RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

[Senior]

Seems like Kareem, Lebron, and Russ are in the mix with MJ. It's crazy to think we have a new GOAT candidate this time around - it's been 20 years since MJ threw his name in there.

Also, I know that "the discussion is most valuable part!" point has been beaten to death already - but I feel like that we should take care to remember that these discussions don't need to be "won". There'll come a point where some of us will feel that we've presented our argument in every way, shape, and form and exhausted every method of conveying our points...and there'll be some posters who just don't see eye to eye with you.

And that's fine. Just remember - for each one that's disagreeing with what you're saying, there's others out there whose minds have been changed thanks to you - whether they say it or not. At the end of the day, this isn't a game to be won. As long as we present our info with honest intentions, we all win.

[Joao Saraiva]

Definitely looking forward to arguments as to why MJ shouldn't be #1. Last time we had a great opening thread where we didn't just lie down and accept MJ as the inevitable GOAT. Seems like Kareem, Lebron, and Russ are in the mix. It's crazy to think we have a new GOAT candidate this time around - it's been 20 years since MJ threw his name in there.

Also, I know that "the discussion is most valuable part!" point has been beaten to death already - but I feel like that we should take care to remember that these discussions don't need to be "won". There'll come a point where some of us will feel that we've presented our argument in every way, shape, and form and exhausted every method of conveying your points...and there'll be some posters who just don't see eye to eye with you.

And that's fine. Just remember - for each one that's disagreeing with what you're saying, there's others out there whose minds have been changed thanks to you - whether they say it or not. At the end of the day, this isn't a game to be won. As long as we present our info with honest intentions, we all win.

I think the discussion has been good so far. No personal attacks of stuff like that... I've rebutled some points but I think that's what a discussion forum is about. I also have no problem with MJ at #1. I voted for KAJ but that's just the way I feel. I can accept people voting for Wilt, LeBron, MJ, Russell or whatever they want. Doesn't mean I won't question it, but I accept that.

[eminence]

The scarcity theory had at least some effect on me, though I do see some parallels with portability. At this level it bumps up Duncan/KG/Russell. Will have to keep thinking on it, hoping to get my vote in tomorrow evening.

[Texas Chuck]

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

Dallas won 6 out of 8 meeting between the 2 teams and in games Dirk played the Mavs were the superior team all year and playing the tougher West schedule.

I wouldn't suggest that the Heat lost to an inferior team that year. Now Lebron's individual play can certainly be criticized in that series, but no upset happened. Dallas was the better team despite the star power advantage the Heat held. And Dallas had the best player on the court.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm casting my official vote for Mr. William Russell.

My primary reasoning is really simple--he had the single greatest impact any player has ever had in-era and he did it for a length of time that completely validates his candidacy for GOAT. This impact was most largely seen through his combination of defensive intelligence, ingenuity, and physical ability. He simply thought and played defensive basketball at a level never seen before and unlikely we will ever seen again. And I think its a near certainty that we will never see someone that much further ahead of anyone else in any element of basketball.

We could stop there and he's a GOAT candidate imo. But then we look at his rebounding which belongs in a discussion of the greatest rebounders of all-time and almost certainly the most valuable rebounder of all-time because of what happened next. He didn't just hold the ball and wait for the PG to make himself available. No he jump-started their high-pace offense through his own ability to handle the ball, his intelligent pushing of the ball through the pass. And of course he didn't just pass the ball and glide his way up the court like most big men--he was a weapon in transition.

He gets killed for his offense here for reasons I still don't comprehend. This was an era of inefficient scoring. Nobody was shooting the ball well. But Russell was leading or second on his team in FG% nearly every season, he was in the top five in FG% in the entire league 4 years in a row. He wasn't a poor scorer by the standards of his day. And scoring was well down the list of what he brought to the team offensively. This "horrible" offensive player was putting up 20 points and 5 assists in the playoffs on 4 separate occasions.

His rap as a defense only player is undeserved. And while its subjective, I feel like it matters too and that's his unprecedented leadership as a player and then as a player-coach.

I went into this feeling like 5 players deserved my serious consideration for #1. But for now Michael Jordan still holds off Timmy, Kareem, and Lebron for my 2nd place vote.

