RealGM

Which peak was better, and why do you think so? 89-91 Jordan or 77-79 Kareem?

Throwing in another question, who ranks higher in your All-time list?

I am in the minority that ranks Kareem peak and career higher than Jordan. To me, Kareem's ridiculous resiliency as a scorer combined with very underrated defensive impact made him overall more impressive two-way anchor than Jordan.

70sFan wrote:I am in the minority that ranks Kareem peak and career higher than Jordan. To me, Kareem's ridiculous resiliency as a scorer combined with very underrated defensive impact made him overall more impressive two-way anchor than Jordan.

What do you mean by "very underrated defensive impact"? Where do you rank him defensively all-time or prime among bigs?
I'm asking as at some point he was considered overrated defensively, so wondering if narrative completely changed since then.

Amares wrote:

70sFan wrote:I am in the minority that ranks Kareem peak and career higher than Jordan. To me, Kareem's ridiculous resiliency as a scorer combined with very underrated defensive impact made him overall more impressive two-way anchor than Jordan.

What do you mean by "very underrated defensive impact"? Where do you rank him defensively all-time or prime among bigs?
I'm asking as at some point he was considered overrated defensively, so wondering if narrative completely changed since then.

I view him as top 15 defender ever basically and he was very strong in his best years (1971-78). I get that his post prime seasons didn't bring the same value on defense anymore, but it doesn't take anything away from his peak years.

Make no mistake Kareem was a ++ defensive presence particularly at the height of his powers although he was perhaps not Bill Russell or Hakeem Olajuwon he wasn't far off either, and especially for the era a defensive center would be more valuable than a defensive guard/forward. It's really a good question and logically I think I have to go with Kareem even if in my heart I would take Jordan

I think I would generally have to go with Kareem, certainly held to their own eras. Kareem suffers from how LA wasn't really awesome between acquiring him and then acquiring Magic, but one guy can do only so much and he made a large difference in LA's play on either end of the court and ultimately lost in the playoffs to eventual champions mostly. Kind of like Jordan did with Boston and Detroit. Kareem was a beast.

edgymnerch wrote:Which peak was better, and why do you think so? 89-91 Jordan or 77-79 Kareem?

Throwing in another question, who ranks higher in your All-time list?

With all due respect to the OP I'm going to answer the question generally as opposed to fixating on a specific time frame. I'm also going to solely look at this from an era-relative perspective.

Currently I have Kareem at or near apex MJ(probably one of 88, 89, 90) level from 70-77 with him probably being outright better than any MJ in 72 and almost certainly outright better in 77.

A basic outline can be found here:

Kareem's strength is that he seemingly replicated Peak MJ-level or MJ+ liftmultiple times(recall I ignored Oakley to get MJ to 23 wins in 1988), suggesting a higher era-relative baseline. Pair that with a run in 1977 that is probably more "flawless" from a granular perspective than basically any other(including all of Jordan's), scoring that holds up the best against elite defenses of anyone in history, proof of concept in a variety of contexts(top-level floor raiser, most value on a goat-level team probably), you get a peak/prime portfolio that is only really rivalled by Bill and Lebron(the former lacking corroborating evidence, and the latter never having led a wire to wire goat-level team) .

77 specifically looks close to unassailable (basically the only real counter here is that his team didn't win) as Kareem almost certainly is more valuable in the regular season on a team with suboptimal fit(lack of competent ball-handlers is not optimal, a generous "juiced" version of the best Jordan signal doesn't match the lowest possible appraisal of Kareem), and then he elevates in the postseason where even his worst games look like they'd be an all-timer for Mike:

70sFan wrote:9 good contests inside
4 good rotations inside
3 bad rotations inside
2 good P&R coverages
1 good defensive play on perimeter
3 bad defensive plays on perimeter
2 transition stops
3 weak transition defense plays

Along with:

30 points on 62.6 TS%, 4 turnovers, 2 assists and insane inside gravity on offensive end

He also limited Walton to horrible shooting night - 8/22 from the field.

I think it's not a great performance by 1977 Kareem standards, but I definitely wouldn't call it bad. Despite all the flaws he showed on defensive end, he still stopped 13 inside shots and defended Walton very well. He also had some bad turnovers, but it's nothing compared to how many turnovers Lakers guards had.

