RealGM Top 100 List #4

[rico381]

Finally finished working my way through this thread, and perhaps the party's already over, but figured I'd throw in my two cents too.

I'm surprised to see that LeBron keeps being mentioned as being a tier below the main vote-getters this round. We've all been watching his career unfold over the past decade, so I don't need to go year-by-year and tell a huge story to show how good he's been. Everyone knows already. What strikes me, though, is that he seems to be the one guy without any real weaknesses. With Wilt and Shaq, you've got dominant box-score numbers, but character issues, off-court distractions, frequent defensive indifference, and as a sense (especially for Wilt) that the numbers and personal glory were more important than the team. With Hakeem, you've got underwhelming (for a top 10 guy) regular-season numbers and solid but unspectacular shooting efficiency, which meant he didn't really distinguish himself from his peers until his title runs. With Duncan, you've got continued greatness but never overwhelming dominance. With Magic, you've got incredible offensive impact, but mediocre defense, and an inability to shoot from deep. Obviously, none of these are fatal flaws, and all of those players were incredibly successful in their careers, but when you're talking about the #4 greatest player of all time, you can afford to be a little bit picky. LeBron has none of these issues. In fact, almost all of these facets of the game are areas in which LeBron does incredibly well.

The most impressive thing to me about LeBron is his peak-level performance. LeBron's an incredibly tough guy to pin down in terms of a one-year peak; partly because his game has evolved as he's had different situations around him, and partly because he's got more truly historically great seasons than anyone else still on the board. This recent thread asked people to rank LeBron's 5 best seasons (09, 10, 12-14), and there wasn't a huge consensus. Most had 09, 12, and 13 as the top 3 in some order and 10 and 14 below, but all five are all-timers in their own right. Just looking at the worst of those, in 2010 he averaged 29.7-7.3-8.6 on .604 TS%, good for a 31.1 PER and .299 WS/48 (both PER and WS/48 rank in the top 10 single-season marks all-time), and in 2014 his numbers slipped a bit, but he led the league in RAPM, then had one of the greatest playoff runs ever (.668 TS%, 31.1 PER). Looking at the other names left, they've all got very impressive peaks (for ex, Duncan 02-03, Hakeem 94-95, Shaq 00-02), but they only lasted 2-3 years each. I see all five LeBron years as being on that level.

The main knock against LeBron at this point, I assume, is his longevity. I understand why that would be the case: I like to look at players in terms of the cumulative total of their impact over their careers, and even a couple extra "good but not great" seasons at the end of a player's career add a decent amount of value in that regard. In this case, though, I think the concern is overstated. I've noticed that there's often a tendency to look at a player who is still in his prime, who is headed for bigger and brighter things, and not to worry about exactly where he ranks as of this moment. You end up saying "I'm not sure whether LeBron has passed Magic by this point. If I give it another couple years and he racks up even more accomplishments, it'll be a stone-cold lock, so why invest mental energy in a debate that'll be outdated within a year? If I just think about players whose careers are over, the same arguments will always hold." I think LeBron has done enough to get in this conversation already, and were something tragic to happen and he never to play again, we'd look on his career as more than adequate to hold up to scrutiny as-is, just as Magic's turned out to be despite his sudden departure near the peak of his powers.

Looking at raw totals, LeBron's longevity is on the lower end, but certainly not devastatingly so. He's now up to 33276 career regular-season minutes. Magic had 33245. Bird had 34443. Jordan played 35887 in Chicago. In terms of per-minute impact, I'd put LeBron closer to the Jordan end of that scale than the Magic/Bird end, too. As a result, LeBron already looks great by cumulative statistics. He's 15th overall in career win shares, well above Magic and Bird, who played roughly the same amount of minutes but at a lower level. He's also ahead of Hakeem, even though Hakeem played much longer than LeBron. Looking at things that reward a concentrated distribution of value a bit more (as championship odds do), he's 3rd overall in MVP shares, behind only Jordan and Kareem (some bias towards recent players there with deeper ballots, but as the majority of Bron's shares come from 4 near-unanimous MVPs and an unquestioned 2nd, he didn't gain from them as much as, say, Kevin Durant did). He's also 6th in RPOY shares (behind Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Wilt, and Magic).

In the playoffs, LeBron is a bit behind the most decorated greats with super teams in terms of longevity, but five finals runs will take you pretty far. LeBron has played 6717 playoff minutes. Magic, Wilt, Russell, and Jordan all played around 7500 each (disclaimers about number of rounds obviously apply for the old-timers). Bird is at 6886. Olajuwon, whose playoff performance is perhaps his strongest argument, only played 5749, and Dirk, who similarly is boosted for great playoff performances, only has 5544. In terms of total value accrued in the playoffs, then, LeBron holds up just fine. He's fourth in career playoff win shares, behind only Jordan, Duncan, and Kareem (all the disclaimers about shorter playoffs for old-timers count double here, as the first round is when you get the easiest wins, but still very impressive to be ahead of Shaq and Hakeem here).

I stuck to cumulative metrics above not because they're the best way to evaluate players (they're not), but rather to illustrate that even if we choose the method that is most harmed by a lack of longevity, LeBron can still hold his own. If we look at per-minute and per-possession numbers to look directly at the level of play LeBron is giving you while he's on the court, nobody else can really compete. No matter what aspect you look at, LeBron is as good as anyone.

Box score statistics: averages of 28-7-7 per game on .580 TS% in a very slow era over his last 10 years (excluding only rookie year), with very steady production year-to-year other than steadily increasing shooting efficiency. Four of the top 11 years in WS/48, and Jordan and Kareem have six of the other seven. Four of the top 11 seasons in PER, and only Wilt compares among candidates here. Wilt's got all sorts of questions about whether box score stats truly represent his impact, though, which applies doubly with PER's overrating of high usage. Shaq is the only other player who can compare in that area. If you prefer career averages, LeBron is 5th overall in WS/48 (behind only Wilt among candidates here), and 2nd in PER (behind Jordan, and only by .1 points). Those numbers are boosted by not yet including a decline phase, but LeBron has such a huge lead it's hard to imagine him falling far at all, especially when we see that his peak and prime is so much higher than almost everyone else.

Plus-Minus data: RAPM and similar metrics have all consistently had LeBron as on par with KG and Shaq as the very best players of the era. His peak is as high as anyone, and sustained over many years. Even some multi-year samples that include a lot of pre-prime LeBron and exclude some of his best years (i.e. the 02-11 RAPM on Colts' site) has LeBron as the #1 player of the era, with a 1-point lead over his only challenger in KG and a 3-point lead over Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Nash, even with a sample just about perfect for grabbing their primes and little else. Data from his (rare) missed games in Cleveland and consistently great raw on-off numbers only back this conclusion up. The eye test, while not computationally as powerful as RAPM, can also tell that LeBron's impact would hold up beyond basic stats. He's an excellent passer, and spaces the floor very well (especially when at the four), two of the most important things for +/- data that may slip through the box score. In contrast to Wilt, who was known for chasing stats above all else, LeBron's defining trait might be "making the right play", rejecting the hero-ball narrative and getting his teammates involved, even with the game on the line.

Defense: This is harder to measure than some of the other stuff, and LeBron is obviously not Hakeem/Duncan level here, but he's still one of the great perimeter defenders of all time. By every measure I've seen, whether in the box score, plus-minus data, or popular acclaim, LeBron rates out very well. His size and athleticism make him very versatile, and without that versatility from him (and, to a lesser degree, Wade), I doubt the Heat's trapping style would work at all. I rate LeBron's defense as similar to Jordan or Kareem, Shaq, and the second or third tier of defensive bigs, and it's in that half of the game that he really separates himself from Magic and Bird, average at best players on that end.

