Pre-RealGM 100 Personal Lists, 2023 edition

[Doctor MJ]

Eh, okay. If we just take the TS Add years the two guys both played, ignoring relative ages and teammates efficiency context:

Russell -265.1
Thurmond -443.3

I'd say it's still a pretty significant difference.

idk, I mean I think given that Nate was on a higher volume almost throughout his prime that they're pretty similar. I don't think its something to where when you evaluate them as players you would say that Bill was that much more efficient other than in the very early years where league wide efficiency was much lower(league wide fg% goes from .383 in 1958 to 42.6 in 62 then up from there). I'm just throwing this out there because I think its probably worth mentioning. It actually has me rethinking how I view Nate as well tbh.

I mean, I'm listing out TS Add because you said you were using it, and I've already said that Thurmond's greater shooting volume was a key part of the problem.

But I don't dispute that Russell was quite inefficient in the later years. He certainly was.

Glad you're re-thinking. I want to be re-thinking too. Good time for it!

[70sFan]

I don't see much evidence '61 Wilt was any significant amount behind '62-'66 as a scorer (or offensive player in general). If you'd said specifically '62/'63 I could see a raw volume argument.

eFG+ by year
'61 - 123
'62 - 119
'63 - 120
'64 - 121
'65 - 120
'66 - 125

Pts/game
'61 - 38.4
'62 - 50.4
'63 - 44.8
'64 - 36.9
'65 - 34.7
'66 - 33.5

Rel Ortg
'61 - -0.9
'62 - +0.9
'63 - -0.7
'64 - -1.6
'65 - -5.9 Warriors, +0.5 Sixers
'66 - +0.4

It's also his weakest season in terms of rTS% in 1961-64 period, weakest in terms of volume adjusted for pace and the weakest postseason performance as well.

I have to imagine the any such articles of the time were more caught up in the spectacle of 50 ppg than in anything else.

I don't know, some of these articles came before the beginning of calendar year.

I think it's fair to doubt in contemporary sources, but do we have anything better than that? I don't think there is any doubt that Wilt became a more complete offensive player after 1961 based on all evidences that we have.

[eminence]

I don't see much evidence '61 Wilt was any significant amount behind '62-'66 as a scorer (or offensive player in general). If you'd said specifically '62/'63 I could see a raw volume argument.

eFG+ by year
'61 - 123
'62 - 119
'63 - 120
'64 - 121
'65 - 120
'66 - 125

Pts/game
'61 - 38.4
'62 - 50.4
'63 - 44.8
'64 - 36.9
'65 - 34.7
'66 - 33.5

Rel Ortg
'61 - -0.9
'62 - +0.9
'63 - -0.7
'64 - -1.6
'65 - -5.9 Warriors, +0.5 Sixers
'66 - +0.4

It's also his weakest season in terms of rTS% in 1961-64 period, weakest in terms of volume adjusted for pace and the weakest postseason performance as well.

I have to imagine the any such articles of the time were more caught up in the spectacle of 50 ppg than in anything else.

I don't know, some of these articles came before the beginning of calendar year.

I think it's fair to doubt in contemporary sources, but do we have anything better than that? I don't think there is any doubt that Wilt became a more complete offensive player after 1961 based on all evidences that we have.

111, 112, 112, 111 were his TS+ over that period. I'm not seeing any evidence to say it wasn't in his scoring prime (if you've got it, bring it forward), taking it all in it's probably his ~4th best volume scoring season, and certainly comparable to any version Thurmond faced.

Them coming prior to the turn of the year doesn't mean much at all, like there aren't hot take articles written in December of every season. He was already on very near 50 ppg pace at the time.

[ZeppelinPage]

I don't see much evidence '61 Wilt was any significant amount behind '62-'66 as a scorer (or offensive player in general). If you'd said specifically '62/'63 I could see a raw volume argument.

eFG+ by year
'61 - 123
'62 - 119
'63 - 120
'64 - 121
'65 - 120
'66 - 125

Pts/game
'61 - 38.4
'62 - 50.4
'63 - 44.8
'64 - 36.9
'65 - 34.7
'66 - 33.5

Rel Ortg
'61 - -0.9
'62 - +0.9
'63 - -0.7
'64 - -1.6
'65 - -5.9 Warriors, +0.5 Sixers
'66 - +0.4

It's also his weakest season in terms of rTS% in 1961-64 period, weakest in terms of volume adjusted for pace and the weakest postseason performance as well.

I have to imagine the any such articles of the time were more caught up in the spectacle of 50 ppg than in anything else.

I don't know, some of these articles came before the beginning of calendar year.

I think it's fair to doubt in contemporary sources, but do we have anything better than that? I don't think there is any doubt that Wilt became a more complete offensive player after 1961 based on all evidences that we have.

Wilt was taking 8 more shots than in '61 and his FG% was practically the same in '62. It seems as though teams had planned to let him shoot further away from the basket as a way to limit him, but that Wilt had improved his jumper so much that it didn't matter--this resulted in a higher percentage of his total shots being that fall-away jumper.

Second game of the season, Knicks coach Eddie Donovan mentions how he had heard Wilt's jumper was his worst shot, but instead is now convinced that it's his best shot:

Spoiler:

"Has become devastating on his fall-away jump shot":

Spoiler:

Jim Pollard states his fadeaway is "a lot better," and Auerbach agrees Wilt's fall-away shot has made him a bigger threat:

Spoiler:

Elgin Baylor says Wilt has "improved so much it isn't funny," and notes he has mastered his fall-away jumper:

Spoiler:

Frank McGuire mentions his fall-away jumper, stating Wilt has worked to improve it and how he sometimes makes as many as three-fourths of his fall-away attempts.

Spoiler:

Alex Hannum has a quote that I think explains things well here:

"Most individuals in the league agree that the big difference in Wilt this season is his improved shooting and moving. 'I always felt,' Hannum said last week, 'that although Wilt's total shooting percentage was around 50 per cent, it wasn't everything like that when he moved away from the basket for that fallaway jump shot of his. In other words, the large number of dunks and lay-ups he got made his overall average high, but that his chances weren't very good when he had to shoot from further out. But now he has improved that jump shot so much that even when you force him to take it, he hits a tremendous percentage--if not actually 50 per cent, enough to kill you.'"