If that's the game people want to criticize Kareem for, then I guess I was right saying that Kareem played at GOAT level in that season.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104389351#p104389351

capfan33 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:TBH, Kareem in 77 may be the most consistent GOAT-level performance ever, he basically was a rock for 11 games and 2 series. His worst game by far scoring wise he had 20 rebounds, 7 assists, and 8 blocks lmao. If that's an off-night you're having a hell of a run. His other "off" night game 1 against the Blazers (coming off one of the greatest carry jobs ever where he was clearly fatigued), he had a very mediocre 30 points, 10 boards, and 5 assists on 11-18 shooting. Like yea, definitely feels nitpicky to me.

Tbh, even if the chip is a hold-up, I've yet to see a winning case for MJ vs 71 Kareem who most people consider pre-prime:

1991 makes more sense for 1971 as the end result is similar meaning we can follow how they got there and apply surrounding stuff. With a broad look I'd say Kareem has an edge as
a) no triangle equivalent (bulls srs skyrockets upon implementation)
b) is able to play at a 62 win pace without Oscar next year

Kareem also drops "the biggest numbers of his career" in 71 and 72 and is doing so while his defenses see a 4-point improvement with him on the floor from 71-74(though DBPM insists Kareem was a worse defender ).

Setting aside one-three year comparisons, a strong advantage for the "winning" profile of Kareem is the replication of his signals...

OhayoKD wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:
Adjusting for help is paramount. It's just that with Kareem I'm not 100% convinced there weren't a couple seasons where getting a bit further was completely impossible.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Kareem's defensive advantage means he's theoretically going to have an edge as consistently "potentially more impactful"(And as I've outlined, it seems looking from a broad and inclusive(if noisier) lens(performance-cast) supports this). If Kareem "falls short" of this potential in some years but still "achieves" a similar amount of lift as Jordan manages in a similar setting, should we counting this as a mark vs Kareem in the comp? This is why I start with estimating help and performance. If player A can replicate the best looking "performance - cast" of player b over a sustained period of time in a variety of contexts(different support-levels, different teams, pre/post expansion) then there being fluctuation(and this is where "could have done more" often comes from) is kind of moot, no?

As it happens, even Kareem's "off-years" look on-par giving Kareem a very strong argument as a flatly more valuable player:

If there are down years, then we can look at the down years, but "when" the down years happened shouldn't really matter in an era-relative comparison. That said, 73-76 includes an all-time per-game carry-job in 75, the Bucks coming within a game of a title despite Kareem's co-stars falling off(Kareem went ballistic all playoffs), and a solid floor-raising job in 76 with a new team and 20ish win help(With Kareem reportedly discontent and not playing to his full potential). Then in 77, the Bucks played like a 55-win team before losing to the eventual champions in what was an all-time performance from Jabbar.

I can literally assume the Lakers didn't get any worse when they traded for Jabbar, and it would still be a better showing of lift than anything MJ has(even with me ignoring Oakley to prop Mike up). Jordan had more help in 1990 than Kareem did in any of these seasons(Triangle takes team from +1 to 1991-level offense, Pippen jumps in the postseason and puts up the same stuff he put from 91-98) and he still lost(doing worse than Kareem managed to in 74). Your current #1 didn't match these down-years you're criticizing from a winning-based perspective(at his apex), and I don't think granular analysis does anything to bridge the gap

All considered Kareem's best postseasons are probably stronger, he has a strong discernible "value" advantage throughout his prime and that advantage mantains in a wide vareity of contexts/situations making it unlikely it's simply a matter of favorable situation.

All considered I think Kareem's a solidly stronger peak(era-relative) in addition to being the arguable best ever high-school and college player, having goat-tier longetvity, and more team success(as many rings, more finals). On an all-time ranking I see Kareem going anywhere from 1-3 with Lebron and Russell. To get him lower you need to
1. start applying very specific caveats
2. use non-basketball factors like popularity and perception
3. speculate wildly("its easier to stack scoring wings than rim protectors!")

