iggymcfrack wrote:The guy who would be his stiffest competition for this project is likely Kareem, but Kareem missed the playoffs back-to-back years in his prime with two different teams. Worse still, these are 2 of only 3 years during his career where he didn't play with either Oscar or Magic. Really makes me question if his impact's on the same elite level as Jordan that he could be neutralized so easily at the peak of his powers. Makes me question his standing against Duncan and Shaq too who had consistently elite squads even with weak supporting casts
Nothing definitive, but:
1. Lakers missed the playoffs in 1976 with 40 wins. Jordan made the playoffs in 1985-87 period despite not surpassing this number even once. How can we conclude from that it's a sign of Kareem being less impactful?
2. Kareem played 5 seasons without Oscar or Magic, not 3: 1975-79.
3. When did Shaq play with weak supporting cast in his prime?
iggymcfrack wrote:The guy who would be his stiffest competition for this project is likely Kareem, but Kareem missed the playoffs back-to-back years in his prime with two different teams. Worse still, these are 2 of only 3 years during his career where he didn't play with either Oscar or Magic. Really makes me question if his impact's on the same elite level as Jordan that he could be neutralized so easily at the peak of his powers. Makes me question his standing against Duncan and Shaq too who had consistently elite squads even with weak supporting casts
Nothing definitive, but:
1. Lakers missed the playoffs in 1976 with 40 wins. Jordan made the playoffs in 1985-87 period despite not surpassing this number even once. How can we conclude from that it's a sign of Kareem being less impactful?
2. Kareem played 5 seasons without Oscar or Magic, not 3: 1975-79.
3. When did Shaq play with weak supporting cast in his prime?
The difference with Kareem and Jordan would be more that with Kareem it happened at his peak whereas with Jordan, the last time he won <47 games would be his second full season in the league though. I would agree that Jordan’s case for floor raising isn’t as strong as his case for ceiling raising, but I still think it’s significantly better than Kareem’s.
My bad on having the seasons without Oscar and Kareem wrong, but we can still agree that Kareem wasn’t super impressive with team success in the other years. 2 playoff series wins and 2 years missing the playoffs isn’t a very good 5 year span for an elite player from age 27-31.
As for Shaq having weak supporting casts, I was thinking they were weak in the early Lakers years before Kobe emerged, but looking back they actually performed pretty well when he missed extended time in ‘97 and ‘98. Nowhere near as well as in games he played, but a lot better than I would have expected. So I’ll withdraw that point.
I'll get to Russell later, but this is predominantly going to focus on Kareem. It is not going to focus on his resume. It is also not going on his focus on his team-success. And while I will mention the longetvity, I will do so as the means to a seperate end. I imagine this is going to come down to Kareem vs MJ. And most likely if you are contemplating this question, Kareem having more "career value" is not something you are disputing...
penbeast0 wrote:Vote #2: The next vote for me is between Wilt, Kareem, and MJ. I have been voting MJ in the last couple of these GOAT lists and he's hard to pick against combing individual brilliance and team success. I do think Wilt was the more dominant player and Kareem had more meaningful longevity.
So instead my post will focus on justifying the following assertion: Kareem Abdul Jabbar peaked higher than Micheal Jordan
More specifically, I will argue that Kareem Abdul Jabbar, at his best, was better for winning championships in his own time than Jordan was in his. Or, to be really precise, it is more likely than Kareem was better for winning championships than Jordan was.
There will be data, there will be a discussion of how and what said data is used, and there will be a snippet of 70sfan's film-tracking. But first, theory. I imagine for many, Kareem peaking higher would be surprising. So surprising, you'd be tempted to consider indicators favoring Kareem as mere noise. So first let's establish that it should not be surprising. You should expect Kareem to be better...
Why Kareem SHOULD be better
First, I think there are some general assumptions we can make regarding peaks/primes:
I'll point out for posterity, that all else being equal, from a predictive lens, a player who has more "goat-lvl" seasons would be more likely to have "the" goat season based on sheer probability. Part of why I think it's better to start by comparing players "in general" looking for positive comparisons to be made across their careers and then applying whatever internal-scaling there is to be applied
We've both agreed that replication/corroboration matters. Russell has never lost when healthy, and all the signals with relevance noisy they may be support what the largest possible sample says. We can acknowledge uncertainty but uncertainty itself is not a good reason for claiming a player is better or worse than another. Ditto with Lebron and Kareem. These are 3 players who from what we have were posting outlier signals relative to the field from teen-aged to their 30's and beyond. They also happen to have a whole collection "goat-lvl" or "outlier" looking prime/peak stuff, even in down-years(2015, 1975). Why would we take their signals to be noise, when it's exactly what we should expect given where they started and ended or in Lebron's case ending) and they've posted "goat-level" or better impact again and again?
(For the purposes of this post, "goat-level" can just be "peak/prime Micheal Jordan")
-> All else being equal, a player with more high-level years has a greater chance of having a higher peak than a player with less high-level years. If a player is "at" the top more often, then they have more chances to fluctuate up and "peak" -> All else being equal, a player who starts off as better has a greater chance of having a higher peak than a player who starts off worse -> All else being equal, a player who ages better has a greater chance of having a higher peak than a player who does not' -> All else being equal, a player with better longevity is also more likely to be better at their best. After all, higher peaks have more room to fall, and the ability to maintain excellence over time is usually indicative of a both versatility and a special sort of mental resilience(Kareem does not win 6-rings if he copies MJ's antics in Washington). -> All else being equal, a player who is generally better, is more likely to be better at their best
I am assuming most readers here are not disputing that Kareem is advantaged with the first 4 points. I am going to argue for the 5th, as well. I will also argue that "all else being equal" should be replaced with "most else favoring Kareem". If I can get you there, then I think Kareem Abdul Jabbar peaking higher would be self-evident.
To bolster this a bit, I will also offer a bit of "skill-set analysis" me and Blackmill came up with(with some justification in the way of team-lvl results). With Kareem and Jordan both being arguably GOAT-lvl scorers(Kareem with obscene efficiency, Mj obscene volume), I'd say what the question we have to ask is whether MJ's playmaking was worth more than Kareem's defense, and to that end...
"Making teammates better" Tiers
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
blackmill wrote:Kareem's ability to be relatively unaffected by help is maybe the best ever, and while many other players necessarily rely on superior playmaking to reach higher levels of offensive production, Kareem is arguably an exception. In other words, stripped of their ability to pass, Kareem would easily be the better and more reliable scorer than Jordan. Where I would typical consider the playmaking gap to be potentially vast between players like MJ and Kareem, because a capable defense can often limit a lesser playmaker, for Kareem this isn't as much the case. But there still needs to be a sufficient level of surrounding playmaking talent for the benefit of the other players.
This is an interesting way to break things down though I think we can add some levels here(this is somewhat tangential to this discussion but may as well)
Also think we can add "play-calling"/"running the offense" to shift "Playmaking" to "making teammates better".
I think the bottom-level is when your play-making/ball-handling is an active detriment to your ability to generate scoring oppurtunities for yourself(at the high-end of this is Durant, low-end of this might be Davis).
I think a tier up we get players who aren't really able to create a bunch but have suffecient skill here that they are not that dependent on teammates to generate scoring oppurtunities for themselves(Kawhi)
Tier two we get players who, with the right pieces, can leverage their scoring gravity towards creating for others(Kareem as you allude to may be the best of this archtype since he really just needs "functional" help here)
Tier three guys are players who can function as primary ball-handlers and therefore automatically will generate for their teammates offensively(At the high end you have Jordan/Curry, lower end you get someone like Giannis)
And then I think Tier four are guys who not only generate oppurtunities with their gravity but effectively leaverage their teammates and their own abilities to not only generate potential oppurtunities, but then select/generate the best possible ones(low-end might be CP3, mid might be lebron/jokic, highest end might be magic/nash).
There is a bit of a fallacy I think where people look at raw assist totals, raw creation counts, or box-oc and pretend volume is everything. But it's not just about what you create. It's also about the quality of what you're creating AND how much you're leaving on the table with suboptimal decisions. Players on this tier have better discernable offensive "lift" than players the tier below, and often this is blamed entirely or pre-dominantly on "this is just because of who their teammates are", but I actually think the real source of this offensive advantage is the "quality" of what they're creating(and some of the backseat coaching stuff has an off-court effect that can't be tracked via impact stuff):
In my tracking sample, Stockton hit 3.5 “good” or “great” passes per 100 possessions — a formidable clip for his era, behind only Magic and Bird among ’80s and ’90s players on this list. However, he also missed an elite pass once per 100, leaving points on the scoreboard that the best passers would have found.2
Overall, Kobe’s rate of “good” passes in my sample was around 3 per 100. For comparison, Jordan was at 2 per 100 and an all-timer like Nash over 8 per 100.8
As a result of his increased primacy and evolved court vision, LeBron’s creation rates jumped from about 11 per 100 to a whopping 14 per 100, just short of the highest rates ever estimated. In my sampling, his quality passes leapt into the upper stratosphere, reaching Nash-like frequencies with a “good” pass on 8 percent of his possessions.
Don't have access to the numbers(paywall) rn but passer-rating also sees this. Curry and Jordan graded out as comparable or right behind creators in a pure volume metric like playval(based on ben's bpm which is using assist totals I think) or Box-OC, to guys like say Lebron, Magic, and Nash, but they had teammates telling players where to go(draymond/pippen respectively), and don't make the best possible reads as often(I think ben said it was something like 60% vs 80% of the high quality passes in his peaks video and we have the "good passes" number above).
