RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #2 — 1974 Kareem-Abdul Jabbar

[AEnigma]

Voting will close sometime after 19:00PM EST on Wednesday, July 16. I have no issue extending the time to vote so long as discussion is strong, but please try to vote within the first three days.

Official ballots must include 3 different player peaks (name + year) and at least one line of reasoning for each of them. Votes which fail to do this will not be counted. Keep in mind that the expectation is to generally try to offer more than the bare minimum: reasoning such as “GOAT player in his GOAT season,” absent any other engagement or commentary in the thread, contributes exceedingly little to the primary purpose of the project, which is the thought and discussion behind the comparisons rather than the vote results themselves.

Example #1
1. 2004 Andrei Kirilenko: Explanation
2. 2006 Shawn Marion: Explanation
3. 2004 Metta Artest: Explanation

You may also list alternate peak seasons from your three players. This is an optional step included to give clearer representation in the event that consensus is split on the choice of peak seasons. Do not list every good season a player has; the intent of this feature is to help settle disputes between specific seasons contending for selection as that player’s peak.

Example #2
1. 2004 Andrei Kirilenko: Explanation
2. 2006 Shawn Marion (> 2003 > 2007 = 2005): Explanation
3. 2004 Metta Artest (> 2003 > 2006): Explanation

Ballots need not follow this exact format, but I request you format your ballot in such a way that a) it is obvious that post is your voting post, b) a quick glance is sufficient for me to tally your vote, and c) the order of your alternate year preferences is clear. If you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same voting post rather than posting a new ballot (although you are encouraged to make separate posts about what changes you made and why).

Each thread will last at least 72 hours before I begin tallying. If there is no simple majority, then the winning player and that player’s winning season will be determined with a Condorcet tally.

Below is the list of approved voters for this thread:

Spoiler:

Anyone may post on-topic thoughts in the thread, but only approved voters will have their ballots counted. Requests to join the project can be made on the general discussion thread; however, unless you were included on that initial notification list or otherwise have an established history voting in forum projects, you will need to wait until the next thread to be given consideration as an approved voter. Finally, meta commentary or questions should be restricted to the above-linked general thread to keep voting threads focused on discussing peaks.

[falcolombardi]

I will be looking to make some kareem/hakeem/jordan tracking for my #2 vote post (albeit i need to finally finish 1 before doing all 3 lol)

How much are we allowed to post about it here since it technically cam become a bit too long of a wall of text ?

[AEnigma]

I will be looking to make some kareem/hakeem/jordan tracking for my #2 vote post (albeit i need to finally finish 1 before doing all 3 lol)

How much are we allowed to post about it here since it technically cam become a bit too long of a wall of text ?

No restrictions other than the automatic character cutoffs, but if you think it is becoming exceedingly long, feel free to use spoilers or otherwise break the post up into separate posts.

Also, be careful with putting Youtube videos in spoilers; seems like that can occasionally break the site.

[One_and_Done]

For me this is Duncan by far (02, then 03).

Shaq still 2nd for me probably. I'll need to have a think about who my #3 is.

[trelos6]

#2 Michael Jordan (1991 > 1990 > 1989). Final year of his 3 year stretch, which IMO is the best 3 year stretch in NBA history. His 3 yr PS run included 34.1 pp75 on +7.3 rTS%. Specifically, In 1991 +6.52 OPIPM, +1.68 DPIPM. +8.21 PIPM. 24.12 Wins Added. RS: 32 pp75, +7.1 rTS%. Team rOrtg +6.7. Elite scoring, great efficiency. Elite team offense in both regular season and playoffs.

#3 Shaquille O’Neal (2000 > 2001 > 2002). 28.6 pp75, +5.5 rTS%. Slight volume reduction in playoffs, and 2% TS drop. Team rOrtg +3.2. Regular season Lakers were the league leading defense. Shaq was a force protecting the rim. +5.13 OPIPM, +2.03 DPIPM. +7.16 PIPM. 25.74 Wins Added. I’ve gone 2000 as he was better in the RS vs 01 better in PS as I value the complete start to finish campaign.

#4 Hakeem Olajuwon (1993 > 1994 > 1989). Anchored a top 5 defense in the regular season, then backed it up by anchoring the best playoff defense of any teams playing more than one series. Hakeem elevates his game offensively. +2.97 OPIPM, +4.31 DPIPM. +7.28 PIPM. 23.04 Wins Added. 25.2 pp75 on +4.1 rTS%. Team rOrtg of +1.6.

[eminence]

I know it's just an example, and #2 is far too early, but I appreciate seeing it because I would appreciate '04 AK getting on the list somewhere this year. I'm not certain if that team wins 10 games without AK.

[penbeast0]

Just a note for those looking only at the big scorers, Russell finished 3rd in the #1 voting.

[OhayoKD]

For me this is Duncan by far (02, then 03).

Shaq still 2nd for me probably. I'll need to have a think about who my #3 is.

Fwiw, #2 will probably come down to one of Jordan, Kareem, or Russell. So if you want your vote to matter to the final count, you might want to use the final slot on whichever of that trio you like best.

[One_and_Done]

For me this is Duncan by far (02, then 03).

Shaq still 2nd for me probably. I'll need to have a think about who my #3 is.

Fwiw, #2 will probably come down to one of Jordan, Kareem, or Russell. So if you want your vote to matter to the final count, you might want to use the final slot on whichever of that trio you like best.

We'll see. I wouldn't have Jordan in my top 5, or Russell in my top 30.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

Will add more later but

64 Bill Russell

-> Leads massive rs outlier with no evidence of impressive help playing way more minutes than everyone
-> RS outlier is dominant in the postseason
-> potential peak of a player who effectively lead two different dynasties with two completely different supporting casts and won back to back against historically strong competition as a player-coach on a roster that seems to have been incapable of making the playoffs without.


I am keeping things mostly era-relative this time around so Russell is a simple 1 to argue for.

But that's not what most people are hear for so let me put my focus on a potential thread winner.



2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar (74>77>72>71>80)

-> The league's best attacker and second best defender (with seasons where he was the best at both)
-> Leads a massive RS outlier with middling support
-> Nearly beats a strong opponent for a championship despite losing his starting PG
-> Sees his scoring skyrocket between the regular-season and the playoffs
-> Very similar to the near #1 representing season (2009 Lebron) from the last thread with certain advantages (stronger opponent, better injury excuse, takes it to 7 instead of 6)
-> Far and away the best player in the league both by the data and reputation
-> Impact signals are sampled from down-years and yet rather impressive (massive rookie year jump, bucks have a 30-win (20-win by srs) fall off during a down-year for Jabbar plagued by lockeroom issues and the people he was playing host to getting murdered
-> Wins 3rd in MVP in 4 years (should have been 4 in row)
-> Is likely a DPOY, MVP, and Finals MVP if all the awards exist during his sophomore season
-> Immense longevity showcasing both adaptability and willingness to lessen role to accommodate talented teammates
-> Likely not optimized schematically until his 30s in a similar vein as Hakeem (will expound later)
-> Dominant RPOY showing on this board only really rivalled by Lebron and Russell

3. 03 Tim Duncan

Will just copy and paste what I wrote for him in the 2003 RPOY

Spoiler:

Voting Post

1. Tim Duncan

60-wins and a +5.6 SRS with Duncan averaging 6 more minutes than 2nd-in-minutes sophomore Tony Parker and 13 more minutes than #2 David Robinson. Duncan sees substantial time without #2s past and present with San Antonio going 15-3 without Robinson (68-win pace) and 10-3 without Manu (63-win pace, statmuse isn't showing net). From 01-07, the Spurs played at a 41-win pace without Duncan posting a net-rating of +0.4. A sample largely informed by 2004/2005 and a Spurs team with significantly improved iterations of Manu and Parker. With RAPM, Duncan, despite his best years coming with a #2 who plays his natural position, and an unusually large amount of minutes spent with said #2's poor backups, scores 2nd best behind KG of all players relevant to this ballot. In playoff-rapm he looks like the outright best.

With that we have a strong POY case, but what cements it is the postseason:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +1.80 (83rd), Playoff Defensive Rating: -8.65 (14th)
Playoff SRS: +10.66 (47th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +3.36 (34th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.75 (34th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -1.70 (59th)

Playoff Heliocentrism: 50.8% (6th of 84 teams) - Duncan
Playoff Wingmen: 29.5% (76th) - Ginobili & Robinson
Playoff Bench: 19.7% (54th)

Round 1: Phoenix Suns (+1.6), won 4-2, by +5.3 points a game (+6.9 SRS eq)
Round 2: Los Angeles Lakers (+4.8), won 4-2, by +5.8 points a game (+10.6 SRS eq)
Round 3: Dallas Mavericks (+7.5), won 4-2, by +5.0 points a game (+12.5 SRS eq)
Round 4: New Jersey Nets (+6.9), won 4-2, by +5.8 points a game (+12.7 SRS eq)

The spurs jump from the 76th highest SRS to the 46th PSRS going from +5.6 to +10 as Duncan goes from averaging 6 more minutes than anybody else to 8 more minutes and ups his points, assists, assist% rebounds, rebound %, blocks, and block percentage (.1 tov increase, .1 steal decrease, .1% steal percentage drop). He also sees across-the-board improvement in ben's advanced box, and, by a box-score interpretation that really doesn't capture what he offers as the primary focus of the opposing offense on >50% of his team's defensive possessions, the Spurs run more through him than all but 2 other bigs:

The problem was that all of his teammates were the wrong ages. David Robinson was 37, the future Hall of Famer going into his final year, protecting his body by playing only 25 minutes a game. In contrast Tony Parker was only 20 and Manu Ginobili was 25 (but he was a late bloomer, at this point mostly notable for being an insane ball-hawk on defense). Pretty much all of his great teammates were either too old or too young. I don’t want to sell that it was a bad supporting cast . . . It’s just that there was no way they were going to be winning anything without ‘03 Duncan. Do you know how many bigs on this list broke 45% Heliocentrism for the regular season? ‘80 Kareem, ‘74 Kareem and ‘01 Shaq (I’m choosing not to consider Bird and LeBron bigs for the purposes of this list). How about 50% Heliocentrism in the playoffs? ‘74 Kareem is it. As all-time seasons with a big man carrying a team to greatness go, ‘03 Duncan has got to be on the short list for that discussion.

.

For comparison the 2000 Lakers, led by a far more lauded pinnacle, post a psrs of +7, a substantially worse postseason performance even with 8 additional minutes of Kobe Bryant.

Duncan also does this with Popavich, not "standard-deviation above any coach ever statistically" Phil Jackson. And he does it forced out of his natural position with a co-star who shares massive overlap in terms of skllset. Points ignored when certain, let's say, "context" is provided to diminish him

 I’d be remiss not to acknowledge Popovich more, who, for my money, is the greatest coach in NBA history. He transitioned the Spurs from a defensively-oriented team that orbited around its twin-towers, to a perpetual motion, Euro-style offense built around perimeter players who could pass and shoot. This morphed into a brief offensive dynasty, peaking in 2014 with one of the greatest teams of all-time, unheard of for an ensemble production that lacked a troupe of stars. Popovich’s success on both sides of the ball does take some of the shine off of Duncan for me.
...
Duncan’s portability isn’t top-notch either; he’s savvy enough to scale down his offense (as he did in later years), although his limited passing prevents him from matching Garnett’s impact in a secondary role. His longevity was fantastic, tallying 17 All-Star seasons by my valuations, tied for tops in this series. He, KG and Wilt all have similar peaks and era-adjusted career value, and thus feel nearly interchangeable in these slots. So, while Garnett and him are neck and neck, if I were forced to choose, I’d oh-so-barely side with Duncan. (Are ties allowed?)

