RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #3 — 1991 Michael Jordan

[IlikeSHAIguys]

1 - 2002 Tim Duncan
2 - 1962 Bill Russell
3 - 1987 Magic Johnson

Weird thing about this vs the retro thing is that you keep putting the same players and years so it feels strange to just write a whole new thing for them. So I guess I'll just say I'm using 2002 Duncan because his stats are better than 2003 Duncan and I feel like the main reason people would say 03 is because he won but I really don't want to be the type of voter who is like well this guy won so he's better.

Some people really can't get over the scoring thing with Russell but 5 MVPs and won 11 titles and his team wasn't stacked for alot of that so I feel like if this is going to be all time peaks he has to be high even though I can't tell you with a straight face I think he'd be that good today or whatever.

Magic is like the opposite of Bill Russell in that he's only doing offense but again he's the most valuable guy somehow and I think you just have to accept that lol. Hakeem's got the two way thing and MJ's got the cool stats but Magic won like 2 MVPs over peak MJ and almost peak Hakeem and even the year he was about to leave was carrying teams to the finals minus Kareem. He had a short career though it's not like his fault but I don't think being forced out of the league matters for a peaks thing. Also don't feel it's that crazy because we did the retro thing and he crushed the 80s.

[Elpolo_14]

Magic is like the opposite of Bill Russell in that he's only doing offense but again he's the most valuable guy somehow and I think you just have to accept that lol. Hakeem's got the two way thing and MJ's got the cool stats but Magic won like 2 MVPs over peak MJ and almost peak Hakeem and even the year he was about to leave was carrying teams to the finals minus Kareem. He had a short career though it's not like his fault but I don't think being forced out of the league matters for a peaks thing. Also don't feel it's that crazy because we did the retro thing and he crushed the 80s.

What is the main components for Magic Above Michael Jordan? Is it offense or play style.

I Know how prolific Magic Johnson is on the Offensive end with his Motor to engine All time offense. His ability to push the pace and Control possession is maybe Goat tier. He is Top 2 best playmaker ever in my Estimation by his passing delivery+risk taking to create High opportunities play or create separate space for his teammates to operate. His translation/fast break game is unstoppable ( might be the best transition offense with lebron as contender ). His ability to play PnR and bounce/lob/overhead/behind the back pass to the roller is elite. Magic still a mid volume high efficiency scorer in 1987 so he is a Threat defense need to be aware of and with his size the mismatch hunting on guard is always guarantee so Magic able to manipulate defense to rotate their system to come cover up magic ( that create Space for The Lakers ).
Magic 87 also a able to translate and be resilience in the playoffs against the Celtics. ( I won't talk about other round cause it was garbage team/defense in weak conférence )

I list as Why Magic is Goat tier offensive player but MJ also fall around in the same ball park as an offensive engine. Just by his Extreme Volume High Efficiency Scoring ability to score against anyone or any kind of defense make the offense reliable and really playoff proof. His ability to create separation to score for himself with his handle+ foot work make offense per possession basis really great. His off-ball threat as a Scorer/playmaking to move in advantage position on court for an easier bucket or to make defense be too focused on him and leave someone else opportunities to make play. He still great playmaker with great passing package and court awareness to find space to pass ball for open teammates combine with his TOV economy can be Valuable ( he not as high risk high rewards so the tov don't say the full story ). MJ in the playoffs also translate really great and his Resilience even uplifted in the 2 last round ( even tho the piston were hurt for the most part )


I do have Magic ( Top 2 ) offensive peak higher than MJ ( Top 4 ) so the offense I can give it to why you might have Magic more in contention but the big difference will fall to DEFENSE.

Magic is a good help defender and to anticipated passing lane. But he terrible to guard on ball / at the prerimeter. Not reliable To be the sole interior defender or even help cleaner because his contest is half ass often he won't even jump. Many occasions in Transition defense he would move out the way of the driver.

While MJ is an elite POA defender because he put high intensity against the ball handler to force him to make bad decision or TOV. Also a great help defender to steal the ball. He not a good sole interior protector either but his help cleaning much better than magic due to his athletic Play. Not really good off-ball but still disturb passing lane like magic. In Transition MJ is more perseverance to slow down opposite team than Magic does.

So when the offense is Close IMO the Gap create by Defense is a huge Factor in the discussion.

What about Magic make him compelling to choose? ( Pls don't say he win 2 MVP over MJ because that isn't a good indicator to say one player is better than the other )

[BusywithBball]

Magic is like the opposite of Bill Russell in that he's only doing offense but again he's the most valuable guy somehow and I think you just have to accept that lol. Hakeem's got the two way thing and MJ's got the cool stats but Magic won like 2 MVPs over peak MJ and almost peak Hakeem and even the year he was about to leave was carrying teams to the finals minus Kareem. He had a short career though it's not like his fault but I don't think being forced out of the league matters for a peaks thing. Also don't feel it's that crazy because we did the retro thing and he crushed the 80s.

What is the main components for Magic Above Michael Jordan? Is it offense or play style.

I Know how prolific Magic Johnson is on the Offensive end with his Motor to engine All time offense. His ability to push the pace and Control possession is maybe Goat tier. He is Top 2 best playmaker ever in my Estimation by his passing delivery+risk taking to create High opportunities play or create separate space for his teammates to operate. His translation/fast break game is unstoppable ( might be the best transition offense with lebron as contender ). His ability to play PnR and bounce/lob/overhead/behind the back pass to the roller is elite. Magic still a mid volume high efficiency scorer in 1987 so he is a Threat defense need to be aware of and with his size the mismatch hunting on guard is always guarantee so Magic able to manipulate defense to rotate their system to come cover up magic ( that create Space for The Lakers ).
Magic 87 also a able to translate and be resilience in the playoffs against the Celtics. ( I won't talk about other round cause it was garbage team/defense in weak conférence )

I list as Why Magic is Goat tier offensive player but MJ also fall around in the same ball park as an offensive engine. Just by his Extreme Volume High Efficiency Scoring ability to score against anyone or any kind of defense make the offense reliable and really playoff proof. His ability to create separation to score for himself with his handle+ foot work make offense per possession basis really great. His off-ball threat as a Scorer/playmaking to move in advantage position on court for an easier bucket or to make defense be too focused on him and leave someone else opportunities to make play. He still great playmaker with great passing package and court awareness to find space to pass ball for open teammates combine with his TOV economy can be Valuable ( he not as high risk high rewards so the tov don't say the full story ). MJ in the playoffs also translate really great and his Resilience even uplifted in the 2 last round ( even tho the piston were hurt for the most part )


I do have Magic ( Top 2 ) offensive peak higher than MJ ( Top 4 ) so the offense I can give it to why you might have Magic more in contention but the big difference will fall to DEFENSE.