Barring a compelling "era-translation case", Kareem seems like an easy pick for me

Amares wrote:

70sFan wrote:I am in the minority that ranks Kareem peak and career higher than Jordan. To me, Kareem's ridiculous resiliency as a scorer combined with very underrated defensive impact made him overall more impressive two-way anchor than Jordan.

What do you mean by "very underrated defensive impact"? Where do you rank him defensively all-time or prime among bigs?
I'm asking as at some point he was considered overrated defensively, so wondering if narrative completely changed since then.

With an eye to this specific comparison, I think the general public probably favors Jordan defensively(won a DPOY, more all-nba's, and box-stuff Nate and sometimes even Ben push favor Jordan's defense empirically(though Ben seems to think Kareem is better)). But if we focus on reality/winning, Kareem is making defenses 4-points better for 4 years straight while Jordan doesn't really have a track record as a significant needle mover on that end(which tracks with positional precedent).

No idea if Kareem is overrated or underrated defensively generally, but I feel it's safe to say he'd be significantly underrated relative to Jordan by most(as is basically everyone really).

The defensive side of things is probably why "impact" strongly favors Jabbar even though analysts have consistently pushed Jordan's peak as much better

I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

1993Playoffs wrote:I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

This is a fair point, but at the same time top tier bigs have more impact on defensive end and they are less reliant on perimeter defenders.

1993Playoffs wrote:I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

How do you arrive at the conclusion that playmaking/ball-handling outvalues rim-protection, especially when "impact" consistently favors primary paint-protectors s over perimiter maestros(and neither MJ or Kareem look to be exceptions here),

Kareem also has been able to mantain his situational value with sub-par guards/ball-handlers, so even if it was generally true, I'm not sure it applies to Kareem specifically

OhayoKD wrote:

1993Playoffs wrote:I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

How do you arrive at the conclusion that playmaking/ball-handling outvalues rim-protection, especially when "impact" consistently favors primary paint-protectors s over perimiter maestros(and neither MJ or Kareem look to be exceptions here),

Kareem also has been able to mantain his situational value with sub-par guards/ball-handlers, so even if it was generally true, I'm not sure it applies to Kareem specifically

70sFan wrote:

1993Playoffs wrote:I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

This is a fair point, but at the same time top tier bigs have more impact on defensive end and they are less reliant on perimeter defenders.

Generally I agree with both of you. But in the specific case, I think I’d still be lean MJ. For one I think he was as a better offensive player in the playoffs due to that ballhandling and playmaking ability. I also think he was less durable in his prime. In a way that MJ and Lebron weren’t

As for defense again correct I have Kareem at least one tier below the best defenders of all time. Still clearly better (in his younger years) than Lebron or MJ on that end. It’s not enough to bridge the offensive superiority of those two guys in my opinion. If Kareem was a Duncan level defender he’d probably have the edge but he certainly wasn’t that good

1993Playoffs wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

1993Playoffs wrote:I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

How do you arrive at the conclusion that playmaking/ball-handling outvalues rim-protection, especially when "impact" consistently favors primary paint-protectors s over perimiter maestros(and neither MJ or Kareem look to be exceptions here),

Kareem also has been able to mantain his situational value with sub-par guards/ball-handlers, so even if it was generally true, I'm not sure it applies to Kareem specifically

70sFan wrote:

1993Playoffs wrote:I lean MJ slightly. I just think the GOAT tier perimeter players (MJ, LeBron) are slightly more impactful due to not needing someone to get them the ball

This is a fair point, but at the same time top tier bigs have more impact on defensive end and they are less reliant on perimeter defenders.

Generally I agree with both of you. But in the specific case, I think I’d still be lean MJ. For one I think he was as a better offensive player in the playoffs due to that ballhandling and playmaking ability. I also think he was less durable in his prime. In a way that MJ and Lebron weren’t

As for defense again correct I have Kareem at least one tier below the best defenders of all time. Still clearly better (in his younger years) than Lebron or MJ on that end. It’s not enough to bridge the offensive superiority of those two guys in my opinion.

Do you have an explanation for Kareem's apparent holistic value advantage then? Theoretically looking at the overall signals accounts for defense and offense and in this case it isn't really a one-off like Bird's rookie season.

