Who is in your GOAT tier?

[Dutchball97]

For an old guy 70s fan you sure haven't interpreted what you've seen, if you in fact have seen the nba for that long, and seen it every year.

I'll just say it once here; Jordan carried his team and"always" beat the opposition one he reached the top and against many of the top 10-15 greatest players of all-time. He carried the scoring load on his team every year. He was consistently great on both ends from start to finish of his career. Amazingly he left for two years and returned to the best once again every season. He is the best stat wise and certainly viewing wise.

I'm not old at all

To the second paragraph, it's all true but you can say this about every other top 5 player ever. We're comparing him to Russell or Kareem, not Demar Derozan.

Not all true. Jordan's teams have never beaten a single top 10-15 player ever in the playoffs*

*1-1 vs Shaq

I'm not sure if I'm missing some obvious sarcasm but the Bulls did beat Magic's Lakers in the 91 finals and while I don't personally have Karl Malone in my top 15, he's also someone who gets put up there by plenty of people as well.

[70sFan]

For an old guy 70s fan you sure haven't interpreted what you've seen, if you in fact have seen the nba for that long, and seen it every year.

I'll just say it once here; Jordan carried his team and"always" beat the opposition one he reached the top and against many of the top 10-15 greatest players of all-time. He carried the scoring load on his team every year. He was consistently great on both ends from start to finish of his career. Amazingly he left for two years and returned to the best once again every season. He is the best stat wise and certainly viewing wise.

I'm not old at all

To the second paragraph, it's all true but you can say this about every other top 5 player ever. We're comparing him to Russell or Kareem, not Demar Derozan.

Not all true. Jordan's teams have never beaten a single top 10-15 player ever in the playoffs*

*1-1 vs Shaq

Well, they did beat Magic in 1991 finals, so I think it counts. I know it was a sarcastic post though, so I won't focus too much on that.

[migya]

What facts? That Jordan is untouchable? We have no facts showing that Jordan is clearly more impactful than the other greatest players ever.

Or that the 1990s defined the modern era? That's just purely subjective and arbitrary opinion.

For an old guy 70s fan you sure haven't interpreted what you've seen, if you in fact have seen the nba for that long, and seen it every year.

I'll just say it once here; Jordan carried his team and"always" beat the opposition one he reached the top and against many of the top 10-15 greatest players of all-time. He carried the scoring load on his team every year. He was consistently great on both ends from start to finish of his career. Amazingly he left for two years and returned to the best once again every season. He is the best stat wise and certainly viewing wise.

He's not the only player to consistently beat his opposition. Him having the best stats is somewhat debatable - him having the the best style visually...is incredibly subjective.

The 90s does not define the current era at all. You're letting your age bubble yourself. People who are 15 years old do not care about the 90s and would hardly see any similarities to today's game if they saw a game from 1992.

You should accept the same way you dismiss eras before your time that people will do the same with yours. There is nothing special about the time you grew up in.

Besides Russell, who I have ahead of Jordan, noone else won like he did. Ask anyone who has seen him play and most will say he looked the best.

I don't think the 90s defined much and I have alot of respect for the older eras, they must get their credit, same as players nowadays who are very skilled, particularly shooting. Do not make assumptions about me out loud. I do think the game is easier now because of less contact but each to his own.

[AEnigma]

He “looked” the best because he was the league’s top scorer and could do a good enough job as a man defender against other top scorers. That is not a real argument.

And less physical is not the same as “easier”. That is some hockey goon mentality, as if “real” sport needs to come with low-talent enforcers.

[Dutchball97]

He “looked” the best because he was the league’s top scorer and could do a good enough job as a man defender against other top scorers. That is not a real argument.

And less physical is not the same as “easier”. That is some hockey goon mentality, as if “real” sport needs to come with low-talent enforcers.