Magic is a good help defender and to anticipated passing lane. But he terrible to guard on ball / at the prerimeter. Not reliable To be the sole interior defender or even help cleaner because his contest is half ass often he won't even jump. Many occasions in Transition defense he would move out the way of the driver.

While MJ is an elite POA defender because he put high intensity against the ball handler to force him to make bad decision or TOV. Also a great help defender to steal the ball. He not a good sole interior protector either but his help cleaning much better than magic due to his athletic Play. Not really good off-ball but still disturb passing lane like magic. In Transition MJ is more perseverance to slow down opposite team than Magic does.

So when the offense is Close IMO the Gap create by Defense is a huge Factor in the discussion.

What about Magic make him compelling to choose? ( Pls don't say he win 2 MVP over MJ because that isn't a good indicator to say one player is better than the other )

This is great post. We can discuss impacts but we also have to talk basketball.

[Elpolo_14]

1. Michael Jordan 1991. Picking MJ wasn't too hard for me - deciding on a year was tougher. Like so many of his prime years, 91 puts it all together: led the league in scoring, MVP, First Team All-Defense, Finals MVP. Complete package.

What year was even in your MJ peak contention? I can only think of 89-90 ( he basically the same player with the change in system )because after 92 onward he not the same player anymore especially as a complete player he used to be in 89-91 .

[metta-tonne]

Like I said before…this isn't going to be the most old person friendly list. I think newer players are better

Curry - 2016
2017, 2015, 2022
completely changed the game. goat offense. Letting him shoot isn’t a deal you should take. Underrated handles and a talented passer too. Most skilled player ever?

Giannis - 2021
2019, 2020, 2022
Two-way monster. Best defender and can score 30. You should take that deal. Won a ring with kris middleton and jrue bledsoe. Kris middleton and Jrue Bledsoe. 40 points and amazing defense in the finals

Jordan - 1990
1989,1991

So this one’s to Jordan or Bill Russell. Jordan’s a better deal. Not that I question Bill Russell’s dominance or anything but he’s not going to be the best deal today just playing defense. Like really it’s Jokic for me but okay.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

1. 1991 Michael Jordan

Alternative Years: 1990, 1989, 1988, 1992, 1993 -- Honestly any of those might be the GOAT peak too because there isn't much dropoff but 1991 is just the culmination of everything.

See posts #9 and #14 in the first page of the first thread for why Jordan is my first choice. Those posts are too long to quote on here but basically too many metrics paint him as the best ever to just ignore them IMO.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2468308

2. 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
3. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain

Peak Shaq vs. peak Wilt is a tough choice. Shaq has stronger offensive impact signals than Wilt generally speaking and the gap in scoring is quite noticeable. Wilt could definitely score but his relatively low volume against both Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs is what hurts him here. Both guys are also poor free throw shooters but Wilt is still considerably worse (!). On the other hand, I give Wilt a pretty large edge on defense. And just about every aspect too: better shotblocker, much better lateral movement, better post defender, better instincts, better stamina. It's tough but I go with Shaq by a hair typically just because I see his weaknesses as less pronounced than Wilt's. Take away Wilt's easy baskets and put him on the foul line every time he has a deep catch and you might neutralize him. Peak Shaq was significantly more difficult to neutralize and I think Wilt's defensive edge almost overcomes that but not quite. Push comes to shove, I just think 2000 Shaq is a bigger problem to deal with for the opposing team than 1967 Wilt. And some of it is just Shaq's aggression. It may also be a stylistic difference but for peaks, I prefer players who are #1 options on offense. Wilt was actually #2 to Hal Greer and unfair or not he never led a team to a title as the #1 option. I was thinking of 1964 Wilt over 1967 Wilt but again, his play against Russell was underwhelming and the Warriors were actually a rather poor team that only made the Finals due to being in a weak conference especially with Lakers derailed by West's injury. That year 1964 was just not successful from a team perspective which I don't really fault Wilt for but I also can't give him credit for it.

Nominate: 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon - Hakeem and Wilt are pretty much neck and neck. I struggle with the order of those two even more than with Shaq and Wilt. When it comes down to it, I think they are even in the playoffs (no problem even saying Hakeem a bit better) but Wilt is the much better regular season player and when it's that close, regular season can still put Wilt over the edge.

HM: Bill Russell - Though I believe Bill is the GOAT (he and MJ in their own GOAT tier) I don't think he had any singular season as his peak. 1964 just too poor offensively in the playoffs. 1962 team defense too poor. I feel like he's a guy who had like 10 straight all-time seasons but not a single GOAT-level season. For example I'd comfortably take 1967 (and 1964) Wilt over any version of Russell but Russ probably has 10 of their top 15 seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Responding to 70s post here, and before I do I wanted to acknowledge the context 70s is alluding to from my perspective, which frankly is one where I've been owing 70s more dialogue for a while. He raises good points that I haven't rebutted, and yet I apparently haven't changed my holistic evaluation.

Now, to be clear this isn't stubbornness in opinion on my part. What it is, is an insistence of me forming my evaluations on first principles of my own understanding. I don't do this because I believe I'm somehow the only one who can do this right, but rather because that's my approach generally to developing expertise in a given domain. I absolutely seek mentors who know more than I do, but I don't claim their evaluation on my own simply because I have more confidence in their evaluation than I do in my own.

I don't do this in all walks of my life - there are plenty of things I just pay for, or rely on others to do for me - but if I decide I'd like to understand something better, I have to build that ontology/schema one epistemological step at a time.

As I say all of that, there's a more flexible dimension of my ontology that I do want to make clear exists, and that's about level of uncertainty (which is really a collection of micro-uncertainties, but easier to think about them all effectively integrated together. What 70s done in the past hasn't flipped my Wilt ranking over other players, but it has increased my level of uncertainty. That uncertainty was never zero - it never is - but when I don't rebut a rebuttal to my satisfaction (which to be clear, can involve "agree to disagree") - my uncertainty goes up.

Alright, here's 70s post, and my thoughts - which I'm looking going to be thinking through between typing what I type up here, and I type what I type below:

When Doc starts a discussion about Wilt, I just have to give my 2 cents

However there is the question of how we should think of sustainability when we consider Peak. A focus on a single season makes sense as a definition for Peak is natural based on how the basketball world defines meaning, but if a shift in offensive strategy only lead to massive offensive improvement in one season, and then it goes back mostly to where it was before - which is what our estimates of 1960s ORtg tell us - then I think we have to consider whether opposing defenses came back more committed to dealing with Hannum's strategy than they'd been the prior season, and once they did, the 76er offensive effectiveness went back down to the good-but-not-great levels where it had primarily lived through Wilt's career to that point.

