How low can you reasonably rank Michael Jordan on your all-time list?

[Winsome Gerbil]

I consider non-peak/prime longetivity to be one of the most overvalued traits in GOAT conversations. Now length of peak/prime matters. That's length of greatness. But this thing where we start piling up obviously degraded players' seasons and saying, "well 5 roleplayer seasons = 2 prime GOAT seasons, right?" is just a mistake. Jordan had a long enough prime to win 5 MVPs, 6 titles, and be 4th on the all time scoring list. It was more than enough to cleanly establish his greatness. Whether somebody else got lucky with injuries, or just felt like playing into his twilight or whatever has little to do with it.

And as far as the answer...while I would not in any way consider this "reasonable", I would say 4th. At the point that it became obvious to 95% of the world that Jordan was the GOAT, there were still a few old geezers saying Kareem! or Russel and ringzzz! Then in all the years since there has been exactly one player who could even mount a challenge, that of course being LeBron. So if you got all those people together you could possibly produce a Jordan as 4th place outcome that would not truly be reasonable, but at least in the realm of things people have tried to argue from time to time.

[Joao Saraiva]

I consider non-peak/prime longetivity to be one of the most overvalued traits in GOAT conversations. Now length of peak/prime matters. That's length of greatness. But this thing where we start piling up obviously degraded player's seasons and saying, "well 5 roleplayer seasons = 2 prime GOAT seasons, right?" is just a mistake. Jordan had a long enough prime to win 5 MVPs, 6 titles, and be 4th on the all time scoring list. It was more than enough to cleanly establish his greatness. Whether somebody else got lucky with injuries, or just felt like playing into his twilight ow whatever has little to do with it.

And as far as the answer...while I would not in any way consider this "reasonable", I would say 4th. At the point that it became obvious to n95% of the world that Jordan was the GOAT, there were still a few old geezers saying Kareem! or Russel and ringzzz! Then in all the years since there has been exactly one player who could even mount a challenge, that of course being LeBron. So i you got all those people together you could possibly produce a Jordan as 4th place outcome that would not truly be reasonable, but at least in the realm of things people have tried to argue from time to time.

Longevity wise Kareem didn't add up some kind of meh seasons. His impact was tremendous for a ton of time, as Q stated.

[NinjaSheppard]

3

I can see the Kareem and Russell argument

any other argument is flat out stupid

[MyUniBroDavis]

kareem's case isn't greater when you consider he had another guy who was considered top 5 all time for 5 of his 6 titles. Not to mention his teammate won more finals mvp's than he did. I mean Kareem played with a guy who ended up with 3 league mvp's himself and then you forget he lost 5 series with HCA including to a team below .500 one year.

I don't care about HCA. That's just an arbitrary criterion.

As far as Kareem playing with Magic - it's not his fault that he got lucky. Thing is, Kareem had almost his entire prime in the 70s, before he started playing with Magic. KAJ played 20 seasons in the league, and he was much better in his first 10 years than he was in his last 10 years. He won a lot more in his last 10 years, because he had a lot more help, that's why.

For what it's worth, career win shares:

KAJ - 309.0
MJ - 253.8

Pretty big difference in favor of Kareem.

Wilt and Karl Malone have more career WS than MJ, too, but they don't have the team success and accolades to match MJ. Kareem has those things.

You could hear jordansbulls head explode when you said this.

[AceofSpades69]

Depends on your definition of reasonable. 3rd, maybe.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I would say only Kareem has a case, but it is a very, very strong case. I mean, look at that:

Jordan was a superstar for 11 seasons - 1985, 1987-93, 1996-98, lower level all-star in 2002 and 2003, and then if you combine 1986 and 1995, you get about a half of a mid level all-star season.

Kareem was a superstar for 12 seasons - 1970-81, high level all-star for 5 seasons - 1982-86, lower level all-star in 1987, and role player in 1988 and 1989.

So, KAJ has one more superstar season, and look at his resume between 1982 and 1986, which I called "high level all-star seasons":

Regular season; 22.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, 0.8 spg, 2.1 bpg, 2.7 tpg, 22.8 PER, 61.3% TS, 19.2 WS/48, 4.1 BPM

Playoffs: 23.7 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.1 spg, 2.5 bpg, 2.8 tpg, 22.2 PER, 59.0% TS, 17.8 WS/48, 5.1 BPM

All-NBA 1st team three times, All-NBA 2nd team twice, All-Defensive 2nd team once, 4th in MVP voting twice, 5th once and 10th twice. Finals MVP once, two championships, two more finals appearances.

That's INCREDIBLE for a 35-39 year old player. I didn't even mention 1987, which was easily comparable to 2003 Jordan.

