RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

[trex_8063]

I had planned on waiting a little, but a lot of participants appear ready to rock on this thing, so here we go!

Few reminders:
1) We're experimenting with a Ranked Choice Vote, so I want you to state your first choice for this spot WITH SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS for debate. Then you need to also state who your second choice is (you do NOT need to include supporting arguments for this second candidate, though you may do so if you wish).
2) To make it easier for me to tabulate votes, please bold or otherwise make your votes very apparent within your post.
3) Threads will typically be open for ~48 hours.
4) If you have second thoughts you may change your vote within that 48-hour period. If you do so, please change the vote within the post that contained your original vote, and then just give me a heads up (by either a separate post itt saying "btw, I changed my vote", or via PM) that it has been changed.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

Speaking for myself, although I can see (pending criteria specifics) fairly decent cases for at least six individuals, this spot comes down to three primary candidates: Michael, Kareem, or Lebron (definitely leaning more toward MJ and Kareem). Will present some materials for review/debate/support later on.....

[eminence]

Speaking for myself, although I can see (pending criteria specifics) fairly decent cases for at least six individuals, this spot comes down to three primary candidates: Michael, Kareem, or Lebron (definitely leaning more toward MJ and Kareem). Will present some materials for review/debate/support later on.....

Just curious on the other 3 you see decent cases for? Russell/Duncan/???

[trex_8063]

Speaking for myself, although I can see (pending criteria specifics) fairly decent cases for at least six individuals, this spot comes down to three primary candidates: Michael, Kareem, or Lebron (definitely leaning more toward MJ and Kareem). Will present some materials for review/debate/support later on.....

Just curious on the other 3 you see decent cases for? Russell/Duncan/???

The other three I can see pretty reasonable cases for are Russell, Duncan, and Wilt. I would also say Magic and Shaq are certainly not far outside of this convo either.

[THKNKG]

I'm on the phone, but I will post a bit now, and add as I go.

PREAMBLE (here's where you'll see what you'll be getting from me)

According to my tiering, I have 7 players who have a reasonable argument for #1 (because they are "top tier"). These are:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell
Lebron James
Michael Jordan
Kevin Garnett
Wilt Chamberlain

I added Shaq to the list (to make it an even number), and then produced a variety of lists with different emphases. Here are my results:

Duncan - 43
Kareem - 43
Russell - 39
Lebron - 37
KG - 37
Wilt - 31
Jordan - 27
Shaq - 19

The only surprising things to me were that KG and Wilt were ranked over MJ, but it shouldn't be too surprising considering how close these players are.

I think for the sake of not risking being too broad, I'll eliminate KG from the earliest discussion, and I will only address Wilt in the event that he gains traction.

That works out, because my top 5 in some order is:

Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Jordan
Lebron

For the sake of full disclosure, here are a few of the underlying assumptions I analyze players with:

-Big man defense >> perimeter defense
-Perimeter offense >> big man offense
-Perimeter offense ~= big man defense
-Longevity emphasis (effective longevity)
-Intangibles matter in a ranking like this
-Bias against volume scorers
-Era strength (10>00>60=80>90>>70>>50)

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

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability/scalability
-Era translation (forward and backward)
-Era context (ball handling in the 60's for example - should be considered, not just "they can't dribble")
-Walton-Parish scale (how do we value mega peak vs mega longevity - the two extremes - though this one only really comes into play in later ratings, we can see glimpses of it early with Jerry West and Kobe and Wade for example).
-The ALWAYS CONTEXT RULE (any discussion of statistics, particularly box score, should be covered with context)
-Contribution to winning (not winning in a vacuum)
-Offensive and defensive factors (might discuss these later)

I don't value any analysis that is produced apart from context, so raw stats or conjecture about how X would do in Y era are useless for me, and it will never change my mind. Sound, context based analysis can and will change my mind.

NOTE: I plan to heavily discuss the epistemology of player "greatness" - meaning, the assumptions we hold about it, and how they should be different. I plan on discussing the factors I mentioned above, and putting players against those factors. Feel free to analyze/disagree with me on factors I value as important - I may need to change them, and you may need to change yours. If you disagree with my assessment of a player, look back to make sure we aren't just disagreeing on an epistemological level; if we are disagreeing on that level, please discuss with me at that level. I don't want to argue two players all the while neglecting that we are talking past each other if we fail to realize the differences are in our underlying assumptions.

Hope all this helps explain my perspective, and feel free to chime in/correct me.

[BasketballFan7]

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

BIll Russell

My "criteria."

Spoiler:

I want to have some sort of numerical system so that I can try to not let bias overwhelm my voting. I don't plan on the system being very scientific or at all revolutionary. I only desire to be able to create it so that my ranking thought process is transparent. I looked at the past 50 championship teams to form tiers of players that have been on championship team. I will use other poster's arguments to tweak my system. I will look at individual seasons from the perspective of a GM or coach. Can I count on this player, during X season, to:

- Tier 1A: Be the clear best player on a championship team and provide GOAT-level impact throughout the RS and PS (11 points, example 88-93, 00-03 Shaq, 02 and 03 Duncan, 93-95 Hakeem, etc)
*I cut off level 10 after the top seasons of Magic and Bird
- Tier 1B: Be the clear best player on a championship team (9 points, example 08-10 Kobe, 99,05,07 Duncan, 15 Curry, 83 Moses Malone, 11 Dirk, 06 Wade) *Must have reached playoffs
- Tier 1C: Be a potential best player on a championship team (8 points, the player missed the playoffs; examples 75 and 76 KAJ, 05 Garnett), or one who had that level of play in the RS but not in the PS, example 10 Chris Paul, 94 and 95 Robinson, 85 Bird)
- Tier 1D: Be a co-best player on a championship team (7 points, example Karl Malone, non-peak versions of Malone, Dirk)
- Tier 2A: Be a quality second best player on a championship team (5 points, example John Stockton, 91 Pippen, 00 Kobe, 05 Manu, 85 Kareem)
- Tier 2B: Be a second best player on a championship team (3 points, example 05 Parker, 16 Irving, 14 Duncan, 15 Klay Thompson, 87 Kareem)
- - Tier 2C: Be a decent role player on a championship team (1 point, example 15 Bogut, 15 Livingston, 16 Duncan, 88 Kareem)

I don't give any credit for seasons where the player missed more than 50% of the regular season games or the playoffs.

