RealGM

Using only one season per player. I know there’s still games to be played, but I think we have seen enough to judge his season. Can always bump if necessary too.

I would lump him into the Wilt/Kareem/KG/Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem/Russell/Walton grouping [basically from 3-13 in the last peaks project].

No-more-rings wrote:Using only one season per player. I know there’s still games to be played, but I think we have seen enough to judge his season. Can always bump if necessary too.

Assuming a strong finals, could see him going somewhere with the likes of peak Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, Jordan, KG and Magic as a one-year high. Defense remains a big disadvantage relative to the likes of Lebron and Kareem who also offer top tier and near top-tier offensive value respectively. And, maintaining era-relativity, he still would have no real case vs Russell.

Outside of that top 3(who happen to clear everyone else in terms of "impact on winning" type analysis for peak/prime), fair arguments can probably be made for Jokic against just about anyone era-relative. Making it a matter of absolutes gives him some leeway vs anyone not named Lebron.

Wilt's one-year peak could be better but his case rests on scaling via russell/celtics which isn't the most concrete approach. Oscar and West are murky but certainly plausible.

What he does after this will help crystallize where he ranks specifically, but taking 2023 in a vacuum(and disregarding that including 21 and 22 would drag things down a bit), he's got a good case against any of the non-goats

OhayoKD wrote:Assuming a strong finals, could see him going somewhere with the likes of peak Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, Jordan, KG and Magic as a one-year high.

What if he has a weak finals and Denver chokes somehow? Not that I think that’s likely at all, I don’t really think you can solve Jokic at least not with the Heat’s personnel. He really does seem like he’s in the caliber among guys like Jordan, Magic, Nash, Lebron(late prime) where you just can’t stop or slow them down offensively. Maybe a few other names can be thrown in there, but he’s certainly goat caliber offensively even if he’s not the very best. I still have a preference for more agressive scorers like Jordan and Lebron but that’s just me.

My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

eminence wrote:My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

Do you factor in era-translation?

eminence wrote:My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

What's the rationale for KG being a tier higher than Jokic?

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

Do you factor in era-translation?

Could you expand a bit on 'era-translation'?

I think not to much degree, I'll think of how the player may have done in the few surrounding years, how 'fluky' the year feels to me, but not much beyond that. Eg. Julius loses a tier here.

No thoughts on how Shaq would do in the 50s or anything like that.

No-more-rings wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Assuming a strong finals, could see him going somewhere with the likes of peak Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, Jordan, KG and Magic as a one-year high.

What if he has a weak finals and Denver chokes somehow? Not that I think that’s likely at all, I don’t really think you can solve Jokic at least not with the Heat’s personnel. He really does seem like he’s in the caliber among guys like Jordan, Magic, Nash, Lebron(late prime) where you just can’t stop or slow them down offensively. Maybe a few other names can be thrown in there, but he’s certainly goat caliber offensively even if he’s not the very best. I still have a preference for more agressive scorers like Jordan and Lebron but that’s just me.

A finals drop-off puts him in range of(era-relative) Steph, Giannis, Bird, ect.(and he's at a disadvantage due to a lack of replication).

"stop or slow" is nice, but Jokic also runs everything which gives him a big advantage over anyone not named magic, nash, oscar, or lebron. His primary disadvantage is ball-handling but none of Steph, Jordan, or Bird were primary-ball-handlers(read: significantly less defense attention) when they hit "can't stop or slow"(though bird and steph got slowed anyway).

Nice he's monopolzing PER though. Might encourage people to appreciate there's more to offense than "score or create look"

eminence wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

Do you factor in era-translation?

Could you expand a bit on 'era-translation'?

I think not to much degree, I'll think of how the player may have done in the few surrounding years, how 'fluky' the year feels to me, but not much beyond that. Eg. Julius loses a tier here.

No thoughts on how Shaq would do in the 50s or anything like that.

Do you penalize players for not transporting into the future well?

