RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #2 (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)

[70sFan]

Hakeem would have been worse in the modern era. His troubles with the Sonics show the illegal defence rules greatly helped him. Duncan never played with that advantage.

"Never" is an overstatement, considering that Duncan won the title during illegal defense era.

[70sFan]

Look at 1979. Kareem has Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, and Adrian Dantley, but his Lakers still lose 4-1 to the Sonics who are remembered as one of the weakest champions in the history of the NBA because he got outscored by Gus Williams. Would Jordan ever fumble the ball in that spot?

Well, a couple of things:

1. Seattle finished the RS with 52 wins and +2.7 SRS. They were the previous finalists that lost the finals in 7 games and went on with another year finishing with 56 wins and +4.2 SRS. Considering that there was significantly more parity in the league back then than in the 1990s, I wouldn't call them weak at all and they had very deep, well constructed roster.
2. Jordan lost against the Pistons in 1988 in 5 games and I wouldn't be so sure that 1988 Pistons were clearly better than Sonics.
3. "Because he got outscored" suggests that it's the main reason why they lost. Why do you think that's the case? How many games from that series have you seen?

[AEnigma]

In regards to Russell

On one hand, I can't even comprehend how a team could be that dominant without the best player in the league hands down. Who wins 8 titles in a row? Nobody else has done 4 in the NBA, they always break down after three at most. In other sports not teams like the Yankees and Canadiens, they top out at 5x in a row dynasties. Their best stretches are 12 in 18 for the Yankees and 10 of 15 for the Canadiens, and those had legit throwaway seasons in those losing years, while the 58 Celtics/67 Celtics had great results also. The Celtics faced the exact existential crisis that prevents all dynasties from going too long, which is eventually teams have to retool with younger less banged up players leading to a transition period like 08-12 Spurs even if they re-emerge later, but they managed to keep winning after Cousy, Heinsohn and Ramsey. The Celtics had the deepest and best coached team in the league, but unless you have someone that dominant, NBA history says you literally CAN'T dominate that much. There is simply no UNIVERSE where the Bad Boy Pistons win 8 titles in a row, they proved why as despite their 2 valiant non superstar titles, they also took some Ls to Bird, Magic, Jordan before and after those years, likewise the 00s version of the Pistons after their title they immediately lost a bunch of times to Duncan/Lebron/Wade/KG. But best comp is probably the 70s Celtics who were also a contender with a great, MVP winner C, but not quite a top 10/20 type guy, and they continued to be a well coached, deep team with some of the same players as the 60s ones, including literally the same guy that was the 2nd most important player on mid-late 60s Celtics (no disrespect to Sam Jones). Like the 60s Celtics, they were smarter than the rest of the league strategy wise with ahead of its time defensive switching. However, the results ended up being a relatively normal, 2x title team, they lost several times to teams not even close to all time greats (72 Lucas instead of Reed Knicks, 75 Bullets who got swept in finals by a one star team), and unlike the Russell teams, they died off as soon as they got old. It seems logical to suggest Russell has to be > Cowens by a lot, despite the fact that Cowens has better offensive stats than Russell, and the way Cowens played D (original KG/Draymond style?) has traditionally been underrated compared to blocking a lot of shots, especially in the pre advanced stats era.

I respect the fact that the voters gave Russell more regular season MVPs than Wilt when that was supposed to be the latter's realm, and that in 1980 on the silver anniversary list they voted Russell GOAT, it was enough time that they could have jumped on Kareem as GOAT. All signs are that they viewed Russell vs Wilt at the time like Brady vs a Manning/Rodgers hybrid (Manning for the losses to Russell and seeming less clutch than him, Rodgers for the weird personality).

All of this sounds great. However, I have a confession to make, it's something that conflicts me in regards to him. I just don't like the eye test for Russell that much. Walton's D in 77 finals stands out more to me. Blackmill went on a limb a few years ago talking about it, and I always remembered it cause a part of me thought he wasn't crazy. Now the footage for Russell is limited and driven by the older version, and maybe he plays differently against Wilt. It's possible the league did improve a lot from late 60s to 77 finals. I did see how the other teams intentionally avoid him on D. Still, I never got the Holy Sht feeling that you would expect for the BY FAR best defender ever to the point where he could be number 1 all time with comparatively weak offensive stats (I will say the eye test is probably better for Russell doing things on offense than his numbers). The only clip where it really felt "right" was watching this Royals clip - but it's just a highlights. Still, you can see the special defensive athleticism.

Watch on YouTube

Now if you removed the EXTREMME level of success, like Russian skywalker clips level of extreme, you could make a plausible case that the media and league got wowed by the crazy blocked shots which is something they continue to do today for blk shot driven defenders like Ibaka over subtle ones like Marc Gasol, and likewise, players like Sanders and Havlicek could have been underrated on D compared to him,. Except for the reasons I laid out, I think it may actually be impossible this is the case, to have THE dominant pro sports dynasty and to repeatedly beat all those elite level offensive players, and to keep doing it with turnover and age, to still be good enough when he's not even in his prime to beat 68 Sixers, 69 Knicks and 69 Lakers? Overall, it doesn't add up, as I said before, he has to be way better than Cowens, the 70s Celtics situation is not that much worse than what Russell had around him, yes it's a little worse (White worse than Jones, depth dies after the top 6 guys or so, albeit the 4th-6th ones like Silas, Westphal, Nelson are pretty nice) but this is also a league thinned out by more teams and ABA, their competition is worse than the mid 60s teams too, eg. look who Celtics had to beat in 76.

With the underlined: I agree.

The 1977 Finals is one of the viscerally impressive individual defensive series I have seen, along with 1994 Sonics/Nuggets, 2003 Finals, 2004 Kings/Wolves, probably the 2004 eastern conference finals (harder to judge because the basketball was naturally ugly lol), and honestly maybe this past season’s Lakers/Grizzlies series.

However, I have not watched a Russell Celtics series in full (or especially close to full) to be able to compare. Nor do I judge players off who had the best defensive series in isolation (you will notice no Hakeem up there). It is possible that with more film I could leave comparatively unimpressed with Russell, but I have no real criticisms of his skillset, his results, or what film I have seen.

For me I am more interested in career consistency. Not to say guys like Dikembe or Duncan or Garnett were inconsistent — but those series I listed are outliers. If those were the only series of them I ever saw, I might be ready to crown them as the true defensive GOATs. And in totality they all have decent arguments anyway, but for Walton, we really only have fourth series plus some effective late career sixth man work. As a defensive peak, I am willing to stack him up against anyone. But do I think he could realistically maintain a career frequency where 25% of his series were as good as he was in the Finals, no.