Other point bonuses:

Flag Bearer(player played entire career with one team; examples Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant) - 5 points
Icon (player gives some significant value to basketball outside of the court) - 5 points
Ring Counting (won a ring as the best player on the team by MVP shares) - 2 points
Ring Counting 2 (won a ring as an all-star) - 1 point
MVP (MVP award shares) - 2 points x MVP award shares (rounded down)
Peak Bonus - Based on the RealGM peaks project; top 5 (7 points), top 11 (5), top 25 (3), and top 40 (2); my reasoning is that I believe the 4 GOAT peak contenders are MJ, LeBron, Shaq, and Wilt. I then see the next small gap following Magic and Bird at #11.

Offense v. Defense
For players who I deem to be best player on a championship team caliber, I value offense for any player I judge outside of the 1960's because it seems to me that it is generally a necessity for your best player to be a capable scorer. I nevertheless

Portability
I don't care about cross era portability. For upper echelon players, I don't care about portability at all as anything other than a tie breaker. It is the responsibility of the role-players to fit around them and the responsibility of the GM to find the pieces to make it work. I would likely only subtract value in an extreme case. Perhaps with a player such as 17 Russell Westbrook. The stars dictate. As player quality drops, I do value portability and scores will be adjusted accordingly,

Box Score Statistics
I don't use box score advanced statistics unless I a comparing a.) player's in similar circumstance and of the same position or b.) a player's ability to maintain his own production into the postseason or from season-to-season. For instance, I may compare a player's regular season PER with his postseason PER, but I won't do that without examining the context. Or I will view a player's decline through the decline of his own box score stats. I won't compare Ben Wallace and Steve Nash with PER. I won't compare Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, and Chris Paul with PER.

Impact Statistics
I like impact stats. I can be convinced by them. I like the overall per minute value over the offensive and defensive splits. I don't think they have that sorted out yet. Where impact stats are not available, I will still take "impact" into consideration. I won't lean entirely on box score for years in which impact data isn't readily available.

Playoffs vs. Regular season
For top tier players, I definitely value the playoffs greatly. I cannot give a player the benefit of the doubt if they do not make the playoffs. Not in a "greatest players / careers" list. I could do that in a "best seasons" list. But, for careers, I would essentially be saying that I would view Chris Paul, David Robinson, Karl Malone, or Kevin Garnett, to use some examples, as better players if they missed the playoffs altogether.

Accolades
As for accolades, I am using MVP award shares to determine who was the best player on each team and for adding points to player scores.

Intangibles
I don't want to value them heavily because I know zilch about these players personally. So they won't have a big impact. I will say that what I know about these players may give them the benefit of the doubt in some situations, or it may make me do the opposite.

Durability
I don't count seasons where a star player ended the season missing the playoffs or when he missed over half of the regular season. I don't expect to win a championship (or have a chance to) under those circumstances. As for missed games, I don't really care if a player missed a few games a year. I am looking at seasons that I gave credit for in which the player missed 10 or more games. I am adding the missed games in such seasons together and subtracting one point from the players total score for every 20 missed games during these seasons. This is essentially the Shaq rule. His score is inflated without it. I don't care about missed RS games much, but he missed a lot.

Please inform me on inconsistencies or suggestions for my system. I don't want it to be precise. I simply want to be consistent and have it reflect what I value.

I'm not adverse to changing my scores upon review by other posters or picking a player with a lower score if it's close and I have a preference for one over the other.

For Bill Russell, the score came out to 156.

Spoiler:

Bill Russell
1957 Tier 1D 7
1958 Tier 1C 8 (injury in finals, missed 2 games)
1959 Tier 1B 9
1960 Tier 1B 9
1961 Tier 1B 9
1962 Tier 1a 10
1963 Tier 1B 9
1964 Tier 1a 10
1965 Tier 1a 10
1966 Tier 1B 9
1967 Tier 1D 7
1968 Tier 1D 7
1969 Tier 1D 7
111


Seasons with 10+ missed games – 1 (1957, 24 games) – minus 1 point
Flag Bearer – 5
Icon – 5
MVP Award Shares – 4.8 (2) = 9.6 = 9
Ring Counting I – 11(2) = 22
Peak – top 11 peak – 5
45

156

*Obviously it is more difficult to rank the seasons with a player who played in the 50s and 60s. I believe I was conservative with his numbers. Because I don't care about portability, I could have given Russell a 10 every year from 59 to 66. Everything that I have read says that he was incredibly consistent from year to year. The only criticism I find for his impact is that he was a negative or at best neutral offensive player and that that doesn't really translate across eras. I was conservative with his impact and he still came out on top. I only gave 2 points per ring and without the ring count he is still right there. He has a significant score lead.

*I like that Russell came out on top. I love the consistency. I think the intangibles sound great. He was a winner, resilient, and loyal. I think he is the GOAT from a GM's perspective. If I am team building, Jordan missing what amounts to 3 seasons (86, 94, 95) is troubling. LeBron is so demanding of ownership and his surroundings that he is a constant threat to depart. KAJ left for LA. Shaq and Wilt moved around. For me, I ask myself "How many years can I count on this player to anchor my roster?" Russell shines. He gives a prolonged window where he is constantly available and performing.

Some post mining:

Spoiler:

His ability to block/alter shots AND clean the defensive boards. Based on the available (limited) video footage, he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage. To be that dominant in either one of those areas is something, but to be that dominant in both? Keep in mind how shot blocking tends to take you out of proper rebounding position. Below are the career leaders for block percentage and defensive rebounding percentage. To think Russell might be near or at the top on both of these lists is amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html


He was basically rebounding the defensive glass like Rodman and blocking shots like Hakeem/Robinson. You talk about a guy who not only doesn't have a defensive weakness, but is so dominant at virtually every area on that side, that is Bill Russell.

