RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

[TheGOATRises007]

Great to see it start.

I'll post up a write-up later for my number 1.

[eminence]

Spoiler:

Okay, some quick numbers on RAPM (ORAPM vs. DRAPM), scarcity, etc. This is using Doc's SD numbers.

ORAPM:
Mean (-.06)
SD (.41)
Players 5 SD over the average (2.03+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 67
2.5+ RAPM: 24
3.0+ RAPM: 7

DRAPM:
Mean (-.02)
SD (.36)
Players 5 SD over the average (1.77+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 32
2.0+ RAPM: 6
3.0+ RAPM: 2

TAKEAWAY:

There were less than half the defensive players available that could match the (arbitrary) 2.0 benchmark. I picked 2.0 because it was 5 SD above for ORAPM, and basically the average SD of both times 5. Clearly offensive players can more consistently provide more upper value, but it can equally be argued that the scarcity of the defenders at that level make it more equal. According to my calculations, offensive players can provide ~25% more value as a whole, whereas the ratio for defenders at this level vs. offensive players at this level is only 34%. Personally, I feel it confirms what I was thinking - that it's reasonably close when you consider offensive impact/defensive impact along with rarity/value. It also seems that (according to this data at least) defenders can at least approach offensive impact levels, though not at the same frequency of occurrence. Does that support that offense is to some degree more effective than defense? Does it say that the scarcity of that level of defenders makes them comparable? I say yes to both.

Thoughts, guys?

Just wondering what years RAPM you looked at? NPI or PI? Cause a first thought I have is that this might be a bit of an era phenomenon, looking back at the early 2000's it seems that for NPI RAPM at least while the very top end is a bit higher on offense (mostly just Shaq), the # of top guys on each side seems pretty even. Didn't quantify anything though, was just from glancing at it.

It feels like you might find more defensive guys for the 60's/00's, more offensive for 80's/10's, 90's more balanced, and no real idea for 50's/70's (painting in broad era strokes). Maybe overall there's still a small trend, but I'm not sure if it always holds. Not sure though, just my gut feeling.

[Joao Saraiva]

Spoiler:

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

For now, I'll leave my old post about Kareem vs Jordan here:

I love Jordan as much as anybody, but honestly, when I look at it from a totally unbiased persepctive (at least as much as it's possible when one of the guys is your childhood hero), I grow increasingly confident that Kareem deserves to be ranked over him on all-time lists, and be considered the GOAT.

Year-by-year

1970 Kareem vs 1985 Jordan - edge Kareem. Just a higher impact player. Jordan had one of the best rookie seasons ever, but Kareem had Incredible playoffs and he made a clearly bigger impact in terms of improving his team. Jordan joined a 27-win team and improved them by 11 wins, 4.19 SRS. Kareem joined a 27-win team and improved them by 29 wins, 9.32 SRS. KAJ also averaged over 34 ppg on very good efficiency against league MVP Willis Reed and the best defensive team in the league in the playoffs. 1-0 Kareem.

1971 Kareem vs 1986 Jordan - Kareem by default, because of how many games MJ missed, and it's one of KAJ's best seasons, many people consider it his peak, and one of the greatest seasons in NBA history. 2-0 Kareem.

1972 Kareem vs 1987 Jordan - fairly close - MJ was an absolutely breathtaking scoring machine, but Kareem had an even better regular season, averaging 35/17/5 and the all-time record for WS/48. 3-0 Kareem.

1973 Kareem vs 1988 Jordan - edge Jordan. Kareem struggled in the playoffs against Thurmond. MJ was better in RS, too. 3-1 Kareem.

1974 Kareem vs 1989 Jordan - edge Jordan, but an argument can be made that KAJ was slightly better in the playoffs. Jordan has a clear edge in regular season, so I'll give it to him overall. 3-2 Kareem.

1975 Kareem vs 1990 Jordan - big edge Jordan. Kareem missed too many RS games while Michael played all 82 games on GOAT level, and followed that with an amazing playoff run. Tied at 3.

1976 Kareem vs 1991 Jordan - it was Jordan's peak and he gets the edge, but it's probably the most underrated of Kareem's seasons, just because his team missed the playoffs. It's not Kareem's fault by any means, though. He was a phenomenal all-around force that year. I mean, being recognized by his peers as the MVP (players voted for the MVP in the 70s, not journalists), while playing on a losing team, speaks for itself. 4-3 Jordan.

1977 Kareem vs 1992 Jordan - slight edge Kareem. Perhaps a bit controversial stance, but RS impact and production is a wash, and KAJ, even without the title, was IMO slightly better in the playoffs, individually. Tied at 4.

1978 Kareem vs 1993 Jordan - edge Jordan. Too many missed games by KAJ (he played only 62, MJ played 78). 5-4 Jordan.

1979 Kareem vs 1994 Jordan - Kareem by default, MJ was retired. Tied at 5.

1980 Kareem vs 1995 Jordan - Kareem by default again. 6-5 Kareem.

1981 Kareem vs 1996 Jordan - Jordan, but not a very big gap. 6-6.

1982 Kareem vs 1997 Jordan - MJ clearly. More minutes, more productive on per-minute basis, had a larger role on his team. 7-6 Jordan.

1983 Kareem vs 1998 Jordan - Michael was better. 8-6 Jordan.

1984 Kareem vs 1999 Jordan - Kareem by default, Jordan was retired. 8-7 Jordan.

1985 Kareem vs 2000 Jordan - Kareem by default again, same reason. 8-8 tie.

1986 Kareem vs 2001 Jordan - same story. 9-8 Kareem.

1987 Kareem vs 2002 Jordan - Kareem has the edge. MJ missed 22 games, and even when he was playing, he wasn't that great. The way Kareem played had a more positive impact on winning, for sure. 10-8 Kareem.

1988 Kareem vs 2003 Jordan - edge MJ. Close, and KAJ was a very good role player, but MJ was capable of playing more minutes, and his efficiency was somewhat hampered by the tough defensive environment. He still could've been a meaningful contributor to a contender team, held his own in many matchups with marquee wings that season. 10-9 Kareem

1989 Kareem vs 2004 Jordan - KAJ by default. 11-9 Kareem.

So, KAJ wins the comparison by a nose if we go year-by-year, MJ just lost too many years due to retirements. It's not a given he could've played 20 years on a high level without having any season lost due to injuries, like Kareem did.

