Your Pick As Greatest Player Ever?

[ty 4191]

He was not clearly the best for 5 years. James/Abdul-Jabar/Russell were more consistent players even if Bird was arbitrarily the best.

Bird is not as good as them, and I don't really have a great idea on how someone can argue he was without getting into narratives and nostalgic lens. Bird was nowhere near them on defense even in his best years, and offensively his lack of finishing ability did lead to shaky playoffs here and there. Longevity isn't the reason why Bird is not the GOAT.

Bird being the GOAT is an 80s narrative and not even a well informed one. It's long outdated and I've never actually seen someone break down why Bird should be a GOAT candidate other than saying "people thought he was the best!" which doesn't really mean anything, and is an inconsistent criteria regardless (also, not even a true statement, not everyone thought he was the best).

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/fy4m7u/players_with_the_most_top_5_mvp_finishes_in_nba/

Over a 9 year stretch, Larry Bird won 3 MVPs, came in 2nd 4 times, 3rd once and 4th once. Sheer dominance.

8)Larry Bird: 88(2), 87(3), 86(1), 85(1), 84(1), 83(2), 82(2), 81(2), 80(4) = 9 (3 MVPs) (4 2nd places)

Yes, everyone here already knows this. What does that have to do with anything?

That own metric you posted doesn't support that Bird is the GOAT, it would imply the opposite.

It implies that Bird has a strong case as best overall player of the 1980's. That's all.

Certainly, 1979-1980 through 1987-1988 (before his back went out).

[ty 4191]

The links don't work unfortunately.

With that being said, calling Bird "clearly the best player on the planet" in 1986/87 and 1987/88 is a huge reach to me. I don't think he has much of a case for the best period in 1987/88, let alone "clearly the best".

I didn't post links. I posted screenshots from BB Ref uploaded to Imagur.

He led all players in Win Shares, BPM, Game Score, VORP overall 1984-1988. That doesn't mean he was clearly the best every year (he wasn't), it simply means he might have been the most valuable player overall, during those 5 years.

HIs playoffs numbers are also outstanding; right there with Magic as the best overall player those years.

[HeartBreakKid]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/fy4m7u/players_with_the_most_top_5_mvp_finishes_in_nba/

Over a 9 year stretch, Larry Bird won 3 MVPs, came in 2nd 4 times, 3rd once and 4th once. Sheer dominance.

8)Larry Bird: 88(2), 87(3), 86(1), 85(1), 84(1), 83(2), 82(2), 81(2), 80(4) = 9 (3 MVPs) (4 2nd places)

Yes, everyone here already knows this. What does that have to do with anything?

That own metric you posted doesn't support that Bird is the GOAT, it would imply the opposite.

It implies that Bird has a strong case as best overall player of the 1980's. That's all.

Certainly, 1979-1980 through 1978-1988 (before his back went out).

He might be, but that's not the debate. We're talking about him as a GOAT candidate not the GOAT of the 80s.

And a large reason why he is the GOAT of the 80s is also because his career just arbitrarily lines up with the start of the 80s and ends at the end of the 80s. If humans didn't have an obsessions' with the number 0 no one would care about that.

Michael Jordan played in the 80s and was better. Kareem Abdul Jabar played in the 80s and was better. The only reason why they are not the best players of the 80s is because their parents didn't have sex in the middle of a decade like Bird's did.

[70sFan]

The links don't work unfortunately.

With that being said, calling Bird "clearly the best player on the planet" in 1986/87 and 1987/88 is a huge reach to me. I don't think he has much of a case for the best period in 1987/88, let alone "clearly the best".

I didn't post links. I posted screenshots from BB Ref uploaded to Imagur.

He led all players in Win Shares, BPM, Game Score, VORP overall 1984-1988. That doesn't mean he was clearly the best every year (he wasn't), it simply means he might have been the most valuable player overall, during those 5 years.

HIs playoffs numbers are also outstanding; right there with Magic as the best overall player those years.

We can manipulate samples however we want to make the case then. Bird is the best player of the 1984-88 period, but Magic is easily the best player of the 1985-89 period. Jordan is the best player of the 1988-92 period. Moses is likely the best player of the 1981-85 period. Kareem is the best player of the 1979-83 period.

I don't think that proves anything.

[OhayoKD]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/fy4m7u/players_with_the_most_top_5_mvp_finishes_in_nba/

Over a 9 year stretch, Larry Bird won 3 MVPs, came in 2nd 4 times, 3rd once and 4th once. Sheer dominance.