And on that note…

BTW, I know you're a Duncan fan, and you prefer him over Garnett, but I also know that you consider them quite close and don't mind if someone would rather have Garnett.

So how are you separating them yourself? Do you have Duncan on another tier relative to Garnett, and if so, why?

I have them both in my second tier but at the opposite ends of it (Duncan/Hakeem/Wilt/Shaq/Garnett). It means that I can be convinced to put Garnett ahead of Duncan, but I am comfortable with Timmy being ahead. My reasons:

1. Duncan was substantially better at the beginning and the end of their careers. I think 1998-2000 and 2013-16 periods are in significant favor of Duncan and such edges can create meaningful differences when the gap isn't large.

2. I am probably in the minority, but I consider Duncan to be better, more consistent defensive player than Garnett. I don't think Garnett's versatility was more impactful during their primes than Duncan's immense rim protection.

3. This is a tougher one, but Duncan is more proven at the highest stage. I am aware of Duncan's strengths and weaknesses in the playoffs because he has one of the largest samples in the league history. I have seen him dominating, struggling and dealing with injuries. I haven't seen that from Garnett and it's not his fault, but I value evidences higher than lack of evidences.

4. I don't think there is a substantial difference between them offensively, but I think in less perfect situations Duncan's post game was more robust and allowed his team to focus on other aspects of the game, while Garnett struggled to be a clear centerpiece of offense because of his unique scoring skillset (big midrange scorer who wasn't efficient enough to be Dirk and great post player that wasn't willing to play in the post). This is the weakest argument, because Garnett wasn't really much worse scorer than Duncan, but his scoring style was less reliable in my opinion.

I will echo a lot of this. I broadly agree that my sense for Garnett is he was generally as good as Duncan (arguably better depending on situation), and if someone places them adjacent (with either over the other) because of that, I have no objections. I will also acknowledge that against like postseason opponents Garnett looks comparable and that a significant part of the playoff production gap is a consequence of Duncan having a larger sample against weaker opponents by virtue of regularly earning high seeds. I also think 2003/04 Garnett is one of the all-time peaks, on par with a most of the highest end title peaks.

However, for as much as that is all true, we are judging Garnett off a smaller sample. Duncan nearly doubled Garnett’s postseason minutes, and I would say half of Garnett’s sample is demonstrably post-prime (while still qualifying as part of his extended prime). I have no real criticisms of Garnett, and in that 2003-08 playoff peak, I think he was extremely impressive… never failing to win in a situation where I would expect any player to win… but you know, if we are comparing peaks, I am not sure that quite matches the heights of 2003 Lakers/Nets Duncan, or 1993-95 Hakeem, or 2000-02 Finals Shaq. And hey, like I just said above, that is fine; players are more than their best possible result. However, where we run into sample issues is that expansion does not help him gain any particular ground either — perhaps because of a small sample, but theoretically being able to evidence a better postseason prime with an increased sample is not the same as actually doing it. His prime could be equated to 1970s Kareem without the all-time dominant title. There is nothing wrong with the data aspect of his career, but the results leave him at a disadvantage (even if it is contextually an unfair one).

I will strongly consider Garnett at #9. But to whatever extent there is a gap between him and Duncan, it is because all the names between them gave me more confidence in the stability of their expected postseason. Not Garnett’s fault he lacked the sample size to showcase those high-end outcomes, but he does lack them.

Anyway, thinking about all of this has clarified my vote.

VOTE: Bill Russell
Alternate: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Confidence in stability. All my top three won titles with entirely different rosters (1957 and 1969 for Russell, and 1971 and any Lakers title for Kareem). They won with different coaches: Kareem won with three, but Russell was his own player-coach. However, in their postseason primes, Russell was essentially immaculate, and Kareem was a bit more consistently blemished via those struggles against Thurmond and the Sonics and the pair of missed prime postseasons to potentially add to his sample. And he was great on the Lakers, and great for a large part of it without attributing additional value to Magic, but I do think having so much success tied to another top ten all-time player increases uncertainty.

Hard to go wrong, though, and being a bit higher on Kareem’s defence, or a bit lower on Russell’s, or a bit lower on Kareem’s supporting casts, or a bit higher on Russell’s, all could swing this a different way.

And as a final note: the more recent the year, the more I think era favours Kareem over Russell. To me that does not matter as much in this comparison when Kareem was already positioned perfectly well as an outlier talent in-era, but for anyone taking that cross-era approach, Kareem can easily elevate past Russell.

[OhayoKD]

A quick position - Manu was great from the jump. Pop didn't fully realize what he had that first RS, but by the '03 playoffs we're into early-prime Manu no question in my mind.

And pray-tell what was Manu doing those playoffs that turned him from misused in the RS to "great" in the playoffs? Was it the 1.8 ppg increase in scoring volume(9!!!) on significantly worse efficiency?

Was he secretly a great defender? Did he blossom out as a great passer?

This wouldn't just be based on his playoff on/off would it? Because the Spurs were completely unaffected without him over a much larger rs sample

[OhayoKD]

Great thoughts all around, but I'll just add

In regards to Russell
All of this sounds great. However, I have a confession to make, it's something that conflicts me in regards to him. I just don't like the eye test for Russell that much. Walton's D in 77 finals stands out more to me. Blackmill went on a limb a few years ago talking about it, and I always remembered it cause a part of me thought he wasn't crazy. Now the footage for Russell is limited and driven by the older version, and maybe he plays differently against Wilt. It's possible the league did improve a lot from late 60s to 77 finals. I did see how the other teams intentionally avoid him on D. Still, I never got the Holy Sht feeling that you would expect for the BY FAR best defender ever to the point where he could be number 1 all time with comparatively weak offensive stats (I will say the eye test is probably better for Russell doing things on offense than his numbers). The only clip where it really felt "right" was watching this Royals clip - but it's just a highlights. Still, you can see the special defensive athleticism.

However, I have not watched a Russell Celtics series in full (or especially close to full) to be able to compare. Nor do I judge players off who had the best defensive series in isolation (you will notice no Hakeem up there). It is possible that with more film I could leave comparatively unimpressed with Russell, but I have no real criticisms of his skillset, his results, or what film I have seen.

A limitation of film is that it's much harder to see what happens beyond physical influence. Even if Russell was physically matched, a big-advantage of his comes into the mental side of the game. I don't mean clutch or whatever(though he probably warrants some credit there too), but in terms of...

Watch on YouTube

;t=77s

Watch on YouTube

;t=18s

Russell was a two-way floor-general. He quite literally won back to back as a player-coach. He helped solve the most talented opponent of his era on a schematic level, and predicted what analytics would predict about efficiency and volume decades earlier. That is an advantage he holds over virtually everyone here, including #1 inductee Lebron.