Win Shares:

Kareem - 309.0 (273.4 regular season, 35.6 playoffs)
Jordan - 253.8 (214.0 regular season, 39.8 playoffs)

That's a pretty big gap. To put that into perspective - that's 55.2 WS difference. Difference between Shaq and Paul Pierce is 46.7 WS. That's more WS than Kawhi Leonard earned in his entire NBA career so far (53.7). You guys probably wonder - what's with those random comparisons? Well, I'm just using examples of how much career value Kareem had. I realize that Win Shares is a somewhat flawed stat, but it does give a decent idea of how good players are.

Career totals:

Points:

Regular season:

Kareem - 38,387 (59.2% TS)
Jordan - 32,292 (56.9% TS)

Playoffs:

Jordan - 5987 (56.8% TS)
Kareem - 5762 (57.1% TS)

Kareem has slightly more assists in regular season - you would expect a perimeter guy who was the unquestioned #1 option of his teams his entire career, to have more assists than a center who played more than a half of his career with outstanding point guards like Oscar and Magic, right?

Kareem also has a lot more combined steals and blocks (4349 to 3407, so almost 1000 more), even though we only have that data for 16 of Kareem's 20 seasons (and having that data for his first four seasons would've widened that gap considerably, because 1970-73 are some of his absolute best seasons).

MVPs:

Kareem - 6
Jordan - 5

Championships:

Kareem - 6
Jordan - 6

MVP shares:

Jordan - 8.138
Kareem - 6.203

Accolades:

All-NBA 1st team:

Kareem - 10
Jordan - 10

All-NBA 2nd team:

Kareem - 5
Jordan - 1

All-Defensive 1st team:

Jordan - 9
Kareem - 5

All-Defensive 2nd team:

Kareem - 5
Jordan - 1

Before someone says "Kareem missed the playoffs twice in his prime" - Jordan also had a losing record twice, he was just lucky that his team made the playoffs in '85 and '87 - losing teams rarely make the playoffs.

So overall, it's very close but I think Kareem did more and should get the edge.

We can also look at it another way:

Jordan had 11 superstar seasons - 1985, 1987-93, 1996-98
Kareem had 12 superstar seasons - 1970-81

Jordan had two borderline all-star seasons - 2002 and 2003, and then another half of a mid-level all-star season if we combine 1986 and 1995 (48 games).

Jordan doesn't have anything like Kareem's 1982-86 season.

Kareem's resume from 1982-86:

All-NBA 1st team twice
All-NBA 2nd team twice
All-Defensive 2nd team once
Top 5 in MVP voting three times
Two championships
Two finals in which his team lost, and one more season when they lost in conference finals

Kareem was either #1 or #2 option (or more like 1a/1b) on all of those teams

This is not just longevity. I would say Kareem's 1987-89 seasons are just "longevity", but his 1982-86 seasons would be considered prime seasons for all except maybe the 6-7 best centers of all-time. For the sake of comparison, Dwight Howard in his best years (2008 to 2012), did this:

Regular season:

Kareem '82-'86: 22.8 PER, 61.3% TS, 19.2 WS/48, 4.1 BPM
Dwight '08-'12: 24.5 PER, 60.9% TS, 21.6 WS/48, 4.1 BPM

Playoffs:

Kareem '82-'86: 22.2 PER, 59.0% TS, 17.8 WS/48, 5.1 BPM
Dwight '08-'12: 24.3 PER, 62.5% TS, 21.3 WS/48, 5.1 BPM

MVP voting:

Dwight: 5th, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 7th
Kareem: 10th, 10th, 4th, 4th, 5th

So statistically, Kareem at age 34-38 (or 35-39 if we go by playoff age), was not much worse than a fringe top 10 all-time center like Dwight, in Howard's prime. That's pretty amazing.

Considering all of that, if we're going to do another top 100 project next year, I'm definitely going to argue for Kareem as the GOAT. I just looked at the results of thread #1 in 2014 project - Jordan had 22 votes, Russell 11, Kareem only 4. That's just not right. Admittedly, I was one of the guys who voted for Jordan, but I've changed my mind since that time.

Hopefully this post will at least bring some good food for thought.

Will probably come back with more later on. To sum up - the main argument that I'm making in favor of Kareem, is that nobody contributed as much value over an entire career as Kareem. His peak and prime wasn't as good as Jordan's, but I think the prime gap in favor of MJ is smaller than the gap in terms of overall career in Kareem's favor.

Jordan is my #2
LeBron is my #3
Duncan is my #4

I don't see what making 2nd teams matter when we talking about the top players all time in the top 5 all time. Nor should comparing them when the player wasn't even the best on there squad matter either. For instance half of Kareem's titles he wasn't even the best player and for a 1/3 of them he was more like the 3rd best player on the squad.

Kareem was surrounded by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors (a 60 win team losing to a 47 win team). In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets (A 54 win team lost to a team below .500). In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see something like this happening to MJ or Russ.

Well, if another player appeared with equal value to MJ but then keeps going at an older age, adapts to a role of a 2nd best player on his team and has great impact and success, why shouldn't I give him extra credit for that to put him over MJ? That's the 1st.

2nd - KAJ wasn't the best player on his team. So what? He was still really important. He won 4 rings as the man, and then went on adapting his game and was still a major part of LA's success. Of course in 88 he wasn't as important, but that shows me versatility and the right mind set on more situations than MJ showed. Yes I'll give him credit for doing it.

3rd - Kareem lost some finals as the man yes. One example is the 74 finals as I mentioned earlier. I don't care. I think he was the best player in the series... it's not because he has or not a finals MVP that I'll reward him less. We're evaluating individuals here, not teams. Therefore I'm more interested in how well a guy played than if his team won. Of course winning is important, but we can't let define entirely, or even for the most part, how we see the individual game. That's a mistake. So if a guy goes to 10 finals and is the best player in 8 of them, hell yeah I'll take that ahead of 6 finals MVPs (if they were the best of the series at the same level).

KAJ's longevity edge on MJ is great. MJ was more consistent the way I see it, however KAJ has more great prime seasons than Jordan has seasons in his career.

For me, that's worth something.

I'm fine with people taking MJ or any other... just kind of defending my vote here. In the end I guess at least nobody can't say KAJ doesn't have a great argument. It's certainly a close call.