It's hard to seperate the subjective eye test from more analytical comparisons and I'm not sure that we even should. Stats are there to give context to what we see during the games and the other way around it's important to check if what the stats tell us can be found in reality as well. For a recent example I supported Jokic for MVP last season partly because he led just about every imaginable stat but also because whenever I watched him play that impact was noticeable. Besides that every offensive stat had Jokic in a similar elite range but defensively those stats didn't line-up. We could see Jokic was an improved defender with good hands and an ability to use his size effectively. According to RAPTOR and BPM this meant Jokic was now the best defender in the league but by watching we could see he still had his flaws and that the more moderate but still positive weighings of his defense that EPM and LEBRON had were more accurate.

[70sFan]

He “looked” the best because he was the league’s top scorer and could do a good enough job as a man defender against other top scorers. That is not a real argument.

And less physical is not the same as “easier”. That is some hockey goon mentality, as if “real” sport needs to come with low-talent enforcers.

It's hard to seperate the subjective eye test from more analytical comparisons and I'm not sure that we even should. Stats are there to give context to what we see during the games and the other way around it's important to check if what the stats tell us can be found in reality as well. For a recent example I supported Jokic for MVP last season partly because he led just about every imaginable stat but also because whenever I watched him play that impact was noticeable. Besides that every offensive stat had Jokic in a similar elite range but defensively those stats didn't line-up. We could see Jokic was an improved defender with good hands and an ability to use his size effectively. According to RAPTOR and BPM this meant Jokic was now the best defender in the league but by watching we could see he still had his flaws and that the more moderate but still positive weighings of his defense that EPM and LEBRON had were more accurate.

To be fair though, people sometimes lose the perspective of this debate. We're talking about GOAT level here, which top 10 player ever doesn't impress you in terms of eye-test? All great players are extremely impressive when you watch them.

[migya]

He “looked” the best because he was the league’s top scorer and could do a good enough job as a man defender against other top scorers. That is not a real argument.

And less physical is not the same as “easier”. That is some hockey goon mentality, as if “real” sport needs to come with low-talent enforcers.

It's logical. This era players can train the intricate skills knowing they won't get hammered at all, in the 90s and before a player knew he was going to be roughed up often so you would cater to that and be ready for it, so they weren't able to have such intricate skills, though many had a fair amount.

[AEnigma]

“Logic” entirely divorced from reality is meaningless. Players are more skilled now because development and strategy is better, not because they are only brave enough to shoot pass defend or dribble (or whatever you are sorting under “skill”) with good spacing.

Weird to be this desperate to defend pure nostalgia.

[HeartBreakKid]

He “looked” the best because he was the league’s top scorer and could do a good enough job as a man defender against other top scorers. That is not a real argument.

And less physical is not the same as “easier”. That is some hockey goon mentality, as if “real” sport needs to come with low-talent enforcers.

It's logical. This era players can train the intricate skills knowing they won't get hammered at all, in the 90s and before a player knew he was going to be roughed up often so you would cater to that and be ready for it, so they weren't able to have such intricate skills, though many had a fair amount.

The 90s is nowhere near the most physical era and "superstar calls" became a popular phrase precisely because of Jordan. So how does this help him?

If you want to say Jordan > today's era because of "physicality" - then that means the other eras own Jordan's because 90s ball ranks pretty low on the violence scale.

[Dutchball97]

He “looked” the best because he was the league’s top scorer and could do a good enough job as a man defender against other top scorers. That is not a real argument.

And less physical is not the same as “easier”. That is some hockey goon mentality, as if “real” sport needs to come with low-talent enforcers.

It's hard to seperate the subjective eye test from more analytical comparisons and I'm not sure that we even should. Stats are there to give context to what we see during the games and the other way around it's important to check if what the stats tell us can be found in reality as well. For a recent example I supported Jokic for MVP last season partly because he led just about every imaginable stat but also because whenever I watched him play that impact was noticeable. Besides that every offensive stat had Jokic in a similar elite range but defensively those stats didn't line-up. We could see Jokic was an improved defender with good hands and an ability to use his size effectively. According to RAPTOR and BPM this meant Jokic was now the best defender in the league but by watching we could see he still had his flaws and that the more moderate but still positive weighings of his defense that EPM and LEBRON had were more accurate.

