People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[Dutchball97]

But somehow is magic and lebron who sometimes are the ones criticized for their ball dominance leading to a lower ceiling offense

It's not that their ball dominance leads to low ceiling offenses, it's that it creates diminishing returns when pairing them with other ball dominant players. Either you have to take the ball out of the hands of LeBron/Magic more and reduce their playmaking impact or you don't and not properly utilize the other ball dominant players.

Why does it matter if you don't get better results? We shouldn't maximize individual production of every player on the court, but team results.

Besides, you only look at that from one point of view. There are situations when off-ball player also lose value in comparison to on-ball creators. Jordan almost certainly would lose more value playing next to Kobe Bryant or Kyrie Irving than LeBron would.

Don't get better results? Are you just making up scenarios now? I'd love to hear in exactly what ways the 91 Bulls were not better than previous iterations of the team. Hard to improve much on a 60+ win team that went on to win the title while only dropping 2 games in the play-offs. You're talking about it like a zero sum game where a team always becomes worse when a star has a massive individual impact even though MJ is famous for getting people involved first before taking over later in games. Besides all of that if we're talking about peaks here then I can't move past the fact that you just said it doesn't matter if a player takes a step back on offense to benefit the team. As a coach it should always be your intention to get your team to play as well as possible but surely you don't think it's a coincidence that tactic involves lowering the offensive load of bigs or letting someone like LeBron or Kobe take the regular season off on defense, while MJ didn't have to take a lesser role for his team to thrive?

People can throw as many +- stats out there as they want but this very simple fact that MJ didn't have to take a reduced role for his team to become dominant isn't going to change.

[70sFan]

Don't get better results? Are you just making up scenarios now? I'd love to hear in exactly what ways the 91 Bulls were not better than previous iterations of the team. Hard to improve much on a 60+ win team that went on to win the title while only dropping 2 games in the play-offs.

Wait, I'm confused right now. You are quoting me talking about the diminishing results next to other ball-dominant players. 1990 and 1991 Bulls situation has nothing to do with that. There was no ball-dominant player outside of Jordan in either team. Bulls didn't add any high volume creator in 1991. So no, Jordan didn't elevate his team next to the other on-ball creator. Not to mention that the biggest jump Bulls did from 1990 to 1991 was on defense, not offense.

You're talking about it like a zero sum game where a team always becomes worse when a star has a massive individual impact even though MJ is famous for getting people involved first before taking over later in games.

Again, I think you use the word "impact" in context of boxscore production. These two are completely different things.

Besides all of that if we're talking about peaks here then I can't move past the fact that you just said it doesn't matter if a player takes a step back on offense to benefit the team. As a coach it should always be your intention to get your team to play as well as possible but surely you don't think it's a coincidence that tactic involves lowering the offensive load of bigs or letting someone like LeBron or Kobe take the regular season off on defense, while MJ didn't have to take a lesser role for his team to thrive?

Well, that's related to my point - Bulls built a team around Jordan that has no ball-dominant scorers or playmakers. Jordan didn't really have to change anything in his game. The difference between 1990 and 1991 Bulls on offense wasn't about adding more high level offensive teammates. It's a situational thing, not something that is Jordan's quality. Do you think Jordan wouldn't lower his production next to Wade (or vice versa)?

By the way, why don't you say the same thing about 1970->1971 Kareem, or 1979->1980 Kareem? He didn't lower his offensive load (quite the opposite, while teams became significantly better. Why don't you see Kareem in the same regard?

Jordan absolutely took RS off on defense, but that's not related to our discussion.

People can throw as many +- stats out there as they want but this very simple fact that MJ didn't have to take a reduced role for his team to become dominant isn't going to change.

Jordan reduced his playmaking load in the early 1990s. That's one thing. Another thing is that he didn't have to, because he didn't play with ball-dominant players. LeBron didn't lower his production and load in 2020 when he got AD - a player who isn't ball-dominant.

[Dutchball97]

Don't get better results? Are you just making up scenarios now? I'd love to hear in exactly what ways the 91 Bulls were not better than previous iterations of the team. Hard to improve much on a 60+ win team that went on to win the title while only dropping 2 games in the play-offs.

Wait, I'm confused right now. You are quoting me talking about the diminishing results next to other ball-dominant players. 1990 and 1991 Bulls situation has nothing to do with that. There was no ball-dominant player outside of Jordan in either team. Bulls didn't add any high volume creator in 1991. So no, Jordan didn't elevate his team next to the other on-ball creator. Not to mention that the biggest jump Bulls did from 1990 to 1991 was on defense, not offense.

You're talking about it like a zero sum game where a team always becomes worse when a star has a massive individual impact even though MJ is famous for getting people involved first before taking over later in games.

Again, I think you use the word "impact" in context of boxscore production. These two are completely different things.

Besides all of that if we're talking about peaks here then I can't move past the fact that you just said it doesn't matter if a player takes a step back on offense to benefit the team. As a coach it should always be your intention to get your team to play as well as possible but surely you don't think it's a coincidence that tactic involves lowering the offensive load of bigs or letting someone like LeBron or Kobe take the regular season off on defense, while MJ didn't have to take a lesser role for his team to thrive?

Well, that's related to my point - Bulls built a team around Jordan that has no ball-dominant scorers or playmakers. Jordan didn't really have to change anything in his game. The difference between 1990 and 1991 Bulls on offense wasn't about adding more high level offensive teammates. It's a situational thing, not something that is Jordan's quality. Do you think Jordan wouldn't lower his production next to Wade (or vice versa)?