[JordansBulls]

Spoiler:

1st vote - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

For now, I'll leave my old post about Kareem vs Jordan here:



Will probably come back with more later on. To sum up - the main argument that I'm making in favor of Kareem, is that nobody contributed as much value over an entire career as Kareem. His peak and prime wasn't as good as Jordan's, but I think the prime gap in favor of MJ is smaller than the gap in terms of overall career in Kareem's favor.

Jordan is my #2
LeBron is my #3
Duncan is my #4

I don't see what making 2nd teams matter when we talking about the top players all time in the top 5 all time. Nor should comparing them when the player wasn't even the best on there squad matter either. For instance half of Kareem's titles he wasn't even the best player and for a 1/3 of them he was more like the 3rd best player on the squad.

Kareem was surrounded by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors (a 60 win team losing to a 47 win team). In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets (A 54 win team lost to a team below .500). In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see something like this happening to MJ or Russ.

Well, if another player appeared with equal value to MJ but then keeps going at an older age, adapts to a role of a 2nd best player on his team and has great impact and success, why shouldn't I give him extra credit for that to put him over MJ? That's the 1st.

2nd - KAJ wasn't the best player on his team. So what? He was still really important. He won 4 rings as the man, and then went on adapting his game and was still a major part of LA's success. Of course in 88 he wasn't as important, but that shows me versatility and the right mind set on more situations than MJ showed. Yes I'll give him credit for doing it.

3rd - Kareem lost some finals as the man yes. One example is the 74 finals as I mentioned earlier. I don't care. I think he was the best player in the series... it's not because he has or not a finals MVP that I'll reward him less. We're evaluating individuals here, not teams. Therefore I'm more interested in how well a guy played than if his team won. Of course winning is important, but we can't let define entirely, or even for the most part, how we see the individual game. That's a mistake. So if a guy goes to 10 finals and is the best player in 8 of them, hell yeah I'll take that ahead of 6 finals MVPs (if they were the best of the series at the same level).

KAJ's longevity edge on MJ is great. MJ was more consistent the way I see it, however KAJ has more great prime seasons than Jordan has seasons in his career.

For me, that's worth something.

I'm fine with people taking MJ or any other... just kind of defending my vote here. In the end I guess at least nobody can't say KAJ doesn't have a great argument. It's certainly a close call.

I get what you are saying, just will argue differently. To me we are talking going to that many finals due to having another arguable top 5 player all time as the running mate a guy who had 3 finals mvp's himself and even 3 league mvp's (2 won when Kareem was there). Longevity is irrelevant to me if you aren't the best on your team.

For instance I could care less how long Peyton Manning plays or is winning when he isn't close to the best in the league anymore. Or the same if that were to happen to Brady. I care more so when they are considered the best or have an argument for it. To me Duncan from 2009 thru 2016 doesn't add much value to his career or move him up much during that time.

[THKNKG]

Spoiler:

Okay, some quick numbers on RAPM (ORAPM vs. DRAPM), scarcity, etc. This is using Doc's SD numbers.

ORAPM:
Mean (-.06)
SD (.41)
Players 5 SD over the average (2.03+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 67
2.5+ RAPM: 24
3.0+ RAPM: 7

DRAPM:
Mean (-.02)
SD (.36)
Players 5 SD over the average (1.77+): 70
2.0+ RAPM: 32
2.0+ RAPM: 6
3.0+ RAPM: 2

TAKEAWAY:

There were less than half the defensive players available that could match the (arbitrary) 2.0 benchmark. I picked 2.0 because it was 5 SD above for ORAPM, and basically the average SD of both times 5. Clearly offensive players can more consistently provide more upper value, but it can equally be argued that the scarcity of the defenders at that level make it more equal. According to my calculations, offensive players can provide ~25% more value as a whole, whereas the ratio for defenders at this level vs. offensive players at this level is only 34%. Personally, I feel it confirms what I was thinking - that it's reasonably close when you consider offensive impact/defensive impact along with rarity/value. It also seems that (according to this data at least) defenders can at least approach offensive impact levels, though not at the same frequency of occurrence. Does that support that offense is to some degree more effective than defense? Does it say that the scarcity of that level of defenders makes them comparable? I say yes to both.

Thoughts, guys?

Just wondering what years RAPM you looked at? NPI or PI? Cause a first thought I have is that this might be a bit of an era phenomenon, looking back at the early 2000's it seems that for NPI RAPM at least while the very top end is a bit higher on offense (mostly just Shaq), the # of top guys on each side seems pretty even. Didn't quantify anything though, was just from glancing at it.

It feels like you might find more defensive guys for the 60's/00's, more offensive for 80's/10's, 90's more balanced, and no real idea for 50's/70's (painting in broad era strokes). Maybe overall there's still a small trend, but I'm not sure if it always holds. Not sure though, just my gut feeling.

They were the SD numbers from Doctor MJ's RAPM spreadsheet. I can't remember if they were PI or NPI. Years were 00-12 I believe. That is a valid point as well, that the value of those certain types of players is probably fluid, depending on the era/time period.

[trex_8063]

I'd indicated I had three primary candidates (MJ, KAJ, and LBJ), but that I was leaning toward MJ and KAJ. So I suppose I should explain why Lebron is likely the odd man out.

otoh, some nay-sayers might demand explanation of how Lebron is a viable candidate for this spot to begin with. tbh, any disbelief about him having at least a small claim to consideration for it borders on denial to me. It boils down to him being one of the most effective players I've ever seen play, and the fact that that opinion can be easily backed by a number measures.

Examples:
*He's #1* all-time in career rs Value Over Replacement (*though there's a fair chance Kareem would have a slight edge on him if BPM and VORP were available for '70-'73; perhaps a slim chance Wilt could have an edge, too???). He'd be a very close 3rd at worst.
**He's now a distant #1 in career playoff VORP.
***He's got the most remarkable record of individual performance when facing elimination of anyone I've come across (32.95 ppg @ 56.8% TS, 10.9 rpg, 7.35 apg, 3.9 topg; 116.8 ORtg/103.0 DRtg (+13.8); average of 26.45 GameScore in 20-game sample [in which his team has won more than lost]), as well as claims to other playoff "1st's all-time".
****All available indications of impact suggest it matches his statistical output.
*****2nd only to MJ in career MVP Shares.
******Of the other shortlist candidates for GOAT, only MJ exceeds him in career PER and WS/48 (for both rs and playoff, iirc).
*******Of other shortlist candidates, only Russell and Kareem have made more finals appearances (unless you also consider Magic a shortlist candidate). And all-time in the NBA Finals he's now 3rd in pts, 2nd in assists, and 6th in rebounds.