Playoff performance: This is one area detractors harp on with narrative-based attacks, but even with a couple hiccups (like everyone has once you've ranked Jordan and Russell), LeBron's performance is as good as anyone's. He won two finals MVPs in very convincing fashion, and was the best individual player in this year's finals, too (admittedly, this was in much less convincing fashion). He's third in career playoff WS/48 and PER, behind only Jordan and Mikan in both cases. I don't have his numbers in elimination games at my fingertips, but I've seen them posted many times, and they are incredible. He might be the all-time leader in PPG in elimination games, or behind only Jordan, if I recall correctly.

Off-court issues: LeBron has been basically a model citizen in this regard. Some fans perceive him as having a large ego and judge him harshly for it, but in terms of building a camaraderie among teammates and a happy environment, LeBron is excellent here. The chemistry in Cleveland and Miami were both clear even to outside observers, and the teams just loved playing together. This isn't a super important category (unless you really screw it up), but there are no concerns here for LeBron. If you're going to hold leaving as a free agent and going to Miami against him, then you better knock Oscar Robertson a long way down your rankings , as he's responsible for enabling decades of such behavior with his lawsuit.

Clutch Performance: Part of this is covered in his playoff performances, and another part is about how he performs in late-game situations. Some fans knocked him for this due to his famously passing up some shots to get teammates wide-open threes on the final possessions of the game. The evidence just doesn't back them up, though. What's crazy is, I want to say they're wrong because "hero ball doesn't work; you should just make the right basketball play and find the open man", but that's not entirely accurate. It's more like "Hero ball doesn't work, unless you have LeBron". League efficiency tends to go down in those scenarios, but LeBron's shown a propensity for incredible clutch performances over the years. 82games has been tracking clutch stats for the past six years, with clutch defined as "4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points". By their numbers, in 08-09 LeBron averaged 55.9 points, 14.3 rebounds, and 12.6 assists per 48 minutes of clutch time, on .556/.421/.85 shooting splits (.693 TS%). Cleveland outscored their opponents by 103 points in 111 minutes of clutch time that year, or +45 per 48 minutes. In 09-10, he averaged 66.1-15.9-8.3-3.2-3.2 per 48, on .488/.340/.80 shooting (.630 TS%). Cleveland outscored their opponents by 116 points over 151 minutes in those situations, or +37 over 48 minutes. After relative down years (by his standards), LeBron picked back up at a pretty great pace in 12-13, when he averaged 38.7-15.2-14.9 per 48, on .442/.280/.76 shooting (.555 TS%). While the individual numbers aren't as crazy, Miami outscored opponents by 125 points over 161 minutes of clutch time with LeBron, or +37 per 48 minutes, and this was a big factor in their 26-game winning streak. They could basically take it easy for much of the game, then turn it on in the second half if they needed to and overcome any deficit they might've accrued. I generally don't believe there's much merit to clutch performances, but this is stuff that just should not be possible. 66 points per 48 on .630 TS% for a slow team in the modern NBA, in the most important time of the game? Outscoring opponents by about three or four times as much per minute as the best season-long marks in NBA history, entirely in game-deciding moments? If anyone tries to tell you LeBron wasn't clutch before coming to Miami, or before the 2012 championship run, they could not be more wrong.

Team Success: While *only* having two titles might put him behind some of these guys, LeBron has led some very successful teams using very different styles. He led a 66-win, 8.68 SRS Cavs team in 2009 that almost always had two bigs on the floor and used their size to their advantage, with basketball-reference saying LeBron was at SF 74% of the time. The team had a +10.0 efficiency differential, which actually increased to +15.0 with LeBron on the floor (compared to -6.2 while he sat, a net difference of 21.2 points). He went to Miami, and peaked there with a 66-win, 7.03 SRS team in 2013. That team was all about surrounding LeBron with shooters and spacing the floor, and used LeBron at PF in 82% of his minutes (and at C in another 9%). Their +8.6 efficiency differential increased to +13.2 with LeBron on the floor, compared to -2.1 when he sat (a net difference of 15.3 points). That's very impressive versatility, leading two entirely different 66-win teams, both as the unquestioned #1 man (and near-unanimous league MVP), and doing it in not only two different roles but at two different positions entirely.

One other thing I want to point out: it's obvious to the point of triviality to note that as we move forward in time, we have more information about every year. We go from just points-rebounds-assists box scores, to more complete versions with defensive stats and turnovers and split rebounding, then gain more and more play-by-play data, then Synergy stats and most recently SportVU data. We go from scrounging for any game footage we can find for an entire year to having literally every play directly and instantly available on video from the NBA.com play-by-play files. This information gain has a practical effect, and what it does is it removes uncertainty and gives us more confidence in our observations. When we're dealing with such ridiculous outliers as the players at the top of this list are, the size of the error bars in our estimates matters a lot. Due to the bell curve of talent, when we see a guy with limited information who seems to be, say, +8, it's far more likely that he's a true +6 who gains from our lack of information than a true +10 who is hurt by it. There are simply far more +6-level humans out there who can get lucky and be perceived as better than there are +10 guys who could get unlucky. In practical terms, what this means is, the more information I have about a player, the more I'll trust that he really was every bit as good as he seems to be. There's nobody we have more information on than modern-day players, and no matter how much new information is added to the table, LeBron's impact still holds up. That means a lot to me.

This is getting really long, far more than I intended to write, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like LeBron has the most complete case of any candidate left. For those who don't have him this high, I'll just ask: what more do you want? Greater longevity beyond the Bird/Magic/Jordan level? Is his level of play while active not high enough? Does he have some flaw that I'm not covering that knocks him down? I really don't see why he hasn't gotten more consideration to this point.

My vote for #4 is LeBron James.

[HeartBreakKid]

Ugh Magic Johnson really? I don't get how Larry Bird has a career that is nearly as long and out plays the guy most seasons and Bird isn't even close to being in the discussion, yet Magic has been getting votes since the second ballot.

[PCProductions]

I just got through this whole thread after being away for the weekend, so hopefully I can get my vote in.

I came in here being ready to vote for Shaq because of his insanely high peak and his impressively long prime. His negatives stick out more than anyone at this level of GOATness (free throw shooting, motivation, fitness) but he is in serious consideration of greatest playoff performer of all time. It's really hard to nail down a good criteria that both values the regular and post season effectively and fairly, especially with a guy like Shaq who clearly played the level he could play at almost strictly in the post season, with the exception of 2000 and 1995. It's important not to get too caught up in the small sample arena of the playoffs, but that's clearly where his motivation was on a yearly basis, and it's obviously the most important sample of games given the stakes.

Catching up quickly after a quick break from the boards, there's just a diamond mine of a interesting discussion in here. I'm a Garnett guy, myself, though having him argued at #4 was shocking, personally. However, I see a lot of good arguments from guys I really respect on here and find myself wondering whether Garnett's true, in-a-vacuum play is something to just simply glance over in favor of the rings-and-things that guys like Shaq and Duncan will obviously school him in. Given the strides this board has made since the last project of this nature, it would be shameful to just erase the whole blackboard in favor of going with the conventional wisdom of years previous. Garnett is definitely the face of the new way of thinking around here, and I'm pretty excited to see him brought up so early. Wilt, on the other hand, is certainly the antagonist in this current line of thinking, and his case shrivels in the new light.

That said, I still think Garnett is too risky a pick way up here. He's probably got a case for the best two-way player player ever with guys like Hakeem and Wilt. If leadership is your thing, then Garnett is certainly short of very few players in that category. Longevity is a hallmark of his as well. And if his impact wasn't abundantly clear in Minnesota, his immediate championship impact in Boston must certainly have ended that doubt. But how long can we ignore Shaq's continued dominance with a decent supporting cast? Shaq was also a great two-way player in his prime, assuming he was motivated and fit, and just commanded a coaching change from any opponent unlike any other player maybe ever. Shaq, like ElGee pointed out, was a great decision maker over the likes of physical specimens like Wilt in that he could pass accordingly even with a scoring mindset.

