RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James)

[Doctor MJ]

1) Outside of Spoelstra, mediocre coaches

This is one of the things I don't like about James TBH. He's not entire uncoachable. But he also is not someone like Kareem, Bill or Timmy.
David Blatt is one hell of a coach. And James wanted him out ASAP, he didn't even wait to see how well they'd together.
The only reason Spoelstra gets to mentioned like this is Riley stuck to his gun with the coach. James also wanted him gone even before the All-Star break.

I think there's some truth in this in evaluating LeBron but I do feel a need to say:

Blatt "played his cards" terribly and if you want to see an example of someone playing his cards adroitly, look at Vogel.

With Vogel he came up with plans but then laid them out to start a partnership with his stars which allowed them to feel a sense of ownership which facilitated buy-in. He came in humble, not looking to convince his stars he was a big deal. He just did his work.

When I think of Blatt in Cleveland, I'm always going to think of the way he kept feeling a need to emphasize "I'm already a big deal. I've already done stuff like this.", and he seemed to take umbrage whenever it was suggested he might have something to learn. You really can't do that in the NBA unless you're super-well-established in the NBA on something close to a Phil/Pop level. He was setting himself up to cause ill-will whenever he made any mistake, and he did make mistakes.

In fairness to Blatt, it's hard to know how to present yourself. You want players to know they should listen to you, how best to achieve that? In different cultures, different approaches work. Maybe in another league this would have been a great way to introduce yourself to your players. But I will say that when you introduce yourself as "the big man" to a skeptical group, they're probably not going to be very sympathetic if you make mistakes they consider basic.

[Odinn21]

A note on Kareem:

While I totally get and respect the argument for Kareem above the guys in my Top 3 (Russell, Jordan, LeBron), and while I expect Kareem to be my #4 vote if he's still around at that point, I tend to have less faith in his impact that those other guys.

What do I mean by that?

Kareem just didn't have a defensive impact anything like Russell. He was an excellent defensive player but seeing him as "almost Russell" is inappropriate from my assessment. Russell played defense in a way that you can only play if you're lightning quick both physically and mentally. Kareem is a heavy weight intellectual, but he's quite deliberate.

And on offense, as amazing as Kareem was, I just think that you have to be able to handle the ball on the perimeter to be a truly top tier offensive player in a world where goaltending isn't allowed. In any given year it's possible for interior big man to have the most offensive impact (it's rare but it can happen), but such players are forever at the mercy of their perimeter teammates.

While you can argue that by 2-way play Kareem is overall ahead of these 3 other guys, I think in practice Kareem's lift was an incremental thing while the other guys were more transformative to their team's play.

While I tend to agree with most of these, Kareem is arguably the most portable player in the game's history. There's not a single era that Kareem would be less dominant due to changes in environment. One can not get any more "all-time great" than that.

When I think of Bill Russell in the '90s or '10s, that's quite a challenge because Russell's utilization on offense gets so different.
Thinking Jordan or James in the '60s is also a challenge.

Looking at Kareem's career OTOH though;
Kareem in his younger days played against the legends of the '60s as Wilt, Reed, Thurmond. And then his older days, he played against Hakeem and Pat. In 1985-86 regular season, when Hakeem tried to defend Kareem 1v1, he got just demolished. Kareem averaged 41 ppg on .675 fg on Hakeem in those 3 games.
Following that train; Hakeem played against young Shaq. Shaq played against Duncan, and Duncan stayed as a major force in the '10s. Cut short to stay on topic.

I strongly disagree with the underlined part BTW. In terms of offensive peaks, Kareem, Shaq and Wilt, all matched the offensive level Jordan, James and Magic reached. The bigs are not even in the minority on that part.
When I think of the goat offensive players, half of 'em are bigs.

[Odinn21]

1) Outside of Spoelstra, mediocre coaches

This is one of the things I don't like about James TBH. He's not entire uncoachable. But he also is not someone like Kareem, Bill or Timmy.
David Blatt is one hell of a coach. And James wanted him out ASAP, he didn't even wait to see how well they'd together.
The only reason Spoelstra gets to mentioned like this is Riley stuck to his gun with the coach. James also wanted him gone even before the All-Star break.

I think there's some truth in this in evaluating LeBron but I do feel a need to say:

Blatt "played his cards" terribly and if you want to see an example of someone playing his cards adroitly, look at Vogel.

With Vogel he came up with plans but then laid them out to start a partnership with his stars which allowed them to feel a sense of ownership which facilitated buy-in. He came in humble, not looking to convince his stars he was a big deal. He just did his work.

When I think of Blatt in Cleveland, I'm always going to think of the way he kept feeling a need to emphasize "I'm already a big deal. I've already done stuff like this.", and he seemed to take umbrage whenever it was suggested he might have something to learn. You really can't do that in the NBA unless you're super-well-established in the NBA on something close to a Phil/Pop level. He was setting himself up to cause ill-will whenever he made any mistake, and he did make mistakes.

In fairness to Blatt, it's hard to know how to present yourself. You want players to know they should listen to you, how best to achieve that? In different cultures, different approaches work. Maybe in another league this would have been a great way to introduce yourself to your players. But I will say that when you introduce yourself as "the big man" to a skeptical group, they're probably not going to be very sympathetic if you make mistakes they consider basic.

There's a fundamental difference between Blatt's and Vogel's situations though.

