RealGM

What would you say is the lowest reasonable all-time ranking for Michael Jordan?

Somewhere between 3 to 5 all time

Guessing 5ish? Not really sure.

Russell, Kareem, Duncan, LeBron all have pretty strong cases imo (I have him 5th). I can also see a pretty straightforward case for KG. Wilt/Hakeem/Shaq if you're a big man lover. Magic if you bump him up due to how he retired. Mikan you could get above him, but you likely drop a few others.

So I'll say 10th if you're feeling frisky. I think there's plenty of bigs you can put over him, but really only LeBron and Magic on the perimeter.

For me, only Russell could be interchanged as GOAT with MJ. 3-10 is made up of incredible players, no doubt, but these two are out of reach for any of them.

Around 5(ish), maybe 6th, though the arguments [to put 5 players ahead] begin to feel pretty tenuous to me. Like if I'm applying a criteria consistently, I mean: the selling points that push two or three guys ahead then do NOT help one or two others among the potential GOAT candidates.

So with internal consistency, maybe 3-5 (very friable case for 6). imho, of course .

Curiously Jordan strikes me as rather volatile. I think with reasonable - personally i see him 3rd or 4th though I may need to give Magic more credit - you could realistically get him down to 9 or 10. On the other hand, I think he could go as high as 3 or 2. While popular, placing him 1st seems to rely on a frail web of misconceptions and assumptions which I think is characteristic of leaving the realm of reason.

trex_8063 wrote:Around 5(ish), maybe 6th, though the arguments [to put 5 players ahead] begin to feel pretty tenuous to me. Like if I'm applying a criteria consistently, I mean: the selling points that push two or three guys ahead then do NOT help one or two others among the potential GOAT candidates.

So with internal consistency, maybe 3-5 (very friable case for 6). imho, of course .

Not to pester, but I'd be curious where you see contradictions

During the project I think I saw near overwhelmingly strong points for Russell and Lebron, strong pushes for Kareem Duncan and Magic, and a solid one for Hakeem - though I think his argument is a bit more theoretical.

Its also not hard for me to imagine Wilt getting something along those lines and Mikan if we take him seriously. And that all seems pretty fesasible war-style analytic focus - and a preference with fair cause for bigs and more controlling offensive pivots.

I don't have him top 3.

MacGill wrote:For me, only Russell could be interchanged as GOAT with MJ. 3-10 is made up of incredible players, no doubt, but these two are out of reach for any of them.

Does that mean you consider it unreasonable for someone to have LeBron over Jordan?

Do you think every argument made in the RealGM Top 100 project was unreasonable?

MrLurker wrote:Curiously Jordan strikes me as rather volatile. I think with reasonable - personally i see him 3rd or 4th though I may need to give Magic more credit - you could realistically get him down to 9 or 10. On the other hand, I think he could go as high as 3 or 2. While popular, placing him 1st seems to rely on a frail web of misconceptions and assumptions which I think is characteristic of leaving the realm of reason.

Leaving the realm of reason to have him #1?

Most metrics suggest of MJ having the best peak in recent NBA history including the newly released plus minus data. And he happens to be the best winner in the modern era as well. It's easier to argue for MJ as the GOAT than for any other player that's played since.

People have different criteria but to pretend that MJ doesn't have a ridiculously strong case for #1 is quite weird honestly.

4-5

trex_8063 wrote:Around 5(ish), maybe 6th, though the arguments [to put 5 players ahead] begin to feel pretty tenuous to me. Like if I'm applying a criteria consistently, I mean: the selling points that push two or three guys ahead then do NOT help one or two others among the potential GOAT candidates.

So with internal consistency, maybe 3-5 (very friable case for 6). imho, of course .

That's exactly it. I mean, theoretically, I could make an asinine 'Ringz, Erneh' list where he's not even top 10, below Russell, Jones, Hondo, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Horry, etc. but that would be stupid and unhelpful.

I could make a pure longevity list and he wouldn't rank top 5 on that either. Nor would he rank top 5 in terms of playmaking.

I could come up with some formula which transports all players to 1950s conditions and heavily heavily weights the defensive impact of centres and big men (which honestly, may not be that bad of a take) and have something like Kareem Russell Wilt Shaq Duncan all ahead.

But overall you're going to have to squint and tie yourself into unflattering rhetorical knots to get him out of the top 4.

Colbinii wrote:

MacGill wrote:For me, only Russell could be interchanged as GOAT with MJ. 3-10 is made up of incredible players, no doubt, but these two are out of reach for any of them.

Does that mean you consider it unreasonable for someone to have LeBron over Jordan?

Do you think every argument made in the RealGM Top 100 project was unreasonable?

Addressing your first point. Well, I don't really care where someone ranks LBJ and if they want to rank him above MJ, they can 100% do so. I am only speaking for my own rankings here.

