RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #1 (LeBron James)

[Narigo]

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar



LeBron and Kareem longevity is amazing but it doesn't do enough put them over MJ. Jordans prime is better than the other 2. The reason I can't put LeBron over MJ is because he didn't dominate in the regular season as much as Jordan or even Kareem did. There only been five seasons where LeBron been the clear cut best player in regular season(09-13). The rest he's been outshined by another player. MJ and Kareem could have been gotten more MVPs if it weren't for voter fatigue.

MJ>Kareem mostly because I can't think of anything Kareem does better than Jordan outside defense relative to position and longevity. Jordan is better scorer and passer

[ShaqAttac]

No, I don't have enough time to contribute as a voter. I will be active and I will share valuable information when I can.

Guess I'll be the honorary 70's fan for this project(or at least for a thread or two)

Though honestly I think just copy and pasting what what you've written before would be more than enough to justify your votes...

FWIW, I also strongly urge your participation as a voter, 70sFan. Your previous efforts are more than sufficient to be mined for your voting reasoning. If you're going to follow along and participate in discussions anyway, I feel certain your contributions are going to exceed mine as it is.

u def should

kareeem needs ya!!!

[ShaqAttac]

I've been away to a festival this weekend so I've been a bit short on time but I'll make sure to vote later today. It's taking a bit more time because I haven't been able to decide yet who I'll vote for. Of my 4 original candidates the only one who I'm sure I won't be voting as #1 is Kareem because I can't get over the soft middle of his prime. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a case but his late/post-prime years add more value for people using CORP methodologies than they do for me.

Jordan has a string of individual dominance over his competition that I don't think anyone else particularly comes close to. He was our POY 9 times (tied for most POY wins with LeBron) and the only break within this is his first retirement in 94 and 95. Meaning that from 1988 to 1998 there was nobody else who was seen as having a better season than Jordan. His 4 unanimous wins are also the most of any player ever. Then as a cherry on top the Bulls were as dominant as a team as, if not more so than, Jordan as an individual. Like f4p just said, it's just hard to bring up anything on court that wasn't near perfect. That said, while he had a plenty long career, he has a noticeable longevity disadvantage to the other candidates. The most difficult part of this is his retirements as he was a star right away in his early 20s and still the best player in the league in his mid 30s but would he have had as much success in 96-98 without the 1.5 year break after 93? Would he have been able to continue at a similar level as 97 and 98 at the time of his second retirement, would he have fallen off to Wizards level right away or have a gradual decline? We don't know and since Kareem and LeBron's weaker prime years give me pause I'm just not sure how fair it is compared to MJ with his retirements.

Another thing is that the driving force for me here is MJ's relative dominance but how much of that was because of a lack of competition? Russell is obviously hurt the most among my candidates because most of his later prime, Wilt is regarded as the dominant player in the league and for quite a few people it is still even a question whether Russell or Wilt was the better player/had the better career period. If we take a stance that you can't really do much about having another GOAT candidate who plays at the same time eat up some of your dominance then it is fair to say Russell probably was the most dominant. Him still leading the career POY shares over guys like LeBron and Kareem despite playing only 13 seasons goes to show just how incredibly consistently elite Russell was. He was first 7 times, the runner-up another 5 times and one lone third place finish in 67 that still saw him get over .500 in shares. His era wasn't the strongest of course but if era strength isn't enough for me to instantly put LeBron over Jordan, it's not enough for me to instantly put Jordan over Russell either.

Lastly I might also still vote for LeBron as while he doesn't resonate with the ideal of the greatest career for me as much as Russell and Jordan, it's hard to deny just how many boxes LeBron ticks. Whatever your approach, he's going to at least be up there among the best, and with him already getting the #1 spot the last time around I doubt that will be any different now.

In the end I'll have to make up my mind whether I want to prioritize the degree of relative dominance (Jordan), the consistency (Russell) or length (LeBron).

sooooo

jordaan - gets poy votes way back when ppl were just usin slashlines to decide who was good
russ - beats superteams with less help when he bout to kick the bucket

ig dominance is when u win less with uber superteams.

