RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Time

[rrravenred]

Props to Dr Mufasa's detailed post. Mine will be a lot less insightful, I fear, but shorter as well, so there's at least one gain.

KAJ is a player without any obvious weaknesses but (as has been pointed out) he didn't give you a lot more than the obvious points, rebounds, blocks, defence, etc, and wasn't a great team man (not saying at all that he's a cancer or anything, just that he didn't multiply the strengths of his teammates in the same way). He's, however, the most multi-dimensional of the three. (Sorry MJ, I don't credit a DPOY from a wing player quite as much).

Jordan's got insane numbers which translated to excellent team success. He is, however, a bit of a headcase. To his credit, he harnessed that to great effect, being one of the great eff-you-I'm-not-losing-this-game players. I value off-court intangibles significantly, so that's a ding to his case for mine. Jordan (being a wing) needs a special-cases situation in order to translate to team success, but when placed in that position is absolutely devastating. Pip, Jackson and Jordan were close to the perfect storm.

I credit Russell with having the best intangibles of the three. THe court did reverberate to the sound of his footsteps. He was a great rebounder, defender, shot-blocker and psyche-out merchant. He sublimated his significant ego to the services of the team, to which we can partially attribute the canny management and confidence placed in him by Red Auerbach. His offensive limitations are as much a product of the system as of his own failings, and he was the one cog in the green machine that no other player in history could have filled.

In terms of Era, Jordan and Russell are both partially products of theirs and wouldn't (arguably) have been as effective if taken out of their time, wheras Kareem is absolutely transferrable from the 50s to the 10s with equal impact.

With all that in mind, I'm voting for Russell as the greatest of all time.

Nomination: Moses Malone.

[ThaRegul8r]

.

[lorak]

Kareem: The biggest reason I would pick him – In an “All Time Draft”, many of which have been on RealGM, Kareem is usually the smart choice to take #1. He gives you elite offense and defense

That's not true: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1056693&start=60
(Bastillon's post)

As for nominating West before Robertson could people doing so provide some kind of explanation?
Here are some arguments why West wasn't better than Robertson: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1122883
Remember, if you are saying that West is better because he was better defender and more clutch player, then the same could be said about West > Magic.

[lorak]

I get your point regarding era domination though. Mikan was essentially Wilt and Russell put together in his own era.

Yeah, Mikan was the most dominant player ever and that's important in this project.

BTW, drza, we know for sure, 100% sure that one Mikan's skill would translate to todays NBA (the same couldn't be said about Russell, probability in his case is lower than 100%) - FT% He was excellent FT shooter (career 78%) as for a big man. This also show us that:

a) he was hard working player, who develops his skills
b) he probably have shotting touch, so with modern training he would be center/PF with good midrange shoot.
From what I read there's no doubt that he also was player with high BB IQ and as a passer he was above average (once in his career he even was in top 10 in assists!).

[ThaRegul8r]

.

[mysticbb]

BTW, drza, we know for sure, 100% sure that one Mikan's skill would translate to todays NBA (the same couldn't be said about Russell, probability in his case is lower than 100%) - FT% :) He was excellent FT shooter (career 78%) as for a big man. This also show us that:

a) he was hard working player, who develops his skills
b) he probably have shotting touch, so with modern training he would be center/PF with good midrange shoot.
From what I read there's no doubt that he also was player with high BB IQ and as a passer he was above average (once in his career he even was in top 10 in assists!).

THANKS! It is unbelievable how much ignorance and disrespect people are showing regarding older players. George Mikan DOMINATED his era, that wasn't just playing good, he was the best player during 5 championship runs, not only on his team, but in the whole league. It should NOT matter whether his skill-set at that time would translate to a different era, because EVERY player would play different during a different era given the time to adjust. Mikan was skilled, had a nice sky hook and was very accurate from the free throw line, especially for his size.

http://bkref.com/tiny/DBUO5

That is the list of players with 6-10 or more who were 15 ppg scorers with 75+% from the free throw line. That contains 20 players in the history of the game (at least 100 gp).

http://bkref.com/tiny/ldhNa

That are the 13 players with at least 20 gp in the playoffs.

And some people are even ignorant enough to think such a player with modern trainings methods wouldn't be able to play in the NBA, a league in which 6-7/8 players are getting starting jobs at PF.


My vote: Michael Jordan

My nomination: Julius Erving

[TMACFORMVP]

I'm not buying a post from Bast trying to prove that Kareem actually made the Bucks worse defensively. For as much as those stats tell, there are even more claiming the opposite. And while, defenses have "changed" to a point where big man don't have the same man to man defensive impact, that's ultimately not the reason they're so highly valued. It's because of their ability to anchor a defense, and the intimidation they provide because of their rotations/shot blocking threat. His Bucks teams from 70-75 were the best FG% defensive team in the NBA (finishing 1st in 4/5 years, the other year 2nd). This is a guy that played in 385 of 410 games through that stretch (.939%), so it's hard to really claim that Kareem wasn't a true defensive anchor.

It is a bit concerning though that the Bucks didn't fall off too much when he left (worse, but still very good). One thing that still bothers me about Kareem is that I sometimes get the feeling he gave away some opportunities. For as much as he accomplished in terms of awards, accolades, etc, I think there were instances in his career in which he could have done a little more or had that "killer" instinct which would have made him the undeniable GOAT. I'm not sure why exactly I have that feeling though, perhaps that he's the only one of the aforementioned Russell, Jordan, and himself that has lost in the Finals multiple times? But there are other instances where his Bucks teams have disappointed as well; in 72-73, the 60 win Bucks lost to the 47 win Warriors. And it's hard not to put a large portion of that blame on Kareem who shot only 43% from the field, 54% from the line, and had a rather large dropoff in PPG versus Thurmond. Hell, he also shot 44% in the playoffs in 72 also, where the 63 win Bucks again failed to win the championship (while he still averaged 29/18, it's a step below the 35/17 on 57% in the regular season).

His Laker teams before Magic came along are pretty much forgotten, because well, there was nothing to remember. In his first year, they failed to make the playoffs despite him playing the entire season, got swept by Walton and the Blazers, and lost two consecutive years to the Sonics (granted, the Sonics did make the finals those two seasons though). I think his other exploits which he's criticized for are a bit overblown (mainly his play against Cowens in 74), and even in 83 against Moses. I think by that time, Moses was considered to be the better player, and Kareem didn't play much worse than he did in the regular season, but lesser volume than his overall playoff production.

I think when you also factor that a couple of Kareem's championships came as the clear second option, and in a comparison of the GOAT, guys like Russell and Jordan have achieved nearly as much in terms of accolades, but also as the man for all their championships. Maybe it's being naive since there's so much more that goes into Kareem's petite failures than his own play (much should be attributed to his teammates as well), but I don't think there as many instances I could say Russell or Jordan "gave away" some opportunities.

I think Jordan provides the best blend of both Kareem and Russell. I personally am under the belief that Kareem was a better individual player than Russell, while Russell had those ever so valued intangibles. Jordan had both, changed the game forever, and IMO, was the most dominant and feared player to have ever played the game. For that reason, my vote would have to be for MJ. Everybody else has said what needs to be said, so anything else I'd say would just be the same thing.

Vote: Michael Jordan

Re: A little side note on the Russell/Mikan sort debate. The FT% stats are interesting to note, but a bit flawed since they are after all FT%. But nonetheless, I didn't realize how few little players shot such a percentage while being that tall. So in essence, we should come to the agreement that must prove that he at least had a solid touch with good size, and the heralded hook shot already alluded to. With modern day training, I definitely wouldn't count out any player with good size and skill-set to not be a rotation player, especially in today's center stricken league. But I also agree with in a sense that Mikan just played in a completely different era; even one far more different than the one Russell and Chamberlain did. We just don't have the evidence to see that Mikan would thrive against more athletic, and frankly, better competition. We've seen Russell hold his own against Wilt, who's held his own against Kareem, who's held his own against Hakeem, who's held his own against Shaq, and so on.

As for my nomination, I've nearly always had Erving at #11 for my all time list (especially when we consider outside factors of the game as well), but have recently gone back and forth with he and Moses. I'll reserve that judgement for later if there is more continued good discussion about this later.

[Dr Positivity]

OT, Moses being on that FT list is most underrated part of his career considering he got hacked as much as Wilt and Shaq. Hitting at 75% instead of 50-55% was worth a good 2-2.5 points a game which is substantial

[ronnymac2]

Intangibles...

I'm with you all. Intangibles win championship. The habits a team forms in the regular season define what they are, and thus define how they will perform in the ultimate team test- a seven game series. Well, a bunch of them now.

If I were a GM, I'd want to learn about a potential draftee's personality first and foremost. At his individual workout, I'd replace "vertical leap measurement" with "interact with me, the coach, and a team member time" for two hours. I'd try go go in depth and learn everything I can regarding the kid. Even then, all I'd be certain of is that I'm gambling whether or not this kid has good intangibles, whether or not this kid is going to buy in to and contribute to the positive, championship-quality habits I want my team to build and keep.



I have a question for anybody claiming "intangibles" gives one player an advantage over another.

How do you know anything about a player's intangibles? Why do you think you know something about that player personally? Why? Why do you think this?

Remember that Isiah Thomas interview where we see him watching himself break through and win the championship. And then he breaks down. And the host asks him why it's so emotional. And he says "You wouldn't understand."

I hate to say this, because being from NY, I saw just how ignorant Isiah could be in many facets of life, but- I completely agree with Isiah Thomas. We can't understand.

****, we can barely understand what happens to an individual player on a basketball court for 3,000 minutes per season. We can't understand what it's like to be in the locker room and on the practice court for 40,000 minutes every season.

Isn't that what intangibles are about? Aren't intangibles a player's individual contribution to positive team habits that help the team win?

Yes, they are. And they are incredibly important to me. I consider myself a student of NBA history, but I still don't think I'll ever understand fully the individual intangibles of these players. At least, not enough to give intangibles significant weight in comparisons like these.

[ThaRegul8r]

.

[lukekarts]

This is going to be brief, because I feel I'd just be repeating what others have said... Michael Jordan, with KAJ his runner up.

[TMACFORMVP]

Obviously the definition of intangibles is subjective, but my personal meaning stems from something we've witnessed over the course of one players career. Some players just "have it" while others don't, and as you say, it's hard to understand. It's like a comparison between Kobe and McGrady. Both have similar statistics through 00-05, yet one is still regarded much more highly than the other, and rightfully so. While we can't truly measure "will to win," or "desire" it can be somewhat seen as stepping up in big game situations, or doing the same thing year in and year out. We can also attribute to that potentially to the vast difference of teammates during that stretch, but there wouldn't be any occasion I'd imagine a guy like Kobe saying he was "tired" down the stretch of a close Game 7.

The intangibles I was referring to admittedly was moreso agreeing with the course of the thread. I felt a little apprehensive using that word as well, but it's truth that Russell hasn't in a sense let anything go to waste. He was obviously a terrific leader (a players/coach for crying out loud, lol), a big game performer, and the ultimate winner. He seemingly always made the big plays, whether it be on defense or offense, and came away with wins that weren't even expected (against the Lakers, or nearly as talented late Sixer teams with Wilt). I'm not so exactly sure we could say that to the same extent with Kareem. After all, Russell dominated over an entire decade of basketball in terms of winning championships and making plays. In a different regard, Kareem nearly dominated TWO decades of basketball, but has stretches of his career in which were more easily forgettable (early losses in the playoffs with the Bucks, and pre Magic Lakers). Again, this is in terms of winning, where it is ultimately a team game, so it's flawed logic I suppose.

It's sad however that Kareem is most notably known for his Showtime days (to the common fan), where majority of it is linked with Magic, unfair or not (Kareem is criminally underrated for the first two Lakers championships).

If one player consistently got the better of the other despite being less talented, some will point to the lack of teammates; though, I don't think it was as large a difference in the latter part of their careers, so it HAS to be something else. Then the only thing I think we as fans could equate that to is being a more clutch performer, with more "intangibles." Right or not really, there's something I think that Russell had in his leadership, ability to lead, and overall big game play that separated himself, which I'd probably clump into the overall trait as having the so called "intangibles" to win.

Saying this however, I agree with the general premise. It might be too subjective a metric to really take it as anything other than face value. It's hard to explain, because both sides of the intangible argument have valid points. I don't even know why I'm arguing this particular point, since I personally have Kareem right after Jordan, so I guess I'm moreso using the "intangible" argument as something to favor Russell in an argument with Wilt.

[ThaRegul8r]

.

[Wavy Q]

I have to go with MJ, i recognize Bill Russell's vast impact he had on games, but I'm one of those people that doesn't have the same respect for that era as some of the other posters here. KAJ being MJ's runner up for #1

[pancakes3]

This being the top 10, my main criteria for looking at who tops whom is mainly based on MVP's and Finals MVP's. MVP's guarantee the statistical dominance required, and the finals mvp is the direct physical incarnation of "intangibles". MJ with 5 MVPs and 6 Finals MVPs imo tops KAJ's 6:2 ratio.