1966 Celtics defensive highlights -

Watch on YouTube

;t=36m47s



Plus he may the be the best at keeping his hands up on defense, even after jumping. This is something you rarely see with contemporary big men. Below we can see how Russell keeps his arms up when defending after a fake, both in a practice drill and in playoff competition vs. Willis Reed. Have we ever seen such a fundamentally sound defensive player since?

Watch on YouTube

;t=2m32s

Watch on YouTube

;t=17m44s



Russell also had the best reflexes of any player ever at any position and a unique shot blocking style where he used his wrist to deflect shots rather than swat it out of bounds. Very seldom have we seen other big men do this with the same consistency.

Watch on YouTube

;t=12m55s

Spoiler:

If you take out Russell's rookie year, the impact difference is huge. Here is how they did without him from 58-69:

10-18 W-L
-2.03 SRS
122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)

Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics:
-2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)

122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)

123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)

So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).


*this doesn't take into account pace and its likely they played at a higher pace without Russell.

Spoiler:

114.31 PPG against opponent D of 108.63 (+5.67)
112.77 PPG allowed against average O of 107.04 (+5.73)

So the Celtics offense was very much above average without Russell. In fact most years that offense would be at the top. The same story for the defense except the opposite. Without Russell, they are around the worst defense of that era.

You had some other good points, but PPG is not a really good way to judge offense or defense. Until you know the pace a team played at, you don't have a basis for saying how successful they were being at converting possessions into points (or preventing that conversion).

It's hard to say. I mean the Celtics in 1960 were at an insane 136 possessions per game. The Celtics weighted pace during this period was 121.54. For the 58-69 period, its 124.4 pace. So here is O rating and D rating based on that:

O rating 98.18 (+3.59 relative to league average)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42 to league average)

without Russell vs. Overall:
O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)

Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go:
O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference)
D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)

So either way the offense was still better without Russell, but Russell made a huge defensive impact.

I will relish any criticism.

My 2nd ballot goes to LeBron James, who I have scored at ~147 right now.

[Joao Saraiva]

Will be putting up my votes today. Just looking into detail a little bit more on KAJ vs MJ vs LeBron vs Wilt. 3 of them will be my 1st choices, one will stay out... I think my vote will go KAJ's way.

[drza]

I'm traveling for Father's day. There were a few things I had planned to do in the week or so before I expected this to begin, so I start now a bit behind. I'm unlikely to vote today, but hopefully I'll be able to start putting some things in motion tonight or tomorrow at the latest.

[Blackmill]

I had planned on waiting a little, but a lot of participants appear ready to rock on this thing, so here we go!

Oh... I had planned around the project not starting so soon. I probably won't be able to participate this week.

[Joao Saraiva]

All right here we go.

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Kareem's prime years (and peak) seem a bit underrated to me. Of course a case can be made for MJ, LeBron, Wilt, Hakeem or Shaq above him, but for sure the distance is not really big.

Kareem was a fantastic scorer - lead the league twice in that regard - and he was constantly flirting arround with 60ts%. He did twice when he played for the Bucks, and 5 more times with the Lakers until 85. He was also a fantastic rebounder as his numbers suggest (sure a bit more raw numbers because the game had higher pace when he was younger, but still very impressive), and a very good passing big man. I think this last one is another aspect people don't look into enough when discussing KAJ's game.

Constantly arround 5 APG.

He was a fantastic scorer, rebounder, he had the right mind to make the right play and he definitely could pass. Overall on offense, not many guys arround the league can come close to his impact.

Now, if we add to that how many years he played at such high level... That is tremendous. Just a reminder:
- KAJ won 6 MVP awards. He still owns that NBA record.

He had 14 seasons in a top 5 position in the MVP voting. 14 seasons! That's the entire career of LeBron so far.
That's one more year than Chicago MJ.
That's only one less year than the entire career of Chamberlain.

On top of that, KAJ was a very relevant player in the league for at least 17 years. And still useful on the rest of his career. Even when he wasn't a clear #1 on the team, he showed he could play a lesser role but with a ton of impact.

I mean, I can accept if someone says Wilt, LeBron or MJ have a bit better prime/peak. But honestly, not by that much I'm pretty sure of that. And his longevity edge is bigger than that the way I see it.

Another aspect of the game: defense. I don't think he was a defender at the caliber of Russell, Hakeem, or even Wilt at times. His man to man D on the post wasn't always great, but he was still a definitely plus in that regard. And considering his usual load on offense, that's pretty impressive.

His help defense is maybe another forgotten part of his game. This dude gave seriously good rim protection. And I have to question if his defensive impact, even tough not taking into account the difference in position, isn't enough of a serious argument to say KAJ is above MJ and LeBron on that aspect. More on MJ the way I see it, since I think LBJ is a better defensive player than Michael. In his Bucks and early Lakers days he was really impressive in that regard.

Playoffs and team success:
- KAJ won 6 rings. In diferent roles, with diferent casts. In two different teams. He had 4 rings until 85 when I think he was the best player of his team. And yes, Magic contributed hard for those final two rings as the man, but it's not like KAJ wasn't important even in 88.

- He played in 10 NBA finals. Jordan 6/6 is impressive, but I gotta give credit to KAJ for those extra 4 finals appearences. And in some he lost, but still played very well. His 1974 campaign and NBA finals are a very good example on how we shouldn't discredit his other years. I think that run has a case for KAJ's best, and 74 for his best year, despite the loss in 7 against the Celtics.

- He brought his A game usually in playoff time. He had 18 playoff runs, and I'd say (given the circumstances of each) he at least brought great great value in at least 13/14 of them. He's not as consistent as maybe MJ or LeBron, but he definitely was consistent enough to earn this spot. When you look at Michael Jordan, he's maybe the only guy I can say brought great impact (well some years not as much, but still great) and was consistent for 13 years of his career. But still even when KAJ didn't bring his best game, he added value to his career in my book. So that's enough for me to put him ahead of the other 3 guys.