Hakeem case is too shaky to be this high up as well. I'm a big fan of his game, but after reading the mystery that surround his impact in pre-title years, I'm not sure if I can put him up here without a good chunk of doubt.

Duncan is also a solid case. Again, reading about how underrated his supporting casts were and just how fortunate he is to have the guys and coach that he did, I'm not sure how valuable the rings-and-things are to me that make him necessarily better than Garnett, whom I've already touched ever-so-briefly on.

Basically, the signal is too strong in Shaq's favor here. I'm too certain of his greatness versus these other candidates to skip him for this round, and that's ultimately my decision right here.

My vote for #4 all time: Shaq

[MisterWestside]

It seems to me that the argument has evolved like this:

-"Wilt scored a bunch! He's way ahead of everyone else"

Did I say that?

I could not care less if he scored zero points or one hundred points in a game. I'm simply watching how the low-post offense functioned in that era on tape, and how he and the team worked within it from different perspectives. No where did I make the argument that Chamberlain was awesome because he scored a billion points.

Stop, guy.

I'm well aware of the geometry of 60's basketball but essentially what you are alleging is that there is just enough evidence for spacing in relation to Wilt's passing that you can confidently extrapolate into today's game, but that spacing was just rare enough in the 60's to prevent Wilt from exerting the same impact he would today. All the while ignoring that of all the modern big, strong low-post players, only Shaq in Phil Jackson's offense has really shown us a high ceiling with this kind of approach.

Yes, ElGee; you're "well aware", but you can't be bothered with it. Pity. But it's not even claiming that he'd achieve some sort of of "Shaq-ceiling" here in an offense (of course, assuming a bunch of different things hold true, including the "infallibility" of your data). It's claiming that he'd be more helpful to a team on offense with the right things in place than what what achieved in his time, in which there was even negative impact when he was used in that context.

Hell, it isn't even just the case for Chamberlain. Use any low-post player of your choice in that time, and you'd reach the same conclusion. Read the myriad of available resources about importance of floor spacing, and read the observations that were made on the game tape. And stop talking about what O'Neal did with spacing and Phil Jackson in a separate era. This isn't a straight-up, all things equal, A-B comparison.

[Dipper 13]

-"Wait, Wilt's scoring didn't yield great things offensively"

To be fair these are just estimates. In an era with the 1 FT rule after every foul (maximum 1 point on that possession), and a guy who drew a lot of contact and fouls under the boards, that could affect the offensive rating.

It's saying "Wilt played in an era with poor spacing -- he couldn't hurt people with his passing...When Wilt was doubled, he always hurt people with passing."

I am referring to the 1964-66 years. I'm sure early on he was definitely forcing quite a few shots, especially with no movement or cutting from the other players.

Can you demonstrate by breaking down some plays?

There is so little footage available but I am looking at the highlights. As far as game footage the New York game from 1970 or Boston from 1964 are good examples.

you are alleging is that there is just enough evidence for spacing in relation to Wilt's passing that you can confidently extrapolate into today's game

All I am saying is these claims of his poor IQ are being exaggerated. Nobody on this forum can say anything with full certainty regarding that era and possession statistics. Maybe Harvey Pollack?

only Shaq in Phil Jackson's offense has really shown us a high ceiling with this kind of approach.

One thing Shaq was excellent at was flashing across the lane to receive the ball, I have also seen Wilt do this in highlight clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg95kRGw1cw&t=7m25s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aECiYcdvIE&t=13m28s

"When we got in trouble, Wilt may not have scored a great many points through the whole year, but when we got in trouble we did go to the big guy and he responded with the big points when we needed them."



Maybe I am optimistic that more game footage being released by the NBA will show the complete skills of all these old legends. But what I am reading on the forum from various posters over the past few years that he was unable to make basic game adjustments, was a turnover machine, and a guy who liked to lose, I go back to some of the actual legitimate criticisms. There are certainly enough of those available without resorting to making things up.

[Texas Chuck]

Shaq was also a great two-way player in his prime, assuming he was motivated and fit, and just commanded a coaching change from any opponent unlike any other player maybe ever.

This imo is a very strong argument in favor of Shaq. Forget the Jordan Rules, Shaq made teams do all sorts of out of character things.

[MisterHibachi]

Spoiler:

Finally finished working my way through this thread, and perhaps the party's already over, but figured I'd throw in my two cents too.

I'm surprised to see that LeBron keeps being mentioned as being a tier below the main vote-getters this round. We've all been watching his career unfold over the past decade, so I don't need to go year-by-year and tell a huge story to show how good he's been. Everyone knows already. What strikes me, though, is that he seems to be the one guy without any real weaknesses. With Wilt and Shaq, you've got dominant box-score numbers, but character issues, off-court distractions, frequent defensive indifference, and as a sense (especially for Wilt) that the numbers and personal glory were more important than the team. With Hakeem, you've got underwhelming (for a top 10 guy) regular-season numbers and solid but unspectacular shooting efficiency, which meant he didn't really distinguish himself from his peers until his title runs. With Duncan, you've got continued greatness but never overwhelming dominance. With Magic, you've got incredible offensive impact, but mediocre defense, and an inability to shoot from deep. Obviously, none of these are fatal flaws, and all of those players were incredibly successful in their careers, but when you're talking about the #4 greatest player of all time, you can afford to be a little bit picky. LeBron has none of these issues. In fact, almost all of these facets of the game are areas in which LeBron does incredibly well.

The most impressive thing to me about LeBron is his peak-level performance. LeBron's an incredibly tough guy to pin down in terms of a one-year peak; partly because his game has evolved as he's had different situations around him, and partly because he's got more truly historically great seasons than anyone else still on the board. This recent thread asked people to rank LeBron's 5 best seasons (09, 10, 12-14), and there wasn't a huge consensus. Most had 09, 12, and 13 as the top 3 in some order and 10 and 14 below, but all five are all-timers in their own right. Just looking at the worst of those, in 2010 he averaged 29.7-7.3-8.6 on .604 TS%, good for a 31.1 PER and .299 WS/48 (both PER and WS/48 rank in the top 10 single-season marks all-time), and in 2014 his numbers slipped a bit, but he led the league in RAPM, then had one of the greatest playoff runs ever (.668 TS%, 31.1 PER). Looking at the other names left, they've all got very impressive peaks (for ex, Duncan 02-03, Hakeem 94-95, Shaq 00-02), but they only lasted 2-3 years each. I see all five LeBron years as being on that level.

The main knock against LeBron at this point, I assume, is his longevity. I understand why that would be the case: I like to look at players in terms of the cumulative total of their impact over their careers, and even a couple extra "good but not great" seasons at the end of a player's career add a decent amount of value in that regard. In this case, though, I think the concern is overstated. I've noticed that there's often a tendency to look at a player who is still in his prime, who is headed for bigger and brighter things, and not to worry about exactly where he ranks as of this moment. You end up saying "I'm not sure whether LeBron has passed Magic by this point. If I give it another couple years and he racks up even more accomplishments, it'll be a stone-cold lock, so why invest mental energy in a debate that'll be outdated within a year? If I just think about players whose careers are over, the same arguments will always hold." I think LeBron has done enough to get in this conversation already, and were something tragic to happen and he never to play again, we'd look on his career as more than adequate to hold up to scrutiny as-is, just as Magic's turned out to be despite his sudden departure near the peak of his powers.

Looking at raw totals, LeBron's longevity is on the lower end, but certainly not devastatingly so. He's now up to 33276 career regular-season minutes. Magic had 33245. Bird had 34443. Jordan played 35887 in Chicago. In terms of per-minute impact, I'd put LeBron closer to the Jordan end of that scale than the Magic/Bird end, too. As a result, LeBron already looks great by cumulative statistics. He's 15th overall in career win shares, well above Magic and Bird, who played roughly the same amount of minutes but at a lower level. He's also ahead of Hakeem, even though Hakeem played much longer than LeBron. Looking at things that reward a concentrated distribution of value a bit more (as championship odds do), he's 3rd overall in MVP shares, behind only Jordan and Kareem (some bias towards recent players there with deeper ballots, but as the majority of Bron's shares come from 4 near-unanimous MVPs and an unquestioned 2nd, he didn't gain from them as much as, say, Kevin Durant did). He's also 6th in RPOY shares (behind Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Wilt, and Magic).

