
|
1
|
Robert Horry
|
6.70
|
2007
|
1
|
Bill Russell
|
11
|
1969
|
2
|
Michael Jordan
|
5.60
|
1998
|
2
|
Sam Jones
|
10
|
1969
|
2
|
Scottie Pippen
|
5.60
|
1998
|
3
|
Tom Heinsohn
|
8
|
1965
|
4
|
Derek Fisher
|
4.90
|
2010
|
3
|
K. C. Jones
|
8
|
1966
|
4
|
Kobe Bryant
|
4.90
|
2010
|
3
|
Satch Sanders
|
8
|
1969
|
6
|
Ron Harper
|
4.83
|
2001
|
3
|
John Havlicek
|
8
|
1976
|
6
|
Steve Kerr
|
4.83
|
2003
|
7
|
Jim Loscutoff
|
7
|
1964
|
8
|
Dennis Rodman
|
4.63
|
1998
|
7
|
Frank Ramsey
|
7
|
1964
|
9
|
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
|
4.37
|
1988
|
7
|
Robert Horry
|
7
|
2007
|
10
|
Tim Duncan
|
3.93
|
2007
|
10
|
Bob Cousy
|
6
|
1963
|
11
|
Shaquille O'Neal
|
3.90
|
2006
|
10
|
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
|
6
|
1988
|
12
|
Magic Johnson
|
3.80
|
1988
|
10
|
Michael Jordan
|
6
|
1998
|
12
|
Michael Cooper
|
3.80
|
1988
|
10
|
Scottie Pippen
|
6
|
1998
|
14
|
Horace Grant
|
3.67
|
2001
|
14
|
George Mikan
|
5
|
1954
|
14
|
John Salley
|
3.67
|
2000
|
14
|
Jim Pollard
|
5
|
1954
|
14
|
Will Perdue
|
3.67
|
1999
|
14
|
Slater Martin
|
5
|
1958
|
17
|
Bill Russell
|
3.43
|
1969
|
14
|
Larry Siegfried
|
5
|
1969
|
18
|
Robert Parish
|
3.27
|
1997
|
14
|
Don Nelson
|
5
|
1976
|
19
|
John Havlicek
|
3.23
|
1976
|
14
|
Michael Cooper
|
5
|
1988
|
20
|
Sam Jones
|
3.17
|
1969
|
14
|
Magic Johnson
|
5
|
1988
|
21
|
Kurt Rambis
|
3.07
|
1988
|
14
|
Dennis Rodman
|
5
|
1998
|
22
|
Bruce Bowen
|
2.97
|
2007
|
14
|
Ron Harper
|
5
|
2001
|
22
|
Manu Ginobili
|
2.97
|
2007
|
14
|
Steve Kerr
|
5
|
2003
|
22
|
Tony Parker
|
2.97
|
2007
|
14
|
Kobe Bryant
|
5
|
2010
|
25
|
Brian Shaw
|
2.90
|
2002
|
14
|
Derek Fisher
|
5
|
2010
|
25
|
Devean George
|
2.90
|
2002
|
26
|
Vern Mikkelsen
|
4
|
1954
|
25
|
Jud Buechler
|
2.90
|
1998
|
26
|
Frank Saul
|
4
|
1954
|
25
|
Luc Longley
|
2.90
|
1998
|
26
|
Bill Sharman
|
4
|
1961
|
25
|
Randy Brown
|
2.90
|
1998
|
26
|
Jamaal Wilkes
|
4
|
1985
|
25
|
Rick Fox
|
2.90
|
2002
|
26
|
Robert Parish
|
4
|
1997
|
25
|
Toni Kukoc
|
2.90
|
1998
|
26
|
Kurt Rambis
|
4
|
1988
|
32
|
Sam Cassell
|
2.80
|
2008
|
26
|
John Salley
|
4
|
2000
|
33
|
Mario Elie
|
2.77
|
1999
|
26
|
Horace Grant
|
4
|
2001
|
34
|
B.J. Armstrong
|
2.70
|
1993
|
26
|
Will Perdue
|
4
|
1999
|
34
|
Bill Cartwright
|
2.70
|
1993
|
26
|
Tim Duncan^
|
4
|
2007
|
34
|
James Edwards
|
2.70
|
1996
|
26
|
Shaquille O’Neal
|
4
|
2006
|
34
|
John Paxson
|
2.70
|
1993
|
||||
34
|
Scott Williams
|
2.70
|
1993
|
||||
34
|
Stacey King
|
2.70
|
1993
|
One problem with the above approach is that role players can rack up titles playing with all-time greats (Robert Horry, Steve Kerr, Horace Grant, etc.) Perhaps a better one is to look at who contributes to the total, and award credit based on total production during the playoffs. The simplest method would be using points, and then more advanced versions add rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, etc. The logical conclusion is to use a method something that takes into account as much information as is possible. Thus, you give championship title credit based on how many wins shares a popular produces compared to the rest of the team.