Russell was the name that sparked the question. You said you don't consider "winning with a 30-40-win team historically special, but it's not something some players ranked above or at the same tier have managed in similar situations, never mind the relative difficulty of opponents faced or replication in surrounding years.

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Do you factor in era-translation?

Could you expand a bit on 'era-translation'?

I think not to much degree, I'll think of how the player may have done in the few surrounding years, how 'fluky' the year feels to me, but not much beyond that. Eg. Julius loses a tier here.

No thoughts on how Shaq would do in the 50s or anything like that.

Do you penalize players for not transporting into the future well?

Russell was the name that sparked the question. You said you don't consider "winning with a 30-40-win team historically special, but it's not something some players ranked above or at the same tier have managed in similar situations, never mind the relative difficulty of opponents faced or replication in surrounding years.

No, I don't do any era transportation like that (fwiw I think Russell would translate pretty well to every era that's yet occurred and struggle to imagine one where he wouldn't).

Of course, not all players have the same situations/accomplishments flowing from their situation. Are there players in particular you feel strongly about in those 2nd/3rd tiers? I have KAJ at the bottom of tier 2 as his offense feels a bit 'fragile' to me. Russell at the top of tier 3, edging out Magic.

I generally find Russell/Celtics opponents faced underwhelming, with real competition not arriving until Hannum took over the Sixers.

eminence wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:
Could you expand a bit on 'era-translation'?

I think not to much degree, I'll think of how the player may have done in the few surrounding years, how 'fluky' the year feels to me, but not much beyond that. Eg. Julius loses a tier here.

No thoughts on how Shaq would do in the 50s or anything like that.

Do you penalize players for not transporting into the future well?

Russell was the name that sparked the question. You said you don't consider "winning with a 30-40-win team historically special, but it's not something some players ranked above or at the same tier have managed in similar situations, never mind the relative difficulty of opponents faced or replication in surrounding years.

No, I don't do any era transportation like that (fwiw I think Russell would translate pretty well to every era that's yet occurred and struggle to imagine one where he wouldn't).

Of course, not all players have the same situations/accomplishments flowing from their situation. Are there players in particular you feel strongly about in those 2nd/3rd tiers? I have KAJ at the bottom of tier 2 as his offense feels a bit 'fragile' to me. Russell at the top of tier 3, edging out Magic..

I have Kareem and Russell gaining pretty clear seperation from everyone besides Lebron in an era-relative lens and Russell getting seperation from everyone.

Starting with what I think is the weaker case, Kareem's offense is "fragile" relative to non-bigs(ball-handling is the big issue), but I don't see it as fragile relative to anyone else with 77 probably being the most "consistent" postseason performance overall and him also going off against an atg Lakers team in 72(outscored despite oscar being hobbled) and going off in the 74 finals. The flipside is Kareem is a much better defender and adding the two together seems to produce a higher value baseline than anyone else(replication is an important component here though even in terms of one-year stuff, 77 and 72 win-out against any MJ/Magic/Curry/Shaq mark as far as "impact" goes looking at the rs and playoffs(curry/Shaq never put it together for a postseason and regular season). It's not that it's impossible for Kareem to not have been more valuable, but I can't think of a strong positive argument for anyone else that it's "likely"(aka, did more in a similar context, did as much with less, replicated influence here or there) and I can think of the reverse with Kareem for everyone else(ex: a very pessimistic appraisal of 77 working off 75(82 games) still scores higher than me assuming Jordan deserves every piece of credit for the Bulls improvement between 84 and 88, 2000 Lakers do not maintain regular season performance in the postseason and the 2001 lakers do not perform in the regular season like they do in the postseason). Kareem has led an all-time team(71, 72) without a big-scheme-induced improvement(curry, mj), has led contenders with less(55-win full strength in 77 with a 30-win team-many key players)) and everything(73 postseason drop-off aside) for nearly a decade suggests he has a base-level of value comparable to the very best signals of everyone else(with multiple highs that are higher in one way or the other).