[iggymcfrack]

Look at 1979. Kareem has Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, and Adrian Dantley, but his Lakers still lose 4-1 to the Sonics who are remembered as one of the weakest champions in the history of the NBA because he got outscored by Gus Williams. Would Jordan ever fumble the ball in that spot?

Well, a couple of things:

1. Seattle finished the RS with 52 wins and +2.7 SRS. They were the previous finalists that lost the finals in 7 games and went on with another year finishing with 56 wins and +4.2 SRS. Considering that there was significantly more parity in the league back then than in the 1990s, I wouldn't call them weak at all and they had very deep, well constructed roster.
2. Jordan lost against the Pistons in 1988 in 5 games and I wouldn't be so sure that 1988 Pistons were clearly better than Sonics.
3. "Because he got outscored" suggests that it's the main reason why they lost. Why do you think that's the case? How many games from that series have you seen?

“Considering there was more parity in the league then” is actually another argument in favor of Jordan. You’re basically saying “not only was the league weaker, but the top teams were also consistently weaker relative to the league average” which should have made it still easier for Kareem to dominate. If a team with a 2.7 SRS isn’t a weak champion for the time, then Kareem really had to pick up another ring SOMEWHERE.

And the 1988 Pistons were certainly stronger than the 1979 Sonics. They had an SRS of +5.7, ranked 2nd in defense and 6th in offense. In the playoffs, they had a NetRtg of +4.9 compared to +2.5 for the Sonics and outscored the Lakers by a good amount in the Finals even though they lost in 7. Given the point differentials the Bulls lost by, I think it’s still fair to say they would have lost to the Sonics that year although you’re looking at a very young Bulls team where Pippen and Grant were both rookies and Jordan was still only 24.

I mean I guess saying “Jordan wouldn’t fumble like that” is harsh since Kareem played well against Seattle and Jordan certainly lost some winnable series, but Kareem just had so many opportunities in years with weak competition, it seems crazy he only won 1 before Magic. How about 1974? Kareem’s toughest competition for best player in the world is winning an MVP and a title in another league, the Bucks have the best SRS in the NBA by a mile and they blow the Finals to Boston whose SRS was over 4 points worse as Cowens leads both teams in points and rebounds in Game 7.

It just feels like Kareem’s missing a little tiny something to be in that GOAT tier. Without the kind of impact numbers we have available today, you just kinda have to look at how his teams did and wonder why they didn’t seize the brass ring more. Magic’s such an all-time impact guy that you can’t just be like “yeah BUT he did win 3 rings from 37-40.” That’s great and all and it certainly adds to his case, but I don’t know that it puts him on the same level as Jordan who won 6 rings as THE driving force behind the team.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Michael Jordan
Vote 2 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

As more and more seasons pass and the game evolves, it makes sense that Jordan’s assumed status as GOAT would be tested. I'm sticking with him here, but the decision between Kareem and LeBron for #2 has become tougher. While I'm generally a longevity guy, if I feel the body of work is impressive enough without elite longevity (jordan, magic, bird, now curry) they become the exception to the rule. To be clear, I'm not downplaying Lebron's consecutive finals runs just because he lost in some of them.

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.

The things that stuck out with jordan early in his career was the speed in the open floor, amazing body control in the lane, and of course his overall elite athleticism. However, even at a young age he seemed in control of that skill and continued to hone it with an inside out game, always keeping the defense on their toes.

Taking a look at jordan’s deep playoff runs pre-championship, it was really his teammates who didn’t provide enough support to get over the hump against the pistons.

ECF vs. DET in '89 (6 games): http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1989-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

ECF vs. DET in '90 (7 games): http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1990-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

Jordan was excellent in both series as the main focal point of the defense. As we look at Jordan’s first 3 title runs, he faced formidable opponents in all 3 series, where the lakers, blazers and suns ranked 3rd, 2nd and 3rd in SRS respectively. Jordan continued his elite production (taking it to another level). Be it a great look off penetration to a shooter, a key defensive stop, or a bucket when you needed it most, he had the entire package.

'91 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1991-nba-finals-lakers-vs-bulls.html

'92 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1992-nba-finals-trail-blazers-vs-bulls.html

'93 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1993-nba-finals-bulls-vs-suns.html

Of course, this coincided with his teammates stepping up as well, which is what a superstar ultimately needs to win a championship in this league, even if they’re doing the bulk of the scoring.

People like to claim we don't acknowledge jordan losing to the magic in '95 in his comeback season. Of course we can acknowledge it, under the context that it'd be more significant if he had played a full season instead of 17 games after not playing for over a season. Pointing to him putting up some gaudy numbers here and there in that period doesn't change that.

I do think the fact that he returned to form and even changed his game to still be effective as he aged was rather impressive. The second 3 peat had to take a toll on his body, playing in all 82 games each of those 3 seasons at 38.1 MPG, increasing to 41.5 MPG in the playoffs. While his efficiency dipped somewhat vs. his 1st 3 peat, his overall production was still stellar.

[DQuinn1575]

How about 1974? Kareem’s toughest competition for best player in the world is winning an MVP and a title in another league, the Bucks have the best SRS in the NBA by a mile and they blow the Finals to Boston whose SRS was over 4 points worse as Cowens leads both teams in points and rebounds in Game 7.

It just feels like Kareem’s missing a little tiny something to be in that GOAT tier. Without the kind of impact numbers we have available today, you just kinda have to look at how his teams did and wonder why they didn’t seize the brass ring more. Magic’s such an all-time impact guy that you can’t just be like “yeah BUT he did win 3 rings from 37-40.” That’s great and all and it certainly adds to his case, but I don’t know that it puts him on the same level as Jordan who won 6 rings as THE driving force behind the team.

1974? Cowens and Havlicek at that point might have been 2 of the top 5 players in the NBA, Dandridge was a real good ballplayer, but Oscar was on his last leg; he retired after this series. Celts with Jo Jo, Silas, Nelson, Westphal, and Chaney were so much better than the Bucks.

Mickey Davis and Cornel Warner, neither of whom ever averaged 8 ppg were 4th and 5th in minutes in the Finals.

People forget that Kareem joined an expansion team, got lucky getting Dandridge and Oscar, but then were unable to add anyone else as team drafted high plus ABA. As a result he really had a lousy team after those 2, and by 1974 Oscar was averaging 12 ppg in the FInals playing virtually the whol game. Kareem completely carried the team against a very good one.

In 75, Oscar retires, Kareem gets hurt. Team still might have made playoffs had not their best guard, Jim Price, not gotten hurt.