Also seems wierd to group MJ and Lebron together here. Lebron, like Kareem, has functioned as a primary paint-protector(even in his 30's) and has a strong track record as someone who improves defenses by significant margins(even in his 30's). Incidentally, Lebron's impact profile compares rather well to Kareem's while Mike's consistently doesn't.

Not to say impact signals are the end-all be-all, but i'd like to see a strong counter-case here

Firstly, I would probably consider '76-78 Kareem instead of '77-79.

Second, It's hard to evaluate peak Kareem because of limited footage and the teams that he played on. Those teams were not well designed, and some of his flaws were exacerbated on those mid-to-late 70s rosters. For example, Kareem would sometimes force really bad passes into traffic, but this was cleaned up quite a bit when the team implemented a few simple actions to be run whenever Kareem received the ball in the post. Having a small but varied set of reads for Kareem to make from the post really helped him reduce his bad turnovers. However, in the late 70s, such structure was absent, leading to far more "in the moment" decisions for Kareem to make. I don't think Kareem needs to be making those types of reads in the right system, since he was remarkably resilient against double teams and help defense, so being a higher level playmaker was less of a necessary counter and more so an added form of value.

I think it's worth noting just how much Kareem also benefited from playing alongside better playmakers, and in a better system, later in his career. A big reason why his raw efficiency remained high was that he was receiving the ball in better positions on the court. Starting in the 80s, Kareem received far more touches at the low block, or rolling into the lane for an on-the-move sky hook. This led to a lot of rhythm or otherwise quick shots for Kareem that he just didn't get to take before. It's very hard to imagine peak Kareem, in the same circumstance, not being a consistent 27+ PPG scorer on something like >63% shooting, against just about any defense. That may seem like a stretch to those who aren't intimately familiar with his game, but if you watch enough Kareem footage, you'll begin to see finer patterns regarding what shots fall at a very high rate for him. Some simple changes to the team earned him a lot more of these later in his career, but he was far less athletic by then, so the benefits were washed out on the box score.

Defensively, some limitations in technique, instincts, and motor kept Kareem from achieving the heights that the very best defenders could reach. But at his best, Kareem was a exceptional rim protector, who was far from sloth-like on the perimeter. Guards and quick forwards would get the step on him, but Kareem had so much length and ability to cover distance that he was often still in the play, even when defending from a step or two behind. As a result, he could show high on screens, and even spent some time defending much smaller players than himself. I would never project him to be an elite switch defender, were he to time travel to the current NBA, but it also wouldn't be easy to cut deeply into his defensive impact.

Ultimately, to get to your questions, I lean towards MJ due to the larger body of film evidence. I also think Kareem needs more structure on his teams to play at or near his best than MJ does. That said, Kareem certainly has the higher ceiling, I just wonder how much needs to be around Kareem for him to get there consistently. At his best, I could see Kareem providing an offensive lift similar to peak Kevin Durant, while adding a defensive lift akin to a more lithe, mobile and bouncy version of Rudy Gobert. He'd comfortably be a top-10 player on both sides of the court in any NBA season, and almost always in the top-5 on at least one end, depending on who else is in the league. Anyways, I've gone into much more detail about Kareem in the past, especially during some of the older top-100 projects, but this covers the gist of it.

Strong post and a solid breakdown of Kareem defensively. That said, I have doubts about the "structure" stuff

Blackmill wrote:Ultimately, to get to your questions, I lean towards MJ due to the larger body of film evidence. I also think Kareem needs more structure on his teams to play at or near his best than MJ does.

Presumably, if Kareem "needs more structure" to play at or near his best, we'd expect him to struggle outside of optimal situations. I'm not sure what you envision as optimal, but Kareem seemingly managed to maintain his value pre and post expansion, on teams with wildy varying guard-play, and with a range of casts from terrible to strong. Kareem probably has the second most "proof of concept" in different situations behind Lebron, maybe the most if we count pre-nba stuff. What do you see as an indication he's relatively dependent on scheme? Are you sure you're not fixating on the offensive stuff here?