Spoiler:

Wilt had been scoring more off dunks and lay-ups in '61, it seems. Teams wanted to force him further out, but Wilt improved his shot to counteract that.

[trex_8063]

Thanks for piloting the project, Doc. I may not even participate from start to finish this time around (which would be a first for me).

But I'll pitch in a tentative partial/starter list for me (listing in groups or "areas" of the list I'm leaning toward [similar to tiers, I suppose, but more numerous], listing names in the probable order I'd have them in)......

1. LeBron James (by my criteria/method, he was pretty comfortably #1 after '20; since then he's just been putting distance between himself and the field)

2-4. Michael Jordan, KAJ, Tim Duncan

5-7. Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal

8-9. Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon

10-13. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Larry Bird

14-20. Dirk Nowitzki, David Robinson, Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, Oscar Robertson, *Jerry West, *Kevin Durant (this grouping is very messy for me; have no idea how I want to order it, though I definitely lean toward having West and Durant at the back end)

21. Julius Erving (or idk.....he could maybe be in the mix with Durant and West)

22-23. Charles Barkley, John Stockton

24-27. James Harden, Moses Malone, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Dwyane Wade

28-31. Nikola Jokic, Patrick Ewing, Bob Pettit, George Mikan (this area is also messy)

32-35. Scottie Pippen, Steve Nash, Artis Gilmore, Jason Kidd (also messy)


Something like that. Anyway......it gets even more messy and uncertain after that.

[OhayoKD]

I think we're conflating how the Bulls are potrayed with how they actually functioned.

I think the issue with Wizards Jordan is mainly that his leadership style is basically “If you play for me and work as hard and want it as much as me (which I’ll be extremely harsh in my criticism of you if I don’t think you’re doing), then I’ll lead you to victory.” That leadership style might actually work very well if you’re as good as Jordan was on the Bulls. But it has the makings of a disaster if you’re only as good as Jordan was on the Wizards.

The biggest gap in this sort of framing is that Jordan in Chicago was not given anywhere near the power and influence he was given in Washington. Jordan's opportunity to impose his "style of leadership" was not nearly as high, and crucially, much of what we're talking about in Washington wasn't actually about "getting his teammates to work hard"(that's' actually entirely absent from the excerpt in question). You might note that Jordan's coach in Washington was the same guy who let him take skip practices, and argue with stat-counters about his slashlines. He was the same guy who let Jordan monopolize offense as much as he wanted as a dramatically less effective Lebron James.

The primary thing Phil Jackson did in a sense was take-away Jordan's ability to do everything he wanted. Crucially, it also involved giving Pippen a bunch of Jordan's primacy. This wasn't just a matter of physical on-court tasks, but also a matter of leadership. It was Pippen, not Jordan who told teammates where to go on both ends of the floor. It was Pippen, not Jordan who brought the ball-up against set defenses, and it was Pippen not Jordan telling teammates what to do.

On a team-level, Jordan was a tertiary decision maker when he found success(which, as has occured with every other title-winning great led to a bunch of praise about his ability to "galvanize" his teams). Fourth if you count the front-office. Jordan did not have the ability to stop a coach from getting fired. Nor did he have the leeway to get a teammate traded or force his teammates to give him a bunch of shots.

Washington was the first time the alpha in the headlines got to be an alpha in reality, and the results were horrific. The Wizards lockeroom didn't just get blown to bits because Jordan was worse. They got blown to bits because Jordan wanted to run the team and didn't actually have the know-how, or the temperament, to do it. Jordan succeeded as a temperamental Steph to a temperamental Draymond.

Kareem knew his limits and never bothered, letting Magic take control even after Johnson tried to start a lockeroom coup against him because he wanted more control of the offense.

Lebron had the control, but has often been willing to defer to systems/coaches anyway, specifically calling out his teammates for not playing within Blatt's system, and repeatedly playing in unconventional roles on his coaches suggestions even when those requests were quite unfair individually(Lebron has now let two coaches use him as a 5 in the playoffs near his 40's). And of-course, when Lebron actually decides to take over as a coach, having one of the highest IQ's in history, it usually pays off. Whether it's game-winning rotations or play-calling(2015 vs Bulls, 2006 vs Wizards), directing his teammates on both ends, anticipating what opposing teams are running and instructing his teammates to adapt accordingly(we just saw this in game 4 vs the Warriors), or physically having everything run through him, it's difficult to argue that Lebron "running everything" isn't a boon for his teams.

So I wouldn’t necessarily say that the leadership of Wizards Jordan is reflective of the leadership of Bulls Jordan. Jordan being way less good as a player had a materially large impact on the effectiveness of his particular style of leading a team.

The problem is you're overplaying the extent of who this "style" actually applied to. Sure he punched Steve Kerr, but at no point was he making threats to co-stars. And even with role-players...

"Michael is just killing Cartwright all the time," Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune revealed. "In the locker room, in front of everybody. Cartwright gets Michael aside, and he says, 'Look, if you do anything like that again, you will never play basketball. Because I’m gonna break both your legs.'"

"I told him, 'I'm not as enamored with you as these other guys. I've got some rings too.' At that point he told me, 'I'm going to kick your ass.' I took one step closer and said, 'No, you really aren't.' After that he didn't bother me," recalled Parish.

...that only really got anywhere with the small/unathletic ones.

The other issue with "Jordan bullied his teammates to greatness" is they did exceptionally well with him entirely absent(55-win full-strength srs, 58-win when when you add the playoffs in 94, 53-win srs without Jordan and Grant in 95) despite a metric-ton of ongoing off-court drama. Why were the Bulls able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen beefing with management, and Grant and Scottie at each other's throats? Why were they able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen actively beefing with the guy who management repeatedly tried to replace him with? Why were they still good when Grant left and their best player went and filed a trade-request?

Doc has argued that "leadership is not always linear", but that only leaves "Jordan the great galvanizer" as plausible, not probable. As it happens, the Pre-Jackson Bulls never had a team comparable to Jordan-less Chicago.

And even if you want to put their great success(which was mysteriously absent before jackson entered the fray and limited Jordan's influence)as a byproduct of Jordan, that doesn't really change that Jordan was given far less leeway to "lead" in Chicago than he was in Washington. If "power reveals", does it really make sense to pretend Jordan at his most powerful isn't indicative, but the results when Jordan was at his least powerful were?