By the way, why don't you say the same thing about 1970->1971 Kareem, or 1979->1980 Kareem? He didn't lower his offensive load (quite the opposite, while teams became significantly better. Why don't you see Kareem in the same regard?

Jordan absolutely took RS off on defense, but that's not related to our discussion.

People can throw as many +- stats out there as they want but this very simple fact that MJ didn't have to take a reduced role for his team to become dominant isn't going to change.

Jordan reduced his playmaking load in the early 1990s. That's one thing. Another thing is that he didn't have to, because he didn't play with ball-dominant players. LeBron didn't lower his production and load in 2020 when he got AD - a player who isn't ball-dominant.

I'm just as confused as you man. Are you forgetting Pippen exists or are you calling him not ball dominant? Sure his usage rate isn't as high as someone like Wade but how in the hell is Pippen not an on-ball creator?

The Bulls took a bigger step on defense in a relative sense but they went from great to best in the league on offense, which I'd argue is a more difficult step to take than going from average to very good on defense. Even then unless you're still holding on to this idea that only bigs or big forwards have any kind of defensive impact then I don't see how Jordan shouldn't be credited with that defensive jump as well. Even though his defensive reputation is overblown due to the DPOY, I don't subscribe to the idea that Jordan's defensive impact was neglible either.

I take boxscore production into account when talking about impact, which is more than pretty much everyone else is doing as "impact" seems to be exclusively focused on +- here. In a way +- gives an idea of how good a team is with or without someone and by extension how important someone is to their team but it's getting pretty ridiculous how often these +- based stats are put forward as an objective measure of impact without taking into account any form of roster construction.

You bring up a fair point about Kareem. It's first of all important to recognize we're talking about small differences here when comparing the greatest players of all-time and just because I don't think Kareem has a peak as impressive as Jordan that I think Kareem doesn't have an impressive peak at all. 79 to 80 I don't see as super relevant as he's already moving into the later stages of his prime by then and has already taken a significant step back on offense compared to the early-mid 70s to begin with. 1971 Kareem by all means should receive a ton of credit for what he was able to do but I don't think it's as impressive as 1991 Jordan for a couple of reasons. Jordan didn't face a murderers row in the play-offs but the Pistons and Lakers were significantly better teams than any of the teams Kareem faced in 1971. The Warriors and Bullets were middle of the pack teams at best that had no business contending for a title, while the only good team they faced was the Lakers who were without both West and Baylor in the play-offs. With just West coming back the next year and Oscar still being almost just as good as the year prior, the Lakers confidently beat the Bucks this time. The Bucks continuing to dominate the regular season but coming up short in the play-offs every time doesn't instill me with as much confidence especially considering the mid 70s was as low on talent as the 90s, if not more so.

[70sFan]

I'm just as confused as you man. Are you forgetting Pippen exists or are you calling him not ball dominant? Sure his usage rate isn't as high as someone like Wade but how in the hell is Pippen not an on-ball creator?

Pippen definitely wasn't a player I'd call ball-dominant creator. Pippen was a player who can handle the ball and run in transition, he's also capable passer in the halfcourt, but he isn't the type of guy who is running an offense through him in set plays. Besides, Pippen's usage didn't get up from 1990 to 1991, so it's a moot point - Pippen became better, but he didn't create more or was more ball-dominant.

The Bulls took a bigger step on defense in a relative sense but they went from great to best in the league on offense, which I'd argue is a more difficult step to take than going from average to very good on defense. Even then unless you're still holding on to this idea that only bigs or big forwards have any kind of defensive impact then I don't see how Jordan shouldn't be credited with that defensive jump as well. Even though his defensive reputation is overblown due to the DPOY, I don't subscribe to the idea that Jordan's defensive impact was neglible either.

Good point on changes, offensive improvement could be seen as more impressive overall.

Jordan's defensive impact certainly wasn't neglible, but we have seen Bulls without him in quite a big sample and their defense was steadily great.

I take boxscore production into account when talking about impact, which is more than pretty much everyone else is doing as "impact" seems to be exclusively focused on +- here. In a way +- gives an idea of how good a team is with or without someone and by extension how important someone is to their team but it's getting pretty ridiculous how often these +- based stats are put forward as an objective measure of impact without taking into account any form of roster construction.

I agree that we shouldn't just look at +/- numbers and call it a day, as you well know that's not how I evaluate players. The problem is that boxscore numbers are also very roster-related, I think you miss that point when you talk about impact. Jordan still scored a lot of points in the 1990s, because that's how their roster was built. He never played next to a top tier scorer like Wade or Davis, or even lower level ones like Kyrie. It wasn't expected for Jordan to decrease his scoring numbers and he did drop off his non-scoring boxscore production.

I think it also limits your view to scoring production. Duncan scored a bit less points per game in 2007 than in 2003 (mostly because of less minutes), but he produced on similar level in all of the other aspects.

You bring up a fair point about Kareem. It's first of all important to recognize we're talking about small differences here when comparing the greatest players of all-time and just because I don't think Kareem has a peak as impressive as Jordan that I think Kareem doesn't have an impressive peak at all.

I know you think highly of Kareem and I recognise that. I'm asking why you think his peak isn't as impressive as Jordan's though, not why you think Kareem sucked.

79 to 80 I don't see as super relevant as he's already moving into the later stages of his prime by then and has already taken a significant step back on offense compared to the early-mid 70s to begin with.