[THKNKG]

I'm casting my official vote for Mr. William Russell.

My primary reasoning is really simple--he had the single greatest impact any player has ever had in-era and he did it for a length of time that completely validates his candidacy for GOAT. This impact was most largely seen through his combination of defensive intelligence, ingenuity, and physical ability. He simply thought and played defensive basketball at a level never seen before and unlikely we will ever seen again. And I think its a near certainty that we will never see someone that much further ahead of anyone else in any element of basketball.

We could stop there and he's a GOAT candidate imo. But then we look at his rebounding which belongs in a discussion of the greatest rebounders of all-time and almost certainly the most valuable rebounder of all-time because of what happened next. He didn't just hold the ball and wait for the PG to make himself available. No he jump-started their high-pace offense through his own ability to handle the ball, his intelligent pushing of the ball through the pass. And of course he didn't just pass the ball and glide his way up the court like most big men--he was a weapon in transition.

He gets killed for his offense here for reasons I still don't comprehend. This was an era of inefficient scoring. Nobody was shooting the ball well. But Russell was leading or second on his team in FG% nearly every season, he was in the top five in FG% in the entire league 4 years in a row. He wasn't a poor scorer by the standards of his day. And scoring was well down the list of what he brought to the team offensively. This "horrible" offensive player was putting up 20 points and 5 assists in the playoffs on 4 separate occasions.

His rap as a defense only player is undeserved. And while its subjective, I feel like it matters too and that's his unprecedented leadership as a player and then as a player-coach.

I went into this feeling like 5 players deserved my serious consideration for #1. But for now Michael Jordan still holds off Timmy, Kareem, and Lebron for my 2nd place vote.

Does the fact that his era was the one where a big like him could have the most impact ever affect your views any? It doesn't too much for me, considering how well Walton/DRob/Hakeem/KG have done in other eras, but it certainly is a thought I have.

[TrueLAfan]

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

I want to talk about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar after his peak—specifically, in the six years after he won his sixth and final MVP award.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar did not stop playing basketball after 1980, that sixth MVP season. He played nine more seasons at a lesser level. But how much lesser—and how long was he at a lower but still very valuable state? Well, I think his next six seasons were still really valuable. And here’s something that sways me … Kareem’s seasons weren’t valuable in a “he’s still a solid player” or “He’s still good when he’s on the court.” Kareem was still a star between 1981 and 1986. Kareem “only” averaged a little over 11 win shares a year with a WS/48 of .199—and those number represent a dropoff from his 11 season peak period. But he played 79 games a year and averaged 34 mpg at that lower but still extremely high level. His BPM is a little over 4.3 in those 6 years; his VORP is 25.5.

There are seven players this decade that have been better than Kareem—LeBron, Durant, Paul, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, and Leonard. As a matter of fact, there are three players in the 10s that have similar runs that are reasonable comps in terms of WS, WS/48, BPM, VORP, and PER to Kareem’s seasons 12-17:

Code: Select all

                       G    MPG   WS   WS/48  PER   BPM   VORP
Kareem                473  34.0  66.8  .199   23.3   4.3   25.6
Tim Duncan (10-16)    493  28.9  55.0  .186   22.3   4.2   22.2
Dwyane Wade (10-16)   461  33.9  60.5  .185   24.1   4.5   25.7
Blake Griffin (11-17) 471  35.2  62.4  .181   22.8   4.1   25.6



That’s an impressive list, IMO. I think the closest comp is Wade; he and Kareem played about the same amount of time, the same amount of time per game, and have similar on/off numbers and replacement value. But I put Kareem ahead for (to me) obvious reasons

1) Durability/Consistency—he did this in six seasons. Wade missed games; this is seven combined years.
2) Kareem is a tick ahead in the win share numbers
3) Defense; Wade’s a terrific defender, and Kareem is no longer at his peak in that area. But he was still good . And, most importantly,
4) Playoff/Title impact. DWade was simply a postseason stud; four finals, two titles. 21/5/4 on 48/35/75. Terrific. Except Kareem was better. Four finals, two titles…and a Finals MVP. He only has slightly lower VORP and WS because he played 25% fewer games and minutes—his PER, WS/48, and BPM are all higher. This was when Kareem and Magic were sort of 1 and 1a on the Lakers—and as great as Wade was, he was a Robin to LeBron.