So, I would like to push this back again with the estimates I did on 1967/68 season here:

viewtopic.php?t=2159841

Just a few quotes from this post:

When I looked at gamelogs, I realized that Sixers scored far less in the first 30 games compared to the rest of the season. Here are the numbers:

First 30 games: 117.7 Tm, 111.1 Opp
Last 52 games: 125.4 Tm, 115.6 Opp

I suggested that Sixers slowdown in 1967/68 season was strongly related to Wilt's poor beginning of the season, but it had little to do with his assist hunting or the rest of the league realizing how to guard Sixers offense. Let's take a look at Wilt's numbers in the first 30 games and the last 52 games of the season:

First 30 games: 19.0 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 7.0 apg on 52.4 FG%, 34.7 FT% and 49.1 TS%
Last 52 games: 27.4 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 9.5 apg on 62.8 FG%, 39.7 FT% and 59.0 TS%

Ignoring the error, it gives us basically no difference in pace between these two periods. Using these pace estimates, we can get Sixers ratings in both periods:

Full season: 98.3 ORtg, 91.4 DRtg
First 30 games: 94.9 ORtg, 89.6 DRtg
Last 52 games: 100.2 ORtg, 92.4 DRtg

(...) calculating relative ratings:

Full season: +1.0 rORtg, -5.3 rDRtg
First 30 games opponent ratings: -2.3 rORtg, -7.0 DRtg
Last 50 games opponent ratings: +2.9 ORtg, -4.4 DRtg

The difference in full seasons numbers are caused by different methodology - basketball reference use league average to get relative numbers. I used the difference in average opponent ratings and Sixers ratings. As you can see, Sixers were excellent both offensively and defensively in the majority of the season. Now, if I actually use basketball reference definition of relative ratings and not the one I used, the numbers would look this way:

Full season: +1.5 rORtg, -5.4 rDRtg
First 30 games opponent ratings: -1.9 rORtg, -7.2 DRtg
Last 50 games opponent ratings: +3.4 ORtg, -4.4 DRtg

Bonus!

I also did the same thing to the last 2 months of the season for the Sixers. It was the time when Wilt averaged staggering 11 apg. Some people accused him of being a statspadder and they implied that Sixers offense didn't reach their potential because of that. Let's see what my calculations show:

Last 29 games:

Pace: 125.03
ORtg: 101.7, +4.3
DRtg: 92.0, -4.3

As you can see, no visible reason to believe that Wilt high assist numbers hurt Sixers offense, quite the contrary in fact.

So yeah, the Sixers didn't literally reach +5,4 number they had the season before, but they were still above 100 ORtg for the vast majority of the season and it was the end of the season - not the beginning - when the Sixers peaked offensively with basically identical raw numbers to 1967 ones. It could be a coincidence that it happened just with the period of Wilt's insane playmaking numbers, but it certainly doesn't support that the league adjusted to the Sixers offense, because Philly got BETTER with time, not worse.

Unless you think the first 30 games of the season was more representative to the league adjustment than the last 50 games, I think it's hard to justify this theory. Of course, there is another possiblity - my estimations could just be completely wrong, but even raw numbers support the increase in offensive efficiency.

Alright, so looking to summarize this so I have a concrete starting point:

- If we hypothesize that the fall in the 76er offense success '66-67 to '67-68 was related to defenses gaining comfort with the Wilt-as-pivot-passer model, then shouldn't we predict the offense continuing to get worse with time - or at least not get better? But, 70s shows, the ORtg apparently DOES get distinctly better when we split the data between roughly the first 30 games and the next 50.

- If we hypothesize that the fall in the 76er offense success '66-67 to '67-68 was related to Wilt getting obsessed with leading the league in assists, then shouldn't we predict the offense getting worse when Wilt averages more APG - or at least not get better? But, 70 shows, the ORtg apparently DOES get distinctly better when we split the data between roughly the first 50 games and the next 30.

I'm just going to emphasize again that this is GREAT data sleuthing that I was not aware of when I first developed my model for Wilt's pivot passer offenses trying to explain the one-season-wonder 76er rORtg of '66-67 which stands out so distinctly not just from '67-68, but really Wilt's entire career as the engine of his team's offenses on the Warriors & 76ers.

Of course, what's always tricky - and adds to the uncertainty of the situation - is the fact that we didn't get more years after '67-68 in Philly because Wilt left. More sample in subsequent years would have been really useful in determining what correlations were truly causal, and which were not.

I'm also going to note the role that '68-69 has had in shaping my thoughts on Wilt's 76er years, and I'm actually going to put it in bold because it's something that if 70s or someone else could explain better, it could go a long way for me in terms of deciding that another estimation of Wilt's capacity is more likely than what I've previously settled upon:

The fact that the 76er ORtg literally didn't fall after Wilt left (and in fact the rORtg improved) has always made really hard to believe that Wilt was actually have that massive of an impact on offense in '67-68.

But I'm not going to focus on '68-69 here because I want to swim in the same waters as what 70s is actually bringing up - the splits of '67-68.

First thing I need to point out is the slipperiness of using different splits in the same interval to make reinforcing arguments. It makes sense why 70s did it because he's actually rebutting two distinct arguments that I and others have made int he past, but I want to be careful how I consider my splits as I get a handle on things.

As I look at Wilt's Splits page on b-r, here's what stands out to me:

1. Wilt does both more scoring and more assisting Post All-Star.
2. Wilt does both more scoring and more assisting in Wins.
3. There is a HUGE spike in PPG between Oct-Nov (14.8 & 17.3 PPG) & December (30.5 PPG), which is then followed by 26.1, 24.8 & 268.8 in the last 3 months.
4. There's also a clear trend toward Wilt getting more and more efficient as the year goes on (starting at 47.2% in Oct and ending at 63.9% in March.)
5. When we look at Opponent based splits, there are 2 teams that are drastically different from the rest:

Against Boston, Wilt scores 17.1 PPG on 44.9% TS.
Against San Francisco, Wilt scores 17.3 PPG on 45.5%
(Remember that his season averages were 24.3 PPG on 55.7%.)

Okay then, the 3 inquiries that brings up to me are:

a) How does that Calendar split between Oct-Nov & the rest of the year look by team success measures?

b) How does that Opponent split between Bos/SF & the rest of the league look by team success measures?

c) How do these various factors differ between '66-67 & '67-68?

I'm going to look at all of this, though I'm going to stop short of doing intense calculations due to time constraints - I welcome 70s or others to do them.

Calendar split:
Oct-Nov: 15-7, and looks like the average team PPG in that time was maybe 117.
Dec-Mar: 47-13, and looks like their average team PPG in that time was maybe 124.

Definitely significantly stronger after the split, which again, came with Wilt's major increase in scoring.

I should also note, that record & PPG increase further in the Feb-Mar range, which was one of the splits 70s looked at.

Opponent split:
Against Boston: 4-4, and scores 112.8 PPG.
Against San Francisco: 4-3, and scores 116.6 PPG.
Against Others: 54-13 (keep in mind season average was 122.6 PPG, so against Others must have been much higher).