Kareem took 25.0 TSA per100 in 1974 RS, 26.3 in 1976. For comparison - 23.4 in 1980. I think you don't take into account pace and minutes played when you say that and of course, when you compare his playoffs stats the difference basically doesn't exist:

1974: 28.3 TSA
1977: 29.2 TSA
1978: 27.9 TSA

1980: 29.8 TSA

Kareem was the best offensive player in the league in 1979 and 1980. Seriously, how can you just ignore that?

1971 Kareem by all means should receive a ton of credit for what he was able to do but I don't think it's as impressive as 1991 Jordan for a couple of reasons. Jordan didn't face a murderers row in the play-offs but the Pistons and Lakers were significantly better teams than any of the teams Kareem faced in 1971. The Warriors and Bullets were middle of the pack teams at best that had no business contending for a title, while the only good team they faced was the Lakers who were without both West and Baylor in the play-offs.

1991 Lakers were a corpse without head in the finals. Do you remember how many injuries they actually had during the series? No, I wouldn't say these Lakers were better than 1971 Lakers without West. Why do you bring up Baylor? Baylor didn't play in that season at all and he wasn't valuable piece for this team anymore.

1971 Bullets were mediocre in RS, but they beat the defending champions Knicks in a close series and they actually won 50+ games in two years prior with the same core. It's like saying 2020 Heat had no business contending for the title.

With just West coming back the next year and Oscar still being almost just as good as the year prior, the Lakers confidently beat the Bucks this time.

Oscar was injuried in 1972 WCF. How can you say he was "almost just as good"? Here are his numbers for the series:

9.0/5.3/5.7 on 40 TS% in only 30 mpg

How can you compare that to 15.2/4.4/8.8 on 51 TS% in 37 mpg in 1971?

Also - about Lakers "confidently" beating the Bucks - Lakers won in a 6 games series and they were actually outscored by 2.3 ppg. Lakers won their games by 1 point, 3 points, 25 points and 4 points. Outside of game 5, all of the losses Bucks had were within 5 points range. How can you say it's a confident win? It's the closest 6 games series you can imagine. All against an all-time great team, Jordan never faced comparably good team in the 1990s.

The Bucks continuing to dominate the regular season but coming up short in the play-offs every time doesn't instill me with as much confidence especially considering the mid 70s was as low on talent as the 90s, if not more so.

Yeah, Kareem did a horrible job in 1974 finals when he carried his outmatched team to game 7 loss. Come on...

So basically your only argument is that Kareem didn't win enough in the early 1970s? You also decided to ignore 1980 run as past prime, even though that run was arguably better than any of Jordan's, certainly against better competition than 1991.

Sorry, but it seems that you'd put Kareem on similar level to Jordan if Oscar didn't get injured in 1972 playoffs and the Bucks would have won the very close series in 1974 finals.That would give him 3 rings in 4 years and it would be enough, right? Because you didn't bring up any other arguments.

[Dutchball97]

I'm just as confused as you man. Are you forgetting Pippen exists or are you calling him not ball dominant? Sure his usage rate isn't as high as someone like Wade but how in the hell is Pippen not an on-ball creator?

Pippen definitely wasn't a player I'd call ball-dominant creator. Pippen was a player who can handle the ball and run in transition, he's also capable passer in the halfcourt, but he isn't the type of guy who is running an offense through him in set plays. Besides, Pippen's usage didn't get up from 1990 to 1991, so it's a moot point - Pippen became better, but he didn't create more or was more ball-dominant.

The Bulls took a bigger step on defense in a relative sense but they went from great to best in the league on offense, which I'd argue is a more difficult step to take than going from average to very good on defense. Even then unless you're still holding on to this idea that only bigs or big forwards have any kind of defensive impact then I don't see how Jordan shouldn't be credited with that defensive jump as well. Even though his defensive reputation is overblown due to the DPOY, I don't subscribe to the idea that Jordan's defensive impact was neglible either.

Good point on changes, offensive improvement could be seen as more impressive overall.

Jordan's defensive impact certainly wasn't neglible, but we have seen Bulls without him in quite a big sample and their defense was steadily great.

I take boxscore production into account when talking about impact, which is more than pretty much everyone else is doing as "impact" seems to be exclusively focused on +- here. In a way +- gives an idea of how good a team is with or without someone and by extension how important someone is to their team but it's getting pretty ridiculous how often these +- based stats are put forward as an objective measure of impact without taking into account any form of roster construction.

I agree that we shouldn't just look at +/- numbers and call it a day, as you well know that's not how I evaluate players. The problem is that boxscore numbers are also very roster-related, I think you miss that point when you talk about impact. Jordan still scored a lot of points in the 1990s, because that's how their roster was built. He never played next to a top tier scorer like Wade or Davis, or even lower level ones like Kyrie. It wasn't expected for Jordan to decrease his scoring numbers and he did drop off his non-scoring boxscore production.

I think it also limits your view to scoring production. Duncan scored a bit less points per game in 2007 than in 2003 (mostly because of less minutes), but he produced on similar level in all of the other aspects.

You bring up a fair point about Kareem. It's first of all important to recognize we're talking about small differences here when comparing the greatest players of all-time and just because I don't think Kareem has a peak as impressive as Jordan that I think Kareem doesn't have an impressive peak at all.

I know you think highly of Kareem and I recognise that. I'm asking why you think his peak isn't as impressive as Jordan's though, not why you think Kareem sucked.

79 to 80 I don't see as super relevant as he's already moving into the later stages of his prime by then and has already taken a significant step back on offense compared to the early-mid 70s to begin with.

