RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

[drza]

Few "chime in's" or potential "corrections" (as I see it, anyway)......
1) Not sure I agree that perimeter offense ~= big/interior defense. RAPM as well as a variety of other on/off type studies indicate that----at least in the current and recent era----no single defensive big man has been able to positively impact the defense as much as the top-tier perimeter offensive players (guys like CP3, Curry, Lebron). We do have some indications that the top tier defensive bigs in the late 90's/early 00's (most notably: Mutombo) may have managed [or nearly so, anyway] a defensive impact that matched the best offensive impacts in the league. This may be a reflection of the slowed down, defense-dominated, iso-ball style of play that was prevalent in that time period, though.
I otherwise don't think it's quite equal, and believe the best perimeter offensive players can [generally] exert slightly more positive impact on that side of the ball than the best defensive bigs can on the other end. Bill Russell in the 1960's may be an exception to the rule; although even there Elgee's WOWY studies paint Oscar Robertson (who led #1 offenses year after year) as the stand-out WOWY monster of his time (though admittedly I think some of that is based on the sampling method used).

Yeah, that's one I probably should have clarified more. Most of those small statements were broad brushes that I will clarify later. When I say ~=, it's not necessarily that I think they're really close, but more than that it's to show my disagreement with those who HEAVILY value offense over defense (think 70/30 or 75/25 type splits). I certainly don't think it's that far off, and I would guesstimate I fall somewhere around a 60/40 ratio (though it would be interesting to look at Doc's RAPM spreadsheet and find out what the ratio of O to D RAPM scores would be, something like

(AVG DRAPM Yr. 1 + AVG DRAPM Yr. 2 + ...)/(AVG ORAPM Yr. 1 + AVG ORAPM Yr. 2 + ...)

and then maybe one with just the top 25 players in each or so... that would give a sort of coefficient to multiply a defender's value by vs. an offensive player's - that's something I might do, actually). But yeah, mostly generality that I hope to expound on later.

I'd like to chime in on this a bit as well, if only briefly, about the bolded above. Because yes, the absolute value of the best perimeter offense players' ORAPM is slightly larger than the absolute value of the best defensive players' DRAPM. BUT...this is NOT the same as offense being more important than defense. For a few reasons, but one obvious one is the question of scarcity.

Because there are more offensive players in the range of the best offensive impacts...but there's hardly any bigs capable of defensive impacts on the order of the best defensive impacts. So, in the scheme of things, having a defensive player capable of making that level of impact is actually MORE valuable in most cases than having an offensive player capable of maybe a larger magnitude impact.

Said another way, a team led by a best offensive player that's a +5 and a defensive player that's a +5 is going to be better off than a team with a +6 offensive lead and a +3 defensive lead. rest of the cast equal. But while almost every playoff team may have a best offensive player in the +5 - +6 range, almost NONE will have a defensive player in that +5 range. It makes the defender the more valuable commodity, despite not having the biggest absolute value.

Just my 2 cents, and (IMO) a valuable way to look at quantitative numbers that moves beyond just the number itself.

[eminence]

Spoiler:

Few "chime in's" or potential "corrections" (as I see it, anyway)......
1) Not sure I agree that perimeter offense ~= big/interior defense. RAPM as well as a variety of other on/off type studies indicate that----at least in the current and recent era----no single defensive big man has been able to positively impact the defense as much as the top-tier perimeter offensive players (guys like CP3, Curry, Lebron). We do have some indications that the top tier defensive bigs in the late 90's/early 00's (most notably: Mutombo) may have managed [or nearly so, anyway] a defensive impact that matched the best offensive impacts in the league. This may be a reflection of the slowed down, defense-dominated, iso-ball style of play that was prevalent in that time period, though.
I otherwise don't think it's quite equal, and believe the best perimeter offensive players can [generally] exert slightly more positive impact on that side of the ball than the best defensive bigs can on the other end. Bill Russell in the 1960's may be an exception to the rule; although even there Elgee's WOWY studies paint Oscar Robertson (who led #1 offenses year after year) as the stand-out WOWY monster of his time (though admittedly I think some of that is based on the sampling method used).

Yeah, that's one I probably should have clarified more. Most of those small statements were broad brushes that I will clarify later. When I say ~=, it's not necessarily that I think they're really close, but more than that it's to show my disagreement with those who HEAVILY value offense over defense (think 70/30 or 75/25 type splits). I certainly don't think it's that far off, and I would guesstimate I fall somewhere around a 60/40 ratio (though it would be interesting to look at Doc's RAPM spreadsheet and find out what the ratio of O to D RAPM scores would be, something like

(AVG DRAPM Yr. 1 + AVG DRAPM Yr. 2 + ...)/(AVG ORAPM Yr. 1 + AVG ORAPM Yr. 2 + ...)

and then maybe one with just the top 25 players in each or so... that would give a sort of coefficient to multiply a defender's value by vs. an offensive player's - that's something I might do, actually). But yeah, mostly generality that I hope to expound on later.

I'd like to chime in on this a bit as well, if only briefly, about the bolded above. Because yes, the absolute value of the best perimeter offense players' ORAPM is slightly larger than the absolute value of the best defensive players' DRAPM. BUT...this is NOT the same as offense being more important than defense. For a few reasons, but one obvious one is the question of scarcity.

Because there are more offensive players in the range of the best offensive impacts...but there's hardly any bigs capable of defensive impacts on the order of the best defensive impacts. So, in the scheme of things, having a defensive player capable of making that level of impact is actually MORE valuable in most cases than having an offensive player capable of maybe a larger magnitude impact.

Said another way, a team led by a best offensive player that's a +5 and a defensive player that's a +5 is going to be better off than a team with a +6 offensive lead and a +3 defensive lead. rest of the cast equal. But while almost every playoff team may have a best offensive player in the +5 - +6 range, almost NONE will have a defensive player in that +5 range. It makes the defender the more valuable commodity, despite not having the biggest absolute value.