Incidentally they don't seem to have the same level of offensive lift in the absence of a specific structure where those decisions are delegated to someone else:
In Year Two of the prime Nash-Nowitzki show, Dallas ascended to a dynastic level on offense. The Mavs finished with the sixth-best rORtg in league history (+7.7), followed by the 16th-best in ’03 (+7.1) and then in ’04 became the only offense in NBA history 9 points better than league average for a full season (+9.2).
Ohayo wrote:Regardless, using your "full-strength" derivation, I'm not sure, it, as you say, "has a meaning", considering that still puts 21/22 and 23/24 year-old MJ led-offense significantly behind what Lebron led at 20/21(2006, 35 game sample, Bron has a birthday, Ben decides to say Lebron is 19 in 05, BBR says he's 20 ). And here, I'll admit, I did lie. Checking Ben's write-up, that full-strength offense wasn't +5, it was +6.6, coming off a +2.3 offense(2005, 70 game sample) with 19/20 year old Lebron, and a +4.9 jump(+6 overall!) with Lebron at 18/19. Was that all Lebron? No. But even with a generous adjustment(take Boozer's 31-game without sample from the season after and pretend he wasn't on the 03 Cavs), we're around +2(+4 overall) with teenage Bron.Worth considering this all happened in the absence of 3-point specialists
By comparison, the best pre-triangle Jordan stretch(with Jordan arguably at his peak) sees a 52(Ben) or 53-win(E-balla) team over a 30-game sample going at +4.4 offensively(you can reach a +4.6 if you swap minuite distributions for the 5th and 7th mpg guys for 20 games and ignore the team didn't actually improve), Curry wasn't close to leading all-time offenses(and had worse metrics than both westbrook and durant) with Draymond on the bench.
The only example of a non-controlling delegator making all the decisions I can think of rn is Bird(Jokic may be the highest form of this but I'm going to wait till he has a strong playoff sample) but his offenses didn't even outpace Reggie's pacers in the postseason, never mind Magic's lakers:
Eballa wrote:So in his whole prime his team underperformed offensively just twice despite 14 of his 22 series being against top 5 defenses. On average in the regular season his teams' offenses played at a +2.5 level. In the playoffs they played at a +6.4 level. Remove series against teams that weren't top 5 defenses and they performed at a +6.3 level (he averaged 23.0/3.1/2.6 on 60.2 TS% with a 120 ORTG). Reggie Miller's offensive postseason results are insane and paint him as being extremely impactful.
FWIW, against the Pistons, the best defense of the 80's, Magic's Lakers dropped off the least, the Bulls in the triangle held up the second best, and it was bird's celtics, by far, that struggled the most.
[/quote]
Defensive Tiers
Spoiler:
Taking it back to Kareem, I think this kind of sorting can probably be applied defensively.
At the very bottom you have players whose defense limits their ability to be utilized offensively(Harden needing to be benched vs the Clippers comes to mind, Kyrie falls here at certain points).
You then have people who are negatives but can be compensated for and stay on the floor(luka, prime harden, nash).
A tier up you have players who can be additive situationally(at the low end you have curry/magic who have positive value at points in certain contexts, at the high end you have the likes of wade, jordan, cp3 who will add something in nearly any game even if they can't affect every possession or lift a team's overall d-rating by several points)
A tier up from there you have players who can move the needle situationally(at the top players like Kiki, Pippen and Lebron seem to consistently influence the quality of their defenses they play on, while I think someone like Kawhi shifts between needle mover to "additive situationally" because he lacks both the coaching/paint-protection that can effect nearly every possesion in a given game).
And then I think Kareem slots into the bottom of "will always move the needle alot" (Bucks improved by 5-points defensively from 71 to 69 and 70 and got better the next two years) where his ability to protect the paint pretty much garuntees the type of influence Pippen can only manage for stretches, and Lebron only generates facing small-ball opponents), At the top of all this is Russell who "basically garuntees goat defense regardless of help"
I can expound on this if asked, but to keep things short, I think this grouping tracks with what we can observe with defenses when players leave or miss games.
Offense, Defense, and Overall: Kareem vs Jordan
Spoiler:
I think Jordan and Kareem both are really the "best version" of the offensive archetypes they embody(low turnover economy and decent vision help Jordan and Kareem respectively), but those archetypes have specific deficits that limit what they can do offensively(running the offense/top tier passing and decision making for Jordan. Since Jordan is a much better ball-handler who can at least function as the primary guy, I think Jordan rightly should be considered a notch higher on the offensive spectrum, but I feel the offensive gap is probably smaller than the defensive gap with the offensive difference being more of "how much do I need to influence things this way" while defense is more like "I fundementally can effect the game on a level you can't".
If i reference all this with my interpretation of "discernible influece of winning"(I know you don't weigh that too highly but humor me), Russell really looks on a tier on his own(at least in terms of "prime") while monopolizing everything on the side of the court that mattered for the 60's(thereby basically acheiving "I will always win no matter what"), you have Lebron scoring near the top on one and high on the other(best impact profile post russell imo) and then Kareem scoring near the top at maybe the less volatile side(which to your point makes him maybe "least dependent on help") and high on the other(2nd best impact profile post-russell imo and an outside argument for best)
Jordan's "impact" profile is more in-line with the likes of Duncan, Hakeem, KG, Magic, ect. and I think that reflects him being potentially game-changing as opposed to season-determining on one end while not quite being able to do everything on the other.
It's hard for me to ascertain who needs more to achieve a ceiling, so I'd rather root my assessment by trying to derive a baseline with the assumption players can fluctuate up and down and that both Kareem and Jordan have a proclivity to fluctuate up(Jordan's teams operated like contenders in the postseason when they didn't really play like that in the regular season(box-production scaled up), and Kareem has achieved a similar effect by just going crazy in 74 and 77(Kareem also holds up the best of any scorer against elite defenses)
BlackMill wrote:I mostly agree with this. There's no doubt to me that Kareem can approximate Jordan's offensive production more closely than Jordan can approximate Kareem's defensive production. But when I take a team level perspective, it's a little less clear to me who I would rather build around. Is it easier to surround Kareem with a sufficient level of playmaking, without creating an anemic perimeter defense, or to provide Jordan with enough rim protection, and still have him play in lineups that offensively fit?
In the 90s, a fair offensive fit next to Jordan could mean offensive rebounding and at-rim finishing, which conveniently meant a physical profile that was often conductive to defense and rim protection. In their respective eras, I see an argument for it being easier to build a strong contender around Jordan. That's not a given, I just think it's very possibly true, despite Kareem being able to provide a greater individual lift.
TLDR: Both have major limitations on offense that prevent them from generating the playoff highs of truly top-tier engines or producing great results without specific infrastructure in place. Jordan is advantaged here as a more capable ball-handler, but that advantage is not enough to shift things fundamentally(Jordan still needed to be relegated to secondary ball-handling/team-lvl decision-making).
On the other hand, Kareem's defensive advantage is a difference of kind rather than extent. Kareem's defense is season-defining, Jordan's is merely game defining. Thus Kareem is more valuable in a vacuum.
For people who don't like the uncertainty of wowy, we can just look to data ball which the impact-toppers are Duncan, Kg, and Lebron, a non-big who comes about as close to a big as any non-big ever
One "anti-assumption" which I think is especially relevant given the empirical justification often used for Jordan...
trex_8063 wrote:He's one of the greatest individual scorers ever, repeatedly leading the league in ppg while maintaining something close to +5-6% rTS each year, and also having a GOAT-tier turnover economy [among wings], and a fair bit of gravity (some of the open looks for BJ and Pax [later Harper or Kerr] came as fall-out from the attention given to Jordan). Was also a good playmaker (passing out of double/triple-teams, or on penetrate and dish), good rebounding wing, and when locked in was nearly without compare [at his position] on defense. His box-composite profile is without compare [in terms of rate metrics].
Clyde Frazier wrote:Jordan came into the league and had an immediate impact both statistically and team improvement: 28.2 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 SPG, .8 BPG, 59.2% TS, 118 ORTG, .213 WS/48, 27 wins to 38, 23rd in SRS to 14th. Few players produce at an all NBA level right out of the gate, so you knew you had something special in jordan.
-> Scoring top in stats which only capture what physically occurs at the end of a possession(pass before shot, shot, usage, steal, block, ect) does not necessitate you are at the tippity top in terms of offense (or defense) over the course of a possession or a game(or a season).
Another "anti-assumption"
The impact profile seems to be valid, too: in '96 is rs AuPM is a close 2nd to only peakish David Robinson; in '97 his NPI RAPM is 2nd in the league [to a dubious Christian Laettner]; in '98 [arguably not even in his prime anymore] he's 4th in PI RAPM [6th in NPI]. Bear in mind NONE of these are his peak.
Just because 96 is not Jordan's peak in absolute terms does not mean it would not be where he ranks highest. Jordan could well still be worse via skill, but stand out as much or more in a field without Magic and Bird, with Hakeem leaving his post-prime. Indeed, two of his best-team results come from that period, and if those are actually close or at his "best" results, those results would not actually support him being a "clearly best-of-era" force like Jabbar was. And it's worth noting we have tiny snippets where second-three peat MJ looks better than 1st-three peat MJ.