I generally find Russell/Celtics opponents faced underwhelming, with real competition not arriving until Hannum took over the Sixers

The Problem here is that Russell smoked an all-time gauntlet as a retiree player coach:

OhayoKD wrote:

ShaqAttac wrote:

rk2023 wrote:James
If you want to go strictly by year, #1, #2, and #4 were all knocked out en-route to a title with a team that is 35-win(3-5 that year) the next year with the same roster(potentially better actually). If you want to go by era(acknowledging that a team like the 2017 warriors can actually be more difficult than a team like the 2015 warriors), and utilize surrounding years as a reference, 1969 was an outlier year for the era where there were a bunch of +4 teams(in other stretches there'd be 1 in 2 years) and a +4 team that was really a +8 team once they got their playoff rotation set.

The Celtics faced all the toughest teams of that season to win an 11th championship in 13 years. Beating the Bullets, the Knicks and the Lakers(4-1, 4-2, and 4-3) is the 60's equivalent of beating the 2018 Warriors, a juiced variant of the 13 spurs, and a juiced variant of 10's OKC en route to a title. In the regular season the Celtics were marginally behind the outlier-srs Knicks(compare to say the 90 Bulls with a significantly better cast having half the srs of 4 teams, and ranking 9th overall) and then they elevated significantly in the playoffs

(13 spurs -> wins title next year, suped because they're a bigger outlier for the era in terms of srs(much bigger if you use their final roster), (12 thunder, push "14 spurs" to 7 soon after outlier regular season of their own, suped coz again, bigger outlier), (18 warriors, 2nd best player of the era joins 4th best player who led a team that was "best ever" pre-injury, coaching issues hinder)

People unironically arguing "russell was just wes unseld" because he did not have the offensive portfolio of a modern great is wild. What Russell did as a retiree player-coach has not been replicated by anyone, not shaq, not jordan, not lebron. Maaaybe you can some case for 2016(weaker competition though) or 72?*(kareem goes off as his bucks outscore a all-time team despite his best teammate being hobbled), but off course jabbar is actually 4th here so

I'm guessing people are just used to lebron or jordan being number 1 and 2, because there is no real reason for someone using "championship likelihood" as rationale to be marking up players losing to the orlando magic or scrapping buzzer-beater wins over the injury-punked 89 Cavs as similar era-relative accomplishments to what Russell managed in 1969(nvm the ramifications if you think he was past his prime)

Russell is well and truly unassailable. You can dismiss everything as noise due to uncertainty, but you can't really construct a positive case for anyone against him unless you take the most favorable one-year stuff(use 2016 wowy instead of net-rating to call the cavs a 20-win team, assume no improvement for the rockets between when they were 20-win without him in 92 and when they were winning titles in 95) or rely on cross-era srs(in which case 69 Russell is merely a tier-2 guy) to pretend the 2018 raptors were a bigger championship than the 69 lakers, knicks, and bullets.

As of now, the counterpoints I've seen against 69 are
-> sam jones was a distant third best scorer on an average offense
-> Celtics won 48-games(contention-worthy in the 60's by record, era-outliers and best-in-the-league lvl by srs)
-> How dare you use surrounding seasons to inform your evaluation(russell always winning isn't relevant, unprecedented pre-college lift not relevant, career-wide wowry/wowy not relevant, team still being best in the league with key players missing isn't relevant, ect ect)
-> Russell was past his peak in 69 and its impossible for russell to have a bunch of years better than everyone else(why tho?)

Seems people place russ at or lower than modern greats on vibes and then dress it up as theory post-hoc

eminence wrote:I have KAJ at the bottom of tier 2 as his offense feels a bit 'fragile' to me.

Would you like to go further with that opinion?

I generally find Russell/Celtics opponents faced underwhelming, with real competition not arriving until Hannum took over the Sixers.

I think the Celtics faced reasonably strong competition in 1960 (Warriors and Hawks), 1962 (Warriors and Lakers), 1964 (Royals and Warriors) and Philly in 1966. These are not all-time teams, but I don't think they were any weaker than what the last 3 champions (2020 Lakers, 2021 Bucks, 2022 Warriors) faced.