As Jordan's biggest advantage is his ball-handling ability, and Kareem's biggest advantage is his ability to protect the paint, it probably bears consideration that paint-protection seems to be the less volatile source of influence:

At an individual level, Duncan and Russell are probably the quintessential metronomes if we go by team success and if we go by individual impact, Russell and Kareem stand-out in terms of a lack of fluctuation. From rookie year to 1980 Kareem's "impact" stays pretty consistent with small postseason samples being where most of the fluctuation happens. Russell is still winning with seemingly average help right as he's about to retire.

All to say, I think history suggests actually stacking the same type of archetype tends to be suboptimal, and scoring wings are not exempt from this. In fact I think we can say stacking paint protectors has been as or more successful. Since 2000 we've had the Twin-Towers, Brook-Giannis, and the two Wallaces win. Defensive value in general is more "portable" than offense if you believe Ben. Going by individual data, Paint protectors consistently mantain value when they switch teams, do fine when paired with other capable paint protectors.

As for stacking playmakers? You could argue for Lebron-Wade and Curry-Dray as successful examples. You could even argue for Jordan-Pippen since Jordan's playmaking was always mostly on-ball(going by blocked's filmtracking, Jordan's "off-ball" creation was almost never the most valuable part of creating a shot).

Perhaps at a higher theoretical treshold the gap between playmaker stacking and wing-scorer stacking becomes evident, but that treshold hasn't been reached and "paint-protectors" currently look like the least "situation-dependent" archetype.

This is hardly intensive or anything, but from what I'm looking at history, theory, and the actual data(albeit not complete) would suggest a guy a paint-protecting anchor like Kareem has an overall advantage in terms of "structure-independence".

In terms of specific scheme, the triangle was probably more "structured" than anything Kareem played with it and we saw it basically elevate the Bulls from a psuedo-contender to a legitimate title threat overnight. So again I'm curious what you're looking at when you see Jordan as less volatile.

I think Kareem at his peak had greater impact than MJ. The question with Kareem will always be whether he needed a great guard to fully unlock him and sort of lead the team I think. Which carries over to Kareem's prime in the 75-79 years.

OhayoKD wrote:Strong post and a solid breakdown of Kareem defensively. That said, I have doubts about the "structure" stuff

Blackmill wrote:Ultimately, to get to your questions, I lean towards MJ due to the larger body of film evidence. I also think Kareem needs more structure on his teams to play at or near his best than MJ does.

Presumably, if Kareem "needs more structure" to play at or near his best, we'd expect him to struggle outside of optimal situations. I'm not sure what you envision as optimal, but Kareem seemingly managed to maintain his value pre and post expansion, on teams with wildy varying guard-play, and with a range of casts from terrible to strong. Kareem probably has the second most "proof of concept" in different situations behind Lebron, maybe the most if we count pre-nba stuff. What do you see as an indication he's relatively dependent on scheme? Are you sure you're not fixating on the offensive stuff here?

I suppose I interpret my own statement differently. I don't think Kareem will struggle outside of optimal situations, but I think he has a lot to benefit from being in the right situation. In other words, I think it's his ceiling that's impacted, more so than his floor. That's why, in the next line, I mention how I think Kareem does have the higher ceiling than MJ.

Blackmill wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Strong post and a solid breakdown of Kareem defensively. That said, I have doubts about the "structure" stuff

Blackmill wrote:Ultimately, to get to your questions, I lean towards MJ due to the larger body of film evidence. I also think Kareem needs more structure on his teams to play at or near his best than MJ does.

Presumably, if Kareem "needs more structure" to play at or near his best, we'd expect him to struggle outside of optimal situations. I'm not sure what you envision as optimal, but Kareem seemingly managed to maintain his value pre and post expansion, on teams with wildy varying guard-play, and with a range of casts from terrible to strong. Kareem probably has the second most "proof of concept" in different situations behind Lebron, maybe the most if we count pre-nba stuff. What do you see as an indication he's relatively dependent on scheme? Are you sure you're not fixating on the offensive stuff here?

I suppose I interpret my own statement differently. I don't think Kareem will struggle outside of optimal situations, but I think he has a lot to benefit from being in the right situation. In other words, I think it's his ceiling that's impacted, more so than his floor. That's why, in the next line, I mention how I think Kareem does have the higher ceiling than MJ.