Just my 2 cents, and (IMO) a valuable way to look at quantitative numbers that moves beyond just the number itself.

Hmm, I'd never thought about it this way, but it is an observation I generally agree with. Will have to think about how to weigh that.

[THKNKG]

Spoiler:

Yeah, that's one I probably should have clarified more. Most of those small statements were broad brushes that I will clarify later. When I say ~=, it's not necessarily that I think they're really close, but more than that it's to show my disagreement with those who HEAVILY value offense over defense (think 70/30 or 75/25 type splits). I certainly don't think it's that far off, and I would guesstimate I fall somewhere around a 60/40 ratio (though it would be interesting to look at Doc's RAPM spreadsheet and find out what the ratio of O to D RAPM scores would be, something like

(AVG DRAPM Yr. 1 + AVG DRAPM Yr. 2 + ...)/(AVG ORAPM Yr. 1 + AVG ORAPM Yr. 2 + ...)

and then maybe one with just the top 25 players in each or so... that would give a sort of coefficient to multiply a defender's value by vs. an offensive player's - that's something I might do, actually). But yeah, mostly generality that I hope to expound on later.

I'd like to chime in on this a bit as well, if only briefly, about the bolded above. Because yes, the absolute value of the best perimeter offense players' ORAPM is slightly larger than the absolute value of the best defensive players' DRAPM. BUT...this is NOT the same as offense being more important than defense. For a few reasons, but one obvious one is the question of scarcity.

Because there are more offensive players in the range of the best offensive impacts...but there's hardly any bigs capable of defensive impacts on the order of the best defensive impacts. So, in the scheme of things, having a defensive player capable of making that level of impact is actually MORE valuable in most cases than having an offensive player capable of maybe a larger magnitude impact.

Said another way, a team led by a best offensive player that's a +5 and a defensive player that's a +5 is going to be better off than a team with a +6 offensive lead and a +3 defensive lead. rest of the cast equal. But while almost every playoff team may have a best offensive player in the +5 - +6 range, almost NONE will have a defensive player in that +5 range. It makes the defender the more valuable commodity, despite not having the biggest absolute value.

Just my 2 cents, and (IMO) a valuable way to look at quantitative numbers that moves beyond just the number itself.

Hmm, I'd never thought about it this way, but it is an observation I generally agree with. Will have to think about how to weigh that.

Yeah, I can second that. Scarcity and value are certainly interrelated, but I don't know how often I consider them in tandem. I certainly should more than I do.

[ElGee]

Here are a few significant factors I would like to address and discuss (both how a player has them and why they are important to a discussion of player rankings):

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability
-Scalability

First of all, I will say that I don't agree with the emphasis on portability that so many posters tend to have. I think introducing unnecessary hypotheticals is messy, unfair, and susceptible to bias of one sort or another. If I discuss the greatest presidents in US history, I don't ask myself how George Washington would have adapted to Twitter. If I discuss great military generals, I don't penalize Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar for never interacting in gunpowder based warfare. I don't wonder how Michelanglo would have done with computers.

A few notes on portability: As I get into in the book, it IS about scalability. Obviously, the verbiage has caused confusion, but it was birthed out of understanding that some people's games don't travel well (the portability part) to better teams (the scaling part), and that's really important to player evaluation if you care about guys contributing to winning teams. (Micah, did you mean something else by the term?)

It's also not really a hypothetical idea. When we look at a player's raw stats (or even RAPM) we're looking at an aggregate or average of his contribution against different lineups and with different lineups. The whole genesis of the idea was the look at how players played with different combinations/types of players on their own team to predict how well they would play in new environments. (Heatles had a lot to do with begging these questions, and I was also trying to build models to predict trade outcomes more accurately.) Takeaway: Averages are the results of distributions -- there's huge value in stratifying the distribution!

BF7 I think you're alluding to era-translation, which is completely separate.

PS Anti-gravity is very fun. I've always used/seen "deterrence" as the defensive counterpart, because sometimes a player will be near a defender and thus decide not to shoot, which is a huge deal.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1 - Bill Russell

The Celtic dynasty of the 50s & 60s is the greatest dynasty in the league that plays the game at its highest level.
They did it with a strategy entirely focused on winning with defense based around Russell's defensive abilities.
Even without going into any more detail to me that should put Russell as a major GOAT candidate.

The most obvious objection is about Russell's offensive short-comings, so that's the point I know I need to address.

I would not draft Russell first in an All-Time Draft (of course since I just had the option and chose LeBron, I would say the same about Jordan). I would say each of those 3 players is the best for his own era.

Back in the day there was no 3-point line and offensive strategy was primitive. The effect Russell could have on opposing defenses was just astonishing, and offenses were spinning their wheels ineffectively much more than people like to admit which meant that impact gaps between players were less on the offensive side of the ball.

In today's game the value of an interior help defender is considerably less, and though you still want a great one, and Russell would be tremendous, it would not be enough to best the impact of offensive stars.

Given this admission you might actually wonder what my argument for Russell actually is. Well, my philosophy is as follows:

Eras cannot be viewed as equally competitive and thus adjustments must be made for this in cross-era comparisons, but I will give no additional edge to the current era just because it is the current era.

What Russell did was legitimate, and while it was certainly easier to win 11 titles back then that it is now, it was still unfathomably difficult and I don't think another player's career has matched it yet.

I think that if Jordan could have, say, stayed on after '93 without break and won 8 titles in a row, it would be easy to side with Jordan. It's not about the number though so much about the fact that I really think Jordan's Bulls seamed to be wearing down at the end of each 3-peat. I think the mental stamina of the Celtics owes a ton to Russell, and I think that makes him as yet unsurpassed.

2 - Michael Jordan

So why Jordan over LeBron? Well as I said, I think Jordan was the best player for his own era over LeBron, and there's just no denying that his reign over his era has always felt more secure than LeBron's over the current era. Jordan felt unstoppable, LeBron feels unstoppable until something happens.