Notably, we do have signals for Jordan's "peak". If you want to use simple direct stuff, Jordan's "impact" portfolio actually weakens signficantly scoring 28th in ben's wowy(4th among his peers). I do not know how exactly he got that, but I do know a simple extended wowy thing(we literally just look at on/off) sees Jordan as a close 2nd to Magic who narrowly edges Hakeem:
Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins Magic takes 44-win teams to 59 wins
Keeping in mind that it's harder to lift better teams, Hakeem comes marginally behind Jordan, and slightly more behind Magic, but he's right up there with both.
Ben has his own(presumably more sophisticated) approach which likes Hakeem even better; "Prime WOWY" ranks Olajuwon 10th. Magic and Jordan rank 12th and 20th28th, respectively.
As we'll get to later, Kareem, like Lebron, maintains a consistent advantage in terms of "impact" whether you allow for derivations for years multiple years removed, use indirect signals, or what is "officially" considered WOWY(within a season). WOWYR had Mj ahead based on incorrect WOWY data, but 70's corrections wing WOWY in Kareem's favor and so potentially also would swing "WOWYR". I have very much railed against the usage of this stat do to how small the samples it's "corrections" come from, but I will list that for thoroughness.
All, to say, there is some support for what is theoretically outlined above and crucially, at least when looking at what can be tied to winning, little in opposite direction.
However, at the end of the "Kareem vs Jordan" blurb, Blackmill ponders if someone of Jordan's archetype was easier to construct a contender around in their respective times(interestingly, they think Kareem is better-suited for cross-era translation). Here is where we can use impact and more specifically the replication of impact to assuage these doubts. In fact we can look at the "soft belly" of Kareem's career during the mid-70's
The "soft middle", Kareem's "off" years
Spoiler:
Blackmill wrote:Firstly, I would probably consider '76-78 Kareem instead of '77-79.
Second, It's hard to evaluate peak Kareem because of limited footage and the teams that he played on. Those teams were not well designed, and some of his flaws were exacerbated on those mid-to-late 70s rosters. For example, Kareem would sometimes force really bad passes into traffic, but this was cleaned up quite a bit when the team implemented a few simple actions to be run whenever Kareem received the ball in the post. Having a small but varied set of reads for Kareem to make from the post really helped him reduce his bad turnovers. However, in the late 70s, such structure was absent, leading to far more "in the moment" decisions for Kareem to make. I don't think Kareem needs to be making those types of reads in the right system, since he was remarkably resilient against double teams and help defense, so being a higher level playmaker was less of a necessary counter and more so an added form of value.
I think it's worth noting just how much Kareem also benefited from playing alongside better playmakers, and in a better system, later in his career. A big reason why his raw efficiency remained high was that he was receiving the ball in better positions on the court. Starting in the 80s, Kareem received far more touches at the low block, or rolling into the lane for an on-the-move sky hook. This led to a lot of rhythm or otherwise quick shots for Kareem that he just didn't get to take before. It's very hard to imagine peak Kareem, in the same circumstance, not being a consistent 27+ PPG scorer on something like >63% shooting, against just about any defense. That may seem like a stretch to those who aren't intimately familiar with his game, but if you watch enough Kareem footage, you'll begin to see finer patterns regarding what shots fall at a very high rate for him. Some simple changes to the team earned him a lot more of these later in his career, but he was far less athletic by then, so the benefits were washed out on the box score.
70sFan wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
I think it's very important to be careful to call anything "going nowhere":
1. Lakers finished with the best RS record in 1977, Jordan neve did that before 1991.
2. Lakers finished with +2.95 SRS in 1979, which is better than Bulls in any year in 1987-90 period outside of 1988. It happened in the smaller, more balanced league as well.
3. Lakers lost to two future champions in the playoffs during 1977-79 period. The other time, they lost to future finalists in a 3 games series. That's the same level of playoff success as 1987-89 Bulls.
If you want to say that they did nothing during that period, then I'm afraid you should say the same for Jordan's whole career before 1990.
OhayoKD wrote:If there are down years, then we can look at the down years, but "when" the down years happened shouldn't really matter in an era-relative comparison. That said, 73-76 includes an all-time per-game carry-job in 75([b]30-win by record, 22-win by srs), the Bucks coming within a game of a title despite Kareem's co-stars falling off[/b](Kareem went ballistic all playoffs), and a solid floor-raising job in 76 with a new team and 20-something win help(With Kareem reportedly discontent and not playing to his full potential). Then in 77, the Bucks played like a 55-win team before beating a recent champion, and then losing to the eventual champions(a sweep, but by point-differential about as competitive as 88-Det vs Chi and 2023 Lal vs Denver) in what was an all-time performance from Jabbar.
OhayoKD wrote:
Eminence wrote:[b]But sure, in 76, potentially the weakest signals of Kareem's prime, in a season marred by off-court drama and injury, the Lakers lost 3 of their 5 minute leaders, improved by 4 points of srs, posted a similar full-strength rating as the 86 and 87 Bulls(with a >20-min of Jordan filter boosting 86), and Kareem was accordingly recognized as the MVP despite missing the playoffs. The following 2-years he led better teams than any Jordan has led without a second superstar and a 50+ win-cast(in case you forgot, the Bulls posted a 53-win srs without Jordan and Horace Grant)[/b], and as 70's covered(and you evidently ignored) Kareem has consistently out-impacted Jordan(at least in terms of what we can actually discern) over the course of his prime/career
If you recall you noted 86 Jordan as being impressive in a season where he played less, had better-help, and his team performed no better. But from every one of Kareem's first 4-laker years saw a bigger delta in terms of performance with and without with Kareem's worst signal coming in 1979(50-win with, 35-win without) which still looks better than taking a 30-win team to .500.
The signals from this period which several posters have marked as justification for rating Kareem lower than Mike repeatedly match or beat-out anything Jordan has except for 1999(84-85, 86, 93-94, 95, 10 gm/szn filter per usual) if you want to restrict off-samples to being "one-year" within. (If you use record like Em does you get Kareem at 30-wins in 1975 vs 20-wins for 95 MJ, but SRS is more predictive for championships historically(or at least it used to be), so I'm going to try and stick with that or net-rating if srs is unavailable) https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=102650227#p102650227 (70's very generously gives Jordan all the credit for 96, but that's below board for a couple of reasons, the least of which being extra-possession outlier Dennis Rodman who, per WOWY, was a situational match for 72 Oscar) Now let's add a bit of context here:
We can add what Eminence compiles for us to:
Eminence wrote:KAJ: '69 to '70 Bucks (w/KAJ): +29 win pace '75 (w/KAJ) to '76 Bucks: +6 win pace '75 to '76 Lakers (w/KAJ): +10 win pace
MJ: '84 to '85 Bulls (w/MJ): +11 wins '93 (w/MJ) to '94 Bulls: +4 wins '95 (pre/MJ) to '95 Bulls (w/MJ): +20
(No i am not including "95-96" or "94-96" lest we mark Kareem at +40-something in 71. Though I do think 96 - 94(+17) is fine if we allow more liberal entraps.......)
Now let's add a little bit of context here:
OhayoKD wrote:Correct, though to be specific it is a 22-23 win improvement on a bad team(taking a 40 win team to 65-wins for example would be harder). Furthermore, with an eye to future threads, this is especially disappointing in comparison with Kareem and Russell once you account for srs tresholds(assuming you are still worried about championships, how you compare to the best opposition matters alot more than how you compare by raw-score): ((1988), Bulls were +3.8 at full strength) ((1977), Lakers were +4.9 at full strength) (1969, no clue what the Celtics were at full-strength)
To be clear, the srs treshold of "league-best" increases in 89 and 90. 70's alludes to this with "more balanced league", but visual accompaniment might help. Relative to the league, Kareem's Lakers were significantly better than Jordan's Bulls(at least over rs+playoff or rs-only samples). Additionally, given that the Lakers gutted a 30-man roster to acquire Jabbar, it was Jordan who was probably advantaged in terms of help. Regardless, Kareem's advantage per "WOWY" is underrepresented. Also consider the suboptimal team construction(Blackmill) and the off-court situation in 1975, and Kareem's ability to mantain Jordan+ impact is rather impressive.
Off course, one might argue that this doesn't account for Jordan's "peak!"(or Kareem's). And while we do have the smaller-samples for that period(not really indicative of a goat-tier league-best outlier), those samples are small. So what do we do?!!
Well, here's an idea.
-> Let's assume the Bulls cast either remained similar or improved from 1984 to 1988. If you disagree with that, fine, but I think it's a fair assumption given the changes(most notably Oakley whose departure saw the Bulls regress) -> Let's assume every bit of improvement between 1984 and 1988 was solely down to Micheal Jordan getting better
Why 1988?
1. It is the best srs the Bulls post pre-triangle. Considering the situation present for the Kareem years we are comparing to, isolating Jordan from the super-team seems wise 2. Individually 1988 provides Mj his best RAPM mark(half-season sample tbf), his best PER, his best BPM, and his 2nd best WS/48(note i am using the box-score for internal-scaling, not cross-player comp). Pre-three-peat also has a higher playoff on/off than first-three peat 3. It is also the most active(by various people's tracking at least) that Jordan has been on the defensive end 4. For all of the above it stands to reason that even without me giving Jordan all the credit, 1988 would have a good chance of being at his most situationally valuable year of Micheal's career. 5. Because of that second assumption even if it is merely "close"(it scores top or near-top at every piece of box or non-box data we have for Jordan), for the sake of this exercise 1988 is probably going to be a high-end. 6. Since the regular season is the brunt of what we're looking at, Jordan being less playoff resilient isn't really too relevant
If you're with me, we can establish an upper-bound for Jordan's peak based off the largest possible sample in a season of basketball(82-games). Note, when I say upper-bound, I am not saying it is an absolute certainty Jordan did not have more value than whatever we get here. I am simply saying it is more likely that Jordan had [b]less value[/b] than he had more. The roster might be different, but that really doesn't matter unless the Bulls cast "secretly got worse"(fwiw, by net-rating they marginally improved to "31-wins" without in 86). If you have an issue with that assertion feel free to voice your complaints, but that is what I'm working off and if you don't like that I would refer you back to all the other stuff favoring Kareem.