Vogel knew that he'd be coaching LeBron James. Blatt was announced as the Cavs coach before James' decision to return, he was expecting to coach a rebuilding team with bunch of young names and laid the groundwork how he saw fit. When James got back, he got a contending team with a superstar hard to coach instead of a rebuilding one.

[Jordan Syndrome]

This is one of the things I don't like about James TBH. He's not entire uncoachable. But he also is not someone like Kareem, Bill or Timmy.
David Blatt is one hell of a coach. And James wanted him out ASAP, he didn't even wait to see how well they'd together.
The only reason Spoelstra gets to mentioned like this is Riley stuck to his gun with the coach. James also wanted him gone even before the All-Star break.

I think there's some truth in this in evaluating LeBron but I do feel a need to say:

Blatt "played his cards" terribly and if you want to see an example of someone playing his cards adroitly, look at Vogel.

With Vogel he came up with plans but then laid them out to start a partnership with his stars which allowed them to feel a sense of ownership which facilitated buy-in. He came in humble, not looking to convince his stars he was a big deal. He just did his work.

When I think of Blatt in Cleveland, I'm always going to think of the way he kept feeling a need to emphasize "I'm already a big deal. I've already done stuff like this.", and he seemed to take umbrage whenever it was suggested he might have something to learn. You really can't do that in the NBA unless you're super-well-established in the NBA on something close to a Phil/Pop level. He was setting himself up to cause ill-will whenever he made any mistake, and he did make mistakes.

In fairness to Blatt, it's hard to know how to present yourself. You want players to know they should listen to you, how best to achieve that? In different cultures, different approaches work. Maybe in another league this would have been a great way to introduce yourself to your players. But I will say that when you introduce yourself as "the big man" to a skeptical group, they're probably not going to be very sympathetic if you make mistakes they consider basic.

There's a fundamental difference between Blatt's and Vogel's situations though.

Vogel knew that he'd be coaching LeBron James. Blatt was announced as the Cavs coach before James' decision to return, he was expecting to coach a rebuilding team with bunch of young names and laid the groundwork how he saw fit. When James got back, he got a contending team with a superstar hard to coach instead of a rebuilding one.

The issue I see in the partnership between Blatt and LeBron is both of them had an ego. LeBron, one of the most talented and smartest players, and Blatt, one of the most successful European minds when it comes to basketball. Neither wanted to give to the other and one, LeBron, had a proven recipe for success in the NBA when Blatt didn't.

I fault both Blatt and James in that respect but neither of which do I penalize harshly.

[Blackmill]

I'm going to pretty open with my vote. I'll lay out what would change my mind and hopefully get some responses. If you want to convince someone to vote for your guy, this is your chance. But I first should first explain how I will vote.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate players in the context of their era. I don't know anyone who self-evaluates by averaging over all possible alternate timelines. The context will always be important but there's a subtle difference between asking "who did the most given the cards they were dealt" and "who could do the most over all hands they could be dealt". I also think it's appropriate for there to be a small, subjective human element to the voting.

That said, for me it is a more interesting to ask who is the best player in general, meaning there is an attempt to remove the circumstance from the evaluation. In other words, assuming the NBA's continued existence, how would I answer the following question

If I were an NBA GM in some random year in the future, without any knowledge of my team or the competition, but I was told I could have one player from the past on my team, who would it be?

I should add I make a distinction between these two modes of evaluation. In my own terminology, the first is the "greatest" player and the second is the "best" player. I'm not saying people need to follow suit, but I think those terms capture the idea, as "greatest" entails something less formulaic and logical than "best" in my opinion. With the stage set this is where I'm at.

I see several candidates.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

My reasons to vote for Kareem:

1. Possessed probably the most efficient, undeniable shot in NBA history. After Kareem added some strength in the mid-70s, his sky-hook was remarkably accurate. If I remember correctly, based on my tracking, he shot high 50s on sky hooks during his peak offensive years in an over 100 FGA sample. Super robust half-court scorer.

2. Became a very capable passer from certain spots on the court. His interior passes to cutters were very good and he was capable with high post passing when the lanes were more open.

3. Would benefit greatly from a slightly more open paint to receive the pass on-the-move, from the middle of the lane where his sky-hook was probably a 60%+ shot regardless of the defense.

4. Footage from 1979 and earlier reveals Kareem could show high and switch on the PnR. He looked very comfortable getting in a wide defensive stance (he got wide enough that his head would be level with a 6'5'' player) and was able move well.

5. Among the best rim protectors ever when he was fully engaged defensively.

What gives me doubt:

1. Kareem's best offensive years came after his best defensive years minus a few seasons of overlap. As a result I think his peak level play was not very sustained.

2. How would Kareem defend on the perimeter with all the space today? I don't believe Kareem was a very vocal defender, would every one be on the same page?

3. Limited footage of his peak seasons.

4. Was inconsistent with his game-to-game energy on defense. Likely to have one game a series where his rotations are just a bit slow. This keeps him from being in the same tier as the very best defenders ever.

5. Was better with interior passes than cross-court passer. The further the pass, the more likely it was to have too much heat or be off target.

6. Not a great screen setter, team may need another PnR big, but we also teams are moving towards guard-guard screens.

Michael Jordan

My reasons to vote for MJ:

1. No obvious weakness to target on offense. Could score 30 without every getting to the rim. But still one of the greatest finishers as a guard. Excellent passer though clearly below the very best in this regard. Able to play off-ball very well. On any lineup, against any team, he remains a huge scoring threat. As a result was due for at least one insane shooting night per series.