What separates KAJ from Tim Duncan? I think his prime was definitely better and longer than Tim's. Altough I still have Tim Duncan really high on my list, I think he's not up there with these 4 guys. I have him at #5. I'd say considering the entire career, KAJ's impact on offense is definitely much bigger than Tim's.

2nd vote - Michael Jordan

I won't elaborate for now my vote on MJ, but feel free to try and change my mind about including Wilt Chamberlain or LeBron here. Gotta be honest, some lack of complete games from Chamberlain on youtube during his best days makes me not feel so confident about where I'd rank him. Maybe #1, maybe #5. But he's definitely within that range. The more I read about him, see about him (even documentaries) the more I think there is some winning bias against Wilt when ranking him.

Also gonna take these two days to look more into Bill Russell.

[wojoaderge]

All right here we go.

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Kareem's prime years (and peak) seem a bit underrated to me. Of course a case can be made for MJ, LeBron, Wilt, Hakeem or Shaq above him, but for sure the distance is not really big.

Kareem was a fantastic scorer - lead the league twice in that regard - and he was constantly flirting arround with 60ts%. He did twice when he played for the Bucks, and 5 more times with the Lakers until 85. He was also a fantastic rebounder as his numbers suggest (sure a bit more raw numbers because the game had higher pace when he was younger, but still very impressive), and a very good passing big man. I think this last one is another aspect people don't look into enough when discussing KAJ's game.

Constantly arround 5 APG.

He was a fantastic scorer, rebounder, he had the right mind to make the right play and he definitely could pass. Overall on offense, not many guys arround the league can come close to his impact.

Now, if we add to that how many years he played at such high level... That is tremendous. Just a reminder:
- KAJ won 6 MVP awards. He still owns that NBA record.

He had 14 seasons in a top 5 position in the MVP voting. 14 seasons! That's the entire career of LeBron so far.
That's one more year than Chicago MJ.
That's only one less year than the entire career of Chamberlain.

On top of that, KAJ was a very relevant player in the league for at least 17 years. And still useful on the rest of his career. Even when he wasn't a clear #1 on the team, he showed he could play a lesser role but with a ton of impact.

I mean, I can accept if someone says Wilt, LeBron or MJ have a bit better prime/peak. But honestly, not by that much I'm pretty sure of that. And his longevity edge is bigger than that the way I see it.

Another aspect of the game: defense. I don't think he was a defender at the caliber of Russell, Hakeem, or even Wilt at times. His man to man D on the post wasn't always great, but he was still a definitely plus in that regard. And considering his usual load on offense, that's pretty impressive.

His help defense is maybe another forgotten part of his game. This dude gave seriously good rim protection. And I have to question if his defensive impact, even tough not taking into account the difference in position, isn't enough of a serious argument to say KAJ is above MJ and LeBron on that aspect. More on MJ the way I see it, since I think LBJ is a better defensive player than Michael. In his Bucks and early Lakers days he was really impressive in that regard.

Playoffs and team success:
- KAJ won 6 rings. In diferent roles, with diferent casts. In two different teams. He had 4 rings until 85 when I think he was the best player of his team. And yes, Magic contributed hard for those final two rings as the man, but it's not like KAJ wasn't important even in 88.

- He played in 10 NBA finals. Jordan 6/6 is impressive, but I gotta give credit to KAJ for those extra 4 finals appearences. And in some he lost, but still played very well. His 1974 campaign and NBA finals are a very good example on how we shouldn't discredit his other years. I think that run has a case for KAJ's best, and 74 for his best year, despite the loss in 7 against the Celtics.

- He brought his A game usually in playoff time. He had 18 playoff runs, and I'd say (given the circumstances of each) he at least brought great great value in at least 13/14 of them. He's not as consistent as maybe MJ or LeBron, but he definitely was consistent enough to earn this spot. When you look at Michael Jordan, he's maybe the only guy I can say brought great impact (well some years not as much, but still great) and was consistent for 13 years of his career. But still even when KAJ didn't bring his best game, he added value to his career in my book. So that's enough for me to put him ahead of the other 3 guys.

What separates KAJ from Tim Duncan? I think his prime was definitely better and longer than Tim's. Altough I still have Tim Duncan really high on my list, I think he's not up there with these 4 guys. I have him at #5. I'd say considering the entire career, KAJ's impact on offense is definitely much bigger than Tim's.

2nd vote - Michael Jordan

3rd vote - LeBron James

I won't elaborate for now my votes on those two, but feel free to try and change my mind about including Wilt Chamberlain here. Gotta be honest, some lack of complete games from him on youtube during his best days makes me not feel so confident about where I'd rank him. Maybe #1, maybe #5. But he's definitely within that range. The more I read about him, see about him (even documentaries) the more I think there is some winning bias against Wilt when ranking him.

Also gonna take these two days to look more into Bill Russell.

Great post. He also transformed a bad team into the 2nd best team in the NBA in his rookie season, something MJ and LeBron did not do.

[JordansBulls]

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

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

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


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

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

Playoffs

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

Most Points in a Game
63 by Michael Jordan

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

1st Vote: Michael Jordan


2nd Vote: Bill Russell

[Joao Saraiva]

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

BIll Russell

My "criteria."