Kareem took 25.0 TSA per100 in 1974 RS, 26.3 in 1976. For comparison - 23.4 in 1980. I think you don't take into account pace and minutes played when you say that and of course, when you compare his playoffs stats the difference basically doesn't exist:

1974: 28.3 TSA
1977: 29.2 TSA
1978: 27.9 TSA

1980: 29.8 TSA

Kareem was the best offensive player in the league in 1979 and 1980. Seriously, how can you just ignore that?

1971 Kareem by all means should receive a ton of credit for what he was able to do but I don't think it's as impressive as 1991 Jordan for a couple of reasons. Jordan didn't face a murderers row in the play-offs but the Pistons and Lakers were significantly better teams than any of the teams Kareem faced in 1971. The Warriors and Bullets were middle of the pack teams at best that had no business contending for a title, while the only good team they faced was the Lakers who were without both West and Baylor in the play-offs.

1991 Lakers were a corpse without head in the finals. Do you remember how many injuries they actually had during the series? No, I wouldn't say these Lakers were better than 1971 Lakers without West. Why do you bring up Baylor? Baylor didn't play in that season at all and he wasn't valuable piece for this team anymore.

1971 Bullets were mediocre in RS, but they beat the defending champions Knicks in a close series and they actually won 50+ games in two years prior with the same core. It's like saying 2020 Heat had no business contending for the title.

With just West coming back the next year and Oscar still being almost just as good as the year prior, the Lakers confidently beat the Bucks this time.

Oscar was injuried in 1972 WCF. How can you say he was "almost just as good"? Here are his numbers for the series:

9.0/5.3/5.7 on 40 TS% in only 30 mpg

How can you compare that to 15.2/4.4/8.8 on 51 TS% in 37 mpg in 1971?

Also - about Lakers "confidently" beating the Bucks - Lakers won in a 6 games series and they were actually outscored by 2.3 ppg. Lakers won their games by 1 point, 3 points, 25 points and 4 points. Outside of game 5, all of the losses Bucks had were within 5 points range. How can you say it's a confident win? It's the closest 6 games series you can imagine. All against an all-time great team, Jordan never faced comparably good team in the 1990s.

The Bucks continuing to dominate the regular season but coming up short in the play-offs every time doesn't instill me with as much confidence especially considering the mid 70s was as low on talent as the 90s, if not more so.

Yeah, Kareem did a horrible job in 1974 finals when he carried his outmatched team to game 7 loss. Come on...

So basically your only argument is that Kareem didn't win enough in the early 1970s? You also decided to ignore 1980 run as past prime, even though that run was arguably better than any of Jordan's, certainly against better competition than 1991.

Sorry, but it seems that you'd put Kareem on similar level to Jordan if Oscar didn't get injured in 1972 playoffs and the Bucks would have won the very close series in 1974 finals.That would give him 3 rings in 4 years and it would be enough, right? Because you didn't bring up any other arguments.

I feel like we're too far apart on too many things here to reach meaningful middle ground. The 91 Lakers not being as good as the 71 Lakers is just not an idea I'm even willing to entertain to be honest. Worthy missing a game is not the same as Baylor going from a 24 ppg scoring all-star in 1970 to pretty much retired in 1971. West missed the play-offs and Wilt shat the bed without perimeter help. The thought of a the 91 Lakers as a corpse without a head is a massive exaggeration.

I was not aware of Oscar's injury in 1972 as he did not miss any games and across the regular season did not see a significant drop in production compared to the year prior.

Comparing the 71 Bullets to the 2020 Heat is also pretty generous imo. Both teams were 8th in SRS but the Bullets played in a 17 team league and only need 0.91 SRS for 8th place, while the Heat of course played in a 30 team league and had 2.59 SRS. The "defending champion" Knicks weren't as good as they were the year before and definitely not as good as the Bucks the Heat beat in 2020. That's not even mentioning the bubble, which had a significant impact on just about everything and can't really be used as a standard comparison to other seasons imo.

With the whole Kareem thing you've got to be kidding though. You can't go from "I know you rate Kareem highly and aren't saying he sucks" to "So because Kareem didn't win the title in 1974 you're saying he sucks". Also no it still wouldn't be enough as the one random loss in 1973 would be highlighted even more if the Bucks did win in 1972 and 1974. I'm not sure if this is some PTSD about Duncan getting flak for never going back to back but how this doesn't come up as at least something that might be worth looking at is beyond me. I'm probably going to get slapped by "winning bias" or "ring bias" again but when we're just talking about individual impact leading to team success, then winning and especially winning rings should be at the top of everyone's check list. It's definitely a fair point to bring up the pace difference as that makes his lower production look like less of a massive shift in offensive production.

[70sFan]

I feel like we're too far apart on too many things here to reach meaningful middle ground.

I hope so!

The 91 Lakers not being as good as the 71 Lakers is just not an idea I'm even willing to entertain to be honest. Worthy missing a game is not the same as Baylor going from a 24 ppg scoring all-star in 1970 to pretty much retired in 1971. West missed the play-offs and Wilt shat the bed without perimeter help. The thought of a the 91 Lakers as a corpse without a head is a massive exaggeration.

Worthy played injured in the finals, so it's not just about him missing one game. Same thing with Scott, who also missed a game and played through injury.

Have you ever watched game 5 of 1991 finals? Theys started it with Terry freaking Teagle and had two bench players - Tony Smith and rookie Elden Campbell. At least Wilt played with Gail Goodrich and solid roleplayers. Even without West, Lakers beat +6 SRS Bulls in the first round. This doesn't look like an incompetent team.

I was not aware of Oscar's injury in 1972 as he did not miss any games and across the regular season did not see a significant drop in production compared to the year prior.