Could go on, but that alone should be enough to support him as a viable candidate.


As to why I might leave him out of my top two picks......
While he appears to be arguably the greatest floor-raiser, and may have a tangible "lifting" effect for shooters, floor-spacers and 3&D players......I do carry some slight misgivings wrt some of his critic's concerns, particularly about his ability to co-exist alongside other offensive stars without diminishing them.
With Jordan, for example, I note that Pippen's utilization as a scorer only went up by about 2.0 TSA/game when Jordan left (usage rising from ~24% to about 27%). Not a huge bump up, considering a 30+ ppg scorer was lost. And then when Jordan came back, he again only drops down to about 24.5% usage.
Wade saw a slightly larger drop in usage upon joining up with Lebron; Bosh and Love saw slightly larger drops than Wade (though Love's has come up this year).
THAT SAID, there's a lot of "mud in the water" in what I'm implying here:
*Bosh and Love went from being 1st options on mediocre/bad teams to being 3rd options on very good teams. That's a larger change in role than what Pippen experienced.
**There was the emergence of Toni Kukoc to absorb some of the vacancy.
***Pippen really wasn't a "primary scorer" (like that wasn't his main "thing" as a player); Love, and to a lesser degree Wade and Bosh were/are.
****Wade was in early stages of decline after '11; so some of the drop is directly related to that.
*****Kyrie has had the two highest usage rates of his career in '17 and '16, respectively.

So yeah, I admit these arguments may be more smoke and mirrors than anything. But I'm mulling it a little.

More than that, though, is his tentative and sub-par (relative to the rest of his prime) year in '11, especially in the finals. It's not something that can/will prevent him from eventually being my #1 all-time: as soon as next season, his longevity edge over Jordan will simply be too substantial, such that this one year (which after all, was still pretty damn good) won't be sufficient reason to hold him back. It's barely sufficient now, imo (and I'm not 100% set on leaving Lebron off my top 2).
Jordan wasn't always perfect in the playoffs, but I don't feel he ever performed as poorly [and certainly not in a finals series] as Lebron did in the '11 Finals.


Anyway, I'm sort of rambling and perhaps not articulating my thoughts very well at this point (pretty tired, and sort of writing this on the fly). But when the difference between two candidates is inches rather than miles, these musings bear some relevance.


KAJ vs Lebron (or MJ) is of course more largely based on the longevity edge he has on, well.......everyone. I think his average prime year is lesser than the average prime year of MJ or Lebron......but he's just got more of 'em! (as well as some good non-prime years)


Will return later with more thoughts on MJ and KAJ (and hopefully with my picks; but honestly I'm really struggling with who to go with at #1)....

[Joao Saraiva]

Spoiler:

I don't see what making 2nd teams matter when we talking about the top players all time in the top 5 all time. Nor should comparing them when the player wasn't even the best on there squad matter either. For instance half of Kareem's titles he wasn't even the best player and for a 1/3 of them he was more like the 3rd best player on the squad.

Kareem was surrounded by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors (a 60 win team losing to a 47 win team). In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets (A 54 win team lost to a team below .500). In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see something like this happening to MJ or Russ.

Well, if another player appeared with equal value to MJ but then keeps going at an older age, adapts to a role of a 2nd best player on his team and has great impact and success, why shouldn't I give him extra credit for that to put him over MJ? That's the 1st.

2nd - KAJ wasn't the best player on his team. So what? He was still really important. He won 4 rings as the man, and then went on adapting his game and was still a major part of LA's success. Of course in 88 he wasn't as important, but that shows me versatility and the right mind set on more situations than MJ showed. Yes I'll give him credit for doing it.

3rd - Kareem lost some finals as the man yes. One example is the 74 finals as I mentioned earlier. I don't care. I think he was the best player in the series... it's not because he has or not a finals MVP that I'll reward him less. We're evaluating individuals here, not teams. Therefore I'm more interested in how well a guy played than if his team won. Of course winning is important, but we can't let define entirely, or even for the most part, how we see the individual game. That's a mistake. So if a guy goes to 10 finals and is the best player in 8 of them, hell yeah I'll take that ahead of 6 finals MVPs (if they were the best of the series at the same level).

KAJ's longevity edge on MJ is great. MJ was more consistent the way I see it, however KAJ has more great prime seasons than Jordan has seasons in his career.

For me, that's worth something.

I'm fine with people taking MJ or any other... just kind of defending my vote here. In the end I guess at least nobody can't say KAJ doesn't have a great argument. It's certainly a close call.

I get what you are saying, just will argue differently. To me we are talking going to that many finals due to having another arguable top 5 player all time as the running mate a guy who had 3 finals mvp's himself and even 3 league mvp's (2 won when Kareem was there).

By the end of 85 (that's when I think Magic became the #1 on the team) KAJ already had 7 finals presences. Or at least 6 since I can see a case for Magic being the #1 by then... I'd call it more of a 1a 1b situation.

And even if we credit Magic more for the rest of the finals appearences, that doesn't mean Kareem wasn't a positive and also deserves credit for it.

By 85 KAJ was 37 and still bringing major impact to the table.

Jordan ended at 34 with the Bulls.

Given they started at similar age, I'm sure even you can see how 3 years of extra major production make a difference. And since MJ was also one year away in the middle and almost the entire 95 season... well the gap gets bigger and bigger.

And don't worry. I still count MJ with the Wizards... But I still take KAJ's role in 87 and 88 over that. Smaller role, yes, but he did his job perfectly.

[THKNKG]

It indicates that you didn't lose as the favorite and that you weren't upset in a series and that is very important. There is no way you can explain why Kareem and Magic got upset in 1981 to a sub .500 team or Wilt to the Syracuse Nationals who was sub .500 as well or Duncan who lost to an 8th seeded team, etc.
I just don't think a guy when they are the best player in the league and they have HCA that they should lose a series with HCA.

What if the reason a team had HCA/the better record was due to a single player carrying them to it? Then, during the postseason, as defenses scale, they can focus on that single player and then shut them down due to their lack of help. Couldn't avoiding losing with HCA be a result of an amazing team, too? I just feel like there are a lot of loose ends there.