A refresher regarding the culture-setting we saw "Outside of enviroments led by coaches famous for their unparalleled ego management

According to one official, Hughes was explicitly told by Jordan to get him the ball if he wanted to play. When Hughes began passing it to Stackhouse as much as to Jordan, he was soon benched. Point guard Tyronn Lue, the official said, obliged and began finding Jordan every time he played. ''He was scared to death of what would happen to him in his career if he didn't,'' the player said of Lue. ''He was always looking at the bench at Michael.''

Late last fall, Richard Hamilton and Jordan got into an ugly shouting match. The two officials said it began when Hamilton told Jordan he was tired of being a ''Jordannaire,'' the term used for Jordan's role players in Chicago. ''Rip was a young, brash guy who threatened the idea of Michael being the guy here,'' the official said. ''He was promptly gotten rid of for Stackhouse.'' A person close to Jordan denied Hamilton was traded because of a personality conflict. He insisted contractual issues led to the Stackhouse deal.

In the season's final weeks, players openly complained about the double standards for Jordan. Promptly dressed and ready to speak with reporters after games, they were forced to wait in the locker room for 15 or 20 minutes while Jordan showered and dressed in a private room.

There’s coach-killing and then there’s Franchise killing. Even if there wasn’t plenty contradicting the former assertion and not much of anything contradicting the latter, Equating Jordan with Kareem and Lebron here is laughable

Whoa! I've long been critical of Jordan in Washington, but wasn't aware of these quotes. Can you provide the source here?

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-s-strained-ties-to-wizards-may-be-cut.html

You can find the source for the Cartwright and Parish stuff by just looking up "Jordan beef with Parish" and "jordan beef with Cartwright". Needless to say, "Jordan the alpha" is massively overplayed.

He was more Steph than Lebron, both on and off the court. He may have wanted to be more Lebron than Steph, but Krause(wisely) wouldn't have it.

[lessthanjake]

I think we're conflating how the Bulls are potrayed with how they actually functioned.

I think the issue with Wizards Jordan is mainly that his leadership style is basically “If you play for me and work as hard and want it as much as me (which I’ll be extremely harsh in my criticism of you if I don’t think you’re doing), then I’ll lead you to victory.” That leadership style might actually work very well if you’re as good as Jordan was on the Bulls. But it has the makings of a disaster if you’re only as good as Jordan was on the Wizards.

The biggest gap in this sort of framing is that Jordan in Chicago was not given anywhere near the power and influence he was given in Washington. Jordan's opportunity to impose his "style of leadership" was not nearly as high, and crucially, much of what we're talking about in Washington wasn't actually about "getting his teammates to work hard"(that's' actually entirely absent from the excerpt in question). You might note that Jordan's coach in Washington was the same guy who let him take skip practices, and argue with stat-counters about his slashlines. He was the same guy who let Jordan monopolize offense as much as he wanted as a dramatically less effective Lebron James.

The primary thing Phil Jackson did in a sense was take-away Jordan's ability to do everything he wanted. Crucially, it also involved giving Pippen a bunch of Jordan's primacy. This wasn't just a matter of physical on-court tasks, but also a matter of leadership. It was Pippen, not Jordan who told teammates where to go on both ends of the floor. It was Pippen, not Jordan who brought the ball-up against set defenses, and it was Pippen not Jordan telling teammates what to do.

On a team-level, Jordan was a tertiary decision maker when he found success(which, as has occured with every other title-winning great led to a bunch of praise about his ability to "galvanize" his teams). Fourth if you count the front-office. Jordan did not have the ability to stop a coach from getting fired. Nor did he have the leeway to get a teammate traded or force his teammates to give him a bunch of shots.

Washington was the first time the alpha in the headlines got to be an alpha in reality, and the results were horrific. The Wizards lockeroom didn't just get blown to bits because Jordan was worse. They got blown to bits because Jordan wanted to run the team and didn't actually have the know-how, or the temperament, to do it. Jordan succeeded as a temperamental Steph to a temperamental Draymond.

Kareem knew his limits and never bothered, letting Magic take control even after Johnson tried to start a lockeroom coup against him because he wanted more control of the offense.

Lebron had the control, but has often been willing to defer to systems/coaches anyway, specifically calling out his teammates for not playing within Blatt's system, and repeatedly playing in unconventional roles on his coaches suggestions even when those requests were quite unfair individually(Lebron has now let two coaches use him as a 5 in the playoffs near his 40's). And of-course, when Lebron actually decides to take over as a coach, having one of the highest IQ's in history, it usually pays off. Whether it's game-winning rotations or play-calling(2015 vs Bulls, 2006 vs Wizards), directing his teammates on both ends, anticipating what opposing teams are running and instructing his teammates to adapt accordingly(we just saw this in game 4 vs the Warriors), or physically having everything run through him, it's difficult to argue that Lebron "running everything" isn't a boon for his teams.

So I wouldn’t necessarily say that the leadership of Wizards Jordan is reflective of the leadership of Bulls Jordan. Jordan being way less good as a player had a materially large impact on the effectiveness of his particular style of leading a team.

The problem is you're overplaying the extent of who this "style" actually applied to. Sure he punched Steve Kerr, but at no point was he making threats to co-stars. And even with role-players...

"Michael is just killing Cartwright all the time," Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune revealed. "In the locker room, in front of everybody. Cartwright gets Michael aside, and he says, 'Look, if you do anything like that again, you will never play basketball. Because I’m gonna break both your legs.'"

"I told him, 'I'm not as enamored with you as these other guys. I've got some rings too.' At that point he told me, 'I'm going to kick your ass.' I took one step closer and said, 'No, you really aren't.' After that he didn't bother me," recalled Parish.

...that only really got anywhere with the small/unathletic ones.

The other issue with "Jordan bullied his teammates to greatness" is they did exceptionally well with him entirely absent(55-win full-strength srs, 58-win when when you add the playoffs in 94, 53-win srs without Jordan and Grant in 95) despite a metric-ton of ongoing off-court drama. Why were the Bulls able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen beefing with management, and Grant and Scottie at each other's throats? Why were they able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen actively beefing with the guy who management repeatedly tried to replace him with? Why were they still good when Grant left and their best player went and filed a trade-request?