2. Very capable defender 1-3, super quick reflexes and could absorb impact. A very good defender for the other team's best offensive player if Michael isn't giving up size. Great hands and good at helping the deflect the ball on drives.

What gives me doubt:

1. Is not a rim protector despite tallying some blocks. Lacks defensive versatility as he could not guard power players in the post. On paper, he should be the best of these candidates at guarding small players, but on film he does not appear much better than LeBron in this way. Gambled a bit too much, liked to shoot the gap while chasing off screens. Back cut with some frequency. Very good defender but a tier below every one else on this list.

2. Defenses of the 90s typically doubled one-pass away even if the player was underneath the rim. Help-the-helper rotations were missing more than today. It was more common for two players to double (meaning it was a triple team) due to miscommunication. Also the defensive profile has tended towards larger, longer wings. Jordan will have less time with an undersized defender on him. I expect the more open lanes will improve his averages but I think the best defenses today are a little more equipped to defend Jordan.

3. Related to the above, Jordan's skip passes were less precise and quick than his interior passes. As he wasn't very tall, I wonder how he would counter being doubled / helped from the weakside by longer, taller players than him? Would he make the skip pass with enough accuracy and speed often enough?

Shaq

My reasons to vote for Shaq:

1. You simply can't play small against him. Most players who could challenge Shaq in any way are not suited for either side of the court today. But at the same time he would obliterate any small ball lineup.

2. Very capable rim protector if he's allowed to sit beneath the rim.

What gives me doubt:

1. Does not defend well on the perimeter. With teams putting so much shooting on the court, how much defensive value does Shaq lose? What does the rest of the lineup need to look like to make up for this weakness?

2. Would not cover tons of ground to help. During his peak defensive years, even when the rotation was short, was prone to lazily staying with his defender.

3. Ball-denial could limit his volume. So could hard doubling if the defense was athletic enough to recover to shooters. But this starts with having a massive player to put on Shaq and limited shooting next to Shaq. Maybe this isn't feasible any more?

Kevin Garnett

My reasons to vote for Garnett:

1. Rare player who could defend 1-5 at points in his career. Effective 2-5 for most of his career. Did this while being a rim protector. The smartest help defender I've watched. Combined with his mobility, Garnett is my preferred defender for the current and future NBA.

2. One of the best playmaking centers and capable of passing off-the-dribble. Very capable outside shooter, helps space the floor, excellent PnP/PnP big. Makes him extremely versatile offensively and fit well with anyone.

What gives me doubt:

1. Not strong enough to power to the rim like Giannis. I don't see him as a great offensive player in general because I think the matchup needs to be pretty specific for him to get to the rim at the rate required for him to be an offensive engine. He's still very good.

2. Could be bullied in the post by stronger players. Would give up position or offensive rebounds this way. Didn't absorb contact as well as a guy like Duncan.

Tim Duncan

My reasons to vote for Duncan:

1. Required a lot of strength to guard in the post. But he was also quick enough, with a comfortable handle and good touch, that he could score on larger players from the perimeter. Would be a mismatch against many lineups.

2. Good passer in general and very good short roll passer. Had an above average but not great jumper. Can be very effective as a PnR big or high post passer if the matchup requires it.

3. One of the best rim protectors in the drop coverage or helping from the dunkers spot.

4. Many seasons of production.

What gives me doubt:

1. Liked to play a drop coverage, can't keep up with quick guards when defending in open space. Teams with the right personnel can reduce his defensive value this way. To what degree? And how can a lineup be formed around Duncan to help him retain maximum defensive value?

2. I see his offensive value dropping against teams that can defend him one-on-one. Same if the opponent can scramble and close out super well since then they can start doubling or showing help on Duncan, and while he was a very good passer, I think he's missing the velocity and decisiveness to get the shooters fully open.

LeBron James

My reasons to vote for LeBron:

1. One of the most defensively versatile perimeter players I've watched. He provides rim protection, and though not as much as a center, this is extremely valuable when playing small lineups or if the team's primary rim protector is caught above the action. He can spot minutes on really strong players like Giannis and taller players like Pau Gasol while still be able to play quick guards.

2. Excellent passer, throws the best skip passes in NBA history. Passes that would lead to semi-contested shots for most every player lead to open shots when LeBron is the passer. Gets the most value from good shooters and these players are becoming a key ingredient to championship contention.

3. Super potent scorer, can bully and power through players who are larger than him, the best perimeter player at getting to the rim and finishing. As lineups get smaller to play offense and defense on the perimeter, he is able to score at the rim consistently even with poor shooting around him.

4. At nearly age 36, had one of the greatest finals games (G5) I've watched, comparable to Jordan's G2 in 1991 and G1 in 1992. Has sustained near peak level play longer than any one.

What gives me doubt:

1. I think LeBron is no longer countered by packing the paint. But that wasn't always true. When did that change happen, though? Did it happen before his second Cavs stint?

2. The 2011 finals. LeBron has succeeded in enough high pressure situations since then -- and ones with even higher pressure than 2011 -- that I don't think LeBron's 2011 finals reflects on his career after the event. I see the fallout as being isolated to 2011-and-before. But there's no denying it hurts his 2011 season and my valuation of his earlier seasons.