If you look at his production after he came back from injury, he clearly didn't recover - averaging 14.1 ppg and 5.8 rpg on 50 TS%.

Comparing the 71 Bullets to the 2020 Heat is also pretty generous imo. Both teams were 8th in SRS but the Bullets played in a 17 team league and only need 0.91 SRS for 8th place, while the Heat of course played in a 30 team league and had 2.59 SRS. The "defending champion" Knicks weren't as good as they were the year before and definitely not as good as the Bucks the Heat beat in 2020. That's not even mentioning the bubble, which had a significant impact on just about everything and can't really be used as a standard comparison to other seasons imo.

My analogy isn't ideal, but it gives you a good view on the subject. Bullets finished at 57 wins in 1969 and 50 wins in 1970, then they were at 46 wins pace when they were healthy (Gus Johnson missed 16 games). Knicks were still at +5 SRS pace, they weren't as good as in 1970 but they didn't collapse either. Anyway, Bullets weren't as bad as their RS record suggest.

With the whole Kareem thing you've got to be kidding though. You can't go from "I know you rate Kareem highly and aren't saying he sucks" to "So because Kareem didn't win the title in 1974 you're saying he sucks".

I'm not doing that, I'm going from "I know you rate Kareem highly and aren't saying he sucks" to "So because Kareem didn't win the title in 1974 you're saying he's worse than Jordan".

Also no it still wouldn't be enough as the one random loss in 1973 would be highlighted even more if the Bucks did win in 1972 and 1974.

So you ask Kareem to do something Jordan didn't do either - win 4 peat in 1971-74 period, to surpass Jordan?

I'm not sure if this is some PTSD about Duncan getting flak for never going back to back but how this doesn't come up as at least something that might be worth looking at is beyond me. I'm probably going to get slapped by "winning bias" or "ring bias" again but when we're just talking about individual impact leading to team success, then winning and especially winning rings should be at the top of everyone's check list.

So you rate Jordan higher than Kareem, because he won more rings. Got it, it's fair as long as it's consistent, but it doesn't explain why you don't view Kareem as comparably portable player, even if not as good.

[AEnigma]

I'm not sure if this is some PTSD about Duncan getting flak for never going back to back but how this doesn't come up as at least something that might be worth looking at is beyond me. I'm probably going to get slapped by "winning bias" or "ring bias" again but when we're just talking about individual impact leading to team success, then winning and especially winning rings should be at the top of everyone's check list.

So you rate Jordan higher than Kareem, because he won more rings. Got it, it's fair as long as it's consistent, but it doesn't explain why you don't view Kareem as comparably portable player, even if not as good.

As it so often does, that “standard” also immediately vanishes when it comes to Bill Russell, and then excuses are invented about him being an insufficient floor-raiser despite consistent evidence from both him and his general archetype (Dikembe, Gobert, Thurmond as a contemporary…) of top tier defensive bigs floor-raising otherwise limited rosters in comparable or even better ways than we saw out of Jordan before Pippen came into his own.

Dutchball has not really done this so far as I have seen, but the “small league” is the other common refrain, as if there is anything to suggest Jordan would have close to eleven titles if you cut the league down to size. Rings matter to Jordan backers, but never enough to confront that there too he falls short.

[Dutchball97]

I feel like we're too far apart on too many things here to reach meaningful middle ground.

I hope so!

The 91 Lakers not being as good as the 71 Lakers is just not an idea I'm even willing to entertain to be honest. Worthy missing a game is not the same as Baylor going from a 24 ppg scoring all-star in 1970 to pretty much retired in 1971. West missed the play-offs and Wilt shat the bed without perimeter help. The thought of a the 91 Lakers as a corpse without a head is a massive exaggeration.

Worthy played injured in the finals, so it's not just about him missing one game. Same thing with Scott, who also missed a game and played through injury.

Have you ever watched game 5 of 1991 finals? Theys started it with Terry freaking Teagle and had two bench players - Tony Smith and rookie Elden Campbell. At least Wilt played with Gail Goodrich and solid roleplayers. Even without West, Lakers beat +6 SRS Bulls in the first round. This doesn't look like an incompetent team.

I was not aware of Oscar's injury in 1972 as he did not miss any games and across the regular season did not see a significant drop in production compared to the year prior.

If you look at his production after he came back from injury, he clearly didn't recover - averaging 14.1 ppg and 5.8 rpg on 50 TS%.

Comparing the 71 Bullets to the 2020 Heat is also pretty generous imo. Both teams were 8th in SRS but the Bullets played in a 17 team league and only need 0.91 SRS for 8th place, while the Heat of course played in a 30 team league and had 2.59 SRS. The "defending champion" Knicks weren't as good as they were the year before and definitely not as good as the Bucks the Heat beat in 2020. That's not even mentioning the bubble, which had a significant impact on just about everything and can't really be used as a standard comparison to other seasons imo.

My analogy isn't ideal, but it gives you a good view on the subject. Bullets finished at 57 wins in 1969 and 50 wins in 1970, then they were at 46 wins pace when they were healthy (Gus Johnson missed 16 games). Knicks were still at +5 SRS pace, they weren't as good as in 1970 but they didn't collapse either. Anyway, Bullets weren't as bad as their RS record suggest.

With the whole Kareem thing you've got to be kidding though. You can't go from "I know you rate Kareem highly and aren't saying he sucks" to "So because Kareem didn't win the title in 1974 you're saying he sucks".

I'm not doing that, I'm going from "I know you rate Kareem highly and aren't saying he sucks" to "So because Kareem didn't win the title in 1974 you're saying he's worse than Jordan".