In the playoffs, LeBron is a bit behind the most decorated greats with super teams in terms of longevity, but five finals runs will take you pretty far. LeBron has played 6717 playoff minutes. Magic, Wilt, Russell, and Jordan all played around 7500 each (disclaimers about number of rounds obviously apply for the old-timers). Bird is at 6886. Olajuwon, whose playoff performance is perhaps his strongest argument, only played 5749, and Dirk, who similarly is boosted for great playoff performances, only has 5544. In terms of total value accrued in the playoffs, then, LeBron holds up just fine. He's fourth in career playoff win shares, behind only Jordan, Duncan, and Kareem (all the disclaimers about shorter playoffs for old-timers count double here, as the first round is when you get the easiest wins, but still very impressive to be ahead of Shaq and Hakeem here).

I stuck to cumulative metrics above not because they're the best way to evaluate players (they're not), but rather to illustrate that even if we choose the method that is most harmed by a lack of longevity, LeBron can still hold his own. If we look at per-minute and per-possession numbers to look directly at the level of play LeBron is giving you while he's on the court, nobody else can really compete. No matter what aspect you look at, LeBron is as good as anyone.

Box score statistics: averages of 28-7-7 per game on .580 TS% in a very slow era over his last 10 years (excluding only rookie year), with very steady production year-to-year other than steadily increasing shooting efficiency. Four of the top 11 years in WS/48, and Jordan and Kareem have six of the other seven. Four of the top 11 seasons in PER, and only Wilt compares among candidates here. Wilt's got all sorts of questions about whether box score stats truly represent his impact, though, which applies doubly with PER's overrating of high usage. Shaq is the only other player who can compare in that area. If you prefer career averages, LeBron is 5th overall in WS/48 (behind only Wilt among candidates here), and 2nd in PER (behind Jordan, and only by .1 points). Those numbers are boosted by not yet including a decline phase, but LeBron has such a huge lead it's hard to imagine him falling far at all, especially when we see that his peak and prime is so much higher than almost everyone else.

Plus-Minus data: RAPM and similar metrics have all consistently had LeBron as on par with KG and Shaq as the very best players of the era. His peak is as high as anyone, and sustained over many years. Even some multi-year samples that include a lot of pre-prime LeBron and exclude some of his best years (i.e. the 02-11 RAPM on Colts' site) has LeBron as the #1 player of the era, with a 1-point lead over his only challenger in KG and a 3-point lead over Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Nash, even with a sample just about perfect for grabbing their primes and little else. Data from his (rare) missed games in Cleveland and consistently great raw on-off numbers only back this conclusion up. The eye test, while not computationally as powerful as RAPM, can also tell that LeBron's impact would hold up beyond basic stats. He's an excellent passer, and spaces the floor very well (especially when at the four), two of the most important things for +/- data that may slip through the box score. In contrast to Wilt, who was known for chasing stats above all else, LeBron's defining trait might be "making the right play", rejecting the hero-ball narrative and getting his teammates involved, even with the game on the line.

Defense: This is harder to measure than some of the other stuff, and LeBron is obviously not Hakeem/Duncan level here, but he's still one of the great perimeter defenders of all time. By every measure I've seen, whether in the box score, plus-minus data, or popular acclaim, LeBron rates out very well. His size and athleticism make him very versatile, and without that versatility from him (and, to a lesser degree, Wade), I doubt the Heat's trapping style would work at all. I rate LeBron's defense as similar to Jordan or Kareem, Shaq, and the second or third tier of defensive bigs, and it's in that half of the game that he really separates himself from Magic and Bird, average at best players on that end.

Playoff performance: This is one area detractors harp on with narrative-based attacks, but even with a couple hiccups (like everyone has once you've ranked Jordan and Russell), LeBron's performance is as good as anyone's. He won two finals MVPs in very convincing fashion, and was the best individual player in this year's finals, too (admittedly, this was in much less convincing fashion). He's third in career playoff WS/48 and PER, behind only Jordan and Mikan in both cases. I don't have his numbers in elimination games at my fingertips, but I've seen them posted many times, and they are incredible. He might be the all-time leader in PPG in elimination games, or behind only Jordan, if I recall correctly.

Off-court issues: LeBron has been basically a model citizen in this regard. Some fans perceive him as having a large ego and judge him harshly for it, but in terms of building a camaraderie among teammates and a happy environment, LeBron is excellent here. The chemistry in Cleveland and Miami were both clear even to outside observers, and the teams just loved playing together. This isn't a super important category (unless you really screw it up), but there are no concerns here for LeBron. If you're going to hold leaving as a free agent and going to Miami against him, then you better knock Oscar Robertson a long way down your rankings , as he's responsible for enabling decades of such behavior with his lawsuit.

Clutch Performance: Part of this is covered in his playoff performances, and another part is about how he performs in late-game situations. Some fans knocked him for this due to his famously passing up some shots to get teammates wide-open threes on the final possessions of the game. The evidence just doesn't back them up, though. What's crazy is, I want to say they're wrong because "hero ball doesn't work; you should just make the right basketball play and find the open man", but that's not entirely accurate. It's more like "Hero ball doesn't work, unless you have LeBron". League efficiency tends to go down in those scenarios, but LeBron's shown a propensity for incredible clutch performances over the years. 82games has been tracking clutch stats for the past six years, with clutch defined as "4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points". By their numbers, in 08-09 LeBron averaged 55.9 points, 14.3 rebounds, and 12.6 assists per 48 minutes of clutch time, on .556/.421/.85 shooting splits (.693 TS%). Cleveland outscored their opponents by 103 points in 111 minutes of clutch time that year, or +45 per 48 minutes. In 09-10, he averaged 66.1-15.9-8.3-3.2-3.2 per 48, on .488/.340/.80 shooting (.630 TS%). Cleveland outscored their opponents by 116 points over 151 minutes in those situations, or +37 over 48 minutes. After relative down years (by his standards), LeBron picked back up at a pretty great pace in 12-13, when he averaged 38.7-15.2-14.9 per 48, on .442/.280/.76 shooting (.555 TS%). While the individual numbers aren't as crazy, Miami outscored opponents by 125 points over 161 minutes of clutch time with LeBron, or +37 per 48 minutes, and this was a big factor in their 26-game winning streak. They could basically take it easy for much of the game, then turn it on in the second half if they needed to and overcome any deficit they might've accrued. I generally don't believe there's much merit to clutch performances, but this is stuff that just should not be possible. 66 points per 48 on .630 TS% for a slow team in the modern NBA, in the most important time of the game? Outscoring opponents by about three or four times as much per minute as the best season-long marks in NBA history, entirely in game-deciding moments? If anyone tries to tell you LeBron wasn't clutch before coming to Miami, or before the 2012 championship run, they could not be more wrong.

Team Success: While *only* having two titles might put him behind some of these guys, LeBron has led some very successful teams using very different styles. He led a 66-win, 8.68 SRS Cavs team in 2009 that almost always had two bigs on the floor and used their size to their advantage, with basketball-reference saying LeBron was at SF 74% of the time. The team had a +10.0 efficiency differential, which actually increased to +15.0 with LeBron on the floor (compared to -6.2 while he sat, a net difference of 21.2 points). He went to Miami, and peaked there with a 66-win, 7.03 SRS team in 2013. That team was all about surrounding LeBron with shooters and spacing the floor, and used LeBron at PF in 82% of his minutes (and at C in another 9%). Their +8.6 efficiency differential increased to +13.2 with LeBron on the floor, compared to -2.1 when he sat (a net difference of 15.3 points). That's very impressive versatility, leading two entirely different 66-win teams, both as the unquestioned #1 man (and near-unanimous league MVP), and doing it in not only two different roles but at two different positions entirely.