[One_and_Done]

I have Lebron way out in front with 17 votes. MJ, Russell and Wilt seem to be the only other vote getters on 7, 4 and 2 respectively. That said, based off people's 2nd preference votes there's no clear #2. I think I saw many of the Lebron voters with Kareem as #2 overall. I could easily see Jordan sliding out of the top 3, which would be a remarkable outcome.

Maybe with Lebron so far and away seen as #1 there is more willingness to re-assess the Jordan myth.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I'm not officially "in" this yet; I have reservations, mainly due to the time commitment(unless I'm missing something, a hundred threads at three days each means the better part of a year's commitment). So I won't be voting(this round is over anyway), but I did feel compelled to articulate a number of things.

First I want to lay out a few broad views that inform my thinking.

1. Era-Relativity

What really fuels me here is that I have had such a lifelong fascination with the history of this league and game. I can remember as an eight year old in the early 90s watching the VHS "Showmen: The Spectacular Guards" and learning for the first time about The Cooz, Pistol Pete, The Pearl, Tiny Archibald, in addition to contemporary(at the time) stars in Magic, Isiah, and MJ.

I remember watching the prologue to the Bulls' "Three-peat" video(about their 93 season) that, when talking about how only two teams had ever accomplished the feat before, stated "The Minneapolis Lakers of George MIkan did it when the league was young; the Celtics of Cousy and Russell did it as part of the greatest dynasty in NBA history" and wanting to know more about those teams and players that were already decades in the past.

I remember watching all kinds of NBA VHS releases from the 80s and 90s learning about Kareem during his Bucks years, the Holtzman Knicks and "Here comes Willis!", the 76 Celtics/Suns 3OT game, Jerry West being the logo, all of Wilt's eye-popping counting stats, and on and on.

I can remember watching the NBA's 50 at 50 celebration in 1996 and watching all of these greats step up to the podium, many of them now dead.

My primary motivation in focusing on era-relativity is my interest in not relegating all of this history to the dustbin. There are a lot of people that take the view that the NBA is deeper, more talented, more skilled, and more competitive than it's ever been and therefore anyone from history that couldn't conceivably hack it in today's game should have their historical standing lowered. At least one participant in this competition has said that he'd rather not consider players from before the 70s.

I fear that where this kind of thinking will lead is that when the 2043 Top 100 Project comes along, too many of you will decide that no one that played before 1990 should really be considered. Where does it end?

2. Longevity

I don't weigh longevity as heavily as a lot of you seem to. Note that I didn't say I don't weigh it at all, just not as much.

Firstly, a lack of longevity doesn't only have one cause. We usually associate a lack of longevity with physical deterioration, but it's not always that.

Magic was quite literally forced into his retirement(and then forced out of his initial comeback attempt in 1992). I don't think that should be held against him.

MJ retired the first time citing a lack of motivation in the wake of his father's cold-blooded murder(some people around here push the narrative that he quit because he was afraid of losing his standing, but there is nothing anywhere to support that, it's an exercise in creative writing imo).

Or you could look at the case of David Robinson, who might take a longevity hit because of his two-year military commitment after college and before coming to the NBA. Considering Robinson looked like a star from the minute he put on a Spurs jersey, it's probable he could've added two more high-level years to his career. I don't think his desire to serve should be held against him.

Secondly, longevity doesn't mean the same thing now as it did in decades' past. Kareem's 20 years in 1989 was more of an outlier than LeBron's 20 years in 2023. Players did not used to play that long. They'd break down earlier as a result of inferior training and nutrition, or they'd tear an ACL and that'd be all she wrote instead of Jamal Murray being a #2 on a championship team two years after suffering that injury. A 13 or 14 year year career was considered a full career back in the 60s and 70s, now it's a borderline longevity problem.

Thirdly, if a player has great NBA longevity but only had to play one year of college, or came straight out of HS, I think that context ought to be considered as well vs older players that had to go to three or four years of college.

Now, like I said before, all of this doesn't mean I don't care at all about longevity. I think my general rule of hand is that, when we're talking about the highest tier like this, I'd want to see at least ten good years. That is to say, I'm not putting Bill Walton in any top ten list even though his 1.5 year peak is often discussed as one of the greatest. You need to have a healthy length of career. But when you get to giving points to someone for playing 17 years instead of 13 years or 19 years instead of 15 years, I just hesitate to put too much importance on it, for the reasons laid out above.