Between 2010 and 2016, Dwyane Wade made 4 All-NBA teams and was in the top 10 MVP voting four times. And Kareem was better between 1981 and 1986. He made 5 All-NBA teams and was in the top 10 of MVP voting every year. And you can’t really say that those were “beloved player, belated nice guy” vote results. If they were, it would be odd since:

1) Kareem already had six MVPs; what, everyone was “being nice” to him now after he’d won more of the awards than anyone else?
2) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, beloved player. Mmmm. That doesn’t sound right either.

So, yeah, I think Kareem added markedly to his legacy in those six years.

Why am I bringing up these seasons? Because I think pretty much every player under consideration here has 11-13 top notch years. Russell played 12 full seasons. Wilt played 13. Jordan played 12 full seasons before his second retirement. Duncan had 11 seasons where he played over 31.3 minutes a game. LeBron just finished season 14; I’d count the last 13. If somebody said I was going on easy on Kareem in this—I could add 1981 to Kareem’s ledger to make 12 years.

What I’m getting at is this. Kareem’s peak was either as good as anyone’s, or thisclose. People here have already noted that. What I’m saying is that Kareem’s back nine is what makes him special. Russell and Wilt didn’t add to their impact and legacy and value because they had retired—if they were slightly ahead of Kareem, he passes them. Same with Jordan. LeBron is a work in progress—and could surpass everyone in 2-3 years. But not yet. TD is the only player here who can rival Kareem in terms of the value on those later seasons … but he played less often in fewer games … and although it’s close, I’d say Kareem’s got the better peak.

And that’s enough to put Kareem at #1 for me. He may or not have been the best at his extremely long peak. But there’s too much there there. Dependability. Peak. Success. Statistical impact. Longetivity. Russell makes it hard for me, but I’m still going with KAJ at #1. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it one more time.

If I knew nothing about all the players in history going into their rookie year, I would select Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He was the greatest college player of all-time by a very slight amount (Walton and Russell). His game had no flaws. He won titles every year. He’d be my #1 pick.

If I knew everything about all the players in history going into their rookie year, I would select Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I would know that I would get extraordinary peak play and unbelievable longetivity. I would be aware of his overall playoff quality/dominance. I would know about the complete game. I would know about the MVPs. I know how long I would have that. He’d be my #1 pick.

#2 Bill Russell

[JordansBulls]

Definitely looking forward to arguments as to why MJ shouldn't be #1. Last time we had a great opening thread where we didn't just lie down and accept MJ as the inevitable GOAT. Seems like Kareem, Lebron, and Russ are in the mix. It's crazy to think we have a new GOAT candidate this time around - it's been 20 years since MJ threw his name in there.

Also, I know that "the discussion is most valuable part!" point has been beaten to death already - but I feel like that we should take care to remember that these discussions don't need to be "won". There'll come a point where some of us will feel that we've presented our argument in every way, shape, and form and exhausted every method of conveying your points...and there'll be some posters who just don't see eye to eye with you.

And that's fine. Just remember - for each one that's disagreeing with what you're saying, there's others out there whose minds have been changed thanks to you - whether they say it or not. At the end of the day, this isn't a game to be won. As long as we present our info with honest intentions, we all win.

I think the discussion has been good so far. No personal attacks of stuff like that... I've rebutled some points but I think that's what a discussion forum is about. I also have no problem with MJ at #1. I voted for KAJ but that's just the way I feel. I can accept people voting for Wilt, LeBron, MJ, Russell or whatever they want. Doesn't mean I won't question it, but I accept that.

There should never be any personal attacks especially on a message board. I mean if someone asked you what is the best city in the world I'd expect different answers from everyone because they would base it on there interests or what they like about it. Or if someone asked you what is the best cocktail in the world or the best beer in the world or the best food to eat in the world, everyone would say something different. And then even in those you could have debates on who has the best pizza? Or what places has the best drinks? etc

[Texas Chuck]

Does the fact that his era was the one where a big like him could have the most impact ever affect your views any?

It hadn't. At least not much. Until this past week when dreamshake posted a question along those lines and it really got me thinking about it. I guess it makes me think more about where Russell ranks in terms of best basketball players in a vacuum, but because I do a top 100 ranking based on career much more so than ability, it doesn't impact where I rank him.