One other thing I want to point out: it's obvious to the point of triviality to note that as we move forward in time, we have more information about every year. We go from just points-rebounds-assists box scores, to more complete versions with defensive stats and turnovers and split rebounding, then gain more and more play-by-play data, then Synergy stats and most recently SportVU data. We go from scrounging for any game footage we can find for an entire year to having literally every play directly and instantly available on video from the NBA.com play-by-play files. This information gain has a practical effect, and what it does is it removes uncertainty and gives us more confidence in our observations. When we're dealing with such ridiculous outliers as the players at the top of this list are, the size of the error bars in our estimates matters a lot. Due to the bell curve of talent, when we see a guy with limited information who seems to be, say, +8, it's far more likely that he's a true +6 who gains from our lack of information than a true +10 who is hurt by it. There are simply far more +6-level humans out there who can get lucky and be perceived as better than there are +10 guys who could get unlucky. In practical terms, what this means is, the more information I have about a player, the more I'll trust that he really was every bit as good as he seems to be. There's nobody we have more information on than modern-day players, and no matter how much new information is added to the table, LeBron's impact still holds up. That means a lot to me.

This is getting really long, far more than I intended to write, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like LeBron has the most complete case of any candidate left. For those who don't have him this high, I'll just ask: what more do you want? Greater longevity beyond the Bird/Magic/Jordan level? Is his level of play while active not high enough? Does he have some flaw that I'm not covering that knocks him down? I really don't see why he hasn't gotten more consideration to this point.

My vote for #4 is LeBron James.

Well said. No one has responded to my question of 'why Magic/Bird over LeBron?'. I hope there is an answer in the next thread and LeBron gets stronger consideration. But, assuming Wilt gets voted in here, Shaq's momentum seems pretty strong so hopefully the sixth slot for number 6.

[Clyde Frazier]

I wanted to post these for the room and also address your criteria for your consideration. Hopefully some folks enjoy it.

1) the ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one's team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, and the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectaution of said purpose.

Spoiler:

Leaders & Success
Basketball's Hakeem Olajuwon Fulfilled His Dream; Focus On Goals: Discipline and confidence helped this Nigerian immigrant lead the Houston Rockets to two NBA titles

When he came into the National Basketball Association, Hakeem Olajuwon was merely a raw physical talent: big and fast. He then became one of the game's greatest and most polished players. Why? He chalks it up to one reason: "I had the desire to want to grow, to get better," Olajuwon said in a 2002 interview. "I think the same principle applies to everything. Always strive for improvement, and learn and benefit from the experience of others." Olajuwon, who retired in 2002, is the NBA's seventh all-time leading scorer. His 26,946 points along with his 13,748 career rebounds in 18 seasons made him one of only eight players in NBA history with over 20,000 points and 12,000 rebounds. He's the league's all-time leader in blocked shots. Olajuwon was named the league's Most Valuable Player in 1994. In 1996 he was selected to the NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team. What was most important to the 7-foot-tall Olajuwon was leading his Houston Rockets to back-to-back NBA titles in 1994 and 1995. "Throughout my career I had been focused on winning the championship. I hadn't paid a lot of attention to statistics," Olajuwon wrote in "Living the Dream: My Life and Basketball," with Peter Knobler


Olajuwon came to America from his native Nigeria more versed in soccer than in basketball. He didn't play basketball until he was 16. A coach urged him to take up the game because of his size and agility. Olajuwon discovered he loved it. Discipline First "In order to be successful, you must have . . . principles and discipline. You can't be successful (over the long haul) if you don't have the discipline," he said. For Olajuwon, that meant working as hard in the offseason on his physical conditioning as he did during the season. And he constantly experimented to add new offensive moves to his repertoire. "Hakeem just never let anyone outwork him. Every year he improved, he came back better. Hakeem was driven like all the great ones are. He pushed himself to that next plateau. Not just once, but every year, for the 17 years that we had him," said Carroll Dawson, Houston's general manager and before that an assistant coach with the team. "Preparation is the most important thing, in everything really," Olajuwon said. "Because it is how well you prepare that will determine your confidence level." What also makes a difference is visualizing it actually happening, he says

Being part of two championship teams taught Olajuwon what it takes for an organization to reach its ultimate goal. Players must take personal responsibility for their performances, he says, while subordinating their contributions to the team. "Victory is not out of your control," Olajuwon wrote. "You prepare yourself for victory, you think and plan and train and sweat and work as hard as you can to reach your goal. And you go out and perform at your absolute best because that's the only way to play. You will not win without that." "Hakeem made everyone around him better," Dawson said. "Let me give you an example: When we took off as a team is when he became a good passer. He started making teams pay for the double and triple teams he was getting by finding his open teammates." Olajuwon says his success on the court is related to how he managed his life off the court. "Time is the biggest capital in someone's life," he said. "Time should be spent on something that is constructive. Don't waste time." Staying Grounded Olajuwon was the first overall pick in the 1984 NBA draft. Some let that go to their head. Not Olajuwon. He credits his religious faith (Islam) with helping keep him grounded and humble throughout his career.

When you have the combination of youth, wealth, time and fame, that is a dangerous combination without structure. My faith gives me higher principles to strive for -- things like honesty, kindness and community service," he said. Olajuwon, nicknamed the Dream, lives his words, remaining active in charities such as UNICEF and the Make-A-Wish Foundation. In addition, he set up The Dream Foundation, which awards college scholarships to high school students. Making something of one's life is an important principle to Olajuwon. In basketball, he's witnessed the painful downward spiral of players losing their careers and sometimes even more to drugs. "If you throw away this life you dishonor yourself," he wrote. "You are destroying your own life and should be held accountable . . . and you disappoint the people who are looking to you for direction." Olajuwon embraces the responsibility that comes with being seen as a role model to youngsters. "I don't think of it as a burden," he wrote. "It is very satisfying to be a good example." During the Rockets' championship year of 1994, Olajuwon was selected the league's Most Valuable Player and the Defensive Player of the Year. When he was named MVP of the NBA Finals, he became the only player ever to win all three awards in one year. This story originally ran Nov. 13, 2002, on Leaders & Success.
http://news.investors.com/management-le ... titles.htm

2) the ability to both identify what the team needs at any given moment in order to realize the ultimate objective of winning and provide it.

From Rudy T's book "A Rocket at Heart" (pg. 172)

Spoiler:

When I think of Hakeem Olajuwon's greatness, the word I keep coming back to is "competitiveness." In our practices, whenever a score was being kept, he would be out there giving it his all. When we've acquired guys in trades or brought in new rookies, Hakeem has been a great leader by example. When guys see the intensity of a superstar - even in practice- it just lifts the whole program. He has never been what you would call a rah-rah guy, but he is very comfortable leading by example.

I remember Don Chaney saying to Hakeem, "I want you to be our cocaptain and take a leadership role." Hakeem said he would do everything for the team, but didn't feel comfortable vocally addressing other players in a public way. But as time went by, he would often have something to say when we got into a crucial situation, and everybody would take notice. When the team could go one way or the other, his input was what got us going in the right direction.

3) possession of the rational self-interest to put aside ego in order to do #1, and #2, disregarding the opinions of irrelevant others who are not on the team and so have no effect on the team's success.

More from Rudy T (pg. 173):

Spoiler:

"Hakeem would get right to the point of where we needed to be as a team. Everthing was about we. What are we going to do? Are we all committed?

Without Hakeem doing the right thing in the locker room, I wouldn't be writing this book, we wouldn't have become two-time champions, and I probably wouldn't have lasted very long as a basketball coach.

My relationship with Hakeem is one of respect. I don't pal around with him or any of my players, but we've had some very good talks about the direction of the team and the different ideas I have for the success of the team. The number-one connection between Hakeem and me is that we both want to win. We've been around Houston a long time, and we both feel working for the Rockets is more than just a job."