Spoiler:

I want to have some sort of numerical system so that I can try to not let bias overwhelm my voting. I don't plan on the system being very scientific or at all revolutionary. I only desire to be able to create it so that my ranking thought process is transparent. I looked at the past 50 championship teams to form tiers of players that have been on championship team. I will use other poster's arguments to tweak my system. I will look at individual seasons from the perspective of a GM or coach. Can I count on this player, during X season, to:

- Tier 1A: Be the clear best player on a championship team and provide GOAT-level impact throughout the RS and PS (11 points, example 88-93, 00-03 Shaq, 02 and 03 Duncan, 93-95 Hakeem, etc)
*I cut off level 10 after the top seasons of Magic and Bird
- Tier 1B: Be the clear best player on a championship team (9 points, example 08-10 Kobe, 99,05,07 Duncan, 15 Curry, 83 Moses Malone, 11 Dirk, 06 Wade) *Must have reached playoffs
- Tier 1C: Be a potential best player on a championship team (8 points, the player missed the playoffs; examples 75 and 76 KAJ, 05 Garnett), or one who had that level of play in the RS but not in the PS, example 10 Chris Paul, 94 and 95 Robinson, 85 Bird)
- Tier 1D: Be a co-best player on a championship team (7 points, example Karl Malone, non-peak versions of Malone, Dirk)
- Tier 2A: Be a quality second best player on a championship team (5 points, example John Stockton, 91 Pippen, 00 Kobe, 05 Manu, 85 Kareem)
- Tier 2B: Be a second best player on a championship team (3 points, example 05 Parker, 16 Irving, 14 Duncan, 15 Klay Thompson, 87 Kareem)
- - Tier 2C: Be a decent role player on a championship team (1 point, example 15 Bogut, 15 Livingston, 16 Duncan, 88 Kareem)

I don't give any credit for seasons where the player missed more than 50% of the regular season games or the playoffs.

Other point bonuses:

Flag Bearer(player played entire career with one team; examples Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant) - 5 points
Icon (player gives some significant value to basketball outside of the court) - 5 points
Ring Counting (won a ring as the best player on the team by MVP shares) - 2 points
Ring Counting 2 (won a ring as an all-star) - 1 point
MVP (MVP award shares) - 2 points x MVP award shares (rounded down)
Peak Bonus - Based on the RealGM peaks project; top 5 (7 points), top 11 (5), top 25 (3), and top 40 (2); my reasoning is that I believe the 4 GOAT peak contenders are MJ, LeBron, Shaq, and Wilt. I then see the next small gap following Magic and Bird at #11.

Offense v. Defense
For players who I deem to be best player on a championship team caliber, I value offense for any player I judge outside of the 1960's because it seems to me that it is generally a necessity for your best player to be a capable scorer. I nevertheless

Portability
I don't care about cross era portability. For upper echelon players, I don't care about portability at all as anything other than a tie breaker. It is the responsibility of the role-players to fit around them and the responsibility of the GM to find the pieces to make it work. I would likely only subtract value in an extreme case. Perhaps with a player such as 17 Russell Westbrook. The stars dictate. As player quality drops, I do value portability and scores will be adjusted accordingly,

Box Score Statistics
I don't use box score advanced statistics unless I a comparing a.) player's in similar circumstance and of the same position or b.) a player's ability to maintain his own production into the postseason or from season-to-season. For instance, I may compare a player's regular season PER with his postseason PER, but I won't do that without examining the context. Or I will view a player's decline through the decline of his own box score stats. I won't compare Ben Wallace and Steve Nash with PER. I won't compare Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, and Chris Paul with PER.

Impact Statistics
I like impact stats. I can be convinced by them. I like the overall per minute value over the offensive and defensive splits. I don't think they have that sorted out yet. Where impact stats are not available, I will still take "impact" into consideration. I won't lean entirely on box score for years in which impact data isn't readily available.

Playoffs vs. Regular season
For top tier players, I definitely value the playoffs greatly. I cannot give a player the benefit of the doubt if they do not make the playoffs. Not in a "greatest players / careers" list. I could do that in a "best seasons" list. But, for careers, I would essentially be saying that I would view Chris Paul, David Robinson, Karl Malone, or Kevin Garnett, to use some examples, as better players if they missed the playoffs altogether.

Accolades
As for accolades, I am using MVP award shares to determine who was the best player on each team and for adding points to player scores.

Intangibles
I don't want to value them heavily because I know zilch about these players personally. So they won't have a big impact. I will say that what I know about these players may give them the benefit of the doubt in some situations, or it may make me do the opposite.

Durability
I don't count seasons where a star player ended the season missing the playoffs or when he missed over half of the regular season. I don't expect to win a championship (or have a chance to) under those circumstances. As for missed games, I don't really care if a player missed a few games a year. I am looking at seasons that I gave credit for in which the player missed 10 or more games. I am adding the missed games in such seasons together and subtracting one point from the players total score for every 20 missed games during these seasons. This is essentially the Shaq rule. His score is inflated without it. I don't care about missed RS games much, but he missed a lot.

Please inform me on inconsistencies or suggestions for my system. I don't want it to be precise. I simply want to be consistent and have it reflect what I value.

I'm not adverse to changing my scores upon review by other posters or picking a player with a lower score if it's close and I have a preference for one over the other.

For Bill Russell, the score came out to 156.

Spoiler:

Bill Russell
1957 Tier 1D 7
1958 Tier 1C 8 (injury in finals, missed 2 games)
1959 Tier 1B 9
1960 Tier 1B 9
1961 Tier 1B 9
1962 Tier 1a 10
1963 Tier 1B 9
1964 Tier 1a 10
1965 Tier 1a 10
1966 Tier 1B 9
1967 Tier 1D 7
1968 Tier 1D 7
1969 Tier 1D 7
111


Seasons with 10+ missed games – 1 (1957, 24 games) – minus 1 point
Flag Bearer – 5
Icon – 5
MVP Award Shares – 4.8 (2) = 9.6 = 9
Ring Counting I – 11(2) = 22
Peak – top 11 peak – 5
45

156

*Obviously it is more difficult to rank the seasons with a player who played in the 50s and 60s. I believe I was conservative with his numbers. Because I don't care about portability, I could have given Russell a 10 every year from 59 to 66. Everything that I have read says that he was incredibly consistent from year to year. The only criticism I find for his impact is that he was a negative or at best neutral offensive player and that that doesn't really translate across eras. I was conservative with his impact and he still came out on top. I only gave 2 points per ring and without the ring count he is still right there. He has a significant score lead.

