RealGM

First of all, PLEASE don't turn this into one of these stupid arguments. All the guys mentioned are absolute legends.
But, I see GOAT arguments for only MJ and LBJ

Here's my reasoning:
-Russell and Wilt, I doubt there are many (if any) people here who saw them play. If they did, it was probably Wilt at the end. I have the modern NBA starting in the 79-80 season, when Magic/Bird entered the league and the put the 3 pt line in. Before that, the ABA sucked talent away for a while, and then the game was just so different. OF COURSE, no disrespect to the pioneers of the game, just no comparing it.

-Duncan/Shaq/Magic/Bird/Kobe/Curry/Hakeem, all top 12 guys (Jokic join soon, maybe Giannis) but I just can't see an argument for the GOAT for any of them.

That leaves KAJ-I had him in my GOAT tier, until LBJ surpassed his longevity. I have him leading the 2nd tier, but I just can't see the greatest there. All time best (including HS and college) for sure, but just for the NBA, I have him solidly 3rd, but no argument for GOAT.

That leaves MJ/LBJ

Please provide me reasoning as to why I might be wrong

pipfan wrote:First of all, PLEASE don't turn this into one of these stupid arguments. All the guys mentioned are absolute legends.
But, I see GOAT arguments for only MJ and LBJ

Here's my reasoning:
-Russell and Wilt, I doubt there are many (if any) people here who saw them play. If they did, it was probably Wilt at the end. I have the modern NBA starting in the 79-80 season, when Magic/Bird entered the league and the put the 3 pt line in. Before that, the ABA sucked talent away for a while, and then the game was just so different. OF COURSE, no disrespect to the pioneers of the game, just no comparing it.

-Duncan/Shaq/Magic/Bird/Kobe/Curry/Hakeem, all top 12 guys (Jokic join soon, maybe Giannis) but I just can't see an argument for the GOAT for any of them.

That leaves KAJ-I had him in my GOAT tier, until LBJ surpassed his longevity. I have him leading the 2nd tier, but I just can't see the greatest there. All time best (including HS and college) for sure, but just for the NBA, I have him solidly 3rd, but no argument for GOAT.

That leaves MJ/LBJ

Please provide me reasoning as to why I might be wrong

I have the 60s as stronger than the 70s NBA (or ABA) and probably stronger than the 1st half of the 80s because of expansion. There were 4 players (sorry Baylor/Pettit fans) that were literally head and shoulders above their league for most of a decade, Wilt and Russell, Oscar and West, and the big men led their teams to considerably more success than the guards, great as those guys were. Then you look at them head to head and while Wilt dominated statistically, Russell beat him with superior talent (Warriors years), with equivalent talent (Sixer years), and even with inferior talent (Laker years). And it was his strength that made Boston the most dominant team in NBA history, his defensive dominance as the whole team turned over without making that significant a dent in their performance.

The dominant player on the most dominant team in NBA history; even if you considered Boston's titles only the equivalent of a finals run, not even Jordan came close to 11 finals appearances in 13 years, so yes, for career value, I have Russell ahead of Jordan. Russell v. LeBron is more disparate as Russell's dominance of his league is far greater than LeBron's of his era while LeBron's longevity blows Russell's (and Jordan's) away. But you can only succeed in the challenges put in front of you so I would say dismissing Russell's case for GOAT requires limited thinking . . . either you just don't bother to consider earlier NBA years or you don't consider defensive dominance to be similar in value to offensive dominance.

I understand it, I have the same trouble with Mikan you do with Russell, he was before my time and the league he played in seems strange and limited to me. That said, his dominance was shorter lived than Russell's and didn't last through the change to the 24 second clock to a great extent, the league Russell came into in 57 changed nearly as drastically between 57 and 62 and yet his dominance, at least on defense, never wavered. (Pettit also stayed strong though the rest of the league started to catch up in a way they never did to Russell).

I have 3 candidates for GOAT with my final order probably being Russell, LeBron, Jordan in that order.

I doubt there are many (if any) people here who saw them play.

Been watching the NBA since the late 60s.

I have the modern NBA starting in the 79-80 season

The 70s was a great decade, even moreso with the influx of ABA talent. Peak Julius Erving imho is the equal to any SF that came after.

Please provide me reasoning as to why I might be wrong

You're not wrong. Your's is as valid an opinion as any.

That leaves KAJ-I had him in my GOAT tier, until LBJ surpassed his longevity. I have him leading the 2nd tier, but I just can't see the greatest there. All time best (including HS and college) for sure, but just for the NBA, I have him solidly 3rd, but no argument for GOAT. That leaves MJ/LBJ

For me it's Wilt and Kareem, followed by Jordan. I think all three were dominant longer than anyone else.

But the players you mentioned are all worthy.

If you have an era-relative view of longevity (where longevity in the past is more impressive than longevity today) then I can see the case for Kareem being the GOAT

I (think) Samurai is old enough to have seen Russell in prime. Penbeast - when's the earliest you remember watching games?