I just look at what Jordan did and to this point I find it more impressive than what LeBron has done. With that said...

3 - LeBron James

LeBron leaps past Kareem (and a couple others) on my list this time, and maybe more importantly this is the first time I'm voting in one of these where I would say I actually expect LeBron to reach #1 on my list.

For all LeBron's momentary wobbles relative to Jordan's cold bloodedness, LeBron is an absolute iron man. I know the east is soft but LeBron just played his 7th straight finals and looked better than ever. And he's still just 32 and hardly seems like he's felt aging effects at all.

Incidentally, Kareem will likely be 4th on my list, so why LeBron over Kareem?

I just don't think Kareem had the same kind of impact as the guys above. I believe the top impactors have a kind of global, multiplicative impact that seems to just make the game easier for minor talents, and I'd tend to say that Kareem's game had more additive impact.

[THKNKG]

Here are a few significant factors I would like to address and discuss (both how a player has them and why they are important to a discussion of player rankings):

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability
-Scalability

First of all, I will say that I don't agree with the emphasis on portability that so many posters tend to have. I think introducing unnecessary hypotheticals is messy, unfair, and susceptible to bias of one sort or another. If I discuss the greatest presidents in US history, I don't ask myself how George Washington would have adapted to Twitter. If I discuss great military generals, I don't penalize Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar for never interacting in gunpowder based warfare. I don't wonder how Michelanglo would have done with computers.

A few notes on portability: As I get into in the book, it IS about scalability. Obviously, the verbiage has caused confusion, but it was birthed out of understanding that some people's games don't travel well (the portability part) to better teams (the scaling part), and that's really important to player evaluation if you care about guys contributing to winning teams. (Micah, did you mean something else by the term?)

I've always been a little confused on the actual usage of the terms, since so many people use them so differently. I have taken them to mean that portability is the ability of a player to maximize his talents in a variety of roles on a team, whereas scalability is the ability to maximize his talents on a variety of team levels (dumpster fire to GOAT level teams). Is that in the ball park or am I off?

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

Yeah, that's one I probably should have clarified more. Most of those small statements were broad brushes that I will clarify later. When I say ~=, it's not necessarily that I think they're really close, but more than that it's to show my disagreement with those who HEAVILY value offense over defense (think 70/30 or 75/25 type splits). I certainly don't think it's that far off, and I would guesstimate I fall somewhere around a 60/40 ratio (though it would be interesting to look at Doc's RAPM spreadsheet and find out what the ratio of O to D RAPM scores would be, something like

(AVG DRAPM Yr. 1 + AVG DRAPM Yr. 2 + ...)/(AVG ORAPM Yr. 1 + AVG ORAPM Yr. 2 + ...)

and then maybe one with just the top 25 players in each or so... that would give a sort of coefficient to multiply a defender's value by vs. an offensive player's - that's something I might do, actually). But yeah, mostly generality that I hope to expound on later.

I'd like to chime in on this a bit as well, if only briefly, about the bolded above. Because yes, the absolute value of the best perimeter offense players' ORAPM is slightly larger than the absolute value of the best defensive players' DRAPM. BUT...this is NOT the same as offense being more important than defense. For a few reasons, but one obvious one is the question of scarcity.

Because there are more offensive players in the range of the best offensive impacts...but there's hardly any bigs capable of defensive impacts on the order of the best defensive impacts. So, in the scheme of things, having a defensive player capable of making that level of impact is actually MORE valuable in most cases than having an offensive player capable of maybe a larger magnitude impact.

Said another way, a team led by a best offensive player that's a +5 and a defensive player that's a +5 is going to be better off than a team with a +6 offensive lead and a +3 defensive lead. rest of the cast equal. But while almost every playoff team may have a best offensive player in the +5 - +6 range, almost NONE will have a defensive player in that +5 range. It makes the defender the more valuable commodity, despite not having the biggest absolute value.

Just my 2 cents, and (IMO) a valuable way to look at quantitative numbers that moves beyond just the number itself.

Hmm, I'd never thought about it this way, but it is an observation I generally agree with. Will have to think about how to weigh that.

Yeah, I'd never thought of it from the market perspective of supply/demand. That's an interesting premise which I'll have to give some thought to.

[trex_8063]

Vote:

1 - Bill Russell


2 - Michael Jordan



3 - LeBron James

Only need a 1st and 2nd choice, no 3rd.

[THKNKG]

The big deal for me is when I look at the GOAT candidates I look to see if they lost series they should have won with the better record

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Jordan:   14-0 (100%)/ 10-0 (100%)
Jabbar:   11-3 (79%)/  23-2 (92%)
Russell:  10-0 (100%)/ 12-1 (92%)* missed most of series lost
Wilt:     4-3 (57%)/   9-2 (82%)
Magic:    9-2 (82%)/   20-1 (95%)
Bird:     10-6 (63%)/  14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/  5-2 (71%)
Shaq:     11-3 (79%)/  13-2 (87%)
Duncan:   19-5 (79%)/  11-1 (92%)
Lebron:   5-3 (60%)/   20-0 (100%)


The top 3 are Jordan, Kareem and Rusell because all were great but I choose Michael Jordan and here a few reasons why.