But I think its a valid concern and I can appreciate those who take a different approach as to how they view the list or in how much effort they put into trying to imagine players in different situations thinking that should bring Russell closer to the defensive pack.

But since he innovated so much about big man defense and even today in such a different style of play, his principles still hold up I don't want to be too quick to write it off just to in-era impact. A player with KG's mobility with Deke's rim protection and intimidation/deterrence with a basketball IQ even guys like KD/Duncan can't match would be dominant in any era not just Russell's own. And of course, how much longer would it have taken for defensive big men to learn everything Russell taught them. He doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves in shaping defensive play for generations.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


#2 Bill Russell

#3 LeBron James/Michael Jordan (tie; sorry, but I'm still puzzling it out)

Just need your first and second pick; don't need a third.

[TrueLAfan]

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


#2 Bill Russell

Just need your first and second pick; don't need a third.

Sorry. Fixed.

[Blackmill]

The scarcity theory had at least some effect on me, though I do see some parallels with portability. At this level it bumps up Duncan/KG/Russell. Will have to keep thinking on it, hoping to get my vote in tomorrow evening.

I'm going to address this partially in my post (if I ever finish it) but figured I'd mention it now.

As discussed so far, scarce talent being valuable talent is because non-scarce talent can't be piled up, at least not without diminishing returns. Thus, scarcity is protection against redundancy, and can help team fit. The point here is that scarcity (which is really a misnomer) is not limited to defensive players. For instance, exceptional scoring at the center position is incredibly rare, so Kareem and Shaq provide scarce talent.

Finally, one should consider if scarce talent is worth valuing, since a player cannot control if his talent is scarce. That is, why should Mutumbo be valued more because there's few +5 defensive players, when the number of +5 defensive players is neither an attribute of Mutumbo nor something he can control? It makes him more valuable to a team, when he played, but does it make him a better player?

[RSCD3_]

First Vote: Michael Jordan

Explanation: Michael Jordan in his career was a efficient volume scorer with great playmaking abilities, good rebounding and great defense.

31.5/6.3/5.4 on 58.0 TS%

He performed very well in the clutch and during the playoffs, partly due to his massive reservoir of energy. His first step was extremely dangerous and he developed a great counter to opponents who backed off him both before and during his drive. This combination of skills and effectiveness from everywhere but the three lead to him having imo the best offensive sustainability and it's why even when he was older and he couldn't score as well he still didn't have any series where you could go " man Jordan really dropped the ball".

Also Part of how he was able to stay so effective even when his slashing went down was his care with the ball. For someone with such a large role of the offense he had a TO% of over 10 just once after his 1986 injury.

Career ORTG of 118, only below 114 once ( 110 in 95) Career OBPM of 8.3, when he had sub 55% postseasons he had these AST/TO marks respectively 25.7/8.0 , 30.4/7.3 and 19.9/6.7

And if we are going by absolute prime the numbers are even better (unfortunately bballref won't let me see the stats for some odd reason but his numbers are all elevated. )

OK here is 88-92 RS and PS

Regular Season: 32.5/6.6/6.4/2.8/1.0 on 60.2 TS%, 28.3 AST%/9.8 TOV% on 32.9 USG% (9.1/1.9) 11.0 BPM, 0.296 WS/48, 123 ORTG 103 DRTG

Playoffs: 34.5/6.7/6.8/2.4/0.9 on 59.0 TS%, 32.6 AST%/10.7 TOV% on 35.4 USG% (9.7/2.5) 12.2 BPM, 0.266 WS/48, 120 ORTG 103 DRTG


2nd vote kareem Abdul jabbar






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Blackmill]

Even though the number of players you can "just give the ball to and have them 'score at will'" isn't an attribute of players who are perceived to be able to do this, nor something they can control. Just wanted to extend the analogy across the board.

The above post was deleted while I wrote this, so I'm keeping the poster anonymous, but wanted to respond since there seemed to be some confusion.

Kareem's ability to "score at will" I consider the product of his attributes. Kareem's height is an attribute of his, and helps him score, but the number of other players with his height is not. The important distinction being that Kareem's height can be discerned by only observing him.