I get what you saying but it isn't like they were losing to all time great teams. I mean we are talking 8th seeded teams here, teams below .500, etc in this cases, not series where it is kinda like an even pick. Basically series they had no business losing period. This isn't Lakers vs Boston 1985 or something where it could have gone either way. We are talking Lakers vs Rockets 1981. Bucks vs Warriors 1973, etc.

Fair; I don't agree completely, but I see why you hold to it. Do you have the HCA records for just the finals for those players? I remember reading an article a few days ago about how Lebron has never lost a finals that he was favored in according to Vegas betting odds (not making a Lebron/MJ comparison, just wondering how the numbers compare for just finals). I may have to find that article and link it if there's any interest.

[Joao Saraiva]

Spoiler:

I don't see what making 2nd teams matter when we talking about the top players all time in the top 5 all time. Nor should comparing them when the player wasn't even the best on there squad matter either. For instance half of Kareem's titles he wasn't even the best player and for a 1/3 of them he was more like the 3rd best player on the squad.

Kareem was surrounded by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors (a 60 win team losing to a 47 win team). In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets (A 54 win team lost to a team below .500). In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see something like this happening to MJ or Russ.

Well, if another player appeared with equal value to MJ but then keeps going at an older age, adapts to a role of a 2nd best player on his team and has great impact and success, why shouldn't I give him extra credit for that to put him over MJ? That's the 1st.

2nd - KAJ wasn't the best player on his team. So what? He was still really important. He won 4 rings as the man, and then went on adapting his game and was still a major part of LA's success. Of course in 88 he wasn't as important, but that shows me versatility and the right mind set on more situations than MJ showed. Yes I'll give him credit for doing it.

3rd - Kareem lost some finals as the man yes. One example is the 74 finals as I mentioned earlier. I don't care. I think he was the best player in the series... it's not because he has or not a finals MVP that I'll reward him less. We're evaluating individuals here, not teams. Therefore I'm more interested in how well a guy played than if his team won. Of course winning is important, but we can't let define entirely, or even for the most part, how we see the individual game. That's a mistake. So if a guy goes to 10 finals and is the best player in 8 of them, hell yeah I'll take that ahead of 6 finals MVPs (if they were the best of the series at the same level).

KAJ's longevity edge on MJ is great. MJ was more consistent the way I see it, however KAJ has more great prime seasons than Jordan has seasons in his career.

For me, that's worth something.

I'm fine with people taking MJ or any other... just kind of defending my vote here. In the end I guess at least nobody can't say KAJ doesn't have a great argument. It's certainly a close call.

I get what you are saying, just will argue differently. To me we are talking going to that many finals due to having another arguable top 5 player all time as the running mate a guy who had 3 finals mvp's himself and even 3 league mvp's (2 won when Kareem was there). Longevity is irrelevant to me if you aren't the best on your team.

For instance I could care less how long Peyton Manning plays or is winning when he isn't close to the best in the league anymore. Or the same if that were to happen to Brady. I care more so when they are considered the best or have an argument for it. To me Duncan from 2009 thru 2016 doesn't add much value to his career or move him up much during that time.

Why not? He was an important player with the Spurs organization. Even in 2013 I recall him being a major presence even in game 7 for example. He clearly deserves credit for part of the Spurs success during that period.

If you say you don't give much value to Wizards MJ, to Kobe after 2013, Hakeem after 99 I'm OK with it. They're just hanging arround and putting up some longevity numbers. That's not what happened with KAJ or Tim Duncan.

[eminence]

.

Whoops, see where you said that now. And hmm... If it's that true for 00-12 (or at least seems to have solid supporting evidence) then it might be a statement I'm willing to accept as generally true across league history. Still not sure what to do with that information, but good to know

[JordansBulls]

What if the reason a team had HCA/the better record was due to a single player carrying them to it? Then, during the postseason, as defenses scale, they can focus on that single player and then shut them down due to their lack of help. Couldn't avoiding losing with HCA be a result of an amazing team, too? I just feel like there are a lot of loose ends there.

I get what you saying but it isn't like they were losing to all time great teams. I mean we are talking 8th seeded teams here, teams below .500, etc in this cases, not series where it is kinda like an even pick. Basically series they had no business losing period. This isn't Lakers vs Boston 1985 or something where it could have gone either way. We are talking Lakers vs Rockets 1981. Bucks vs Warriors 1973, etc.

Fair; I don't agree completely, but I see why you hold to it. Do you have the HCA records for just the finals for those players? I remember reading an article a few days ago about how Lebron has never lost a finals that he was favored in according to Vegas betting odds (not making a Lebron/MJ comparison, just wondering how the numbers compare for just finals). I may have to find that article and link it if there's any interest.

I just have the years players lost with HCA. It is easy to find if it was the finals though.

Spoiler:

[quote]
Kareem (lost in ’72-73, ’73-74, ’76-77, ’80-81, '85-86)
Wilt Chamberlain (lost in ’60-61, ’65-66, ’67-68, ’68-69, ’72-73)
Bill Russell (lost in 1958 injured most of series)
Magic Johnson (lost in ’80-81, ’85-86, ’89-90)
Larry Bird (lost in ’79-80, ’81-82, ’82-83, ’84-85, ’87-88, '89-90, '90-91)
Shaq (lost in ’93-94, ’94-95, ’03-04, '04-05, '09-10)
Hakeem (lost in ’84-85, ’86-87)
Duncan (lost in ’00-01, ’03-04, '05-06, '08-09, '10-11, '11-12)
Oscar Robertson (lost in ’61-62, ’64-65, ’72-73, ’73-74)
Jerry West (lost in ’68-69, ’72-73)
Dr J (lost in '81-82, '83-84)
Moses Malone (lost in '83-84, '88-89)
Garnett (lost in '02-03, '03-04)
Barkley (lost in '92-93, '94-95, '98-99)
John Havlicek (lost in 1972-1973)
Kobe (lost in '03-04 and '10-11)
George Mikan (lost in '50-51)
Lebron (lost in '08-09, '09-10, '10-11)

[Joao Saraiva]

What if the reason a team had HCA/the better record was due to a single player carrying them to it? Then, during the postseason, as defenses scale, they can focus on that single player and then shut them down due to their lack of help. Couldn't avoiding losing with HCA be a result of an amazing team, too? I just feel like there are a lot of loose ends there.

