Do Any Of You Have Someone Other than MJ as GOAT and if so why?

[RingsDontLie]

Jordan, Kobe and magic have the strongest case for GOAT. The reality was all three were the best in their respective eras, and these three were the most skilled. The issue with Jordan was playing in a watered down era, shot like dwyane wade beyond the arc, and played mostly against midget non-athletic wing players.

The issue with Magic was his individual defense and his career was cut short. The issue with Kobe is he doesn't have the Jordan stats and efficiency, as modern defensive schemes improved after Jordan left, along with longer and more athletic wings being common place in kobes era.

I don't value centers in goat conversations because of their lack of overall skill. They to me, are in the most dominating category...not in the goat conversation.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I would need to be sure that David Robinson inserted into 1965 would not be able to do what Wilt was doing in 1965 before I could switch my GOAT choice from Jordan to Wilt.

And why is there no need to know if anyone inserted into Jordan's era would be able to do what he did?

Because Jordan's era is similar enough to the current era. The greatest difference that I see between this era and Jordan's era is the quality of 3 point shooting has improved. This year's finals Cavaliers were not a as good a 3 point shooting team as most teams in this era. Jordan's championship bulls had a few good 3 point shooters including Kerr.

The clear out a side and rely on illegal defense calls to stop help defenders strategy of the late 1990s could have been used by LeBron.

I don't think the man to man defenders that LeBron would face in Jordan's era were that much worse than what he faces now. Do you think that LeBron and this year's Cavaliers would beat the bad boy Pistons that beat Jordan? LeBrom would be defended by Rodman.

[Witzig-Okashi]

Some genuine questions for those who consider Kareem the GOAT: How much of his non-playoff seasons should be held against him? Also, where does his defense rank among centers on an All-time level or even within his era? I can remember a quote from Jerry West that questioned his effort, but perhaps I am putting too much stock in it. Was he even better than a Cowens in that department?

Once again, I am genuinely curious about that. I personally think he's the GOAT basketball player, but as for the NBA, not so sure...

[juice4080]

how u did against players from your own era should be the only thing that matters..comparing players across era is futile at best ..it's also extremely unfair and dishonest to the players who shouldnt have to fight ghost of the past or future

[penbeast0]

Tough call.

I will answer two ways:

For the modern era / if you don't ignore era differences, it's got to be Jordan. Russell's shorter run to the Finals in a smaller league sort of overstates the whole "11 titles" thing in my mind, and of course his defensive dominance is impossible in any other era.

That said, if you DON'T factor those things in and look only at what was done compared to your peers? I mean, 5 MVPs, 11 titles, 8 in a row, rebounding dominance, the greatest defensive impact in league history? It's tough to ignore him, he's got to be the GOAT if you just look at things in-era.

Ok, ignoring titles because I think everyone understands that it's more difficult to win a title in a larger league, Russell's playoff record in series is 28-2. Jordan's playoff record in series is 31-7. Even ignoring the Washington years (which are rightly ignored), Jordan played 8 more series than Russell going 3-5. Russell has the superior playoff record.

And, in terms of individual dominance, I watched all of Jordan's career and while undoubtably brilliant, if ignoring his playoff success, he just didn't seem as dominant as even LeBron. I didn't see Wilt's best years but in films, he looks just unstoppable and was clearly pacing himself even so.

I rate Jordan more highly than either because of his playoff success (as do most of us) but then you look at Jordan v. Russell in terms of playoffs and the only way to justify Jordan being superior is (a) era differential (but wasn't it HARDER in much of the 1960s when all the talent was concentrated on only 8 teams) or (b) the idea that scoring is qualitatively superior to defense or rebounding in terms of generating wins (which isn't born out by the data). Then you look at Boston's quantitative defensive superiority over everyone else, look at the personnel (which wasn't always particularly impressive defensively), look at Russell's near GOAT rebounding, and I have to go with Russell as the superior player.