Anywho, while I think it's reasonable to say you're only ranking players from '80 onwards (likely some leeway to appreciate guys who had parts of their careers prior), I don't think it's reasonable to say someone else can't do it. So Russell with all his winning has to be in the discussion for me. Others might be big on box stats and think Wilt is a must include.

I also include Duncan in the discussion from the 'modern' era. Didn't quite match MJs team highs, but he led an only slightly less impressive dynasty (2nd best of the modern era?) with significantly better longevity. In the pbp era he's the clear leader in all-time +/- over LeBron (he spent more time actually beating his opponents than anyone else from '97 onwards). I greatly appreciate that RS+PO he's at an even +10,000 for his career. Given historical victory margins there's a pretty good chance he would be the all-time leader if we had the data (the Celtics would've had to be absolutely horrific with Russell off the court, Kareem would seem to have too many years spent on middling squads, but they're probably the most likely challengers).

Kareem is the only one for me I think , i don’t think he was as good as LBJ/MJ though

Kareem and Russell are legit GOAT candidates, end of the debate.

I don't see it with Kareem, no line of thinking for me that puts him over LeBron so there just isn't a world where I can see him as the GOAT. I limit it to LeBron/Jordan/Russell.

jalengreen wrote:I don't see it with Kareem, no line of thinking for me that puts him over LeBron so there just isn't a world where I can see him as the GOAT. I limit it to LeBron/Jordan/Russell.

I think the line of thinking with Kareem>LeBron is maybe/probably more consistent as a scorer and more defensive impact throughout his prime. I think LeBron's longevity adv over Kareem is pretty negligible though if the Lakers go on an extended run in these playoffs it might change my mind. The one thing I do ding Kareem a bit for in goat debates is his intangibles. He was pretty abrasive and stand offish as a player and leader which to me contributed to those late 70's team results and he was semi lucky to have Magic fall into his lap.

eminence wrote:I (think) Samurai is old enough to have seen Russell in prime. Penbeast - when's the earliest you remember watching games?

Anywho, while I think it's reasonable to say you're only ranking players from '80 onwards (likely some leeway to appreciate guys who had parts of their careers prior), I don't think it's reasonable to say someone else can't do it. So Russell with all his winning has to be in the discussion for me. Others might be big on box stats and think Wilt is a must include.

I also include Duncan in the discussion from the 'modern' era. Didn't quite match MJs team highs, but he led an only slightly less impressive dynasty (2nd best of the modern era?) with significantly better longevity. In the pbp era he's the clear leader in all-time +/- over LeBron (he spent more time actually beating his opponents than anyone else from '97 onwards). I greatly appreciate that RS+PO he's at an even +10,000 for his career. Given historical victory margins there's a pretty good chance he would be the all-time leader if we had the data (the Celtics would've had to be absolutely horrific with Russell off the court, Kareem would seem to have too many years spent on middling squads, but they're probably the most likely challengers).

Earl Monroe was a rookie so, 67-68. I caught a little of end of career Russell, defensive Wilt, but rookie Kareem. TV games, maybe a few earlier but was more into soccer than basketball until 66-67 when I moved to a house with a hoop in the backyard.

Jordan isn't a GOAT candidate. I wouldn't take him in my top 3.

I'm old enough to have seen Russell in his prime. Whoever carried the NBA broadcasts at the time, it seemed like it was Boston vs Philly every weekend (it wasn't, but in the smaller league, you played the other teams far more often).

I gained appreciation for players and teams in the 60s, including Russell and the Celtics, because I had older brothers who educated me as we watched the games.

I even got to meet Russell when USF dedicated a room to him, and I got to tag along because my older brother was recruited by USF. Plus growing up in the Bay Area, I got to see battles between Nate Thurmond and other great centers like Russell, Wilt, and Kareem.

My GOAT tier is larger than many and includes Russell, Wilt, and Kareem in addition to LeBron and Jordan.

As for LeBron passing Kareem for total career value, that's a valid argument considering how productive LeBron has been in his late career, but I'll point out that Kareem lost four years of NBA production since he was forced to stay in college. And while LeBron may have an edge in late career production, when you look at their early careers, Kareem was a significantly more impactful player than LeBron. If most of what you're basing your opinion on is late career Kareem because that's what you saw, you're doing him a disservice in the comparison.

When forced to abandon my preferred tier groupings and rank players, I have Kareem as number one. But it's splitting hairs between all the guys in my GOAT tier.

One_and_Done wrote:Jordan isn't a GOAT candidate. I wouldn't take him in my top 3.

Jordan is definately a candidate for GOAT peak and GOAT prime

Russell is in my GOAT tier. Greatest winner ever, huge impact thanks to his defense, and the most insane intangibles ever. He is an obvious GOAT candidate. When you won more than anyone else while being the best player for most if not all of those titles, you're automatically in the conversation. Playing in an older era shouldn't disqualify you or else all modern players are automatically disqualified against guys that are coming in the future. Players should always be judged relative to their era and not any other way IMO.