He then goes to LA, who had to give up 2 starters and 2 top 10 picks to get him. They also had Hawkins, Beaty, and Hairston who all were aging, leaving a 76 team with Don Ford, Corky Calhoun, and Cornell Warner as the forwards. That year Ford scores 9.6 a game, which the highest any of those 3 ever averaged in the league.
In 77 they lose Goodrich, and left with a team with the 2nd best player probably 32 yo Cazzie Russell, who plays the most minutes he has in the last 5 years, and is in the league only 1 more year.

Now in 78 they get AD, Nixon, and Wilkes, but they are 22,22,24, probably fair to call them a year away.

I do think there is a case that 79 underperformed somewhat, but SEA had a pretty good team with WIlliams, DJ, SIkma, JJ, and Lonnie Shelton. Their top 7 scorers in that series all played at least 1 all-star game, and other than Silas were between 23-31.

Kareem def underachieved in 73, and 79 is debatable, but the other years his team was virtually always outmatched until probably 79.

[ZeppelinPage]

All of this sounds great. However, I have a confession to make, it's something that conflicts me in regards to him. I just don't like the eye test for Russell that much. Walton's D in 77 finals stands out more to me. Blackmill went on a limb a few years ago talking about it, and I always remembered it cause a part of me thought he wasn't crazy. Now the footage for Russell is limited and driven by the older version, and maybe he plays differently against Wilt. It's possible the league did improve a lot from late 60s to 77 finals. I did see how the other teams intentionally avoid him on D. Still, I never got the Holy Sht feeling that you would expect for the BY FAR best defender ever to the point where he could be number 1 all time with comparatively weak offensive stats (I will say the eye test is probably better for Russell doing things on offense than his numbers). The only clip where it really felt "right" was watching this Royals clip - but it's just a highlights. Still, you can see the special defensive athleticism.

Now if you removed the EXTREMME level of success, like Russian skywalker clips level of extreme, you could make a plausible case that the media and league got wowed by the crazy blocked shots which is something they continue to do today for blk shot driven defenders like Ibaka over subtle ones like Marc Gasol, and likewise, players like Sanders and Havlicek could have been underrated on D compared to him,. Except for the reasons I laid out, I think it may actually be impossible this is the case, to have THE dominant pro sports dynasty and to repeatedly beat all those elite level offensive players, and to keep doing it with turnover and age, to still be good enough when he's not even in his prime to beat 68 Sixers, 69 Knicks and 69 Lakers? Overall, it doesn't add up, as I said before, he has to be way better than Cowens, the 70s Celtics situation is not that much worse than what Russell had around him, yes it's a little worse (White worse than Jones, depth dies after the top 6 guys or so, albeit the 4th-6th ones like Silas, Westphal, Nelson are pretty nice) but this is also a league thinned out by more teams and ABA, their competition is worse than the mid 60s teams too, eg. look who Celtics had to beat in 76.

I agree with your point of view. Having extensively studied all the available Russell film from 70sFan's archive, I do find his overall defensive abilities impressive, despite fewer 'wow' moments than one would expect for the GOAT defender and some occasional mistakes. I do question whether his defensive dominance, compared to players like Hakeem, Wilt, or Kareem, compensates enough for his offensive shortcomings. The way I look at it, since he isn't on par with other players offensively, he has less margin for error on defense. Consequently, the footage should very clearly depict him as superior to the best of his contemporaries, which I don't personally find.

It's not that Russell isn't phenomenal; it's just that he needs to perform so exceptionally well that it elevates his value above that of other two-way players. However, it's still important to credit Russell for introducing unprecedented defensive strategies and recognize that he didn't have the luxury of studying players and tactics decades before his time. When taking that into account, I could certainly respect why someone might value him as the greatest player ever.

Let me make this clear: I'm not suggesting that Russell wasn't instrumental to the Celtics dynasty. They couldn't have won as much as they did without his defensive abilities, and he unquestionably deserves consideration for the title of greatest defensive player ever. It's just that I don't believe he surpasses certain players defensively by a large enough margin.

And it's true that the league was astonished by his ability to block shots, but keep in mind that the newspapers weren't giving as much credit to Russell over the established players like Cousy early on. Auerbach noticed this and knew Russell was sensitive so he got the team together and convinced them that one writer wasn't going to break the team apart. I think Auerbach would make sure to give Russell his due credit in the media so that he felt appreciated and the league recognized his talents. This meant promoting him more over other players, but Russell's role was not as flashy as scoring points, and it was the key to the success of their team, so it should be praised.

So, how can we reconcile this with the Celtics' dynasty? I believe the supporting cast, after decades, is now somewhat underrated. I mean, the Celtics were quite a few games ahead for 1st place before Russell and Ramsey even arrived, so they were at least a contending team. The majority of the Celtics were defensively sound and could shoulder the scoring burden that Russell couldn't. I've always maintained that while Russell was the linchpin, gaining possessions for his team and limiting them for the opposition, he needed teammates who could score points and capitalize on the possessions he secured--a mutually beneficial relationship between Russell and his team.

[OhayoKD]

Note, doing it all in one go broke the page, so I’m going to snip the first spoiler...(its content was on the bottom half of this post):
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107462472#p107462472

(ahem)


Let me preface this by saying I think your writeup here was really nice. However, as Kareem and Jordan is still largely being framed as a matter of weighing longevity vs peak

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

First, off, there is no "circumstantial" explanation that will bridge this specific gap. Kareem was much, much, much better at basketball aged 18 to 22. He was much much, much better at basketball nearing his 40's. That wire-to-wire superiority is not simply Kareem playing more. He was the better player...at least for that period in his basketball career.

Additionally, I'd say most voters favoring Kareem here see Kareem as close, similar or better during their "primes". And honestly while many people have said Jordan has peaked higher, I would say there has been very little in terms of actually arguing for it.

So, for those who think Jordan was actually "more impactful", I will reiterate what I asked earlier

snip

What makes you think "peak!"(or any) Jordan was "better" than Kareem in his 2nd-year in the league? Kareem led a bigger outlier(with better rs srs, ps srs, and full-season srs) than the 91 Bulls(iow more likely to win a championship), anchored the league's #1 offense and #1 defense, and did so without a schematic equivalent while showing the very next-year he did not need Oscar to be healthy(or even present) for the Bucks to play basketball at a higher level than 1990 Chicago.