Bill Russell

This is an honorable mention. I think it's debatable if Bill Russell would be the best defender for the current trending NBA climate (though he's near the top and is a fair choice). Garnett has a very real argument here, and since I think it's quite clear that Garnett is the better offensive player, it's hard to put Bill on the list. Frankly I'm not sure a defender can be much better than Garnett. I don't think there's enough possessions where Garnett could have played better for that to be possible. But if Russell was that much better, I think the burden of evidence would be much higher than what can be found from the small amount of film we have available. However, I mentioned I make a distinction between the "best" and "greatest" player, and brought that up for a reason. I think Russell has a stellar argument for the greatest player ever. He was a visionary who succeeded in his era as much as any one else ever has. And that was only possible because he was a rare person who was decades ahead of his time. His role as a player-coach is very impressive. He fought for equal rights, and yes, that matters to me when talking about greatness. Even if it's basketball greatness. I have a ton of admiration for what Bill Russell did and wanted to make that clear. For people who evaluate players in the context of their era, or even more subjectively like I do when I think about "greatness", I see Bill as a very good #1 choice.

---

Anyways, I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about my concerns for each player. What would be most appreciated is recommendations for specific games to watch that answer some of my questions.

[Odinn21]

The issue I see in the partnership between Blatt and LeBron is both of them had an ego. LeBron, one of the most talented and smartest players, and Blatt, one of the most successful European minds when it comes to basketball. Neither wanted to give to the other and one, LeBron, had a proven recipe for success in the NBA when Blatt didn't.

I fault both Blatt and James in that respect but neither of which do I penalize harshly.

I wasn't suggesting that James should just give into Blatt. I was saying that James didn't give benefit of the doubt. He didn't wait to see if they'd work out before wanting the coach gone. He wanted some of his coaches gone even before ASB.

[Jordan Syndrome]

The issue I see in the partnership between Blatt and LeBron is both of them had an ego. LeBron, one of the most talented and smartest players, and Blatt, one of the most successful European minds when it comes to basketball. Neither wanted to give to the other and one, LeBron, had a proven recipe for success in the NBA when Blatt didn't.

I fault both Blatt and James in that respect but neither of which do I penalize harshly.

I wasn't suggesting that James should just give into Blatt. I was saying that James didn't give benefit of the doubt. He didn't wait to see if they'd work out before wanting the coach gone. He wanted some of his coaches gone even before ASB.

This is true but I believe my point still stands. Developing under Dean Smith and Doug Collins and then getting Phil Jackson is as close to a "perfect situation" as one could envision a player receiving enter college in the 1980s and playing in the 1980s and 1990s.

[Jaivl]

#1: LeBron James

At this point in time, I'm really confident on picking him over anyone else if basing it on total career value. I feel than I can't stress enough the sheer ridiculousness of churning out peak Bird/Magic-caliber seasons at age 35.

"Most top tier seasons" may seem like a very lazy analysis (of course, it's not that simple as just counting x number of seasons), but really, that's the crux of the argument. Jordan was maybe slightly better at their best, but lags way behind in quality seasons. Kareem has similar longevity but IMO was not as good of a player. Duncan, Hakeem and Garnett are on a similar boat. Russell is a mixed bag, and I don't really care about hardware. Shaq is weird in that he has a massive peak and some top tier seasons, but low-quality longevity and a long history of unreliableness. Magic and Bird have zero argument, IMO.

LeBron is so discussed every single day on these forums that I don't really feel the urge to write much more, at least for now.

#2: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
#3: Michael Jordan

Quote me if I have to write more, but I don't feel extended posts are needed yet until there's some discussion, which is surely going to heat up at (checks notes) #5 or so.

[Odinn21]

The issue I see in the partnership between Blatt and LeBron is both of them had an ego. LeBron, one of the most talented and smartest players, and Blatt, one of the most successful European minds when it comes to basketball. Neither wanted to give to the other and one, LeBron, had a proven recipe for success in the NBA when Blatt didn't.

I fault both Blatt and James in that respect but neither of which do I penalize harshly.

I wasn't suggesting that James should just give into Blatt. I was saying that James didn't give benefit of the doubt. He didn't wait to see if they'd work out before wanting the coach gone. He wanted some of his coaches gone even before ASB.

This is true but I believe my point still stands. Developing under Dean Smith and Doug Collins and then getting Phil Jackson is as close to a "perfect situation" as one could envision a player receiving enter college in the 1980s and playing in the 1980s and 1990s.

Sure your point stands still. The coaching quality Jordan got is far better then James has gotten so far.
I chimed in because I think some of the bad coaching James got was his own doing. Surely not all or most, but some.

[penbeast0]

....

I think you are wrong to think Garnett is in or close to Russell in terms of defensive impact in almost any era. Both excelled in the "vertical game" of coming out on other players and getting back to their man. But Russell has two massive advantages:

(1) Rim Protection -- Over a lot of years of data and observation, the greatest defensive impact consistently favored the great shotblocker over the great man defender.

(2) Rebounding -- Garnett was a great rebounder, Russell was a level up, one of the 3 legitimate GOAT candidates (Rodman/Wilt). Defensive rebounding as a part of defense is a massively overlooked part of Russell's game.

[PistolPeteJR]

Honestly there's not too much to say here that hasn't been said already in many, many times past, but I'll put in a bit of effort anyway.

The only three candidates for me are:

- Jordan
- LeBron
- Kareem

Jordan had the highest peak, LeBron and Kareem both not far behind (in that order), but with greater longevity.

Jordan and LeBron both peaked higher on defense than Kareem despite him being a big man, and that's why I take one of them as #1 over Kareem, but he's worth considering too (eg. better rebounding).