Meaningfully comparing and ranking a player from the 90's or the 70's requires being comfortable with uncertainty. Arguments here are probabilistic. It's about what is more likely, not what can be definitively "proven"(though where likelihood becomes "fact" is itself a subjective consideration).
And if you are tempted to default to PER or WS/48, keep in mind that if "winning" is not your leading light, similar "metrics" can be designed to generate similarly detached conclusions in the opposite direction: https://web.archive.org/web/20150218214051/http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ (Was MJ even top 5!?!?!?!?!?!?)
I am also going to make a similar assumption for 77 Jabbar, except instead of an upper-bound I am going to set a lower-one. If you think I underrate Don Chaney, feel free to make that case 77 Kareem vs 88 MJ
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:Correct, though to be specific it is a 22-23 win improvement on a bad team(taking a 40 win team to 65-wins for example would be harder). Furthermore, with an eye to future threads, this is especially disappointing in comparison with Kareem and Russell once you account for srs tresholds(assuming you are still worried about championships, how you compare to the best opposition matters alot more than how you compare by raw-score): ((1988), Bulls were +3.8 at full strength) ((1977), Lakers were +4.9 at full strength) (1969, no clue what the Celtics were at full-strength)
In terms of positional replacements Jordan replaced a bad shooting guard in 84. Russell was replaced by a bad center in 1969. For the purposes of what we're using for Kareem(pretending the Lakers didn't lose anything in the trade including their starting center), Kareem's signal should actually be suppressed if we looked at "positional replacement".
retiree-player-coach russell, on a team that would run a tougher gauntlet than any of Jordan's Bulls, saw the celtics drop by 7 points with an otherwise near identical roster(sam jones was a 28 mpg chucker on an average offense) despite hondo improving and a 2-point offensive improvement. (key to note is that this 7-point drop was from a much better league-best lvl team even if u just go by the regular-season)
Kareem, assuming the Lakers lost nothing when they traded for him in 1975(actually lost 2nd and 5th mpg guys) saw the Lakers jump from -3.95 to .500 to +4.9 with the addition of 29 mpgDon Chaney and one-off head-coach Jerry West. That is a bigger jump in a league on a team that posted a higher srs in a league where the best teams were +4 to +6.
Simply put, having inflated Jordan's mark beyond reason, retiree-player coach russell looks like an outright peer, and Kareem having given him a lower mark than is reasonable, looks outright better. And with Kareem it is hardly a one-off(will get into that on the next thread). And for Russell while we have much, what we do have all corroborates beyond a 20-game stretch on a much better team as a rookie. Also beyond the numbers Russell won 5 rings with a completely different core than he won his first 6. Jordan only ever won with a specific infrastructure and co-star, Bill only ever lost when hurt.
Just talking "impact" Kareem's lower-bound beats out Jordan's upper-bound(by a margin if we consider championship tresholds) with Kareem leading a better full-season team with less help. As mentioned, Kareem is probably suppressed by "replacement" with us ignoring the Lakers lost their starting center.
The Bulls and Lakers do similarly in the playoffs on a team-level(kareem beats a 2010 celtics-esque Warriors team in the first round, Jordan beats a lebronto equivalent, Jordan then loses in 6 to a losing finalist while kareem is swept by a similar mov to an eventual champion), but Kareem probably has less help("off" aside, blackmill outlined that the "scheme" was sub-optimal)and I think on a granular level his performance looks stellar:
70sfan wrote:
dygaction wrote:9 good contests inside 4 good rotations inside 3 bad rotations inside 2 good P&R coverages 1 good defensive play on perimeter 3 bad defensive plays on perimeter 2 transition stops 3 weak transition defense plays
Along with:
30 points on 62.6 TS%, 4 turnovers, 2 assists and insane inside gravity on offensive end
He also limited Walton to horrible shooting night - 8/22 from the field.
I think it's not a great performance by 1977 Kareem standards, but I definitely wouldn't call it bad. Despite all the flaws he showed on defensive end, he still stopped 13 inside shots and defended Walton very well. He also had some bad turnovers, but it's nothing compared to how many turnovers Lakers guards had.
If that's the game people want to criticize Kareem for, then I guess I was right saying that Kareem played at GOAT level in that season.
capfan33 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote: To expand on this, take 1989 MJ against the Pistons. Outside his extraordinary game 3 performance, MJ shot 42% from the field and averaged 26.4 PPG. If we're gonna nitpick 5 minutes of Kareem in 77, I think 5 whole games from a series should count for quite a bit lol.
TBH, Kareem in 77 may be the most consistent GOAT-level performance ever, he basically was a rock for 11 games and 2 series. His worst game by far scoring wise he had 20 rebounds, 7 assists, and 8 blocks lmao. If that's an off-night you're having a hell of a run. His other "off" night game 1 against the Blazers (coming off one of the greatest carry jobs ever where he was clearly fatigued), he had a very mediocre 30 points, 10 boards, and 5 assists on 11-18 shooting. Like yea, definitely feels nitpicky to me.
Those are probably Kareem's worst three games of the playoffs. If I had to make a bet for "most consistent performance ever" i'd almost certainly pick Kareem.
Getting back to the broad-strokes, at least in terms of "value", 77 is not a one-off. By impact, that generous peak mark for Mike is also matched by or within range of 1975(suppressed) 1970(inflated, expansion) and while there is no off, the Lakers also post higher full-strength marks in 78 and 79.
That does not include 1974(considered by 70's as to be one of two "peak" years) where the Bucks played at a 61-win pace(the next closest team was at +4) despite dandrige and Oscar fading(injuries started the slide in 1972) before dropping 32/12/5 to come within a game of a championship with Oscar averaging 7 points less than he did in 1971 on worse efficiency.
It is quite possible, that for the larger part of a decade, Kareem was, generally, as valuable Jordan at his best. That may not have always mantained in the postseason, but just as there were years he may have folded(1973), there were probably more years where he elevated(72, 74, 77, 80). As Kareem is generally more valuable, as indicated by pretty much all the available "impact" signals, and predicted by the points/assumptions that started this post, it stands to reason that whenever he fluctuates up("peaks") he's probably better there too.
But let's not end it there. After-all, the triangle did happen, and the Bulls did win impressively as the best competition broke-down. Can Kareem be compared there? Well for my final witness I call 1972! But first let's start broader, starting with when Kareem also beat-down weaker competition in 1971!
Keep in mind everything gets a bit murkier here. "Impact" here really is just broad probable ranges. That being said, with what is available, and without prior assumptions(Kareem was too young! He didn't even peak yet!(probably true)), does 71(Kareem's second year) look worse than 89 or 90 or 91? Jordan is better offensively. Kareem is better defensively, but is there anything to suggest the former gap is bigger than the larger? There is a tendency in basketball discourse to compare players relative to themselves and then use that comparison to discard anything that would challenge a pre-conceived(often not well-supported) assumption about the external scaling. 2009 Lebron can be as efficient as Jordan offensively just looking at "the end" of a possession while also doing way more "before" that possession ends and also doing more defensively and then we ignore everything but the box-stuff which is kind of similar and then throw whatever excuse we can to pretend the Cavaliers winning 66 was just "noise"(Lebron's mentality must always be the same and apparently him gaining 20-pounds could not have had an effect!).
There was even a point where people were trying to argue Jordan faced more defensive attention when the main advantage of the triangle was it ensured that Jordan faced less. Many a-posters here have expressed their own or other's skepticism about Kareem being Jordan's peer, not on the basis of how his advantages weigh against Mike's, but because he wasn't "complete" yet and him already being that good would not be believable. Ditto with Russell where his apparent influence in 1969 is so high that we must point out his offensive production dropped(because that's obviously where the winning was happening), gas 29 mpg chucker Sam Jones, and then say "well it isn't proof" as if the lack of "proof" stops many posters here from assuming Russell's era-relative championship-over-replacement-player was lower(see the celtics were always deep so...) That is not how uncertainty works.
These 3 are my picks for GOAT peak, GOAT prime, and GOAT career, largely in part because when dealing with their most impressive ****. The typical counter-response is not to point out better evidence for another guy, but instead it is to throw everything in the kitchen sink, the kitchen sink, and then everything in the kitchen to find a reason why their most impressive things are just "noise".
Typically when you are see a surprising result, you look at everything in totality, and then curve accordingly. But with these 3, we go out of our way to curve them down, because we assume it's not possible. Kareem was already one of the bitw before he entered the nba. He drew comparisons to Russell as a rookie as his team immediately spiked up and then...
71 Kareem vs 91 MJ, team and individual comparison
Spoiler:
sansterre wrote:1971 Bucks Overall SRS: +14.68, Standard Deviations: +2.52, Won NBA Finals (Preseason ?)