Still too soon imo. Big difference in how this season gets remembered if he has a great final 3-6 games and wins fmvp compared to if the Nuggets lose and his play drops off.

70sFan wrote:

eminence wrote:I have KAJ at the bottom of tier 2 as his offense feels a bit 'fragile' to me.

Would you like to go further with that opinion?

I generally find Russell/Celtics opponents faced underwhelming, with real competition not arriving until Hannum took over the Sixers.

I think the Celtics faced reasonably strong competition in 1960 (Warriors and Hawks), 1962 (Warriors and Lakers), 1964 (Royals and Warriors) and Philly in 1966. These are not all-time teams, but I don't think they were any weaker than what the last 3 champions (2020 Lakers, 2021 Bucks, 2022 Warriors) faced.

Yeah, competition isn't a knock on Russ unless you break era-relativity. 69 is probably the toughest championship gauntlet ever from and it's not mentioned because "its not even his peak".

obviously greatest of all time

OhayoKD wrote:

eminence wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Do you penalize players for not transporting into the future well?

Russell was the name that sparked the question. You said you don't consider "winning with a 30-40-win team historically special, but it's not something some players ranked above or at the same tier have managed in similar situations, never mind the relative difficulty of opponents faced or replication in surrounding years.

No, I don't do any era transportation like that (fwiw I think Russell would translate pretty well to every era that's yet occurred and struggle to imagine one where he wouldn't).

Of course, not all players have the same situations/accomplishments flowing from their situation. Are there players in particular you feel strongly about in those 2nd/3rd tiers? I have KAJ at the bottom of tier 2 as his offense feels a bit 'fragile' to me. Russell at the top of tier 3, edging out Magic..

I have Kareem and Russell gaining pretty clear seperation from everyone besides Lebron in an era-relative lens and Russell getting seperation from everyone.

Starting with what I think is the weaker case, Kareem's offense is "fragile" relative to non-bigs(ball-handling is the big issue), but I don't see it as fragile relative to anyone else with 77 probably being the most "consistent" postseason performance overall and him also going off against an atg Lakers team in 72(outscored despite oscar being hobbled) and going off in the 74 finals. The flipside is Kareem is a much better defender and adding the two together seems to produce a higher value baseline than anyone else(replication is an important component here though even in terms of one-year stuff, 77 and 72 win-out against any MJ/Magic/Curry/Shaq mark as far as "impact" goes looking at the rs and playoffs(curry/Shaq never put it together for a postseason and regular season). It's not that it's impossible for Kareem to not have been more valuable, but I can't think of a strong positive argument for anyone else that it's "likely"(aka, did more in a similar context, did as much with less, replicated influence here or there) and I can think of the reverse with Kareem for everyone else(ex: a very pessimistic appraisal of 77 working off 75(82 games) still scores higher than me assuming Jordan deserves every piece of credit for the Bulls improvement between 84 and 88, 2000 Lakers do not maintain regular season performance in the postseason and the 2001 lakers do not perform in the regular season like they do in the postseason). Kareem has led an all-time team(71, 72) without a big-scheme-induced improvement(curry, mj), has led contenders with less(55-win full strength in 77 with a 30-win team-many key players)) and everything(73 postseason drop-off aside) for nearly a decade suggests he has a base-level of value comparable to the very best signals of everyone else(with multiple highs that are higher in one way or the other).

I generally find Russell/Celtics opponents faced underwhelming, with real competition not arriving until Hannum took over the Sixers

The Problem here is that Russell smoked an all-time gauntlet as a retiree player coach:

OhayoKD wrote:Russell is well and truly unassailable. You can dismiss everything as noise due to uncertainty, but you can't really construct a positive case for anyone against him unless you take the most favorable one-year stuff(use 2016 wowy instead of net-rating to call the cavs a 20-win team, assume no improvement for the rockets between when they were 20-win without him in 92 and when they were winning titles in 95) or rely on cross-era srs(in which case 69 Russell is merely a tier-2 guy) to pretend the 2018 raptors were a bigger championship than the 69 lakers, knicks, and bullets.