I get what you saying but it isn't like they were losing to all time great teams. I mean we are talking 8th seeded teams here, teams below .500, etc in this cases, not series where it is kinda like an even pick. Basically series they had no business losing period. This isn't Lakers vs Boston 1985 or something where it could have gone either way. We are talking Lakers vs Rockets 1981. Bucks vs Warriors 1973, etc.

Fair; I don't agree completely, but I see why you hold to it. Do you have the HCA records for just the finals for those players? I remember reading an article a few days ago about how Lebron has never lost a finals that he was favored in according to Vegas betting odds (not making a Lebron/MJ comparison, just wondering how the numbers compare for just finals). I may have to find that article and link it if there's any interest.

Come on. LeBron lost against Dallas. I'm pretty sure the Heat had to be favored in that one.

I can see him beating the odds in 2012 (according to Vegas, for me it was kind of a wash) and 2016. In 2013 I think it was a wash too.

No business winning in 07 (despite not playing very well, but better than some people give him credit), 15 (injured Kyrie and Love, I think LeBron was still the best player of the series) and 17 (yes I hold GSW as a great candidate for GOAT team). In 14... well I think he was still the best player in the series. It's just that the Heat were so flawed by then that it looked more likely for the Spurs to win. However of course not even I thought it was going to be as disastrous as it was, but I really don't blame LBJ for that.

But I'll leave that discussion for a more appropriate thread if it comes arround.

[JordansBulls]

Well, if another player appeared with equal value to MJ but then keeps going at an older age, adapts to a role of a 2nd best player on his team and has great impact and success, why shouldn't I give him extra credit for that to put him over MJ? That's the 1st.

2nd - KAJ wasn't the best player on his team. So what? He was still really important. He won 4 rings as the man, and then went on adapting his game and was still a major part of LA's success. Of course in 88 he wasn't as important, but that shows me versatility and the right mind set on more situations than MJ showed. Yes I'll give him credit for doing it.

3rd - Kareem lost some finals as the man yes. One example is the 74 finals as I mentioned earlier. I don't care. I think he was the best player in the series... it's not because he has or not a finals MVP that I'll reward him less. We're evaluating individuals here, not teams. Therefore I'm more interested in how well a guy played than if his team won. Of course winning is important, but we can't let define entirely, or even for the most part, how we see the individual game. That's a mistake. So if a guy goes to 10 finals and is the best player in 8 of them, hell yeah I'll take that ahead of 6 finals MVPs (if they were the best of the series at the same level).

KAJ's longevity edge on MJ is great. MJ was more consistent the way I see it, however KAJ has more great prime seasons than Jordan has seasons in his career.

For me, that's worth something.

I'm fine with people taking MJ or any other... just kind of defending my vote here. In the end I guess at least nobody can't say KAJ doesn't have a great argument. It's certainly a close call.

I get what you are saying, just will argue differently. To me we are talking going to that many finals due to having another arguable top 5 player all time as the running mate a guy who had 3 finals mvp's himself and even 3 league mvp's (2 won when Kareem was there). Longevity is irrelevant to me if you aren't the best on your team.

For instance I could care less how long Peyton Manning plays or is winning when he isn't close to the best in the league anymore. Or the same if that were to happen to Brady. I care more so when they are considered the best or have an argument for it. To me Duncan from 2009 thru 2016 doesn't add much value to his career or move him up much during that time.

Why not? He was an important player with the Spurs organization. Even in 2013 I recall him being a major presence even in game 7 for example. He clearly deserves credit for part of the Spurs success during that period.

If you say you don't give much value to Wizards MJ, to Kobe after 2013, Hakeem after 99 I'm OK with it. They're just hanging arround and putting up some longevity numbers. That's not what happened with KAJ or Tim Duncan.

Because they weren't top 3 in MVP voting anymore and weren't winning any other awards either. In Duncan's case he didn't finish higher than 7th any year in MVP voting past 2008.

[Joao Saraiva]

I get what you are saying, just will argue differently. To me we are talking going to that many finals due to having another arguable top 5 player all time as the running mate a guy who had 3 finals mvp's himself and even 3 league mvp's (2 won when Kareem was there). Longevity is irrelevant to me if you aren't the best on your team.

For instance I could care less how long Peyton Manning plays or is winning when he isn't close to the best in the league anymore. Or the same if that were to happen to Brady. I care more so when they are considered the best or have an argument for it. To me Duncan from 2009 thru 2016 doesn't add much value to his career or move him up much during that time.

Why not? He was an important player with the Spurs organization. Even in 2013 I recall him being a major presence even in game 7 for example. He clearly deserves credit for part of the Spurs success during that period.

If you say you don't give much value to Wizards MJ, to Kobe after 2013, Hakeem after 99 I'm OK with it. They're just hanging arround and putting up some longevity numbers. That's not what happened with KAJ or Tim Duncan.

Because they weren't top 3 in MVP voting anymore and weren't winning any other awards either. In Duncan's case he didn't finish higher than 7th any year in MVP voting past 2008.

If being top 3 in MVP lists was my only criteria that would make a lot of sense.

And make no mistake, I actually value top 10 MVP finishes in my formula. It's just that it isn't worth that much...

A flaw with that: Shaq ended up at 4th in 98 for example. Don't I give him credit for that season?

Ended up as 6th in 2004.

LeBron won't be top 3 this year too.

Kobe was 9th in 2001... No credit? 4th in 06...

The list goes on and on.

[THKNKG]

I get what you saying but it isn't like they were losing to all time great teams. I mean we are talking 8th seeded teams here, teams below .500, etc in this cases, not series where it is kinda like an even pick. Basically series they had no business losing period. This isn't Lakers vs Boston 1985 or something where it could have gone either way. We are talking Lakers vs Rockets 1981. Bucks vs Warriors 1973, etc.

Fair; I don't agree completely, but I see why you hold to it. Do you have the HCA records for just the finals for those players? I remember reading an article a few days ago about how Lebron has never lost a finals that he was favored in according to Vegas betting odds (not making a Lebron/MJ comparison, just wondering how the numbers compare for just finals). I may have to find that article and link it if there's any interest.

Come on. LeBron lost against Dallas. I'm pretty sure the Heat had to be favored in that one.