PG: Oscar Robertson, 0,186 / 0.213 SG: Jon McGlocklin, 0.147 / 0.174 SF: Bob Dandridge, 0.160 / 0.157 PF: Greg Smith, 0.134 / 0.184 C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 0.326 / 0.271
1991 Bulls Overall SRS: +12.90, Standard Deviations: +2.47, Won NBA Finals (Preseason 4th)
PG: John Paxson, +0.3 / -0.8 SG: Michael Jordan, +12.0 / +14.6 SF: Scottie Pippen, +5.8 / +6.5 PF: Horace Grant, +2.5 / +2.2 C: Bill Cartwright, -2.6 / -1.2
Never said anything about "confident", but I don't really have an issue making probabilistic judgments(uncertainity is fine). Main thing about 1971 vs 1991 is -> there is no triangle equivalent(Bulls offense goes from +2.3 to +6.5 between the first and 2nd half of 1990), -> there's no equivalent to the defensive jump(Bulls go from below average at the start of the season to a -3 defense by the 90 playoffs(-5 in the last 2 rounds)).
The Bucks are closer by 1970 with rookie Dandridge than the Bulls get pre-triangle despite Kareem joining a similar team. The Bucks are also still great In 72 in the games Oscar completely misses and unlike 91 where there's no real discernible improvement(Mj's on/off, rapm, defensive tape all looks worse actually)despite facing significantly weaker competition(pistons are way worse defensively and overall in the first two rounds of 1991 compared to 1990).
Kareem's production jumps between 70, 71, and 72 despite worse help(oscar hobbled) and much tougher comp(west+wilt) in 72 vs 71(west hurt). Their full-strength srs also improves iirc. It's also obvious the Bulls were historically loaded when we look at the full-lineup performances in 94 and 95(58-win without Jordan, 52-win without Jordan and Grant), and there's nothing that indicates the same for the Bucks
With Wilt, the issue is the team doesn't really fall off that much without him and then he forms what should have been a dyansty and goes 0 for 2.
I don't have any confidence putting 71 Kareem ahead, but i see more reasons to put it ahead than behind. I am more confident in 72 because it's a very obvious improvement from a season which looks as good to me if not better than 67 and 91 and also looks like a better version of MJ's 90(does better against a better opponent with less help after a more impressive rs), and that's not getting into replication where Kareem only looks better and better compared to Wilt or MJ the more surrounding years you allow into the eval.
First I would like to highlight, that while one might assume the Bucks are over-stated as an outlier by SRS, at least by San's "standard deviation", they were actually a bigger outlier than the 91 Bulls. They posted a higher regular-season srs, a higher post-season srs, and a higher full-season SRS, Both faced weak/broken down competition, but I think it is fair to say the Bucks at least have a case as the better team.
Additionally, while we can't really extrapolate cast estimates the same way we did with 77 and 88, from what is there, I'd say there's more to suggest Jordan was advantaged in terms of help. Now maybe that isn't convincing for you, but that's okay. Because Kareem Abdul Jabbar gets better.
See the thing about the triangle was it wasn't about getting Jordan to do more. If 90/91 MJ was a better player than 88 or 89 MJ, it wasn't because he was out there impacting the game in more ways. It's because he was more effective in a scaled-down, specialized role. The box-score only tracks the ends of possessions. It does not track Jordan facing way less doubles. It does not track Jordan making less plays at the perimeter than Scottie, nor does it track him being less involved in the full-court presses.
Usage rate measures assists(the pass before a shot) and shots, it does not track who is handling the ball and who is floating off-ball where it's very hard to double because of illegal-d. Jordan was, in a raw sense, doing less. There was a trade-off between effeciency and volume even if you don't put it down to help and competition.
From 71 to 72 Kareem also improved his efficiency. But more impressively, he improved his efficiency(scoring specifically maintained) while scaling up what he was actually doing. You know who was seeing their efficiency drop as well as their volume? Oscar Robertson. Injuries started him on the road to decline and yet...
72 Bucks Overall SRS: +12.34, Standard Deviations: +1.83, Lost in Conference Finals (Preseason X)
#60. The 1990 Detroit Pistons [spoiler]Overall SRS: +8.61, Standard Deviations: +1.70, Won NBA Finals
Regular Season Record: 59-23, Regular Season SRS: +5.41 (80th), Earned the 1 Seed Regular Season Offensive Rating: +1.8 (80th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -4.6 (31st)
#20. The 1972 Los Angeles Lakers Spoiler: Overall SRS: +11.77, Standard Deviations: +1.75, Won NBA Finals (Preseason X)
San's srs does not account for health, but healthy the Bucks were better in 72 than they were in 71. In the games Oscar missed, they won at a 62-win pace. In the postseason, with Oscar hobbled(averaging 4 ppg less than he did in the regular season) they got better jumping to +14 while outscoring the 1972 Lakers who rank better than the 1990 Pistons(outscored the Bulls by 3ppg) with Kareem going the **** off.
If 1971 Kareem is not better than any Micheal, I humbly posit that 1972 Kareem is.
Or, put another way. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, at least by "winning", is a better floor-raiser and Ceiling-Raiser than Micheal Jeffrey Jordan.
Does that seem crazy? Well it does to me, and that's why I'm voting him #2(wins the same tie-breaker vs Bill, Lebron did). The "longetvity" is a bonus, but it's the symptom not the cause. The main reason Kareem lasted longer was because he was better. From the start, at the end, and at his apex, Kareem Abdul Jabbar earned the right to be considered the second greatest player of all-time.
One last note
Dooley wrote:Quick first thoughts on the current nominee pool (in my rough current mental order) and potential next nominees
Michael Jordan - I voted for him last thread; will probably vote for him again. Crazy offensive production and box-score numbers, more impact on how his team's offenses operated than the big man candidates by virtue of being a two-way player, great all-around game, arguably the single best peak of all time, etc. What would change my mind on Jordan would be evidence that his scoring is less valuable than I think.
I believe you've specifically focused on how scoring makes teams more reselient in the postseason. With that in mind, here's something to consider.
Looking at team-wide improvement, the best playoff-riser of the 80's/90's was arguably not Jordan, but Hakeem. He beat a team with a higher-scoring srseq than any of Jordan's triumphs(86 Lakers), he had the most wins as an underdog, and the highest underdog win% of any MVP before Lebron came around.
Hakeem was, like Jordan, someone who saw their scoring go up in the postseason. But he was also, unlike Jordan, a two-way anchor who led great defenses largely on his ability to protect the paint. Lebron James, whose seen the biggest team-wide jumps of anyone was also a two-way anchor who upped his scoring.
In 1977 Kareem upped his scoring by 8-points by seeing his effeciency spike by 4-points in what is maybe the best example of scoring elevation in playoff history. He also was a excellent defensive anchor.
Food for thought
NOMINATE: Hakeem A solid best-of-era candidate who paired all-time great defense with great-scoring. The least noisy and most inclusive regular season signals make him look like a viable best-in-the-league candidate and he is also probably the best playoff-riser of his era.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
The guy who would be his stiffest competition for this project is likely Kareem, but Kareem missed the playoffs back-to-back years in his prime with two different teams. Worse still, these are 2 of only 3 years during his career where he didn't play with either Oscar or Magic. Really makes me question if his impact's on the same elite level as Jordan that he could be neutralized so easily at the peak of his powers. Makes me question his standing against Duncan and Shaq too who had consistently elite squads even with weak supporting casts.
Hopefully I addressed that satisfactorily above
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
iggymcfrack wrote:The guy who would be his stiffest competition for this project is likely Kareem, but Kareem missed the playoffs back-to-back years in his prime with two different teams. Worse still, these are 2 of only 3 years during his career where he didn't play with either Oscar or Magic. Really makes me question if his impact's on the same elite level as Jordan that he could be neutralized so easily at the peak of his powers. Makes me question his standing against Duncan and Shaq too who had consistently elite squads even with weak supporting casts
Nothing definitive, but:
1. Lakers missed the playoffs in 1976 with 40 wins. Jordan made the playoffs in 1985-87 period despite not surpassing this number even once. How can we conclude from that it's a sign of Kareem being less impactful?
2. Kareem played 5 seasons without Oscar or Magic, not 3: 1975-79.
3. When did Shaq play with weak supporting cast in his prime?
1. There's not really evidence on way or another on it (MJ played on great teams in his prime, we just can't know definitively), but I believe the idea is that prime MJ was more consistently impactful than prime KAJ, so I don't really see '85-'87 MJ struggling as very insightful on the question either.
2. 6 actually (1970)
3. I'd probably agree that basically never happened, not that all his casts were elite, but Penny to Eddie to Kobe to Dwyane is a pretty good run.
iggymcfrack wrote:The difference with Kareem and Jordan would be more that with Kareem it happened at his peak whereas with Jordan, the last time he won <47 games would be his second full season in the league though.
True, but that's because Jordan didn't play with poor supporting casts after 1988. If you have a team that can win over 40 games without you, it's hard to compare that to 1975 or 1976 when Kareem teams were among the worst in the league.
I would agree that Jordan’s case for floor raising isn’t as strong as his case for ceiling raising, but I still think it’s significantly better than Kareem’s.
Is it significantly better? Kareem led Bucks to 56 wins in 1970 (no Oscar) and Lakers to 53 wins in 1977 (no Magic). These two numbers are better than anything Jordan ever accomplished before Phil Jackson came along (1970 is better even than 1990).
I get that lows aren't the greatest in Kareem's case, but every evidence we have suggests that Jabbar played with much worse teams than Jordan in the seasons he missed playoffs (and once it was caused only by him missing games). I don't see any evidences that 1970 or 1977 rosters were more talented than 1988-90 rosters (I am open to arguments), yet the results aren't worse - they are better in fact.