Since I am, as of now, not participating in voting, I will not give a vote or give a full-throated argument, but I will say the following things regarding Michael Jordan.

1. TS Add

I don't love the career total TS Add stat because, given players of comparable offensive impact, it becomes a longevity stat. But taking a career average TS Add - that is, dividing the career TS Add by the number of seasons played - gives a clearer point of comparison of players' scoring impact.

These are career average TS Add for the consensus top 12:

Wilt: 256.2
Kareem: 235.95
Steph: 187.06
Magic: 161.4
Shaq: 145.2
LBJ: 142.0
Jordan: 129.5
Bird: 81.1
Kobe: 56.1
Duncan: 53.12
Hakeem: 50.5
(Russell's is quite literally a negative number)

So, unsurprising that Wilt and Kareem top this particular list. MJ isn't even in the top half of the list. But what if you omit the 35 combined games from 1986 and 1995(where he posted uncharacteristic inefficiency coming off an injury and an 18-month retirement)? It shoots up to 153.6. I think it's reasonable to not let such a small sample size of games crater a stat. This might be a little more eyebrow-raising, but if you also omit the two Wizards' years - where, coming off a three year retirement, he was not just a little less efficient, but dramatically less efficient than he ever was before - it shoots all the way up to 204.2, which I think is more reflective of what he was for the bulk of his career.

In the interests of fairness, I omitted certain portions of time from a couple other players' careers where it looked like it would make an obvious improvement; if you take only Bird's nine seasons prior to his foot injury(which, on top of his back issues, he was never the same after), he gets up to 112.4; if you omit Kobe's three post-Achilles seasons, he gets up to 82.3. Those are the only ones that stuck out to me as potentially making a significant difference, but I could've missed something.

My point with all this is, taking the eleven seasons that make up the bulk of his legacy, he's the only one of the twelve under seven feet to break 200. To do that at 6'6' means the obvious - he was a historically great scorer.

While I concede that LBJ is a more impactful defender, I also note that defensive instincts, basketball IQ, and effort being equal, there is nothing a 6'6'(and some think he was more like 6'5')/215 pound guy can do to impact rim protection(and thus overall defense) as much as a guy who is literally the size of Karl Malone(6'9'/250). It's a truism - bigger guys always impact defense more.

That said, even if his defensive impact is not on par with LBJ, he was still at the very least a high-level defender for his position and I would humbly suggest the gap between the two defensively is matched by the gap in the other direction as scorers, as evidenced by the TS Add numbers above.

Finals Opponents

Something that is brought time and time again is that LeBron played tougher opponents in the Finals. In fact, I don't disagree. The Warriors and the 2007 Spurs were, by the numbers, better than any team the Bulls played in the Finals. But there's a difference between "the Warriors and Spurs were better than any team the Bulls played" and "the Bulls never played any real competition", which is a sentiment I see far too often around here. These are the raw RS SRS, in descending order, of every Finals loser in the post-merger era:

Code: Select all

16 Warriors 10.38
97 Jazz 7.97
96 Sonics 7.40
08 Lakers 7.34
22 Celtics 7.02
92 Blazers 6.94
11 Heat 6.76
91 Lakers 6.73
13 Spurs 6.67
87 Celtics 6.57
90 Blazers 6.48
94 Knicks 6.48
09 Magic 6.48
85 Celtics 6.46
95 Magic 6.44
12 Thunder 6.44
19 Warriors 6.42
89 Lakers 6.38
93 Suns 6.27
06 Mavs 5.96
82 Sixers 5.74
98 Jazz 5.73
21 Suns 5.67
88 Pistons 5.46
83 Lakers 5.06
79 Bullets 4.75
03 Nets 4.42
04 Lakers 4.35
00 Pacers 4.15
14 Heat 4.15
15 Cavs 4.08
80 Sixers 4.04
77 Sixers 3.78
02 Nets 3.67
01 Sixers 3.63
10 Celtics 3.37
07 Cavs 3.33
84 Lakers 3.32
05 Pistons 3.31
17 Cavs 2.87
20 Heat 2.59
86 Rockets 2.10
78 Sonics 1.48
99 Knicks 1.45
18 Cavs 0.59
81 Rockets -0.20

Now, I know somebody is going to say something about the 90s being watered down and SRS being inflated and standard deviations and all that. So I put my spreadsheet's STDEV function to good use and took the standard deviation of the league SRS pool for each season and calculated each team's SRS distance above(or below) said standard deviation. I am new to this, so I'm not sure I'm doing this exactly right, but I think this is the idea.