Jordan has the edge in terms of peak and 10-year prime, but I don't think it's nearly enough to override Kareem's longevity edge. Many people will say - "you can't be the GOAT based on longevity" - okay, but we are not talking about just any longevity, we are talking about a guy who was a top 5-10 player and the best or second best player on championship teams and perennial contenders, and a guy who didn't really decline in the playoffs. Assuming that Jordan could've played on such high level as Kareem did, if he wanted to, it's a HUGE, very risky assumption. I don't think he could've done it.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I convinced I become that Kareem should really be considered the GOAT, not Jordan. It's probably better to ask "does Jordan have a case over Kareem, career-wise" rather than "does Kareem have a case over Jordan, career-wise". I'm a big MJ fan, but to be fair, I think Kareem should be the player we refer to as the GOAT and the player everybody else should be compared to.

KAJ also has one more MVP and just as many championships (a lot more All-NBA teams and just as many All-Defensive teams, too) as MJ.

At first, I also wanted to say that Duncan has a case based on longevity, just like Kareem, but on a second thought, I don't think Duncan's prime was good enough, so no, I don't think he has a case.

LeBron will most likely have a good case when he retires, but right now, I don't think he deserves to be ranked over MJ, even though he's close, and he has the second best peak and prime after MJ, in my opinion. He still needs more top 5-10 seasons with good playoff performances.

I feel like there are so many ways to rank players that it's kinda hard to make a "one size fits all" list. I mean hypothetically, I think Jordan could have played nonstop until age 40, without either retirement, but he wanted to retire with kind of that "mythical" career status still intact instead of having to deal with a bad team later on. I don't think that's a flaw honestly, it kinda added to the "mystique" that he finished his career with his second three peat. On the other hand, people might rank it something like each season having certain "points" so 90 Jordan 95, 91 Jordan 100, etc, which would probably give Kareem the edge, or maybe how likely it is to win a title with a certain player.

And his first retirement wasn't his fault for obvious reasons, so I can't blame him for missing 1.75 years because of that.

[Nitro1118]

It's kind of hard to reconcile putting anyone over MJ. Russell's awards and accolades are top shelf, but that era is so different than the post-'60's NBA landscape that it's hard to correctly analyze. I have a real hard time putting anyone over MJ that never scored 20PPG on a team that scored around 120PPG. Now, his defense and rebounding were just silly, which is why I'm bringing up his name...but I just can't do it. Portability across eras is almost impossible to quantify, but for those '50's/'60's big men I do knock them down a peg for it.

KAJ is the only other guy that I can maybe see a case for. His prime/peak was sensational. Led the league in PER 8 of 9 seasons, led the league in WS/48 9 of 10 seasons, won MVP in 5 of 7 seasons, and topped it off with a ring and FMVP. That is serious dominance. My only knock on KAJ is the vast majority of his team success came with him as the #2 option, and he had a couple below average post-seasons in his prime ('71-'72, '72-'73, '77-'78). Jordan's peak/prime was statistically as strong as KAJ's, but he was the stronger playoff performer and won a few championships to boot.

LeBron could get there someday, but for me it would take at least 1-2 more RS+PS performance that he had this season, ending in a championship. Despite already playing as long as MJ did with Chicago, LeBron is still down 3 rings, 3 FMVP, 1 MVP and 1 DPOY. Peak play there is a slight edge to MJ. Bron will have to win that war by dominance over a longer, more sustained time.

To answer the question, currently the lowest would be 3rd, but only somewhat reasonably.

[2klegend]

Kareem has a small but noticeable case for goat for what he did in college and the NBA. However I still can't get over the hump that he was a 2nd option to Magic. He won half of his championship as a result of that. Jordan never in that position where he rides on someone else shoulder to a championship. Also I care more than quality than quantity, that's why Jordan, Magic, Bird are high on the GOAT list. They did the most with less seasons than other great. That what make them so special.

[lorak]

It all depends on how do you define greatness, what are your criteria and discussions like this one should start from establishing these criteria. Otherwise it is kind of pointless.

[Shanghai Kid]

It just seems like compared to all the other greats, MJ has the best combination of team accolades and individual accomplishments.

5 MVPs and 6 rings.

Highest PER in regular season, highest PER in playoffs.

All 6 rings with him as the #1 option and him winning Finals MVP. No sidekick rings, no playoffs where Pippen challenged him as the best player. A lot of Kareem's accomplishments are tied to Magic Johnson, Jordan doesn't have that argument to deal with.

The 90's era is close enough to this era that you don't have the "ancient era with 5 foot players" that some might use against Wilt/Bill Russell.

You can't say Bird/Magic, because they themselves say that MJ is greater.

Lebron is close, but side by side MJ has more accomplishments and doesn't have anything like the "2011 finals" for detractors to feed upon.

I'd say objectively, you can't rank MJ lower then 3.

[yongaz]

By "reasonable" you're implying using a criteria that doesn't sound stupid or arbitrary to the majority of the population.