To be fair though, people sometimes lose the perspective of this debate. We're talking about GOAT level here, which top 10 player ever doesn't impress you in terms of eye-test? All great players are extremely impressive when you watch them.

That's partly why I went for an example about MVPs. I think you can compare within eras decently well, especially players who have similar roles. I'm not advocating for picking a GOAT purely on the eye test, I'm against dismissing the eye test altogether in the equation. MJ looking like the best player on the field against other all-time greats does help his case imo. You don't need to rely on stats that much to know MJ was better than guys like Barkley, Malone and Drexler because he beat them head to head on a regular basis with outstanding individual performances. I agree that it's use for comparisons within the top 10 isn't that great though since all these guys generally have a list of all-time greats they beat on the regular.

[70sFan]

It's hard to seperate the subjective eye test from more analytical comparisons and I'm not sure that we even should. Stats are there to give context to what we see during the games and the other way around it's important to check if what the stats tell us can be found in reality as well. For a recent example I supported Jokic for MVP last season partly because he led just about every imaginable stat but also because whenever I watched him play that impact was noticeable. Besides that every offensive stat had Jokic in a similar elite range but defensively those stats didn't line-up. We could see Jokic was an improved defender with good hands and an ability to use his size effectively. According to RAPTOR and BPM this meant Jokic was now the best defender in the league but by watching we could see he still had his flaws and that the more moderate but still positive weighings of his defense that EPM and LEBRON had were more accurate.

To be fair though, people sometimes lose the perspective of this debate. We're talking about GOAT level here, which top 10 player ever doesn't impress you in terms of eye-test? All great players are extremely impressive when you watch them.

That's partly why I went for an example about MVPs. I think you can compare within eras decently well, especially players who have similar roles. I'm not advocating for picking a GOAT purely on the eye test, I'm against dismissing the eye test altogether in the equation. MJ looking like the best player on the field against other all-time greats does help his case imo. You don't need to rely on stats that much to know MJ was better than guys like Barkley, Malone and Drexler because he beat them head to head on a regular basis with outstanding individual performances. I agree that it's use for comparisons within the top 10 isn't that great though since all these guys generally have a list of all-time greats they beat on the regular.

I don't think Jordan looks more impressive than other all-time greats though, he's extremely impressive but how you can say that more than someone like Kareem or LeBron? I don't know, to me it's far from clear who looks the most impressive among top 10 players ever

[OhayoKD]

He is the best stat wise and certainly viewing wise.

[/quote]
And yet...

Best ten seasons, have to use consecutive seasons on BR,

That is not what best means, and you transparently cut out 1988 (making it nine postseasons for Jordan…) just to give Jordan a better WS/48. Even though absolutely no one takes 1988 over 1998

I used the highest scores from the highest scoring 10 season stretch. I averaged the seasons because otherwise it inherently skews towards longer runs.

Reagrdless. even using your method, if you compare 10 postseasons to 10 postseasons as opposed to dropping 88 and comparing 10 postseaons to 9 postseasons, MJ's ws/48 ends up tied which would mean they split the metrics.

[/quote][/quote]

I feel like if you have to distort the sample for a favorable case when we're already using the least predictive stats because they look the favorable for the player in question, then saying "he is the best stat wise" is a stretch.

[Dutchball97]

To be fair though, people sometimes lose the perspective of this debate. We're talking about GOAT level here, which top 10 player ever doesn't impress you in terms of eye-test? All great players are extremely impressive when you watch them.

That's partly why I went for an example about MVPs. I think you can compare within eras decently well, especially players who have similar roles. I'm not advocating for picking a GOAT purely on the eye test, I'm against dismissing the eye test altogether in the equation. MJ looking like the best player on the field against other all-time greats does help his case imo. You don't need to rely on stats that much to know MJ was better than guys like Barkley, Malone and Drexler because he beat them head to head on a regular basis with outstanding individual performances. I agree that it's use for comparisons within the top 10 isn't that great though since all these guys generally have a list of all-time greats they beat on the regular.