As of now, the counterpoints I've seen against 69 are
-> sam jones was a distant third best scorer on an average offense
-> Celtics won 48-games(contention-worthy in the 60's by record, era-outliers and best-in-the-league lvl by srs)
-> How dare you use surrounding seasons to inform your evaluation(russell always winning isn't relevant, unprecedented pre-college lift not relevant, career-wide wowry/wowy not relevant, team still being best in the league with key players missing isn't relevant, ect ect)
-> Russell was past his peak in 69 and its impossible for russell to have a bunch of years better than everyone else(why tho?)

Seems people place russ at or lower than modern greats on vibes and then dress it up as theory post-hoc

My focusing on KAJ's offensive fragility was probably not meaningful vs his direct tier mates. It's something I had on my mind generally for KAJ, but isn't particularly relevant compared to Wilt/Duncan/KG. It would be better stated that big man offense is (usually) more fragile and KAJ relies on his offense significantly more than that trio.

I don't assign value to 'scheme-induced-improvement' for leading all-time teams - KAJ was drafted into his, and MJ/Curry had theirs come to them, meh, whatever for me (obviously many other players in each category as well). I can see the argument with Curry at least. For MJ, it seems a weak argument, the Bulls were already bordering on being a contender (probably were given the '77 Lakers as a bar) and seemed a decent bet to have matured into a champion at some point, if not the dynasty they actually achieved. Very little meaningful change in MJ's individual production.

I see value in looking to surrounding seasons for guidance on peak rankings (and I do myself as mentioned with Dr. J), but I feel your approach stretches into 'primes' or even whole careers. Which is fine enough I guess, but we're not really discussing on the same wavelength.

70sFan wrote:

eminence wrote:I have KAJ at the bottom of tier 2 as his offense feels a bit 'fragile' to me.

Would you like to go further with that opinion?

I generally find Russell/Celtics opponents faced underwhelming, with real competition not arriving until Hannum took over the Sixers.

I think the Celtics faced reasonably strong competition in 1960 (Warriors and Hawks), 1962 (Warriors and Lakers), 1964 (Royals and Warriors) and Philly in 1966. These are not all-time teams, but I don't think they were any weaker than what the last 3 champions (2020 Lakers, 2021 Bucks, 2022 Warriors) faced.

Expanded a bit on KAJ in my above post.

On the Celtics and competition, it's not exactly a negative for Russell (I'd say it's a positive consistently dominating, though I can understand why non-Boston fans might not like it similar to the theory of KD arriving in GS), and those opponents weren't terrible, but it's still clear that the Celtics were head and shoulders above the league prior to Wilt arriving with the Sixers. Celtics SRS and then other highest each year of Russells career (errors possible).

'57
4.78
1.54

'58
5.02
2.18

'59
5.84
2.89

'60
7.62
2.77

'61
4.94
2.99

'62
8.25
2.63

'63
6.38
3.4

'64
6.93
4.43

'65
7.46
2.68

'66 (Wilts first full season in Philly)
4.34
4.16

'67
7.24
8.5

'68
3.87
7.96

'69
5.35
5.48

Ambrose wrote:

eminence wrote:My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

What's the rationale for KG being a tier higher than Jokic?

Good luck for a reasonable explanation.

dygaction wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

eminence wrote:My peak tiers. Chronological order within tiers. HM to Mikan who would probably be my #1 with consistent criteria, but I find him near impossible to compare.

Tier 1 (1): LeBron James

Tier 2 (5): Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett

Tier 3 (7): Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Nikola Jokic

Tier 4 (9): Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Bill Walton, David Robinson, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Tier 5 (12): Moses Malone, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green, James Harden, Kawhi Leonard, Joel Embiid

Voted top 10 here, as I think I prefer him over Bird/Hakeem/Shaq/maybe Curry, which would put him 9-10 for me.

What's the rationale for KG being a tier higher than Jokic?

Good luck for a reasonable explanation.

Who let you out of your cage?