I think if you're seriously putting Jordan over Kareem you should have an answer for that one, because in 1972 Kareem gets better, scaling up both his role and his effectiveness in that role while, when a worse version of Oscar was healthy, seeing his team improve(Jordan had to scale down his role and his efficacy improving is questionable if you account for defense). They also scale up in the postseason and outscore a better team than the Pistons(outlier or srs approach) despite Oscar being an injured shell(4 ppg less than what he averaged in the rs). Frankly, it's quite possible Kareem gets even better by 1974 where he leads by far the best regular season team despite both oscar and dandrige both as shells and comes within a game of second championship. That team also ranks extremely high historically when we assess them relative to the field(post-merger suppression goes brr) as opposed to their great raw srs(+2 standard deviation). They would lose to the 1974 Celtics, a bigger outlier than the 1990 Pistons about as competitive as the one Peak! MJ played in with Kareem, a much, much, much better defender also dropping 32/12/5. It bears mentioning that on top of being a guy who could take an average defense and have it improve by 5-points in his second year(and then see it get even better as the personell declined), Kareem was, by the "advanced" creation stuff like oc and passer-rating, was one of the league's best creators, and was a proper candidate for "Greatest scorer ever". Then in the mid-70's he basically does a better version(at least by impact) of the aritifically inflated(remember, I give MJ all the credit for the Bulls improving) "floor-raising" from what is probably his statistical peak(#1 or close in ever box and non-box thing we have) with him replicating the trick in surrounding years. The "worst" mark against Kareem here is 1976, which really, "at least by impact" is a better version of Jordan's 1986 where Kareem still won MVP and put up great numbers(alongside you know, being a way better defender?)

Simply put, again and again and again, Kareem seems to be doing more impressive versions of MJ's best hits with less help, worse fit(I would reference Blackmill's notes about suboptimal playcalling), and a multitude of teammates, coaches, and circumstances. And yet, somehow, we have concluded that actually Jordan was better even though it was also Kareem who was way better early, Kareem who was way better later, and Kareem who sustained their level of play beyond what anyone thought was possible until this project's #1 showed up. As we saw with JE's box-prior, "production" can so very easily be framed in whatever direction one wants it to. Somehow the box-score which put Jordan as a arguable 1 against Lebron swapped to seeing him as a fringe top-5 candidate in his own league!

But that is not "winning", nor is it "impact on winning", and if we are going to make assumptions on what forms of production produce winning, I think those assumptions need to be better thought out. After all the most winningest player ever was not an offensive maestro who accumulated high PER. It was Bill Russell. And while Kareem was not a match for him defensively, I do think it's fair to say Kareem came far closer to resembling Bill than Micheal did, silly DPOYs notwithstanding.

Have to say, it’s pretty shocking that it looks like Kareem might actually win #2. I feel like the consensus was very strong in favor of MJ > Kareem a few short years ago. What’s changed so much? Is it a new focus on longevity (some related to LeBron, some not)? Is it new analytics coming out from the ‘90s picking apart some of Jordan’s minor shortcomings showing that his peak and his defense didn’t match up to LeBron? I can see factors, but I’m not seeing the whole sea change.

"minor shortcomings" seems uh...forgiving. Relative to where you seem to have him, I'd say those "shortcomings" are not minor at all:

Spoiler:

There is very little of what "you" consider impact data but of course you are rather inconsistent with what is "good-faith" running with WOWYR while complaining about much more straightforward "adjustments". As it so happens, "WOWYR" is the one and only type of metric Jordan actually looks "good" in relative to Lebron. Using your standard of what counts as an impact metric we have:

-> Playoff on/off
(Lebron looks better)
-> On/off
(Lebron looks better, 97/98 rank below 17 and 18 lebron years respectively)
-> On+ON/off
(Lebron looks better, 2nd and 5th best regular season teams rank 8th and 11th respectively)
-> WOWY
(Lebron looks better, and Jordan ranks 4th amongst his contemporaries, literally does not matter what you use)
-> Indirect samples(what eminece outlined in the #2), Lebron looks much better
-> AUPM
(Lebron looks better with the exception of 3-year consecutive where MJ is a bit behind Duncan)
-> Squared RAPM
(Lebron looks better in the same set)
-> Full RAPM
(Lebron looks better with the potential for Jordan to close in if his early years score better)

Why don't we start with the large-samples which are not "limited"? We have 82 games telling us the Bulls were a 28-win team in 1984. They were a 30-win team without Jordan in 1986. That team then got better with additions such as oakley. And then, pre-triangle(a scheme that turned the Bulls from a good offense and a below average defense into a historically great offense and a -3 defense over the course of a season), the Bulls peaked at +2 at a 52 or 53-win pace(ben takes the former, eballa extrapolates the latter based on a 28 game-sample after a trade). If we unreasonably give Jordan all the credit for that improvement, out 82-game off sample leaves Jordan at +8.

That is

-> lower lift on a weaker team than what Kareem manages on the 77 Lakers if we ignore they traded significant pieces for Kareem.
-> within range of several kareem marks including when he was a rookie
(note the gap actually becomes quite large when you consider that srs was suppressed post-merger and championship teams of that era ranged from +4 to +6)
-> Dramatically worse than what we see with the same starting rotation(without Lebron) from the 11 cavs who go from 61-wins to 18-wins over a 21-game sample(19-win for the season overall), and worse than what we see over substantial without samples in the second cleveland stint(the most favorable appraisal of the cast gets lebron taking a 30-win team to 60 in the regular season) and small ones for Miami(40 to 60)
-> on the level of what we see with 69 Bill Russell, a retiring player-coach who had just knocked out a gauntlet tougher than any Micheal faced on the Bulls(marginally better replacement fwiw)
-> On par with what we see with 04/05 Duncan through injuries over a substantial sample(he would win a championship in 03 with a weaker version of what he had in 05)
-> On par with multiple substantial samples for Hakeem
-> Worse than substantial samples for Magic


We can also use 94 and 95 where the Bulls(with us inflating 93 by using the bulls full-strength rs-rating) only drop by 5.5-points in the regular season and 2-points in the playoffs making for an overall drop of "5" for the season(this is similar to what we get for 08/09 kg).

We can also look to 86 and 95 and the result remains the same. Over the largest possible samples, Jordan does not look on par with the other major Goat-candidates(Lebron, Russell, Kareem). He also does not gain separation over players he is assumed to be better than including his own contemporaries(magic is consistently advantaged, and Hakeem is competitive in the rs to go along with nigh unrivalled team-level playoff elevation)

If you are looking for the largest sample-sizes, that is what we have. I can make the most favorable assumptions and Jordan still does not reach the same heights as players he is considered comparable with. That is the lede. If you are going to "summarize all the available impact data for Jordan", there's no reason to bury it.

I don't know about you, but for "2nd best peak ever", looking consistently worse than the one candidate we have more data for(gap gets bigger with larger and more inclusive the "off" samples), significantly worse than the other 3 goat candidates, and mostly failing to get seperation over his own contemporaries(consistently disadvantaged vs Magic) seems closer to "major" than "minor" to me.