My bad on having the seasons without Oscar and Kareem wrong, but we can still agree that Kareem wasn’t super impressive with team success in the other years. 2 playoff series wins and 2 years missing the playoffs isn’t a very good 5 year span for an elite player from age 27-31.
No, we won't agree because team success should be contextualized. If the Bucks without Kareem played at 15 wins pace, then you shouldn't expect them making playoffs with him missing games. If the Lakers couldn't play competitive basketball without Kareem, then the fact that Kareem won series is impressive as it is.
I don't have anything against Jordan being ahead ot Kareem, but I don't find these arguments convincing. Jordan played in a better team situation than Kareem during his peak years, but it doesn't mean he was a better player.
iggymcfrack wrote:The difference with Kareem and Jordan would be more that with Kareem it happened at his peak whereas with Jordan, the last time he won <47 games would be his second full season in the league though.
True, but that's because Jordan didn't play with poor supporting casts after 1988. If you have a team that can win over 40 games without you, it's hard to compare that to 1975 or 1976 when Kareem teams were among the worst in the league.
I would agree that Jordan’s case for floor raising isn’t as strong as his case for ceiling raising, but I still think it’s significantly better than Kareem’s.
Is it significantly better? Kareem led Bucks to 56 wins in 1970 (no Oscar) and Lakers to 53 wins in 1977 (no Magic). These two numbers are better than anything Jordan ever accomplished before Phil Jackson came along (1970 is better even than 1990).
I get that lows aren't the greatest in Kareem's case, but every evidence we have suggests that Jabbar played with much worse teams than Jordan in the seasons he missed playoffs (and once it was caused only by him missing games). I don't see any evidences that 1970 or 1977 rosters were more talented than 1988-90 rosters (I am open to arguments), yet the results aren't worse - they are better in fact.
My bad on having the seasons without Oscar and Kareem wrong, but we can still agree that Kareem wasn’t super impressive with team success in the other years. 2 playoff series wins and 2 years missing the playoffs isn’t a very good 5 year span for an elite player from age 27-31.
No, we won't agree because team success should be contextualized. If the Bucks without Kareem played at 15 wins pace, then you shouldn't expect them making playoffs with him missing games. If the Lakers couldn't play competitive basketball without Kareem, then the fact that Kareem won series is impressive as it is.
I don't have anything against Jordan being ahead ot Kareem, but I don't find these arguments convincing. Jordan played in a better team situation than Kareem during his peak years, but it doesn't mean he was a better player.
I said this above but i think it's worth repeating. It's "better" if you just look at raw srs. It's significantly better relative to the league(75, 77). And if anything, it was Jordan who had better help.
I also used to think that 70, 71, and 72 srs was misleading because thresholds were higher, but per san's sd, the 71 bucks were a bigger outlier than the 91 bulls and a more dominant playoff, regular-season and full-season team by srs and san's psrs. Kareem gets better in 72 and the team looks better in 72 despite Oscar declining. Here too, I see no emperical case for Jordan having less help(and if nothing else, there are less in-between steps for Kareem).
All is to say, I don't think Jordan has good evidence of being a better floor-raiser or a cieling raiser(probably worse at both tbh. The mid-70's exhibiting the former and the early 70's exhibiting the latter.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
One_and_Done wrote:I don't think the 02 or 03 Spurs could win 25 games without Duncan.
I also think that the Spurs would have been weak without Duncan and they wouldn't have made the playoffs, but something to consider - the Spurs went 6-7 in 2003/04 season when Duncan missed time. It's not good, but not all-time bad. Of course improved Manu definitely helped, but at the same time they lost an impactful roleplayer in David Robinson (who could hide some of Spurs weaknesses without Duncan).
70sFan wrote:Is it significantly better? Kareem led Bucks to 56 wins in 1970 (no Oscar) and Lakers to 53 wins in 1977 (no Magic). These two numbers are better than anything Jordan ever accomplished before Phil Jackson came along (1970 is better even than 1990).
I find their average prime floor raising performances fairly similar, but Kareem 'should' have the better results and the worse results (and he does) due to a much larger sample. You're looking at '87-'90 MJ here on the high side (as you state '90 is debatable, though I'd lean towards inclusion, and I'd probably exclude '87 seeing it as a solid step down from later MJ).
One_and_Done wrote:I don't think the 02 or 03 Spurs could win 25 games without Duncan.
Simplest response is the 04 team went 6-7 in games Duncan didn't play. Or, you are saying he is worth about 12 points per game in 2002 and 2003. If that is correct, then he is easily the GOAT so it's not worth discussing.
I want to start that this is a very good, but also a long post, so I will only touch on parts I disagree (don't feel like it's an attack, but the invitation for the further discussion).
f4p wrote:Now certainly, the returns were great. But no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure, for more years than Tim Duncan. Most generational #1 picks are greeted by a smoldering crater of a franchise and asked to build it from the ground up. The Spurs had spent the better part of a decade winning 50 and 60 games, before tanking due to injuries for one season, and then bringing the best parts of that core back. And, oh yeah, adding possibly the greatest coach of all time. Was David Robinson quite peak David Robinson any more? No. But it's hard to imagine a much better situation for a #1 overall pick. Other than maybe Magic with Kareem and then James Worthy with Magic and Kareem, I don't know who had it better.
There is no question that Duncan enjoyed a lot of luck with the organization he got drafted, but I am not sure I can agree that "no one enjoyed a better organizational infrastructure":
1. You already mentioned Magic and it's hard to make an argument against him in this case. Do you think there are any reasons to believe that Magic was "less lucky" than Duncan? 2. Another 1980s great with a comparable situation is Larry Bird. Did Bird play with someone as good as Robinson as a rookie? No, not really. Did 1970s Celtics infrastructure was better than 1990s SAS? Almost certainly. The Celtics were way ahead of their time from that perspective, they had an extremely resillient organization run by basketball legends. They built contending team around Bird very quickly. I think it's fair to say that Duncan had arguably a bigger impact on how Spurs organization changed throughout the years than Bird did. 3. Another one is Bill Russell, who finished in one of the best teams in the league with a lot of talent and the best organization in the league. 4. There is also Kobe, who isn't in the conversation but it's not hard to argue for him as well.
Also, for a bolded part - it's true that the Spurs enjoyed a decent amount of RS success in the 1990s (though they only won 60+ games once), but they also made the WCF only once and never got to the finals. Duncan got drafted by a good team that was never a contender at any point of the 1990s and had no history of significant success before Duncan. I wouldn't call such organization the best you can imagine. I think you use 2000s and 2010s Spurs to contextualize 1990s Spurs process, but I am afraid that you may miss a significant role that Duncan played in creating the standards.
Duncan gets to immediately leap in with the core of a previous 59 win team with the GOAT coach in tow.
I certainly wouldn't call sophomore Pop a GOAT coach. It's another example of using future standards for different times.
Not when the front office adds Danny Green and Tiago Splitter and Boris Diaw and Patty Mills and, umm, who am I forgetting? Oh, it's future hall of fame, future multiple time Finals MVP, #42 on the previous Top 100 and only that low because he can't stay healthy, it's playoff performer extraordinaire Kawhi Leonard. That looks like a good team in and of itself, much less added to a hall of fame trio. Especially when the coach can seamlessly shift from defensive guru to "beautiful game" coach like it's nothing. Now Tim Duncan is free to gracefully end his career, never asked to do too much on his super deep, super well-coached team. It helps him maintain value and play on winning teams all the way to the end. By the time he is ready to exit the stage in year 19, they have even added another likely hall of famer in LaMarcus Aldridge. Giving the Spurs an all-HOF closing lineup. Duncan can play 25 mpg and only 60 games for the season and still see his team win 67 games and actually finish with a better net rating than the 73-win Warriors.
Is there any reason to bring up post-2013 career in this discussion? I don't really think anyone considers Duncan for a high spot because of these years. Yeah, Duncan ended his career on a stacked team. I don't understand how it should influence our views on his prime years though.
Tim Duncan won 4 of his 5 titles as the #1 SRS team. No problem with that. After all, it is 5 of 6 for Jordan. But even Duncan's 1 win as the #3 SRS team (2003) comes with the caveat that #1/#2 (DAL/SAC) faced off against each other in the second round, and then Dirk got hurt and missed half of the conference finals so it's not clear the Spurs weren't the favorite anyway (though they were up 2-1 with Dirk playing). But in 2001, the Spurs were #1 in SRS and lost. Swept in fact. Bludgeoned by 29 and 39 in the final 2 games. Has a #1 SRS team been beaten in worse fashion? In 2004, they were #1 in SRS once again and lost after taking a 2-0 lead. In 2006, #1 in SRS again and lost in the 2nd round. 2012, #2 in SRS but after Rose's injury, effectively the #1 SRS team and lost 4 straight in the WCF after winning their first 10 games of the playoffs. 2011, #1 seed and lost to an 8th seed. That's a lot of losing as a favorite if you want to be put up there with Jordan.
By SRS, Duncan's average playoff series loss was actually as a 0.86 SRS favorite. That's incredible. Only Bill Russell with an average loss of +1.47 SRS is worse, and that comes with the caveat that he only lost twice and the time he lost as a huge +4.2 favorite he missed a few games in the series (though Boston doesn't really appear to have played worse without him). Larry Bird, not exactly a great playoff riser, is next at +0.73 and Chris Paul and David Robinson also find themselves on the wrong side of 0. Hakeem is at -3.2 and Jordan is by far the biggest underdog (of the 40 or so top players I looked at) at -5.0, an enormous underdog when he lost. In fact, Hakeem's average playoff series WIN was as a -0.8 SRS underdog, which is crazy. That's the difference in having to drag a franchise around for 18 years and having one of the best situations ever.