[Dr Positivity]

Crossing off some players starting with the top 12 on 2014 list, which feels like a good cutoff since #13 Kobe has no case at all cause Jordan is obviously above him

Wilt/Shaq: For mental reasons. Wilt peaked at arguable GOAT level but other years the statstuffing and insecurity probably was an issue, and Philly not being a dynasty falls on him. Shaq, just not enough of a leader for me.

Magic/Oscar: I see their defensive impact as neutral right now, and I see it as too tall a task to be GOAT based on one end of the floor. Jordan and Lebron are arguable top 5 players on offense, is the gap between Magic/Oscar and them on offense bigger than the gap on defense? I say probably not.

Bird: If he played at 84-88 level for a longer period of time I'd give him a GOAT argument, but the beginning and end of his career were not quite on the level of the GOATs for me. I think he is below Lebron.

Leaving Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Hakeem, Duncan, Lebron, Garnett.

That is a strong group of two way players and I have no idea how to widdle them down.

I'll start with not voting for Russell. I respect the arguments made for him, incredible combination of leadership, portability and clutch. But I have a hard time seeing his defense as significantly more valuable than say Curry's offense, who likewise warps the court out of fear and takes advantage of his era. I suspect Russell is very good on offense for his position, but center is the worst position offensively. If we say he is Draymond's level in offensive impact, that's still a lot worse than any of the above players worst side. Once again I go back to just how good players like Lebron and Jordan's offense is in addition to elite on the other end, and how much better Russell's defense has to be than their offense for him to be GOAT. The highest ORPM of the four years recorded so far is a Lebron year, not Curry. I'll stick with more balanced two way play here as having the highest ceiling, and not vote Russell.

Next player I'm not voting for is Jordan. I feel 90-93 and 96-98 Jordan are GOAT level, but 80s Jordan is more like Jordan in GOATbrook mode which I'm somewhat concerned about translating as much top level teams as cleanly. Because of that I feel Lebron specifically overwhelms him in volume. Lebron has played 7 seasons since leaving Cleveland, the same amount as 90-93 and 96-98. That doesn't even include two GOAT level seasons in 09 and 10, and I think I like 06-08 Lebron as much as statstuffing Jordan in his own way. Jordan has his rookie season, injured 2nd season, then 3 more without Jackson. I see first run Cavs Lebron as beating pre Jackson Jordan in both peak and volume. Post Phil Jackson Jordan vs post Decision Lebron, both 7 seasons, even if it slightly leans Jordan, isn't by enough to make the difference for the me.

Next player I'll cross off is Duncan. This may seem be a poor argument, but TD as GOAT just feels wrong to me because he doesn't feel dominant enough to me. Specifically I'm going to side with Hakeem over him. Two of the hardest players to pick between, both elite defenders and post players. But I like that Hakeem went clutch in his playoff runs and won the only two years he basically had a chance to in the 90s. I'm not going to lean on team results too much on this, but 04 and 06 Spurs losses are two of the most disappointing to me of all the top 10 players considering the talent, coaching, competition timing, etc. and it prevented the Spurs from going to one more level dynasty wise. Considering how hard it is to pick between Hakeem and Duncan I'll go with that.

For why I'm considering Garnett this deep, he has spectacular impact ratings in +/-, and I don't punish him at all for the Timberwolves sins. The whole supporting cast and coach's preference was built like midrange shots was the best shot on the floor. I rate him higher than Duncan or Hakeem on offense for position in the regular season, with spacing and even more passing, although playing center would seem to favor the latters on defense. However in the playoffs his scoring efficiency record is just OK and makes me think his offensive skillset was possibly not as good as it looked in the regular season and driven too much by midrange shots. So it's enough to not go to #1, although I think he has a case for GOAT level regular season player.

That leaves Kareem, Lebron and Hakeem. I don't like Kareem's offense as much as Lebron's, while he is a good passer he is not the same PG like presence to control the game. Lebron also plays a better offensive position. However Kareem's defensive impact is great. He is a league leading shotblocker several years and even if he's a level below the all time great defenders, at center even the next level down it's fair to suggest he could still be as good a defender as like Gobert is right now which I'm not sure Lebron can match even at his heights. For overall impact I still lean Lebron at peak for his offense, but Kareem has an edge in longevity. He comes into the league already one of the best players in the league compared to high school Lebron and keeps that up for roughly around 12 years, and then post prime Kareem years 82-87 is highly valuable 23/8 option. Lebron from 06 to now is 12 seasons. I can't be convinced that Lebron's best 12 seasons are better enough than Kareem's to make up for that extra post prime years Kareem puts up.