If i'm getting this right, then, you believe it takes for MJ to reach his high-end than it would take Kareem? I don't feel strongly either way on that point, but I guess my counter would be I think Kareem's "floor" is already at the level of Mike's "ceiling" with his ability to anchor elite defense giving him a higher baseline(and fwiw I think the "data" so to speak supports this).

Unless you are using ceiling differently than I think you are

OhayoKD wrote:

Blackmill wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Strong post and a solid breakdown of Kareem defensively. That said, I have doubts about the "structure" stuff
Presumably, if Kareem "needs more structure" to play at or near his best, we'd expect him to struggle outside of optimal situations. I'm not sure what you envision as optimal, but Kareem seemingly managed to maintain his value pre and post expansion, on teams with wildy varying guard-play, and with a range of casts from terrible to strong. Kareem probably has the second most "proof of concept" in different situations behind Lebron, maybe the most if we count pre-nba stuff. What do you see as an indication he's relatively dependent on scheme? Are you sure you're not fixating on the offensive stuff here?

I suppose I interpret my own statement differently. I don't think Kareem will struggle outside of optimal situations, but I think he has a lot to benefit from being in the right situation. In other words, I think it's his ceiling that's impacted, more so than his floor. That's why, in the next line, I mention how I think Kareem does have the higher ceiling than MJ.

If i'm getting this right, then, you believe it takes for MJ to reach his high-end than it would take Kareem? I don't feel strongly either way on that point, but I guess my counter would be I think Kareem's "floor" is already at the level of Mike's "ceiling" with his ability to anchor elite defense giving him a higher baseline(and fwiw I think the "data" so to speak supports this).

Unless you are using ceiling differently than I think you are

I think this reply turned into more of an expansion to my previous post, and only touches on your question.

Late in Kareem's career, I think his situation allowed him to operate at nearly the ceiling of his abilities at the time, at least offensively. During his peak years, I think that was far from the case, and some his extraordinary numbers are despite that. That's what I mean by his ceiling is impacted.

I feel comfortable saying that Kareem, when in the proper situation, would produce stronger teams than MJ typically could, because the defensive gap is clearly vast, and Kareem could feasibly match or exceed MJ's scoring output with some consistency. Kareem would not be able to match Jordan's playmaking, but for simplicity, I would break down playmaking as follows. There's the playmaking that high level scorers need to be capable of, in order to keep the defense honest, or to turn help into an advantage. Then there's a degree of playmaking that needs to exist in aggregate on any team, simply for sets and reliable offense to be run. That's the starting point for how I'm thinking about the comparison.

Kareem's ability to be relatively unaffected by help is maybe the best ever, and while many other players necessarily rely on superior playmaking to reach higher levels of offensive production, Kareem is arguably an exception. In other words, stripped of their ability to pass, Kareem would easily be the better and more reliable scorer than Jordan. Where I would typical consider the playmaking gap to be potentially vast between players like MJ and Kareem, because a capable defense can often limit a lesser playmaker, for Kareem this isn't as much the case. But there still needs to be a sufficient level of surrounding playmaking talent for the benefit of the other players.

So I'm at the point where, given there's enough playmaking talent around Kareem, I think he would lead better teams. But I still chose MJ, because I haven't thought too deeply about how much surrounding playmaking talent, and what the opportunity cost of this would be, in order to for Kareem to be the clear victor in this comparison. Looking briefly at the present NBA, I think there are more teams that Kareem could be added to, or otherwise replace the best player on, that become contenders than with MJ instead. So maybe I should be willing to make a stronger statement for Kareem's peak...

I have Jordan as the best perimeter peak ever and Kareem as best big man peak ever. Despite being a huge Kareem fan I'd lean towards Jordan ever so slightly but neither has any significant weakness as a basketball player and I can't say that for any other player in history.

edgymnerch wrote:Which peak was better, and why do you think so? 89-91 Jordan or 77-79 Kareem?

Throwing in another question, who ranks higher in your All-time list?

Peak: Jordan, Career: Abdul-Jabbar

In both regards, don't see *too much* of a difference. When greatest careers is voted upon, will elaborate upon how I see those two compared to my other two GOAT candidates (not hard to deduce whom) if I had to formally rank.