-Most scoring titles—10
-Most NBA Finals MVP awards—6
-Highest career scoring average—30.12
-Highest career scoring average playoffs— 33.45
-Highest career scoring average finals (12 games) - 33.57
-Most consecutive games scoring in double figures—866
-Highest single series scoring average NBA Finals—41.0 (1993)
-Highest PER Season- 27.91 and Playoffs 28.60
-Highest WS/PER 48 in Season .2505 and Playoffs - .2553
-Never averaged less than 26.6 ppg in any playoff series

Playoffs

Most Points Per Game (min. 25 games)
33.4 by Michael Jordan (179 games)

Most Points in a Game
63 by Michael Jordan

Most 50 Point Games
8 by Michael Jordan (no one else has more than 4)

Most 40 Point Games
38 by Michael Jordan (no one else has even half that all time)




#1 in PPG
#1 in PER
#1 in win shares per 48
#1 in MVP award shares

#1 in playoff win shares per 48
#1 in playoff PPG
#1 in playoff PER


No one else essentially has the combination of winning, stats, accolades, efficiency to take that crown along with

"Never getting outplayed in by an opponent over the course of a playoff series"otherwise known as

"Came out of every playoff series looking like the best player on the court"

Forget numbers and figures, that record is what makes him GOAT.

MJ never lost a series with homecourt advantage/better seed/better record and is the only player to win multiple titles while leading the league in scoring. Also never played with anyone who won league nor finals mvp on his squads.

1st Vote: Michael Jordan


2nd Vote: Bill Russell

Can you elaborate on why HCA/better seed/better record winning is so important in your rankings?

[Quotatious]

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

For now, I'll leave my old post about Kareem vs Jordan here:

I love Jordan as much as anybody, but honestly, when I look at it from a totally unbiased persepctive (at least as much as it's possible when one of the guys is your childhood hero), I grow increasingly confident that Kareem deserves to be ranked over him on all-time lists, and be considered the GOAT.

Year-by-year

1970 Kareem vs 1985 Jordan - edge Kareem. Just a higher impact player. Jordan had one of the best rookie seasons ever, but Kareem had Incredible playoffs and he made a clearly bigger impact in terms of improving his team. Jordan joined a 27-win team and improved them by 11 wins, 4.19 SRS. Kareem joined a 27-win team and improved them by 29 wins, 9.32 SRS. KAJ also averaged over 34 ppg on very good efficiency against league MVP Willis Reed and the best defensive team in the league in the playoffs. 1-0 Kareem.

1971 Kareem vs 1986 Jordan - Kareem by default, because of how many games MJ missed, and it's one of KAJ's best seasons, many people consider it his peak, and one of the greatest seasons in NBA history. 2-0 Kareem.

1972 Kareem vs 1987 Jordan - fairly close - MJ was an absolutely breathtaking scoring machine, but Kareem had an even better regular season, averaging 35/17/5 and the all-time record for WS/48. 3-0 Kareem.

1973 Kareem vs 1988 Jordan - edge Jordan. Kareem struggled in the playoffs against Thurmond. MJ was better in RS, too. 3-1 Kareem.

1974 Kareem vs 1989 Jordan - edge Jordan, but an argument can be made that KAJ was slightly better in the playoffs. Jordan has a clear edge in regular season, so I'll give it to him overall. 3-2 Kareem.

1975 Kareem vs 1990 Jordan - big edge Jordan. Kareem missed too many RS games while Michael played all 82 games on GOAT level, and followed that with an amazing playoff run. Tied at 3.

1976 Kareem vs 1991 Jordan - it was Jordan's peak and he gets the edge, but it's probably the most underrated of Kareem's seasons, just because his team missed the playoffs. It's not Kareem's fault by any means, though. He was a phenomenal all-around force that year. I mean, being recognized by his peers as the MVP (players voted for the MVP in the 70s, not journalists), while playing on a losing team, speaks for itself. 4-3 Jordan.

1977 Kareem vs 1992 Jordan - slight edge Kareem. Perhaps a bit controversial stance, but RS impact and production is a wash, and KAJ, even without the title, was IMO slightly better in the playoffs, individually. Tied at 4.

1978 Kareem vs 1993 Jordan - edge Jordan. Too many missed games by KAJ (he played only 62, MJ played 78). 5-4 Jordan.

1979 Kareem vs 1994 Jordan - Kareem by default, MJ was retired. Tied at 5.

1980 Kareem vs 1995 Jordan - Kareem by default again. 6-5 Kareem.

1981 Kareem vs 1996 Jordan - Jordan, but not a very big gap. 6-6.

1982 Kareem vs 1997 Jordan - MJ clearly. More minutes, more productive on per-minute basis, had a larger role on his team. 7-6 Jordan.

1983 Kareem vs 1998 Jordan - Michael was better. 8-6 Jordan.

1984 Kareem vs 1999 Jordan - Kareem by default, Jordan was retired. 8-7 Jordan.

1985 Kareem vs 2000 Jordan - Kareem by default again, same reason. 8-8 tie.

1986 Kareem vs 2001 Jordan - same story. 9-8 Kareem.

1987 Kareem vs 2002 Jordan - Kareem has the edge. MJ missed 22 games, and even when he was playing, he wasn't that great. The way Kareem played had a more positive impact on winning, for sure. 10-8 Kareem.

1988 Kareem vs 2003 Jordan - edge MJ. Close, and KAJ was a very good role player, but MJ was capable of playing more minutes, and his efficiency was somewhat hampered by the tough defensive environment. He still could've been a meaningful contributor to a contender team, held his own in many matchups with marquee wings that season. 10-9 Kareem

1989 Kareem vs 2004 Jordan - KAJ by default. 11-9 Kareem.

So, KAJ wins the comparison by a nose if we go year-by-year, MJ just lost too many years due to retirements. It's not a given he could've played 20 years on a high level without having any season lost due to injuries, like Kareem did.

Win Shares:

Kareem - 309.0 (273.4 regular season, 35.6 playoffs)
Jordan - 253.8 (214.0 regular season, 39.8 playoffs)

That's a pretty big gap. To put that into perspective - that's 55.2 WS difference. Difference between Shaq and Paul Pierce is 46.7 WS. That's more WS than Kawhi Leonard earned in his entire NBA career so far (53.7). You guys probably wonder - what's with those random comparisons? Well, I'm just using examples of how much career value Kareem had. I realize that Win Shares is a somewhat flawed stat, but it does give a decent idea of how good players are.