Maybe Russell wouldn't have been as effective as Jordan in today's game; but I think it's probable that Jordan would have been appreciably less effective in Russell's era. Then you say, well, Russell wasn't a great scorer as well; however, he matched up against one of the 2 players with a claim to GOAT scorer who also had a rep as a great defender and was a great rebounder as well (all 3 areas probably superior to someone like Hakeem) and Russell was more instrumental in his team's success than Wilt was in his whether he was surrounded by superior talent (Warriors), roughly equal talent (Sixers), and even clearly inferior talent his final year (Lakers). The more I look at it, the clearer it seems that Russell was the GOAT.

[Quotatious]

Some genuine questions for those who consider Kareem the GOAT: How much of his non-playoff seasons should be held against him?

Well, he only missed the playoffs twice during his career, in 1975 and 1976. In '75, his team was really bad - only Bob Dandridge was healthy - two of his top 3 teammates missed a ton of games - Lucius Allen played only 10, Jim Price played 41. Everybody else on that team was mediocre. Even Kareem himself missed 17 games. It's easy to see why they missed the playoffs.

In '76, it's hard to say. KAJ's numbers are superb, and his team seems to be better than it was in '75 (and much healthier, too) - even if his supporting cast mostly featured inefficient scorers, some of them were fairly skilled, obviously including Gail Goodrich, who still averaged almost 20 ppg.

I think the '76 Lakers underachieved, but I'm inclined to believe it was mostly because of his teammates, not KAJ himself. 1976 Kareem seems to be a lot like 2005 or 2006 KG - fantastic player stuck on a bad team (even if some of their teammates could put up decent numbers, they weren't high impact players).

Also, where does his defense rank among centers on an All-time level or even within his era? I can remember a quote from Jerry West that questioned his effort, but perhaps I am putting too much stock in it. Was he even better than a Cowens in that department?

Russell, Hakeem, D-Rob, Ewing, Duncan (if you consider him a center), Mutombo, Ben Wallace, Thurmond, Mourning, Howard, Gilmore, Eaton and Wilt are better defensive centers than Kareem, in my opinion. He has a case over anyone else. Top 15 seems like a safe bet.

As far as Cowens vs Abdul-Jabbar on defense - Dave had a much higher motor and he was a better "perimeter" defender, but Kareem was better in terms of positioning, seemed to be a more effective man defender because of his size, and a vastly superior shotblocker. Personally, I'd prefer Kareem.

Once again, I am genuinely curious about that. I personally think he's the GOAT basketball player, but as for the NBA, not so sure...

I think so, too, and I understand why it's kinda hard to put Kareem at #1 if we're talking about the NBA-only, because Jordan's peak and prime is better.

[G35]

Jordan has the strongest case for now, with the next best case for a wing player belonging to LeBron, then Magic.

A few of the bigs have strong cases and they are Wilt and Russell. Russell due to his unparalleled winning and Wilt due to his unparalleled individual dominance relative to his peers and record-setting feats that hold to this day.

Kareem doesn't really have a strong case because Jordan essentially has everything he has except it looks better.

Other players who despite their greatness have zero argument for GOAT are those like Hakeem, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, etc.

Except Jordan took 7 years to become a champion while KAJ took two years.

Jordan's playoff record his first three years was 1-9. While KAJ went to the Finals twice, conference finals four times in his first five years.

The main difference I have between KAJ/Wilt and Jordan is you get better a lot quicker with them than you do Jordan as the initial building block.....

[ThunderDan9]

Jordan, Kobe and magic have the strongest case for GOAT. The reality was all three were the best in their respective eras, and these three were the most skilled.

Hmmm... there was that other dude, named Larry Bird.
And then in "Kobe's" era... Duncan (!!), Shaq, Garnett, Nowitzki, James etc.

[The Infamous1]

When magic started to enter his prime Kareem was way past his and when Oscar came to bucks he was past his prime.

[cpower]

Jordan is GOAT because he is a guard. I have KAJ second

[ThaRegul8r]

Some genuine questions for those who consider Kareem the GOAT: How much of his non-playoff seasons should be held against him?

Well, he only missed the playoffs twice during his career, in 1975 and 1976. In '75, his team was really bad - only Bob Dandridge was healthy - two of his top 3 teammates missed a ton of games - Lucius Allen played only 10, Jim Price played 41. Everybody else on that team was mediocre. Even Kareem himself missed 17 games. It's easy to see why they missed the playoffs.