8)Larry Bird: 88(2), 87(3), 86(1), 85(1), 84(1), 83(2), 82(2), 81(2), 80(4) = 9 (3 MVPs) (4 2nd places)

Yes, everyone here already knows this. What does that have to do with anything?

That own metric you posted doesn't support that Bird is the GOAT, it would imply the opposite.

It implies that Bird has a strong case as best overall player of the 1980's. That's all.

Certainly, 1979-1980 through 1987-1988 (before his back went out).

That depends largely on how much weight you are giving the things those stats count....and chooses not to count.

For example, if we started counting carries and passes rather than just assists(with the former correlating with better offensive results), Bird would look alot worse.

If we started counting blowbys or breakdowns...Bird would look alot worse

If we started differentiating between contested rebounds and uncontested rebounds...Bird would look alot worse.

The box-score is ultimately just an extension of an eyetest and it's easy to come up with eyetests and corresponding box-scores where Bird was never the best player in the league.

Here is what is generally true regardless of the box-score one chooses to give credence to...

-> Bird's teams did not experience the same drop-off when Bird was absent that Magic's teams did.
-> Bird's teams got worse in the playoffs by opponent-adjusted srs, srs upsets(either way), or just straight rs/playoff rankings
-> Bird's offenses were not era-best or particularly close
-> Bird's teams did substantially worse than Magic's

Combine all that and I don't really see a "best player of the 80's" case. Magic is flatly better by the cold data, and is more successful, and his play-style correlates better with the best results historically.

[ty 4191]

The links don't work unfortunately.

With that being said, calling Bird "clearly the best player on the planet" in 1986/87 and 1987/88 is a huge reach to me. I don't think he has much of a case for the best period in 1987/88, let alone "clearly the best".

I didn't post links. I posted screenshots from BB Ref uploaded to Imagur.

He led all players in Win Shares, BPM, Game Score, VORP overall 1984-1988. That doesn't mean he was clearly the best every year (he wasn't), it simply means he might have been the most valuable player overall, during those 5 years.

HIs playoffs numbers are also outstanding; right there with Magic as the best overall player those years.

We can manipulate samples however we want to make the case then. Bird is the best player of the 1984-88 period, but Magic is easily the best player of the 1985-89 period. Jordan is the best player of the 1988-92 period. Moses is likely the best player of the 1981-85 period. Kareem is the best player of the 1979-83 period.

I don't think that proves anything.

Your original question was “which five-year period specifically?”.

I was simply answering your question.

[Jaivl]

Bird was clearly the best player on the planet for five years, every bit as much as James, KAJ and Russell.

To me GOAT is not era relative in the sense a guy only gets evaluated on his game compared to his era competition. To me a GOAT is GOAT in any era. This leads to questions like Mikan in the 80’s vs Bird in todays league.

For 5 years? What years do you have in mind?

70's Fan. Perhaps 1983-1984 through 1987-1988??

Regular Season:









Playoffs:

God, that's some lackluster competition.

[penbeast0]

5 year only, where's Mikan?

I mean, we are mostly going off second-hand hearsay but 5 years as far and away the best player in the league(in this case second-hand stuff and team success are pretty much the only stuff we have to go off and as I am aware they all support that) is only something I'd say Lebron, Kareem, and Russell have a credible case for(and I think it might be a stretch for anyone there to claim they were far away better for 5 years straight(wilt, curry, walton...)).

Honestly, with that frame if you are purely era-relative i'd say he's the mostly likely to be #1.

Bird was clearly the best player on the planet for five years, every bit as much as James, KAJ and Russell.

To me GOAT is not era relative in the sense a guy only gets evaluated on his game compared to his era competition. To me a GOAT is GOAT in any era. This leads to questions like Mikan in the 80’s vs Bird in todays league.

I don't think you can evaluate a player in any way OTHER than comparing his game to his era competition. Otherwise you would have to discount Curry's ability to shoot the 3 because not all eras have the 3, look at whether the league would have banned Jordan in the 50s when they were paranoid about gambling (like they did Connie Hawkins), and possibly even look at a player's race as black players didn't always get a fair chance and Eastern European players didn't start coming into the league until well after the beginning of the league.

There are those who say every player gets evaluated only based on how they would do in 2023 but that ignores changes in rules, training, coaching, equipment, etc. Most people who do this also seem to only apply it to players before 1980, though not to Kareem because he played in the 80s as well as the 70s, but that is more a matter of poster bias.

That doesn't mean you can't look at the strength of eras and discount for weaker eras like the 50s and 70s but it does mean that I think you can ONLY evaluate a player in the context of the era he actually played in.