Doc has argued that "leadership is not always linear", but that only leaves "Jordan the great galvanizer" as plausible, not probable. As it happens, the Pre-Jackson Bulls never had a team comparable to Jordan-less Chicago.

And even if you want to put their great success(which was mysteriously absent before jackson entered the fray and limited Jordan's influence)as a byproduct of Jordan, that doesn't really change that Jordan was given far less leeway to "lead" in Chicago than he was in Washington. If "power reveals", does it really make sense to pretend Jordan at his most powerful isn't indicative, but the results when Jordan was at his least powerful were?

A refresher regarding the culture-setting we saw "Outside of enviroments led by coaches famous for their unparalleled ego management


There’s coach-killing and then there’s Franchise killing. Even if there wasn’t plenty contradicting the former assertion and not much of anything contradicting the latter, Equating Jordan with Kareem and Lebron here is laughable

Whoa! I've long been critical of Jordan in Washington, but wasn't aware of these quotes. Can you provide the source here?

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-s-strained-ties-to-wizards-may-be-cut.html

You can find the source for the Cartwright and Parish stuff by just looking up "Jordan beef with Parish" and "jordan beef with Cartwright". Needless to say, "Jordan the alpha" is massively overplayed.

He was more Steph than Lebron, both on and off the court. He may have wanted to be more Lebron than Steph, but Krause(wisely) wouldn't have it.

It strikes me as definitely correct that he had more power in Washington than in Chicago. But that largely goes to my more general point—which is that what happened in Washington is not really analogous to Chicago. You’re just giving another reason for that. I think you’re right that there’s certain intangible off-court stuff that Jordan is evidently not very good at (i.e. making roster decisions and whatnot), and that in Washington he was idiosyncratically allowed to engage in that stuff because it was a very unique situation where he was both a player and a part of ownership and management. He had a much more typical situation in Chicago and did not have that kind of power, and therefore couldn’t exercise it badly. I also think I’m right that his bullying schtick is surely a lot more effective as a leadership mechanism (or maybe a lot less bad if you take a dim view of it in general) if he’s the best player in the world, rather than a 40 year old that really isn’t all that good anymore. So my point is just that I don’t think we can say the problems in Washington were systematic problems overall, as opposed to just being problems in Washington. Which I think matters, because I see the Washington years as a footnote that doesn’t matter much either way (I have those years as a bit of a negative overall, but not with much importance).

The question of whether we think that he wasn’t a good leader in Chicago is a separate question. I’m not really sure where I stand on that. And I’m of two minds on it, because on one hand I think I would’ve hated to be on a team with him, but on the other hand I’ve always seen those teams as being teams where the whole was a fair bit better than the sum of its parts, and that is perhaps suggestive of good leadership. Perhaps that is more about Phil Jackson than about Michael, but it’s hard to really know for sure, since this is a squishy concept and none of us know more than tiny snippets of what happened behind the scenes and who was affected by what.

[One_and_Done]

Thanks for piloting the project, Doc. I may not even participate from start to finish this time around (which would be a first for me).

But I'll pitch in a tentative partial/starter list for me (listing in groups or "areas" of the list I'm leaning toward [similar to tiers, I suppose, but more numerous], listing names in the probable order I'd have them in)......

1. LeBron James (by my criteria/method, he was pretty comfortably #1 after '20; since then he's just been putting distance between himself and the field)

2-4. Michael Jordan, KAJ, Tim Duncan

5-7. Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal

8-9. Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon

10-13. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Larry Bird

14-20. Dirk Nowitzki, David Robinson, Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, Oscar Robertson, *Jerry West, *Kevin Durant (this grouping is very messy for me; have no idea how I want to order it, though I definitely lean toward having West and Durant at the back end)

21. Julius Erving (or idk.....he could maybe be in the mix with Durant and West)

22-23. Charles Barkley, John Stockton

24-27. James Harden, Moses Malone, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Dwyane Wade

28-31. Nikola Jokic, Patrick Ewing, Bob Pettit, George Mikan (this area is also messy)

32-35. Scottie Pippen, Steve Nash, Artis Gilmore, Jason Kidd (also messy)


Something like that. Anyway......it gets even more messy and uncertain after that.

Most of your list is pretty sensible IMO. I don't get how you and others often have Kobe ahead od Curry though. It seems so obvious Curry was better, and the numbers certainly indicate as much.

[Colbinii]

Thanks for piloting the project, Doc. I may not even participate from start to finish this time around (which would be a first for me).

But I'll pitch in a tentative partial/starter list for me (listing in groups or "areas" of the list I'm leaning toward [similar to tiers, I suppose, but more numerous], listing names in the probable order I'd have them in)......

1. LeBron James (by my criteria/method, he was pretty comfortably #1 after '20; since then he's just been putting distance between himself and the field)

2-4. Michael Jordan, KAJ, Tim Duncan

5-7. Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal

8-9. Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon

10-13. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Larry Bird

14-20. Dirk Nowitzki, David Robinson, Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, Oscar Robertson, *Jerry West, *Kevin Durant (this grouping is very messy for me; have no idea how I want to order it, though I definitely lean toward having West and Durant at the back end)

21. Julius Erving (or idk.....he could maybe be in the mix with Durant and West)

22-23. Charles Barkley, John Stockton

24-27. James Harden, Moses Malone, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Dwyane Wade

28-31. Nikola Jokic, Patrick Ewing, Bob Pettit, George Mikan (this area is also messy)

32-35. Scottie Pippen, Steve Nash, Artis Gilmore, Jason Kidd (also messy)


Something like that. Anyway......it gets even more messy and uncertain after that.

Most of your list is pretty sensible IMO. I don't get how you and others often have Kobe ahead od Curry though. It seems so obvious Curry was better, and the numbers certainly indicate as much.

Trex is a CORP guy.

[OhayoKD]

I think we're conflating how the Bulls are potrayed with how they actually functioned.

I think the issue with Wizards Jordan is mainly that his leadership style is basically “If you play for me and work as hard and want it as much as me (which I’ll be extremely harsh in my criticism of you if I don’t think you’re doing), then I’ll lead you to victory.” That leadership style might actually work very well if you’re as good as Jordan was on the Bulls. But it has the makings of a disaster if you’re only as good as Jordan was on the Wizards.