I don't think Jordan looks more impressive than other all-time greats though, he's extremely impressive but how you can say that more than someone like Kareem or LeBron? I don't know, to me it's far from clear who looks the most impressive among top 10 players ever

That's what I said though?

[The High Cyde]

My GOAT tier, in no order:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

I think if Durant never joins GS and Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving don’t go down in 2015, Bron would theoretically have 3 more rings right now and he would be probably be seen as the GOAT…but that’s an incredibly slippery slope that doesn’t really accomplish anything. You could make up the same scenarios for other players.

Michael…his is storybook. Dominates the sport the second he’s first laces em up as a pro. Three-peats, retires, plays baseball and sucks ass, returns to to the league to three-peat again, retires. But then comes back and sucks ass cause his body is just breaking down. Widely seen as the GOAT. He had the attitude, the look, the money, and he grabbed the NBA and took it from the moon where Magic and Bird left it and launched it past the stars. But I guess behind all that, the league was definitely not as talented as it is today, every year the talent is preposterously delightful. The game is not as stoic and bland as it was back then either. Michael still has the accolades and stats to give him a nice cushioned seat at the table however. Always will.

Kareem is perhaps the most winning basketball player ever. Not as flashy as James or Jordan, but a monster just the same.

[70sFan]

That's partly why I went for an example about MVPs. I think you can compare within eras decently well, especially players who have similar roles. I'm not advocating for picking a GOAT purely on the eye test, I'm against dismissing the eye test altogether in the equation. MJ looking like the best player on the field against other all-time greats does help his case imo. You don't need to rely on stats that much to know MJ was better than guys like Barkley, Malone and Drexler because he beat them head to head on a regular basis with outstanding individual performances. I agree that it's use for comparisons within the top 10 isn't that great though since all these guys generally have a list of all-time greats they beat on the regular.

I don't think Jordan looks more impressive than other all-time greats though, he's extremely impressive but how you can say that more than someone like Kareem or LeBron? I don't know, to me it's far from clear who looks the most impressive among top 10 players ever

That's what I said though?

I didn't catch it from your previous post, if that's the case then we agree.

[70sFan]

My GOAT tier, in no order:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

I think if Durant never joins GS and Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving don’t go down in 2015, Bron would theoretically have 3 more rings right now and he would be probably be seen as the GOAT…but that’s an incredibly slippery slope that doesn’t really accomplish anything. You could make up the same scenarios for other players.

Michael…his is storybook. Dominates the sport the second he’s first laces em up as a pro. Three-peats, retires, plays baseball and sucks ass, returns to to the league to three-peat again, retires. But then comes back and sucks ass cause his body is just breaking down. Widely seen as the GOAT. He had the attitude, the look, the money, and he grabbed the NBA and took it from the moon where Magic and Bird left it and launched it past the stars. But I guess behind all that, the league was definitely not as talented as it is today, every year the talent is preposterously delightful. The game is not as stoic and bland as it was back then either. Michael still has the accolades and stats to give him a nice cushioned seat at the table however. Always will.

Kareem is perhaps the most winning basketball player ever. Not as flashy as James or Jordan, but a monster just the same.

Bill Russell?

[Dutchball97]

My GOAT tier, in no order:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

I think if Durant never joins GS and Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving don’t go down in 2015, Bron would theoretically have 3 more rings right now and he would be probably be seen as the GOAT…but that’s an incredibly slippery slope that doesn’t really accomplish anything. You could make up the same scenarios for other players.