*I like that Russell came out on top. I love the consistency. I think the intangibles sound great. He was a winner, resilient, and loyal. I think he is the GOAT from a GM's perspective. If I am team building, Jordan missing what amounts to 3 seasons (86, 94, 95) is troubling. LeBron is so demanding of ownership and his surroundings that he is a constant threat to depart. KAJ left for LA. Shaq and Wilt moved around. For me, I ask myself "How many years can I count on this player to anchor my roster?" Russell shines. He gives a prolonged window where he is constantly available and performing.

Some post mining:

Spoiler:

His ability to block/alter shots AND clean the defensive boards. Based on the available (limited) video footage, he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage. To be that dominant in either one of those areas is something, but to be that dominant in both? Keep in mind how shot blocking tends to take you out of proper rebounding position. Below are the career leaders for block percentage and defensive rebounding percentage. To think Russell might be near or at the top on both of these lists is amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html


He was basically rebounding the defensive glass like Rodman and blocking shots like Hakeem/Robinson. You talk about a guy who not only doesn't have a defensive weakness, but is so dominant at virtually every area on that side, that is Bill Russell.

1966 Celtics defensive highlights -

Watch on YouTube

;t=36m47s



Plus he may the be the best at keeping his hands up on defense, even after jumping. This is something you rarely see with contemporary big men. Below we can see how Russell keeps his arms up when defending after a fake, both in a practice drill and in playoff competition vs. Willis Reed. Have we ever seen such a fundamentally sound defensive player since?

Watch on YouTube

;t=2m32s

Watch on YouTube

;t=17m44s



Russell also had the best reflexes of any player ever at any position and a unique shot blocking style where he used his wrist to deflect shots rather than swat it out of bounds. Very seldom have we seen other big men do this with the same consistency.

Watch on YouTube

;t=12m55s

Spoiler:

If you take out Russell's rookie year, the impact difference is huge. Here is how they did without him from 58-69:

10-18 W-L
-2.03 SRS
122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)

Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics:
-2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)

122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)

123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)

So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).


*this doesn't take into account pace and its likely they played at a higher pace without Russell.

Spoiler:

You had some other good points, but PPG is not a really good way to judge offense or defense. Until you know the pace a team played at, you don't have a basis for saying how successful they were being at converting possessions into points (or preventing that conversion).

It's hard to say. I mean the Celtics in 1960 were at an insane 136 possessions per game. The Celtics weighted pace during this period was 121.54. For the 58-69 period, its 124.4 pace. So here is O rating and D rating based on that:

O rating 98.18 (+3.59 relative to league average)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42 to league average)

without Russell vs. Overall:
O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)

Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go:
O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference)
D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)

So either way the offense was still better without Russell, but Russell made a huge defensive impact.

I will relish any criticism.

My 2nd ballot goes to LeBron James, who I have scored at ~147 right now.

Glad to see your criteria. I also use a formula myself, and even tough I don't take into account to make a definite decision it helps a lot.

According to my formula I have #1 KAJ, #2 Wilt, #3 MJ, #4 LeBron, #5 Tim Duncan. Since I use per game numbers Wilt might be overvalued, but I also don't take into account the average ts% of the league so that might be hurting him too.

I used this formula to rank players post 1980 and after that it seems to work better, but still gives me a good idea about past players.

[Jaivl]

Just arrived home. Give me a few hours and I'll try to give my vote.

[Joao Saraiva]

All right here we go.

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Kareem's prime years (and peak) seem a bit underrated to me. Of course a case can be made for MJ, LeBron, Wilt, Hakeem or Shaq above him, but for sure the distance is not really big.

Kareem was a fantastic scorer - lead the league twice in that regard - and he was constantly flirting arround with 60ts%. He did twice when he played for the Bucks, and 5 more times with the Lakers until 85. He was also a fantastic rebounder as his numbers suggest (sure a bit more raw numbers because the game had higher pace when he was younger, but still very impressive), and a very good passing big man. I think this last one is another aspect people don't look into enough when discussing KAJ's game.

Constantly arround 5 APG.

He was a fantastic scorer, rebounder, he had the right mind to make the right play and he definitely could pass. Overall on offense, not many guys arround the league can come close to his impact.

Now, if we add to that how many years he played at such high level... That is tremendous. Just a reminder:
- KAJ won 6 MVP awards. He still owns that NBA record.

He had 14 seasons in a top 5 position in the MVP voting. 14 seasons! That's the entire career of LeBron so far.
That's one more year than Chicago MJ.
That's only one less year than the entire career of Chamberlain.

On top of that, KAJ was a very relevant player in the league for at least 17 years. And still useful on the rest of his career. Even when he wasn't a clear #1 on the team, he showed he could play a lesser role but with a ton of impact.

I mean, I can accept if someone says Wilt, LeBron or MJ have a bit better prime/peak. But honestly, not by that much I'm pretty sure of that. And his longevity edge is bigger than that the way I see it.

Another aspect of the game: defense. I don't think he was a defender at the caliber of Russell, Hakeem, or even Wilt at times. His man to man D on the post wasn't always great, but he was still a definitely plus in that regard. And considering his usual load on offense, that's pretty impressive.

His help defense is maybe another forgotten part of his game. This dude gave seriously good rim protection. And I have to question if his defensive impact, even tough not taking into account the difference in position, isn't enough of a serious argument to say KAJ is above MJ and LeBron on that aspect. More on MJ the way I see it, since I think LBJ is a better defensive player than Michael. In his Bucks and early Lakers days he was really impressive in that regard.

Playoffs and team success:
- KAJ won 6 rings. In diferent roles, with diferent casts. In two different teams. He had 4 rings until 85 when I think he was the best player of his team. And yes, Magic contributed hard for those final two rings as the man, but it's not like KAJ wasn't important even in 88.

- He played in 10 NBA finals. Jordan 6/6 is impressive, but I gotta give credit to KAJ for those extra 4 finals appearences. And in some he lost, but still played very well. His 1974 campaign and NBA finals are a very good example on how we shouldn't discredit his other years. I think that run has a case for KAJ's best, and 74 for his best year, despite the loss in 7 against the Celtics.