I wonder, isn't it basically holding RS success against Duncan, because basically no other player anchored his team to the same amount of #1 SRS in the RS? I think it would be also important to point out how Duncan played in these loses, because I have no idea how anyone could hold 2006 against Duncan for example.
2002 - Spurs and Lakers near SRS parity. Duncan puts up fantastic series numbers, but the Spurs are outscored in every 4th quarter and Duncan goes 11-29 with 9 turnovers in the five 4th quarters of the series. Losing a series they led after 3 quarters in 3 of 5 games.
Yeah, that happens when your 2nd best player is hurt and misses time and you have to play 45 mpg and everything on both ends of the floor is on your shoulders. Duncan carried an absurd load on both ends of the floor and I agree that he wasn't able to do that on consistent basis - now, I'd like to see what player in the league history did better under such circumstances.
Duncan guarding Shaq in 2002 was mentioned. Maybe it happened, but I watched game 5 a few months ago. He didn't guard him in the 1st quarter, the youtube video (in spanish) skipped the 2nd quarter, but he didn't guard him for the first half of the 3rd so he probably didn't guard him in the 2nd quarter. Then he guarded him once in the 3rd and picked up a foul. One possession later he guarded him again and picked up a foul. Strategy put on hold. In the 4th he guarded Shaq a 3rd time and picked up a foul. This did not appear to be 1999 36 year old Hakeem being led to slaughter guarding prime Shaq from the tip. it was selective guarding. And not too good in game 5.
I also rewatched this series not long ago and I counted Shaq numbers when he was guarded by Duncan:
Game 1: 4/11 FG, 3/4 FT, 1 ast, 1 tov Game 2: 5/9 FG, 3/6 FT, 3 ast, 1 tov Game 3: 5/8 FG, 2/2 FT, 1 ast Game 4: 2/3 FG, 1 ast Game 5: 3/8 FG, 4/6 FT, 1 tov
So, overall Shaq went 19/39 from the field (48.7 FG%) and 13/18 (72.2 FT%) from the line against Duncan. He scored 10.2 ppg on 54.3 TS% and his efficiency is inflated by unusually high FT%. 39 FGA is also over 40% of Shaq total attempts in the series.
From watching the series, it was clear that the Spurs tried to use Duncan on Shaq less once Robinson came back (though David wasn't effective) and the only game he wasn't arguably the main Shaq defender was game 4 when Robinson played significant minutes.
I also agree that game 5 wasn't the best game in terms of Shaq defense from that series, that's why we should watch more than parts of one game.
2004 - The Spurs, significant SRS favorites on the Lakers, go up 2-0. Note that neither Jordan nor Hakeem has ever lost a 2 game lead. Over the final 4 games, Duncan averages 17.5 ppg on 38 FG% with 4.3 TOpg. While mostly being guarded by a 40 year old Mailman who I don't recall guarding Hakeem much even when Malone was younger. This seems to be a highly winnable series if Duncan plays better.
This is true, Duncan underperformed in that series.
2005 - The Spurs do manage to win in 7 against the Pistons, but Duncan, still only 28 years old, struggles mightily to score on the Wallace Bros, shooting 41.9% for the series. My recollection is that it was a lot of single coverage. And almost losing game 5 at the line before Horry went crazy. Manu could have been Finals MVP.
My recollection is that Duncan absorbed an absurd amount of defensive attention, so I think it would be nice if you bring up some evidences that it was mostly against single coverages.
One_and_Done wrote:1) He only has 3 years comparable to Duncan IMO, and those came when he was less athletic. The rest of his career isn't on the same level for whatever reason.
That's quite a take, a take that as a Duncan fan I strongly disagree with. It's a myth that Hakeem magically became a much better player in 1993 when he was over 30. He didn't have much to work with, but Hakeem was an amazing player in 1988-91 period and it can be compared favorably with Duncan's prime.
70sFan wrote:Is it significantly better? Kareem led Bucks to 56 wins in 1970 (no Oscar) and Lakers to 53 wins in 1977 (no Magic). These two numbers are better than anything Jordan ever accomplished before Phil Jackson came along (1970 is better even than 1990).
I find their average prime floor raising performances fairly similar, but Kareem 'should' have the better results and the worse results (and he does) due to a much larger sample. You're looking at '87-'90 MJ here on the high side (as you state '90 is debatable, though I'd lean towards inclusion, and I'd probably exclude '87 seeing it as a solid step down from later MJ).
That's fair, it's why I don't agree that Jordan proved himself to be "significantly better". I wouldn't say the opposite is true.
70sFan wrote:Is it significantly better? Kareem led Bucks to 56 wins in 1970 (no Oscar) and Lakers to 53 wins in 1977 (no Magic). These two numbers are better than anything Jordan ever accomplished before Phil Jackson came along (1970 is better even than 1990).
I find their average prime floor raising performances fairly similar, but Kareem 'should' have the better results and the worse results (and he does) due to a much larger sample. You're looking at '87-'90 MJ here on the high side (as you state '90 is debatable, though I'd lean towards inclusion, and I'd probably exclude '87 seeing it as a solid step down from later MJ).
70sFan wrote:Is it significantly better? Kareem led Bucks to 56 wins in 1970 (no Oscar) and Lakers to 53 wins in 1977 (no Magic). These two numbers are better than anything Jordan ever accomplished before Phil Jackson came along (1970 is better even than 1990).
I find their average prime floor raising performances fairly similar, but Kareem 'should' have the better results and the worse results (and he does) due to a much larger sample. You're looking at '87-'90 MJ here on the high side (as you state '90 is debatable, though I'd lean towards inclusion, and I'd probably exclude '87 seeing it as a solid step down from later MJ).
The thing that’s hard for me to gauge with Kareem is that his floor raising ability basically has two separate stories that go in very different directions. First is that the Bucks instantly went from being a bad team to being a really good team in Kareem’s rookie year. This looks great for Kareem! Second is that Kareem didn’t do a whole lot with his teams in the latter half of the 1970s, even when a few of those teams actually had some really good players (albeit not usually in their absolute prime). This doesn’t look very good. The thing that makes this particularly weird to me is the chronology of this. We wouldn’t expect a player to have substantially better impact as a floor raiser (or otherwise) in their rookie year than they did in any year in a 5-year span in their peak years. It’s hard to conceptualize what was going on there.
Perhaps a part of it is that the pre-Kareem Bucks were better than they’d seem. They *did* add more than just Kareem between 1968-1969 and 1969-1970. Notably, they added Bob Dandridge—a future hall of famer. Flynn Robinson was a pretty good player (he was an all star in 1969-1970), and while he’d been there in 1968-1969, he’d only joined the team during the season, so he was probably better integrated when there for a full season a year later. Meanwhile, there were some other differences: For instance, Greg Smith was a key role player that was in his second season in 1969-1970 and played a fair bit better than he had in his rookie season. There’s also just the likely-quite-significant fact that the 1968-1969 season was the franchise’s first season, and that surely carries some unique growing pains as an organization in countless ways, such that we’d just generally expect a better second season once the organization has things figured out a bit more. So I don’t think we can attribute all of the team’s increase in quality to just Kareem—there’s a lot more going on there.
Even so, I do still find it confusing. Unless the first-year growing pains that the Bucks had were enormous (which is possible!), it’s still hard to reconcile what happened with the Bucks in Kareem’s rookie season with what happened with Kareem’s teams in the late 1970s. One thing I actually wonder is whether we should just conceptualize Kareem’s peak as being his first several years in the NBA. That’s not typical for a player, but then again it’s very atypical for a player to be as incredible and polished as Kareem was in college. Maybe he’s an example of a player who was so polished so early that his peak was early because he had that polish *and* his peak athleticism? To me, this would make sense, especially when I just think the most impressive things Kareem did were all in his first few years in the league (the floor raising in his rookie year; leading a team that’s on the shortlist for greatest team ever in 1970-1971; his statistical peak; etc.).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
My career impressions for the guys I'm not seriously considering here (MJ/Wilt - two guys who'll be strong contenders for my #5 slot, though I doubt MJ is still available to vote for).
Wilt: -I'm quite impressed by his first 3 seasons in Philadelphia, I think he came in at a high level and put in a serious claim as the best player in the league. -They move to San Francisco and I'm less impressed, '63 is a dud, '64 bounces back well, and '65 is arguably the worst (half) season for an in-prime top 10 candidate. -Back to Philly, and things get righted again. '65 finished up decently if not peak-level. '66 is better and builds into an all-time '67 (I think arguable as the most impressive team accomplishment in NBA history - I don't want to hear about Russells boo-boos, he was barely dinged by NBA playoff standards). But it ends on a low-note, blowing a 3-1 lead against the Celtics in '68. -To LA, and the first three seasons are very meh, with '69 being the most disappointing, this time dropping a 3-2 lead to the Celtics. In '70 Wilt's injured and returns for the playoffs but it's not enough. In '71 West misses the playoffs and it's not even close vs Milwaukee. They look better in the playoffs than the RS. -Sharman arrives in LA, and things take off. '72/'73 Lakers have some great great seasons deep into Wilts career. Then Wilt hangs 'em up while still quite high level.