Duncan is the most portable, scalable, proven, winningest, and, most importantly, valuable player in the league. Simply, put he's the best player of the early 2000s; peak, prime and career. Maybe the best since Jabbar, maybe even Russell (era-relative). He was not merely consistent, but consistently spectacular. And at his best, he got better in the biggest games, the ones titles are won or lost with.

For the true "most dominant", I think a unanimous vote would be appropriate.

[OhayoKD]

Disclaimer: This is a lazy copy and pasting of what I wrote for the top 100 with regards to Jordan vs Kareem.

Note: (I am aware of alternate calculations regarding the 72 bucks without Oscar with them not faring quite as well, 55-win srs. 59-win pace)

I'll get to Russell later, but this is predominantly going to focus on Kareem. It is not going to focus on his resume. It is also not going on his focus on his team-success. And while I will mention the longetvity, I will do so as the means to a seperate end. I imagine this is going to come down to Kareem vs MJ. And most likely if you are contemplating this question, Kareem having more "career value" is not something you are disputing...

Vote #2: The next vote for me is between Wilt, Kareem, and MJ. I have been voting MJ in the last couple of these GOAT lists and he's hard to pick against combing individual brilliance and team success. I do think Wilt was the more dominant player and Kareem had more meaningful longevity.

So instead my post will focus on justifying the following assertion: Kareem Abdul Jabbar peaked higher than Micheal Jordan

More specifically, I will argue that Kareem Abdul Jabbar, at his best, was better for winning championships in his own time than Jordan was in his. Or, to be really precise, it is more likely than Kareem was better for winning championships than Jordan was.

There will be data, there will be a discussion of how and what said data is used, and there will be a snippet of 70sfan's film-tracking. But first, theory. I imagine for many, Kareem peaking higher would be surprising. So surprising, you'd be tempted to consider indicators favoring Kareem as mere noise. So first let's establish that it should not be surprising. You should expect Kareem to be better...

Why Kareem SHOULD be better

First, I think there are some general assumptions we can make regarding peaks/primes:

I'll point out for posterity, that all else being equal, from a predictive lens, a player who has more "goat-lvl" seasons would be more likely to have "the" goat season based on sheer probability. Part of why I think it's better to start by comparing players "in general" looking for positive comparisons to be made across their careers and then applying whatever internal-scaling there is to be applied

We've both agreed that replication/corroboration matters. Russell has never lost when healthy, and all the signals with relevance noisy they may be support what the largest possible sample says. We can acknowledge uncertainty but uncertainty itself is not a good reason for claiming a player is better or worse than another. Ditto with Lebron and Kareem. These are 3 players who from what we have were posting outlier signals relative to the field from teen-aged to their 30's and beyond. They also happen to have a whole collection "goat-lvl" or "outlier" looking prime/peak stuff, even in down-years(2015, 1975). Why would we take their signals to be noise, when it's exactly what we should expect given where they started and ended or in Lebron's case ending) and they've posted "goat-level" or better impact again and again?

(For the purposes of this post, "goat-level" can just be "peak/prime Micheal Jordan")

-> All else being equal, a player with more high-level years has a greater chance of having a higher peak than a player with less high-level years. If a player is "at" the top more often, then they have more chances to fluctuate up and "peak"
-> All else being equal, a player who starts off as better has a greater chance of having a higher peak than a player who starts off worse
-> All else being equal, a player who ages better has a greater chance of having a higher peak than a player who does not'
-> All else being equal, a player with better longevity is also more likely to be better at their best. After all, higher peaks have more room to fall, and the ability to maintain excellence over time is usually indicative of a both versatility and a special sort of mental resilience(Kareem does not win 6-rings if he copies MJ's antics in Washington).
-> All else being equal, a player who is generally better, is more likely to be better at their best

I am assuming most readers here are not disputing that Kareem is advantaged with the first 4 points. I am going to argue for the 5th, as well. I will also argue that "all else being equal" should be replaced with "most else favoring Kareem". If I can get you there, then I think Kareem Abdul Jabbar peaking higher would be self-evident.

To bolster this a bit, I will also offer a bit of "skill-set analysis" me and Blackmill came up with(with some justification in the way of team-lvl results). With Kareem and Jordan both being arguably GOAT-lvl scorers(Kareem with obscene efficiency, Mj obscene volume), I'd say what the question we have to ask is whether MJ's playmaking was worth more than Kareem's defense, and to that end...

"Making teammates better" Tiers

Spoiler:

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.

This is an interesting way to break things down though I think we can add some levels here(this is somewhat tangential to this discussion but may as well)


Also think we can add "play-calling"/"running the offense" to shift "Playmaking" to "making teammates better".

I think the bottom-level is when your play-making/ball-handling is an active detriment to your ability to generate scoring oppurtunities for yourself(at the high-end of this is Durant, low-end of this might be Davis).

I think a tier up we get players who aren't really able to create a bunch but have suffecient skill here that they are not that dependent on teammates to generate scoring oppurtunities for themselves(Kawhi)

Tier two we get players who, with the right pieces, can leverage their scoring gravity towards creating for others(Kareem as you allude to may be the best of this archtype since he really just needs "functional" help here)

Tier three guys are players who can function as primary ball-handlers and therefore automatically will generate for their teammates offensively(At the high end you have Jordan/Curry, lower end you get someone like Giannis)

And then I think Tier four are guys who not only generate oppurtunities with their gravity but effectively leaverage their teammates and their own abilities to not only generate potential oppurtunities, but then select/generate the best possible ones(low-end might be CP3, mid might be lebron/jokic, highest end might be magic/nash).

There is a bit of a fallacy I think where people look at raw assist totals, raw creation counts, or box-oc and pretend volume is everything. But it's not just about what you create. It's also about the quality of what you're creating AND how much you're leaving on the table with suboptimal decisions. Players on this tier have better discernable offensive "lift" than players the tier below, and often this is blamed entirely or pre-dominantly on "this is just because of who their teammates are", but I actually think the real source of this offensive advantage is the "quality" of what they're creating(and some of the backseat coaching stuff has an off-court effect that can't be tracked via impact stuff):

In my tracking sample, Stockton hit 3.5 “good” or “great” passes per 100 possessions — a formidable clip for his era, behind only Magic and Bird among ’80s and ’90s players on this list. However, he also missed an elite pass once per 100, leaving points on the scoreboard that the best passers would have found.2

Overall, Kobe’s rate of “good” passes in my sample was around 3 per 100. For comparison, Jordan was at 2 per 100 and an all-timer like Nash over 8 per 100.8

As a result of his increased primacy and evolved court vision, LeBron’s creation rates jumped from about 11 per 100 to a whopping 14 per 100, just short of the highest rates ever estimated. In my sampling, his quality passes leapt into the upper stratosphere, reaching Nash-like frequencies with a “good” pass on 8 percent of his possessions.

Don't have access to the numbers(paywall) rn but passer-rating also sees this. Curry and Jordan graded out as comparable or right behind creators in a pure volume metric like playval(based on ben's bpm which is using assist totals I think) or Box-OC, to guys like say Lebron, Magic, and Nash, but they had teammates telling players where to go(draymond/pippen respectively), and don't make the best possible reads as often(I think ben said it was something like 60% vs 80% of the high quality passes in his peaks video and we have the "good passes" number above).

Incidentally they don't seem to have the same level of offensive lift in the absence of a specific structure where those decisions are delegated to someone else:

In Year Two of the prime Nash-Nowitzki show, Dallas ascended to a dynastic level on offense. The Mavs finished with the sixth-best rORtg in league history (+7.7), followed by the 16th-best in ’03 (+7.1) and then in ’04 became the only offense in NBA history 9 points better than league average for a full season (+9.2).

Regardless, using your "full-strength" derivation, I'm not sure, it, as you say, "has a meaning", considering that still puts 21/22 and 23/24 year-old MJ led-offense significantly behind what Lebron led at 20/21(2006, 35 game sample, Bron has a birthday, Ben decides to say Lebron is 19 in 05, BBR says he's 20 ). And here, I'll admit, I did lie. Checking Ben's write-up, that full-strength offense wasn't +5, it was +6.6, coming off a +2.3 offense(2005, 70 game sample) with 19/20 year old Lebron, and a +4.9 jump(+6 overall!) with Lebron at 18/19. Was that all Lebron? No. But even with a generous adjustment(take Boozer's 31-game without sample from the season after and pretend he wasn't on the 03 Cavs), we're around +2(+4 overall) with teenage Bron.Worth considering this all happened in the absence of 3-point specialists

By comparison, the best pre-triangle Jordan stretch(with Jordan arguably at his peak) sees a 52(Ben) or 53-win(E-balla) team over a 30-game sample going at +4.4 offensively(you can reach a +4.6 if you swap minuite distributions for the 5th and 7th mpg guys for 20 games and ignore the team didn't actually improve), Curry wasn't close to leading all-time offenses(and had worse metrics than both westbrook and durant) with Draymond on the bench.

The only example of a non-controlling delegator making all the decisions I can think of rn is Bird(Jokic may be the highest form of this but I'm going to wait till he has a strong playoff sample) but his offenses didn't even outpace Reggie's pacers in the postseason, never mind Magic's lakers:

So in his whole prime his team underperformed offensively just twice despite 14 of his 22 series being against top 5 defenses. On average in the regular season his teams' offenses played at a +2.5 level. In the playoffs they played at a +6.4 level. Remove series against teams that weren't top 5 defenses and they performed at a +6.3 level (he averaged 23.0/3.1/2.6 on 60.2 TS% with a 120 ORTG). Reggie Miller's offensive postseason results are insane and paint him as being extremely impactful.

FWIW, against the Pistons, the best defense of the 80's, Magic's Lakers dropped off the least, the Bulls in the triangle held up the second best, and it was bird's celtics, by far, that struggled the most.

[/quote]

Defensive Tiers

Spoiler:

Taking it back to Kareem, I think this kind of sorting can probably be applied defensively.

At the very bottom you have players whose defense limits their ability to be utilized offensively(Harden needing to be benched vs the Clippers comes to mind, Kyrie falls here at certain points).

You then have people who are negatives but can be compensated for and stay on the floor(luka, prime harden, nash).

A tier up you have players who can be additive situationally(at the low end you have curry/magic who have positive value at points in certain contexts, at the high end you have the likes of wade, jordan, cp3 who will add something in nearly any game even if they can't affect every possession or lift a team's overall d-rating by several points)

A tier up from there you have players who can move the needle situationally(at the top players like Kiki, Pippen and Lebron seem to consistently influence the quality of their defenses they play on, while I think someone like Kawhi shifts between needle mover to "additive situationally" because he lacks both the coaching/paint-protection that can effect nearly every possesion in a given game).

And then I think Kareem slots into the bottom of "will always move the needle alot" (Bucks improved by 5-points defensively from 71 to 69 and 70 and got better the next two years) where his ability to protect the paint pretty much garuntees the type of influence Pippen can only manage for stretches, and Lebron only generates facing small-ball opponents), At the top of all this is Russell who "basically garuntees goat defense regardless of help"

I can expound on this if asked, but to keep things short, I think this grouping tracks with what we can observe with defenses when players leave or miss games.