“Considering there was more parity in the league then” is actually another argument in favor of Jordan.

Absolutely not. Unless you are trying to assess "srs probabilities" instead of "championship probability", how teams compare to the field is far more relevant than their raw srs totals. And that adjustment just makes Kareem's case look stronger and MJ's look weaker. It also does not necessarily indicate a league is weaker. In this case, it indicates the opposite as those lower srs-thresholds occured after the NBA and ABA merged(And Kareem still consistently outvalues Mike).

If you want to dismiss all that because of era, then maybe you should just vote Duncan because the global talent pool grew significantly between the 90's and the 2000's:

Honestly I'm all game for Giannis being voted top 10 for playing in a far more talented league, but somehow I imagine that isn't something you're willing to be consistent with.

He’s literally being compared to Michael frigging Jordan.

Micheal frigging Jordan who has never won without one of the most loaded decks in history? No I do not think Jordan winning more precludes Kareem from giving you a better shot(which "analytics" would suggest he does)

. I don’t know, I’m just not quite seeing it and I think if Kareem’s actually going to win this spot, we should get back to the topic at hand instead of being distracted with Duncan who will be a much more legitimate candidate in the next vote.

True. If only Duncan had racked up better ws/48 and bpm...

1979

Nothing says "tier 1 peak" like comparisons to other players not at their best....

[eminence]

A quick position - Manu was great from the jump. Pop didn't fully realize what he had that first RS, but by the '03 playoffs we're into early-prime Manu no question in my mind.

And pray-tell what was Manu doing those playoffs that turned him from misused in the RS to "great" in the playoffs? Was it the 1.8 ppg increase in scoring volume(9!!!) on significantly worse efficiency?

Was he secretly a great defender? Did he blossom out as a great passer?

This wouldn't just be based on his playoff on/off would it? Because the Spurs were completely unaffected without him over a much larger rs sample

I didn't take you for the sort to be low on low-scoring career long impact monsters for having a questionable impact signal in their rookie season (cough cough Russell).

But to satisfy your curiousity.

Manu was injured from the jump, took December off to recover, came back great and never looked back (apart from a few more stops on the injury express).

And yes, Manu was a great defender his whole career, and great passer is an understatement, for my money he's the best passer in NBA history.

Whether Manu was scoring 9 points or 48, he was always a huge positive for his squad.

[OhayoKD]

And pray-tell what was Manu doing those playoffs that turned him from misused in the RS to "great" in the playoffs? Was it the 1.8 ppg increase in scoring volume(9!!!) on significantly worse efficiency?

Was he secretly a great defender? Did he blossom out as a great passer?

This wouldn't just be based on his playoff on/off would it? Because the Spurs were completely unaffected without him over a much larger rs sample

I didn't take you for the sort to be low on low-scoring career long impact monsters for having a questionable impact signal in their rookie season (cough cough Russell).

But to satisfy your curiousity.

Manu was injured from the jump, took December off to recover, came back great and never looked back (apart from a few more stops on the injury express).

And yes, Manu was a great defender his whole career, and great passer is an understatement, for my money he's the best passer in NBA history.

Whether Manu was scoring 9 points or 48, he was always a huge positive for his squad.

My curiosity was not about what Manu was for his whole career, it is in what manner he became "great" in his rookie playoff campaign.

A 15% ast:17% tov becomes 17%:15%, 7.6 becomes 9.4 with a 3-point true-shooting drop and "early-prime" Many was still at less than 28 minutes. As I've said earlier, I do not like relying on the box-score for cross-player comparisons, but unless there was an unquantifiable decline of some sort, this does not look to me like a player whose just started their prime:

[iggymcfrack]

Note, doing it all in one go broke the page, so I’m going to snip the first spoiler...(its content was on the bottom half of this post):
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107462472#p107462472

(ahem)


Let me preface this by saying I think your writeup here was really nice. However, as Kareem and Jordan is still largely being framed as a matter of weighing longevity vs peak

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

First, off, there is no "circumstantial" explanation that will bridge this specific gap. Kareem was much, much, much better at basketball aged 18 to 22. He was much much, much better at basketball nearing his 40's. That wire-to-wire superiority is not simply Kareem playing more. He was the better player...at least for that period in his basketball career.

Additionally, I'd say most voters favoring Kareem here see Kareem as close, similar or better during their "primes". And honestly while many people have said Jordan has peaked higher, I would say there has been very little in terms of actually arguing for it.

So, for those who think Jordan was actually "more impactful", I will reiterate what I asked earlier

snip

What makes you think "peak!"(or any) Jordan was "better" than Kareem in his 2nd-year in the league? Kareem led a bigger outlier(with better rs srs, ps srs, and full-season srs) than the 91 Bulls(iow more likely to win a championship), anchored the league's #1 offense and #1 defense, and did so without a schematic equivalent while showing the very next-year he did not need Oscar to be healthy(or even present) for the Bucks to play basketball at a higher level than 1990 Chicago.

I think if you're seriously putting Jordan over Kareem you should have an answer for that one, because in 1972 Kareem gets better, scaling up both his role and his effectiveness in that role while, when a worse version of Oscar was healthy, seeing his team improve(Jordan had to scale down his role and his efficacy improving is questionable if you account for defense). They also scale up in the postseason and outscore a better team than the Pistons(outlier or srs approach) despite Oscar being an injured shell(4 ppg less than what he averaged in the rs). Frankly, it's quite possible Kareem gets even better by 1974 where he leads by far the best regular season team despite both oscar and dandrige both as shells and comes within a game of second championship. That team also ranks extremely high historically when we assess them relative to the field(post-merger suppression goes brr) as opposed to their great raw srs(+2 standard deviation). They would lose to the 1974 Celtics, a bigger outlier than the 1990 Pistons about as competitive as the one Peak! MJ played in with Kareem, a much, much, much better defender also dropping 32/12/5. It bears mentioning that on top of being a guy who could take an average defense and have it improve by 5-points in his second year(and then see it get even better as the personell declined), Kareem was, by the "advanced" creation stuff like oc and passer-rating, was one of the league's best creators, and was a proper candidate for "Greatest scorer ever". Then in the mid-70's he basically does a better version(at least by impact) of the aritifically inflated(remember, I give MJ all the credit for the Bulls improving) "floor-raising" from what is probably his statistical peak(#1 or close in ever box and non-box thing we have) with him replicating the trick in surrounding years. The "worst" mark against Kareem here is 1976, which really, "at least by impact" is a better version of Jordan's 1986 where Kareem still won MVP and put up great numbers(alongside you know, being a way better defender?)