Okay so, this stark difference between Wilt's scoring against Bos/SF compared to all other teams I think has to be taken as very noteworthy given that we know that these teams were anchored by Bill Russell & Nate Thurmond respectively who were universally acknowledged to give Wilt problems, and in fact it's often put forth that as Wilt became obsessed with his FG%, he specifically avoided taking shots against tougher defenders (Thurmond being the most notable one as Russell retired).

There's no obvious skewing of the calendar with Bos/SF during the early part of the year, so these two phenomenon seem distinct.

However, it would be nice to see specifically how Wilt did against Russell & Thurmond in Feb & March where he seems to have been in peak form I think.

The most problematic think I note, which I didn't recall, was that Thurmond was injured in January of that season, and so didn't play in the 3 February games the 76ers faced the Warriors. This also means, that 3 of the 4 wins against SF this season didn't involve Thurmond, so I believe Thurmond's Warriors were 3-1 against Wilt's 76ers for the season.

Against the Celtics in March (they didn't play in Feb):

March 3rd: Wilt 17 pts, 22 trbs, 8 asts, Phi 133, Bos 127
March 8th: Wilt 13 pts, 24 trbs, 10 asts, Phi 101, Bos 96

So, we're back to Wilt scoring a really low amount (15 PPG - and on <50%) like at the start of the year, but now the Warriors are winning. I'm not going to deep dive it, but I note that Hal Greer scored 70 points over the two games racking up 36 free throws, and that's really something and not normal for any player, but I'd want to emphasize that it's definitely not what Greer did in an average game against an average opponent, and certainly not what Greer did on average against the Celtics, but it does seem that Greer specifically got to the free throw line more against the Celtics than other opponents, which warrants further conversation.

While I'm here, the fact that the 76ers would later get eliminated by the Celtics, makes sense to speak to, and with regards to Greer we note this trend of Greer seeming to be called to take on a higher primacy than normal when Wilt faces Russell.

We also, when we see the playoff series unfold, see the scores get lower, with Philly scoring at least 110 in each of the 4 games, but less than that in the last 3.

There's much discussion about how to interpret the Celtics come back here, but just on the face of it, it feels like two defenses tightening their respective, collective grips, and the Celtics being able to tighten there's further.

Finally moving back to '66-67:

When I look at Wilt's Calendar splits, I don't see dramatic change over the course of the season.

When I see do see Wilt doing his worst as a scorer against Bos/SF but it's not nearly as bad as '67-68.

Against Boston, Wilt scores 20.1 PPG on 53.2% TS.
Against San Francisco, Wilt scores 20.7 on PPG on 53.7%
(Remember that his season averages were 24.1 PPG on 63.4%)

But note that all of those efficiencies look better than '67-68, and in fact each of them look at about 10% better.

When we look at the team perspective:

Against Boston: 4-5, and scores 110.9 PPG.
Against San Francisco: 7-2, and scores 131.3 PPG.

Here I'll stop because we have a stark contrast between the Celtics & Warriors here. While the Celtics appear to have been way more effective than the rest of the NBA both years, the Warriors only reach that level in '67-68...despite their defense being less impressive overall by DRtg (though Thurmond did miss more time in '67-68).

I think it's worth studying what specifically happened with the Warriors on their journey against Wilt, but I'm going to stop here for the time being.

a. I don't actually think Wilt was that great of a passer. I think great passers don't get tunnel vision as they work their scoring bag, and the reason why Hannum needed to change Wilt's role was because defenses were able to count on him not recognizing the gaps they left open as they committed everything to stopping the team's standard attack of getting the ball to Wilt on the interior, and then letting him go to work.

The fact that I just don't think Wilt was ever a great passer to me says any offensive scheme that focused on him playing as a passing pivot had a limited shelf life in any era of basketball, and if teams back then had access to the analytics we do now, they've have adapted quicker and it may well have kept the 76ers from winning that lone title.

I often hear your criticism of Wilt's passing, so I wonder how you'd rate him among the other high volume scorers and creators at the center. Of course he's below Jokic, but how would you stack up him with Kareem, Walton, Moses, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Duncan, Embiid? That would help me understand your point of view a little better, so I'd appreciate that!

Well, so first and foremost, when I knock his passing, I'm doing so based a standard of ideal decision making, not comparing him to other giants who are primarily not in the league for their decision making ability. I'd note that most of the guys you mentioned were never used as pivot passers the way Wilt was (Jokic & Walton being the obvious exceptions), and so the arguments for their success aren't typically focused on their passing.

While the oldest Wilt arguments weren't about passing either - 50 PPG!!! - to me the last two years of Wilt's Philly career are, because he's being used as a pivot passer, which begets a naive explanation of "He was the GOAT scorer and even better as a passer".

To which I'd generally respond a) you get easier passing options when the defense expects you to shoot, b) but eventually they should find the new equilibrium, and c) while this may not drag down the effectiveness back initial levels, we should expect there is some regression to the mean as opponents adjust.

This of course leads me - perhaps prematurely to think that we were seeing signs of this in '67-68.

There's also an eye test component of this for me that came in conjunction with the conclusions I previously drew, and here I'll readily admit to small sample size theater.

I remember watching that 1970 Game 7 against the Knicks just be astounded at how flawed Wilt's game seemed to be for reasons completely separate from physical injury. And while I was struck by this on a number of levels, the most mundane one was just his tendency to simply give up trying to score late in the shot clock, and pass the ball back out to the guards to make something happen. To me, scorers who are great passers should be making attacking passes as a matter of course when the defense puts too much pressure on them, and this has been a thing known for over a century, so it's not a "they didn't know better back then thing".

I just think that most volume scorers get tunnel vision that allow defenses to effectively "cheat" by identifying that the scorer is no longer thinking about whether a teammate has a better shot, and Wilt was among them.

I'd also note that a good chunk of the guys you listed above are guys who I wouldn't be looking to volume score with in the absence of illegal defense rules. I know it's super unpopular among the PC board to say, but I wouldn't generally recommend built your offense around Tim Duncan at all, so it's less a question of whether we'd use his scoring more or his passing more, but how he can help as a role player. (To be clear, not saying Duncan was the worst of the bunch, but I just know that it's a place where I've had a lot of dialogue with people seeing me as anti-Duncan, when what I really am in general is against low post volume scoring once you've got players who can be proficient running the offense further from the basket. It's not that it's never worked in the past, but I think that it's something that wouldn't have worked well enough if either a) the NBA had recognized the need for a pace & space paradigm shift as soon as rules allowed for it in 1980 or b) the Illegal Defense rules implement from the '80s to early '00s never saw the light of day.

Okay, let me stop now and just try to boil down where I am right now:

1. I do think that Wilt's 76er offense got considerably better over the course of '67-68, and this makes it hard to argue that something like Wilt chasing assists was some kind of major deleterious factor.