My one issue with '74-75 (as with '77-78) was that he missed games due to something he did to himself, not something beyond his control that "happened" to him.

I personally put myself out of action. That was the stupidest I’ve felt in my entire life.

Interestingly enough, the only two times in his career that he missed any significant amount of time were due to self-inflicted injuries.

[Mazter]

Because Jordan's era is similar enough to the current era. The greatest difference that I see between this era and Jordan's era is the quality of 3 point shooting has improved. This year's finals Cavaliers were not a as good a 3 point shooting team as most teams in this era. Jordan's championship bulls had a few good 3 point shooters including Kerr.

The clear out a side and rely on illegal defense calls to stop help defenders strategy of the late 1990s could have been used by LeBron.

I don't think the man to man defenders that LeBron would face in Jordan's era were that much worse than what he faces now. Do you think that LeBron and this year's Cavaliers would beat the bad boy Pistons that beat Jordan? LeBrom would be defended by Rodman.

The 3-point shot makes a huge difference in the way you have to defend and the amount of ground you have to cover, I think. I mean, the 92 Blazers shot 10-from-52 from beyond the arc. They didn't even bother to go there. Jordan was mostly standing guarding his man around the lane. In today's era they would have switched him on Curry, Thompson, Iguadola, Green or Barnes and make him waste his energy around the perimeter. That would left him with less energy on the offensive side.

About LeBron, Jordan was a good passer but LeBron's unselfishness, passing and court vision is much better IMO. If the bad boys would have triple teamed him he would have dished it in or out and beat them with assists. If Rodman would have guarded him on the perimeter he would have been beaten by LeBron' speed. Since he mostly plays with his face to the basket the hand check rules wouldn't bother him that much and with less energy to waste on defense he would have been a killer on the fast break.

If it would be enough for the Cavs to beat the Pistons, I don't think so. But in my opinion he could have beaten them with Jordan's cast.

[trex_8063]

I have MJ as #1, but fwiw Kareem is a close #2 for me. And those two have separated themselves from the pack; there's no one immediately close to them for me.

[KyletheDingbat]

I got Jordan first and Russell second. I was higher on Russell before I watched more of his actual play. I forget what year, but one game I saw was I believe a game 7 in the Finals and he simply handed the ball to other team in crunch time with like a minute left. The Celtics were up a point I believe and Russell simply handed the ball to the guy around mid-court; that's one of the worst turnovers I've ever seen.

[Doctor MJ]

Well if Jordan had won 8 in a row like Russell this would be more impressive than running out of steam after 3 both times, no?

I can't decide if you are being humorous or not. Are we ring counting now?

I"m giving flippant answers, but the truth in them should be pretty clear.

No one has won more than 3 titles in a row. Every time we see it, we see the team in question lose momentum over the 3-peat. Players seem to feel like they've "done enough", and slack off, get into feuds, etc. That didn't happen with Russell.

Now forget about why these things happened for a second: Russell played 13 years, and won 11 titles. 1 year he lost because of an injury. 1 year he lost due to a perfect storm of a truly great and focused opponent and his own coach retiring, which meant that he acted as player/coach and made mistakes along the way.

What kind of domination from other players can match this? I just don't think there's anyone close.

And before you come back with the ring counting: I didn't used to rate Russell at #1 of the very reasons you bring up. It's a team game, Russell had a lot of help, right? The thing is though when you actually look at how Boston did what they did, your realize that the help he had was drastically overrated. The amount of defensive impact he was having by himself is just completely off-the-charts and it makes it frankly very hard to argue that another player had more impact than he did.

As such, the real rebuttal to Russell's GOAT candidacy is to knock his era. And while that's a fine argument, that's where I keep coming back to Russell's sustained contribution. I see no good reason why guys today couldn't match that, but in practice no one has. Jordan's the obvious guy who could have, but he essentially chose not to.

Incidentally, I think in the end LeBron might have a great case over Russell. The funny part is that I doubt most will see him as having a strong case over Jordan because of the way Jordan is romanticized. If and win LeBron's career accomplishments dwarf Jordan's, I think you'll see more an more people make arguments about GOAT that about peak performance. In essence, they'll literally change the question rather than give LeBron the GOAT title.