For Kareem and Hakeem, Kareem is better offensive player and Hakeem better defensive player. I don't know what to make of the passing difference to be honest, Kareem has better assists by a surprising rate, but Hakeem's passing in the context of his offense seems particularly effective. However if I can't decide between that at peak then I'm going to side with Kareem overall. He comes into the league more ready and then lasts longer at the end. 97 is Hakeem's 12th year, including his rookie season. He drops the next season to 16ppg and then. Kareem's 12th season is 81, and then he has four more superb seasons (82-86) before 87 which is his equivalent of Hakeem's 97. That's in addition to the faster start to his career.

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

2nd: Lebron James

[clyde21]

This is gonna be awesome to watch good job fellas.

[ElGee]

A question to you and the room: How do we ever know feelings of "unstoppable" and "cold blooded" aren't Winning Bias? Do we ever associate these feelings with a player who lost?

I used to really feel that Jordan just felt unstoppable. But if I'm honest with myself, I see he played on a phenomenal team. Thus, those dagger jump shots, beside looking so aesthetic, also reinforce a kind of "will to win" when the lead is 5 points. When the team is behind by 8, and LeBron cans a 3, it feels like a "last grasp" that LBJ can't quite get over hump with.

And why did MJ have a 5 point lead? Because when he went to the bench at the start of the 4th quarter, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Toni Kukoc ravaged the opponent.

I'm speaking with LeBron's walkabouts in mind. If you can name key moments when Jordan seemed to meltdown I should hear it.

May I suggest that Jordan never really appeared to "melt down" because his inclination was to shoot a lot and thus going out guns blazing provides a sort of insulation to criticism in our culture. He also finished with a recency bias that erased his earlier struggles.

In the 3rd game of a 3-game sweep against the 87 Celtics, he was 9-30. He certainly struggled against the Pistons -- in 1989 he opened 10-29 from the field. In Game 4, with the Bulls up 2-1, he was 5-15 from the field (12-17 FT) with just 4 assists. In Game 5, Detroit "turned him into a decoy" and Jordan took all of 8 shots, racking up 9 assists in a Bulls loss. I wonder what the Skip Bayless' would have been saying after that game.

1990 saw similar clunkers against Detroit. He was 9-25 with 7 turnovers in G6 against the Knicks in 92. He didn't really have a great series against the Cavs in 92 -- high volume, low efficiency. His struggles against the 93 Knicks are well chronicled, including the famous 3-18 game. (He also gets a cold-blooded pass for taking 94 off and for the 95 playoffs). And, I think I've mentioned this before, but the 97 series vs Miami is perhaps his ultimate struggle, shooting 39% on high volume.

This is not to say LeBron's negative moments haven't been worse. He is unjustly crucified for the 11 Finals, but he did have a number of subpar games (for whatever reason) including a 3-11, 8 point game. As I've argued before, I'm not sure how much worse his series was than Nowitzki's though -- if we're results oriented, a few horrible shooting games on high volume will rarely render any kind of "positive" value; people just aren't as quick to demean it. Additionally, as I've demonstrated in the past, James will curtail his shooting when he's inefficient. Similarly, his teams have lost at a freakishly disproportionate rate when he doesn't have a good game. (A large part of his argument as the greatest floor-lifter in history.)

To use a very crude measure: LeBron has shot sub-40% in 12% of his prime playoff games (09-17). In those games, he took at least 25 shots 3 times...all in 2015 without Kyrie and Love. Jordan was sub-40% in 15% of his prime playoff games (88-98) and took at least 25 shots 11 times. This assured that his scoring numbers would always be respectable. LeBron impacts the game more with creation/passing and (when younger) defense and rebounding. Those things aren't always captured in the box, but Jordan maintained his ppg despite it eating up possessions.