As for Russ, who played in an era without finals MVP (except for '69 where it went to West on the LOSING side), is at a handicap. However, I'll say that Russ was generally acknowledged to be a lesser player than Wilt - heart/intensity aside and I really can't justify putting a guy with more 2nd team nods than 1st team all-nba spots as the #1 player of all time.

MJ it is.

nominated Moses Malone

[GilmoreFan]

I'll be all for the Moses nominations right after Dr J.

[Baller 24]

So we aren't discussing this? We are just voting?

Go ahead and start discussions. If you're looking to sway voters or change votes by all means go ahead and give it all you've got. I've got not problem with if people change their votes.

I might extend the date for keeping this open longer, unless someone disagrees?

[Laimbeer]

I'll hold out my vote until tommorrow, mainly because like Elgee, I'm hoping that we can get some discussion going on these choices.

To me, the GOAT title comes down to MJ & KAJ. Everyone else simply doesn't have the overall resume that these 2 players do as of today. I'm also interested in why so many put Russell into consideration, yet not Wilt, who bested Russell on the All-NBA 1st team, 7 to 3. He was also more statistically dominant, and had almost the same number of MVP shares. Russell definitely had the advantage in titles, but how much should that weigh into the discussions? I guess this goes back to the criteria question. As a player, Russell was a better defender, but it's not like Wilt wasn't a good defender, rebounder, and scorer.

Another problem with Russell, is that I question how much his dominance was due to era versus other Top 10 nominees. I feel Wilt would have been a Top player across any era, but with Russell, I see a bit of Mikan in that I wonder how effective he would be if he played in the 90's(even with modern training, etc.)

As for MJ & KAJ...I'm heavily leaning towards MJ, and while I think KAJ is the only other guy who can challenge MJ for #1.....I also feel he may not even be Top 3 depending on how you look at things. The main cog for Showtime was Magic(who can arguable be put ahead of KAJ). And while KAJ was clearly the best player of the 70's, one must also point out that there were 2 leagues, and somewhat diluted talent. As a bigman, I also don't think KAJ wasn't a great defensive anchor. This somewhat skews me away from him too.

MJ's one major chink, is that he played in a weak era(IMO), that was in transition with it's star players, and going through expansion. Even still, I haven't heard any reason why he's not a pretty easy pick for #1 yet.

Lastly, I should also ask how others view Mikan. Based on his career, and era dominance, I'm having a hard time figruing out where he falls in this whole thing. The Top players of every era are represented, except him.

Top 2 of every decade:
50's: Mikan/Petitt
60's: Wilt/Russell
70's: KAJ/Dr. J
80's: Magic/Bird
90's: MJ/Malone
00's: Kobe/Duncan

I hope the older guys aren't castoff into the lower ranks of the 30's and 40's.

A little confused - you grade Russ down for being from a prior era and then hope the older players aren't graded down?

[Laimbeer]

Russell and Jordan are the guys for me. Jordan was more impactful on his teams, but his run was not as long. Both benefitted from great organizational/team structures. Russ's title edge outweighs Jordan's impact/MVP advantages.

Wilt and Kareem were great players for a long time, but for me the GOAT has to translate that into being the driving force on several title teams. Both guys had enough in terms of teammates, relative to their competition, to win more than they did.

Are we serious about respecting prior eras? Relative to his competition, it's pretty clear to me Mikan is a top ten guy. Pioneering and off court achievements are superb as well.

Vote: Russell
Nominate: Mikan

[Baller 24]

There's a small problem I have with Wilt Chamberlain. He was great, no doubt, amazing athlete, very powerful, and as dominant as they come. But when it comes to ranking him, why does he get the nod so EASILY over someone just as powerful of an athlete, dominant as an athlete, and most certainly a bigger winner in the sport of basketball like Shaq?

In the modern era only 2 guys have been leaders to a three-peat: Shaq and Jordan. Before that you have to go back to Russell and Mikan. Wilt has too been a journey man in the NBA, he's too had issues regarding teammates with egos. However, when it comes down to it, he put it all together on the line one time, and that was in '67. Shaq's done that three times, and his '01 Lakers are regarded as one of the greatest teams EVER, just like the '67 Sixers. It just makes no sense to me why Wilt gets so much praise and hype, I understand his era dominance (although it can be argued that Shaq is arguably the most dominant athlete to ever play, just like Wilt, there was not one player that could stop him, and he went up against the best; don't let the '95 Finals fool you, Olajuwon in no way did he stop or even come close to containing Shaq), I understand how great of an athlete he was, but IMHO he does not so easily get the sway of votes over Shaq. Not for me anyways.