Owly wrote:Djoker wrote:I'm a bit late to this discussion but I just want to chyme in on a few points that were raised.
The first one is the apparent contradiction in saying Jordan > Lebron because he won 6 rings compared to Lebron's 4 rings but then ranking Jordan above Russell who has 11 rings as the best player. Me personally I rank Jordan and Russell on the same tier as the two greatest players in history and the order can go either way and you won't see me bat an eye. However, the limitation in Russell's GOAT argument is that he wasn't the individual force that a few others greats namely Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Lebron were. Russell gave off more Duncan vibes. Not that it's a bad thing but people naturally gravitate towards superior individual production when ranking players. Russell just lacks in terms of individual dominance that to many people it just doesn't feel right to have him as the GOAT when ranking individual players. The fact that he was finishing as 2nd Team All-NBA in many of his prime years rubs people the wrong way. At the end of the day a GOAT list ranks individual players in a team-based sport. And for most people the idea of the greatest player ever is a guy who wins a ton of championships and is the best player in the league. Russell didn't regularly check that second box. Fair or not, Jordan is the guy who checks both of those boxes better than anyone else.
The second point that I'm about to raise comes down to my own personal views. A lot of people on this forum seem to judge the GOAT by total career value and so by that token Lebron is #1 all time (or at least will be very soon) and Kareem is #2 all time and that's pretty definitive. However I think this method or ranking does not consider that longevity is largely based on factors that have nothing to do with the player himself and their durability such as:
- coming to the NBA out of high school aids longevity
- more modern eras allow for better longevity because of superior nutrition, training, and medical advances
- the last decade allows for better longevity due to load management
- the last decade and a half allows for better longevity due to reduced physicality
- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.
If we simply use longevity without adjusting for eras and circumstances we'll have a GOAT list composed of just modern players pretty soon. Guys like KD, Curry, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Giannis etc. won't have Lebron's longevity but historically speaking will probably end up with very impressive longevity. Curry this year was 34 years old. He's probably better than any 34 year old in history barring Jordan, Lebron, Kareem and possibly Duncan and Durant. And you could easily see him continue playing at a high level for a few years. Right now it's already looking difficult not to put Curry over Bird if you're at all high on longevity. I am of course not quite convinced.
Another problem is that the career value approach isn't universally applied. Karl Malone crushes a whole lot of guys in longevity. I see a lot of lists where Malone is either a fringe top 20 player or not even top 20 even though he has 11 1st Team All-NBA selections, 36k points etc. A ton of lists have him below Dr J, West, Oscar, Barkley etc. guys who like Malone also never won titles as the best players on their team. In that case "Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity. Perhaps the inconsistent use of longevity comes from the realization that half of the top 10 will be current players very very soon and that undermines the credibility of such a list. And of course questions whether career value is used optimally to rank players.
Lastly should longevity factor in loyalty to a particular franchise? How valuable is someone's 25 year career if it's split among 3 different teams? For instance, saying that in a hypothetical draft you'd pick Lebron and Kareem ahead of Jordan, I think you're implicitly assuming that those players stay on your team their entire careers. But is that a fair assumption to make knowing that Kareem and Lebron did in fact leave their teams? Both left fairly solid team situations as well.
So long as people are clear and consistent with their criteria I don't mind the order. I do see that that is something that is important to you, which is (to me) good.
There's stuff in the first para ("gave off more Duncan vibes" is both very woolly and an odd criticism; and "individual dominance" is also woolly and arguably either just incorrect or missing the point of a team game) and I say this being probably significantly lower in terms of raw rank position for Russell (I would guess ... I haven't got to a process I'm happy with).
On era adjustment for longevity I think the call is fair enough (though Schayes plays 16 years starting in the 40s and for a long time the longest careers have been Willis (21/22, starting 80s - depending on whether dock players years in this context for mid-career injury absences), M Malone and Parish (21, starting 70s) and Kareem (20, starting 60s). I
think I would be inclined to give a longevity tilt for older era (mainly 40s, 50s, 60s) players. Maybe others do but for the 50s and back guys it gets demolished by era concerns.