Simply put, again and again and again, Kareem seems to be doing more impressive versions of MJ's best hits with less help, worse fit(I would reference Blackmill's notes about suboptimal playcalling), and a multitude of teammates, coaches, and circumstances. And yet, somehow, we have concluded that actually Jordan was better even though it was also Kareem who was way better early, Kareem who was way better later, and Kareem who sustained their level of play beyond what anyone thought was possible until this project's #1 showed up. As we saw with JE's box-prior, "production" can so very easily be framed in whatever direction one wants it to. Somehow the box-score which put Jordan as a arguable 1 against Lebron swapped to seeing him as a fringe top-5 candidate in his own league!

But that is not "winning", nor is it "impact on winning", and if we are going to make assumptions on what forms of production produce winning, I think those assumptions need to be better thought out. After all the most winningest player ever was not an offensive maestro who accumulated high PER. It was Bill Russell. And while Kareem was not a match for him defensively, I do think it's fair to say Kareem came far closer to resembling Bill than Micheal did, silly DPOYs notwithstanding.

Have to say, it’s pretty shocking that it looks like Kareem might actually win #2. I feel like the consensus was very strong in favor of MJ > Kareem a few short years ago. What’s changed so much? Is it a new focus on longevity (some related to LeBron, some not)? Is it new analytics coming out from the ‘90s picking apart some of Jordan’s minor shortcomings showing that his peak and his defense didn’t match up to LeBron? I can see factors, but I’m not seeing the whole sea change.

"minor shortcomings" seems uh...forgiving. Relative to where you seem to have him, I'd say those "shortcomings" are not minor at all:

Spoiler:

There is very little of what "you" consider impact data but of course you are rather inconsistent with what is "good-faith" running with WOWYR while complaining about much more straightforward "adjustments". As it so happens, "WOWYR" is the one and only type of metric Jordan actually looks "good" in relative to Lebron. Using your standard of what counts as an impact metric we have:

-> Playoff on/off
(Lebron looks better)
-> On/off
(Lebron looks better, 97/98 rank below 17 and 18 lebron years respectively)
-> On+ON/off
(Lebron looks better, 2nd and 5th best regular season teams rank 8th and 11th respectively)
-> WOWY
(Lebron looks better, and Jordan ranks 4th amongst his contemporaries, literally does not matter what you use)
-> Indirect samples(what eminece outlined in the #2), Lebron looks much better
-> AUPM
(Lebron looks better with the exception of 3-year consecutive where MJ is a bit behind Duncan)
-> Squared RAPM
(Lebron looks better in the same set)
-> Full RAPM
(Lebron looks better with the potential for Jordan to close in if his early years score better)

Why don't we start with the large-samples which are not "limited"? We have 82 games telling us the Bulls were a 28-win team in 1984. They were a 30-win team without Jordan in 1986. That team then got better with additions such as oakley. And then, pre-triangle(a scheme that turned the Bulls from a good offense and a below average defense into a historically great offense and a -3 defense over the course of a season), the Bulls peaked at +2 at a 52 or 53-win pace(ben takes the former, eballa extrapolates the latter based on a 28 game-sample after a trade). If we unreasonably give Jordan all the credit for that improvement, out 82-game off sample leaves Jordan at +8.

That is

-> lower lift on a weaker team than what Kareem manages on the 77 Lakers if we ignore they traded significant pieces for Kareem.
-> within range of several kareem marks including when he was a rookie
(note the gap actually becomes quite large when you consider that srs was suppressed post-merger and championship teams of that era ranged from +4 to +6)
-> Dramatically worse than what we see with the same starting rotation(without Lebron) from the 11 cavs who go from 61-wins to 18-wins over a 21-game sample(19-win for the season overall), and worse than what we see over substantial without samples in the second cleveland stint(the most favorable appraisal of the cast gets lebron taking a 30-win team to 60 in the regular season) and small ones for Miami(40 to 60)
-> on the level of what we see with 69 Bill Russell, a retiring player-coach who had just knocked out a gauntlet tougher than any Micheal faced on the Bulls(marginally better replacement fwiw)
-> On par with what we see with 04/05 Duncan through injuries over a substantial sample(he would win a championship in 03 with a weaker version of what he had in 05)
-> On par with multiple substantial samples for Hakeem
-> Worse than substantial samples for Magic


We can also use 94 and 95 where the Bulls(with us inflating 93 by using the bulls full-strength rs-rating) only drop by 5.5-points in the regular season and 2-points in the playoffs making for an overall drop of "5" for the season(this is similar to what we get for 08/09 kg).

We can also look to 86 and 95 and the result remains the same. Over the largest possible samples, Jordan does not look on par with the other major Goat-candidates(Lebron, Russell, Kareem). He also does not gain separation over players he is assumed to be better than including his own contemporaries(magic is consistently advantaged, and Hakeem is competitive in the rs to go along with nigh unrivalled team-level playoff elevation)

If you are looking for the largest sample-sizes, that is what we have. I can make the most favorable assumptions and Jordan still does not reach the same heights as players he is considered comparable with. That is the lede. If you are going to "summarize all the available impact data for Jordan", there's no reason to bury it.

I don't know about you, but for "2nd best peak ever", looking consistently worse than the one candidate we have more data for(gap gets bigger with larger and more inclusive the "off" samples), significantly worse than the other 3 goat candidates, and mostly failing to get seperation over his own contemporaries(consistently disadvantaged vs Magic) seems closer to "major" than "minor" to me.

“Considering there was more parity in the league then” is actually another argument in favor of Jordan.

Absolutely not. Unless you are trying to assess "srs probabilities" instead of "championship probability", how teams compare to the field is far more relevant than their raw srs totals. And that adjustment just makes Kareem's case look stronger and MJ's look weaker. It also does not necessarily indicate a league is weaker. In this case, it indicates the opposite as those lower srs-thresholds occured after the NBA and ABA merged(And Kareem still consistently outvalues Mike).

If you want to dismiss all that because of era, then maybe you should just vote Duncan because the global talent pool grew significantly between the 90's and the 2000's:

Honestly I'm all game for Giannis being voted top 10 for playing in a far more talented league, but somehow I imagine that isn't something you're willing to be consistent with.

I mean, honestly the arguments for Kareem > Jordan are more convincing than the arguments for Kareem > Duncan. I’m starting to think maybe I should re-consider moving Duncan up a spot on my list from #3 to #2. He was a lot more consistent winner than Mike and he certainly had a HUGE longevity edge. I guess the only thing that might give me pause is we have actual impact data numbers on Duncan and while very good, they’re not the tippy top you’d expect for a #2 all-time. Oh, and it’s funny you say that to me about Giannis because I literally have him #10 all-time. I think I was the only one who voted him in the top 10 last time there was a group ranking thing a few months ago.