Also no it still wouldn't be enough as the one random loss in 1973 would be highlighted even more if the Bucks did win in 1972 and 1974.

So you ask Kareem to do something Jordan didn't do either - win 4 peat in 1971-74 period, to surpass Jordan?

I'm not sure if this is some PTSD about Duncan getting flak for never going back to back but how this doesn't come up as at least something that might be worth looking at is beyond me. I'm probably going to get slapped by "winning bias" or "ring bias" again but when we're just talking about individual impact leading to team success, then winning and especially winning rings should be at the top of everyone's check list.

So you rate Jordan higher than Kareem, because he won more rings. Got it, it's fair as long as it's consistent, but it doesn't explain why you don't view Kareem as comparably portable player, even if not as good.

You hope we won't reach common ground? We might be having a bit of a miscommunication there as it's not my intention to dismiss all your points, just that we're a bit too far on some topics that we likely won't change each other's minds on that.

The 4-peat part is a good indication of how convoluted this has gotten. I was under the assumption this was about peaks at first, then I realized it was about careers, then got corrected that now we are actually discussing peaks, only for it now to come back to careers again. I think you'd agree as well with the notion that surrounding years can strengthen a 1-year peak season by showing the player in question was able to reach or at least close in on his peak form with some matter of consistency. If Kareem had his 1974 season or equivalent in 1973 or arguably even in 1972 then that would likely help my view of his 1971 season if anything. It's not that Kareem didn't show on many occassions that he could be the most dominant player in the league, while also leading his team to great success but the problem (at least to me it isn't ideal) is that it didn't consistently happen year after year. In that sense Jordan is helped by having his best seasons in a cluster (88-93) because that makes his peak season look slightly less like an outlier than say 1974 for Kareem due to 1973 and 1975 not having the most spectacular endings for the Bucks. Again, this is all relative as many all-time greats would love to have a season like Kareem's 1973 but when comparing it to some of his more succesful seasons it doesn't hold up as much imo. Similarly it does help Jordan in a way that he missed 94 and only played a part of 95 compared to Kareem playing full seasons but missing the play-offs in 75 and 76.

I also don't have MJ ahead of Kareem because of rings because obviously they both won 6 and, while not winning a ring ever does hurt someone in my evaluations of the very best, I've never used counting rings as a significant part of how I rank players. I do have MJ over Kareem for career as well but my 1-4 (these two, LeBron and Russell) are very close on my list. I'm not against people ranking Kareem over MJ, in fact I think Kareem has a better case in terms of career than peak. I'd personally liked to have seen Kareem enjoy more of his team success during his peak years. Now that I think about it I might have to revisit Russell against Kareem and LeBron again as well as Russell has a pretty similar career to MJ in terms of sustained individual and team dominance.

[70sFan]

You hope we won't reach common ground? We might be having a bit of a miscommunication there as it's not my intention to dismiss all your points, just that we're a bit too far on some topics that we likely won't change each other's minds on that.

That was a mistake from my part, I thought you said that we will reach a common ground, I just don't know why. Sorry for that miscommunication.

The 4-peat part is a good indication of how convoluted this has gotten. I was under the assumption this was about peaks at first, then I realized it was about careers, then got corrected that now we are actually discussing peaks, only for it now to come back to careers again. I think you'd agree as well with the notion that surrounding years can strengthen a 1-year peak season by showing the player in question was able to reach or at least close in on his peak form with some matter of consistency. If Kareem had his 1974 season or equivalent in 1973 or arguably even in 1972 then that would likely help my view of his 1971 season if anything. It's not that Kareem didn't show on many occassions that he could be the most dominant player in the league, while also leading his team to great success but the problem (at least to me it isn't ideal) is that it didn't consistently happen year after year.

Fair enough, I just think the lack of rings doesn't change the fact that Kareem showed remarkable consistency. To me, Kareem was clearly the best player in the league for many seasons and I don't view lack of rings as lack of "great success". What Kareem did in 1974 was nothing short of incredible and I don't view that as anything less than what Jordan did in 1991. Even 1972 has the case, they just run into another ATG team with injured Oscar.

In that sense Jordan is helped by having his best seasons in a cluster (88-93) because that makes his peak season look slightly less like an outlier than say 1974 for Kareem due to 1973 and 1975 not having the most spectacular endings for the Bucks.

Wait, why do you put 1988-90 into that group? What makes 1988 more impressive than 1972?

Again, this is all relative as many all-time greats would love to have a season like Kareem's 1973 but when comparing it to some of his more succesful seasons it doesn't hold up as much imo.

It's true, his 1973 was relatively down year, but then again - Kareem had 1977 and 1980 on top tier level too.

Similarly it does help Jordan in a way that he missed 94 and only played a part of 95 compared to Kareem playing full seasons but missing the play-offs in 75 and 76.

Does it make any sense though? Should we praise Jordan for missing these seasons compared to 1976, which was an excellent year for Kareem?

I don't know, Kareem peaked on a poorly constructed team in 1977 and he had no shot at winning the title in that year. What makes it less impressive than what Jordan did in 1989 or 1990? To me, Kareem has a very reasonable peak argument against anyone.

[70sFan]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

[Jaivl]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

Jordan/Bird/Magic/Curry, right?

[Dutchball97]

You hope we won't reach common ground? We might be having a bit of a miscommunication there as it's not my intention to dismiss all your points, just that we're a bit too far on some topics that we likely won't change each other's minds on that.

That was a mistake from my part, I thought you said that we will reach a common ground, I just don't know why. Sorry for that miscommunication.