4) the ability to block out distractions and anything irrelevant to the maximization of the team's chances of victory.

Like other all time greats, Hakeem had to evolve as a player and grow as a person spiritually. When he found his religion he maximized his talent, let go of all distractions. The disappointment of years of poor coaching and ownership & management failing to build team around him due to his highly competitive desire to win. With his religion he found true peace. His game peaked in unbelievable ways and maximized his now finally healthy, well rounded and competently coached team to victory.

Spoiler:

KEEPING THE FAITH/Olajuwon's, Rockets' quiet confidence has roots in Mecca
JONATHAN FEIGEN Staff
SUN 06/18/1995 HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section Special, Page 8, 2 STAR Edition

Ignore the "Dream Shake," the single most unstoppable and identifiable move in the NBA, and the lone successor to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's signature "Sky Hook." Forget the jump hooks in the lane, the quick move and soft shot that sets up that fadeaway on the baseline.
Pay no attention to the defense, to the blocked shots and rebounds and the speed running the floor. And like David Robinson, try to forget all those fakes and jukes and first steps.

All that was enough to make Hakeem Olajuwon great, one of the best players in NBA history.

None of it made him a champion.

For Hakeem Olajuwon to become recognized as "the best player on the planet," as teammate Clyde Drexler has come to call him, he had to do more than that. He had to develop a game that touched every teammate, and lifted them to levels few thought possible.

And he had to develop in himself a calm, quiet confidence -- in his case, a tranquility born from his renewed and practiced faith -- that became the personality of his team. It became almost cliche years ago that players cannot be truly considered among the best unless they also improve the play of those around them. When Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were collecting championships and MVP trophies, it was used as the now-dated and inaccurate knock on Michael Jordan.

When Olajuwon was merely an automatic All-Star, the line was used to explain why he was not as celebrated as the champions. But though he has since elevated his own play through the strength of his personality and diversity of his game, he has elevated his teammates to levels that more than meet the requirements for all-time greatness.

And more to the immediate point, considering the comebacks and the steely-cool last-second wins, the perspective of Olajuwon became the persona of the Rockets, and as much a key to the triumph as any inside move or 3-point shot.

"I always knew he was a great player," Rockets vice president for basketball operations Bob Weinhauer said. "I had no way of knowing what a great individual he was. The way he carries himself and projects himself to everyone, his ease of doing things, his calmness, really carries over to the rest of the team." It cannot help but influence his Rockets teammates and their play. As forward Robert Horry said, when asked about the Rockets' calm under pressure and ability to rise to any occasion, "It all flows from No. 34."

He had been asked to be a more vocal leader in the past, and he has done that. But his greater impact is unspoken, not only in the example of work habits or play, but in his entire "stay hungry, stay humble" approach to his game and life.

"I admire him so much for his even temperament," Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich said. "I've tried to coach that way. I am a very emotional person. But I realized when I started coaching, negative emotions can really hurt your team. That's the way Hakeem is.

"That's something I really admire in him. I've watched him grow. As a young player, he was really excitable and reacted a lot. Now I don't know how he keeps from reacting. He gets beat up every time down the court. The responsibility of being a great player on a team, and the strain of all the travel, it wears you down. You get irritable. This guy keeps an even keel all the time. I get strength from that." Tomjanovich is not alone. But Olajuwon will explain his attitude and priorities, so valuable to the Rockets now, were not devised to help influence teammates or game results. Since his first pilgrimage to Mecca, his faith has touched every part of his life, and, eventually, the Rockets.

"His religion," Drexler said, "dominates his life."

And it defines him even as a basketball player.

"I believe it is my duty to do my best and prepare my best," Olajuwon said. "That concept to stay humble and stay hungry is not because we won a championship or we are winning. We demonstrated professionalism, even when we were on top. And we are still humble. That is very important."

5) the ability to raise one's game during big games and crucial moments in order to bring about the ultimate objective of winning, and the mental fortitude to do so.

Rudy T (pg. 255):

Spoiler:

"Prior to Game Two, Commissioner David Stern was on hand to present David Robinson with the MVP trophy. I don't think anyone could quarrel with Robinson getting the award, based on his performance in the regular season. He's a spectacular, athletic player; end to end, he might be the fastest big man in the game today. Some people are critical of his lack of inside power, but I feel David Robinson uses his quickness and speed as well as anyone. He can pull off the block, face up and drive by bigger defenders, not only for scores but for foul shooting opportunities. He was at the top of the league in free throws attempted. He's a very tough man to defend.

Robinson had lead his team to the best record, and his numbers were superlative. But as we were standing there watching the ceremony, I had a feeling that Hakeem would be especially pumped up. There was no way in the world I'd have to give a pep talk for that game.

The 1994 MVP went against the 1995 MVP and showed the moves of a ballerina and the strength of a weight lifter. Hakeem finished with 41 points, and we jumped on them early and held a 2-0 series lead.

Through the first two series, Hakeem had been so consistent and so reliable, but in San Antonio series he hit a peak. I've never seen anything like it. Olajuwon was in another world. When we would watch the tapes after the game and see the things he was doing against a great defensive player - it was just amazing. When I'm on the porch with the grandkids talking about the greatest performances of all time, the series that Hakeem had against San Antonio will be at the top of the list, you can be assured of that."

Final note from Rudy (pg. 169)

Spoiler:

"I believe history will smile kindly on Hakeem Olajuwon. When you talk about the all-time great centers, he belongs in the same category as Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton - all guys who have won championships.

You could make a strong argument for Hakeem being the best.
When you look at him and really watch the things he does, it becomes apparent the he's a combination of the great ones. He's got the strength of Chamberlain, the quickness of Russell, and the shot making ability of Abdul-Jabbar. When you talk about Hakeem and Kareem, the connection is that the defense can do almost nothing about each guy's pet shot. Kareem had the nearly unstoppable sky hook; Hakeem has the shake-and-bake fadeaway jumper. I won't say Hakeem is as good a passer as Walton, but he as worked on that part of his game to the point that it eventually helped make Hakeem a champion."

Spoiler:

:clap:

You get extra points for actually addressing each of my criteria point by point rather than just making another generic post.

However, Hakeem did fall short on criteria #4 before he found Islam.

In Game 5 of the 1986 Western Conference Finals between the Houston Rockets and Los Angeles Lakers in which Ralph Sampson hit a 12-footer at the buzzer for a 114-112 win to eliminate the Lakers, Olajuwon was ejected with 5:14 remaining, with the Rockets trailing by four. “Sampson, who finished with 29 points and 5 rebounds, was named the game’s most valuable player. He was forced to pick up the slack in the last five minutes of the game after the other half of Houston’s Twin Tower tandem, Akeem Olajuwon, tangled with L.A.’s Mitch Kupchak. Olajuwon threw three or four quick punches, knocking Kupchak down before he was restrained by referee Jess Kersey and the Lakers’ Maurice Lucas” (The Montreal Gazette, May 22, 1986). “Akeem Olajuwon, an immensely talented center in only his second pro season, had become the leader as the Rockets defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in three of their first four games. Yet, Olajuwon was in the dressing room, ejected after a fracas with Mitch Kupchak, when the fifth game of the Western Conference finals was decided” (The Palm Beach Post, May 24, 1986). He wasn't even on the floor when his team beat the champs because he couldn't keep his temper. They had to win without him—and did—but he didn't have anything to do with that.

[spoiler]

BEFORE HE WAS THE most gracious icon, before he came to embody the purest competitive spirit, Hakeem Olajuwon was a Net. Not in name, but in manner. Olajuwon nearly ruined the Houston Rockets with insurgent conduct, then did something rebel Nets never do: he grew up.