The winner by this method is none other than Michael Jordan, and he wins in a landslide. He has 42 more percent than the second ranked player, Kobe Bryant. His lead is enormous, and it's apparent why -- he was the overwhelming force on six championships in the modern era. What Jordan did in the regular season was enough for him to be legendary, but in the post-season he made his name transcendent. Moving down the list the right names are near the top than in the other lists. Robert Horry is still ranked high, but he was a pretty good player, especially for the Rockets. I'm amazed Fisher is ranked so high, however. I tried to season with that by realizing there is one whole Win Share to go around, and a starter can easily take 0.1 of those Win Shares if he gets major minutes even without taking a ton of shots. Fisher won five titles, and on average he was decent so he totaled over half a title Win Share.
Rank
|
Player
|
Total adjusted Win Shares titles
|
Last title year
|
1
|
Michael Jordan
|
1.650
|
1998
|
2
|
Kobe Bryant
|
1.164
|
2010
|
3
|
Tim Duncan
|
1.139
|
2007
|
4
|
Scottie Pippen
|
1.035
|
1998
|
5
|
Shaquille O'Neal
|
1.026
|
2006
|
6
|
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
|
0.847
|
1988
|
7
|
Robert Horry
|
0.763
|
2007
|
8
|
George Mikan
|
0.684
|
1954
|
9
|
Larry Bird
|
0.684
|
1986
|
10
|
John Havlicek
|
0.645
|
1976
|
11
|
Magic Johnson
|
0.633
|
1988
|
12
|
Sam Jones
|
0.618
|
1969
|
13
|
Derek Fisher
|
0.552
|
2010
|
14
|
Bill Russell
|
0.549
|
1969
|
15
|
James Worthy
|
0.539
|
1988
|
16
|
Horace Grant
|
0.508
|
2001
|
17
|
Pau Gasol
|
0.498
|
2010
|
18
|
Tony Parker
|
0.497
|
2007
|
19
|
Hakeem Olajuwon
|
0.481
|
1995
|
20
|
Tom Heinsohn
|
0.478
|
1965
|
21
|
Manu Ginobili
|
0.442
|
2007
|
22
|
Dennis Johnson
|
0.412
|
1986
|
23
|
Jamaal Wilkes
|
0.395
|
1982
|
24
|
Toni Kukoc
|
0.394
|
1998
|
25
|
Ron Harper
|
0.367
|
2001
|
26
|
Kevin McHale
|
0.333
|
1986
|
27
|
Jim Pollard
|
0.332
|
1954
|
28
|
Michael Cooper
|
0.326
|
1988
|
29
|
Isiah Thomas
|
0.326
|
1990
|
30
|
Dwyane Wade
|
0.324
|
2006
|
31
|
Norm Nixon
|
0.323
|
1982
|
32
|
Dennis Rodman
|
0.318
|
1998
|
33
|
Byron Scott
|
0.309
|
1988
|
34
|
David Robinson
|
0.294
|
2003
|
35
|
Joe Dumars
|
0.276
|
1990
|
36
|
Rick Fox
|
0.263
|
2002
|
37
|
Robert Parish
|
0.253
|
1997
|
As a tangent, the "record" for highest proportion of Win Shares during a title playoff run is George Mikan in 1949 with an astounding 53.2 percent. Cliff Hagan in 1958 is next with 45.7 percent. Shaq has the modern record at 35.6 percent in 2000 with Tim Duncan close behind in 2003. On another tangent, the way Wins Shares are calculated a player can a negative number, which means he didn't even contribute to nothing; he's worse than that. Teammates Jim Cleamons and John Trapp hold the dubious distinction of lowest Win Shares for the playoffs while still winning a title with -0.018 in 1972 for the Lakers. Darko Milicic, by the way, wasn't far away at -0.011. Take that LeBron.
Awarding titles based on how many competitors you have also brings about the possibility to see adjusted title leaders by team. The Celtics are obviously hurt the most in this because they won most of theirs in the first couple decades of the league. The table below shows the adjusted leaders, and the Lakers take the top spot in this method. Even if you discount the Minneapolis Lakers years they still have the edge over the Celtics. Once again basketball fans are reminded that the titles are nearly all held by a few teams at the top. The NBA has been about dynasties, not parity and competitive balance.
Team
|
Total title shares
|
Lakers
|
11.20
|
Los
Angeles Lakers
|
9.27
|
Celtics
|
7.90
|
Bulls
|
5.60
|
Spurs
|
3.93
|
Pistons
|
2.70
|
Minneapolis
Lakers
|
1.93
|
Rockets
|
1.80
|
76ers/Nationals
|
1.37
|
Warriors
|
1.20
|
76ers
|
1.10
|
Knicks
|
1.03
|
Heat
|
1.00
|
Mavericks
|
1.00
|
Blazers
|
0.73
|
SuperSonics
|
0.73
|
Washington Bullets/Wizards
|
0.73
|
Bucks
|
0.57
|
Royals/Kings
|
0.37
|
Baltimore Bullets*
|
0.27
|
Hawks
|
0.27
|
Nationals
|
0.27
|
No comments:
Post a Comment