2. However, we should note that in '67-68, if anything, there appears to be greater correlation between Wilt's scoring and team offensive success than in his assists, which means that the narrative of "The team did better when Wilt scored less" is clearly over-simplistic.

3. But, when Wilt starts scoring more, he's still not shooting at a rate like he did for his prior career, and in general, I feel like the correlation here is indicating that there's a sweet spot between Wilt being scoring-oriented and passing-oriented that is ideal... and I should note that when I talk about great passing, the very best guys seem to be able to find that sweet spot instinctively, and that instinctive capacity had a HUGE influence on team offense in the days before modern analytics (still big today, but more likely to get corrected by coaching staff), and it's why you have people who debate the better passer between Pete Maravich & Magic Johnson based on their flashy highlights, but one was fool's gold and the other one was a champion.

This then to say, I see Hannum repeatedly aiming to pull Wilt toward the sweet spot and having a good amount of success in outcome, but never being able to have Wilt just grok it from there on out.

4. The splits against the Celtics & Warriors seem like a really big deal to me as they seem to be indicating that even if not all opposing defenses were able to adjust affectively to Wilt, the teams with the right talent to counter did get better at dealing with Wilt in his new role, and while this didn't mean the 76ers could never win another championship with that team, I do think it means that all the Wilt-centric offenses we saw on the 76ers & Warriors could be gummed up in a way that's harder to do against offenses led by some of the other all-time greats.

[Doctor MJ]

My voting post here is the same as my #2 as none of those on my ballot were selected.

Vote:

1. 1991 Michael Jordan (> 1996 > 1992)
2. 1964 Bill Russell (> 1965 > 1962)
3. 2017 Steph Curry (> 2016 > 2015)

Okay first, I'm going to include my #1 vote in spoilers which has reasoning for Jordan & Russell:

Spoiler:

Vote:

1. 1991 Michael Jordan (> 1996 > 1992)
2. 2016 LeBron James (> 2013 > 2009)
3. 1964 Bill Russell (> 1965 > 1962)

So my perspective here is going to be looking to deal with era differences basically in-line with the respect I give it in the Career project.

In that project, people may recall that my top 3 was the same guys, but in the opposite order. So why the flip?

Well, career-wise, LeBron's staggering longevity gives him the clear advantage over Jordan.

And meanwhile, I consider Russell's total career, as the ultimate paradigm shifter in basketball history and most dominant team success over an insane duration, to be unmatched in basketball history.

But while Russell's career amounts to more than the other guys, it's more about that sustaining dynasty than it is really about a season vs season argument, and there are bumps in the road for Jordan & LeBron that are causing them to fall behind Russell's career that just aren't relevant here.

Before I leave the Russell discussion though, I'll speak to two things:

First, the years. To me, that first year without Cousy ('63-64) is Russell's signature. Other than the following '64-65 I don't really have any debate here for the top spot. After those years, I'd tend to go with the 2 immediately prior years (Cousy's last 2), simply because I think Russell was at the peak of his powers in this time frame (age 27-30). I don't know where the swan song '68-69 would be on my list honestly. Huge accomplishment to win that chip, and we shouldn't pretend Russell wasn't critical to it, but he was more limited by that point than he was a few years earlier.

Second, it's a bit too convenient for me that OP suggested a 3-man ballot given that it kinda allows me to avoid (for now) debates between Russell and guys I'm voting Russell ahead of. Those debates will probably be frustrating given that I don't believe Russell is the 3rd best talent for the modern league with that all important painted arc.

Okay, I'm going to head over to LeBron next to talk about how hard it is to pick seasons for him.

I would consider 2009 LeBron's regular season to be arguably the GOAT regular season, and it is certainly his best regular season, but despite the fact that I think he could have easily won a chip in that first Cav stint, I do also think that LeBron became a more resilient playoff performer in the years after.

I would say that 2013 LeBron shows us a new bulletproofed-Bron who has spent his time in Miami working hard to change how he plays to get better at playing with other on-ball talent, with a major part of this involving setting a defensive tone that required a ton of energy and commitment. I would say this probably represents LeBron at an apex of capacity. Extremely good physical shape, working hard constantly on both sides of the ball, figuring out how to work best with a team that has different needs from his Cavs.

Then you have 2016 LeBron where he gives his signature playoff run, toppling the 73-9 Warriors to win the title. While he didn't give the whole season defensive focus he did in the past, his 2-way impact was devastating in critical moments during that run. Offensively, I would say that part of what's going on is that he had better fit in Cleveland again. He chose to go play with Wade, and because that wasn't actually a great move synergistically, they both hade to learn a lot to make it work, which was impressive...but it was nice to move forward with a star guard who could shoot well from range, for example.

In the end, I sided with 2016, but part of what I want to emphasize here is how amazing it is that it's so hard to judge these different years, and what that says about LeBron's ability to keep adjusting how he played to remain an outlier for a very, very long time. Say what you want about LeBron, being his rival generally didn't mean getting more and more effective playing against him, but watching him figure out new ways to leverage his vast physical bag to beat you again.

But in the end, I'm still a believer that there was something distinct to Jordan's focus over the course of particular seasons to push his team to the brink. I also believe that part of what allowed him to do this was a bullying-form of leadership that we know including him throwing unprovoked punches to teammates, and yeah, there's a part of me that would like to normalize for this positive/negative in some way...but if we're just talking about the success of a season, Jordan to me still seems like the king though I think that the way he drove his teams probably did reduce their shelf life.

Now, I went with 1991, but was tempted for 1992 & 1996. I think that effect of the Jordan drive is probably best seen in those years rather than the 1991 breakthrough, but aside from the fact that I think Jordan was the peak of his overall capacity before the 1st retirement, there's also the matter that the actual breakthrough is important in my eyes.

It's understandable why people choose years like 1988 as Jordan's best given that Jordan was at his "Most Air Jordan" in that time frame. But I'm extremely impressed with the way Jordan adapted to Phil Jackson's Triangle. Had Jordan been either unable or unwilling to change to this more read & react style, it would have backfired, and Jordan would have likely been doomed to be that guy who people swore "Would have won it all if they could have given him good teammates?"...but of course, he'd have had the same teammates, he'd just not be able to make as good of a use for them as he could in a system like the Triangle.

Perhaps oddly, the fact that Jordan lacks the off-the-charts floor generalship of LeBron made something like this necessary for Jordan, but then because he embraced it, I believe it enabled Jordan's Bulls best years to blaze through with a level of consistent proficiency that I'm frankly in awe of.

If you asked me to name one team in NBA history as "Most ready for battle", I'd have to go with those Bulls coming with such an unusual level of intensity given their stature.

So why am I siding with Curry for the next spot?