Career totals:

Points:

Regular season:

Kareem - 38,387 (59.2% TS)
Jordan - 32,292 (56.9% TS)

Playoffs:

Jordan - 5987 (56.8% TS)
Kareem - 5762 (57.1% TS)

Kareem has slightly more assists in regular season - you would expect a perimeter guy who was the unquestioned #1 option of his teams his entire career, to have more assists than a center who played more than a half of his career with outstanding point guards like Oscar and Magic, right?

Kareem also has a lot more combined steals and blocks (4349 to 3407, so almost 1000 more), even though we only have that data for 16 of Kareem's 20 seasons (and having that data for his first four seasons would've widened that gap considerably, because 1970-73 are some of his absolute best seasons).

MVPs:

Kareem - 6
Jordan - 5

Championships:

Kareem - 6
Jordan - 6

MVP shares:

Jordan - 8.138
Kareem - 6.203

Accolades:

All-NBA 1st team:

Kareem - 10
Jordan - 10

All-NBA 2nd team:

Kareem - 5
Jordan - 1

All-Defensive 1st team:

Jordan - 9
Kareem - 5

All-Defensive 2nd team:

Kareem - 5
Jordan - 1

Before someone says "Kareem missed the playoffs twice in his prime" - Jordan also had a losing record twice, he was just lucky that his team made the playoffs in '85 and '87 - losing teams rarely make the playoffs.

So overall, it's very close but I think Kareem did more and should get the edge.

We can also look at it another way:

Jordan had 11 superstar seasons - 1985, 1987-93, 1996-98
Kareem had 12 superstar seasons - 1970-81

Jordan had two borderline all-star seasons - 2002 and 2003, and then another half of a mid-level all-star season if we combine 1986 and 1995 (48 games).

Jordan doesn't have anything like Kareem's 1982-86 season.

Kareem's resume from 1982-86:

All-NBA 1st team twice
All-NBA 2nd team twice
All-Defensive 2nd team once
Top 5 in MVP voting three times
Two championships
Two finals in which his team lost, and one more season when they lost in conference finals

Kareem was either #1 or #2 option (or more like 1a/1b) on all of those teams

This is not just longevity. I would say Kareem's 1987-89 seasons are just "longevity", but his 1982-86 seasons would be considered prime seasons for all except maybe the 6-7 best centers of all-time. For the sake of comparison, Dwight Howard in his best years (2008 to 2012), did this:

Regular season:

Kareem '82-'86: 22.8 PER, 61.3% TS, 19.2 WS/48, 4.1 BPM
Dwight '08-'12: 24.5 PER, 60.9% TS, 21.6 WS/48, 4.1 BPM

Playoffs:

Kareem '82-'86: 22.2 PER, 59.0% TS, 17.8 WS/48, 5.1 BPM
Dwight '08-'12: 24.3 PER, 62.5% TS, 21.3 WS/48, 5.1 BPM

MVP voting:

Dwight: 5th, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 7th
Kareem: 10th, 10th, 4th, 4th, 5th

So statistically, Kareem at age 34-38 (or 35-39 if we go by playoff age), was not much worse than a fringe top 10 all-time center like Dwight, in Howard's prime. That's pretty amazing.

Considering all of that, if we're going to do another top 100 project next year, I'm definitely going to argue for Kareem as the GOAT. I just looked at the results of thread #1 in 2014 project - Jordan had 22 votes, Russell 11, Kareem only 4. That's just not right. Admittedly, I was one of the guys who voted for Jordan, but I've changed my mind since that time.

Hopefully this post will at least bring some good food for thought.

Will probably come back with more later on. To sum up - the main argument that I'm making in favor of Kareem, is that nobody contributed as much value over an entire career as Kareem. His peak and prime wasn't as good as Jordan's, but I think the prime gap in favor of MJ is smaller than the gap in terms of overall career in Kareem's favor.

Jordan is my #2
LeBron is my #3
Duncan is my #4

[ElGee]

Here are a few significant factors I would like to address and discuss (both how a player has them and why they are important to a discussion of player rankings):

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability
-Scalability

First of all, I will say that I don't agree with the emphasis on portability that so many posters tend to have. I think introducing unnecessary hypotheticals is messy, unfair, and susceptible to bias of one sort or another. If I discuss the greatest presidents in US history, I don't ask myself how George Washington would have adapted to Twitter. If I discuss great military generals, I don't penalize Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar for never interacting in gunpowder based warfare. I don't wonder how Michelanglo would have done with computers.

A few notes on portability: As I get into in the book, it IS about scalability. Obviously, the verbiage has caused confusion, but it was birthed out of understanding that some people's games don't travel well (the portability part) to better teams (the scaling part), and that's really important to player evaluation if you care about guys contributing to winning teams. (Micah, did you mean something else by the term?)

I've always been a little confused on the actual usage of the terms, since so many people use them so differently. I have taken them to mean that portability is the ability of a player to maximize his talents in a variety of roles on a team, whereas scalability is the ability to maximize his talents on a variety of team levels (dumpster fire to GOAT level teams). Is that in the ball park or am I off?

It's more about scalability, which may have been the better term from the beginning (I thought about a rename but felt the ship had sailed). One of the key takeaways was that a guy like Rodman might not sneak a cast of also-rans into the playoffs, but his value will be sustained on a 50-win team...where its harder to sustain value. In that sense, it's less about maximizing talents on a variety of teams and more about adding value to better and better teams (where skills are more likely to be redundant). You might have called it anti-redundancy.

[ElGee]

2 - Michael Jordan

So why Jordan over LeBron? Well as I said, I think Jordan was the best player for his own era over LeBron, and there's just no denying that his reign over his era has always felt more secure than LeBron's over the current era. Jordan felt unstoppable, LeBron feels unstoppable until something happens.

I just look at what Jordan did and to this point I find it more impressive than what LeBron has done. With that said...

3 - LeBron James

LeBron leaps past Kareem (and a couple others) on my list this time, and maybe more importantly this is the first time I'm voting in one of these where I would say I actually expect LeBron to reach #1 on my list.

For all LeBron's momentary wobbles relative to Jordan's cold bloodedness, LeBron is an absolute iron man. I know the east is soft but LeBron just played his 7th straight finals and looked better than ever. And he's still just 32 and hardly seems like he's felt aging effects at all.

Incidentally, Kareem will likely be 4th on my list, so why LeBron over Kareem?

I just don't think Kareem had the same kind of impact as the guys above. I believe the top impactors have a kind of global, multiplicative impact that seems to just make the game easier for minor talents, and I'd tend to say that Kareem's game had more additive impact.

A question to you and the room: How do we ever know feelings of "unstoppable" and "cold blooded" aren't Winning Bias? Do we ever associate these feelings with a player who lost?

I used to really feel that Jordan just felt unstoppable. But if I'm honest with myself, I see he played on a phenomenal team. Thus, those dagger jump shots, beside looking so aesthetic, also reinforce a kind of "will to win" when the lead is 5 points. When the team is behind by 8, and LeBron cans a 3, it feels like a "last grasp" that LBJ can't quite get over hump with.

And why did MJ have a 5 point lead? Because when he went to the bench at the start of the 4th quarter, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Toni Kukoc ravaged the opponent.

[Tesla]

Vote #1: Michael Jordan

There are a handful of candidates you can make an argument for here, and they are all legitimate. Michael has the stats, has the hardware, had very high impact on his teams in terms of winning and did it consistently for a long time. A few other candidates may have him slightly beat in some of those categories just mentioned, but where I think he really shines is the feel he accomplished while he was playing. It was transcendent, it was great, it was iconic, exciting, entertaining and it stuck on a global level. He was a showman and it took basketball to new levels and sports in general. This is not a popularity contest, I understand that; however, his team impact, accolades, and his general on the court performance was also GOAT-like. If he was Tim Duncan in terms of entertainment to the general public and still produced and accomplished what he did on the court, he would still be in the conversation for GOAT. His major weakness amongst the greatest of all time is his overall longevity, but he does have great longevity in terms of peak/prime, he was the best player in the league for at least 8 years and it was quite a separation from the pack. At this point I tend to side with his peak to give him the edge over those that have more all star quality seasons, and to me the biggest edge to him is that overall aura, clout, "it" whatever you would like to call it.

Few Keys -
- At least Top 5 most box score derived metrics
- MVP level player for 11/13 in Chicago
-Playoffs 13/13 in Chicago all while being the clear best player/most impactful player on the team
-MVP level player for 11/13
-6 Titles


2nd Vote: Lebron James

[THKNKG]

Okay, some quick numbers on RAPM (ORAPM vs. DRAPM), scarcity, etc. This is using Doc's SD numbers.

ORAPM:
Mean (-.06)
SD (.41)
Players 5 SD over the average (2.03+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 67
2.5+ RAPM: 24
3.0+ RAPM: 7

DRAPM:
Mean (-.02)
SD (.36)
Players 5 SD over the average (1.77+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 32
2.0+ RAPM: 6
3.0+ RAPM: 2

TAKEAWAY:

There were less than half the defensive players available that could match the (arbitrary) 2.0 benchmark. I picked 2.0 because it was 5 SD above for ORAPM, and basically the average SD of both times 5. Clearly offensive players can more consistently provide more upper value, but it can equally be argued that the scarcity of the defenders at that level make it more equal. According to my calculations, offensive players can provide ~25% more value as a whole, whereas the ratio for defenders at this level vs. offensive players at this level is only 34%. Personally, I feel it confirms what I was thinking - that it's reasonably close when you consider offensive impact/defensive impact along with rarity/value. It also seems that (according to this data at least) defenders can at least approach offensive impact levels, though not at the same frequency of occurrence. Does that support that offense is to some degree more effective than defense? Does it say that the scarcity of that level of defenders makes them comparable? I say yes to both.

Thoughts, guys?

[Doctor MJ]

A question to you and the room: How do we ever know feelings of "unstoppable" and "cold blooded" aren't Winning Bias? Do we ever associate these feelings with a player who lost?

I used to really feel that Jordan just felt unstoppable. But if I'm honest with myself, I see he played on a phenomenal team. Thus, those dagger jump shots, beside looking so aesthetic, also reinforce a kind of "will to win" when the lead is 5 points. When the team is behind by 8, and LeBron cans a 3, it feels like a "last grasp" that LBJ can't quite get over hump with.

And why did MJ have a 5 point lead? Because when he went to the bench at the start of the 4th quarter, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Toni Kukoc ravaged the opponent.

I'm speaking with LeBron's walkabouts in mind. If you can name key moments when Jordan seemed to meltdown I should hear it.

[JordansBulls]

Can you elaborate on why HCA/better seed/better record winning is so important in your rankings?

It indicates that you didn't lose as the favorite and that you weren't upset in a series and that is very important. There is no way you can explain why Kareem and Magic got upset in 1981 to a sub .500 team or Wilt to the Syracuse Nationals who was sub .500 as well or Duncan who lost to an 8th seeded team, etc.
I just don't think a guy when they are the best player in the league and they have HCA that they should lose a series with HCA.

[JordansBulls]

Spoiler:

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

For now, I'll leave my old post about Kareem vs Jordan here:

I love Jordan as much as anybody, but honestly, when I look at it from a totally unbiased persepctive (at least as much as it's possible when one of the guys is your childhood hero), I grow increasingly confident that Kareem deserves to be ranked over him on all-time lists, and be considered the GOAT.

Year-by-year

1970 Kareem vs 1985 Jordan - edge Kareem. Just a higher impact player. Jordan had one of the best rookie seasons ever, but Kareem had Incredible playoffs and he made a clearly bigger impact in terms of improving his team. Jordan joined a 27-win team and improved them by 11 wins, 4.19 SRS. Kareem joined a 27-win team and improved them by 29 wins, 9.32 SRS. KAJ also averaged over 34 ppg on very good efficiency against league MVP Willis Reed and the best defensive team in the league in the playoffs. 1-0 Kareem.

1971 Kareem vs 1986 Jordan - Kareem by default, because of how many games MJ missed, and it's one of KAJ's best seasons, many people consider it his peak, and one of the greatest seasons in NBA history. 2-0 Kareem.

1972 Kareem vs 1987 Jordan - fairly close - MJ was an absolutely breathtaking scoring machine, but Kareem had an even better regular season, averaging 35/17/5 and the all-time record for WS/48. 3-0 Kareem.

1973 Kareem vs 1988 Jordan - edge Jordan. Kareem struggled in the playoffs against Thurmond. MJ was better in RS, too. 3-1 Kareem.

1974 Kareem vs 1989 Jordan - edge Jordan, but an argument can be made that KAJ was slightly better in the playoffs. Jordan has a clear edge in regular season, so I'll give it to him overall. 3-2 Kareem.

1975 Kareem vs 1990 Jordan - big edge Jordan. Kareem missed too many RS games while Michael played all 82 games on GOAT level, and followed that with an amazing playoff run. Tied at 3.

1976 Kareem vs 1991 Jordan - it was Jordan's peak and he gets the edge, but it's probably the most underrated of Kareem's seasons, just because his team missed the playoffs. It's not Kareem's fault by any means, though. He was a phenomenal all-around force that year. I mean, being recognized by his peers as the MVP (players voted for the MVP in the 70s, not journalists), while playing on a losing team, speaks for itself. 4-3 Jordan.

1977 Kareem vs 1992 Jordan - slight edge Kareem. Perhaps a bit controversial stance, but RS impact and production is a wash, and KAJ, even without the title, was IMO slightly better in the playoffs, individually. Tied at 4.

1978 Kareem vs 1993 Jordan - edge Jordan. Too many missed games by KAJ (he played only 62, MJ played 78). 5-4 Jordan.

1979 Kareem vs 1994 Jordan - Kareem by default, MJ was retired. Tied at 5.

1980 Kareem vs 1995 Jordan - Kareem by default again. 6-5 Kareem.

1981 Kareem vs 1996 Jordan - Jordan, but not a very big gap. 6-6.

1982 Kareem vs 1997 Jordan - MJ clearly. More minutes, more productive on per-minute basis, had a larger role on his team. 7-6 Jordan.

1983 Kareem vs 1998 Jordan - Michael was better. 8-6 Jordan.

1984 Kareem vs 1999 Jordan - Kareem by default, Jordan was retired. 8-7 Jordan.

1985 Kareem vs 2000 Jordan - Kareem by default again, same reason. 8-8 tie.

1986 Kareem vs 2001 Jordan - same story. 9-8 Kareem.

1987 Kareem vs 2002 Jordan - Kareem has the edge. MJ missed 22 games, and even when he was playing, he wasn't that great. The way Kareem played had a more positive impact on winning, for sure. 10-8 Kareem.

1988 Kareem vs 2003 Jordan - edge MJ. Close, and KAJ was a very good role player, but MJ was capable of playing more minutes, and his efficiency was somewhat hampered by the tough defensive environment. He still could've been a meaningful contributor to a contender team, held his own in many matchups with marquee wings that season. 10-9 Kareem

1989 Kareem vs 2004 Jordan - KAJ by default. 11-9 Kareem.

So, KAJ wins the comparison by a nose if we go year-by-year, MJ just lost too many years due to retirements. It's not a given he could've played 20 years on a high level without having any season lost due to injuries, like Kareem did.

Win Shares:

Kareem - 309.0 (273.4 regular season, 35.6 playoffs)
Jordan - 253.8 (214.0 regular season, 39.8 playoffs)

That's a pretty big gap. To put that into perspective - that's 55.2 WS difference. Difference between Shaq and Paul Pierce is 46.7 WS. That's more WS than Kawhi Leonard earned in his entire NBA career so far (53.7). You guys probably wonder - what's with those random comparisons? Well, I'm just using examples of how much career value Kareem had. I realize that Win Shares is a somewhat flawed stat, but it does give a decent idea of how good players are.

Career totals:

Points:

Regular season:

Kareem - 38,387 (59.2% TS)
Jordan - 32,292 (56.9% TS)

Playoffs:

Jordan - 5987 (56.8% TS)
Kareem - 5762 (57.1% TS)

Kareem has slightly more assists in regular season - you would expect a perimeter guy who was the unquestioned #1 option of his teams his entire career, to have more assists than a center who played more than a half of his career with outstanding point guards like Oscar and Magic, right?

Kareem also has a lot more combined steals and blocks (4349 to 3407, so almost 1000 more), even though we only have that data for 16 of Kareem's 20 seasons (and having that data for his first four seasons would've widened that gap considerably, because 1970-73 are some of his absolute best seasons).

MVPs:

Kareem - 6
Jordan - 5

Championships:

Kareem - 6
Jordan - 6

MVP shares:

Jordan - 8.138
Kareem - 6.203

Accolades:

All-NBA 1st team:

Kareem - 10
Jordan - 10

All-NBA 2nd team:

Kareem - 5
Jordan - 1

All-Defensive 1st team:

Jordan - 9
Kareem - 5

All-Defensive 2nd team:

Kareem - 5
Jordan - 1

Before someone says "Kareem missed the playoffs twice in his prime" - Jordan also had a losing record twice, he was just lucky that his team made the playoffs in '85 and '87 - losing teams rarely make the playoffs.

So overall, it's very close but I think Kareem did more and should get the edge.

We can also look at it another way:

Jordan had 11 superstar seasons - 1985, 1987-93, 1996-98
Kareem had 12 superstar seasons - 1970-81

Jordan had two borderline all-star seasons - 2002 and 2003, and then another half of a mid-level all-star season if we combine 1986 and 1995 (48 games).

Jordan doesn't have anything like Kareem's 1982-86 season.

Kareem's resume from 1982-86:

All-NBA 1st team twice
All-NBA 2nd team twice
All-Defensive 2nd team once
Top 5 in MVP voting three times
Two championships
Two finals in which his team lost, and one more season when they lost in conference finals

Kareem was either #1 or #2 option (or more like 1a/1b) on all of those teams

This is not just longevity. I would say Kareem's 1987-89 seasons are just "longevity", but his 1982-86 seasons would be considered prime seasons for all except maybe the 6-7 best centers of all-time. For the sake of comparison, Dwight Howard in his best years (2008 to 2012), did this:

Regular season:

Kareem '82-'86: 22.8 PER, 61.3% TS, 19.2 WS/48, 4.1 BPM
Dwight '08-'12: 24.5 PER, 60.9% TS, 21.6 WS/48, 4.1 BPM

Playoffs:

Kareem '82-'86: 22.2 PER, 59.0% TS, 17.8 WS/48, 5.1 BPM
Dwight '08-'12: 24.3 PER, 62.5% TS, 21.3 WS/48, 5.1 BPM

MVP voting:

Dwight: 5th, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 7th
Kareem: 10th, 10th, 4th, 4th, 5th

So statistically, Kareem at age 34-38 (or 35-39 if we go by playoff age), was not much worse than a fringe top 10 all-time center like Dwight, in Howard's prime. That's pretty amazing.

Considering all of that, if we're going to do another top 100 project next year, I'm definitely going to argue for Kareem as the GOAT. I just looked at the results of thread #1 in 2014 project - Jordan had 22 votes, Russell 11, Kareem only 4. That's just not right. Admittedly, I was one of the guys who voted for Jordan, but I've changed my mind since that time.

Hopefully this post will at least bring some good food for thought.

Will probably come back with more later on. To sum up - the main argument that I'm making in favor of Kareem, is that nobody contributed as much value over an entire career as Kareem. His peak and prime wasn't as good as Jordan's, but I think the prime gap in favor of MJ is smaller than the gap in terms of overall career in Kareem's favor.

Jordan is my #2
LeBron is my #3
Duncan is my #4

I don't see what making 2nd teams matter when we talking about the top players all time in the top 5 all time. Nor should comparing them when the player wasn't even the best on there squad matter either. For instance half of Kareem's titles he wasn't even the best player and for a 1/3 of them he was more like the 3rd best player on the squad.

Kareem was surrounded by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors (a 60 win team losing to a 47 win team). In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets (A 54 win team lost to a team below .500). In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see something like this happening to MJ or Russ.

[THKNKG]

Can you elaborate on why HCA/better seed/better record winning is so important in your rankings?

It indicates that you didn't lose as the favorite and that you weren't upset in a series and that is very important. There is no way you can explain why Kareem and Magic got upset in 1981 to a sub .500 team or Wilt to the Syracuse Nationals who was sub .500 as well or Duncan who lost to an 8th seeded team, etc.
I just don't think a guy when they are the best player in the league and they have HCA that they should lose a series with HCA.

What if the reason a team had HCA/the better record was due to a single player carrying them to it? Then, during the postseason, as defenses scale, they can focus on that single player and then shut them down due to their lack of help. Couldn't avoiding losing with HCA be a result of an amazing team, too? I just feel like there are a lot of loose ends there.

[JordansBulls]

Can you elaborate on why HCA/better seed/better record winning is so important in your rankings?

It indicates that you didn't lose as the favorite and that you weren't upset in a series and that is very important. There is no way you can explain why Kareem and Magic got upset in 1981 to a sub .500 team or Wilt to the Syracuse Nationals who was sub .500 as well or Duncan who lost to an 8th seeded team, etc.
I just don't think a guy when they are the best player in the league and they have HCA that they should lose a series with HCA.

What if the reason a team had HCA/the better record was due to a single player carrying them to it? Then, during the postseason, as defenses scale, they can focus on that single player and then shut them down due to their lack of help. Couldn't avoiding losing with HCA be a result of an amazing team, too? I just feel like there are a lot of loose ends there.

I get what you saying but it isn't like they were losing to all time great teams. I mean we are talking 8th seeded teams here, teams below .500, etc in this cases, not series where it is kinda like an even pick. Basically series they had no business losing period. This isn't Lakers vs Boston 1985 or something where it could have gone either way. We are talking Lakers vs Rockets 1981. Bucks vs Warriors 1973, etc.

[Joao Saraiva]

Can you elaborate on why HCA/better seed/better record winning is so important in your rankings?

It indicates that you didn't lose as the favorite and that you weren't upset in a series and that is very important. There is no way you can explain why Kareem and Magic got upset in 1981 to a sub .500 team or Wilt to the Syracuse Nationals who was sub .500 as well or Duncan who lost to an 8th seeded team, etc.
I just don't think a guy when they are the best player in the league and they have HCA that they should lose a series with HCA.

What if the reason a team had HCA/the better record was due to a single player carrying them to it? Then, during the postseason, as defenses scale, they can focus on that single player and then shut them down due to their lack of help. Couldn't avoiding losing with HCA be a result of an amazing team, too? I just feel like there are a lot of loose ends there.

There are definitely a lot of loose ends.

2009 LeBron - should that team be a #1 seed with 66 wins? Hell no.

So if I put MJ in place of him and he doesn't get 66 wins and eventually not even HCA against the Celtics or Magic and loses, why should I reward that more?

Then how about winning without HCA? Beating the odds? That should count more right? Especially when a player has a tremendous effort during a series.

I think everything needs context, and this needs context too.