I can see him beating the odds in 2012 (according to Vegas, for me it was kind of a wash) and 2016. In 2013 I think it was a wash too.

No business winning in 07 (despite not playing very well, but better than some people give him credit), 15 (injured Kyrie and Love, I think LeBron was still the best player of the series) and 17 (yes I hold GSW as a great candidate for GOAT team). In 14... well I think he was still the best player in the series. It's just that the Heat were so flawed by then that it looked more likely for the Spurs to win. However of course not even I thought it was going to be as disastrous as it was, but I really don't blame LBJ for that.

But I'll leave that discussion for a more appropriate thread if it comes arround.

Okay I was off. I was thinking of this article that says he won as much or more than he was expected to win - https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/lebrons-finals-record-isnt-really-a-disappointment/amp/

[Joao Saraiva]

Fair; I don't agree completely, but I see why you hold to it. Do you have the HCA records for just the finals for those players? I remember reading an article a few days ago about how Lebron has never lost a finals that he was favored in according to Vegas betting odds (not making a Lebron/MJ comparison, just wondering how the numbers compare for just finals). I may have to find that article and link it if there's any interest.

Come on. LeBron lost against Dallas. I'm pretty sure the Heat had to be favored in that one.

I can see him beating the odds in 2012 (according to Vegas, for me it was kind of a wash) and 2016. In 2013 I think it was a wash too.

No business winning in 07 (despite not playing very well, but better than some people give him credit), 15 (injured Kyrie and Love, I think LeBron was still the best player of the series) and 17 (yes I hold GSW as a great candidate for GOAT team). In 14... well I think he was still the best player in the series. It's just that the Heat were so flawed by then that it looked more likely for the Spurs to win. However of course not even I thought it was going to be as disastrous as it was, but I really don't blame LBJ for that.

But I'll leave that discussion for a more appropriate thread if it comes arround.

Okay I was off. I was thinking of this article that says he won as much or more than he was expected to win - https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/lebrons-finals-record-isnt-really-a-disappointment/amp/

Well that's a statement I can agree with.


Dallas should have won - lost.

OKC and Spurs - won but it was a wash, so winning to washes might be seen as winning more than expected.

Beat GSW in 2016 against all odds.

So yes, winning as much as he should or slightly more seems accurate.

[TheGOATRises007]

#1 Vote Michael Jordan

Acollades:

6x NBA Champion
6x NBA Finals MVP
5x NBA MVP
Ten-time All-NBA First Team (1987-93, 1996-98)
All-NBA Second team (1985)
Nine-time NBA All-Defensive First Team (1987-93, 1996-98)
NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1988)
NBA Rookie of the Year (1985)
NBA All-Rookie Team (1985)
10x NBA Scoring Leader
Most Points Per Game in Finals history in a series(1993 vs Phoenix, average of 41.0)
Most Points Per Game in Playoffs History
NBA record 5 playoff series averaging at least 40 points per game
1986 First Round vs Celtics - 43.7 ppg on 51%
1988 First Round vs Cavaliers - 45.2 ppg on 56%
1990 Eastern Conference Semifinals vs Sixers - 43.0 ppg on 55%
1992 First Round vs Heat - 45.0 ppg on 61%
1993 Finals vs Suns - 41.0 ppg on 51%
NBA Record of 63 points in playoffs vs the Vaunted 86 Celtics
Never lost a playoff series with HCA(Homecourt Advantage)
4 of the NBA’s top 10 in regular single season PER
2 of the top 10 for PER in playoff single season
Has 5 of the top 10 highest scoring games in NBA playoff history(can’t verify this)

Why I picked Jordan as number 1

Criteria:

General career impact/career story/legacy
Peak/prime
Value RS, but value playoffs even more(as an example, I'd probably rank 17 Curry over 16 Curry because of Curry's improved playoff run despite an inferior RS)
durability
Ability to be the best player on a championship team
highlights/low-lights considered


I believe Jordan to have the best legacy in NBA history and general career impact via performances and highlights. Pretty much a career of excellence(disregarding his Wizards’ years). From the moment he came into the NBA, he was one of the league’s best players and arguably was the league’s best player from 88 to 98 in every full season he played. (disregarding his sabbatical of course). Whatever theory you have of him retiring the 1st time, I believe it only enhances his legacy. Coming back after missing a season and a half, and making an immediate impact right away. Despite the loss to the Magic, he had a full offseason and then led the Bulls to another 3-peat. Rightly or wrongly, the 2nd 3-peat has some people believing they could have won 8 in a row if MJ didn’t retire. Jordan has the greatest overall ‘moments’ in NBA history for me. The 63 points at the Garden against one of the greatest teams in NBA history(86 Celtics) in the playoffs(still remains the record). The “shot” vs the Cavs in the 89 playoffs. The move vs the Lakers in 91. The 6 three pointers vs the Blazers with the shrug. 41 points per game in the 93 finals. The then record of 72 wins in the regular season with the 96 bulls. The flu game in 97 vs the Jazz. The last 45 or so seconds vs the Jazz in 98. A lay-up. The strip on Karl. The game-winning shot vs Russell. After years of heartbreak vs the Bad Boy pistons(3 straight series losses), he swept them in 91 which led to the infamous Isaiah walkout before the final buzzer(with no handshake of course). The first of memorable teams he battled through during his championship runs. Magic’s Lakers, Barkley’s Suns, the Knicks, Shaq’s Magic, Malone and Stockton, etc. I don’t think any player in NBA history has a better career of highlights.

I believe Jordan has the best peak of any NBA player in 91. An excellent season bettered in the playoffs. His 2nd highest PER and WS. 3rd highest BPM. His 4th highest VORP. Everything stated was the regular season. However, he matched or bettered this in the playoffs. His highest ever PER in the playoffs. Highest ever WS(tied with 98). His 2nd highest ever BPM and tied for highest VORP. Highest WS/48 in Jordan’s career. Dropped this stat line vs the 91 Lakers in the finals.

44.0 .558 .500 .848 1.6 5.0 6.6 11.4 2.8 1.40 3.6 3.6 31.2

Not only does he have the best peak, but also the best prime for me. I consider Jordan’s absolute prime to start in 88 and end in 93. From 88 to 93. Jordan led the league each season in ws/48. Led the playoffs each season from 89 to 93 in the same stat. Led the league in win shares from from 87 to 93. Led the playoffs in win shares from 89 to 92. Led the NBA in BPM from 88 to 93(except 92). Led the playoffs in BPM from 89 to 93. Jordan led the NBA in PER from 87 to 93. Led the playoffs in PER from 89 to 93.