Well, first let me emphasize again that I'm trying to use a criteria that focuses on separation from contemporaries only adjusted for my perception of how good the NBA was at that time.

Then key point: This last decade in the NBA is like nothing that came before except arguably the NBA's first decade in terms of rapid change in performance. While I think any discussion for the Pace & Space era needs to begin by focusing on Colangelo/D'Antoni/Nash in Phoenix, the reality is that the NBA treated this innovation like a gimmick and insiders convinced new Suns owner and non-basketball man Sarver to give up on it with that legendarily bad Marion-for-Shaq deal (which was done by GM Kerr and we shouldn't forget that, but I've never been under the impression that this was Kerr's idea, and of course Kerr ended up choosing not to sign an extension as GM, which I don't think he'd have done if he felt he had true control of basketball operations).

This then to say that while I tend to start the history of the Pace & Space era in '04-05, the NBA didn't actually change that much in the next decade. It wasn't until the Warriors won the title that the paradigm shift actually took place. To tell that story with league average stats:

In '04-05 the league average was 15.8 3PA/g.
In '14-15 the league average was 22.4 3PA/g.
In '24-25 the league average was 37.6 3PA/g.

Obviously 3's were going up this whole time - and going up prior to '04-05 - but the craziest growth happened in this past decade.

Even that undersells how the league has been changing in the past decade though because the biggest shift in how coaching staffs worked wasn't simply about embracing pace & space, but about making use of data - and especially video - to micro-analyze everything every other team was doing, and it's really in this era where you start getting major shifts in Xs & Os in something close to "real time" and you start getting playoff series coaching chess matches like never before.

All this then to say, judging players from the past decade against "contemporaries" has never been trickier because things that made you an outlier one year quickly began getting coopted by the entire league like never before, and it's not hyperbole to say that teams from 5 years ago would be completely outclassed by teams now for reasons that really have little to do with improved basketball talent pool (which is a real phenomenon, but it's not improving THAT fast compared to NBA strategy).

I think then it's right to remember the player at the epicenter of this phase transition, Steph Curry, and - if you're looking at it with my criteria, which of course no one is under any obligation to do - not to simply compared '20s Steph to other '20s players. He's one of the great players of this decade still, but it was the '10s were he had the greatest separation from his competitors.

I'm going to start with something visual. Here's a graph from ElGee that shows the greatest positive outliers in On & On-Off among 5-year peak samples.



(crap, it's not showing up. Trying to post from my Google Drive, open to suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong)

When (if) you see the image what you''ll see is this:

1. There's one dot way ahead of everyone else in On with +16.6 while no one else breaks +15, and that's Curry '15-19.

2. There are two dots way ahead of everyone else in On-Off with values in the +19 to 20 range with no one else breaking +15, and those dots are Curry & Jokic (who believe me, I gave strong consideration to here).

Now of course, this is a Peak project not a 5-year Prime project, but I think seeing the multi-year range for Curry is critical specifically because his peak RS ('15-16) has the playoff disappointment. The narrative after the 2016 finals into the new superteam with Durant was basically that Curry wasn't "all that" and needed more help to beat all comers. Of course "all comers" includes LeBron and all of this was happening at a time when the LeBron vs Curry debate was extremely heated, but of course, LeBron already got voted in here so let's make sure we don't let that anchor us too much as we now can look back with a less myopic focus.

While I wouldn't be making a case for anyone just based on the regular season, I think the fact that Curry was so regularly putting up insane numbers like this consistently over 5 years is not something anyone should brush aside. This is dominance, pure and simple.

The arrival of KD in GS complicated all of the analysis of the key Warriors, and there's more to cover in that than I intend to try to do here. The first thing I'll say is that I actually think both Steph & KD (as well as Dray for that matter) got underrated relative to what they accomplished in '16-17 when they created the greatest team in pro sports history but collectively got less MVP Shares than Isaiah Thomas. I'm sure it would have been different if '16-17 had been the year they broke the RS win record, but again as we look back from 2025, do any of us actually care that they didn't? I'm skeptical. All this to say, I don't want my post to be primarily seen as some kind of anti-KD thing. KD arriving on the Warriors created the GOAT team, and being on the GOAT team is a big deal which he deserves pretty major credit for.

But, all the impact favors always favored Curry over Durant as teammates. Consider:

In the Curry-KD years, the Warriors played 31 RS games with Curry without KD. They went 27-4 with +12.4 MOV.

Meanwhile, the Warriors played 40 games with KD without Curry. They went 23-17 with a +0.1 MOV.

In the playoffs such comparisons get tricky because Curry's missed games came early in the playoffs while Durant's came later in the playoffs. As always, the issue of sample size in the playoffs isn't primarily with the small number of games, but the small number of opponents.

But I always think it's so critical to remember what Curry did a) before KD was a Warrior, b) after KD went down injury against the Rockets in '18-19, and of course c) the fact that Warriors did come back and win another title after Durant without adding another superstar.

Moving over to the Steph & Dray relationship, which has to be addressed: The fact that the Warriors had not one but two transformative players emerge at near the same time has confused the analysis and led to a tendency to use the goodness of each against each other. But I think we have to remember that because one is the offensive star and the other is the defensive star, and we have access to PBP data, we have plenty of evidence that neither is the product of the other (though Dray clearly has a tendency to mail it in when games aren't meaningful for contention, as we saw most dramatically in Curry's major injury year).

So yeah, I think Steph was the Offensive Player of the Decade while Dray was the Defensive Player of the Decade, and that's why the Warriors' dominated the decade. I don't want to give all that credit to Steph and not his teammates, and further I have tried to earnestly, repeatedly ask the question of whether Dray was actually the MVP of the team - I don't want to assume the offensive guy is better - but to me Steph has always come out ahead.

While I'm on the topic of the emergence of these two guys, I'll emphasize that from my perspective, Curry's breakout came during '12-13 rather than '14-15, whereas Dray (and Klay) broke out in '14-15. Because Steph played in such an unusual rover style once Kerr arrived as coach, and that's also when they started winning chips, many have talked about Steph as a product of a system, but this gets things wrong.

The reality is that Curry had broken the 3P record in '12-13, and while his impact indicators weren't clear until '13-14, a good contingent of us saw what was emerging in '12-13 and were not surprised when he looked like a clear cut impact superstar in '13-14. The most impressive thing about Curry in '14-15 was arguably not the fact that his impact went up further (though it did), but that it happened with Curry forced to play very differently from what he'd done the prior year. His eager, adroit adoption of what his new coach wanted was remarkable, and it's what enable Kerr's system to work so well for other players who hadn't been able to break out under the previous coach (Jackson).

Okay, piggy-backing off the 3P record, I think a critical thing to understand about how Curry changed the NBA is the fact that leading the league in 3-pointers used to be a fringe thing. The 3 previous 3-point champs were Ryan Anderson, Dorell Wright, and Aaron Brooks, none of whom were ever NBA all-stars let alone MVP candidates.