[rk2023]

Kevin Garnett had the best collection of skills and abilities in the history of basketball in my opinion.

You get the current Miami Heat or GSW to draft him and I really think the highest peak and strongest Prime is on the table.

Ignoring that, LeBron, Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Jordan and Shaq have unique cases.

Duncan had a pretty short true prime. However his early 00’s peak is really high to me. I’m not convinced anyone named here played better than him from 00 to 03.

Jordan didn’t have the longest career and left a lot of the defensive side on the table but might be the greatest pure performer ever on a consistency level and resilience level.

Etc, etc.

LeBron is churning out the best career though for sure IMO. Two decades of all-NBA play coming right up, with possibly the most freakish peak ever in between.


So in my head it boils down to pure ability and talent(KG), consistency in performance(Russell, Jordan), peak play(LeBron, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan), and longevity(Kareem, LeBron).

Different ways to measure GOAT. I don’t think there is a clear picture of GOAT because there’s too many variables to a career.

If we're going off pure ability and talent for their times, I see strong cases for Hakeem and Wilt (I personally have the two over Shaq and Garnett).

[ShotCreator]

Kevin Garnett had the best collection of skills and abilities in the history of basketball in my opinion.

You get the current Miami Heat or GSW to draft him and I really think the highest peak and strongest Prime is on the table.

Ignoring that, LeBron, Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Jordan and Shaq have unique cases.

Duncan had a pretty short true prime. However his early 00’s peak is really high to me. I’m not convinced anyone named here played better than him from 00 to 03.

Jordan didn’t have the longest career and left a lot of the defensive side on the table but might be the greatest pure performer ever on a consistency level and resilience level.

Etc, etc.

LeBron is churning out the best career though for sure IMO. Two decades of all-NBA play coming right up, with possibly the most freakish peak ever in between.


So in my head it boils down to pure ability and talent(KG), consistency in performance(Russell, Jordan), peak play(LeBron, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan), and longevity(Kareem, LeBron).

Different ways to measure GOAT. I don’t think there is a clear picture of GOAT because there’s too many variables to a career.

If we're going off pure ability and talent for their times, I see strong cases for Hakeem and Wilt (I personally have the two over Shaq and Garnett).

I was gonna throw Hakeem in there for sure. He never had a natural peak that made sense between his skills, maturity, and athleticism.

He won a title, MVP, and DPOY in 94, and then was out of his prime by 96.

[AEnigma]

I think Hakeem’s prime ended with the 1998 injuries, and his extended prime did not end until his injuries in 2000. 1996 just happened to be an uncharacteristically poor postseason. His 1996 regular season was only a mild defensive decline from his 1995 regular season.

[MacGill]

I think Hakeem’s prime ended with the 1998 injuries, and his extended prime did not end until his injuries in 2000. 1996 just happened to be an uncharacteristically poor postseason. His 1996 regular season was only a mild defensive decline from his 1995 regular season.

I don't even remember what that player looked like when he came to my team to join VC Even worse, VC vouched for him

[SNPA]

For 5 years? What years do you have in mind?

70's Fan. Perhaps 1983-1984 through 1987-1988??

Regular Season:









Playoffs:

God, that's some lackluster competition.

Funny I see names like MJ/Magic/KAJ/Hakeem. That’s 4 top ten all time guys. Plus several HOF’ers and an MVP.

[HeartBreakKid]

Funny I see names like MJ/Magic/KAJ/Hakeem. That’s 4 top ten all time guys. Plus several HOF’ers and an MVP.

Yeah, that's the problem. You literally just see names and didn't think about them at all. It says right next to their names that it's citing guys from 1983 +. Jordan and Hakeem's stats do not go that far back, and that includes their rookie and sophomore seasons. Kareem was not in his prime during that period.

Why don't we do a 5 year stretch including 89-91, it's no difference, it's still Larry Bird.



Also, you see Adrian Dantley on there and it's like....he wasn't one of the greatest of all time. Who cares if he is in the HOF? All-star players from all eras are in the HOF, that isn't a high standard. Who else would be top ten in winshares, the 12th men?

[SNPA]

Funny I see names like MJ/Magic/KAJ/Hakeem. That’s 4 top ten all time guys. Plus several HOF’ers and an MVP.

Yeah, that's the problem. You literally just see names and didn't think about them at all. It says right next to their names that it's citing guys from 1983 +. Jordan and Hakeem's stats do not go that far back, and that includes their rookie and sophomore seasons. Kareem was not in his prime during that period.

Why don't we do a 5 year stretch including 89-91, it's no difference, it's still Larry Bird.



Also, you see Adrian Dantley on there and it's like....he wasn't one of the greatest of all time. Who cares if he is in the HOF? All-star players from all eras are in the HOF, that isn't a high standard. Who else would be top ten in winshares, the 12th men?

Is the argument here the early/mid 80’s were a weak era?

[lessthanjake]

Doesn’t the question of who was ever “clearly” the best in a 5-year span just come down to a completely subjective question of how “clear” it needs to be that someone was the best and how to determine how “clear” it is? Like, for every single 5-year span in the history of basketball, one could say who one thinks was the best player. So, if there’s supposed to be a limited number of examples of someone being “clearly” the best, then that has to be some sort of higher bar. Does “clearly” the best mean that one has to be *sure* that one’s choice really was the best? How sure does one have to be? Does virtually everyone have to agree with you for it to be “clear,” or is it enough for you personally to be sure of the choice? Is it necessary or sufficient (or neither) for one to have been widely recognized as the best at the time? What criteria are you using to determine that someone was the best? Does the player have to be the best under essentially any criteria, or is it enough to think that one’s own criteria is the best criteria and therefore they only have to meet yours? It just seems like a bit of a meaningless assertion because whether someone is “clearly” the best is not an objective question and one could argue that tons of people were “clearly” the best in various timespans. Indeed, I imagine there’s plenty of five-year spans where different posters here might feel strongly that different players were clearly the best. So I think the discussion is largely not useful, since it is just an indirect way to compare players that would ultimately end up boiled down to the same things as a direct comparison would.

All that said, I’ll still throw in my thoughts: Besides guys already initially named, I do think Shaq was clearly the best in a 5-year span as well (let’s say 1998 to 2002). And Jordan of course too—with Jordan, the retirement limits the potential five-year spans one could use, but 1989-1993 seems inarguable. And, to me, Bird has a span in there too near the beginning of his career (perhaps 1982-1986) where he probably qualifies, before Magic passed him by. He wasn’t actually as good in that span as the other guys in question were in theirs, though, so it’s more just a matter of no other top-tier all-time great being at their peak at the time.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Kevin Garnett had the best collection of skills and abilities in the history of basketball in my opinion.

You get the current Miami Heat or GSW to draft him and I really think the highest peak and strongest Prime is on the table.

Ignoring that, LeBron, Russell, Kareem, Duncan, Jordan and Shaq have unique cases.

Duncan had a pretty short true prime. However his early 00’s peak is really high to me. I’m not convinced anyone named here played better than him from 00 to 03.

Jordan didn’t have the longest career and left a lot of the defensive side on the table but might be the greatest pure performer ever on a consistency level and resilience level.

Etc, etc.

LeBron is churning out the best career though for sure IMO. Two decades of all-NBA play coming right up, with possibly the most freakish peak ever in between.


So in my head it boils down to pure ability and talent(KG), consistency in performance(Russell, Jordan), peak play(LeBron, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan), and longevity(Kareem, LeBron).

Different ways to measure GOAT. I don’t think there is a clear picture of GOAT because there’s too many variables to a career.

If we're going off pure ability and talent for their times, I see strong cases for Hakeem and Wilt (I personally have the two over Shaq and Garnett).

I was gonna throw Hakeem in there for sure. He never had a natural peak that made sense between his skills, maturity, and athleticism.

He won a title, MVP, and DPOY in 94, and then was out of his prime by 96.

I wonder if that has to due with Hakeem starting basketball later in life than most?

[Gregoire]

I'm going to make this real simple and quite clear: Michael Jordan was a superior basketball player to LeBron James in any and every which way, both in terms of ability, skillset, fundamentals...as well as mental make-up and any/all intangible components that exist for anyone's considerations. And when I say that, I mean so objectively. There is no gray area.

Now, to be fair to LeBron though, Jordan was appreciably better at hoops than any and every other human being that's ever been born onto this planet to date. Jordan was literally that good. Even as the man who is considered as by far and away by a wide margin the greatest basketball player -- hell, athlete...all sports included -- of all time, the sheer fact that you or anyone else on these message boards even broaches the question, or tries to twist or breakdown comparisons, is proof that Michael Jordan, incredible as it may be, is actually underrated.

The statistics, the accolades, the achievements, the 6 titles in 6 finals appearances with 6 FMVP's...NONE of that matters, as none of that is what makes Michael Jordan the best to have ever laced 'em up. What you have to understand is that, whatever Jordan wound up with in terms of all of these things, they are nothing more than the natural byproduct that results from the objectively most incredible, spectacular, phenomenal GREATEST, basketball player of all time.

I will also add, that any numbers that you see today, any action you see with your own eyes, the rules of the game that exist today, have made said numbers and said action that you see with your own eyes, substantially easier than at any other time in any other era in the history of the basketball. This is also objective. This is inarguable. I cannot stress that enough. So much easier, in fact, that if you took Michael Jordan and place him in today's game, I honestly think Jordan would be so unchallenged that he'd be bored to tears. He would hate it. He would probably have moved onto another sport or something else. It would be too easy for him. Again, this is not an exaggeration. Michael Jordan really was that insanely, incredibly, stupendously, masterfully special. He was brilliant. He was timeless. Like Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo Da Vinci before him, MJ was simply on another level, on another plateau, on another plane, in another stratosphere.

Go back and watch Jordan. Consume him. Watch him intently. Watch as much as you possibly can. Until your eyes are bleeding through your brain. Beauty, grace, perfection, all of it -- it never gets old. It never expires. Check out the Michael Jordan Micro skills series on YouTube -- all 10 parts. Watch every second of the 5 + hours of "Michael Jordan: the Legend of the Greatest" on YouTube. Watch "Michael Jordan the Puppeteer" and Michael Jordan the Puppeteer part II" on YouTube. Watch his games from the 80's, 90's, regular season, playoffs, finals, and so on and so forth. I IMPLORE YOU TO WATCH, WATCH, WATCH for days, weeks, months, years, on end.

And the same thing goes for all of at the back and forth, tit for tat Real GM forum threads of breakdowns, comparisons, tear downs of MJ/build ups of LeBron....and again, you will realize just how much of a waste of time they really are. It's all nonsense.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I'm going to make this real simple and quite clear: Michael Jordan was a superior basketball player to LeBron James in any and every which way, both in terms of ability, skillset, fundamentals...as well as mental make-up and any/all intangible components that exist for anyone's considerations. And when I say that, I mean so objectively. There is no gray area.

Now, to be fair to LeBron though, Jordan was appreciably better at hoops than any and every other human being that's ever been born onto this planet to date. Jordan was literally that good. Even as the man who is considered as by far and away by a wide margin the greatest basketball player -- hell, athlete...all sports included -- of all time, the sheer fact that you or anyone else on these message boards even broaches the question, or tries to twist or breakdown comparisons, is proof that Michael Jordan, incredible as it may be, is actually underrated.

The statistics, the accolades, the achievements, the 6 titles in 6 finals appearances with 6 FMVP's...NONE of that matters, as none of that is what makes Michael Jordan the best to have ever laced 'em up. What you have to understand is that, whatever Jordan wound up with in terms of all of these things, they are nothing more than the natural byproduct that results from the objectively most incredible, spectacular, phenomenal GREATEST, basketball player of all time.

I will also add, that any numbers that you see today, any action you see with your own eyes, the rules of the game that exist today, have made said numbers and said action that you see with your own eyes, substantially easier than at any other time in any other era in the history of the basketball. This is also objective. This is inarguable. I cannot stress that enough. So much easier, in fact, that if you took Michael Jordan and place him in today's game, I honestly think Jordan would be so unchallenged that he'd be bored to tears. He would hate it. He would probably have moved onto another sport or something else. It would be too easy for him. Again, this is not an exaggeration. Michael Jordan really was that insanely, incredibly, stupendously, masterfully special. He was brilliant. He was timeless. Like Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo Da Vinci before him, MJ was simply on another level, on another plateau, on another plane, in another stratosphere.

Go back and watch Jordan. Consume him. Watch him intently. Watch as much as you possibly can. Until your eyes are bleeding through your brain. Beauty, grace, perfection, all of it -- it never gets old. It never expires. Check out the Michael Jordan Micro skills series on YouTube -- all 10 parts. Watch every second of the 5 + hours of "Michael Jordan: the Legend of the Greatest" on YouTube. Watch "Michael Jordan the Puppeteer" and Michael Jordan the Puppeteer part II" on YouTube. Watch his games from the 80's, 90's, regular season, playoffs, finals, and so on and so forth. I IMPLORE YOU TO WATCH, WATCH, WATCH for days, weeks, months, years, on end.

And the same thing goes for all of at the back and forth, tit for tat Real GM forum threads of breakdowns, comparisons, tear downs of MJ/build ups of LeBron....and again, you will realize just how much of a waste of time they really are. It's all nonsense.

Dude did you seriously link this to the general board that’s so sad lol

[AEnigma]

This is crazy, I just got the exact same wall of text from ChatGPT.