Code: Select all

16 Warriors / 5.46
97 Jazz / 2.68
85 Celtics / 2.54
22 Celtics / 2.35
96 Sonics / 2.34
06 Mavs / 2.24
11 Heat / 2.21
13 Spurs / 2.16
92 Blazers / 2.15
08 Lakers / 2.02
87 Celtics / 1.97
09 Magic / 1.88
82 Sixers / 1.85
91 Lakers / 1.80
90 Blazers / 1.76
19 Warriors / 1.72
12 Thunder / 1.69
95 Magic / 1.66
79 Bullets / 1.49
93 Suns / 1.45
94 Knicks / 1.32
89 Lakers / 1.03
21 Suns / 0.92
88 Pistons / 0.79
77 Sixers / 0.75
83 Lakers / 0.50
98 Jazz / 0.37
04 Lakers / 0.32
84 Lakers / 0.23
03 Nets / 0.22
80 Sixers / 0.18
02 Nets / -0.42
00 Pacers / -0.45
07 Cavs / -0.45
14 Heat / -0.63
15 Cavs / -0.71
05 Pistons / -0.73
01 Sixers / -0.79
10 Celtics / -1.18
17 Cavs / -1.32
78 Sonics / -1.35
86 Rockets / -1.94
20 Heat / -2.22
99 Knicks / -2.89
18 Cavs / -3.69
23 Heat / -4.00
81 Rockets / -4.26

This exercise clearly did make a difference - you can see changes like the 85 Celtics, 06 Mavs, and 82 Sixers all moving up considerably, while the 94 Knicks dropped considerably. The Bulls' finals opponents, for the most part, did drop a little, but not as much as I was expecting, honestly.

Even after my attempt at correction, three of the Bulls' opponents are in the top ten, four in the top fifteen, and five in the top twenty(and tbh I can't really figure out why the Jazz dropped so precipitously from 97 to 98 when they were basically the same team).

Those Jazz teams for years afterward were frequently brought up as one of the greatest teams to not win a championship and, for the 97 Jazz anyway, this exercise seems to jive with that.

I don't claim this to be in any way definitive, and my methodology may be flawed, and for some of these teams there may be extenuating circumstances that affect the result(injuries, RS coasting), but I believe the broader point is that while Jordan and the Bulls were dominating an era, they may have actually been playing some of the stronger post-merger Finals opponents. The Warriors and Spurs were better, but the way some people talk you'd think the Bulls were playing YMCA teams.

And if you are going to hold his finals opponents against him, then I hope you're going to do the same for Duncan and Shaq, both of whom played a bunch of teams well lower on the list than any Jordan faced.

That's all I got right now. Like I said, not a full argument, just a few things I wanted to say.

Be nice.

[ShaqAttac]

I have Lebron way out in front with 17 votes. MJ, Russell and Wilt seem to be the only other vote getters on 7, 4 and 2 respectively. That said, based off people's 2nd preference votes there's no clear #2. I think I saw many of the Lebron voters with Kareem as #2 overall. I could easily see Jordan sliding out of the top 3, which would be a remarkable outcome.

Maybe with Lebron so far and away seen as #1 there is more willingness to re-assess the Jordan myth.

args have just been too good tbh. i had him as da 2 peak after shaq when i came in but it p obvious now that he dont really got a case outside of box-merchantryy. all the args for him in this threaad r basically a combo of box-stuff or tryna say 6>11. i think ppl have started relizin putting up box-whatever doesnt really mean nuthin, and if it dont mean nuthin mj just isnt a top peeak.

[Dutchball97]

sooooo

jordaan - gets poy votes way back when ppl were just usin slashlines to decide who was good
russ - beats superteams with less help when he bout to kick the bucket

ig dominance is when u win less with uber superteams.

1. A real shame you think so lowly of the POY project. Just about everyone who contributed to it has provided more insight than you ever did (and let's be honest ever will). I find it disrespectful you try to portray them as "just using slashlines".