In the time since, we've only had 4 3-point champs:

Curry, 8 times
Harden, 3 times
Klay, once
Ant, once

The only one of those players that wasn't seen as a superstar when he did this was Klay, and we should note that Klay averaged less 3P/g and lower 3P% than Steph in that season, Curry just missed games to injury.

Curry is thus responsible for turning this particular category of statistical champion from a minor thing to a major thing.

Okay, zooming back out a bit:

The fact that Steph Curry is arguably the most influential player since Bill Russell doesn't mean he was the best player since Russell or in his own era (LeBron), but it does strike me as very relevant to the Peaks question when we see such huge indicators of both Steph's specific dominance as he was causing the paradigm shift, and this makes him a logical next choice in my assessment.

I feel like like I'm specifically going to be revisiting the Curry vs Jokic Peak conversation quite a bit in the years to come, and frankly as I do, I'll revisit Jokic vs Jordan/LeBron/Russell/etc, but for this time around I'm going to side with Curry.

Let me also specifically bring up Curry vs Magic. I consider to this point Magic to still be the 2nd best player classified as a guard in NBA history (behind Jordan) over Curry from a career perspective, despite the fact that Magic's career effectively ended at age 31, and Curry was still going strong next year at 36. It's weird that I'm siding with Steph for peak given that he also has longer longevity and yet I don't favor him for career in the Magic debate. So what's the explanation?

Well, Magic had one of the best starts to a career we've ever seen, while Steph took longer to take off. In my personal POY, I have Magic as a Top 5 player in all 11 seasons in which he played nearly the whole season, whereas I have Steph as a Top 5 player in 9 seasons. The fact that Magic was 11-for-11 puts him up there only with Russell (13-for-13) as guys who were just always having seasons on that level, and I consider it a really big deal.

Nevertheless, I believe the separation the Chef achieved when he really started cooking was even more extreme despite being in a more advanced era.

Last, why the years in question? Well, I'm choosing to win/place/show those first 3 years when he broke out as a consensus NBA superstar because that's when I believe he achieved his clearest separation. This is something we can see pretty cleanly in his 2 MVP seasons which are also his 2 years with 300+ TS Add, and also the last two 300+ TS Add seasons we've seen (though Curry did play at pace by game to break that threshold again in subsequent years). '15-16 of course stands out the most with that +454.7 TS Add that has only ever been topped by Kareem ('72).

Okay this explains the two MVP years, but why do I have the next year first when a) he didn't seriously challenge for the MVP, and b) he had it "easy" with KD next to him?

Well, I go back & forth. We can all agree that '15-16 was Steph's best RS but not anywhere near his best PS. Part of Steph's issues at the time were about him needing to get into better shape (cardio & strength) to be able to stand up when a playoff opponent like LeBron targeted him over and over again and wore him out, but also part of what was going on in the 2016 post-season was injury issues for him after a regular season where the Warriors went all out to break the Bulls' 72-10 record.

There's a part of me that wants to "average out" Curry's play across the '15-16 season season and say it was still his best, but in modern NBA culture the playoffs are king and so injuries in that time period can't be ignored, and as I've talked about with guys like LeBron & Kareem, I do think they figured out way to be more bulletproof in the playoffs AFTER they struggle against particularly tough playoff opponents. Because of the arrival of KD, it's impossible to know exactly when Steph put on that bulletproof vest, but I think we know that he devoted himself to that process in the 2016 off-season.

And then there's just the matter that in '16-17, Curry:

a) Welcomed an extremely insecure diva on to his team, and let that diva do his thing even though it meant hurting his personal stats and accolades.

b) Specifically had the greatest season +/- we've ever seen by both all-season & post-season (regular season is still topped by Dray & Steph from '15-16) with all the indicators favoring him over said diva.

It was understandable at the time to be cautious about giving Steph specifically too much credit for the success of the super-team, but not do the data points still stand out looking back in 2025, we've also seen him be able to repeatedly get back into alpha volume scoring mode in the years since, and so we know any notion of him "taking a step back" with the arrival of KD wasn't about a decrease in his own capacity, it was simply about what his team needed, and he was happy to make that sacrifice for the good of the team.

Eh, one more note: With me mentioning Kareem leading the all-time season TS Add, it does raise the question of whether I should be choosing Kareem here. He had that going, plus high quality defense, so how is that not the greatest separation ever? Is the preference for Curry simply about the assumption that the quality of the league was getting that much better?

Only partially. The other thing for me is that it bugs me that Kareem didn't seem to have transformative impact as a matter of course all through his prime. Sure there's bad luck involved, but BBIQ is also a thing, and there, while I wouldn't say Kareem was poor, I do think that his offensive impact was always really about waiting for teammates to get him the ball in a sweet spot, and as with other bigs with that requirement, this gave the defense the opportunity to gum up the works. It's no small thing that Kareem had a shooting ability that extended out extremely well to even beyond 10 feet - which gives him a major advantage over bigs who had to be closer to the basket, but it's still quite limiting compared to a player who terrified defenses 30 feet away from the basket.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I'm just going to say something. I know full well it's not going to get any traction here, because he's never made any of the previous peaks lists here - which shouldn't surprise me given the difficulty in getting any of the pre-shot clock guys outside of Mikan their due in here but nonetheless strikes me as a bit astounding in an era-relative context - but I'll say it anyway.

In 1955-56, Paul Arizin recorded the following:

24.2/7.5 on +6.8 rTS in the regular season
28.9/8.4 on + +7.2 rTS in the playoffs

So, one of the best scorers and rebounders(for his position) in the regular season, and then rises in the playoffs while leading his team to the title.

Some might take 1951-52 as his peak, but I'd take 56 given the longer playoff run and career-best playoff numbers.

As these are just box numbers, I'd look at the surrounding seasons for an impact signal(I don't generally like looking too far outside a peak season for information when evaluating peaks, but there's little choice here and the signal is pretty noteworthy imo), where you can see that when Arizin leaves after 1951-52 for his military service, with the the supporting cast looking much the same, the Warriors go from 33-33, -1.08 SRS, and -1.3 Net Rtg to 12-57, -7.75 SRS, and -7.5 Net Rtg.

Not that Arizin should be this high - I'm not arguing for him at #3 - just that he ought to be considered for the list at all - the top 50 or whatever it goes to - if you're looking at it an era-relative context.

[tsherkin]

I'm just going to say something. I know full well it's not going to get any traction here, because he's never made any of the previous peaks lists here - which shouldn't surprise me given the difficulty in getting any of the pre-shot clock guys outside of Mikan their due in here but nonetheless strikes me as a bit astounding in an era-relative context - but I'll say it anyway.