So in ranking someone all the All-time list, these are basically the criterion that would fit into the non-stupid category (for the most part)

- Peak
- Longevity
- Titles
- Statistics
- MVPs
- Championships
- Win-lose record

There are probably more, but these are the more general ones.

So if I were to base it on the above, the only two people that I could "reasonably" rank above Jordan are KAJ and Russell, based on longevity and championships respectively, but at the same time not dismiss the rest (i.e. MJ totally trumps Oscar or Wilt in every area other than individual statistics, so I couldn't reasonably rank them higher)....

Lebron may get his chance yet, but for me he'll need at least another 2 titles to even be considered on par with MJ, let alone above him.

[2klegend]

It all depends on how do you define greatness, what are your criteria and discussions like this one should start from establishing these criteria. Otherwise it is kind of pointless.

My criteria is a simple formula.

Rings + MVP + Final MVP * Peak (1 season) + avgPrime (5+ seasons). I always follow that model no matter what.

[CommonerCoffee]

I feel like whenever an All Time List is being presented, the creator should lay out the key criteria he or she personally value and abide to when writing up the list. This gives others the opportunity to put themselves in the list-writer's frame of mind when critiquing the list. The idea of an "objective" list is somewhat naive and silly. As is the idea of "objectivity" in ranking almost anything as these lists are just estimated outcomes of a personal sorting algorithm. And these algorithms are riddled with subjectivity, particularly when assigning the weight of each criteria passed to the algorithm as a significant parameter.

I don't agree with a lot of following but I think all of them are reasonable or at least tenable stances to take. If we're trying to construct a list that ranks Jordan as low as reasonably possible, the list would likely vaguely follow some combination of these principles:

- No weight on accolades.
- No weight on narratives and storylines.
- Low weight on peak level play.
- Low weight on box score statistics and all their derivatives.
- Moderate to High weight on the impact family of statistics.
- High weight on longevity including role-player years.
- Very High weight on defensive impact.
- No weight on winning with HCA.

I think a list adhering to these principles can lead to outcomes with the following ahead of MJ:
Russell, KAJ, Duncan, Lebron, Wilt (?), Garnett.

So I guess #7 is theoretically reasonable.

Edit: At second glance this criteria doesn't particular look fondly on Wilt either. So maybe not him and Jordan's absolute floor is #6?

[LeBird]

I have 7 GOAT candidates which I think objectively can be argued as the outright GOATs. Depends on your preference.

Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Lebron

So, he could be logically argued to be behind 6 other guys, in 7th place. Definitely no lower IMO.

[Laimbeer]

Great topic.

Kareem and Russell are serious challengers and there is some case for Wilt and his insane physical dominance and video game numbers. I'm not sure where the Duncan case is. I have never seen him rated the GOAT by anyone.

[Moonbeam]

I'm willing to entertain quite a few arguments if they have sound reasoning. I think all-time rankings are a lot fuzzier than they are made out to be. If someone can reason that Jordan is as low as, say, 10th, I'd be willing to listen, though I may not agree.

[kayess]

Since it's "on your all-time list", I'm assuming it's implied that we're using our own criteria.

In that case, since my criteria is expected championships based on SRS added (adjusting for circumstances as best as possible), the lowest reasonable is probably 3rd, and yes, KAJ and Russ are the culprits. For the former, you can argue his top 10 seasons are just a notch below Jordan's best, and he put up an additional 5 years where he could be a legit top 2 player on a title favorite. That's a ton of years where he's not simply padding longevity, he's being a great enough player that it pushes the needle of your odds of a championship significantly more than a normal all-star season.

Russell has a similar number of superstar impact seasons, but you'd have to believe his impact would be more or less the same in today's era (I don't think so - his comps defensively would, and did do well, but not Russ-level outlier domination).

[JVL]

At this moment Kareem is the only one, in a few years Lebron will join him. But even they don't have a strong case to outrank Jordan, he's simply undeniably the GOAT on my list.

[D.Brasco]

Jordan was a superstar for 11 seasons - 1985, 1987-93, 1996-98, lower level all-star in 2002 and 2003, and then if you combine 1986 and 1995, you get about a half of a mid level all-star season.

.

I have Jordan as the GOAT, but I just wanted to chime in and say that calling 2002-3 lower level all-star seasons to be really pushing it to me.

Wizards Jordan was a very slightly higher level 2014-2016 Kobe Bryant so people can take that for what they will.

Being voted or selected an all-star doesn't always reflect your actual play.

[therealbig3]

Yeah, sorry about the confusion, I don't mean for people to use my criteria, moreso based on everyone's own personal criteria.

My only point in the OP was to bring up Jordan's longevity and see how that factors into everyone's list. For me, looking over the other candidates, it doesn't really hurt Jordan too much. The only ones that have better longevity that are in the discussion are Kareem and Russell. But you can make a strong case that Jordan's peak was better by a large enough margin that it doesn't matter. And if you consider accolades, Jordan is there with anyone.