[Doctor MJ]

Why in the world would number of times retired matter? Unless you are really upset you missed seeing 1994 or 1999.

I have Jordan. Hakeem is second. I don't have anyone I didn't see though, because I don't trust stats and narrative without context.

Well if Jordan had won 8 in a row like Russell this would be more impressive than running out of steam after 3 both times, no?

Who knows how much would of been in Russell's tank if he had to go through 4 rounds of playoffs each year.

Who knows how much would have been in Jordan's tank if he had played as many MPG as Russell?

Both are valid points, and there are plenty of others. I'm not saying I have any problem with those who have Jordan as GOAT, but I find what Russell did to be more shocking.

I think people are quick to say essentially "Yeah he won 11 titles, but it was different back then", and I'd be more accepting of that argument if the number was lower. It was easier to win titles back then in some ways, but the consistency with which Russell won titles is an outlier among outliers. You simply didn't see anything else like that.

[JeepCSC]

You don't see why a player in a 30+ team conference with free agency and 4 rounds won't have the same impact as a player in an 8-team league?

Just to be clear, Jordan wasn't named GOAT by most because of career accomplishments. It reached deafening levels before his accomplishments even matched his slightly older contemporaries of Magic and Bird.

The real knock against Jordan should be centered on if you think his peak isn't as good as many, or you think his longevity is too little or not enough. Holding him accountable for not having the emotional/mental/physical/whatever to do 4-in-a-row is just bizarre.

[magicman1978]

The 3-point shot makes a huge difference in the way you have to defend and the amount of ground you have to cover, I think. I mean, the 92 Blazers shot 10-from-52 from beyond the arc. They didn't even bother to go there. Jordan was mostly standing guarding his man around the lane. In today's era they would have switched him on Curry, Thompson, Iguadola, Green or Barnes and make him waste his energy around the perimeter. That would left him with less energy on the offensive side.

About LeBron, Jordan was a good passer but LeBron's unselfishness, passing and court vision is much better IMO. If the bad boys would have triple teamed him he would have dished it in or out and beat them with assists. If Rodman would have guarded him on the perimeter he would have been beaten by LeBron' speed. Since he mostly plays with his face to the basket the hand check rules wouldn't bother him that much and with less energy to waste on defense he would have been a killer on the fast break.

If it would be enough for the Cavs to beat the Pistons, I don't think so. But in my opinion he could have beaten them with Jordan's cast.

Jordan had to defend Reggie Miller who would consistently run defenders around screens all over the court. Never seemed to effect Jordan's stamina at all even when he got older.

Hand checks had a big effect on people that faced up. You could essentially give a quick stiff arm to the hip on a guy to prevent him driving by you. Also, prime Rodman being beaten by LeBron's speed? I don't think you've seen a prime Rodman playing defense. LeBron is going to have a tough time getting around him.

What would have LeBron been able to do better than Jordan did to beat the Pistons? Jordan's cast arguably played worse against the Pistons than LeBron's against the Warriors.

[Blackmill]

I don't have MJ as the GOAT --in fact I'm undecided on that matter-- but based on what I have watched so far I think he is closer to #2-4. While watching the '91 series, I tracked actual possession usage and more importantly passing, and from Vantage and Sloan data I determined the marginal value of every individual assist (rather than treating them equally) made by either player.

I combined this with the marginal value of their actual scoring to quantitatively determine the majority of their offensive impact with an accuracy that neither stats nor the basic eye-test could come close to. The result is that Magic had significantly higher offensive impact that series.

This has had the effect of casting doubts on MJ's GOAT status since the possibility of other players (particularly centers with higher defensive impact) also having higher offensive impact seems very real, especially considering that the '91 series is likely one of his better ones.

[Mazter]

What would have LeBron been able to do better than Jordan did to beat the Pistons? Jordan's cast arguably played worse against the Pistons than LeBron's against the Warriors.

Whenever Jordan was double and triple teamed and took a difficult shots there were 1 of 2 teammates unguarded. Sometimes even with a free lane to the rim. I think LeBron would be better at finding these teammates which would practically make the rules ineffective.