2. You don't seem to know what a superteam is because Russ never beat one and Jordan never played on one.

3. It's fine that your jaw has been on the floor since you saw the thread about 1969 Russell but going around and pestering people to push this niche view on is weird.

[ShaqAttac]

sooooo

jordaan - gets poy votes way back when ppl were just usin slashlines to decide who was good
russ - beats superteams with less help when he bout to kick the bucket

ig dominance is when u win less with uber superteams.

1. A real shame you think so lowly of the POY project. Just about everyone who contributed to it has provided more insight than you ever did (and let's be honest ever will). I find it disrespectful you try to portray them as "just using slashlines".

2. You don't seem to know what a superteam is because Russ never beat one and Jordan never played on one.

3. It's fine that your jaw has been on the floor since you saw the thread about 1969 Russell but going around and pestering people to push this niche view on is weird.

referencin other ppls opinion as proof is insight now?

wilt joinin a team that made the finals isnt a superteam?

jordan joinin a team that almost beat ny without him?

u say its insight. i say its cope. only mj can play on a 50-win team, win half as much as someone else, and then have ppl say hes more dominant

[Dutchball97]

sooooo

jordaan - gets poy votes way back when ppl were just usin slashlines to decide who was good
russ - beats superteams with less help when he bout to kick the bucket

ig dominance is when u win less with uber superteams.

1. A real shame you think so lowly of the POY project. Just about everyone who contributed to it has provided more insight than you ever did (and let's be honest ever will). I find it disrespectful you try to portray them as "just using slashlines".

2. You don't seem to know what a superteam is because Russ never beat one and Jordan never played on one.

3. It's fine that your jaw has been on the floor since you saw the thread about 1969 Russell but going around and pestering people to push this niche view on is weird.

referencin other ppls opinion as proof is insight now?

wilt joinin a team that made the finals isnt a superteam?

jordan joinin a team that almost beat ny without him?

u say its insight. i say its cope. only mj can play on a 50-win team, win half as much as someone else, and then have ppl say hes more dominant

Who is talking about proof? This is all just opinions, the moment people start thinking their analysis is somehow approaching an objective measurement they're deluding themselves.

With all factors taken into account I believe Jordan had the greatest NBA career. If you don't believe that, it's fine. What isn't fine is pestering people and trying to push your opinion as fact because maybe some god forgotten metric tells you it is. Saying someone who doesn't agree with you is coping is something you'd expect 15 year olds to be doing on twitter or instagram. Even more it's not even your own opinions or analysis, you just read something here and start repeating it as gospel.

Also why even bother to quote me when you know I don't take you seriously as a poster anyway? Seems like you're just looking to muck up the project by starting meaningless arguments.

[ShaqAttac]

[tweet][/tweet]

1. A real shame you think so lowly of the POY project. Just about everyone who contributed to it has provided more insight than you ever did (and let's be honest ever will). I find it disrespectful you try to portray them as "just using slashlines".

2. You don't seem to know what a superteam is because Russ never beat one and Jordan never played on one.

3. It's fine that your jaw has been on the floor since you saw the thread about 1969 Russell but going around and pestering people to push this niche view on is weird.

referencin other ppls opinion as proof is insight now?

wilt joinin a team that made the finals isnt a superteam?

jordan joinin a team that almost beat ny without him?

u say its insight. i say its cope. only mj can play on a 50-win team, win half as much as someone else, and then have ppl say hes more dominant

Who is talking about proof? This is all just opinions, the moment people start thinking their analysis is somehow approaching an objective measurement they're deluding themselves.

With all factors taken into account I believe Jordan had the greatest NBA career. If you don't believe that, it's fine. What isn't fine is pestering people and trying to push your opinion as fact because maybe some god forgotten metric tells you it is. Saying someone who doesn't agree with you is coping is something you'd expect 15 year olds to be doing on twitter or instagram. Even more it's not even your own opinions or analysis, you just read something here and start repeating it as gospel.