The biggest gap in this sort of framing is that Jordan in Chicago was not given anywhere near the power and influence he was given in Washington. Jordan's opportunity to impose his "style of leadership" was not nearly as high, and crucially, much of what we're talking about in Washington wasn't actually about "getting his teammates to work hard"(that's' actually entirely absent from the excerpt in question). You might note that Jordan's coach in Washington was the same guy who let him take skip practices, and argue with stat-counters about his slashlines. He was the same guy who let Jordan monopolize offense as much as he wanted as a dramatically less effective Lebron James.

The primary thing Phil Jackson did in a sense was take-away Jordan's ability to do everything he wanted. Crucially, it also involved giving Pippen a bunch of Jordan's primacy. This wasn't just a matter of physical on-court tasks, but also a matter of leadership. It was Pippen, not Jordan who told teammates where to go on both ends of the floor. It was Pippen, not Jordan who brought the ball-up against set defenses, and it was Pippen not Jordan telling teammates what to do.

On a team-level, Jordan was a tertiary decision maker when he found success(which, as has occured with every other title-winning great led to a bunch of praise about his ability to "galvanize" his teams). Fourth if you count the front-office. Jordan did not have the ability to stop a coach from getting fired. Nor did he have the leeway to get a teammate traded or force his teammates to give him a bunch of shots.

Washington was the first time the alpha in the headlines got to be an alpha in reality, and the results were horrific. The Wizards lockeroom didn't just get blown to bits because Jordan was worse. They got blown to bits because Jordan wanted to run the team and didn't actually have the know-how, or the temperament, to do it. Jordan succeeded as a temperamental Steph to a temperamental Draymond.

Kareem knew his limits and never bothered, letting Magic take control even after Johnson tried to start a lockeroom coup against him because he wanted more control of the offense.

Lebron had the control, but has often been willing to defer to systems/coaches anyway, specifically calling out his teammates for not playing within Blatt's system, and repeatedly playing in unconventional roles on his coaches suggestions even when those requests were quite unfair individually(Lebron has now let two coaches use him as a 5 in the playoffs near his 40's). And of-course, when Lebron actually decides to take over as a coach, having one of the highest IQ's in history, it usually pays off. Whether it's game-winning rotations or play-calling(2015 vs Bulls, 2006 vs Wizards), directing his teammates on both ends, anticipating what opposing teams are running and instructing his teammates to adapt accordingly(we just saw this in game 4 vs the Warriors), or physically having everything run through him, it's difficult to argue that Lebron "running everything" isn't a boon for his teams.

So I wouldn’t necessarily say that the leadership of Wizards Jordan is reflective of the leadership of Bulls Jordan. Jordan being way less good as a player had a materially large impact on the effectiveness of his particular style of leading a team.

The problem is you're overplaying the extent of who this "style" actually applied to. Sure he punched Steve Kerr, but at no point was he making threats to co-stars. And even with role-players...

"Michael is just killing Cartwright all the time," Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune revealed. "In the locker room, in front of everybody. Cartwright gets Michael aside, and he says, 'Look, if you do anything like that again, you will never play basketball. Because I’m gonna break both your legs.'"

"I told him, 'I'm not as enamored with you as these other guys. I've got some rings too.' At that point he told me, 'I'm going to kick your ass.' I took one step closer and said, 'No, you really aren't.' After that he didn't bother me," recalled Parish.

...that only really got anywhere with the small/unathletic ones.

The other issue with "Jordan bullied his teammates to greatness" is they did exceptionally well with him entirely absent(55-win full-strength srs, 58-win when when you add the playoffs in 94, 53-win srs without Jordan and Grant in 95) despite a metric-ton of ongoing off-court drama. Why were the Bulls able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen beefing with management, and Grant and Scottie at each other's throats? Why were they able to fully contend without Jordan with Pippen actively beefing with the guy who management repeatedly tried to replace him with? Why were they still good when Grant left and their best player went and filed a trade-request?

Doc has argued that "leadership is not always linear", but that only leaves "Jordan the great galvanizer" as plausible, not probable. As it happens, the Pre-Jackson Bulls never had a team comparable to Jordan-less Chicago.

And even if you want to put their great success(which was mysteriously absent before jackson entered the fray and limited Jordan's influence)as a byproduct of Jordan, that doesn't really change that Jordan was given far less leeway to "lead" in Chicago than he was in Washington. If "power reveals", does it really make sense to pretend Jordan at his most powerful isn't indicative, but the results when Jordan was at his least powerful were?

Whoa! I've long been critical of Jordan in Washington, but wasn't aware of these quotes. Can you provide the source here?

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-s-strained-ties-to-wizards-may-be-cut.html

You can find the source for the Cartwright and Parish stuff by just looking up "Jordan beef with Parish" and "jordan beef with Cartwright". Needless to say, "Jordan the alpha" is massively overplayed.

He was more Steph than Lebron, both on and off the court. He may have wanted to be more Lebron than Steph, but Krause(wisely) wouldn't have it.

It strikes me as definitely correct that he had more power in Washington than in Chicago. But that largely goes to my more general point—which is that what happened in Washington is not really analogous to Chicago. You’re just giving another reason for that. I think you’re right that there’s certain intangible off-court stuff that Jordan is evidently not very good at (i.e. making roster decisions and whatnot), and that in Washington he was idiosyncratically allowed to engage in that stuff because it was a very unique situation where he was both a player and a part of ownership and management. He had a much more typical situation in Chicago and did not have that kind of power, and therefore couldn’t exercise it badly. I also think I’m right that his bullying schtick is surely a lot more effective as a leadership mechanism (or maybe a lot less bad if you take a dim view of it in general) if he’s the best player in the world, rather than a 40 year old that really isn’t all that good anymore. So my point is just that I don’t think we can say the problems in Washington were systematic problems overall, as opposed to just being problems in Washington. Which I think matters, because I see the Washington years as a footnote that doesn’t matter much either way (I have those years as a bit of a negative overall, but not with much importance).