Personally, I'm going with LeBron because despite Jordan peaking higher and having more All-D selections and scoring titles, I like LeBron's greater versatility on both ends and in any case, I believe LeBron should have more All-D awards + a DPOY in '13 (no disrespect to Marc Gasol).

LeBron's peak is not far from at all from Jordan and even tops Jordan's if I remember correctly in certain regards, but LeBron has greater longevity and versatility (not that Jordan wasn't versatile). It's close for me, but I'm going LeBron.

[Blackmill]

....

I think you are wrong to think Garnett is in or close to Russell in terms of defensive impact in almost any era. Both excelled in the "vertical game" of coming out on other players and getting back to their man. But Russell has two massive advantages:

(1) Rim Protection -- Over a lot of years of data and observation, the greatest defensive impact consistently favored the great shotblocker over the great man defender.

(2) Rebounding -- Garnett was a great rebounder, Russell was a level up, one of the 3 legitimate GOAT candidates (Rodman/Wilt). Defensive rebounding as a part of defense is a massively overlooked part of Russell's game.

I feel like you didn't read what I wrote.

[penbeast0]

Something I would need to get past to put Kareem top 3 (or even 4th). When he was at his most dominant, in the 1970s, in the weakest era of NBA history other than the segregated 1950s, his teams weren't. They seemed to underperform their talent level outside of the great run in 71. From what you hear from contemporaries, he very much withdrew from his teams and teammates in this period and it took Magic to bring him back out of his shell.

To be fair to him, his withdrawal was based on brutal and extremely nasty circumstances. He was a sensitive and highly intelligent man during one of the most racially divisive eras (even more than the early 60s) who made the choice to become a overt Muslim so there was a lot of blowback from fans (even hometown fans were often extremely hostile to him), Christian teammates, and the older white establishment owners and coaches. Then you had the group of Muslims murdered in Kareem's house. It's not surprising he withdrew into himself.

However, it seems to have made him a less effective team basketball player for most of a decade. He was always clearly head and shoulders talentwise about everyone else in the league including end of era Wilt and even the one relatively healthy year of Bill Walton. His teams were not like Garnett's Minnesota teams but had players who proved themselves championship caliber sidemen in other circumstances (Dandridge, Wilkes, etc.) but they never seemed to coalesce into great team ball.

The other top candidates here, Russell, Jordan, LeBron, took their teams further than the raw talent level of their teammates would indicate (see the many long posts I have made about the overrating of Russell's Celtic teammates outside of Sam Jones and 67-69 Havlicek). Kareem, except probably the ATG candidate 1971 Bucks team, didn't.

[SeniorWalker]

I guess I have time over the next 48 hours.

#1 Jordan. Although I've always had Jordan #1, I think that is result of my personal criteria and not as though he has some unassailable position. He doesn't. I think he will be surpassed on the court someday, perhaps soon, in a clear way, although I think his brand legacy will remain untouched, as that level of fame is not something that can be deliberately achieved by any corporation even in their wildest dreams; its a mix of several uncontrollable factors.
I have always valued peak/prime > accomplishments > longevity in that approximate order. Peak/prime, because as we know, Robert Horrys don't lead teams to championships, Duncans do, and going down the list of greatest ever players coincides with almost every NBA championship ever won. Thats not an accident and I don't think any honest assessment can pretend like it is, especially given the importance of titles and awards by many ATG players across the NBA and all competitve sports. They matter a lot.
In these discussions, one of the weightiest questions is always going to be, "well, who was actually the best player at their best". I think you always start there, if looking for the supposed greatest of all time. But because of era differences, its an impossible question to answer completely. Longevity for me matters in as much as it supports your accomplishments and prime. I don't really care about years in which you weren't playing near your prime levels, or if you weren't relevant and putting up numbers on a terrible roster (Even MJ suffers from this), or if you were no longer the top dog on your team and some other guy had more impact than you. There was a post a few months ago by someone, forget the name, but he made the remark: "How great you make your team is how great you are" or something to that effect, and for me that encapsulated what a greatest ever is so perfectly, I wished I thought of it. Every ATG player is capable of leading an average team deep in the playoffs and most of them have multiple times. What matters is how great and how consistently high your team performs as a result of your efforts and leadership. And the first two names for me in that regard is MJ... and actually Russell.

#2a LeBron/2b KAJ (tie). I've been ready for the last 3 years or so to move LeBron ahead of Kareem on my list. There isn't a major difference in peak play between LeBron and MJ. In terms of raw dominance, LeBron has shown brief flashes of play where he even exceeded MJ, possibly in 2009 if you just want to talk face-up offense. But LeBron as we know has had many lower valleys in performance. So for physical ability and dominance, he's right there.
The thing that makes me hesitate, as I've mentioned in another thread, is that LeBron has had far more control over his destiny than virtually any other player considered near the top. For example, him winning 3 titles with 3 different franchises; I think this accomplishment is impressive but needs a bit of context. Not to take away from what a great athlete LeBron is, but its not as if he was traded to 3 different teams and had to build with what he was given, enduring to lead 3 different franchises...which would give proper context because then he would be working under the same front office conditions as every other great player has since before 2010. Instead, LeBron essentially hacked the system and for most of the last 10 years has ensured that he's had either the best or second best roster in the NBA, by working around FOs and calling his friends and associates. Then when his teammates got old or underperformed, he bolted for the next best situation. And then at times forced other franchises to deliver the goods he needed. This stuff matters a great deal to me, especially if I'm going to consider your longevity. If only because, over a long and fantastic 17 year career, I have to consider the cirucmstances in how you were able to maintain that level of relevance for so long compared to other players. Does anyone really believe that a guy like, for example, Hakeem Olajuwon, if he were able to go over the heads of rival FOs and attract, say, a prime Barkley plus a third star, that he wouldn't have been a much more consistently successful player throughout his prime? What if an aging Olajuwon had dinner with young Shaq and made him force his way out of Orlando in 1996 so they could stack a few title runs together? Its not the least bit difficult to imagine.
This is what causes me to hesitate with LeBron because although he is perhaps the most naturally gifted player I've ever seen, he's also had enormous advantages created by himself and his team to heavily influence this era.
Kareem has kind of always been right here for me with his great two-way consistency, so I don't have much to add now. I may decide to swap him and Russell though, because the more I think about it the more appropriate it seems.