- He brought his A game usually in playoff time. He had 18 playoff runs, and I'd say (given the circumstances of each) he at least brought great great value in at least 13/14 of them. He's not as consistent as maybe MJ or LeBron, but he definitely was consistent enough to earn this spot. When you look at Michael Jordan, he's maybe the only guy I can say brought great impact (well some years not as much, but still great) and was consistent for 13 years of his career. But still even when KAJ didn't bring his best game, he added value to his career in my book. So that's enough for me to put him ahead of the other 3 guys.

What separates KAJ from Tim Duncan? I think his prime was definitely better and longer than Tim's. Altough I still have Tim Duncan really high on my list, I think he's not up there with these 4 guys. I have him at #5. I'd say considering the entire career, KAJ's impact on offense is definitely much bigger than Tim's.

2nd vote - Michael Jordan

3rd vote - LeBron James

I won't elaborate for now my votes on those two, but feel free to try and change my mind about including Wilt Chamberlain here. Gotta be honest, some lack of complete games from him on youtube during his best days makes me not feel so confident about where I'd rank him. Maybe #1, maybe #5. But he's definitely within that range. The more I read about him, see about him (even documentaries) the more I think there is some winning bias against Wilt when ranking him.

Also gonna take these two days to look more into Bill Russell.

Great post. He also transformed a bad team into the 2nd best team in the NBA in his rookie season, something MJ and LeBron did not do.

For sure.

Wilt however did a ton in his rookie season too.

I don't hold that particularly high for example in a comparison against LBJ since he was only 18. And by the time he was 22 (same age as KAJ) LeBron had taken Cleveland with an awful roster to the NBA finals. So I'd say he started having tremendous impact since he was really young too.

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

I'm on the phone, but I will post a bit now, and add as I go.

PREAMBLE (here's where you'll see what you'll be getting from me)

According to my tiering, I have 7 players who have a reasonable argument for #1 (because they are "top tier"). These are:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell
Lebron James
Michael Jordan
Kevin Garnett
Wilt Chamberlain

I added Shaq to the list (to make it an even number), and then produced a variety of lists with different emphases. Here are my results:

Duncan - 43
Kareem - 43
Russell - 39
Lebron - 37
KG - 37
Wilt - 31
Jordan - 27
Shaq - 19

The only surprising things to me were that KG and Wilt were ranked over MJ, but it shouldn't be too surprising considering how close these players are.

I think for the sake of not risking being too broad, I'll eliminate KG from the earliest discussion, and I will only address Wilt in the event that he gains traction.

That works out, because my top 5 in some order is:

Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Jordan
Lebron

For the sake of full disclosure, here are a few of the underlying assumptions I analyze players with:

-Big man defense >> perimeter defense
-Perimeter offense >> big man offense
-Perimeter offense ~= big man defense
-Longevity emphasis (effective longevity)
-Intangibles matter in a ranking like this
-Bias against volume scorers
-Era strength (10>00>60=80>90>>70>>50)

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

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability
-Scalability
-Era translation (forward and backward)
-Era context (ball handling in the 60's for example - should be considered, not just "they can't dribble")
-Walton-Parish scale (how do we value mega peak vs mega longevity - the two extremes - though this one only really comes into play in later ratings, we can see glimpses of it early with Jerry West and Kobe and Wade for example).
-The ALWAYS CONTEXT RULE (any discussion of statistics, particularly box score, should be covered with context)
-Contribution to winning (not winning in a vacuum)
-Offensive and defensive factors (might discuss these later)

I don't value any analysis that is produced apart from context, so raw stats or conjecture about how X would do in Y era are useless for me, and it will never change my mind. Sound, context based analysis can and will change my mind.

NOTE: I plan to heavily discuss the epistemology of player "greatness" - meaning, the assumptions we hold about it, and how they should be different. I plan on discussing the factors I mentioned above, and putting players against those factors. Feel free to analyze/disagree with me on factors I value as important - I may need to change them, and you may need to change yours. If you disagree with my assessment of a player, look back to make sure we aren't just disagreeing on an epistemological level; if we are disagreeing on that level, please discuss with me at that level. I don't want to argue two players all the while neglecting that we are talking past each other if we fail to realize the differences are in our underlying assumptions.

Hope all this helps explain my perspective, and feel free to chime in/correct me.

I love the depth or breadth of how you're looking at things; it's fantastic.

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

2) I don't 100% agree with your ranking/valuation of eras, and it's partly because I don't agree with cordoning things off by decade. For example, in the earlier days of professional basketball (let's say roughly 1954 [shotclock] to ~1970) I see the game as rapidly evolving, rapidly gaining in popularity (thus: larger player pool), AND rapidly becoming integrated. And yet they didn't begin expanding in earnest (and no existence of a competing pro league) until the LATE 1960's. Consequently, I feel the league was substantially more competitive around ~'65-'68 than in was ~'60-'63, for example. So I don't really like grouping that all together.
I feel somewhat similarly about the 1990's. I actually think it was a super-tough league circa-1990 (and '90-'92 in particular I think was a very competitive stretch of years). The late 90's (circa-2000)----due to several top-tier greats declining and/or retiring, as well as expansion---is another story, though.
The 1970's, too, is not a decade I'm comfortable just grouping all together (because of the merger that takes place just after the halfway point).
Sort of related to that, I note many people rate the 1980's as one of the toughest [if not THE toughest] eras while rating the 1970's
near the bottom. I'm skeptical about the implied gap, again just due to the broad grouping of years. I mean, the back end of one era and the front end of the other are adjacent. It's not like God flicked a switch in the fall of 1979 that suddenly made players awesome. The influx of great talent started with a bang in '80 (Magic/Larry), but nonetheless was a few years building. I'd additionally note that drug abuse problems continued to plague the league well into the 1980's (perhaps even peaked in the mid-late 80's), and effected the level of play for many players.