The Rockets arrived at the Meadowlands last night a two-time defending champion because Olajuwon finally put team ahead of self in 1993, when he initiated a drive to become the world's best player. The transformation took shape after a foul dispute with management over cold cash and phony injuries. Olajuwon was suspended by the Rockets for insubordination in '92, was nearly dealt to the Clippers that summer, then planted the seeds of a two-peat during a trip to Japan, when he convinced owner Charlie Thomas to keep him with a lavish new contract.

Though owners and coaches would change, Olajuwon completed his rise from obscure Nigerian goalie to acclaimed NBA center. He found religion, passed to teammates, won titles and forged a marketable image with talk of peace. Now road crowds appreciate him the way they did last night, when he scored 36 points in a 98-89 victory.

While the Nets remain married to their turbulent experience Willis Reed, God bless him, is expected to meet with Darryl Dawkins today Olajuwon has removed himself from a past straight out of the Jersey marshes.

Early in his career, Olajuwon was held as a remarkable talent who didn't get it. He punched Billy Paultz as a rookie to lose a playoff series to Utah, then was ejected from games in two of his three succeeding rounds. Hours before the deciding game of yet another series, he demanded management grant him 12 first-class tickets so two family members could travel between Los Angeles and Houston over the summer. He regularly ripped Sleepy Floyd and Rodney McCray in the papers.

Olajuwon forever pressed the Rockets to acquire new blood, from Norm Nixon to Kenny Smith. A year after the Smith deal was made, the Dream was unhappy with him.

The business community was unhappy with Olajuwon. He burned sponsors by showing at events late, or not at all. He changed agents with the seasons, sometimes stiffing them on commissions. When endorsements dried up, Olajuwon wanted the Rockets to make up the difference. After one of those requests was rejected, Olajuwon went down with a hamstring injury the team said he feigned. Olajuwon denied it and called Thomas a "coward." The Rockets suspended their star and explored a trade.

"I definitely thought I was going to be leaving," said Olajuwon, who was negotiating his third day of fasting for the Muslim holy period of Ramadan. "Every day I was rumored to be going somewhere new. I just left for the summer and told our owner to do what he had to do."

Having failed to find an equal-value package, the Rockets kept Olajuwon. When they gave him more money, they feared he would grow more disruptive, the way Derrick Coleman would after receiving his $30 million guarantee. But people who know Olajuwon say the public dispute with the Rockets changed him for the better. They said he realized his name was sullied, that he needed to alter his game and attitude.

"At the time, he was completely irresponsible and maybe one of the more selfish human beings you could meet," said one of those people. "But going through what he did with the Rockets made him mature. And then his commitment to his faith was the best thing that happened to him."

He matured for his peak, but you'll still have to get through that period to get to his peak.

Since the majority of your criteria seems to revolve around winning, how do you judge players who simply weren't fortunate enough to play with as much talent as others? Do you look at it from a relative standpoint of, "ok this player did (or didn't do) all they could to help their team succeed given the cards they were dealt"? Winning ultimately matters, but I think context can by applied in many cases where players fall short.

[Doctor MJ]

In relation to some of the other candidates and my KG vote:

Shaq - completely get people voting for him. My pre list had him at #5. Peak wise input him ahead of KG but I marvel at how close RAPM data has them and Shaq had loads of intangible negatives while KG is if anything the opposite.

And yeah I'm mentioning RAPM again but understand I wouldn't be where I am with KG if I saw things as so clear cut otherwise. Shaq is clearly better on offense while KG has it in defense and is also a superstar on offense. I question the ability of humans in general to tally up a holistic assessment with confidence when it means evaluating such different roles.

I think it might be more productive to talk Shaq vs D uncan here. I don't really expect KG to be a serious contender at this point because I'm well aware of the norms, but I would imagine that everyone understands an argument for Duncan over Shaq.

To boil it down: If the Spurs got rookie Shaq in 1997 instead of Duncan, would they have accomplished more or less through 2014? To me the answer is obviously less and I think that's a pretty big deal. Despite this I pegged Shaq north if Duncan on my pre list but it was damn close.

Hakeem - is the guy I always wonder if I should rank higher. Completely get why he's so compelling. But if not for the play during his title runs is anyone even talking about him now? I worry with him that perception of him before that turning point might have been right.

People have already made great points in Hakeem but I look forward to more. In particular if someone could up my confidence in his regular offensive game. As some know I'm not actually a big fan of having your big volume score unless he's Shaq. Maybe people can make good points about Hakeem's day in day out offensive impact and why it's more than the numbers suggest.

LeBron - just a longevity issue here. I realize that accolade wise it seems like LeBron already matched or surpassed KG but obviously I think that's because the accolades were wrong about KG.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DQuinn1575]

Hakeem is the only player in NBA history to win a championship without an all star, HOF talent or elite/GOAT level coach.

So Rick Barry 1975 - was al attles a hof coach?

[colts18]

In relation to some of the other candidates and my KG vote:

Shaq - completely get people voting for him. My pre list had him at #5. Peak wise input him ahead of KG but I marvel at how close RAPM data has them and Shaq had loads of intangible negatives while KG is if anything the opposite.

And yeah I'm mentioning RAPM again but understand I wouldn't be where I am with KG if I saw things as so clear cut otherwise. Shaq is clearly better on offense while KG has it in defense and is also a superstar on offense. I question the ability of humans in general to tally up a holistic assessment with confidence when it means evaluating such different roles.

Do you think that KG has any playoff runs stronger than Shaq's 95, 98, 00, 01, and 02 playoff runs? If you go by PER, Shaq has 9 playoff runs higher than KG's best playoff run.

How many playoff runs do you think Shaq has better than KG's best run (2004)? How many of Shaq's playoff runs do you think is better than KG's 2nd best playoff run (2008)?

[ardee]

My pre list had him at #5.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Did you put your list up on the thread?

[ardee]

On the LeBron talk:

I can get it if he starts getting votes after this thread. I personally see him as being a step below Jordan, Russell, Wilt and Kareem, but with everyone else he's right there. What he lacks in career longevity he makes up for in peak longevity: an odd term, but the meaning is that he has so many seasons that are all insanely dominant and are arguably just as good as each other to be considered for his peak.

09, 10, 12, 13, 14: how many players left on the board have five seasons at that level? Wilt, yes. Bird, maybe? Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, Magic: none of them have this kind of extended peak.

I won't be voting for him next thread, I'll be voting for Magic, but like I said, I completely get a LeBron vote at #5.

[HeartBreakKid]

I have James and Duncan pretty much on the same level, would likely come down to a debate here between those two on who gets my vote. My gut says James is better though (which would put him at #6 on my list).

[ardee]

I have James and Duncan pretty much on the same level, would likely come down to a debate between those two on who gets my vote. My gut says James is better though (which would put him at #6 on my list).

It's an interesting debate no?

I think James is the better player too, probably has like 3 years I'd rank over peak Duncan (09, 12 and 13).

But Duncan has a really astonishing breadth of work. The longevity edge is pretty big too, 17 years (15 or so real high quality) vs. 11 (9 high quality).

I look forward to this debate extensively.

[penbeast0]

So Rick Barry 1975 - was al attles a hof coach?

Barry got really hot; like a puncher taking out a much superior boxer when he gets that big shot in . . . grrrrr . . . still pissed off over that sweep when we had clearly the better team and possibly the best team in Bullets/Wizards history.

[colts18]

09, 10, 12, 13, 14: how many players left on the board have five seasons at that level? Wilt, yes. Bird, maybe? Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, Magic: none of them have this kind of extended peak.

Shaq has that and more (6 year run)

98-03 Postseason:
29.3 PPG
13.7 Reb
3.0 AST
2.4 BLK
.554 FG%
.565 TS%
29.6 PER
.228 WS/48

During the 3peat years he averaged 30-15-3, .55 FG%, 29.3 PER (His PER was better outside the 3 peat years than during it).