The question of whether we think that he wasn’t a good leader in Chicago is a separate question. I’m not really sure where I stand on that. And I’m of two minds on it, because on one hand I think I would’ve hated to be on a team with him, but on the other hand I’ve always seen those teams as being teams where the whole was a fair bit better than the sum of its parts, and that is perhaps suggestive of good leadership. Perhaps that is more about Phil Jackson than about Michael, but it’s hard to really know for sure, since this is a squishy concept and none of us know more than tiny snippets of what happened behind the scenes and who was affected by what.

That is all fair, but there's still a world of difference between, "positive attribute here becomes negative attribute here" and "negative that is mitigated here becomes a bigger negative here".

Suggestive of good leadership? Sure. But the question is who we attribute it to, and a crude look at timing and correlation has Jackson as the common denominator, and Mike as a factor in both success and a lackthereof and a non-factor in surprising success with Jackon pulling the strings.

Looking at the off-court situation/drama during 94 and 95 also makes it dubious that the other variables helped.

Would also note that when assessing the parts, it's important to keep-in-mind we're comparing them to the competition. 2-superstars in the 90's was a rare thing. Grant and Rodman both look like outlier-valuable third-pieces by "raw" impact with Grant having suprisingly big influence outside of Chicago(first-round to finalist in Orlando), and then you have a scheme that was well ahead of the curve.

Fit was also exceptional. How often do player 1 and 2 augment all of each other's strengths and cover all of their relative weaknesses on both-ends of the floor? Imagine being a goat-tier scorer thanks largely to unprecedented shot-volume, having a teammate who can lead good offenses on his own as a low-volume scorer, and still rarely facing doubles?. All of the above was in-place when they lost to the Pistons in [b]1990[/i]. Add in a complete lack of major playoff injuries, strong depth, the competition all breaking-down and the degree of "overperformance" needed here probably isn't as large as you might imagine.

It also doesn't hurt that Jordan's sole potential challenger(Hakeem) was mired in a horrific off and on-court situation that would serve as a test-run for what we would see with Garnett in Minesotta. Hakeem actually experienced significantly more success after joining a similarly bad team from 85-87. But as early as 86 Houston was shaping up to be a "cocaine wheeling circus" and they would proceed to draft Kenny Smith while waiting until 92 to hire a good coach and 95 to acquire a second kind-of-superstar. By "impact" Hakeem was a similarly valuable rs player through all of that. But instead of nuevo Russell vs Wilt or retro Lebron vs Steph. We got Jordan vs...Malone.

[OhayoKD]

Thanks for piloting the project, Doc. I may not even participate from start to finish this time around (which would be a first for me).

But I'll pitch in a tentative partial/starter list for me (listing in groups or "areas" of the list I'm leaning toward [similar to tiers, I suppose, but more numerous], listing names in the probable order I'd have them in)......

1. LeBron James (by my criteria/method, he was pretty comfortably #1 after '20; since then he's just been putting distance between himself and the field)

2-4. Michael Jordan, KAJ, Tim Duncan

5-7. Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal

8-9. Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon

10-13. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Larry Bird

14-20. Dirk Nowitzki, David Robinson, Chris Paul, Stephen Curry, Oscar Robertson, *Jerry West, *Kevin Durant (this grouping is very messy for me; have no idea how I want to order it, though I definitely lean toward having West and Durant at the back end)

21. Julius Erving (or idk.....he could maybe be in the mix with Durant and West)

22-23. Charles Barkley, John Stockton

24-27. James Harden, Moses Malone, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Dwyane Wade

28-31. Nikola Jokic, Patrick Ewing, Bob Pettit, George Mikan (this area is also messy)

32-35. Scottie Pippen, Steve Nash, Artis Gilmore, Jason Kidd (also messy)


Something like that. Anyway......it gets even more messy and uncertain after that.

Most of your list is pretty sensible IMO. I don't get how you and others often have Kobe ahead od Curry though. It seems so obvious Curry was better, and the numbers certainly indicate as much.

Trex is a CORP guy.

Is he? That doesn't look like a strictly era-relative ranking to me.

[Lou Fan]

I think to be consistent you need to have Duncan ahead of Cap then.

How does that track? Do you know my criteria/evaluations well enough to make that claim? I think MJ, Cap, and LBJ separated themselves from Duncan enough with on the court value that Duncan's greatness as a culture builder can't make up that gap. I'd be open to hearing arguments against that though. I do think there's a real case that Duncan was so great in this way that it's more important than his comparatively inferior game.

Here is my post about peak Tim Duncan being arguably the #1 peak. If you have time before the project, it may allow you to think differently about just how good Duncan was.

The Case for The Big Fundamental

Spoiler:

2003 Tim Duncan was one of the greatest NBA seasons of all-time. The combination of elite offense with GOAT-level defense makes this season worthy of consideration for one of the highest impact [and best] seasons not only in the modern-era but of all-time. Although Timmy is routinely regarded as a top 10 player of all-time, many contributors on this board don’t see his peak in the same light as most other “top 10 contenders”. I hope with a deep-dive into this spectacular season others can see just how great Tim Duncan was in 2003.



This season starts as a follow-up to what many believe as Tim Duncan’s “real peak”, circa 2002. Duncan came off a productive regular season in 2002 and a great playoff run which resulted in an unfortunate [for non-Laker fans] end in only the Western Conference Semi-Finals where Duncan showed why he was worthy of the MVP trophy by outplaying the dynamic duo of Shaq and Kobe. While Duncan and the Spurs lost in 5 games to the eventual NBA-Champions, the ever-silent Tim Duncan put on a showcase while missing his career-long running mate David Robinson to injuries while his second option Tony Parker experienced major growing pains as a 19-year old Rookie. Duncan showcased an ability in 2002 to carry an offensive load many doubted while still being the best defender in the league.



2003 Featured a new strategy for Popovich, Duncan and the rest of the San Antonio Spurs. After David Robinson’s body ended 2002 on the pavement the Spurs decided to rest Robinson during the season [78 GP in 2002, 64 in 2003] while actively grooming Tony Parker and featuring him more offensively as he buds into an NBA-level Point Guard. Knowing the aforementioned changes, the Spurs decided to “run it back” with a similar roster while bolstering the bench with the addition of Steve Kerr to add much needed spacing and a veteran presence; an aspect Antonio Daniels failed to deliver on in 2002. Ultimately this deal doesn’t show up in the box-score as Kerr was a DNP for a majority of the playoffs [averaging a mere 4.6 MPG in 10 games] while young players like Tony Parker (20), Manu Ginobili (25) and Stephen Jackson (24) took on larger roles on both ends of the court.