The 4-peat part is a good indication of how convoluted this has gotten. I was under the assumption this was about peaks at first, then I realized it was about careers, then got corrected that now we are actually discussing peaks, only for it now to come back to careers again. I think you'd agree as well with the notion that surrounding years can strengthen a 1-year peak season by showing the player in question was able to reach or at least close in on his peak form with some matter of consistency. If Kareem had his 1974 season or equivalent in 1973 or arguably even in 1972 then that would likely help my view of his 1971 season if anything. It's not that Kareem didn't show on many occassions that he could be the most dominant player in the league, while also leading his team to great success but the problem (at least to me it isn't ideal) is that it didn't consistently happen year after year.

Fair enough, I just think the lack of rings doesn't change the fact that Kareem showed remarkable consistency. To me, Kareem was clearly the best player in the league for many seasons and I don't view lack of rings as lack of "great success". What Kareem did in 1974 was nothing short of incredible and I don't view that as anything less than what Jordan did in 1991. Even 1972 has the case, they just run into another ATG team with injured Oscar.

In that sense Jordan is helped by having his best seasons in a cluster (88-93) because that makes his peak season look slightly less like an outlier than say 1974 for Kareem due to 1973 and 1975 not having the most spectacular endings for the Bucks.

Wait, why do you put 1988-90 into that group? What makes 1988 more impressive than 1972?

Again, this is all relative as many all-time greats would love to have a season like Kareem's 1973 but when comparing it to some of his more succesful seasons it doesn't hold up as much imo.

It's true, his 1973 was relatively down year, but then again - Kareem had 1977 and 1980 on top tier level too.

Similarly it does help Jordan in a way that he missed 94 and only played a part of 95 compared to Kareem playing full seasons but missing the play-offs in 75 and 76.

Does it make any sense though? Should we praise Jordan for missing these seasons compared to 1976, which was an excellent year for Kareem?

I don't know, Kareem peaked on a poorly constructed team in 1977 and he had no shot at winning the title in that year. What makes it less impressive than what Jordan did in 1989 or 1990? To me, Kareem has a very reasonable peak argument against anyone.

MJ's 1988 isn't necessarily better than Kareem's 1972, they're actually eerily similar. The thing is that MJ's prime ramps up to 1991 with it standing out as a clear pinnacle, while Kareem's best years come more in waves. For most guys they follow a general career path getting better untill somewhere in their mid-late 20s, stay around that level for a bit and then start ramping down in their 30s. With Kareem it's almost more random in which years he'll have his best showings, which makes it harder to pinpoint when exactly he was at his best. This makes it mostly an optical thing but when comparing insanely dominant seasons it's hard to not want to look for some kind of x-factor that sets one apart from the other.

In a way that means I agree with you that MJ having the best peak isn't this set in stone certainty but in a sea of legitimate contenders I personally see Jordan's 91 season as the most convincing. I've always said I'm simply looking for small differences in comparisons between all-time greats at their best because advanced stats, whether boxscore or +-, aren't the most accurate when comparing between different seasons, especially when we're talking about these huge outliers like Jordan and Kareem who constantly break the scales. Tbh I usually don't spend too much time worrying about peak seasons because of this, it's much more practical to find significant seperation in careers than peaks.

[Dutchball97]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

Jordan/Bird/Magic/Curry, right?

Surely 06 Kobe has to be there. I can't imagine someone like LeBron or Shaq and especially not Duncan dragging Smush Parker and Kwame Brown to 7 games against the Suns, let alone get them to the play-offs in the first place. If I had to pick anyone to be replaced it'd have to be Bird because he only has 3 rings, which is incredibly relevant for peaks.

[kcktiny]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

I have not read through this entire thread (sorry if you mentioned these already), but was curious as to a list of any players you feel had a better peak than Jordan.

[AEnigma]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

Jordan/Bird/Magic/Curry, right?

Surely 06 Kobe has to be there. I can't imagine someone like LeBron or Shaq and especially not Duncan dragging Smush Parker and Kwame Brown to 7 games against the Suns, let alone get them to the play-offs in the first place. If I had to pick anyone to be replaced it'd have to be Bird because he only has 3 rings, which is incredibly relevant for peaks.

I do not know, does not really hold a candle to 2003 McGrady. I cannot imagine someone like Kobe dragging Pat Garrity and Gordon Giricek to the playoffs, let alone to a game 7 against the Pistons.

Are we still memeing or is this supposed to be serious. Lebron brought a team with Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes as its secondary and tertiary players to the Finals, and two years later he led an 8.7 SRS team with Mo Williams and Delonte West as its secondary and tertiary players; what are we doing here asking if he could get to the playoffs with Lamar Odom as a secondary.

[AEnigma]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

I have not read through this entire thread (sorry if you mentioned these already), but was curious as to a list of any players you feel had a better peak than Jordan.

Not hard to come up with an argument for any of the top 8 guys on the peaks project provided the peaks definition is not simply reduced to scoring.

[falcolombardi]

You hope we won't reach common ground? We might be having a bit of a miscommunication there as it's not my intention to dismiss all your points, just that we're a bit too far on some topics that we likely won't change each other's minds on that.

That was a mistake from my part, I thought you said that we will reach a common ground, I just don't know why. Sorry for that miscommunication.

The 4-peat part is a good indication of how convoluted this has gotten. I was under the assumption this was about peaks at first, then I realized it was about careers, then got corrected that now we are actually discussing peaks, only for it now to come back to careers again. I think you'd agree as well with the notion that surrounding years can strengthen a 1-year peak season by showing the player in question was able to reach or at least close in on his peak form with some matter of consistency. If Kareem had his 1974 season or equivalent in 1973 or arguably even in 1972 then that would likely help my view of his 1971 season if anything. It's not that Kareem didn't show on many occassions that he could be the most dominant player in the league, while also leading his team to great success but the problem (at least to me it isn't ideal) is that it didn't consistently happen year after year.