In James' 9-year run, his main black marks are a single game against a superior Boston team in which Cleveland lost by 32 (MJ had such games) and James had a disappearing act in the aforementioned 2011 Finals (if this is the worst series between prime MJ and prime LBJ, it's not the worst by some cavernous divide). If we step back, are we really saying Jordan "had" something James didn't...other than better teammates?

Not trying to argue one side or the other, just throwing these things out there.

[drza]

The scarcity theory had at least some effect on me, though I do see some parallels with portability. At this level it bumps up Duncan/KG/Russell. Will have to keep thinking on it, hoping to get my vote in tomorrow evening.

I'm going to address this partially in my post (if I ever finish it) but figured I'd mention it now.

As discussed so far, scarce talent being valuable talent is because non-scarce talent can't be piled up, at least not without diminishing returns. Thus, scarcity is protection against redundancy, and can help team fit. The point here is that scarcity (which is really a misnomer) is not limited to defensive players. For instance, exceptional scoring at the center position is incredibly rare, so Kareem and Shaq provide scarce talent.

Finally, one should consider if scarce talent is worth valuing, since a player cannot control if his talent is scarce. That is, why should Mutumbo be valued more because there's few +5 defensive players, when the number of +5 defensive players is neither an attribute of Mutumbo nor something he can control? It makes him more valuable to a team, when he played, but does it make him a better player?

It's been interesting reading the last few pages about 'scarcity', as when I wrote that post my intention wasn't necessarily to create that term as an attribute the way that portability and scaleability have become. However, I do think that there is inherent value in scarcity as used to define dominant defensive bigs...and I'd start with the quoted for my reasoning.

Blackmill asks whether scarce talent is worth valuing, since a player cannot control if his talent is scarce. I say yes, especially in the sense that this type of scarcity is global. There are all types of variations of "you can't teach tall", and there's a reason that such an inordinate percentage of people around 7-feet tall end up in the NBA. To address the logic of the last paragraph above, a player cannot control ANY of his natural talents. You can't choose to be able to jump like Jordan, or to have Iverson's quickness, or to have Shaq's...whatever the heck you call his behemoth-ness. But frankly, whether the player can control their talent is irrelevant to their value to a team.

Should Mutombo be valued because there are few elite defensive players? ABSOLUTELY. To me, that question is like asking whether LeBron should be valued because there are very few that can produce offense at his level. ABSOLUTELY. That's part and parcel of what makes him unique, and thus incredibly valuable.

Blackmill says in the post above that "scarce talent being valuable talent is because non-scarce talent can't be piled up, at least not without diminishing returns". I don't believe that to be accurate. Scarce talent is valuable because not much of it exists, especially in comparison to other talents. The requirements to be a true, dominant defensive player on a team-impact level are such that only big men (e.g. players at the very shallow upper end of even the NBA, a league FULL of way above average sized men) can truly aspire to it. Then, from among that already shallow pool, you have to find players with sufficient quickness, athletic ability, timing, defensive instincts, and ability to communicate to be a true defensive anchor.

Said another way, it's not that Mutombos on defense are sparse because there happened to be a particular season where there weren't many elite defensive bigs and he took advantage. No, it's because in the history of the NBA there are very few (relatively speaking) defensive monsters. There are many more players that can approximate (even roughly) elite offensive impact than there are elite defensive. I thought Micah's breakdown upthread from DocMJ's 1998 - 2012 dataset was very illuminating, putting numbers to my assertion.

So, is a +8 offensive player better than a +7 defensive player?

If I'm playing 1-on-1, yes.

But if my point is to build the best team I can build, and I know that there are plenty of +5s and +6s on offense that I may be able to find, but hardly any defender that can approximate that +7? Then yeah, I might seriously consider grabbing the defensive guy. Because while his impact, in a vacuum, may be lesser...his likely net impact on my team's ability to create a positive imbalance with respect to the other teams (and thus give my team a better chance to contend) is very likely to be higher.

[andrewww]

Vote: Michael Jordan

Greatest peak player in history.
One of the greatest careers of all-time and I believe only Kareem or Russell could be in the discussion.
He's done more in essentially the same amount of time as Lebron.
Few blemishes on the big stages where we can say the Bulls lost because of him.
Greatest scorer in history. Generally I believe offense > defense after the 60s.
Few if any exploitable weaknesses as a player.