Enough story time, let’s look at the numbers.



Regular Season Stats:

Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV

Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV

Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18

Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP

On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off



Post Season Stats:

Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV

Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV

Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24

Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP

On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off



Statistical Comparison

RS Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV

PS Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV

RS Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV

PS Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV

RS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18

PS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24

RS Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP

PS Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [+5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP

RS On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off

PS On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off



When doing a side-by-side comparison it is quite evident [and clear] that Duncan performed even greater in the post-season than he did during his MVP-level Regular Season. This alone should be a tell-tale sign that Duncan performed at his highest level against the highest level of competition. Duncan’s ability to be an elite playmaker from the post in combination with his elite rim protection has never been duplicated since the merger. Only 4 other times has a player averaged 5+ Assists and 3+ Blocks in a series: 1977 Walton and 2002 Tim Duncan and then two other times in 3 game series from Chris Webber and Bob Lanier. Duncan’s gigantic scoring advantage over Walton [24.7 PPG on +5.8 TS% vs 18.2 PPG on +1.6 TS%] makes Duncan’s run one of the most statistically unique Playoff Runs in NBA History.



Looking back at the 2003 season as a whole the league was in a slow, grindy and defensive era. With League Average Offensive Rating at 103.6, True Shooting Percentage at 51.9% and Pace at 91 Possessions/Game the game was at it’s apex for defense [Post-Merger] while yet to adapt to the space provided by the 3-point line. This resulted in the post being cluttered offensively and big men to have a great impact on the defensive end.



The Spurs figured out how to capitalize on the Slow and defensive minded era; Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan was utilized in a way to generate 3 point shots and specifically the corner 3. The Spurs led the league in Percentage of Corner 3’s taken with 40% of their 3 point shots being corner 3’s. This was in large part due to the driving ability of a young Tony Parker [still 20 years old] and the gravity which Duncan encompassed offensively. The second most important part of the Spurs offense was the ability to generate lay-ups; again generated by the ability of Duncan’s passing from the high-post, low-block and free-throw area.



The Spurs offense in the post-season, with the catalyst Tim Duncan, was able to play the type of game [Spurs Ball] in all of the series they played in. The Pace in their 4 series were 90.8, 90.4, 92.6 and 87.8 [FWIW the Spurs Pace for the season was exactly 90.0, the average of the 4 series being 90.4]. This was in large part because of Tim Duncan’s ability to control the game as a PF/C; a rarity in the history of the NBA.

When the Spurs were unable to play at the exact pace they wanted they were able to adapt and outplay their opponents at what they did best; specifically the Nets and Mavericks. As you may know, the 2003 Mavericks and 2003 Nets were each the best in the league at one aspect of the game. The Mavericks were the best offense in the NBA while the Nets were the best Defense in the NBA. Ultimately both teams were dismantled by the Spurs by their own game.



Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

Nets: 98.1 Drtg played at the Spurs pace [91.6 RS, 87.8 PS] which took away the ability to run with Jason Kidd, one of the most dynamic playmakers in the open-court in NBA History. The Nets were unable to stop the Spurs as the Spurs eclipsed the 98.1 Drtg the Nets had in the regular season [Spurs put up 100.0 Ortg] but the slower pace affected the Nets greatly, posting a mere 93.3 Ortg in the lopsided; 6 game series.



When the Spurs had the opportunity to close out series they did so on Duncan’s back [in his backpack, which had a smaller back-pack in it, then a third back-pack inside of that with 37-year old David Robinson and Tony Parker squished in there like a Matryoshka Russian Doll].

During the span of 5 potential “Elimination Games”, the Spurs and Tim Duncan went 4-1, with the only loss coming to Dallas.

Duncan Stats: 22.8/16.4/6.8 with 3.6 BLK, 2.8 TOV



Duncan’s ability to close out elimination games with his scoring, rebounding, shot-blocking and playmaking [While taking care of the ball] is a combination of skill and talent that no other all-time great has combined throughout a single post-season. The fact the Spurs had no “easy series” says a lot about the run Duncan put on. An average SRS of 4.15, the lowest being 1.56 and highest being 7.90 shows how Dominant Duncan was. The ability for Duncan and the Spurs to adapt and play the best offense in the league in one series and then the best defensive team in the next series shows a chameleon-like team minus the skittish-ness.



NBA Finals Deep-Dive:

While the Spurs and Nets faced off in the 2003 Finals the biggest match-ups were Parker/Kidd and Collins/Duncan. The Nets were going to win if Collins could help keep Duncan in check [Collins is an all-time great post-defender] or if Kidd could run up-and-down the floor. While I highlighted earlier in my post about the Spurs [and Duncan’s] ability to slow down the Nets by eliminating transition opportunities, one often major aspect to the series was Collins inability to stay out of foul trouble while guarding Tim Duncan [and Kenyon Martin].



Kenyon Martin fell into Foul Trouble in Games 1, 2, 4, 5 while Collins fouled out in Game 3 and was routinely in foul trouble throughout the series. This was, in large part, due to Duncan’s post-presence [averaging 9 FTA/G and a 49.5% FTR].



FWIW, Jason Collins was absolutely dominant in the post-season as a defender. In his 529 minutes on the court the Nets posted a 92.2 Defensive Rating [Absurd] but in his 446 minutes on the bench the Nets were a measly 106.1 [A difference of 13.1 Points per 100]. I understand it is a small sample size, but the fact remains that Jason Collins was a key part for a Nets victory in 2003 and Duncan single handedly took him out of the game [as well as Kenyon Martin].



Individual Offensive/Defensive Ratings: I know many people love these, I have been more interested in these statistics lately [in part because of E-Balla calling me out on not understanding them fully] and re-analyzing them with-in the statistical landscape and scope. They often line-up with my personal eye-test [though I do wear glasses] and they happen to capture a good part of the game.

Duncans in the 2003 NBA Finals: 109 Ortg/83 Drtg [Net + 26]

Jordan 1991: 125/102 [Net +23]

James 2012: 117/109 [Net +8]

Shaq 01: 115/101 [Net +14]



Scoring: Duncan was able to score 27.5% of his teams points in the post-season.