Also why even bother to quote me when you know I don't take you seriously as a poster anyway? Seems like you're just looking to muck up the project by starting meaningless arguments.

factors? the only factor u mentioned for mj being "dominant" was how he got voted waay back. the only factor here is what ppl used to say. how u talking bout insiight and "taking serriously" when ur literally just listing voting results as justificatioon.

i repeat args i think gud. i dont go n say "oh bron voted #1 in 2020 so he more dominant than russell". ur legit just sayin adjectivves.

also since when werent we allowed to push opinions? whats 15 yo is tryna talk trash about "insight" coz sum1 challenged your take which is literally just based on repeatin what other ppl said

[penbeast0]

Warning issued to Dutchball for personal attack. ShaqAttack, it's been dealt with, now let it go.

[Dutchball97]

Guess it was fun while it lasted?

Edit: to be clear, with ShaqAttac's unprompted combative reply being fine but my response telling him to piss off being the thing that crosses the line this isn't really something I can work on/take into account, I simply fundamentally disagree with it. I tried easing back into the forum by participating in the great projects that are organized but if this is the stance taken by the moderating team I'll take my own advice and won't (further) derail the discussion and remove myself from the forum again, probably permanently this time.

I hope the project goes well though!

[rk2023]

Waiting for the tally and results, but at first glance it seems as if votes 2-4 should be yielding some parity (at least more than past projects perhaps?). Have seen some great posters lay out solid arguments for the three of them as primary / secondary choices, so am looking forward to the debates to come as we vote for the next three slots.

[ShaqAttac]

Warning issued to Dutchball for personal attack. ShaqAttack, it's been dealt with, now let it go.

yessir

[ShaqAttac]

for the port peeps

on-court per 48:
1. 1991 Jordan (+13.5)
2. 1996 Jordan (+13)
. 2016 and 2017 Lebron (+12.5)
5. 2020 Lebron (+10.5)
6. 2009 Lebron (+10)
7. 2012 Lebron (+9.5)
8. 1998 Jordan (+9)
9. 1997 Jordan (+8.5)
10. 1993 Jordan (+7.5)
11 1990/92 Jordan (+7)
13. 2013 Lebron (+6.5)
14. 2008 Lebron (+5.5)

[rk2023]

for the port peeps

on-court per 48:
1. 1991 Jordan (+13.5)
2. 1996 Jordan (+13)
. 2016 and 2017 Lebron (+12.5)
5. 2020 Lebron (+10.5)
6. 2009 Lebron (+10)
7. 2012 Lebron (+9.5)
8. 1998 Jordan (+9)
9. 1997 Jordan (+8.5)
10. 1993 Jordan (+7.5)
11 1990/92 Jordan (+7)
13. 2013 Lebron (+6.5)
14. 2008 Lebron (+5.5)

Thanks for the share, may I ask where you're getting some of the Jordan #s from - and I take it these are playoffs solely?

[Doctor MJ]

Votes Tallied:

LeBron James 15
Michael Jordan 6
Bill Russell 4
Wilt Chamberlain 2

LeBron James has been voted in at #1 for the 2023 Top 100.



As specified before we will now move to a 2-step Induction system where a set of Nominees are now chosen based on the votes with the 2020 project order as the tiebreaker. The 5 nominees will be:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell

A couple reminders before I make the next thread:

* Must explicitly state who your votes are for. If you say something like "for my second I'll go with whoever is ahead between X and Y", I'm not going to count that. The second vote gives you a chance to have more say in the winner of a given thread if you want it, but it's up to you to follow closely enough to know who you want to help. If that feels like too much work in any given thread, then don't worry about it. It's optional.

* If you want a vote, ask to be added on the panel in the General Thread, and you'll be considered. However now that we're done with the first thread, expect to have to wait until the current thread is over before you're added.

[eminence]

Congrats to Bron, I expect an even wider victory next time around.

[trex_8063]

[b][color=#0000FF]

As specified before we will now move to a 2-step Induction system where a set of Nominees are now chosen based on the votes with the 2020 project order as the tiebreaker. The 5 nominees will be:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell

Just so I'm clear:

Is it advised that we state an alternate or nominee for the next round, along with our primary vote (e.g. "Vote: Player A; Nomination: Player B")? Or does any potential "nomination" listed have no bearing on the nominees of the next round? Thanks.....

[eminence]

I believe the system is:

Vote #1: Player A (from nominees)
Vote #2: Player B (from nominees)

Nominate: Player C (from all players)