Fair enough, I just think the lack of rings doesn't change the fact that Kareem showed remarkable consistency. To me, Kareem was clearly the best player in the league for many seasons and I don't view lack of rings as lack of "great success". What Kareem did in 1974 was nothing short of incredible and I don't view that as anything less than what Jordan did in 1991. Even 1972 has the case, they just run into another ATG team with injured Oscar.

In that sense Jordan is helped by having his best seasons in a cluster (88-93) because that makes his peak season look slightly less like an outlier than say 1974 for Kareem due to 1973 and 1975 not having the most spectacular endings for the Bucks.

Wait, why do you put 1988-90 into that group? What makes 1988 more impressive than 1972?

Again, this is all relative as many all-time greats would love to have a season like Kareem's 1973 but when comparing it to some of his more succesful seasons it doesn't hold up as much imo.

It's true, his 1973 was relatively down year, but then again - Kareem had 1977 and 1980 on top tier level too.

Similarly it does help Jordan in a way that he missed 94 and only played a part of 95 compared to Kareem playing full seasons but missing the play-offs in 75 and 76.

Does it make any sense though? Should we praise Jordan for missing these seasons compared to 1976, which was an excellent year for Kareem?

I don't know, Kareem peaked on a poorly constructed team in 1977 and he had no shot at winning the title in that year. What makes it less impressive than what Jordan did in 1989 or 1990? To me, Kareem has a very reasonable peak argument against anyone.

MJ's 1988 isn't necessarily better than Kareem's 1972, they're actually eerily similar. The thing is that MJ's prime ramps up to 1991 with it standing out as a clear pinnacle, while Kareem's best years come more in waves. For most guys they follow a general career path getting better untill somewhere in their mid-late 20s, stay around that level for a bit and then start ramping down in their 30s. With Kareem it's almost more random in which years he'll have his best showings, which makes it harder to pinpoint when exactly he was at his best. This makes it mostly an optical thing but when comparing insanely dominant seasons it's hard to not want to look for some kind of x-factor that sets one apart from the other.

In a way that means I agree with you that MJ having the best peak isn't this set in stone certainty but in a sea of legitimate contenders I personally see Jordan's 91 season as the most convincing. I've always said I'm simply looking for small differences in comparisons between all-time greats at their best because advanced stats, whether boxscore or +-, aren't the most accurate when comparing between different seasons, especially when we're talking about these huge outliers like Jordan and Kareem who constantly break the scales. Tbh I usually don't spend too much time worrying about peak seasons because of this, it's much more practical to find significant seperation in careers than peaks.

Are we sure this is not a consequence of uneven teammate quality across the 70's?

Give jordan his best teams in the mid 80's and then weak teams in his peak 89-92 years and i am sure some people would think jordan peaked in 86 or 87 due to more team success

[Jaivl]

Jordan/Bird/Magic/Curry, right?

Surely 06 Kobe has to be there. I can't imagine someone like LeBron or Shaq and especially not Duncan dragging Smush Parker and Kwame Brown to 7 games against the Suns, let alone get them to the play-offs in the first place. If I had to pick anyone to be replaced it'd have to be Bird because he only has 3 rings, which is incredibly relevant for peaks.

I do not know, does not really hold a candle to 2003 McGrady. I cannot imagine someone like Kobe dragging Pat Garrity and Gordon Giricek to the playoffs, let alone to a game 7 against the Pistons.

Are we still memeing or is this supposed to be serious. Lebron brought a team with Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes as its secondary and tertiary players to the Finals, and two years later he led an 8.7 SRS team with Mo Williams and Delonte West as its secondary and tertiary players; what are we doing here asking if he could get to the playoffs with Lamar Odom as a secondary.

I'm certainly memeing and I'd guess with +99% certainty than Dutchball is as well.

[Dutchball97]

Surely 06 Kobe has to be there. I can't imagine someone like LeBron or Shaq and especially not Duncan dragging Smush Parker and Kwame Brown to 7 games against the Suns, let alone get them to the play-offs in the first place. If I had to pick anyone to be replaced it'd have to be Bird because he only has 3 rings, which is incredibly relevant for peaks.

I do not know, does not really hold a candle to 2003 McGrady. I cannot imagine someone like Kobe dragging Pat Garrity and Gordon Giricek to the playoffs, let alone to a game 7 against the Pistons.

Are we still memeing or is this supposed to be serious. Lebron brought a team with Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes as its secondary and tertiary players to the Finals, and two years later he led an 8.7 SRS team with Mo Williams and Delonte West as its secondary and tertiary players; what are we doing here asking if he could get to the playoffs with Lamar Odom as a secondary.

I'm certainly memeing and I'd guess with +99% certainty than Dutchball is as well.

Yeah absolutely. I tried to make it sound authentic and looks like I succeeded lol.

[70sFan]

I just think Jordan having the GOAT peak is taken for granted too much, even here. I think there are at least 4 players with a case for GOAT peak and I can see the case for even more.

I have not read through this entire thread (sorry if you mentioned these already), but was curious as to a list of any players you feel had a better peak than Jordan.

Sure, here is my list of players with possibly better peak than Jordan in chronological order (post shotclock era):

Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
LeBron James

Players who can be argued as well, but I find it unconvincing:

Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kevin Garnett
Stephen Curry