Michael…his is storybook. Dominates the sport the second he’s first laces em up as a pro. Three-peats, retires, plays baseball and sucks ass, returns to to the league to three-peat again, retires. But then comes back and sucks ass cause his body is just breaking down. Widely seen as the GOAT. He had the attitude, the look, the money, and he grabbed the NBA and took it from the moon where Magic and Bird left it and launched it past the stars. But I guess behind all that, the league was definitely not as talented as it is today, every year the talent is preposterously delightful. The game is not as stoic and bland as it was back then either. Michael still has the accolades and stats to give him a nice cushioned seat at the table however. Always will.

Kareem is perhaps the most winning basketball player ever. Not as flashy as James or Jordan, but a monster just the same.

Bill Russell?

In terms of championships unquestionably but you could argue Kareem did win the most games of any player in the regular season and regular season + play-offs combined (just play-offs it's LeBron).

[The High Cyde]

My GOAT tier, in no order:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

I think if Durant never joins GS and Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving don’t go down in 2015, Bron would theoretically have 3 more rings right now and he would be probably be seen as the GOAT…but that’s an incredibly slippery slope that doesn’t really accomplish anything. You could make up the same scenarios for other players.

Michael…his is storybook. Dominates the sport the second he’s first laces em up as a pro. Three-peats, retires, plays baseball and sucks ass, returns to to the league to three-peat again, retires. But then comes back and sucks ass cause his body is just breaking down. Widely seen as the GOAT. He had the attitude, the look, the money, and he grabbed the NBA and took it from the moon where Magic and Bird left it and launched it past the stars. But I guess behind all that, the league was definitely not as talented as it is today, every year the talent is preposterously delightful. The game is not as stoic and bland as it was back then either. Michael still has the accolades and stats to give him a nice cushioned seat at the table however. Always will.

Kareem is perhaps the most winning basketball player ever. Not as flashy as James or Jordan, but a monster just the same.

Bill Russell?

In terms of championships unquestionably but you could argue Kareem did win the most games of any player in the regular season and regular season + play-offs combined (just play-offs it's LeBron).

Yeah Kareem won a ton in high school too didn’t he? If I’m not wrong he’s the most accomplished high school player of all time or damn near close to it.

But on Russell, I had actually written a little bit about him in my first post but I erased it, I was basically just admitting to the fact that I can’t begin to rank players like him, but we all know he’s the picture of NBA success. He barely lost in his entire career. But that’s all I know, and it’s not much at all. I have no qualms with anyone ranking him first however. Which I think penbeast does, if I’m not mistaken!

[f4p]

He's not the only player to consistently beat his opposition.

consistency is a large part of the reason i still have jordan as the GOAT (though if i was only ranking based on total career value, it would be lebron). there are various holes that can be poked in the mythos of jordan. his team won 55 when he wasn't there. in the decade of the 90's where there were no superteams to be found, jordan found himself paired with another star in pippen and even a 3rd star in rodman or very good player in horace grant and, thus, him winning a lot doesn't seem that surprising. maybe his excellent defense isn't that important because he's a SG. his teams didn't soar to huge win totals until pippen came along.

but what's really hard to do with jordan is find true failures. horrible big games. bad series where his team lost when they should have won because he didn't play well. inconsistent ups and downs. times a rival got the better of him. like it's almost impossible. i mean you might be able to find a playoff game where he went 9-30, but then you look at the series and he's at 35 ppg on 50% shooting. you might be able to find a series where he didn't shoot that great like the 1997 ECF against miami, but he still fills the stat sheet and his team still easily wins. he didn't win a ton early in his career, but it's usually in the context of him scoring 63 points and being called "god dressed as michael jordan" by larry bird or putting up huge games against the bad boys while his teammates suck. or him making the conference finals as a 6th seed and then winning the only 2 games of the playoffs against the pistons as they sweep every other round.