[An Unbiased Fan]

On the LeBron talk:

I can get it if he starts getting votes after this thread. I personally see him as being a step below Jordan, Russell, Wilt and Kareem, but with everyone else he's right there. What he lacks in career longevity he makes up for in peak longevity: an odd term, but the meaning is that he has so many seasons that are all insanely dominant and are arguably just as good as each other to be considered for his peak.

09, 10, 12, 13, 14: how many players left on the board have five seasons at that level? Wilt, yes. Bird, maybe? Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, Magic: none of them have this kind of extended peak.

I'd say 87-91 Magic, 06-10 Kobe, 84-88 Bird, 95/00-03 Shaq all can claim that. But still, its very impressive.

Hakeem - is the guy I always wonder if I should rank higher. Completely get why he's so compelling. But if not for the play during his title runs is anyone even talking about him now? I worry with him that perception of him before that turning point might have been right.

People have already made great points in Hakeem but I look forward to more. In particular if someone could up my confidence in his regular offensive game. As some know I'm not actually a big fan of having your big volume score unless he's Shaq. Maybe people can make good points about Hakeem's day in day out offensive impact and why it's more than the numbers suggest.

In regards to Hakeem vs KG, wouldn't you say Hakeem's offensive impact was on par with KG(way better in the playoffs), and his defensive impact was greater? For example, Hakeem anchored 8 teams that had a Top 5 DRtg. KG didn't anchor a single Top 5 defense until he went to Boston in 2008.

Impactwise, how did Prime KG miss the playoffs 3 years in a row. The 2005 Wolves were #15 in DRtg, the 2006 Wolves were #10, and the 2007 Wolves were a dismal #21. Offensively, the 2005 Wolves were #6 ORtg(very good)...but then Spreewell left to feed his family, along with Cassell, and the Wolves were #28 in ORtg. In 2007, the Wolves were #25 in ORtg.

KG is another guy who's box scores don't translate very well to team impact for me. Outside of RAPM, can practical results from KG's impact been shown to be better than Hakeem impact?

[MacGill]

Re: Vote Shaquille O'Neal. (much of this will be around the Shaq vs Wilt)

I have been reading through this thread and it just seems that many are using criteria against O'Neal to which really wasn't greatly detrimental to his team's success and yet are crediting Wilt even though they both share some of the same weaknesses more or less forgetting about how the game was played then versus now. Also, the portability argument is a weird one to me as everything with Wilt assumes that his ability and capabilities increase and with Shaq people are harping that he wouldn't have the endurance of Wilt in his day. When will we learn that while the two were similar in stature, their games were much different overall. It is ok if both of them do not mimic the other.

My biggest gripe here is that with one, you have so much video footage and with the other, very limited with the majority being highlight reel footage only. Imagine for a moment, 40 years from now, all posters had on Shaq was his highlight reel footage and a few select games. What would the stories be then…….except we know what actually happened in his career, his weaknesses because of his size but are we really being consistent here? Was Shaq expected to play defense like Hakeem, score like Jordan, and rebound like Russell? There isn't a player who has played the game who did it simultaneously but why we crack down on Shaq for this because of what 'some believe' were his expected levels of play is confusing.

The dude was 7'1 with a size 23 shoe weighing a very lean 300 pounds as a rookie. He wasn't a KG/Russell/Hakeem type body so I am not going to penalize him because his horizontal game wasn't on par like them or could get burnt at times via: the Pnr. But what does surprise me more is the credit Wilt is getting here but having the same flaws as Shaq. I been watching footage of Wilt and he was certainly slow in comparison to his peers. I watched a 35 year old Russell accelerate past him dunking the ball in a full out sprint. And I also watch Wilt be the last up the court to join the play. Sound familiar? So, what's different then? Well that's not what the newspaper clippings or peers from his time say???? Really, it's the lack of footage and stats where people come up with all reasons except the man himself as to why he had shortcomings. It's the perfect alibi.

If you can't see from the footage how much better of an offensive player Shaq was then I really have to question the analytical skills of those reviewing his game and really what sort of level they actually played ball. It's isn't about points scored here, it is saying who would you want anchoring your team offensively…..it isn't about who had a better array of potential moves here….it's who can I give the ball to with the highest percentage to score. It's Shaq, and he did it at an elite level for about 14 years. No stylistic changes needed to his game….able to mesh with many different stars and coaches….this is something that Wilt could only do as his entire role was shifted, to model the player who was voted #3 here.

When Wilt himself watched O'Neal play (and Reg quoted it) and I watched the interview. Wilt knew he met his match, his face said it and he acknowledge O'Neal had the ability. Maybe I should have played more like him he said. Who cares what Wilt could have done or may have done…the only time he was humbled as an athlete was at that time. He even said he was a better player than Russell so he wasn't being nice. Shaq's health…..averaged 67 games/season over his first 10 years and his playoff performances are on par with Jordan. The people who knock him for his defense don't have a full grasp of what he went through offensively. Still had 13 years of 20/10, teams signing players for 6 fouls……..and a league in fear on how to stop him.

He didn't need 30FGA's/game to leave his mark and the 1-2 rebounds left off from a rebound title, when you understand the ground and pound and always being the focal point of the offense, doesn't it make sense? His peak came with the experience every nba star needs to take the physical gifts to the next level. Hakeem needed it and Wilt needed it to be shown to him. Also, when you watch Wilt play defense, you can see he mostly stands in the paint and just waits for the player to release the ball. Wilt didn't have Hakeem/KG/Russell reflexes he just played the game mostly straight up. But why with such limited footage posters are just willing to ignore physics is beyond me. Wilt had skinny legs, he was basically all upper body with a great vertical….him playing defense at the level most say he did matches what early Shaq did in Orlando. Then as the offense moved away from Wilt he could concentrate more on rebounds and lane intimidation. Guess what, Shaq never had that luxury. Even with a guy by the name of Kobe Bryant playing by his side, they still needed all Shaq could give.

Maybe some think he should have played a 67 Wilt with Kobe….but why? Shaq's offense always worked!! They 3-peated a task that Wilt, with any team couldn't do. His attitude, still made 4 finals with that LA team so again are we penalizing for what we all believed should have been longer. Shaq was such a good passer, why doesn't he get more credit for this? If you told Shaq to cut down his touches to a pace of 67 Wilt and just focus on lane intimidation and rebounding……his numbers would go up as well. I think people are just too quick to act on Wilt's dominance, which it was btw, but have Shaq's career on video without understanding that 320 on Wilt or Shaq is the same from a physics standpoint. Slower than the rest but brutal to match up against. Shaq was doing 360 degree dunks in LA, how much more do we need to say that at his size and weight he was about as agile as one could ask to be?

Plain and simple, if you're going to vote in Wilt, then I don't see anything which was presented to separate him from Shaq. I see a documented Shaq career where some consider him a dumba$$, a Kobe feud where he acted childish at times, and staying past his time, which he had every right to do. But his prime and first 14 years are on par with the best ever, regardless of vacancy and weight. If it slowed Shaq down, it slowed Wilt down. Only difference was Shaq was never put into a Wilt type role or did he ever get the touches or pace that Wilt played at.

[DQuinn1575]

Plain and simple, if you're going to vote in Wilt, then I don't see anything which was presented to separate him from Shaq. I see a documented Shaq career where some consider him a dumba$$, a Kobe feud where he acted childish at times, and staying past his time, which he had every right to do. But his prime and first 14 years are on par with the best ever, regardless of vacancy and weight. If it slowed Shaq down, it slowed Wilt down. Only difference was Shaq was never put into a Wilt type role or did he ever get the touches or pace that Wilt played at.

Good post.

I think for me it comes down Wilt being a better rebounder and passer than Shaq.-Especially rebounding. Offensively they are fairly even.
Defensively the Wilt I saw play in the 70s was better than Shaq, but Wilt didn't always play at that level. So, I'm willing to call defense pretty close.

The biggest difference between them is really rebounding, and Wilt has a definite advantage. We can argue scoring, defense, passing, teamwork, etc. all day and not come up with an answer we both agree with.