#4 Russell. Its hard for me to ignore his era-defining impact. I don't feel that I am able to evaluate him fairly because, well, that was several decades before my time. But based on what I have learned, this seems right for my list. In cross era debates he could possibly rank even higher. Just as ultra modern players (2000s,2010s,etc) have advantages that the previous decades didn't have, one could say the same about players from the 80s and 90s. Even the rules about dribbling and palming the ball prevented your ultra quick ball handlers from even existing. So its hard for me to look at Russell and think he was somehow more limited than modern players given how much more rule bending is allowed today. I also don't necessarily buy into the idea that todays athletes are much superior, especially considering things like olympic records which have stood for many decades. I think todays guys have clear nutrition and training advantages, thats about it. Perhaps the average level athlete is better because of the wider talent pool but we'd have to do a detailed look into that for me to consider it as a reason to knock Russell.

[Doctor MJ]

While I tend to agree with most of these, Kareem is arguably the most portable player in the game's history. There's not a single era that Kareem would be less dominant due to changes in environment. One can not get any more "all-time great" than that.

When I think of Bill Russell in the '90s or '10s, that's quite a challenge because Russell's utilization on offense gets so different.
Thinking Jordan or James in the '60s is also a challenge.

Looking at Kareem's career OTOH though;
Kareem in his younger days played against the legends of the '60s as Wilt, Reed, Thurmond. And then his older days, he played against Hakeem and Pat. In 1985-86 regular season, when Hakeem tried to defend Kareem 1v1, he got just demolished. Kareem averaged 41 ppg on .675 fg on Hakeem in those 3 games.
Following that train; Hakeem played against young Shaq. Shaq played against Duncan, and Duncan stayed as a major force in the '10s. Cut short to stay on topic.

I strongly disagree with the underlined part BTW. In terms of offensive peaks, Kareem, Shaq and Wilt, all matched the offensive level Jordan, James and Magic reached. The bigs are not even in the minority on that part.
When I think of the goat offensive players, half of 'em are bigs.

I don't really think of Kareem as portable in the sense that he can add to a wide variety of team's strategies. If you want Kareem to be Kareem, then he's your first scoring option and everyone else is fitting in around him. To me if Kareem were inherently portable then Magic's evolution wouldn't have had a dramatic shift more than a half decade into his career.

If what you mean is that Kareem would be great in all eras, I agree, and yes, Russell would be more limited here.

Re: Jordan or James in the '60s a challenge. Well, I think neither is likely as valuable as Russell in that game, and so Kareem may well have the edge as well.

I think though particularly with James it's kind of astonishing to think what he'd bring to the table. There was no one in the NBA with his build. It's like "Imagine a bigger, stronger Elgin Baylor with something close to Oscar Robertson's brain, do you think he could play well against Baylor and Oscar?" Yes, I think he would.

Re: Disagree about offensive peaks. Well what I'd say is that the list of offensive dynasties in history is entirely led by perimeter guys.

Bob Davies
Oscar Robertson
Calvin Murphy
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Steve Nash
Steph Curry

None of those big men you talk about led these dynasties. None of them. It's literally never happened in a league that's been around for 70+ years. I think that says something.

[Doctor MJ]

There's a fundamental difference between Blatt's and Vogel's situations though.

Vogel knew that he'd be coaching LeBron James. Blatt was announced as the Cavs coach before James' decision to return, he was expecting to coach a rebuilding team with bunch of young names and laid the groundwork how he saw fit. When James got back, he got a contending team with a superstar hard to coach instead of a rebuilding one.

Very true.

So basically Blatt gets an F- in a hard class, and Vogel gets an A in a slightly less hard class.

He failed a challenge he wasn't expecting to have, but he failed, and failed hard enough I doubt he'll ever be back in the NBA.

[limbo]

Ok, so, typically when it comes to these GOAT debates, there are realistically 4 guys i can see compelling arguments for the #1 spot. And these are:

Bill Russell:

pros - could be argued as best player on 11 title-winning teams, greatest defender of all-time and highest individual impact of all-time

cons - limited footage, limited data, not the greatest longevity, dominated the weakest era of all GOAT candidates, easy to get to the Finals if you have a good team/culture/coaching (which is why the Lakers were also in the Finals a million times during the same era), there is no way you're able to be the best player in the league by being an average to below average offensive player in any other era than the 60's, by being several standard deviations better defensively than everybody else... some weird balancing issues here, even Steph Curry who lives in the era of perimeter players and 3pt shooting and is the best shooter of all-time isn't able to lead an offense several standard deviations above any in NBA history...