he never lost a series with homecourt (24-0). he never lost a series with an SRS advantage (25-0). even russell can't say those things. meaning jordan didn't throw a single championship chance away. the worst blown lead he ever had in a series was 1-0 in the aforementioned 6 seed vs 1 seed ECF versus the pistons. that crazy stat where he didn't lose 3 games in a row with the bulls after 1991. in the last 40+ years, a high volume offensive engine seems to be the one most consistent feature of championship teams (with titles for bird/magic/jordan/hakeem/shaq/duncan/kobe/lebron/steph/wade/dirk/kawhi/giannis vastly outnumbering the few 2004 pistons/2014 spurs type titles). it is an extremely difficult role to fill, with even an amazingly consistent guy like lebron still having his 2011 finals moments, or 2007 finals moments, or 2-18 with 10 TO's moments in 2008 against the celtics, or even struggling a little at the beginning of the 2013 finals at his peak. and again, lebron is a level above everyone else in avoiding bad moments.

and yet jordan seems to have none of these, even at a young age going against teams like the 1986 celtics. he never scored less than 27 ppg in a series and only scored below 29 ppg 3 times (and 2 of those are from mid-90's series with a pace of about 84). he had the highest game score for both teams in a series 35 out of 37 times, beating out lebron who was at 38 of 45 (as of june 6, 2020), with no one else even above 56%. he remarkably had more 50 point playoff games than games below 20 points, which given his 33 ppg average is closer to 20 than 50, shows how seldom he truly cratered. he took on the most difficult role and basically never failed (in any meaningful way) to deliver. yes, he focused on scoring and would likely outperform more well rounded players in some of these measures, but he is lapping the field in most of these things, and by field i mostly just mean lebron, because he is arguably double-lapping everyone else.

the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell (though again he did lose with homecourt, +4 SRS advantage, but he did get injured in the series). but i would argue that being a rim protector is a much lower variance job than offensive engine and bucket-getter. based on my research, in almost every game bill russell played, he was tall and athletic. those things will show up every night. being a consistent rim protector is easier than being a consistent offensive engine. now i suppose you could argue that excelling at the low variance part of the game makes you more valuable because you essentially can't be stopped from having your usual impact, but then i would argue you are just shifting the high variance offensive part of the game to your teammates. and i would also argue i think russell's massive defensive impact/below average offensive impact style of winning would likely not survive the modern game, where we essentially haven't seen it work except for the 2004 pistons, while i think jordan would just be a supercharged jerry west, who already made the finals 9 times, and translate better to the older days. the reason toppling jordan is so hard is because you have to take on the high variance role required of leading a team to a title in the modern game, and then you have to basically never allow that variance to be displayed, at least in the downward direction. the incredibly high floor of his game is just unparalleled.

and i'm saying this as a jordan hater. i'm a rockets fan who hated the stockton/malone jazz more than any other team and i still found myself rooting for them over jordan in the finals.

Him having the best stats is somewhat debatable.

i would say the preponderance of the evidence is on his side though. his BBRef page is basically just black ink, whether for the regular season or the playoffs. you'd have to almost exclusively focus on a bunch of +/- stats to not still give him the overall advantage.

[HeartBreakKid]

He's not the only player to consistently beat his opposition.

consistency is a large part of the reason i still have jordan as the GOAT (though if i was only ranking based on total career value, it would be lebron). there are various holes that can be poked in the mythos of jordan. his team won 55 when he wasn't there. in the decade of the 90's where there were no superteams to be found, jordan found himself paired with another star in pippen and even a 3rd star in rodman or very good player in horace grant and, thus, him winning a lot doesn't seem that surprising. maybe his excellent defense isn't that important because he's a SG. his teams didn't soar to huge win totals until pippen came along.

but what's really hard to do with jordan is find true failures. horrible big games. bad series where his team lost when they should have won because he didn't play well. inconsistent ups and downs. times a rival got the better of him. like it's almost impossible. i mean you might be able to find a playoff game where he went 9-30, but then you look at the series and he's at 35 ppg on 50% shooting. you might be able to find a series where he didn't shoot that great like the 1997 ECF against miami, but he still fills the stat sheet and his team still easily wins. he didn't win a ton early in his career, but it's usually in the context of him scoring 63 points and being called "god dressed as michael jordan" by larry bird or putting up huge games against the bad boys while his teammates suck. or him making the conference finals as a 6th seed and then winning the only 2 games of the playoffs against the pistons as they sweep every other round.