Offense, Defense, and Overall: Kareem vs Jordan

Spoiler:

I think Jordan and Kareem both are really the "best version" of the offensive archetypes they embody(low turnover economy and decent vision help Jordan and Kareem respectively), but those archetypes have specific deficits that limit what they can do offensively(running the offense/top tier passing and decision making for Jordan. Since Jordan is a much better ball-handler who can at least function as the primary guy, I think Jordan rightly should be considered a notch higher on the offensive spectrum, but I feel the offensive gap is probably smaller than the defensive gap with the offensive difference being more of "how much do I need to influence things this way" while defense is more like "I fundementally can effect the game on a level you can't".

If i reference all this with my interpretation of "discernible influece of winning"(I know you don't weigh that too highly but humor me), Russell really looks on a tier on his own(at least in terms of "prime") while monopolizing everything on the side of the court that mattered for the 60's(thereby basically acheiving "I will always win no matter what"), you have Lebron scoring near the top on one and high on the other(best impact profile post russell imo) and then Kareem scoring near the top at maybe the less volatile side(which to your point makes him maybe "least dependent on help") and high on the other(2nd best impact profile post-russell imo and an outside argument for best)

Jordan's "impact" profile is more in-line with the likes of Duncan, Hakeem, KG, Magic, ect. and I think that reflects him being potentially game-changing as opposed to season-determining on one end while not quite being able to do everything on the other.

It's hard for me to ascertain who needs more to achieve a ceiling, so I'd rather root my assessment by trying to derive a baseline with the assumption players can fluctuate up and down and that both Kareem and Jordan have a proclivity to fluctuate up(Jordan's teams operated like contenders in the postseason when they didn't really play like that in the regular season(box-production scaled up), and Kareem has achieved a similar effect by just going crazy in 74 and 77(Kareem also holds up the best of any scorer against elite defenses)

I mostly agree with this. There's no doubt to me that Kareem can approximate Jordan's offensive production more closely than Jordan can approximate Kareem's defensive production. But when I take a team level perspective, it's a little less clear to me who I would rather build around. Is it easier to surround Kareem with a sufficient level of playmaking, without creating an anemic perimeter defense, or to provide Jordan with enough rim protection, and still have him play in lineups that offensively fit?

In the 90s, a fair offensive fit next to Jordan could mean offensive rebounding and at-rim finishing, which conveniently meant a physical profile that was often conductive to defense and rim protection. In their respective eras, I see an argument for it being easier to build a strong contender around Jordan. That's not a given, I just think it's very possibly true, despite Kareem being able to provide a greater individual lift.

TLDR: Both have major limitations on offense that prevent them from generating the playoff highs of truly top-tier engines or producing great results without specific infrastructure in place. Jordan is advantaged here as a more capable ball-handler, but that advantage is not enough to shift things fundamentally(Jordan still needed to be relegated to secondary ball-handling/team-lvl decision-making).

On the other hand, Kareem's defensive advantage is a difference of kind rather than extent. Kareem's defense is season-defining, Jordan's is merely game defining. Thus Kareem is more valuable in a vacuum.

With this, I'll input some additional assumptions

-> Bigs>Smalls
-> Two-way anchors> one-way anchors


For people who don't like the uncertainty of wowy, we can just look to data ball which the impact-toppers are Duncan, Kg, and Lebron, a non-big who comes about as close to a big as any non-big ever

One "anti-assumption" which I think is especially relevant given the empirical justification often used for Jordan...

He's one of the greatest individual scorers ever, repeatedly leading the league in ppg while maintaining something close to +5-6% rTS each year, and also having a GOAT-tier turnover economy [among wings], and a fair bit of gravity (some of the open looks for BJ and Pax [later Harper or Kerr] came as fall-out from the attention given to Jordan).
Was also a good playmaker (passing out of double/triple-teams, or on penetrate and dish), good rebounding wing, and when locked in was nearly without compare [at his position] on defense. His box-composite profile is without compare [in terms of rate metrics].

Jordan came into the league and had an immediate impact both statistically and team improvement: 28.2 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 SPG, .8 BPG, 59.2% TS, 118 ORTG, .213 WS/48, 27 wins to 38, 23rd in SRS to 14th. Few players produce at an all NBA level right out of the gate, so you knew you had something special in jordan.

-> Scoring top in stats which only capture what physically occurs at the end of a possession(pass before shot, shot, usage, steal, block, ect) does not necessitate you are at the tippity top in terms of offense (or defense) over the course of a possession or a game(or a season).

Another "anti-assumption"

The impact profile seems to be valid, too: in '96 is rs AuPM is a close 2nd to only peakish David Robinson; in '97 his NPI RAPM is 2nd in the league [to a dubious Christian Laettner]; in '98 [arguably not even in his prime anymore] he's 4th in PI RAPM [6th in NPI]. Bear in mind NONE of these are his peak.

Just because 96 is not Jordan's peak in absolute terms does not mean it would not be where he ranks highest. Jordan could well still be worse via skill, but stand out as much or more in a field without Magic and Bird, with Hakeem leaving his post-prime. Indeed, two of his best-team results come from that period, and if those are actually close or at his "best" results, those results would not actually support him being a "clearly best-of-era" force like Jabbar was. And it's worth noting we have tiny snippets where second-three peat MJ looks better than 1st-three peat MJ.

Notably, we do have signals for Jordan's "peak". If you want to use simple direct stuff, Jordan's "impact" portfolio actually weakens signficantly scoring 28th in ben's wowy(4th among his peers). I do not know how exactly he got that, but I do know a simple extended wowy thing(we literally just look at on/off) sees Jordan as a close 2nd to Magic who narrowly edges Hakeem:

Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins
Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins
Magic takes 44-win teams to 59 wins

Keeping in mind that it's harder to lift better teams, Hakeem comes marginally behind Jordan, and slightly more behind Magic, but he's right up there with both.

Ben has his own(presumably more sophisticated) approach which likes Hakeem even better; "Prime WOWY" ranks Olajuwon 10th. Magic and Jordan rank 12th and 20th28th, respectively.

As we'll get to later, Kareem, like Lebron, maintains a consistent advantage in terms of "impact" whether you allow for derivations for years multiple years removed, use indirect signals, or what is "officially" considered WOWY(within a season). WOWYR had Mj ahead based on incorrect WOWY data, but 70's corrections wing WOWY in Kareem's favor and so potentially also would swing "WOWYR". I have very much railed against the usage of this stat do to how small the samples it's "corrections" come from, but I will list that for thoroughness.

All, to say, there is some support for what is theoretically outlined above and crucially, at least when looking at what can be tied to winning, little in opposite direction.

However, at the end of the "Kareem vs Jordan" blurb, Blackmill ponders if someone of Jordan's archetype was easier to construct a contender around in their respective times(interestingly, they think Kareem is better-suited for cross-era translation). Here is where we can use impact and more specifically the replication of impact to assuage these doubts. In fact we can look at the "soft belly" of Kareem's career during the mid-70's

The "soft middle", Kareem's "off" years

Spoiler:

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.

I think it's very important to be careful to call anything "going nowhere":

1. Lakers finished with the best RS record in 1977, Jordan neve did that before 1991.

2. Lakers finished with +2.95 SRS in 1979, which is better than Bulls in any year in 1987-90 period outside of 1988. It happened in the smaller, more balanced league as well.

3. Lakers lost to two future champions in the playoffs during 1977-79 period. The other time, they lost to future finalists in a 3 games series. That's the same level of playoff success as 1987-89 Bulls.

If you want to say that they did nothing during that period, then I'm afraid you should say the same for Jordan's whole career before 1990.

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([b]30-win by record, 22-win by srs), the Bucks coming within a game of a title despite Kareem's co-stars falling off[/b](Kareem went ballistic all playoffs), and a solid floor-raising job in 76 with a new team and 20-something 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 beating a recent champion, and then losing to the eventual champions(a sweep, but by point-differential about as competitive as 88-Det vs Chi and 2023 Lal vs Denver) in what was an all-time performance from Jabbar.

[b]But sure, in 76, potentially the weakest signals of Kareem's prime, in a season marred by off-court drama and injury, the Lakers lost 3 of their 5 minute leaders, improved by 4 points of srs, posted a similar full-strength rating as the 86 and 87 Bulls(with a >20-min of Jordan filter boosting 86), and Kareem was accordingly recognized as the MVP despite missing the playoffs. The following 2-years he led better teams than any Jordan has led without a second superstar and a 50+ win-cast(in case you forgot, the Bulls posted a 53-win srs without Jordan and Horace Grant)[/b], and as 70's covered(and you evidently ignored) Kareem has consistently out-impacted Jordan(at least in terms of what we can actually discern) over the course of his prime/career

If you recall you noted 86 Jordan as being impressive in a season where he played less, had better-help, and his team performed no better. But from every one of Kareem's first 4-laker years saw a bigger delta in terms of performance with and without with Kareem's worst signal coming in 1979(50-win with, 35-win without) which still looks better than taking a 30-win team to .500.

The signals from this period which several posters have marked as justification for rating Kareem lower than Mike repeatedly match or beat-out anything Jordan has except for 1999(84-85, 86, 93-94, 95, 10 gm/szn filter per usual) if you want to restrict off-samples to being "one-year" within. (If you use record like Em does you get Kareem at 30-wins in 1975 vs 20-wins for 95 MJ, but SRS is more predictive for championships historically(or at least it used to be), so I'm going to try and stick with that or net-rating if srs is unavailable)
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=102650227#p102650227
(70's very generously gives Jordan all the credit for 96, but that's below board for a couple of reasons, the least of which being extra-possession outlier Dennis Rodman who, per WOWY, was a situational match for 72 Oscar)
Now let's add a bit of context here:

We can add what Eminence compiles for us to:

KAJ:
'69 to '70 Bucks (w/KAJ): +29 win pace
'75 (w/KAJ) to '76 Bucks: +6 win pace
'75 to '76 Lakers (w/KAJ): +10 win pace

MJ:
'84 to '85 Bulls (w/MJ): +11 wins
'93 (w/MJ) to '94 Bulls: +4 wins
'95 (pre/MJ) to '95 Bulls (w/MJ): +20

(No i am not including "95-96" or "94-96" lest we mark Kareem at +40-something in 71. Though I do think 96 - 94(+17) is fine if we allow more liberal entraps.......)

Now let's add a little bit of context here:

Correct, though to be specific it is a 22-23 win improvement on a bad team(taking a 40 win team to 65-wins for example would be harder). Furthermore, with an eye to future threads, this is especially disappointing in comparison with Kareem and Russell once you account for srs tresholds(assuming you are still worried about championships, how you compare to the best opposition matters alot more than how you compare by raw-score):

((1988), Bulls were +3.8 at full strength)

((1977), Lakers were +4.9 at full strength)

(1969, no clue what the Celtics were at full-strength)

To be clear, the srs treshold of "league-best" increases in 89 and 90. 70's alludes to this with "more balanced league", but visual accompaniment might help. Relative to the league, Kareem's Lakers were significantly better than Jordan's Bulls(at least over rs+playoff or rs-only samples). Additionally, given that the Lakers gutted a 30-man roster to acquire Jabbar, it was Jordan who was probably advantaged in terms of help. Regardless, Kareem's advantage per "WOWY" is underrepresented. Also consider the suboptimal team construction(Blackmill) and the off-court situation in 1975, and Kareem's ability to mantain Jordan+ impact is rather impressive.

Off course, one might argue that this doesn't account for Jordan's "peak!"(or Kareem's). And while we do have the smaller-samples for that period(not really indicative of a goat-tier league-best outlier), those samples are small. So what do we do?!!

Well, here's an idea.

-> Let's assume the Bulls cast either remained similar or improved from 1984 to 1988. If you disagree with that, fine, but I think it's a fair assumption given the changes(most notably Oakley whose departure saw the Bulls regress)
-> Let's assume every bit of improvement between 1984 and 1988 was solely down to Micheal Jordan getting better

Why 1988?

1. It is the best srs the Bulls post pre-triangle. Considering the situation present for the Kareem years we are comparing to, isolating Jordan from the super-team seems wise
2. Individually 1988 provides Mj his best RAPM mark(half-season sample tbf), his best PER, his best BPM, and his 2nd best WS/48(note i am using the box-score for internal-scaling, not cross-player comp). Pre-three-peat also has a higher playoff on/off than first-three peat
3. It is also the most active(by various people's tracking at least) that Jordan has been on the defensive end
4. For all of the above it stands to reason that even without me giving Jordan all the credit, 1988 would have a good chance of being at his most situationally valuable year of Micheal's career.
5. Because of that second assumption even if it is merely "close"(it scores top or near-top at every piece of box or non-box data we have for Jordan), for the sake of this exercise 1988 is probably going to be a high-end.
6. Since the regular season is the brunt of what we're looking at, Jordan being less playoff resilient isn't really too relevant

If you're with me, we can establish an upper-bound for Jordan's peak based off the largest possible sample in a season of basketball(82-games). Note, when I say upper-bound, I am not saying it is an absolute certainty Jordan did not have more value than whatever we get here. I am simply saying it is more likely that Jordan had [b]less value[/b] than he had more. The roster might be different, but that really doesn't matter unless the Bulls cast "secretly got worse"(fwiw, by net-rating they marginally improved to "31-wins" without in 86). If you have an issue with that assertion feel free to voice your complaints, but that is what I'm working off and if you don't like that I would refer you back to all the other stuff favoring Kareem.

Meaningfully comparing and ranking a player from the 90's or the 70's requires being comfortable with uncertainty. Arguments here are probabilistic. It's about what is more likely, not what can be definitively "proven"(though where likelihood becomes "fact" is itself a subjective consideration).

And if you are tempted to default to PER or WS/48, keep in mind that if "winning" is not your leading light, similar "metrics" can be designed to generate similarly detached conclusions in the opposite direction:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150218214051/http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/
(Was MJ even top 5!?!?!?!?!?!?)

I am also going to make a similar assumption for 77 Jabbar, except instead of an upper-bound I am going to set a lower-one. If you think I underrate Don Chaney, feel free to make that case
77 Kareem vs 88 MJ

Spoiler:

Correct, though to be specific it is a 22-23 win improvement on a bad team(taking a 40 win team to 65-wins for example would be harder). Furthermore, with an eye to future threads, this is especially disappointing in comparison with Kareem and Russell once you account for srs tresholds(assuming you are still worried about championships, how you compare to the best opposition matters alot more than how you compare by raw-score):

((1988), Bulls were +3.8 at full strength)

((1977), Lakers were +4.9 at full strength)

(1969, no clue what the Celtics were at full-strength)

In terms of positional replacements Jordan replaced a bad shooting guard in 84. Russell was replaced by a bad center in 1969. For the purposes of what we're using for Kareem(pretending the Lakers didn't lose anything in the trade including their starting center), Kareem's signal should actually be suppressed if we looked at "positional replacement".

retiree-player-coach russell, on a team that would run a tougher gauntlet than any of Jordan's Bulls, saw the celtics drop by 7 points with an otherwise near identical roster(sam jones was a 28 mpg chucker on an average offense) despite hondo improving and a 2-point offensive improvement. (key to note is that this 7-point drop was from a much better league-best lvl team even if u just go by the regular-season)

Kareem, assuming the Lakers lost nothing when they traded for him in 1975(actually lost 2nd and 5th mpg guys) saw the Lakers jump from -3.95 to .500 to +4.9 with the addition of 29 mpgDon Chaney and one-off head-coach Jerry West. That is a bigger jump in a league on a team that posted a higher srs in a league where the best teams were +4 to +6.

Simply put, having inflated Jordan's mark beyond reason, retiree-player coach russell looks like an outright peer, and Kareem having given him a lower mark than is reasonable, looks outright better. And with Kareem it is hardly a one-off(will get into that on the next thread). And for Russell while we have much, what we do have all corroborates beyond a 20-game stretch on a much better team as a rookie. Also beyond the numbers Russell won 5 rings with a completely different core than he won his first 6. Jordan only ever won with a specific infrastructure and co-star, Bill only ever lost when hurt.

Just talking "impact" Kareem's lower-bound beats out Jordan's upper-bound(by a margin if we consider championship tresholds) with Kareem leading a better full-season team with less help. As mentioned, Kareem is probably suppressed by "replacement" with us ignoring the Lakers lost their starting center.

The Bulls and Lakers do similarly in the playoffs on a team-level(kareem beats a 2010 celtics-esque Warriors team in the first round, Jordan beats a lebronto equivalent, Jordan then loses in 6 to a losing finalist while kareem is swept by a similar mov to an eventual champion), but Kareem probably has less help("off" aside, blackmill outlined that the "scheme" was sub-optimal)and I think on a granular level his performance looks stellar:

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.

To expand on this, take 1989 MJ against the Pistons. Outside his extraordinary game 3 performance, MJ shot 42% from the field and averaged 26.4 PPG. If we're gonna nitpick 5 minutes of Kareem in 77, I think 5 whole games from a series should count for quite a bit lol.

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.

Those are probably Kareem's worst three games of the playoffs. If I had to make a bet for "most consistent performance ever" i'd almost certainly pick Kareem.

Getting back to the broad-strokes, at least in terms of "value", 77 is not a one-off. By impact, that generous peak mark for Mike is also matched by or within range of
1975(suppressed)
1970(inflated, expansion)
and while there is no off, the Lakers also post higher full-strength marks in 78 and 79.

That does not include 1974(considered by 70's as to be one of two "peak" years) where the Bucks played at a 61-win pace(the next closest team was at +4) despite dandrige and Oscar fading(injuries started the slide in 1972) before dropping 32/12/5 to come within a game of a championship with Oscar averaging 7 points less than he did in 1971 on worse efficiency.

It is quite possible, that for the larger part of a decade, Kareem was, generally, as valuable Jordan at his best. That may not have always mantained in the postseason, but just as there were years he may have folded(1973), there were probably more years where he elevated(72, 74, 77, 80). As Kareem is generally more valuable, as indicated by pretty much all the available "impact" signals, and predicted by the points/assumptions that started this post, it stands to reason that whenever he fluctuates up("peaks") he's probably better there too.

But let's not end it there. After-all, the triangle did happen, and the Bulls did win impressively as the best competition broke-down. Can Kareem be compared there? Well for my final witness I call 1972! But first let's start broader, starting with when Kareem also beat-down weaker competition in 1971!

Keep in mind everything gets a bit murkier here. "Impact" here really is just broad probable ranges. That being said, with what is available, and without prior assumptions(Kareem was too young! He didn't even peak yet!(probably true)), does 71(Kareem's second year) look worse than 89 or 90 or 91? Jordan is better offensively. Kareem is better defensively, but is there anything to suggest the former gap is bigger than the larger? There is a tendency in basketball discourse to compare players relative to themselves and then use that comparison to discard anything that would challenge a pre-conceived(often not well-supported) assumption about the external scaling. 2009 Lebron can be as efficient as Jordan offensively just looking at "the end" of a possession while also doing way more "before" that possession ends and also doing more defensively and then we ignore everything but the box-stuff which is kind of similar and then throw whatever excuse we can to pretend the Cavaliers winning 66 was just "noise"(Lebron's mentality must always be the same and apparently him gaining 20-pounds could not have had an effect!).

There was even a point where people were trying to argue Jordan faced more defensive attention when the main advantage of the triangle was it ensured that Jordan faced less. Many a-posters here have expressed their own or other's skepticism about Kareem being Jordan's peer, not on the basis of how his advantages weigh against Mike's, but because he wasn't "complete" yet and him already being that good would not be believable. Ditto with Russell where his apparent influence in 1969 is so high that we must point out his offensive production dropped(because that's obviously where the winning was happening), gas 29 mpg chucker Sam Jones, and then say "well it isn't proof" as if the lack of "proof" stops many posters here from assuming Russell's era-relative championship-over-replacement-player was lower(see the celtics were always deep so...) That is not how uncertainty works.

These 3 are my picks for GOAT peak, GOAT prime, and GOAT career, largely in part because when dealing with their most impressive ****. The typical counter-response is not to point out better evidence for another guy, but instead it is to throw everything in the kitchen sink, the kitchen sink, and then everything in the kitchen to find a reason why their most impressive things are just "noise".

Typically when you are see a surprising result, you look at everything in totality, and then curve accordingly. But with these 3, we go out of our way to curve them down, because we assume it's not possible. Kareem was already one of the bitw before he entered the nba. He drew comparisons to Russell as a rookie as his team immediately spiked up and then...

71 Kareem vs 91 MJ, team and individual comparison

Spoiler:

1971 Bucks
Overall SRS: +14.68, Standard Deviations: +2.52, Won NBA Finals (Preseason ?)

PG: Oscar Robertson, 0,186 / 0.213
SG: Jon McGlocklin, 0.147 / 0.174
SF: Bob Dandridge, 0.160 / 0.157
PF: Greg Smith, 0.134 / 0.184
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 0.326 / 0.271

1991 Bulls
Overall SRS: +12.90, Standard Deviations: +2.47, Won NBA Finals (Preseason 4th)

PG: John Paxson, +0.3 / -0.8
SG: Michael Jordan, +12.0 / +14.6
SF: Scottie Pippen, +5.8 / +6.5
PF: Horace Grant, +2.5 / +2.2
C: Bill Cartwright, -2.6 / -1.2

Never said anything about "confident", but I don't really have an issue making probabilistic judgments(uncertainity is fine). Main thing about 1971 vs 1991 is
-> there is no triangle equivalent(Bulls offense goes from +2.3 to +6.5 between the first and 2nd half of 1990),
-> there's no equivalent to the defensive jump(Bulls go from below average at the start of the season to a -3 defense by the 90 playoffs(-5 in the last 2 rounds)).

The Bucks are closer by 1970 with rookie Dandridge than the Bulls get pre-triangle despite Kareem joining a similar team. The Bucks are also still great In 72 in the games Oscar completely misses and unlike 91 where there's no real discernible improvement(Mj's on/off, rapm, defensive tape all looks worse actually)despite facing significantly weaker competition(pistons are way worse defensively and overall in the first two rounds of 1991 compared to 1990).

Kareem's production jumps between 70, 71, and 72 despite worse help(oscar hobbled) and much tougher comp(west+wilt) in 72 vs 71(west hurt). Their full-strength srs also improves iirc. It's also obvious the Bulls were historically loaded when we look at the full-lineup performances in 94 and 95(58-win without Jordan, 52-win without Jordan and Grant), and there's nothing that indicates the same for the Bucks

With Wilt, the issue is the team doesn't really fall off that much without him and then he forms what should have been a dyansty and goes 0 for 2.

I don't have any confidence putting 71 Kareem ahead, but i see more reasons to put it ahead than behind. I am more confident in 72 because it's a very obvious improvement from a season which looks as good to me if not better than 67 and 91 and also looks like a better version of MJ's 90(does better against a better opponent with less help after a more impressive rs), and that's not getting into replication where Kareem only looks better and better compared to Wilt or MJ the more surrounding years you allow into the eval.

First I would like to highlight, that while one might assume the Bucks are over-stated as an outlier by SRS, at least by San's "standard deviation", they were actually a bigger outlier than the 91 Bulls. They posted a higher regular-season srs, a higher post-season srs, and a higher full-season SRS, Both faced weak/broken down competition, but I think it is fair to say the Bucks at least have a case as the better team.

Additionally, while we can't really extrapolate cast estimates the same way we did with 77 and 88, from what is there, I'd say there's more to suggest Jordan was advantaged in terms of help. Now maybe that isn't convincing for you, but that's okay. Because Kareem Abdul Jabbar gets better.

See the thing about the triangle was it wasn't about getting Jordan to do more. If 90/91 MJ was a better player than 88 or 89 MJ, it wasn't because he was out there impacting the game in more ways. It's because he was more effective in a scaled-down, specialized role. The box-score only tracks the ends of possessions. It does not track Jordan facing way less doubles. It does not track Jordan making less plays at the perimeter than Scottie, nor does it track him being less involved in the full-court presses.

Usage rate measures assists(the pass before a shot) and shots, it does not track who is handling the ball and who is floating off-ball where it's very hard to double because of illegal-d. Jordan was, in a raw sense, doing less. There was a trade-off between effeciency and volume even if you don't put it down to help and competition.

From 71 to 72 Kareem also improved his efficiency. But more impressively, he improved his efficiency(scoring specifically maintained) while scaling up what he was actually doing. You know who was seeing their efficiency drop as well as their volume? Oscar Robertson. Injuries started him on the road to decline and yet...

72 Bucks
Overall SRS: +12.34, Standard Deviations: +1.83, Lost in Conference Finals (Preseason X)

PG: Oscar Robertson, 0.167 / 0.134
SG: Lucius Allen, 0.157 / 0.162
SF: Bob Dandridge, 0.148 / 0.185
PF: Curtis Perry, 0.047 / 0.152
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 0.340 / 0.147
6th: Jon McGlocklin, 0.126 / 0.054
7th: Wali Jones, 0.050 / 0.118

#60. The 1990 Detroit Pistons
[spoiler]Overall SRS: +8.61, Standard Deviations: +1.70, Won NBA Finals

Regular Season Record: 59-23, Regular Season SRS: +5.41 (80th), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +1.8 (80th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -4.6 (31st)

#20. The 1972 Los Angeles Lakers
Spoiler:
Overall SRS: +11.77, Standard Deviations: +1.75, Won NBA Finals (Preseason X)

PG: Jerry West, 0.216 / 0.078
SG: Gail Goodrich, 0.194 / 0.166
SF: Jim McMillian, 0.123 / 0.111
PF: Happy Hairston, 0.161 / 0.148
C: Wilt Chamberlain, 0.219 / 0.2

San's srs does not account for health, but healthy the Bucks were better in 72 than they were in 71. In the games Oscar missed, they won at a 62-win pace. In the postseason, with Oscar hobbled(averaging 4 ppg less than he did in the regular season) they got better jumping to +14 while outscoring the 1972 Lakers who rank better than the 1990 Pistons(outscored the Bulls by 3ppg) with Kareem going the **** off.

If 1971 Kareem is not better than any Micheal, I humbly posit that 1972 Kareem is.

Or, put another way. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, at least by "winning", is a better floor-raiser and Ceiling-Raiser than Micheal Jeffrey Jordan.

Does that seem crazy? Well it does to me, and that's why I'm voting him #2(wins the same tie-breaker vs Bill, Lebron did). The "longetvity" is a bonus, but it's the symptom not the cause. The main reason Kareem lasted longer was because he was better. From the start, at the end, and at his apex, Kareem Abdul Jabbar earned the right to be considered the second greatest player of all-time.

One last note

Quick first thoughts on the current nominee pool (in my rough current mental order) and potential next nominees

Michael Jordan - I voted for him last thread; will probably vote for him again. Crazy offensive production and box-score numbers, more impact on how his team's offenses operated than the big man candidates by virtue of being a two-way player, great all-around game, arguably the single best peak of all time, etc. What would change my mind on Jordan would be evidence that his scoring is less valuable than I think.

I believe you've specifically focused on how scoring makes teams more reselient in the postseason. With that in mind, here's something to consider.

Looking at team-wide improvement, the best playoff-riser of the 80's/90's was arguably not Jordan, but Hakeem. He beat a team with a higher-scoring srseq than any of Jordan's triumphs(86 Lakers), he had the most wins as an underdog, and the highest underdog win% of any MVP before Lebron came around.

Hakeem was, like Jordan, someone who saw their scoring go up in the postseason. But he was also, unlike Jordan, a two-way anchor who led great defenses largely on his ability to protect the paint. Lebron James, whose seen the biggest team-wide jumps of anyone was also a two-way anchor who upped his scoring.

In 1977 Kareem upped his scoring by 8-points by seeing his effeciency spike by 4-points in what is maybe the best example of scoring elevation in playoff history. He also was a excellent defensive anchor.

Food for thought

[Special_Puppy]

Vote

Will add more later but

64 Bill Russell

-> Leads massive rs outlier with no evidence of impressive help playing way more minutes than everyone
-> RS outlier is dominant in the postseason
-> potential peak of a player who effectively lead two different dynasties with two completely different supporting casts and won back to back against historically strong competition as a player-coach on a roster that seems to have been incapable of making the playoffs without.


I am keeping things mostly era-relative this time around so Russell is a simple 1 to argue for.

But that's not what most people are hear for so let me put my focus on a potential thread winner.



2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar (74>77>72>71>80)

-> The league's best attacker and second best defender (with seasons where he was the best at both)
-> Leads a massive RS outlier with middling support
-> Nearly beats a strong opponent for a championship despite losing his starting PG
-> Sees his scoring skyrocket between the regular-season and the playoffs
-> Very similar to the near #1 representing season (2009 Lebron) from the last thread with certain advantages (stronger opponent, better injury excuse, takes it to 7 instead of 6)
-> Far and away the best player in the league both by the data and reputation
-> Impact signals are sampled from down-years and yet rather impressive (massive rookie year jump, bucks have a 30-win (20-win by srs) fall off during a down-year for Jabbar plagued by lockeroom issues and the people he was playing host to getting murdered
-> Wins 3rd in MVP in 4 years (should have been 4 in row)
-> Is likely a DPOY, MVP, and Finals MVP if all the awards exist during his sophomore season
-> Immense longevity showcasing both adaptability and willingness to lessen role to accommodate talented teammates
-> Likely not optimized schematically until his 30s in a similar vein as Hakeem (will expound later)
-> Dominant RPOY showing on this board only really rivalled by Lebron and Russell

3. 03 Tim Duncan

Will just copy and paste what I wrote for him in the 2003 RPOY

Spoiler:

Voting Post

1. Tim Duncan

60-wins and a +5.6 SRS with Duncan averaging 6 more minutes than 2nd-in-minutes sophomore Tony Parker and 13 more minutes than #2 David Robinson. Duncan sees substantial time without #2s past and present with San Antonio going 15-3 without Robinson (68-win pace) and 10-3 without Manu (63-win pace, statmuse isn't showing net). From 01-07, the Spurs played at a 41-win pace without Duncan posting a net-rating of +0.4. A sample largely informed by 2004/2005 and a Spurs team with significantly improved iterations of Manu and Parker. With RAPM, Duncan, despite his best years coming with a #2 who plays his natural position, and an unusually large amount of minutes spent with said #2's poor backups, scores 2nd best behind KG of all players relevant to this ballot. In playoff-rapm he looks like the outright best.

With that we have a strong POY case, but what cements it is the postseason:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +1.80 (83rd), Playoff Defensive Rating: -8.65 (14th)
Playoff SRS: +10.66 (47th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +3.36 (34th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.75 (34th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -1.70 (59th)

Playoff Heliocentrism: 50.8% (6th of 84 teams) - Duncan
Playoff Wingmen: 29.5% (76th) - Ginobili & Robinson
Playoff Bench: 19.7% (54th)

Round 1: Phoenix Suns (+1.6), won 4-2, by +5.3 points a game (+6.9 SRS eq)
Round 2: Los Angeles Lakers (+4.8), won 4-2, by +5.8 points a game (+10.6 SRS eq)
Round 3: Dallas Mavericks (+7.5), won 4-2, by +5.0 points a game (+12.5 SRS eq)
Round 4: New Jersey Nets (+6.9), won 4-2, by +5.8 points a game (+12.7 SRS eq)

The spurs jump from the 76th highest SRS to the 46th PSRS going from +5.6 to +10 as Duncan goes from averaging 6 more minutes than anybody else to 8 more minutes and ups his points, assists, assist% rebounds, rebound %, blocks, and block percentage (.1 tov increase, .1 steal decrease, .1% steal percentage drop). He also sees across-the-board improvement in ben's advanced box, and, by a box-score interpretation that really doesn't capture what he offers as the primary focus of the opposing offense on >50% of his team's defensive possessions, the Spurs run more through him than all but 2 other bigs:

The problem was that all of his teammates were the wrong ages. David Robinson was 37, the future Hall of Famer going into his final year, protecting his body by playing only 25 minutes a game. In contrast Tony Parker was only 20 and Manu Ginobili was 25 (but he was a late bloomer, at this point mostly notable for being an insane ball-hawk on defense). Pretty much all of his great teammates were either too old or too young. I don’t want to sell that it was a bad supporting cast . . . It’s just that there was no way they were going to be winning anything without ‘03 Duncan. Do you know how many bigs on this list broke 45% Heliocentrism for the regular season? ‘80 Kareem, ‘74 Kareem and ‘01 Shaq (I’m choosing not to consider Bird and LeBron bigs for the purposes of this list). How about 50% Heliocentrism in the playoffs? ‘74 Kareem is it. As all-time seasons with a big man carrying a team to greatness go, ‘03 Duncan has got to be on the short list for that discussion.

.

For comparison the 2000 Lakers, led by a far more lauded pinnacle, post a psrs of +7, a substantially worse postseason performance even with 8 additional minutes of Kobe Bryant.

Duncan also does this with Popavich, not "standard-deviation above any coach ever statistically" Phil Jackson. And he does it forced out of his natural position with a co-star who shares massive overlap in terms of skllset. Points ignored when certain, let's say, "context" is provided to diminish him

 I’d be remiss not to acknowledge Popovich more, who, for my money, is the greatest coach in NBA history. He transitioned the Spurs from a defensively-oriented team that orbited around its twin-towers, to a perpetual motion, Euro-style offense built around perimeter players who could pass and shoot. This morphed into a brief offensive dynasty, peaking in 2014 with one of the greatest teams of all-time, unheard of for an ensemble production that lacked a troupe of stars. Popovich’s success on both sides of the ball does take some of the shine off of Duncan for me.
...
Duncan’s portability isn’t top-notch either; he’s savvy enough to scale down his offense (as he did in later years), although his limited passing prevents him from matching Garnett’s impact in a secondary role. His longevity was fantastic, tallying 17 All-Star seasons by my valuations, tied for tops in this series. He, KG and Wilt all have similar peaks and era-adjusted career value, and thus feel nearly interchangeable in these slots. So, while Garnett and him are neck and neck, if I were forced to choose, I’d oh-so-barely side with Duncan. (Are ties allowed?)

Duncan is the most portable, scalable, proven, winningest, and, most importantly, valuable player in the league. Simply, put he's the best player of the early 2000s; peak, prime and career. Maybe the best since Jabbar, maybe even Russell (era-relative). He was not merely consistent, but consistently spectacular. And at his best, he got better in the biggest games, the ones titles are won or lost with.

For the true "most dominant", I think a unanimous vote would be appropriate.

Jordan not in your top 4 peaks

Watch on YouTube

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Vote

Will add more later but

64 Bill Russell

-> Leads massive rs outlier with no evidence of impressive help playing way more minutes than everyone
-> RS outlier is dominant in the postseason
-> potential peak of a player who effectively lead two different dynasties with two completely different supporting casts and won back to back against historically strong competition as a player-coach on a roster that seems to have been incapable of making the playoffs without.


I am keeping things mostly era-relative this time around so Russell is a simple 1 to argue for.

But that's not what most people are hear for so let me put my focus on a potential thread winner.



2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar (74>77>72>71>80)

-> The league's best attacker and second best defender (with seasons where he was the best at both)
-> Leads a massive RS outlier with middling support
-> Nearly beats a strong opponent for a championship despite losing his starting PG
-> Sees his scoring skyrocket between the regular-season and the playoffs
-> Very similar to the near #1 representing season (2009 Lebron) from the last thread with certain advantages (stronger opponent, better injury excuse, takes it to 7 instead of 6)
-> Far and away the best player in the league both by the data and reputation
-> Impact signals are sampled from down-years and yet rather impressive (massive rookie year jump, bucks have a 30-win (20-win by srs) fall off during a down-year for Jabbar plagued by lockeroom issues and the people he was playing host to getting murdered
-> Wins 3rd in MVP in 4 years (should have been 4 in row)
-> Is likely a DPOY, MVP, and Finals MVP if all the awards exist during his sophomore season
-> Immense longevity showcasing both adaptability and willingness to lessen role to accommodate talented teammates
-> Likely not optimized schematically until his 30s in a similar vein as Hakeem (will expound later)
-> Dominant RPOY showing on this board only really rivalled by Lebron and Russell

3. 03 Tim Duncan

Will just copy and paste what I wrote for him in the 2003 RPOY

Spoiler:

Voting Post

1. Tim Duncan

60-wins and a +5.6 SRS with Duncan averaging 6 more minutes than 2nd-in-minutes sophomore Tony Parker and 13 more minutes than #2 David Robinson. Duncan sees substantial time without #2s past and present with San Antonio going 15-3 without Robinson (68-win pace) and 10-3 without Manu (63-win pace, statmuse isn't showing net). From 01-07, the Spurs played at a 41-win pace without Duncan posting a net-rating of +0.4. A sample largely informed by 2004/2005 and a Spurs team with significantly improved iterations of Manu and Parker. With RAPM, Duncan, despite his best years coming with a #2 who plays his natural position, and an unusually large amount of minutes spent with said #2's poor backups, scores 2nd best behind KG of all players relevant to this ballot. In playoff-rapm he looks like the outright best.

With that we have a strong POY case, but what cements it is the postseason:

The spurs jump from the 76th highest SRS to the 46th PSRS going from +5.6 to +10 as Duncan goes from averaging 6 more minutes than anybody else to 8 more minutes and ups his points, assists, assist% rebounds, rebound %, blocks, and block percentage (.1 tov increase, .1 steal decrease, .1% steal percentage drop). He also sees across-the-board improvement in ben's advanced box, and, by a box-score interpretation that really doesn't capture what he offers as the primary focus of the opposing offense on >50% of his team's defensive possessions, the Spurs run more through him than all but 2 other bigs:
.

For comparison the 2000 Lakers, led by a far more lauded pinnacle, post a psrs of +7, a substantially worse postseason performance even with 8 additional minutes of Kobe Bryant.

Duncan also does this with Popavich, not "standard-deviation above any coach ever statistically" Phil Jackson. And he does it forced out of his natural position with a co-star who shares massive overlap in terms of skllset. Points ignored when certain, let's say, "context" is provided to diminish him

Duncan is the most portable, scalable, proven, winningest, and, most importantly, valuable player in the league. Simply, put he's the best player of the early 2000s; peak, prime and career. Maybe the best since Jabbar, maybe even Russell (era-relative). He was not merely consistent, but consistently spectacular. And at his best, he got better in the biggest games, the ones titles are won or lost with.

For the true "most dominant", I think a unanimous vote would be appropriate.

Jordan not in your top 4 peaks

Watch on YouTube

okay i get how this can be like shocking to you the first time but don't you think it's time to just chill and let it go. Like alot of people are just going to have MJ lower than you do and it's what it is.

[One_and_Done]

Vote

Will add more later but

64 Bill Russell

-> Leads massive rs outlier with no evidence of impressive help playing way more minutes than everyone
-> RS outlier is dominant in the postseason
-> potential peak of a player who effectively lead two different dynasties with two completely different supporting casts and won back to back against historically strong competition as a player-coach on a roster that seems to have been incapable of making the playoffs without.


I am keeping things mostly era-relative this time around so Russell is a simple 1 to argue for.

But that's not what most people are hear for so let me put my focus on a potential thread winner.



2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar (74>77>72>71>80)

-> The league's best attacker and second best defender (with seasons where he was the best at both)
-> Leads a massive RS outlier with middling support
-> Nearly beats a strong opponent for a championship despite losing his starting PG
-> Sees his scoring skyrocket between the regular-season and the playoffs
-> Very similar to the near #1 representing season (2009 Lebron) from the last thread with certain advantages (stronger opponent, better injury excuse, takes it to 7 instead of 6)
-> Far and away the best player in the league both by the data and reputation
-> Impact signals are sampled from down-years and yet rather impressive (massive rookie year jump, bucks have a 30-win (20-win by srs) fall off during a down-year for Jabbar plagued by lockeroom issues and the people he was playing host to getting murdered
-> Wins 3rd in MVP in 4 years (should have been 4 in row)
-> Is likely a DPOY, MVP, and Finals MVP if all the awards exist during his sophomore season
-> Immense longevity showcasing both adaptability and willingness to lessen role to accommodate talented teammates
-> Likely not optimized schematically until his 30s in a similar vein as Hakeem (will expound later)
-> Dominant RPOY showing on this board only really rivalled by Lebron and Russell

3. 03 Tim Duncan

Will just copy and paste what I wrote for him in the 2003 RPOY

Spoiler:

Voting Post

1. Tim Duncan

60-wins and a +5.6 SRS with Duncan averaging 6 more minutes than 2nd-in-minutes sophomore Tony Parker and 13 more minutes than #2 David Robinson. Duncan sees substantial time without #2s past and present with San Antonio going 15-3 without Robinson (68-win pace) and 10-3 without Manu (63-win pace, statmuse isn't showing net). From 01-07, the Spurs played at a 41-win pace without Duncan posting a net-rating of +0.4. A sample largely informed by 2004/2005 and a Spurs team with significantly improved iterations of Manu and Parker. With RAPM, Duncan, despite his best years coming with a #2 who plays his natural position, and an unusually large amount of minutes spent with said #2's poor backups, scores 2nd best behind KG of all players relevant to this ballot. In playoff-rapm he looks like the outright best.

With that we have a strong POY case, but what cements it is the postseason:

The spurs jump from the 76th highest SRS to the 46th PSRS going from +5.6 to +10 as Duncan goes from averaging 6 more minutes than anybody else to 8 more minutes and ups his points, assists, assist% rebounds, rebound %, blocks, and block percentage (.1 tov increase, .1 steal decrease, .1% steal percentage drop). He also sees across-the-board improvement in ben's advanced box, and, by a box-score interpretation that really doesn't capture what he offers as the primary focus of the opposing offense on >50% of his team's defensive possessions, the Spurs run more through him than all but 2 other bigs:
.

For comparison the 2000 Lakers, led by a far more lauded pinnacle, post a psrs of +7, a substantially worse postseason performance even with 8 additional minutes of Kobe Bryant.

Duncan also does this with Popavich, not "standard-deviation above any coach ever statistically" Phil Jackson. And he does it forced out of his natural position with a co-star who shares massive overlap in terms of skllset. Points ignored when certain, let's say, "context" is provided to diminish him

Duncan is the most portable, scalable, proven, winningest, and, most importantly, valuable player in the league. Simply, put he's the best player of the early 2000s; peak, prime and career. Maybe the best since Jabbar, maybe even Russell (era-relative). He was not merely consistent, but consistently spectacular. And at his best, he got better in the biggest games, the ones titles are won or lost with.

For the true "most dominant", I think a unanimous vote would be appropriate.

Jordan not in your top 4 peaks

Watch on YouTube

Nothing statistical about Jordan's peak really suggests it was a top 4 peak, and nothing about hos skillset or impact suggests that either. Jordan just benefits from a favourable narrative due to playing in a weaker era on a great team.

If Jordan played today, nobody would think he was a GOAT candidate. They'd call him a worse version of Lebron. If the 91-93 & 96-98 Bulls had been in the NBA the last 6 years, it's unlikely they'd have a single title.

[Special_Puppy]

Vote

Will add more later but

64 Bill Russell

-> Leads massive rs outlier with no evidence of impressive help playing way more minutes than everyone
-> RS outlier is dominant in the postseason
-> potential peak of a player who effectively lead two different dynasties with two completely different supporting casts and won back to back against historically strong competition as a player-coach on a roster that seems to have been incapable of making the playoffs without.


I am keeping things mostly era-relative this time around so Russell is a simple 1 to argue for.

But that's not what most people are hear for so let me put my focus on a potential thread winner.



2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar (74>77>72>71>80)

-> The league's best attacker and second best defender (with seasons where he was the best at both)
-> Leads a massive RS outlier with middling support
-> Nearly beats a strong opponent for a championship despite losing his starting PG
-> Sees his scoring skyrocket between the regular-season and the playoffs
-> Very similar to the near #1 representing season (2009 Lebron) from the last thread with certain advantages (stronger opponent, better injury excuse, takes it to 7 instead of 6)
-> Far and away the best player in the league both by the data and reputation
-> Impact signals are sampled from down-years and yet rather impressive (massive rookie year jump, bucks have a 30-win (20-win by srs) fall off during a down-year for Jabbar plagued by lockeroom issues and the people he was playing host to getting murdered
-> Wins 3rd in MVP in 4 years (should have been 4 in row)
-> Is likely a DPOY, MVP, and Finals MVP if all the awards exist during his sophomore season
-> Immense longevity showcasing both adaptability and willingness to lessen role to accommodate talented teammates
-> Likely not optimized schematically until his 30s in a similar vein as Hakeem (will expound later)
-> Dominant RPOY showing on this board only really rivalled by Lebron and Russell

3. 03 Tim Duncan

Will just copy and paste what I wrote for him in the 2003 RPOY

Spoiler:

Duncan is the most portable, scalable, proven, winningest, and, most importantly, valuable player in the league. Simply, put he's the best player of the early 2000s; peak, prime and career. Maybe the best since Jabbar, maybe even Russell (era-relative). He was not merely consistent, but consistently spectacular. And at his best, he got better in the biggest games, the ones titles are won or lost with.

For the true "most dominant", I think a unanimous vote would be appropriate.

Jordan not in your top 4 peaks

Watch on YouTube

Nothing statistical about Jordan's peak really suggests it was a top 4 peak, and nothing about hos skillset or impact suggests that either. Jordan just benefits from a favourable narrative due to playing in a weaker era on a great team.

If Jordan played today, nobody would think he was a GOAT candidate. They'd call him a worse version of Lebron. If the 91-93 & 96-98 Bulls had been in the NBA the last 6 years, it's unlikely they'd have a single title.

Besides all the statistical evidence that points to Jordan being a strong contender for the GOAT peak there’s no statistical evidence. You are right

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2468308&p=119288894#p119288894

[trelos6]

A quick add on MJ vs Hakeem.

We have a year, 1993, which both were pretty good. Hakeem was arguably at his peak, and many voted him for POY that hear over MJ.

I also think Hakeem was better, up until the finals, where MJ detonated for one of the best individual finals by a player.

Now, I also think 1991 MJ was > 1993 MJ, and that's why I have 1991 MJ > 1993 Hakeem.

2000 Shaq, 1964 Russell, 1977 Kareem were all different leagues, so it's obviously a lot harder to compare them than the direct MJ vs Hakeem comparison.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Think I'm just gonna try and get this finished before I sleep and it's the weekday lol.

1 - 2002 Tim Duncan
2 - 1962 Bill Russell
3 - 1974 Kareem Abdul Jabbar

So I put 2003 Duncan last time but OneandDone said how they thought 2002 was better and I looked and 2002 actually has the better stats with 25 points and higher ts and like 27 points in the playoffs. He also has more blocks in 2002 and also in the playoffs so I'm gonna stick with what I said with 2009 and not just pick a season because the team wins.

This time there's two old guys. Russell I feel like everyone knows the deal now. But I guess I'll talk on Kareem. He is like the best or almost the best defender in the league and also this dude who goes 27/15/5. But I pick 74 because hiss scoring numbers get alot better and I feel like losing a game 7 isn't a good reason to take a season with 32 points and great defense under 28 points lower TS. He's also like 32/12/5 in the finals against the 2nd best guy on Bill Russell's 11 ring party and the guy who stole MVP from him the last year so taking them to 7 seems kind of impressive to me. I'll also just say I feel like voting him and Russell isn't too crazy or anything since in the RPOY they were literally just winning basically every year. Like I know you're supposed to put MJ higher but I just don't think he is.

[One_and_Done]

1. Tim Duncan (02, then 03)
2. Shaq (00)
3. Kareem (74, 71, 77)

Duncan is an easy choice for me. As I elaborated on at length in the RPOY and top 100 project, Duncan’s impact is slept on by people who only remember late career Duncan. In truth, Duncan was never at his absolute peak again after his 04 injury. He was still amazing over the rest of his prime from 04-07, maybe 95% as good as 02 and 03, but the drop was noticeable. That 2002 Spurs team wouldn’t have won 20 games without Duncan, let alone 58. Everyone on his support cast was old and washed, young and inexperienced, or highly limited. That he managed to carry a slightly better Spurs support cast to the title the next year remains one of the GOAT carry jobs of all-time. Defensively, Duncan is IMHO the GOAT, over Russell, Hakeem, etc.

Duncan 02 had nothing around him. He anchored the Spurs entire defence, and almost every offensive possession was run through him. In the playoffs, he matched up with Shaq and guarded him 1 on 1 for much/most of the series, and the stats speak for themselves. Duncan clearly outplayed Shaq.

Shaq 00 isn’t controversial. He has one of the most dominant peaks of all-time. His defence holds him back, but what he’s giving you on offense is so impactful that his foibles there don’t matter (except in comparison to someone like peak Duncan).

Kareem is a compromise choice. I don’t think I’d rank him #3 of the remaining candidates, I’m not sure. But he’s the only candidate likely to get traction who I’m willing to vote for. The Bucks turnaround from 69 to 70 is an excellent example of the turnaround a single player can accomplish, and reflects Kareem’s impact overall. He’s likely have won the 71 title without Oscar, just based on his own improvement as a sophomore player.

[Elpolo_14]

2. KAREEM 1977 ( 1974 > 1972 = 1971 >= 1980 )

KAREEM WAS ELITE both end of the floor with his offensive engine by his rim pressure with the skyhook and his great Interior defense presence was a really important aspect for that era "especially cause their no 3pt line yet and not many players were shooting from a far distance.
This make him have one of the best floor rising season in NBA history making a lack luster Lakers team to a 53 win team with Top 5 ORTG (101.4 / +1.9 rORTg ) / Top 10 DRTG ( 98.9 / -0.6 rDRTG ) / Top 5 both SRS and Net rating ( 2.64 SRS / 2.60 rating ).
1. SCORING
Kareem is an all time interior scorer ( might be GOAT tier rim touch )and Top 3 all time as overall scorer in my estimation . He have elite post movement with his slimmer build compare to big Chucky Center make him more agile+quick couple with his upper body movement make him really hard to guard 1-1 near the post/rim area and have better position control and awareness that most to capitalize on his attribute. Also his most known Skyhook which get release from a full hand + jump vertical height is nearly unstoppable to stop/scheme against. Even without Skyhook Kareem is elite enough to have great driving ability in both half court and transition situation. He also a decent FT shooter ( RS 70.1% / PS 72.5% )so team aren't willing to put him on the line as much as regular center in that era ( or even till the 2000+ era )
Kareem average ( IA/75 )
REG SZN : 28.2 PPG on +9.7 rTS
PLAYOFF : 32.6 PPG on +13.5 rTS against -0.7rDRTG team

2. PLAYMAKING
He have some great Gravity and can bring attention on him near the rim with his scoring ability but his other Skillsets as playmaker is abit more on the "OK" side. He have basic but useful passing delivery. He could be instinctively more bas eon scoring make him miss open teammates or cutting teammates but there time that he could read the situation fast enough to deliver the pass in a great opportunity. He have ok handle and ball initiator. His post playmaking to find offball teammates was good.

3. DEFENSE AND REBOUND
Kareem is an all time rebounder by his elite positioning to gain advantage even tho sometimes he not as strong as other center or to use his height + Long arm to get the rebound. He have Great instinct to calculate the rebound trajectory
Kareem AvR.
- 14.2 RPG in the Regular Season
- 16.7 RPG in Playoffs even tho he was up against an elite rebounder as Bill Walton
Kareem defense constitue primary on Interior defense ( logic for era ) he have good discipline to intercept/contest shot near the paint. He was elite as a cleaner for his teammates mistake on Defense. Elite shot blocker and not easy to outpace near the rim. With his agility he able to pick on Wing or to be primary on Center. His offball defense as roamer and Help side defender Also help anchor the team defense. Also not to forget he have very active hand that able disturb opponent ball placement.

Kareem stat
REG : 28.2 PPG / 14.2 RPG /3.8 APG with 4.7 Stock
PLAYOFF 32.6PPG/ 16.7 RPG / 3.9 APG with 4.9 STOCK

He eventually loses against the Blazer it the playoff. The team that was going to win he championship later with peak Bill Walton ( someone who I rank really high on peak ) and Lakers team already mid losing keys player make it even harder for Kareem to win this series

I choose Kareem BCS he all time offensive player with all time Defensive big ability. Goat tier floor rising and carrying

Those were my argument in the previous thread. Now I will add some reasoning why I chose this player.
Kareem WOWY in 1977 doesn't exist because he play all the game but we can have some samples Clues with the 1978 Lakers which Kareem missed 20 Games
Lakers with Kareem : 37-25 ( 0.598 win ) - 49 win Pace. "4.2 Net rating" *in a conference with only 1 team 50+win record*
Lakers without Kareem : 8-12 ( 0.40 win ) - 33 Win Pace. "-1.5 Net Rating"
This give us a brief estimation of Kareem impact even tho he get a bit worse as a player and his teammates also not fully the same.

In the 1977 year Kareem also lead the league in FG% with 57.9% on 18.7 FGA per Game ( which is the best attempt per Efficiency ratio in the league by a big Margin. He the best of both worlds)
Efficiency Exp:
- the Second highest FG% is Mitch Kupchak with 57.2% on 7.3 FGA
- The Third highest FG% is Bobby Jones with 57.0% on 10.3 FGA
Volume Exp :
- Rick Barry with 19.6 FGA ( close to Kareem ) is 44.0 FG%
- Bob Lanier with 19.8 FGA ( also a Center ) is 53.4 FG%

Kareem is also the best Volume scorer by True Shooting Percentage : he's 60.8 TS% and Second among all player in the league
" The most efficient TS% (68.9%) is Davis Twardzik who average 10.3 PPG "

Also to summarize 1977 playoff game against the Blazer I couldn't have done it better my self. So I will quote mr.falco

I recently watched some kareem footage, game 2 vs portland in 77

Kareem is just an absolutely unstopabble scorer, even 7'2 bill walton is basically a prop against kareem.
Interestingly enough kareem lenght and strenght seemed to bother walton more than the other way around

In the first quarter walton tries to overplay the skyhook sitting on kareem left hype and he gets burned with absurdly easy looking counters (spin moves to the right) for easy layups. Kareem actually seems stronger thab walton and easily pushes him away to get in position to catch, which took me by surprise

Later 7'2 walton absolutely sells out to front kareem and the counter is merely spin and high catch or a quick move to the other side of the paint for a instant post up

Then bill walton plays him straight and kareem just burns him with like 90% fg from skyhooks, all swishing nothingh but net

Kareem receives often a sort of soft doubles or triples which gets his teammates clean jumpers whereas kareem is able to defend walton effectively 1vs1(walton still scores well but in lower volume from jump hooks that look like one handed jumpers and regular fade away jumpers)

There is a play where walton faceguards kareem from the front and the on ball defender stays close to kareem too leaving the baseline open for a walton less drive, some very strong gravity

Kareem is often chsnging sides for better position and grabbing tough offensive and defensive boards

In defensr he is not as active and mobile as a hakeem (he doesnt run so hard to chase fastbreak blocks or to bloxk everythingh in general, doesnt go too hard after perimeter players) but he often just blocks shots with pure lenght and decent mobility although his reactions felt a tad slow at times. blazers really avoid the paint against him

As a passer he clearly is willing and a precise passer to cutters although at times he takes a half second too long to pass to wide open players causing deflections, losing great assists windows or causing turnovers

Just absurd player, i already knew how absurd a scorer he was but for the era his rim protection seems dpoy worthy, he reminds me actually of a somewhat less active/ less quick in decision making rudy gobert defensively

And that is with lakers guards and perimeter players being awful at bringing the ball to him or creating him easy scoring chances

Seriously, they were not totally awful (some good cutting and ok defense imo shot adequately well although not as well as the red hot blazers shooters)

but they had so many backbreaking turnovers (on the fastbreak, forced 8 seconds, forced traveling in their own half, losing the ball literally in outbound pass after a blazer basket)
blazers were very agressive on the ball and lakers ballhandlers looked like deer in the headlights quickly picking up their dribble and panic passing. Also cost then a lot of seconds to bring the ball up costing kareem time

Kareem being the best scorer in one of the most packed paint Era. by a Big margin is tremendously Value add to that top 5 Defender who get better in the playoffs in the league. we have an all time peak player in our hand while I put at 2nd best ever

3. TIM DUNCAN 2003 ( 2002 > 2004 = 1999 > 2001 )

Great regular and post season in which he shouldered a heavy load in both end of the floor with not much help on the offensive side. Impact metrics look great, especially in the playoffs. Defense is replicable in many different eras and can bring value in many situation while his offense was continuously resilient throughout the playoffs.
.
1. Defense and rebound
Duncan is an all time defensive motor for the team and his impact on defense even while playing PF ( not is real position and he give the position the D.rob ). Elite interior defender as his presence is enough to destabilize the offensive team. He can block shot / contest / Clean up for Prerimeter failure or even roam around to be able to help all the teammates if needed. With his size and really quick foot he can guard big or wing without much problem. Not much player ( except Shaq ) can penetrate Tim Duncan post defense regularly. He also a good PnR defender to keep up with the ball handler or the rill man. Not much exploitable in the prerimeter either.
Have Great rebounding ability as he can Boxout with his frame and strength to overpower other player in the paint. Good balance and center of gravity to not be moved around easy additional with great defensive awareness make him a great rebounder
PLAYOFF : 12.7 RPG
REG SZN : 14.4 RPG

2. SCORING
He good in the overall scoring department. He have great post move and post scoring ability. An reliable mid range and elite rim touch. His FT shooting is decent enough to not be a weakness or can be good cause he force the opposite team to foul him making the defense less aggressive ( RS - 71.0% / PS- 67.7% ) . His scoring traits doesn't get limited by playoff scheme or person either ( with this year specificly )
REG SZN : 26.2 PPG on +4.2 rTS ( +5.8 rts adj to own shot Putback )
Playoff : 25.4 PPG on +6.2 rTS adj. ( Against -1.6 rDRTG )
3. PLAYMAKER
Duncan have Great read and good passing package to be impactful in this aspect of the game. Really good bounce pass and overhead pass. Great IQ to make or create separation for his teammates with his post gravity. All time screen setter with great screen timing. Elite roll man in the PNR or he can be be the ball handler who drive to the basket to pass out cause he get double by the defense too.
TIM DUNCAN STAT
REG SZN : 26.2 PPG / 14.4 RPG / 4.4 APG with 4.1 stocks and 3.4 TOV
PLAYOFF : 25.4 PPG / 12.7 RPG /5.4 APG With 3.8 Stocks and 3.2 TOV

The SPURS
REG SZN
RECORD 60-22 -> 5.65 SRS ( top 3 In league )
Offense Rating of +2.0 rORTG ( Top 7 in league)
Defense Rating of -3.9 rDRTG ( Top 3 in league )

PLAYOFF
Playoff Offensive Rating: +1.80 (83rd), Playoff Defensive Rating: -8.65 (14th)
Playoff SRS: +10.66 (47th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +3.36 (34th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.75 (34th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -1.70 (59th)

To Add on : Duncan playing more minutes than his second option by a significant amount will push his on court impact down to some extent due to him playing with the second rotation or the bench. Tim Duncan on/off is a +8.8 Net rating ( +16.3 Swing )
He lead +3.9 rORTG and -4.9 rDRTG on court .

Duncan 2003 Offensive On/Off
his impact swing is +13.5 ( on +3.9 vs off -8.6 )

When Duncan is on the floor his team Shoot more efficiently and are less TOv Prone -> 54.2 TS% ( +3.0 better than off ) / 16.8 TOV% ( -2.2 better than off ) / 31.4 OREB% ( +7.4 better than off )
DUNCAN being an elite Offensive rebounder make his team offense much easier to sustain their production with all the possession retain or Putback shot.

His defense on/off :
Impact on Defense when Duncan is on he floor -> 98.4 rDRTG ( -3.7 better ) / 48.3 D-TS% ( -5.2 better ) / 16.0 D-TOV% ( +2.2 Better ) / 31.1 D-REB% ( +3.2 better than off )

Even without hi best interior defender on D.rob. Duncan able to lead -2.6 rDRTg ( 5.5 swing if Duncan was off too ).
Duncan have an all time defensive anchor ability even tho he needed to play with D.rob who was hurting Duncan overall Impact.
The next year in 2004 when D.rob already retire Duncan was able to anchor -8.8 rDRTG ( best in the history post 60s ) which prove that he didn't need D.rob as much as we might have thought.
But not to diminish D.rob who was excellent defender in the playoffs especially against the Lakers with Shaq which he was the primary role and Duncan as help defender.


In PLAYOFFS on court
Duncan when on the floor in the playoffs Lead a +3.4rORTG adj and -10.2 rDRTG adj.. against elite defensive team ( -1.6 rDRTG and +2.7 rORTG )

1. Against the SUNS ( +0.1 rORTG / -0.9 rDRTG ) DUNCAN lead -3.1 rORTG adj. / 13.7 rDRTG adj.

2. Against LAKERS ( +3.6 rORTG / 1.2 rDRTG ) DUNCAN lead +6.6 rORTG adj. / -7.1 rDRTG adj.

3. Against MAVS ( +7.1 rORTG / -1.2 rDRTG ) DUNCAN lead +8.2 rORTG adj. / -8.9 rDRTG adj

4. Against NETS ( +0.2 rORTg / -5.6 rDRTG ) DUNCAN lead +2.2 rORTG adj. / -11.6 rDRtG adj

Duncan being the Top 4 best defender all time ( bill Hakeem KG in conversation ) with all his interior defensive Skillsets couple it with his best year offensively which was able to translate in the playoffs ( even with the lack of offensive help by his teammates D.rob / Rookie Tony / Second year Manu were all bad offensive player.
1. Tony lack the efficiency and decision making
2. D rob lack the self creation and aggressiveness
3. Manu lack the volume and enough court awareness to be impactful and he was not efficient )

Duncan playoff run is nothing but an All-time Carry Job on both end of the floor with excellent productivity even against Good team

4. HAKEEM 1994 ( 1993 > 1995 >= 1989 = 1986 )

1. SCORING
Goat tier post scoring ability with his strength+ elite movement both Upper body and foot work ( know as the dream shake ). Can post up smaller defense by out muscle them or Post-up huge big with Skillsets and fake them to make an uncontested Shot or outmaneuvered with spin move . With all the Post move mave his rim pressure ( lob threat + drive )and rim touch also all time great level. Hakeem have a reliable midrange at the elbow or Short corner that create Spacing both for himself and teammates ( due to his great midrange that open up great PnP game ). Great transition with his physicality and drive pressure in paint. His shot diet and tempo get improve a lot in 1993 to 1995 time with his more control and less reactionary shot. Add to all these Skillsets he have an elite tough shot making instinct. Any regular Center who got left guarding him one-one are in a bad situation.

2. Passing and Playmaking
With the établish Scoring threat Hakeem push on the defense around the rim. That create a big gravity which help build Seperation for his teammates at the prerimeter ( midrange and THREE-POINTER ). With the new offense RUDY ( coach ) run to operate a 3pt play with Hakeem as the center of gravity on offense make Hakeem ability at the rim even more valuable. Hakeem have a basic passing arsenal with bounce pass / regular pass / overhead pass but combine with the defense Attention he able to time elite timing when the double is near him and not close to teammates operating Space. His footwork also help to fake the defense to make them believe on a scoring attempt which end up as a pass. But he still have weakness his contant post movement make him miss Rim creation ( aka open mate at paint ) or cutting/slashing teammates near the paint. His scoring aggressive also make him lack court awareness for some open play.

3. Defense and rebound.
Goat tier Interior defense with his speed and awareness. His awareness also help him as a Roamer to cut the driving lane or to come contest/closeout shot which his teammates aren't able to keep up. His shot blocking ability combine with his perseverance to cleanup ( his recovery and foot bust is a big factor ) for his team make his rim presence incomparable. His lateral and vertical movement + timing to contest always make the offense struggle. His post defense is great with physicality and body control+ hand movements. He able to guard Wing at the prerimeter or in a PNR which he can be elite to defend both the roll man or ball handler.
For rebounding he have elite positioning and movement to get rebound at the easiest point. With his vertical and strength help him Boxout other center.

The Rocket REG SZN
Record 58-34 : 4.19 SRS ( top 6 )
Offense: -0.4 rORTG ( top 15 )
Defense: -4.9 rDRTG ( TOP 2 only behind knick who were -8 )

PLAYOFF HAKEEM able to anchor +1.3 rORTG and -2.7 rDRTG = 3.5 Net rating.
Or +4.0 rORTG Adj. And -4.5 rDRTG adj. To opponent ( offense and defense in regular season )

Hakeem stat ( IA/75 )
REG : 27.2 PPG / 11.8 RPG / 3.5 APG with 3.3 TOV 5.3 Stocks on 56.5 TS ( +3.7 rTS )

Playoff : 29.0 PPG / 11.0 RPG / 4.3 APG with 3.6 TOV 5.8 Stocks on 56.8 TS ( +4.8 rTS adj. Against -2.7 rDRTG )

HAKEEM WOWY from 1993 -> 1995 ( to have a bigger sample size )
With : 0.667 Win or 55 win Pace
Offense: 109.0 O-Rating
Defense: 104.9 D-Rating

Without: 0.333 Win or 27 win Pace
Offense : 109.3 O-Rating
Defense: 112.1 D-Rating

His team defense got hurt the most cause Hakeem is the hearts and soul of the defensive motor.

Hakeem was the best defender in this year by a big margin and his offensive Resiliency even against all time defense as the Knick in Final especially as a scorer which he able to out perform any other great big / wing in a single playoff run is insane.

For me 1994 and 1993 are equally as good.

NOMINATIONS : SHAQ 2000 his most complete year as a player which he put the most effort in both end of the floor. Great playoff run with a worse team than in 2001

[Elpolo_14]

1. Tim Duncan (02, then 03)
2. Shaq (00)
3. Kareem (74, 71, 77)

Duncan is an easy choice for me. As I elaborated on at length in the RPOY and top 100 project, Duncan’s impact is slept on by people who only remember late career Duncan. In truth, Duncan was never at his absolute peak again after his 04 injury. He was still amazing over the rest of his prime from 04-07, maybe 95% as good as 02 and 03, but the drop was noticeable. That 2002 Spurs team wouldn’t have won 20 games without Duncan, let alone 58. Everyone on his support cast was old and washed, young and inexperienced, or highly limited. That he managed to carry a slightly better Spurs support cast to the title the next year remains one of the GOAT carry jobs of all-time. Defensively, Duncan is IMHO the GOAT, over Russell, Hakeem, etc.

Duncan 02 had nothing around him. He anchored the Spurs entire defence, and almost every offensive possession was run through him. In the playoffs, he matched up with Shaq and guarded him 1 on 1 for much/most of the series, and the stats speak for themselves. Duncan clearly outplayed Shaq.

Shaq 00 isn’t controversial. He has one of the most dominant peaks of all-time. His defence holds him back, but what he’s giving you on offense is so impactful that his foibles there don’t matter (except in comparison to someone like peak Duncan).

Kareem is a compromise choice. I don’t think I’d rank him #3 of the remaining candidates, I’m not sure. But he’s the only candidate likely to get traction who I’m willing to vote for. The Bucks turnaround from 69 to 70 is an excellent example of the turnaround a single player can accomplish, and reflects Kareem’s impact overall. He’s likely have won the 71 title without Oscar, just based on his own improvement as a sophomore player.

By how you generally talk about older player from the previous generation. I never would've guess that you gonna put Kareem on the the podium of this round. What make Kareem more special than others player who were all time era relative? His translation to this era of basketball would Also be a bit wankie ( which is something you bought up quite often for player like MJ )