On Malone ... I salute the call for consistency ... on the other hand ... whilst you don't want to start needless fires it's probably worth be clear who is inconsistent and if you think it's evident in this community, supporting that with evidence. I'm not say that it won't be there, it may. I would though be loathe to generalize that people are necessarily just saying
"Those guys were better players." argument totally trumps longevity
because a complex interplay of factors means small shifts in focus and interpretation make it very hard to reverse engineer criteria and process back in such a manner that one can confiedently say that it is inconsistent (also fwiw, Doctor J has multiple titles as best player on his team, just not in the NBA, and West has an argument for best player on a title team though much less of one for best play for that team in those playoffs, though that [i.e. rings]'s (as distinct from impact towards ring probability) a pretty crummy and low level argument anyway that I'd argue isn't worth engaging with).
On loyalty ...
1) You are aware Jordan played for the Washington Wizards. It's just you don't mention it.
2) You say "left their team" ... Jordan left his team twice with basketball career still on the table.
3) The main one ... I don't have a great process but my inclination wouldn't be to consider it other than perhaps indirectly at the fringes. I think you're wrong to say "For instance, saying that in a hypothetical draft you'd pick Lebron and Kareem ahead of Jordan, I think you're implicitly assuming that those players stay on your team their entire careers"
Let's assume people are using that framework in this instance though many, probably most, aren't. They needn't necessarily be assuming that they
will stay. They may be simply working on the basis that if they do a good job they'll have a chance to retain them. On that front ... Kareem's "fairly solid situation" ... Ben Taylor's work with WoWY seem to put the '75 Bucks at a -4.2 SRS without Kareem (from a 17 game out sample),
if that gives an accurate picture, it's a pretty awful number in the mid-70s that would have ranked 2nd worst only to the expansion Jazz. With LeBron I think it would depend on which departure you're talking about (though most weren't that solid without him).
Finally with regard to "did in fact leave their teams" .... one has to also account for context (not merely the above with goodness, though that too). Differing cap contexts meant different circumstances teams could offer individuals as much as they liked, indeed more than the cap itself (MJ got this, twice, and flirted (perhaps more ... e.g.
https://www.sportscasting.com/michael-jordan-almost-signed-with-the-new-york-knicks-in-1996/) with New York to make sure he got it). At that time, too, it was easier to renegotiate and ensure players never hit free agency. When teams instituted individual maxes and then shortened maximum contract lengths they substantially decreased the advantage to the "home" team financially and thus made team construction and lifestyle and other factors proportionally much larger. At the time of Kareem's move, the existence of the ABA with a team in Kareem's preferred destination (NY) meant that the mere potential to lose a player for no compensation (and by that time typically without the player being required to sit out a year) gave trade requests (or demands, but my understanding is Jabbar's was a request) had more teeth than in later or earlier years. So ... even if one is playing fantasy GM ... (even if one is highlighting certain players leaving and not others) ... to attempt to authentically estimate loyalty in a vacuum based or even what it was in specific real circumstances to a high level would be vastly time consuming, necessarily inconsistent and incomplete (even if all parties were reliable witnesses and desperate to freely co-operate, many have now passed on - and of course this isn't the case). Then finally it comes back to most aren't doing that.
fwiw
- longevity is affected by off-court issues such as AIDS in Magic's case, father's murder in Jordan's case etc.
Depends where you're going on AIDs ... in terms of got it off court ... of course but it was a consequence of his own choices that meant he didn't need as much bad luck as others would (in terms of the amount and manner of sex he was reportedly having [reports from self and others]). If you're talking some shadow-ban I can't and wouldn't speak to that.
On Jordan's father. I won't say it didn't "affect" his decision, indeed it must have touched every aspect of his life. It is though (1) now understood that he was talking retirement (number 1) over a year in advance of doing so, and (2) I think in his own account a secondary/tertiary factor ... it was nice that his father saw his last game (of course ultimately he didn't) ... rather than "I am retiring because some idiots killed my father".
Ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere. I don't know how good Ben Wilson could have been, or Len Bias. I don't know how good some guy (or girl) in some remote part of the world could have been (or was, if it was at the time remote enough to access the game, but not for the NBA to hear of, or get the player) or someone in some time before the game was invented could have been ... I simply can't compare these things, and even if I could I'd be estimating a probabilistic range for a Bias rather than one outcome. Off court stuff will affect what happens on-court, that's the case for all of it. I can see a case for some hypothetical stuff and as above am open to hearing discussion so long as people are clear what they're trying to do. But the value that players actually brought seems at least a very sensible starting point.
Sorry this is rambly. Could be tighter and there may be errors but can't edit right now and am unlikely to come back to it. Sorry for any errors, lack of clarity etc.