I'll briefly butt in to say that while cross-era stuff is always challenging, if era-relative dominance is on anyone's mind, a guy like Mikan 100% deserves consideration, especially if you start framing his game in terms of league-relative FG% and TS+ and so forth. A lot of people look at his raw FG% and write him off without realizing some of the details, or that he's the guy who got the lane widened the first time, before it happened against with Wilt.

And then I will follow and say that mentioning Arizin is another very interesting and worthy conversation to have.

[One_and_Done]

Read on Twitter

Just putting this out here for the one voter who put D.Rob over Duncan.

[Ol Roy]

Read on Twitter

Just putting this out here for the one voter who put D.Rob over Duncan.

I'll be sure to keep this in mind if someone decides to start a Post-Prime Project.

[mdonnelly1989]

Seriously how has Michael Jordan not been picked yet?

‘91 Michael Jordan, take this as my voting post.

DraymondGold explained it better than I ever could. viewtopic.php?p=119288894#p119288894

‘64 Bill Russell is my 2nd pick, will repeat my first post - I think he simply had more impact on the game due to the nature of the 60s style than any individual player could have today and his winning is obviously completely unmatched.

Edit: I liked the 2000 Shaq over Tim Duncan discussions from the first thread better and just generally believe Shaq had a better peak than TD due to his superior off ball offensive game and foul-drawing capability. 2000 Shaq’s defense was also pretty good if flawed. Tough between him, Hakeem, 67 Wilt, and Duncan, but I’ll take Shaq 3rd

I’m already turned off by this list. Any list that doesn’t have 91 MJ at the very minimum top 2 is invalid

[mdonnelly1989]

Perhaps the top Goat will make the top 10 at this point Smh

[One_and_Done]

Perhaps the top Goat will make the top 10 at this point Smh

Lebron has been voted the #1 player of all-time in the last 2 or 3 top 100 player projects here, so it's pretty clear most people on this board do not think Jordan is the GOAT.

Jordan has one of the greatest legacies in basketball history, but that is a different thing to how good you were at basketball. If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets nobody would think of him as the GOAT. He'd be seen as a worse version of prime Lebron. He'd likely be rated behind Jokic and Giannis too, and maybe even KD.

[mdonnelly1989]

Perhaps the top Goat will make the top 10 at this point Smh

Lebron has been voted the #1 player of all-time in the last 2 or 3 top 100 player projects here, so it's pretty clear most people on this board do not think Jordan is the GOAT.

Jordan has one of the greatest legacies in basketball history, but that is a different thing to how good you were at basketball. If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets nobody would think of him as the GOAT. He'd be seen as a worse version of prime Lebron. He'd likely be rated behind Jokic and Giannis too, and maybe even KD.

But Let’s give it to the guy who figures out every team to go to for in free agency or get traded too. Nobody would be looked at nearly as good if they didn’t have teammates around them to win.

But Real GM still largely agrees that MJ is the goat

Check th poll here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2464808

[EmpireFalls]

If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets nobody would think of him as the GOAT. He'd be seen as a worse version of prime Lebron. He'd likely be rated behind Jokic and Giannis too, and maybe even KD.

If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets it would cause a gigantic warp in the space-time continuum as he would be both player and owner on the same team in two completely different yet convergent timelines. The GOAT debate would be the least of our worries as there would likely be a black hole and/or irreversible reality distortion.

As such we may as well just analyze players in the time period in which they played.

[One_and_Done]

Perhaps the top Goat will make the top 10 at this point Smh

Lebron has been voted the #1 player of all-time in the last 2 or 3 top 100 player projects here, so it's pretty clear most people on this board do not think Jordan is the GOAT.

Jordan has one of the greatest legacies in basketball history, but that is a different thing to how good you were at basketball. If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets nobody would think of him as the GOAT. He'd be seen as a worse version of prime Lebron. He'd likely be rated behind Jokic and Giannis too, and maybe even KD.

But Let’s give it to the guy who figures out every team to go to for in free agency or get traded too. Nobody would be looked at nearly as good if they didn’t have teammates around them to win.

But Real GM still largely agrees that MJ is the goat

Check th poll here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2464808

And casual voters are dead wrong. Over time, once Lebron is retired, sentiment among casual fans will start to shift.

I have no idea what Lebron moving teams has to do with anything. It is irrelevant to his value on the court. Not everyone is lucky enough to be drafted onto the Showtime Lakers, or have a good GM like Krause was (for those times), or play in a weak era like Russell did. Titles are a team accomplishment, to which we should apply context.

[One_and_Done]

If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets nobody would think of him as the GOAT. He'd be seen as a worse version of prime Lebron. He'd likely be rated behind Jokic and Giannis too, and maybe even KD.

If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets it would cause a gigantic warp in the space-time continuum as he would be both player and owner on the same team in two completely different yet convergent timelines. The GOAT debate would be the least of our worries as there would likely be a black hole and/or irreversible reality distortion.

As such we may as well just analyze players in the time period in which they played.

All comparisons are hypothetical, as are all player evaluations. It doesn't make sense to ask how player X would do on team Y, or which prospect would become a good player, but then exclude only the hypotheticals that involve different eras. If Bulls fans can tell us how good the Bulls would have been without Pippen, we can ask them how Jordan would do on the modern Hornets. If you're not willing to discuss hypotheticals about basketball, Realgm is an odd place to be. There are whole boards, like the trade board, which are based on hypotheticals like this.

[mdonnelly1989]

Lebron has been voted the #1 player of all-time in the last 2 or 3 top 100 player projects here, so it's pretty clear most people on this board do not think Jordan is the GOAT.

Jordan has one of the greatest legacies in basketball history, but that is a different thing to how good you were at basketball. If Jordan had been drafted 7 years ago by the Hornets nobody would think of him as the GOAT. He'd be seen as a worse version of prime Lebron. He'd likely be rated behind Jokic and Giannis too, and maybe even KD.

But Let’s give it to the guy who figures out every team to go to for in free agency or get traded too. Nobody would be looked at nearly as good if they didn’t have teammates around them to win.

But Real GM still largely agrees that MJ is the goat

Check th poll here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2464808

And casual voters are dead wrong. Over time, once Lebron is retired, sentiment among casual fans will start to shift.

I have no idea what Lebron moving teams has to do with anything. It is irrelevant to his value on the court. Not everyone is lucky enough to be drafted onto the Showtime Lakers, or have a good GM like Krause was (for those times), or play in a weak era like Russell did. Titles are a team accomplishment, to which we should apply context.

Not many are casuals on RealGM If anything it shows that MJs test of time shows real status. Past players begin to get underrated to further we are from their ERA. Not to mention newer players get overrated.

It’s a what have you done for me lately league.

I agree on court and MJ has never done anything remotely close to the mental breakdown that LeBron did in 2011. He needed Wade to save him mentally.