For your second point. I'm not sure why this was even brought up and why you use the word 'unreasonable'? Again, I stated for myself and never implied anything would be unreasonable, only that after those two, I do not have any other GOAT candidates from the current crop of nba history. I am pretty confident that in a consensus top 10 (usual suspects) that various posters from all around the world and different age brackets have each individual as their GOAT. Nothing wrong or unreasonable about that.

trex_8063 wrote:Around 5(ish), maybe 6th, though the arguments [to put 5 players ahead] begin to feel pretty tenuous to me. Like if I'm applying a criteria consistently, I mean: the selling points that push two or three guys ahead then do NOT help one or two others among the potential GOAT candidates.

So with internal consistency, maybe 3-5 (very friable case for 6). imho, of course .

This, pretty much. Well put.

If I tried to be objective about impact I can only see fourth (behind Lebron, Kareem, Bill Russell on the basis of higher weighting on combination of defense, longevity in the case of Lebron/Kareem, and maybe in-era dominance in the case of Russell, with a corresponding lower weight on peak).

I have biased reasons I could rank Jordan lower but it's based on very imperfect qualitative + anecdotal information and not convincing to others (e.g. cultural reasons that would make me take Duncan, Magic, or Curry over him if I was theoretically a GM in an all-time draft running an actual time traveler organization).

Djoker wrote:

MrLurker wrote:Curiously Jordan strikes me as rather volatile. I think with reasonable - personally i see him 3rd or 4th though I may need to give Magic more credit - you could realistically get him down to 9 or 10. On the other hand, I think he could go as high as 3 or 2. While popular, placing him 1st seems to rely on a frail web of misconceptions and assumptions which I think is characteristic of leaving the realm of reason.

Leaving the realm of reason to have him #1?

Most metrics suggest of MJ having the best peak in recent NBA history including the newly released plus minus data. And he happens to be the best winner in the modern era as well. It's easier to argue for MJ as the GOAT than for any other player that's played since.

People have different criteria but to pretend that MJ doesn't have a ridiculously strong case for #1 is quite weird honestly.

Not to offend, but I think you are greatly overplaying your hand here.

With very positive interpretations of specific smaller snippets MJ has a case for being at the table over a certain period of time - which is a great thing on its own. I just don't quite get how that works for saying he's #1.

I think it's also important to look at negative interpretations - especially if those interpretations are supported by much bigger pieces of data

That is just my opinion though.

MrLurker wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:Around 5(ish), maybe 6th, though the arguments [to put 5 players ahead] begin to feel pretty tenuous to me. Like if I'm applying a criteria consistently, I mean: the selling points that push two or three guys ahead then do NOT help one or two others among the potential GOAT candidates.

So with internal consistency, maybe 3-5 (very friable case for 6). imho, of course .

Not to pester, but I'd be curious where you see contradictions

During the project I think I saw near overwhelmingly strong points for Russell and Lebron, strong pushes for Kareem Duncan and Magic, and a solid one for Hakeem - though I think his argument is a bit more theoretical.

Its also not hard for me to imagine Wilt getting something along those lines and Mikan if we take him seriously. And that all seems pretty fesasible war-style analytic focus - and a preference with fair cause for bigs and more controlling offensive pivots.

Well, first all let me say that I see Hakeem's case as more "theoretical", as well, and he's typically not one of those I'd consider a candidate to go ahead of Jordan. His case seems theoretical in the sense that people say in essence say: "he's an all-time tier defensive anchor who you can also build your offense around; is a very good scorer and relatively capable passer who is able to scale up his volume in the playoffs. He seems like he has all the tools (physically and skill-set) to be a potential GOAT candidate [again: in theory]."
I just don't see the record of achievement to actually live up to this theory.

And were someone to use a very playoff-centric approach and talk about Hakeem's ability to maintain or even scale up in the playoffs, this might be a consideration that would work AGAINST Kareem and to a lesser degree Wilt, who saw some degree of playoff decline. And the same ability to maintain in the playoffs highest stages basically applied to Michael Jordan, too, fwiw; so it's not really a distinguishing aspect [vs Jordan].


Otherwise, sort of spit-balling [off the top of my head] some other principles which might be used (and who they favour or don't favour [mostly in contrast to Jordan])......

Longevity-based arguments: obviously these help LeBron, Kareem, Duncan, (Garnett, too, if one considers him a potential) in a case against Jordan. However, they do NOTHING to help Russell or Wilt [or Magic and Mikan, if you consider them GOAT candidates]; could even be said to marginally hurt the case of Russell and Magic, and definitely hurts Mikan's.

Ringz: helps Russell's case, but hurts the case of Wilt, Hakeem, Garnett, though (other guys more or less neutral relative to Jordan).

Focus on impact: hard to say if this helps anyone all that much, relative to Jordan (whose impact signals are pretty strong). Might help LeBron and Russell, as well as Garnett and Duncan, maybe Magic as well (though not by huge amounts with ANY of them). Arguably hinders Wilt's case, however, as he's got a couple of seemingly nil years like '63 and '65, one or two others that arguably underachieve [in terms of impact] marginally.
Also would not seem to help Hakeem (despite above theoretical), unless we adhere to the belief that Hakeem was just mailing it in during the rs for a number of years (which: why would he, given they basically NEVER had a high seeding in the bag?). But his rs impact signals trail nearly everyone else here.