[ty 4191]

Have to say, it’s pretty shocking that it looks like Kareem might actually win #2. I feel like the consensus was very strong in favor of MJ > Kareem a few short years ago. What’s changed so much? Is it a new focus on longevity (some related to LeBron, some not)? Is it new analytics coming out from the ‘90s picking apart some of Jordan’s minor shortcomings showing that his peak and his defense didn’t match up to LeBron? I can see factors, but I’m not seeing the whole sea change.

And honestly, even as I see somewhat persuasive arguments that might make me a tiny bit higher on Kareem than in the past, I still am not convinced he provides the same level of championship equity as Jordan. For much of his prime, Kareem literally didn’t even have to face half the players in the league, and yet when you’d expect him to dominate, he underperformed. How does a greater player than Jordan only get one ring that entire decade? I usually am sympathetic to the player with the weaker supporting cast, but Kareem wasn’t facing the KD/Durant Warriors and we’re not arguing over whether he should be top 5 or something. He’s literally being compared to Michael frigging Jordan.

Look at 1979. Kareem has Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, and Adrian Dantley, but his Lakers still lose 4-1 to the Sonics who are remembered as one of the weakest champions in the history of the NBA because he got outscored by Gus Williams. Would Jordan ever fumble the ball in that spot? A lot of his championship equity came as a literal second banana, and yet, despite playing with Oscar and Magic for most of his career, despite playing in one of the weakest eras for talent, despite playing with much fewer teams in the league on average, he still only matched Jordan with 6 rings. I don’t know, I’m just not quite seeing it and I think if Kareem’s actually going to win this spot, we should get back to the topic at hand instead of being distracted with Duncan who will be a much more legitimate candidate in the next vote.

Great points, and very well stated.

League quality in the 1970’s compared to other decades is something that nobody here wants to- or is willing to- discuss objectively, and comprehensively….

[eminence]

.

Manu got better, I've got him at 80%+ of that best in his rookie season.

I don't remember saying he became great in those playoffs (I double checked, I didn't). I said he was great from the jump, realized I had assumed too high of a baseline knowledge level (I had assumed posters here would be aware of his injury issues following FIBA 2002 - likely Champs in '02 without his injury, may have won MVP over Dirk), and went back to clarify he struggled with injuries to start his rookie season before coming back mid-season. He was great before he ever got to the NBA.

Alternatively: You've convinced me, rookie Manu wasn't great and rookie Russell < near retiree Risen. Duncan for a clear #3 vote and I may have to reconsider my Russell vs MJ/Wilt takes. /s

[OhayoKD]

I mean, honestly the arguments for Kareem > Jordan are more convincing than the arguments for Kareem > Duncan.

Well yeah. The former is a near-slam dunk(that does not mean it is certain, simply I don't see much of an avenue for positive "counter-cases" as far as era-relative impact goes)

The latter is merely "solid"(Jordan's teams did peak substantially higher, his prime was longer, sustained relative separation thanks to expansion, ect)

But I do not see a consistent argument that puts Jordan over both besides "rings in x years" in which case Russell still looms. And I will say, with an era-relative frame, Jordan being "more impactful" than Kareem is borderline indefensible(again, the idea here is not that there's no chance, but that you can't really make the case it's "likely"). And if it really wasn't, I do not think people would bother bringing up 1979 and 1976(which still look better than 85-87, 95, and Washington by the impact).

I’m starting to think maybe I should re-consider moving Duncan up a spot on my list from #3 to #2. He was a lot more consistent winner than Mike and he certainly had a HUGE longevity edge. I guess the only thing that might give me pause is we have actual impact data numbers on Duncan and while very good, they’re not the tippy top you’d expect for a #2 all-time. Oh, and it’s funny you say that to me about Giannis because I literally have him #10 all-time. I think I was the only one who voted him in the top 10 last time there was a group ranking thing a few months ago.

Honestly,

Do you have a reason to think Kareem wasn't already more impactful in his 2nd-year?

I do respect the Giannis-love though

League quality in the 1970’s compared to other decades is something that nobody here wants to- or is willing to- discuss objectively, and comprehensively….

Au contraire, multiple voters have specifically cited the 70's being weak as justification for voting Kareem lower. What I have yet to see is that sort of "objective or comprehensive" justification being used for the 90's relative to more recent players...

[lessthanjake]

I’ve not been someone who mentioned this so far, so others may have more to say on it, but I think there’s very good reason to think of the 1970s as being conceptually different from other decades in terms of talent level. I think most here would generally agree that talent level in the NBA has naturally gone up over time. We can see that in the “Rank the Decades” thread. And I think people mostly aren’t penalizing past players for that very much (unless we go far enough back for Mikan or something), in favor of largely just judging players against their own era. The 1970’s aren’t really the same though, since there was a competing league for a lot of the decade that contained a lot of the best talent. So the NBA had a noted talent dip for a while, even relative to the upwards talent trend that the league has had over time throughout its history. The 1970s weren’t just less talented than the 1980s or the 2020s; it was less talented than the 1960s too. Given that context, I do think it’d be reasonable to say that, even if you simply judge Kareem relative to his own era, we should apply some sort of downwards adjustment on our evaluation of his performances in those years to account for the fact that he was in an artificially talent-deflated league.

[OhayoKD]

I’ve not been someone who mentioned this so far, so others may have more to say on it, but I think there’s very good reason to think of the 1970s as being conceptually different from other decades in terms of talent level. I think most here would generally agree that talent level in the NBA has naturally gone up over time. We can see that in the “Rank the Decades” thread. And I think people mostly aren’t penalizing past players for that very much (unless we go far enough back for Mikan or something), in favor of largely just judging players against their own era. The 1970’s aren’t really the same though, since there was a competing league for a lot of the decade that contained a lot of the best talent. So the NBA had a noted talent dip for a while, even relative to the upwards talent trend that the league has had over time throughout its history. The 1970s weren’t just less talented than the 1980s or the 2020s; it was less talented than the 1960s too. Given that context, I do think it’d be reasonable to say that, even if you simply judge Kareem relative to his own era, we should apply some sort of downwards adjustment on our evaluation of his performances in those years to account for the fact that he was in an artificially talent-deflated league.

[The leagues merged in 19721976. That still leaves 1974 and1977 for Kareem. A year I would scale above 1988(good chance it's mj's statistical peak without the juicing).

It's a fair point, but I do not see how it leads to an advantage for Mike(assuming "era-relative impact" is still the focus)

[eminence]

The leagues merged in 77.

[OhayoKD]

The leagues merged in 77.

Yeah. I was looking at the year it was "approved" by congress.

Were there any ABA teams who would have made for better competition than the wilt-west Lakers or the 74 Celtics?