Kareem-Abdul Jabbar:

pros - GOAT-level longevity, Top 5 peak/prime, elite two way impact, best player in the league for more years than arguably anyone else

cons - again dominated weaker era compared to guys like MJ/Bron, 70's talent split between ABA/NBA, maybe got a bit lucky with his longevity by finishing his career on a stacked Laker roster and weak Western conference which made him avoid shouldering a higher burden

Michael Jordan:

pros - GOAT-level peak and prime, GOAT level scoring versatility/resilience, rarely inconsistent in what he brings, impressive streak of two threepeats in 8 years.

cons - okay but not the best longevity, not as good defensively as most top 10 candidates,


and then we have the guy that i'm voting for...





1.LeBron James

Greatest and most complete player of all-time at his peak. No one in basketball history has been able to do so many things on the basketball court at such a high level simultaneously, and done so regardless of coaching and quality of supporting cast, which are often very much underlooked and underrated aspects when we talk about the influence those have on how individual players and teams as a whole are able to impact the game.

Scoring -> LeBron is a career 36.6 pts (per 100) scorer on +4.5 rTS in the regular season. If we remove his rookie year, which is only impressive from an 18-year old standpoint, and concentrate this sample to his best prime years (going from '09 to '20, so twelve seasons, i'll leave '19 in there as well), LeBron becomes a career 37.2 pts (per 100) scorer +6.1 rTS in the RS.

In the PS, LeBron overall remains consistent as a scorer, posting a career 37.2 pts (per 100) on +4.4 rTS over 14 Playoff runs and a total of 10811 minutes played (which is by far the most Playoff minutes played in NBA history, btw, 2nd place is Tim Duncan with 9370, and a good chunk of those minutes coming a more of supportive offensive player in the later part of his career), despite having various years where his scoring would fluctuate both in efficiency and volume depending on circumstances.

Some may use this fluctuation of scoring consistency against LeBron in a GOAT debate, specifically in comparison to maybe MJ or Kareem, which is a fair point for discussion and can be examined further along in this thread if need be. But for general purpose of this argument, the only years in LeBron's prime his scoring efficiency became questionable for an extended period of time was really in 2015 and like NBA Finals 2011... Both kind of weird situationally. I think you could nitpick Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to the same extent. Jordan typically carried notably less playmaking burden than LeBron for his teams, yet he still had questionable scoring series like '93 vs the Knicks, '96 vs the Sonics, Jordan shooting .475 %TS against the Heat in 1997... basically the whole '97 Playoffs he wasn't really scoring at an impressive efficiency rate for a GOAT candidate who's main argument over the rest of the competition for that spot is his scoring resilience...Moving to Kareem, we have '72, '73, '78, '81 as suspect years.

Anyway, Michael Jordan was a career 40.4 pts (per 100) scorer on +3.5 rTS in the regular season. But since we're generous around these parts, we're going to remove his last two Wizards seasons because 'Jordan-fan-reasons'... If we do those adjustments, Jordan becomes a 41.5 pts (per 100) scorer on +3.8 rTS in 12 seasons during the RS... Those numbers aren't that different to LeBron's... A bit higher on volume, and a bit worse efficiency-wise per league average.

Looking at his PS career, Jordan upped his average volume to 43.3 pts (per 100) as his efficiency experience a slight dip at +2.9 rTS over 13 Playoff runs...

Let's take a look at Kareem very quickly while we're here...

30.3 pts (per 100) on +7.7 rTS... over 19 regular seasons (i removed last one because it was outlier bad)

31.1 pts (per 100) on +5.5 rTS... over 18 Playoff runs

Judging by the numbers, LeBron provides a comparable scoring impact to both Jordan and Kareem, which is usually their main argument over LeBron. And this is despite the fact that both MJ and Kareem offensive role was geared towards isolation scoring...
MJ probably had a 5-15% larger scoring role on his teams than LeBron in most years, while having a 10-50% lesser playmaking role on his team, depending on the year... Compared to Kareem this is even more pronounced as the scoring role % gets smaller (LeBron usually had to provide higher volume even) and the playmaking role % gets notably bigger (as Kareem was a good passer from the post, but was typically doing way less on-ball creation or general playmaking than even Jordan, much less LeBron)...

So when you account for all of this: LeBron combines almost Jordan level of volume scoring on better efficiency with Karl Malone years of consistency... When you consider all the elements: scoring peak, scoring prime, scoring volume/efficiency ratio, scoring longevity, % of assisted baskets, additional team responsibility... LeBron has an argument for the greatest scorer of all-time and he's definitely not falling any lower than 3rd on that list, with Jordan and Kareem possibly being argued above.

Passing/Playmaking -> Here's where LeBron separates himself offensively from Jordan and especially Kareem to a far greater degree than anyone could even debate in terms of scoring... I think most people would agree Lebron peaked higher as a passer than Jordan possibly as soon as 2007 even though he was still very much raw in that sense compared to what he is able to do now. Both players were heavily reliant on creating passing opportunities by applying scoring pressure in the halfcourt, LeBron was just more natural at recognizing them and executing with better timing and precision. But since arriving back to Cleveland in 2015, LeBron has began steady improving as a passer towards where he's now closer to someone like Magic (although without the showmanship flair) than he is to Jordan in terms of passing ability.