Ignore box-based signals (because these favour Jordan against most comers): Doing this pretty much drops Wilt out of contention. Arguably damages LeBron's candidacy too, depending on how much emphasis is placed on cumulative totals.

In-era dominance only (i.e. no adjustment for strength of era): helps Russell, Wilt (and Mikan, if you want to go there), and to a lesser degree Kareem; but no one else.

"Carried" arguments: I'm referring to arguments about how so-and-so "carried" a lackluster cast to a title. This helps Hakeem ('94), and arguably Russell ('69 feels like an over-achieving year; maybe some others); Duncan a bit of a mixed bag (similar "carry job" in '03, but otherwise had very good casts when he won titles). Does NOT help the others.


So idk......it just seems like it might be hard to find the right combination of principles that would [if applying them consistently] put 6+ players ahead of him.

MacGill wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

MacGill wrote:For me, only Russell could be interchanged as GOAT with MJ. 3-10 is made up of incredible players, no doubt, but these two are out of reach for any of them.

Does that mean you consider it unreasonable for someone to have LeBron over Jordan?

Do you think every argument made in the RealGM Top 100 project was unreasonable?

Addressing your first point. Well, I don't really care where someone ranks LBJ and if they want to rank him above MJ, they can 100% do so. I am only speaking for my own rankings here.

For your second point. I'm not sure why this was even brought up and why you use the word 'unreasonable'? Again, I stated for myself and never implied anything would be unreasonable, only that after those two, I do not have any other GOAT candidates from the current crop of nba history. I am pretty confident that in a consensus top 10 (usual suspects) that various posters from all around the world and different age brackets have each individual as their GOAT. Nothing wrong or unreasonable about that.

Well this isn't about what you have them, it is how you would view them.

If someone had Russell Westbrook Top 10, I would say that is unreasonable--I bet you would as well.

But if someone laid out a strong case for him being #45, I bet you would consider it reasonable--even if you had him lower.

That is what I am getting at. This isn't about YOUR rankings, it is about what YOU consider reasonable.

Do you think it is reasonable for someone [not you] to have Jordan at #3? If you don't consider it reasonable to have Jordan behind LeBron James [as was the case in the recent Top 100 Project], then you must find every argument made for LeBron James to be unreasonable.

Colbinii wrote:

MacGill wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
Does that mean you consider it unreasonable for someone to have LeBron over Jordan?

Do you think every argument made in the RealGM Top 100 project was unreasonable?

Addressing your first point. Well, I don't really care where someone ranks LBJ and if they want to rank him above MJ, they can 100% do so. I am only speaking for my own rankings here.

For your second point. I'm not sure why this was even brought up and why you use the word 'unreasonable'? Again, I stated for myself and never implied anything would be unreasonable, only that after those two, I do not have any other GOAT candidates from the current crop of nba history. I am pretty confident that in a consensus top 10 (usual suspects) that various posters from all around the world and different age brackets have each individual as their GOAT. Nothing wrong or unreasonable about that.

Well this isn't about what you have them, it is how you would view them.

If someone had Russell Westbrook Top 10, I would say that is unreasonable--I bet you would as well.

But if someone laid out a strong case for him being #45, I bet you would consider it reasonable--even if you had him lower.

That is what I am getting at. This isn't about YOUR rankings, it is about what YOU consider reasonable.

Do you think it is reasonable for someone [not you] to have Jordan at #3? If you don't consider it reasonable to have Jordan behind LeBron James [as was the case in the recent Top 100 Project], then you must find every argument made for LeBron James to be unreasonable.

Did you read the OP?

Here it is again - 'What would you say is the lowest reasonable all-time ranking for Michael Jordan'? I bolded and underlined the important part.

So, for me, and based on MJ's career, I personally do not think it is reasonable to rank him lower than #2 all-time based on everyone else that has played the game to date. But this is only my opinion and it doesn't mean I haven't listened or heard all the other content points. In the OP's sentence it seems like you are defining the word reasonable with insulting. So again, if we rephrased the sentence to say 'What is the lowest reasonable ranking for MJ before you would deem it insulting'....then my answer would be still the same. But again, this isn't to say I don't engage in productive debates or that I don't think other players don't have ingredients for being GOAT candidates.

However, to expand a little on the rest of your post. My own rankings would be what I deem reasonable. And I am fully aware that what I deem reasonable may not be what you would agree with, however, reasonability here is 100% objective/subjective to the person evaluating the player. There isn't a universal guide of player rankings that is accepted as final nor what everyone would agree as reasonable.

To confirm - your Westbrook example isn't reasonable because I stated (generic universal top 10). But to follow your line of thinking, I could see a reasonable argument for someone who say champions KAJ as GOAT. Not to be confused with agree, but he has career accomplishments where an argument could be used, persay. So does that make me unreasonable if I do not agree?

And to go one step further, I can also see a reasonable argument for LBJ as GOAT. I wouldn't agree but I can see a reasonable argument being made. I don't feel like I am being unreasonable with my response but I also don't expect everyone to universally agree with me either.

If the question was posied to state where could you reasonably rank LBJ, then I would answer #3, based on my own opinion, but it also doesn't mean that is where I would rank him all-time.