Jordan 1991: 30.8%

LeBron 2012: 28.0%

Shaq 01: 32.8%


While Duncan’s scoring isn’t as impressive as some of the other notable candidates for “GOAT PEAK”, his scoring is not far off. Considering the major defensive advantage Duncan has on the other candidates listed above I see little to no reason for these players to be considered over Duncan in the grand scheme of things.

Good read thanks for sharing. I'll briefly tell you why I don't view him as quite on the same level as Cap. The big one here is the differences between them as offensive players. In the early Duncan Spurs years they were constructed in a way that they won with defense and needed Duncan's offense to carry them enough to get over the hump. This is the perfect role for Duncan offensively to maximize his impact signal and minimize his weaknesses. I think it's really important to note that it's actually after Duncan's role starts to diminish in the back half of his career that the Spurs were at their best offensively. Duncan not being able to lead elite offenses as a main engine comes down to his only ok passing/playmaking ability and the fact that his volume scoring was very good but not near the elite company that KAJ is in.

The gap between Cap and Timmy in passing/scoring in my view is more substantial than Timmy's edge on defense. KAJ anchored a top 2 defense 4 straight years in Milwaukee and when he was engaged with his motor revving (which in the playoffs it nearly always was at least until the mid 80s) he was a truly elite defensive big. I don't think I could call Duncan a truly elite first option offensively in quite the same way. Crucially, Cap was able to meld his game to be a cornerstone of all time offenses alongside Magic and Oscar while also being able floor raise the 77-79 Lakers to a top 5 offense every year. Duncan's Spurs from 02-04 average around 11th in the league offensively. So Kareem could play the Duncan 03 role offensively better than Duncan and I don't think Duncan's game would adapt nearly as well as Kareem's did to those top level offenses. Again in the Spurs best years offensively his role was mainly as a connective passer with far fewer isolations than in the early Spurs days. A big issue here that's not captured in your per possession numbers is how limiting Duncan's slow offensive style is. In general if you're a great team pace is good (because you get more possessions to show your superiority) and it helps your teammates play better. KAJ showed an ability to play with pace that Duncan never did.

Question for me on peak is do I think Duncan can floor raise offenses like Cap? Not quite. Kareem was putting in +10% rts seasons on the skeleton late 70s Lakers teams. +5 from Duncan is great but +10 is Curry level stupid. Do I think Kareem would've been able to anchor an elite defense around Robinson, Bowen, Jackson and Parker? Not as good but yes I do. Do I think the early Showtime Lakers and Oscar Bucks reach all time offensive heights with Duncan instead of Kareem? Not quite.

All this plus the fact that Kareem was more consistently dominant during his prime and has a slightly longer one is enough for me to give him the edge despite me placing a lot of value on Duncan's superior leadership/culture building. I love Duncan and typically find myself arguing for him and not against him but just not against Kareem.

The same goes for MJ and LeBron. They're just too good on the court for me to favor Duncan but I'll spare you the explanations on those because you were asking specifically about Kareem.

I place a lot of value on culture building but obviously being good at basketball matters more. Dwight Howard will feature on my list and Derek Fisher will not. I just said that because I know I consider it far more than most. Same goes with portability. People seem to have taken an issue with how I spoke fairly flippantly about my criteria. It wasn't supposed to be an in depth explanation more of a disclaimer. Obviously how effective you are on court is the most important criteria.

[One_and_Done]

I have Kareem & Duncan neck and neck. I'd caution about using otrg etc to determine who was better on offense given the truly trash teams Duncan had in 2002 and 2003. Like, obviously the Spurs got better on offense in future years, but there are alot of reasons for that. His support cast got much better, as he got older, and he happily took a lesser role. The rules also changed.

2002 Duncan, which was probably his real peak (but not seen as such due to his terrible support team) actually posts raw offensive per 100 playoff numbers that are eerily Kareem like. Better in fact. 2006 Duncan also actually, and as a whole his prime/peak per 100 numbers look better than Kareem. Less efficient on TS%, but playing in a tougher defensive era.

[zimpy27]

Love your work gentlemen

[trex_8063]

Trex is a CORP guy.

Is he? That doesn't look like a strictly era-relative ranking to me.

Strictly speaking, I'm relatively new to CORP principle; though even in that I've my own era-adjustment methodology: I rank seasons into tiers [and their associated CORP value], but then adjust based on assessment of era strength (mentioned this is 70sFan's updated top 50 thread [page 9 or 10]). I don't think CORP necessarily has to be 100% exclusive to era considerations.

But anyway.....

It would be more accurate to say I'm a VORP guy (not specifically the bbref stat, but rather the general principle; career cumulatuve VORP, that is [longevity-calibrated, though]). I suppose the basic difference between VORP and CORP might be more semantics than anything, though. My "VORP" methodology definitely does have era considerations, though.

[trex_8063]

Most of your list is pretty sensible IMO. I don't get how you and others often have Kobe ahead od Curry though. It seems so obvious Curry was better, and the numbers certainly indicate as much.

I agree peak vs peak, or "avg prime year" vs "avg prime year", Curry is better.

However, as per post #115, in terms of cumulative [even longevity-calibrated] career value, one might note that Kobe's prime (not even including years like '99 and '00, which obviously carry value) is ~90 more games than Curry's entire career (of which probably only ~70% could be called prime).

[One_and_Done]

I'd rather have 7 prime years of a star like David Robinson than 12 years of a hugely inferior player like I.Thomas or J.Stockton.

[Lou Fan]

I'd rather have 7 prime years of a star like David Robinson than 12 years of a hugely inferior player like I.Thomas or J.Stockton.

Are you putting Kobe in the Isiah and Stockton category? I agree with you on those examples but the analogy doesn't fit on Curry/Kobe and I'm one of the few who does actually rank Steph higher.

[One_and_Done]

Well yeh, Kobe is clearly better than Thomas or Stockton. Curry is better than D.Rob too though.

[Dutchball97]

Well yeh, Kobe is clearly better than Thomas or Stockton. Curry is better than D.Rob too though.

Is Curry better than David Robinson though? Robinson was just as much a regular season monster as Curry and I haven't seen anything from Curry's post-season performances that set him apart either.