He checks of all the boxes and is the hardest player to argue against imo.

2nd: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[drza]

Re: non-scarcity reasons why offense isn't more valuable than defense: portability,scaleability, and...army?

Up-thread, someone mentioned that they saw scarcity as relating in some way to portability. I disagree, and hopefully some of what I wrote in my last post helps to clarify what I had/have in mind when I say scarcity.

But, that said, I do think that portability (and scaleability) are also reasons why offense isn't necessarily more inherently valuable than defense. Let's go back to the original example I used, of a +6 offensive player vs a +5 defensive player. It is, of course, a very simple example (obviously, both players would have 2-way value of some sort, and I'm completely ignoring one side of the ball here), but I think it's illustrative.

OK, suppose you have an existing team. Suppose your weakest link is a +3 offensive player. If you replace him with the +6 offense player, who let's say plays the same position, how much will the team's offense improve (in rough terms)? Will it improve by +6? Will it improve by +3? Of course it's a complicated question, but the answer is very likely no to either number. Because there are other offensive players on the team, and when adding offensive skill to a team, as Blackmill pointed out up-thread, there's a distinct possibility of redundancy and diminishing returns, until a new norm is reached.

But in the same type of example, if you replace a +2 defensive player by a +5...you'll see a LOT more of the value transfer through. It'd be too simplistic to say exactly +3 will happen, but there's a LOT less potential for diminishing returns. Given the same positional considerations as above (e.g. that your +5 defender is replacing the same position), there's very little chance of negative overlap. The fear of a twin-towers is usually that, if both are centers, it'd be hard for them to coexist as they'd want to use the same spaces. But if one really is a 4 and the other really is a 5, more than likely they can coexist. And if they can...the defensive impact is darn near additive. This is true if the defenders have similar help-defense abilities (think Duncan and Robinson) or if one is a better man defender and one a better help defender (think Sheed and Big Ben).

In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that the early start to the project prevented me from doing some of the pre-research I had intended for this project. one of the things I had intended to do was exactly the work that Micah did on the ratio of elite defenders to elite offensive players, so I'm thankful that he did it. Another thing I planned to do was to try to track many of the personnel changes when elite players changed teams. My plan was to look at the individual's RAPM, ORAPM and DRAPM before and after the move. I also wanted to do the same with some measure of the effectiveness of his teammates, as well as the team as a whole.

My strong suspicion, if I were able to do that work, is that it would support what I've written here. That LeBron joining the Heat led to a drop in both LeBron's personal RAPM as well as likely the RAPM scores of the other Heat starters (especially prominent teammates Wade and Bosh). But that, on the other hand, Garnett joining the Celtics did not lower Garnett's RAPM nor had as much (if any) negative effect on the other Celtics starters (especially Pierce and Allen). I'm very curious (as I haven't checked) what Durant's addition did in this type of analysis to his own scores and his teammates scores...I could believe it was less diminishing returns because all of the Dubs are great off-ball scorers. But I'm still curious. On the other hand, I'd expect that Sheed's addition to the already existent Pistons led to pure gains all around.

Anyway. My point is, I believe that, in addition to being a rarer commodity, defense is much more additive than offense. That it is both more portable (as defined by the ability of an individual player's impact to be maximized in a variety of environments) AND more scaleable (as defined by the ability of a player's individual impact to improve an already good team).

Related to both of those terms, but not exactly the same, is the concept that a defensive player can add his own contribution while also allowing teammates to be all that they can be. Since that's the slogan of the army commercials when I was a child, I'd almost want to call that concept "army", but that's probably too esoteric to stick. It's also a more passive concept that making teammates better. A point guard makes teammates better on offense in an active way, for example, by running the offense and getting the ball to the players in positions for them to produce better. A dominant defensive player could help teammate's defensive abilities in a similar way, but again, that's not the concept I'm reaching for, here. It's more...that a dominant "army" guy can have his whole positive impact without taking anything off the table that his teammates need in order to play their best. Sort of like the opposite Wilt in his early years, when everything had to run through him in a similar way to the "pass Will the ball" episode of the Fresh Prince. Again, it is strongly related to portability and scaleability...but as I was writing this out, it just felt like it's almost a third idea.