Jordan’s regular seasons were excellent, but he matched his averages or bettered them in the playoffs. The greatest playoff performer in NBA history for me. I don’t believe he ever under-performed in a series considerable like other greats have during his prime. When Jordan was expected to win, he won. So I believe he has the least amount of black marks on his career compared to other greats. There may have been better players in NBA history to turn a bad team into a good team. However, I don’t think there was any player better to turn a good team into a great one. He has the greatest legacy in NBA history for me taking everything into account. So that’s why he’s my GOAT.

2nd vote:

Lebron James

Will try and get more information in re: Jordan, but feel I covered the basics.

[BasketballFan7]

Here are a few significant factors I would like to address and discuss (both how a player has them and why they are important to a discussion of player rankings):

-Impact
-Intangibles
-Gravity
-Anti-gravity (a new one I coined I'd like to discuss)
-Portability
-Scalability

First of all, I will say that I don't agree with the emphasis on portability that so many posters tend to have. I think introducing unnecessary hypotheticals is messy, unfair, and susceptible to bias of one sort or another. If I discuss the greatest presidents in US history, I don't ask myself how George Washington would have adapted to Twitter. If I discuss great military generals, I don't penalize Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar for never interacting in gunpowder based warfare. I don't wonder how Michelanglo would have done with computers.

A few notes on portability: As I get into in the book, it IS about scalability. Obviously, the verbiage has caused confusion, but it was birthed out of understanding that some people's games don't travel well (the portability part) to better teams (the scaling part), and that's really important to player evaluation if you care about guys contributing to winning teams. (Micah, did you mean something else by the term?)

It's also not really a hypothetical idea. When we look at a player's raw stats (or even RAPM) we're looking at an aggregate or average of his contribution against different lineups and with different lineups. The whole genesis of the idea was the look at how players played with different combinations/types of players on their own team to predict how well they would play in new environments. (Heatles had a lot to do with begging these questions, and I was also trying to build models to predict trade outcomes more accurately.) Takeaway: Averages are the results of distributions -- there's huge value in stratifying the distribution!

BF7 I think you're alluding to era-translation, which is completely separate.

PS Anti-gravity is very fun. I've always used/seen "deterrence" as the defensive counterpart, because sometimes a player will be near a defender and thus decide not to shoot, which is a huge deal.

Then era-translation it is. That seems to be the largest knock on Russell and it doesn't bother me in the least. As far as portability, scalability, and scarcity, Russell excels.

[scrabbarista]

1st. Michael Jordan
2nd. Bill Russell

[NOTE: Because I'm not sure where else to note this other than in the criteria thread (which I've already done), I just want to mention that I've recently changed my formula so that Top 5 MVP Voting finishes are now weighted 1-5, rather than all being of equal weight. This also means that MVP voting is worth less overall than in my previous formula. I'm very happy with the results so far.]

It was often said of Jordan during his playing days that he was a player with no weaknesses. The same is true of his career resume, and that's why he tops my list for now. Ha ranks above Kareem and Lebron (who probably have better career stats) because he was the best player on six championship teams. Lebron did so three times, and Kareem only twice. Jordan had twice as many as either of them and more than them both. The same goes for Wilt. Jordan, six, to Wilt's two.

On the other side of the argument are the guys with the wins: Russell, Magic, and Duncan. Jordan's statistical achievements surpass any of them, and he also was the best player on a championship team more times than any of them except Russell. I give Russell credit for 8.5 times as the best player on a title team. Jordan's statistical edge is far greater than Russell's edge in BoC's.

I believe that the most elite players in the league have always had the power to sway the direction of a franchise. A team goes as its best player goes, if that player is one of the five or so best in the league. A best player who is steady, dependable, reliable, predictable off the court, exemplifies excellence, and holds his teammates to that standard will keep a team in contention for as long as his talent remains intact. It also helps if he is fun to play with on the court, if he makes the game easy for others, if he makes them better, if they feel he accentuates their strengths and fills in their weaknesses, rather than expecting that they do so for him. We've seen in recent years how players like Lebron and Curry have had the power to draw other great players onto their side, into their orbit. To me, that is part of basketball. That power is what sets a Duncan above a Shaq (Duncan "drew" Manu and Parker by not pushing them away). Winning is the most important stat in basketball, and the most credit always needs to go to the player who is in the center of a winning culture, the player who allows such a culture to flourish, or pushes for it and demands it. That is why I rank Jordan over Kareem and (so far) Lebron. Magic Johnson owns some (most) of Kareem's legacy as a champion. No one but Jordan owns his championships; they are his legacy before they're anyone else's. Duncan may have been lucky to have Pop, but Pop was infinitely more lucky to have Duncan. Look at Popovich's paychecks, and look at Duncan's. That should answer the question of who is most responsible for the Spurs' on-court success. It's the man on the court, always. Jordan was also extremely lucky to have Pippen. I'm not sure he could have had a better teammate during the era in which he played, to be honest. But I don't concern myself with luck when I compile my rankings. If Jordan was lucky, he also made the most of his luck (and Pippen was infinitely more lucky). I don't like what-ifs, because they're endless. If Jordan hits on the girl Pippen likes, maybe Pippen grows bitter and leaves the team. That's part of basketball. (Didn't something like that happen between Kobe and Shaq?) But Jordan didn't, because he was too professional. Now, I know I'm talking nonsense, but I do it to make the point that for the sake of rankings, I'm only interested in things that actually happened. I don't care who would have played better in a different era, for a different coach, with different teammates. Or, maybe I care - I'm interested - but I don't believe it's possible to know. All I know is that Jordan has the combination of astronomical statistics and a stellar winning record that put him above all other players for the time being.

[I'll try to make a more focused, more evidence-based argument for Duncan. #1 was short notice, and I also feel that Jordan's statistical accomplishments are so commonly known, as is his case for being the GOAT. To summarize my personal argument: stats + BoC's - no other player ranks so highly in both.]

[Joao Saraiva]

By reading this thread I got the feeling that if LBJ remains in beast mode and we do this in 2/3 years he'll have a ton of votes for GOAT.

I'd like to see it happen. Glad to have seen his entire career live