Kareem is also a candidate, particularly for those who care about longevity. He is now passed by Lebron for NBA longevity but that's because Kareem didn't enter the NBA straight out of high school. Looking at the entire basketball resume (high school, college, NBA), Kareem's is probably the most impressive.

The way I rank them is as follows.

GOAT Tier 1-2

Russell
Jordan

Near GOAT Tier 3-4

Lebron
Kareem

I think I have a bit of an idiosyncratic conclusion to this—which is that I think there’s other players with niche GOAT arguments that I don’t personally even necessarily put above all the guys who I don’t think have a niche argument for #1. Basically, I think there’s some players with fringe GOAT arguments if you really value specific things.

A few examples of this:

- Russell obviously has a hook for GOAT, based on his 11 rings.

- Wilt has an argument for GOAT, just based on sheer ridiculous box numbers (though obviously pace adjustments decrease the strength of this).

- Shaq has a niche argument for GOAT IMO, just based on the sheer dominant warping of opponents’ gameplans and rosters that was required to even try to deal with him. I don’t know that we’ve ever seen anyone else have the equivalent of teams trying to load up their roster with stiff bigs just to try to contain Shaq.

- A guy like Jokic has an argument here just based on a line of thinking that goes something like: “The talent/quality of the league is at its best now, so the league’s best player now is probably the best player ever in non-era-relative terms.”

- Steph has claim as the best player on history’s best team, though that’s probably not a very strong hook.

I don’t know that there’s anyone else that has much of an argument that could be made for them. To be clear, I actually have some guys I didn’t mention above ahead of guys I mentioned above. For instance, I think I have Kareem above all of them. I just don’t really think it’s easy to articulate some very favorable lens for him that would land him at #1—in the past, that lens would’ve been longevity, but I think it’s hard to put him above LeBron on that basis now, so a big longevity focus doesn’t really get him there. Similar for a guy like Duncan—I can’t really articulate even a niche argument for him to be #1, but I actually personally have him above most of the above-listed guys even though I think a niche argument can be made for them. And there’s other guys who I have above one or more of the guys listed above. I just think those guys listed above have a niche argument if you really are focused on the best aspects for them.

Special_Puppy wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Jordan isn't a GOAT candidate. I wouldn't take him in my top 3.

Jordan is definately a candidate for GOAT peak and GOAT prime

If Jordan played today nobody would think he was the GOAT. They'd call him a poor man's Lebron.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

jalengreen wrote:I don't see it with Kareem, no line of thinking for me that puts him over LeBron so there just isn't a world where I can see him as the GOAT. I limit it to LeBron/Jordan/Russell.

I think the line of thinking with Kareem>LeBron is maybe/probably more consistent as a scorer and more defensive impact throughout his prime. I think LeBron's longevity adv over Kareem is pretty negligible though if the Lakers go on an extended run in these playoffs it might change my mind. The one thing I do ding Kareem a bit for in goat debates is his intangibles. He was pretty abrasive and stand offish as a player and leader which to me contributed to those late 70's team results and he was semi lucky to have Magic fall into his lap.

Yeah I could see somebody else thinking Kareem > for those reasons, but it's just not possible for me because I think that he's a worse player who ultimately ending up losing the longevity advantage.

One_and_Done wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Jordan isn't a GOAT candidate. I wouldn't take him in my top 3.

Jordan is definately a candidate for GOAT peak and GOAT prime

If Jordan played today nobody would think he was the GOAT. They'd call him a poor man's Lebron.

They'd probably call him a better Shai

jalengreen wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:
Jordan is definately a candidate for GOAT peak and GOAT prime

If Jordan played today nobody would think he was the GOAT. They'd call him a poor man's Lebron.

They'd probably call him a better Shai

It's not even totally clear he'd be better than Shai. He'd be better at some things, and worse than others. Regardless of whether he'd be better than Shai or not, the fact remains nobody would perceive him as the GOAT in the same way that nobody thinks 'wow, if Shai was just a little better he'd be in the GOAT conversation!'

One_and_Done wrote:

jalengreen wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:If Jordan played today nobody would think he was the GOAT. They'd call him a poor man's Lebron.

They'd probably call him a better Shai

It's not even totally clear he'd be better than Shai. He'd be better at some things, and worse than others. Regardless of whether he'd be better than Shai or not, the fact remains nobody would perceive him as the GOAT in the same way that nobody thinks 'wow, if Shai was just a little better he'd be in the GOAT conversation!'

Shai's arc is not so dissimilar from Steph, who people do in fact say "if he was a little better he'd be in the GOAT conversation" about tbh. Not out of question for those same statements to eventually be said of Shai if his prime shapes up the way it seems on track to. Hell, people have said that about Kobe, and Shai is better than Kobe ever was lol (as was Jordan)