3) I think I've got an idea where you're going with the "Gravity"/"Anti-gravity" notion, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it (and in particular the best player examples for each).

[trex_8063]

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


2nd vote - Michael Jordan

3rd vote - LeBron James

Few reminders:
1) We're experimenting with a Ranked Choice Vote, so I want you to state your first choice for this spot WITH SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS for debate. Then you need to also state who your second choice is (you do NOT need to include supporting arguments for this second candidate, though you may do so if you wish).

Don't need a third choice.

[trex_8063]

I had planned on waiting a little, but a lot of participants appear ready to rock on this thing, so here we go!

Oh... I had planned around the project not starting so soon. I probably won't be able to participate this week.

I realize I jumped the gun a little; had multiple posters urging me to get it started, though. If turn-out is poor, I may leave this one open an extra 12-24 hours.

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


2nd vote - Michael Jordan

3rd vote - LeBron James

Few reminders:
1) We're experimenting with a Ranked Choice Vote, so I want you to state your first choice for this spot WITH SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS for debate. Then you need to also state who your second choice is (you do NOT need to include supporting arguments for this second candidate, though you may do so if you wish).

Don't need a third choice.

Ok then. I'dd edit my post

[THKNKG]

Spoiler:

I'm on the phone, but I will post a bit now, and add as I go.

PREAMBLE (here's where you'll see what you'll be getting from me)

According to my tiering, I have 7 players who have a reasonable argument for #1 (because they are "top tier"). These are:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell
Lebron James
Michael Jordan
Kevin Garnett
Wilt Chamberlain

I added Shaq to the list (to make it an even number), and then produced a variety of lists with different emphases. Here are my results:

Duncan - 43
Kareem - 43
Russell - 39
Lebron - 37
KG - 37
Wilt - 31
Jordan - 27
Shaq - 19

The only surprising things to me were that KG and Wilt were ranked over MJ, but it shouldn't be too surprising considering how close these players are.

I think for the sake of not risking being too broad, I'll eliminate KG from the earliest discussion, and I will only address Wilt in the event that he gains traction.

That works out, because my top 5 in some order is:

Duncan
Kareem
Russell
Jordan
Lebron

For the sake of full disclosure, here are a few of the underlying assumptions I analyze players with:

-Big man defense >> perimeter defense
-Perimeter offense >> big man offense
-Perimeter offense ~= big man defense
-Longevity emphasis (effective longevity)
-Intangibles matter in a ranking like this
-Bias against volume scorers
-Era strength (10>00>60=80>90>>70>>50)

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

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability
-Scalability
-Era translation (forward and backward)
-Era context (ball handling in the 60's for example - should be considered, not just "they can't dribble")
-Walton-Parish scale (how do we value mega peak vs mega longevity - the two extremes - though this one only really comes into play in later ratings, we can see glimpses of it early with Jerry West and Kobe and Wade for example).
-The ALWAYS CONTEXT RULE (any discussion of statistics, particularly box score, should be covered with context)
-Contribution to winning (not winning in a vacuum)
-Offensive and defensive factors (might discuss these later)

I don't value any analysis that is produced apart from context, so raw stats or conjecture about how X would do in Y era are useless for me, and it will never change my mind. Sound, context based analysis can and will change my mind.

NOTE: I plan to heavily discuss the epistemology of player "greatness" - meaning, the assumptions we hold about it, and how they should be different. I plan on discussing the factors I mentioned above, and putting players against those factors. Feel free to analyze/disagree with me on factors I value as important - I may need to change them, and you may need to change yours. If you disagree with my assessment of a player, look back to make sure we aren't just disagreeing on an epistemological level; if we are disagreeing on that level, please discuss with me at that level. I don't want to argue two players all the while neglecting that we are talking past each other if we fail to realize the differences are in our underlying assumptions.

Hope all this helps explain my perspective, and feel free to chime in/correct me.

I love the depth or breadth of how you're looking at things; it's fantastic.

Well thanks, hope I can continue it

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

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

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

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

2) I don't 100% agree with your ranking/valuation of eras, and it's partly because I don't agree with cordoning things off by decade. For example, in the earlier days of professional basketball (let's say roughly 1954 [shotclock] to ~1970) I see the game as rapidly evolving, rapidly gaining in popularity (thus: larger player pool), AND rapidly becoming integrated. And yet they didn't begin expanding in earnest (and no existence of a competing pro league) until the LATE 1960's. Consequently, I feel the league was substantially more competitive around ~'65-'68 than in was ~'60-'63, for example. So I don't really like grouping that all together.
I feel somewhat similarly about the 1990's. I actually think it was a super-tough league circa-1990 (and '90-'92 in particular I think was a very competitive stretch of years). The late 90's (circa-2000)----due to several top-tier greats declining and/or retiring, as well as expansion---is another story, though.
The 1970's, too, is not a decade I'm comfortable just grouping all together (because of the merger that takes place just after the halfway point).
Sort of related to that, I note many people rate the 1980's as one of the toughest [if not THE toughest] eras while rating the 1970's
near the bottom. I'm skeptical about the implied gap, again just due to the broad grouping of years. I mean, the back end of one era and the front end of the other are adjacent. It's not like God flicked a switch in the fall of 1979 that suddenly made players awesome. The influx of great talent started with a bang in '80 (Magic/Larry), but nonetheless was a few years building. I'd additionally note that drug abuse problems continued to plague the league well into the 1980's (perhaps even peaked in the mid-late 80's), and effected the level of play for many players.

Again, this was a case of generalities with the hope of expounding later. I definitely agree with all of your assessments on the decades (late 60's over early, early 90's being strong, etc.). That statement was mostly from the perspective of a sort of "average year in a decade" just for the ease of writing it. I do plan to be more nuanced in my thinking, as you said, but I thought grouping by decade would be a decent starting place.

3) I think I've got an idea where you're going with the "Gravity"/"Anti-gravity" notion, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it (and in particular the best player examples for each).

I'm excited to hopefully give some good theory on it.

Thanks for all the responses!