In fact, if we're taking about on-ball creators [not strictly passing, but also sponging defensive pressure that frees up your teammates to score or make plays] LeBron has an argument to be #1 on that list, especially considering his versatility to operate from anywhere on the court as well as being slotted alongside any type of 5-man lineup and not cause mismatching on either side of the court. There are guys like Magic and Nash that you could make arguments for, but outside of that, who else is there?

Defense -> Defensively LeBron is one of the best at his position of all-time, and i believe can and did influence the defensive side of the court more than Michael Jordan did in his prime. This is not a slight towards Jordan, i believe MJ was also one of the best defensive players at his position of all-time, but ultimately his inferior size, strength and defensive IQ made him a less versatile and effective player compared to someone like LeBron. I think Jordan could more consistently guard quicker guys and had better hands and anticipation when it came to playing passing lanes, but everything else pretty much i'd side with LeBron... Also, i think it was easier to be effective defensively in Jordan's era... Less talent, weak shooting, less sophisticated offensive schemes, more back up behind you in the paint, hand checking, illegal defense stuff like that... If you watch how Jordan was defending in his era, his task was mainly just staying in front of his guy (which was usually some weak guard he could stand 3 feet behind because he couldn't shoot) and just shrunk the gaps into the paint when someone tried to make a move or played the passing lanes... That was literally defense in his era... Ball movement is much better now, teams are forcing switches every possession, you need to guard and rotate to at least 4 guys on the perimeter and the paint behind you doesn't have two 7 foot guys waiting there to block people... The game is way more fast and loose. Not that Jordan would've done bad defensively if he played in LeBron's era, but at least he needed to work on that end... The most he worked in his career was chasing Dumars or Reggie around screens, and that did gave him some trouble at least.

As far as Kareem goes, i give him the defensive edge over LeBron, but i will say it was easier to defend in Kareem's era, especially for guys like Kareem because a lot more shots came from around the paint.

Finally, LeBron has a legitimate argument for having the most, and highest-value, longevity out of all the best player ever...

He's #1 in career MVP shares and #3 in career regular season WS, and #1 in career Playoff WS with a sizable gap... Kareem is also very high in the longevity department, but i prefer LeBron ever so slightly for now, because i believe he usually had less help in the creating department and needed to move more on both ends...

Anyway, you can look at the GOAT debate from many angles, but i feel like regardless of how i turn the picture, most of the times i end up looking at LeBron in some sense.

If LeBron didn't exist, i'd probably go with MJ as the GOAT, but i'm pretty much open to put Kareem at #2 as well... Generally, though, i am more impressed by players who are able to dominate more recent eras, as i believe the growth of talent and the game in general is producing more skilled and competitive environments.

So here are my other two candidates:

2. Michael Jordan

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Todeasy]

I won't vote here, but if there's anyone who would like to take a look at some 1960s and 1970s players (mostly Russell and Kareem in that thread), I can share some games and clips of them that aren't available online. Not that it will have significant role, but for someone who would like to, for example, get the idea of how Russell played it could be significant. Or for someone who would like to see differences and growth of prime Kareem (I have quite a lot Kareem games from the 1970s).

Sorry if this post is useless here, but I would like to help anyone who want to gain knowledge about older GOAT candidates.

I’d personally love to hear your thoughts on centers dependency for a creating ball handler, and to what degree you think it limited Kareems ability to provide offensive lift.

Just looking at his skill set, I don’t think he’d have the typical problem of getting the ball in good position since anything free-throw line or lower he could make a play from. Someone might claim that a zone akin to what Miami run to limit AD’s post touches and shadowing to dissuade him from the lane would be effective. Personally though I think Kareem’s ability to more consistently punish 1vs1 coverage, shadow or no, and better passing from that high post make him more resilient.

[Odinn21]

Re: Disagree about offensive peaks. Well what I'd say is that the list of offensive dynasties in history is entirely led by perimeter guys.

Bob Davies
Oscar Robertson
Calvin Murphy
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Steve Nash
Steph Curry

None of those big men you talk about led these dynasties. None of them. It's literally never happened in a league that's been around for 70+ years. I think that says something.

Again. You're looking at offense as creating and leading an offense and overlook carrying an offense part.

Also;

As a result, Shaq’s playoff offenses were nearly unrivaled. From 1995-2002, he had the second-best eight-year run of any lead player in NBA history (+8.8 rORtg) and his 1997-2001 Lakers had the best five-year postseason offense in history.

https://backpicks.com/2018/03/29/backpicks-goat-5-shaquille-oneal/
https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Shaq-5-yr-PS-Offenses.png

Shaq didn't lead an offensive dynasty? You're going overboard.

If non ball-handlers were incapable of leading an offensive dynasties, what the hell are Kareem's Bucks, Dirk's Mavs, Hakeem's Rockets, Bird's Celtics doing up there in that graph?

From 1979-80 to 1982-83 Kareem was the offensive leader and the top offensive performer of his team. He also stayed as their half court leader until end of 1985-86 season. I guess that wasn't an offensive dynasty as well.
Why is it that the late '80s Lakers are offensive dynasty and the early '80s version isn't?

One has to be mad to pick Curry over Kareem and Shaq considering how Curry struggles against proper postseason defenses while Kareem and Shaq rose to the occasion.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1971138
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300

Calvin Murphy?
Bob Davies?
I mean that should be a joke...

[876Stephen]

If it’s alright with the moderators for this I’d like to just nominate my three players now and then give a further explanation when I have access to a computer because it’s hard to give a detailed explanation on iPhone right now.

1. Jordan
2. Lebron
3. Russell