he never lost a series with homecourt (24-0). he never lost a series with an SRS advantage (25-0). even russell can't say those things. meaning jordan didn't throw a single championship chance away. the worst blown lead he ever had in a series was 1-0 in the aforementioned 6 seed vs 1 seed ECF versus the pistons. that crazy stat where he didn't lose 3 games in a row with the bulls after 1991. in the last 40+ years, a high volume offensive engine seems to be the one most consistent feature of championship teams (with titles for bird/magic/jordan/hakeem/shaq/duncan/kobe/lebron/steph/wade/dirk/kawhi/giannis vastly outnumbering the few 2004 pistons/2014 spurs type titles). it is an extremely difficult role to fill, with even an amazingly consistent guy like lebron still having his 2011 finals moments, or 2007 finals moments, or 2-18 with 10 TO's moments in 2008 against the celtics, or even struggling a little at the beginning of the 2013 finals at his peak. and again, lebron is a level above everyone else in avoiding bad moments.

and yet jordan seems to have none of these, even at a young age going against teams like the 1986 celtics. he never scored less than 27 ppg in a series and only scored below 29 ppg 3 times (and 2 of those are from mid-90's series with a pace of about 84). he had the highest game score for both teams in a series 35 out of 37 times, beating out lebron who was at 38 of 45 (as of june 6, 2020), with no one else even above 56%. he remarkably had more 50 point playoff games than games below 20 points, which given his 33 ppg average is closer to 20 than 50, shows how seldom he truly cratered. he took on the most difficult role and basically never failed (in any meaningful way) to deliver. yes, he focused on scoring and would likely outperform more well rounded players in some of these measures, but he is lapping the field in most of these things, and by field i mostly just mean lebron, because he is arguably double-lapping everyone else.

the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell (though again he did lose with homecourt, +4 SRS advantage, but he did get injured in the series). but i would argue that being a rim protector is a much lower variance job than offensive engine and bucket-getter. based on my research, in almost every game bill russell played, he was tall and athletic. those things will show up every night. being a consistent rim protector is easier than being a consistent offensive engine. now i suppose you could argue that excelling at the low variance part of the game makes you more valuable because you essentially can't be stopped from having your usual impact, but then i would argue you are just shifting the high variance offensive part of the game to your teammates. and i would also argue i think russell's massive defensive impact/below average offensive impact style of winning would likely not survive the modern game, where we essentially haven't seen it work except for the 2004 pistons, while i think jordan would just be a supercharged jerry west, who already made the finals 9 times, and translate better to the older days. the reason toppling jordan is so hard is because you have to take on the high variance role required of leading a team to a title in the modern game, and then you have to basically never allow that variance to be displayed, at least in the downward direction. the incredibly high floor of his game is just unparalleled.

and i'm saying this as a jordan hater. i'm a rockets fan who hated the stockton/malone jazz more than any other team and i still found myself rooting for them over jordan in the finals.

Him having the best stats is somewhat debatable.

i would say the preponderance of the evidence is on his side though. his BBRef page is basically just black ink, whether for the regular season or the playoffs. you'd have to almost exclusively focus on a bunch of +/- stats to not still give him the overall advantage.

Russell and Mikan both beat their opposition. Pointing out that Russell was upset once in his 11 championship seasons doesn't really refute that. It is not true that Michael Jordan is unique because he beat his top opposition - it is true that he did not lose with homecourt advantage. Those two things are not binary.

Michael Jordan does not have the undisputed best boxscore stats of all time. You do not need to exclusively look at +/- for that (I've never even seen someone use +/- in that argument before). That also is not taking into account that Jordan benefits from additional boxscore stats that older players did not. Many older players would look better if they had their blocks recorded.