-Overall, I quite like his highs, but his lows (San Francisco '63/'65 and early LA years) keep his prime consistency a tad low for my tastes here. His longevity is good, especially given a slight era boost.
MJ: -Rookie year doesn't blow me away at this level, better than the HS to pros guys up this high (LeBron/KG) but I prefer all the college to pro guys with the possible exception of Russell. Then he misses '86 for the most part. '87 shows improvement, but still sub to low level MVP at max for me, I like his defensive improvement most from his rookie season. -'88 is where I see the offensive jump, with team results slightly improving and his personal efficiency spiking. This is clear high MVP level MJ to me. Not a worthy DPOY, but oh well. The will be 2nd/3rd guys have arrived, but have some growing to do. '89 is similar, bit of a step back in the RS, but look better in the POs. -'90 Phil arrives, Scottie/Horace are improving, they look pretty close to taking off, but not quite yet -Then the run MJ is in this discussion for. 6 titles in the 7 years MJ bothers to play, and I don't feel he was fully up to speed in the one they did lose. It's a dominant run only surpassed by Russell and his Celtics. The first two years of each 3-peat are on the more dominant side, while both 3rd seasons are more get across the line types of titles, individually and as a team. We switch out the #3 low-end allstar guy pretty seamlessly halfway through.
-Overall, another guy who I quite appreciate the highs on and think he was actually pretty consistent in prime ('88-'98), but in this case there just isn't enough of it for me. If he hadn't retired the first two times maybe I'd feel comfortable discussing him vs anyone, but he did.
I’ve had Kareem at #2 for a while now with Jordan at #3, but have been persuaded by arguments for Russell at #3. I am typically in favor of bigs when it comes to impact unless there’s quantifiable proof otherwise like we have for James in multiple different datasets. In James’s case, complete datasets spanning 20, 25, and projected 30 years for both regular season and post season seem almost impossible, but they’re there.
The only real questions about Kareem would be what happened in LA when he was at the peak of his powers, but the roster around in part weakened by what it took to get him explains quite a bit.
—GOATish longevity rivaled only by James’s —GOATish peak rivaled by 2 to 3 others (maybe 4) —GOATish prime length rivaled only by James’s —GOAT level floor raising in LA —GOAT level ceiling raising in Milwaukee —GOAT level scoring efficacy regardless of era, teammates, rules, environment, etc. —Maybe not GOAT level, but high level defense combined with offense in peak years
—Between Russ and Kareem, I prefer Kareem’s two best seasons, i.e., 1974 and 1977 and this seals it for me.
Some of the questions about his motor on defense (and sometimes offense regarding offensive boards) are ameliorated by the fact that his approach to conserve energy and value fluidity over sudden bursts (though he could turn up the intensity when needed) probably helped engendered his GOATish longevity, as did an offensive weapon that nobody ever had an answer for, engendering GOAT-like high efficacy and low variance game over game over game.
Lastly, the little data we have paint Kareem as a high impact player very late into his career.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
lessthanjake wrote:The thing that’s hard for me to gauge with Kareem is that his floor raising ability basically has two separate stories that go in very different directions. First is that the Bucks instantly went from being a bad team to being a really good team in Kareem’s rookie year. This looks great for Kareem! Second is that Kareem didn’t do a whole lot with his teams in the latter half of the 1970s, even when a few of those teams actually had some really good players (albeit not usually in their absolute prime). This doesn’t look very good. The thing that makes this particularly weird to me is the chronology of this. We wouldn’t expect a player to have substantially better impact as a floor raiser (or otherwise) in their rookie year than they did in any year in a 5-year span in their peak years. It’s hard to conceptualize what was going on there.
Perhaps a part of it is that the pre-Kareem Bucks were better than they’d seem. They *did* add more than just Kareem between 1968-1969 and 1969-1970. Notably, they added Bob Dandridge—a future hall of famer. Flynn Robinson was a pretty good player (he was an all star in 1969-1970), and while he’d been there in 1968-1969, he’d only joined the team during the season, so he was probably better integrated when there for a full season a year later. Meanwhile, there were some other differences: For instance, Greg Smith was a key role player that was in his second season in 1969-1970 and played a fair bit better than he had in his rookie season. There’s also just the likely-quite-significant fact that the 1968-1969 season was the franchise’s first season, and that surely carries some unique growing pains as an organization in countless ways, such that we’d just generally expect a better second season once the organization has things figured out a bit more. So I don’t think we can attribute all of the team’s increase in quality to just Kareem—there’s a lot more going on there.
Even so, I do still find it confusing. Unless the first-year growing pains that the Bucks had were enormous (which is possible!), it’s still hard to reconcile what happened with the Bucks in Kareem’s rookie season with what happened with Kareem’s teams in the late 1970s. One thing I actually wonder is whether we should just conceptualize Kareem’s peak as being his first several years in the NBA. That’s not typical for a player, but then again it’s very atypical for a player to be as incredible and polished as Kareem was in college. Maybe he’s an example of a player who was so polished so early that his peak was early because he had that polish *and* his peak athleticism? To me, this would make sense, especially when I just think the most impressive things Kareem did were all in his first few years in the league (the floor raising in his rookie year; leading a team that’s on the shortlist for greatest team ever in 1970-1971; his statistical peak; etc.).
This criticism is based on the assumption that 1977-79 Lakers teams underperformed and were talented enough to do more. I question this assumption, because we have evidences that this Lakers team wasn't good at all when Kareem missed time and players didn't perform well in the postseason, even though Kareem played fantastic basketball in 95% of postseason games.
Could you give me some arguments behind your assumption? I am open to change my mind.
At his best Russell was the best and he was able to exert his enormous impact in a way that fits on nearly any team and enhances his teammates. I understand that people will have reservations anointing someone who's impact mostly came on one side of the floor above the two way titans of the game especially since the one side is the defensive side. But it shouldn't matter where your value comes from it matters that it exists and from his first to last year in the league Russell's dominance is clear.
As a rookie Russ turned the Celtics from a .72 to 4.78 SRS squad elevating them to NBA champions in his first try. The Celtics defense went from below average to elite making an 8 point improvement despite the roster staying essentially the same outside of the addition of Russell. Then at the end of his career Russell led the Celtics to a title as a player coach with a 5.35 SRS squad. The next year the Celtics fell to a -1.59 SRS squad and their defense fell off by 10 points with mostly the same roster minus Jones. Additionally, it's likely that Russell would've had additional years of top end value at the start and end of his career if the financial incentives of today were around in his time. Not to mention all the other ways training and health advancements lengthen the careers of more modern greats. Russell was pumping out monster impact at either end of his career and obviously during his best years it was likely significantly stronger. From 1961-1965 the Celtics ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant defensive seasons. In 1961 they were 8.2 points better than league average, 62 8.7, 63 9.1, 64 11.5!!!, 65 9.9. Just look at those numbers. It's absolutely staggering. 4 of those teams are top 10 relative defenses in NBA history.
Russell's freak athleticism and size allowed him to be a pantheon level defender both vertically and horizontally. He covered wide swaths of the court stifling threats left and right while also protecting the rim at an all time clip. His defensive versatility is incredibly valuable as it allows coaching staffs tons of flexibility on what type of schemes to run that will best suit your other players. Russ was like a makeup artist. He covers up all the blemishes. His defensive skillset (the vast majority of his impact) is therefore highly portable as it's hard to imagine a team scenario where his defense loses much value. Even next to another elite rim protector he could play the more KG role and be dominant that way. That's the thing about Russell our minds don't quite understand his defensive value because there is no other real comparison. He's KG if he protected the rim like Duncan or Duncan if he moved like KG. These are both imo Mount Rushmore defenders and he has the best of both of them. I might even be understating his mobility as he was a world class high jumper and according to teammates an incredibly fast sprinter.
Importantly Russ also knew his role and played it at a high level on the offensive side of the ball. In all likelihood, had he wanted to or had the team needed it, Russ could've developed into a relatively strong scorer. He averaged over 20 ppg on over 50% shooting as a college player. Had that been his focus in the NBA he could've developed this scoring ability. However, he knew that taking a more limited role and empowering his teammates offensively was what was best for winning and he didn't have an ego that necessitated being the man offensively. Russ was all about winning and he did it like no player ever had or ever will.
That thought leads into my last reason for picking Russell at the top. Russell is the ultimate leader and culture developer in NBA history and he did it during the most difficult time to do so during the period of integration of black players where racism was still very prevalent in NBA circles. Culture and leadership especially of the caliber Russell was providing is an absolutely massive value driver and this is a big separator for Russell amongst the other top candidates.
Vote: Bill Russell
My second choice will be for Michael Jordan. To provide a little more clarity on why this is my top two I'll make a broader point about approaches. I think too much emphasis is being placed on just adding up high level season to see who has more. I think people should focus more on who they think was a better basketball player because number of years can be so circumstantial. Changes in era, changes in training/recovery/load management, personal life stability, financial incentives, and so much more outside an individuals control can effect how long you play. But with Mike and Russ we have more than enough sample to see who they were and who they were, in my opinion, are the two most impactful players ever during their primes. The death of a father, the culture around when to leave college, significantly lesser financial incentive, or most ridiculous of all the forcing out of the greatest coach of all time even though it will cost you the best player in the league for the ego of a GM. If it was 2023 Russ almost certainly plays past 34 for the 50 million plus he'd be getting. Are we really going to hold that against him?
Second Vote: Michael Jordan
Nomination Vote: Kevin Garnett
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba