Regarding KAreem vs TD/KG kareem has always been shooting above 20 FGA per game during the first 7 years and almost 20 for the next 3. So, he didn't suffer too much from pace,if this is what Joao means. He always used his fair amount of possessions. It remains to be seen if the % of possessions on his favourite spots was changing as the pace changed The number of FGA decreased in the 80s : (lower minutes, older and thus less burden, Magic etc..).
This is interesting: Kareem's rebounding % decreases rapidly in the 80s. (more rebounds available or simply lower minutes and individual decay?) But then you look and see that also his raw numbers collapse. From 1982 to 1989 (8 seasons) he only averages 6.8 rebounds!
So, TD and KG are better rebounders by a lot especially in the second decade and they also have the advantage on defense
Added to the post about defense if you're interested. Missed the last part of what you told about defense at 1st. Going out now, it's my father's birthday
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Let's get started. Full disclosure, a lot of this is from my 2014 vote, mainly because little has changed for me in how I view the no. 1 spot.
There are five guys I see having a case for GOAT, two of them a "lite" case, one of them being a somewhat good case, and two being very strong.
These are Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, LeBron James, Bill Russell and Michael Jordan respectively.
Let's start with things off with the guys outside looking in...
5. Kareem: GOAT longevity. Very high peak as well, but not as high as Jordan, LeBron or Wilt. His holistic game is very good, arguably the second GOAT scorer after Jordan, but the rest of his arsenal ranged from decent to very good. He was a beast of a defender some years, especially the Milwaukee years, but had to concentrate more on scoring in his early LA years with the horrible supporting cast around him. Rebounding fell off rather quickly, but in his prime there were few better. Honestly it's hard to get closer to the GOAT without actually being the GOAT, but when I put together the sum of his career I see a few too many blips. '72 Playoffs when Wilt outplayed him despite being 11 years his senior. '73 Playoffs he gets shut down by Thurmond. '75 and '78 he could've played better. He's up against guys with essentially perfect careers, like Jordan and Russell. When they got into full gear run-the-table mode, you weren't stopping them. It wasn't that way with Kareem. However, like it or not, you're not taking away the highs of '70, '71, '74, '77 and '80.
4. Wilt: GOAT peak, and maybe GOAT prime ('64-'68). IMO, the only 5 year stretch that is also in the discussion is '88-'92. On the basis of that 5 year stretch alone I'm comfortable ranking him as my no. 3 GOAT. He also had some other very good years in '62, '71 and '72. He gets a bad rap on this board because of alleged 'lack of offensive impact' but when Dipper 13 ran the season to season numbers, few came out as good as him in terms of with/without. Now admittedly, '63 hurts a little bit. It wasn't completely his fault, but I'd knock him for missing the Playoffs the same way I would KG in '06 and '07. Plus, basically missing a whole season in '70 doesn't help with a 13 year career. Overall though, he was a top 5 player essentially every full year of his career, and probably top 3 every year except 1963. By all rights he should be regarded as being just as good as Jordan. Astounding big game player, complete in all facets of the game besides FT shooting, sacrificed his game for the team multiple times. He's definitely more of a serious GOAT candidate than Kareem (better peak, better prime, only reason the gap isn't bigger is longevity). But again, I can't rank him ahead of guys with essentially no blips. So 4 it is.
3. LeBron: Interesting case. He has the blips of Kareem and Wilt, and his blips are probably worse than theirs. 2011 is probably a worse meltdown than anyone in the top 10 has ever had. But the highs. Oh man, the highs. 2009, 2012, 2013, 2016 and yes 2017: all can be argued as his peak and all can be argued as good as peak Jordan or Wilt. He might be the GOAT offensive peak player after what we just saw, maybe just the GOAT peak player in general. Also, no player has ever done more with less than he did in 2009. Also possibly THE best big game player of all time, I think his games 5-7 of the Finals last year was the best stretch anyone has ever played given the pressure he was under. IMO he will be the GOAT by the time he retires. It's just that at the moment he doesn't have enough value to overcome the blips vs the perfect careers of Jordan and Russell. I think he will in the next 2 years, and I imagine by the time we do this project next I will be voting him no. 1.
So. Jordan and Russell. Here goes.
For starters, I think Jordan going 25-1 in his last 26 Playoff series and 29-7 overall in the 80s and 90s is just as impressive as Russ going 27-2 in the 50s and 60s. I'm not going to be basing this off team success.
Jordan's case for GOAT is so well known I don't even need to spend too much time here. Unquestioned best player in the league arguably for the last decade of his career ('88-'98). NEVER really had a bad Playoff series. Unfathomable regular season consistency. GOAT scoring game, arguably GOAT all-around game for a 2-guard, perhaps in the contention for GOAT perimeter defender. He didn't really have a weakness, everything in his game ranged from very good (say, rebounding) to super elite (defense) to unfathomably great (scoring).
Here's the thing about Russ now. There's this notion that people have that a guy can't be as impactful on defense as guys like Jordan/Magic/Bird are on offense. This notion is wrong. The AVERAGE player's defense is not on par with the average player's offense, but in RUSSELL'S case, his defense is even MORE impactful than the GOAT offensive player (Jordan/Magic/Bird to me). The case for Russ built around his defense, really, is that his gap over the second best defender is SO MUCH BIGGER than the GOAT offensive player's gap over the second best offensive player (it's actually so close I can't even decide an order between those two).
If I had to rank it SRS wise for their primes I'd go:
Defense
Russell: 10 Hakeem: 5 Robinson: 5 Duncan: 4-4.5
Offense
Jordan/Magic/Bird: 9-9.5 LeBron: 8.5 or so Kobe/Barkley/Oscar: 7.5-8 Shaq/Dirk/Kareem: 7
It's a real cluster*** on offense, with defense it's SO clear that Russ is the GOAT it's not even funny.
And honestly I don't see why Russell's impact would not translate. Not to the 60s level of course but at least 85% of it would be there, other than the 3 point line. He moved horizontally like KG, covered ground as well as someone regarded the GOAT modern defensive mover, and blocked shots better than anyone. It's the complete package, perfect storm. Someone who competed in Olypmic level athletics definitely has the hops to dominate today.
And people who knock on Russell's offense: well, it doesn't matter! The thing about Russ was that he was SO DOMINANT on defense, that offense didn't even matter. The numbers don't lie. The Cs were last on offense most years of Russ's prime, but they were SO GOOD on defense that the results spoke for themselves. The gap between the Cs on defense and the no. 2 defense was greater than no. 2 and no. 10! In retrospect, you HAVE to have such crazy outlier results to win 11 titles.
It's too close for me, really. I don't know where to go with this. I feel like if I vote for either guy the other could say, "Really? What more could I do?"
These two really should be co-GOATs.
For now, I'm going to go here, might change my vote later.
Re: Kareem's scoring dominance vs modern bigs (box score volume comp; argument for pace-adjusting)
Below, I'll paste a recent post from a thread that was meant to compare Kareem with Duncan and Garnett on the basis of longevity and dominance. Before I do, though, I want to speak about pace adjusting. I think, if boxscore volume in any way influences your analysis, some version of pace adjusting is absolutely VITAL. But, I had a conversation with Blackmill in response to the post below, that made me realize that I should clarify a bit WHY I believe pace adjusting is so important.
I've seen others post in recent years similarly to Blackmill did, essentially arguing that pace adjusting isn't an accurate means of projecting exactly what one player would produce in different circumstances. That, since prominent/iso scorers generally get much of their production in the half-court, their production doesn't ramp up linearly with pace. And I buy that, to some extent.
HOWEVER
I also think that pace HAS to be accounted for, as far as volume stats go, just for common sense sake. If one player gets 120 possessions a game and another gets 90, there's NO WAY you can just judge their relative volume stats as though they are on the same plane. One guy got 33% more opportunity than the other...you can't just ignore that, if the raw volume numbers mean anything to you.
So, if both stances have merit, what't the solution? Well, what I realized when debating with Blackmill, was, I don't actually CARE that pace-adjusting doesn't necessarily accurately predict a player's volume if he switched circumstances. Because if they switch circumstances, there's a LOT of variables that change. Swapping Duncan with Kareem, for example, completely changes the types of offensive schemes that are run, the types of defensive schemes that are run, the pace, the 3-point line, other rule changes, the way that rules are enforced, the types of training techniques available, the economic realities of professional athletes then vs now, etc. etc. etc. There are WAY too many variables to accurately predict, with numbers, what Kareem's stats would have looked like for the 2003 Spurs or what Duncan's stats would have looked like for the 1977 Lakers.
But...THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
I don't want to know exactly what each would produce in the other's shoes, there's no way to know that. Instead, I want to use their volumes, in their given eras, to estimate how much weight each was carrying in their own time! And to THAT end, I think pace adjusting is vital. Because while 1977 Kareem had a higher scoring average than 2003 Duncan by a few points per game, it actually turns out that 1977 Kareem scored 24.5% of the Lakers' points that year while Duncan in 2003 scored 24.3% of the Spurs' points. That is virtually identical, and a much more accurate representation of how much scoring load each was carrying for their team than the raw totals. And, bringing it full circle, that type of equality in scoring load carried is revealed in pace-adjusted numbers.
Kareem is getting a lot of votes in this thread, whereas I haven't seen a Duncan vote yet. And while I could be wrong, I strongly believe that a) the incumbent factor (e.g. we've believed in Kareem's inherent greatness for a LONG time) and b) the raw numbers that suggest Kareem's scoring dominance are very, very influential in the votes so far. So...let me repost what I put in the other thread. Maybe it doesn't influence anyone here at all, but for me it really forces me to think. WAS Kareem really more dominant than modern bigs like Duncan? Or are his numbers just better because the era in which he played was more conducive to big volume numbers (this same argument will relate to Wilt, Oscar, West, and everyone else from that era)
Without further ado, here's a re-post from this location: viewtopic.php?p=56233070#p56233070
Re: Kareem vs Duncan (and a bit of Garnett)
There are some interesting things, here. I did some very basic looks at stats today, and I think there are some definite things that are accepted as givens that should be re-thought.
1) Longevity. Kareem had amazing longevity, but upon examination there's a reasonable argument that Duncan's is better. Consider (purely boxscore measurements, per 100 possessions where available):
Kareem played 78 games, 31 minutes a game. Duncan played 77 games, 29 minutes a game.
Now, you guys all know that the boxscore alone isn't nearly enough for me to feel good about an evaluation. Also, per 100 numbers aren't perfect for analyzing different eras, but it does provide some type of pace normalization which I think is necessary. But with those said...
Are we sure that Kareem's longevity is better? Duncan's year 18 certainly looks more impressive in the regular season boxscores, to me. Slight advantage to Kareem as a scorer, but Duncan was a SIGNIFICANTLY better rebounder and also a much more efficient distributor at this point in their careers. And, stepping outside of the boxscores, we know that Duncan was still an elite defender at that point in his career and Kareem wasn't.
At the moment, I'm seeing longevity as, at worst, a wash and at best a slight advantage for DUNCAN when compared to Kareem.
Spoiler:
2) Peak play. Again, just a quick boxscore analysis from regular season, but with pace adjusted number. Also, per the OP, let's throw KG in there:
Same disclaimers as before. Boxscore isn't enough, we're looking at regular season only, pace adjusting isn't perfect...all of that.
That said again...perfect or not, the pace adjusting really puts things in a different perspective. Because much of Kareem's claim to "more dominance" than Duncan or KG comes from his mega scoring. But he was also playing at the breakneck pace of the 1970s vs the grind-it-out early 2000s and...perfect or not, the per 100 stats indicate clearly that at their peaks Duncan and Garnett were scoring at volumes (relative to their teammates & pace) that were very similar to where Kareem was operating.
Way more would need to go into a real analysis of who was better at their peaks than just this. But with this as a reasonable first cut look...I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be reasonable to find after looking deeper that Duncan or Garnett (or both) may have actually peaked higher than Kareem. Conclusion: I really hope that this type of conversation does help people to look into this/these comps in more depth and not just go with the default. Because there is some legitimate "there" there. Longevity, dominance and scoring are Kareem's calling cards...but they aren't givens, here
Just wanted to amplify this aspect of my post. Most of the subsequent discussion has been about pace adjusting, and I like that. But I don't want this to be buried, either. If we look at year 1 and Year 18, I'd say Duncan has a pretty legitimate claim to longevity at least on the order of, if not better than, Kareem's. Any thoughts on this?
Joao Saraiva wrote: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.
I've noticed a double standard as far as this goes.
Typically, on the internet posters will list teammates a player played with in order to put them below whatever other player they're championing, saying that they won because they played with X, Y and Z. But then, when a player has passed his prime and no longer what he once was, but still at least as good as X, Y and Z, then suddenly his contribution to his team's success doesn't matter at all, because he's passed his prime and not the best player anymore.
People can't have it both ways. People both take away what a player did because other teammates who weren't as good as he was were the reason he won, not solely his own efforts, but then once he's not as good as he used to be but still at least as good as those teammates who were said to be the reason his team won when he was in his prime, his efforts don't matter at all anymore because he isn't the best player on the team. It's inconsistent, but common in sports discussion.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
ElGee wrote: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.
Availability heuristic. The great performances come more readily to mind, and people don't remember the sub-par performances at all, thus resulting in people saying things like "Player X never had a bad game or bad series," which is ridiculous. There's never been anyone who's never had a sub-par performance. The greats just have less of them. But as I've seen people say on other basketball forums, "In 20 years, no one's going to remember the details." Which is absolutely true, and why I record them so they don't get lost. (But then I've seen people not even remember things that happened a couple of years ago, let alone 20.)
Jordan quiet, Bulls bow
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. — The high-flying performance of Chicago’s Michael Jordan has defied description the last few weeks.
Wednesday night, his performance simply defied logic.
Jordan took a mere eight shots in the Bulls’ 94-85 loss to the Detroit Pistons at the Palace in Auburn Hills. Eight. That’s just one more shot than the not-so-immortal — and rarely used — Brad Sellers took for Chicago.
The Pistons, meanwhile, were ignited by the hot hand of forward Mark Aguirre and guard Vinnie Johnson on their way to a 3-2 lead in this best-of-seven series. Detroit can push the Bulls out of the playoffs and earn a repeat trip to the NBA Finals with a victory in Game 6 on Friday night in Chicago.
“We know what we’ve got to do,” said Aguirre, who knew what he had to do for a struggling Pistons offense. Aguirre scored all 19 of his points in an 11-minute stretch starting late in the second quarter. That burst allowed the Pistons to turn a seven-point deficit into a 57-52 third-quarter lead.
“We’re going to try to get the crowd out of the game. We want to end it there on Friday.”
The Spectacular One has been reduced to moral status by Detroit’s Bad Boy defense. Jordan was five-of-15 from the floor and scored 15 points in the team’s Memorial Day loss in Game 5. He followed that with just 18 points Wednesday night.
Chicago coach Doug Collins gives the credit to a Detroit defense that often assigns two men to cover Jordan and flies a third at him as soon as he touches the ball. The Bulls’ players and Jordan himself cite the same reason.
One of the few people who downplays that defense is Detroit coach Chuck Daly.
“We’ve gotten a good team effort on him,” Daly said. “All in all, it was a decent job on Jordan tonight.”
Decent? There were long stretches of the game in which Jordan didn’t even look at the basket or try to generate a shot.
Jordan took just one shot in the final 13 minutes of the first half. His first — and only — points of the second quarter came with 47 seconds remaining.
The second half wasn’t much different. Jordan went the first 9½ minutes of the third quarter before squeezing off a shot. He took just one shot in the closing period, a period that found the Bulls down by just three points with 6:27 remaining.
Collins bristled after the game when it was suggested that Jordan spent the evening as nothing more than a high-paid decoy.
“A decoy,” Collins yelled. “You want him to shoot when he has three guys on him? We don’t pay him to be a decoy. I think it’s to Michael’s credit that he was moving the ball around and wasn’t forcing shots that weren’t there.
“I don’t know what to say. If he scores 46 points, like he did in Game 3, we’re a one-man team. If he passes the ball and takes just eight shots, he’s a decoy.”
Jordan said it wasn’t a question of him being a decoy. It was a question of him taking what the defense gave him — and it gave him the opportunity to pass the ball to his teammates.
“Was it part of our game plan for me to pass more tonight?” Jordan said, repeating the question. “It was part of my game plan. I wanted to get everyone else involved. I wanted to penetrate, draw attention to me and then kick the ball out. I didn’t want to force the issue.”
Today with social media, internet basketball forums and blogs, he'd be crucified for not being "alpha" enough. But since there wasn't as much attention then as now, no one remembers, and thus no one continually brings it up to use against him. Whereas now everyone's taking note of players' failures as ammo to use against them.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
A little late to the party. Had a busy Father's Day with my dad. Going this on my lunch break
My vote: Michael Jordan For reason many others have stated. To me factoring in his combination of arguably the greatest scorer, one of the best perimeter defenders of all time, playmaking, ability to take over in the clutch, arguably the goat competetitor, and undefeated in his finals appearances. Five league mvps, multiple scoring titles, won finals MVP in every championship he won, DPOY award,rookie of the year. He 3 peated with two different cores. To me he is the most versatile perimeter scorer. Mid range game Amazing post game Slasher Driver, finisher around the rim Ability to initiate contact Very good off ball player While still being an unbelievable playmaker He was very smart with his shot selection unlike Kobe for example. To me out all all the people who are in the GOAT discussion he is the most complete in all fassests. Doesn't have the longevity that someone like Kareem has for example, but nonetheless gave you 13 seasons of unbelievable basketball if we include 95.
First off, I want to say that impressed with the range of approaches and amount of effort everyone is putting into this.
My criteria:
Spoiler:
For the most part, I've purposely avoiding all-time rankings up to this point. There are so many variables that can't be accounted for, like differences between eras and how to rate players I haven't seen play. Beyond the benefit of engaging in interesting discussions about the sport I love, this project has value for me because it forces me to establish criteria to reflect what I value in the game. It also has value to me and (I hope) everyone else who participates by educating ourselves about players we know little about and gaining new perspectives on players we know fairly well.
If I had the time, I'd put together a spreadsheet or database to quantify my criteria categories and come up with a total score for each player. However, I'm not going to sweat it because a) while I'd use statistics for part of my criteria, key aspects of my criteria are inherently subjective; and b) the weighting I would apply to each category would also be subjective. I use statistics to inform my rankings, but I don't adhere to a statistics-only approach.
I also love the idea promoted by several others that this is a ranking of individuals within a team game and that performance within the team concept is a foundational tenet of my ranking method. I know it is, and it seems sorta obvious, but yeah, that's worth repeating.
If I were to give a numerical ranking to each category, it would likely be from +5 to -5 rather than 0-10. I know that they can be considered essentially the same, but I using the +5/-5 scale in my head gives me clear separation between a player who benefits his team in a particular category versus a player who hurts his team in that category. Going with a 0-10 scale puts me more in a mindset of trying to measure benefit only.
So here are my criteria. Please note that these are not necessarily in order of how I would weigh them.
1. Offensive dominance. How dominant is the player relative to other players in his era? How much does the opposing defense gameplan to stop him? How much does the player open up opportunities for teammates? Guys like Wilt, Jordan, and Bird shine here for their individual ability, guys like Magic, Stockton, and LeBron for how they create for others, with some obviously doing well in both areas. A third or fourth scorer on a good team gets a reduced bump.
2. Defensive dominance. This includes both individual defensive play -- one on one, helping off the ball -- and the impact the player has within the team defensive scheme. How versatile is the player defensively? Russell is the gold standard, as are DPOY-level players, but I also look to recognize players like Bird who weren't necessarily intimidating defenders one on one but were smart and effective within the team concept. This is a challenging area to assess for players who were known primarily for their offense -- are they solid defenders, or are they traffic cones?
3. Playoff performance. The regular season matters, but the playoffs are when the truly great players separate themselves. Shrinkage in the playoffs can be a negative for a player. Lack of appearances in the playoffs can also be a negative because, over the course of a career, great players should get there, and someone who doesn't carries the implication that they didn't contribute to making a playoff-worthy team. Their playoff struggles may not be all their fault, but Tracy McGrady and Chris Paul take a hit for me here.
4. Longevity. Did the player exhibit elite performance levels over many years? Kareem and Karl Malone set the bar here. Players who were good but not elite and maintained that level over a long career like Robert Parish and Dikembe Mutumbo get a bump.
5. Peak performance. As we discussed in another thread, a guy like Bill Walton deserves recognition for achieving an exceptionally high peak even if his longevity was poor. Anyone who had an exceptional peak performance deserves a bonus bump in the ranking. Anyone who had an exceptional peak that lasted for years deserves a max bump.
6. Historical impact. Did the player affect the way the game is played? Guys like Mikan, Russell, and Wilt deserve credit here, but I temper it a bit for them because part of their impact was due to the fact that the game was still in its relative infancy and more easily impacted. An obvious more recent example is Steph Curry, who accelerated the onset of three-point centric offenses. This is really a minor consideration, maybe 1% in my overall thinking, but can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating players at similar spots in the rankings.
7. Intangibles. Does a player make his teammates better, or is he a stat-grabbing anchor to team success? How does the player rank for selflessness, fitting within a system, leadership, clutchness, and other squishy factors?
8. Titles. Winning matters. It's not the only thing, but it makes a difference on where a player lands in the rankings.
9. Eyeball test. As if I don't have enough subjectivity in my criteria, but to say that I don't include this in my wetware ranking method would be disingenuous.
In short, my rankings are informed by statistics and include a diverse set of factors but are ultimately highly subjective. I haven't spent the time to develop a statistical formula like many others have, but even if I did, I wouldn't rely on a formulaic outcome exclusively because some important factors can't be distilled to a number (unless you subjectively assign a number), and the weighting of factors is also inherently subjective.
My candidates for the number 1 spot:
Russell Wilt Jabbar Magic Jordan LeBron
Honorable mention:
Bird Duncan Shaq Hakeem Oscar
Due to time constraints, I'm weeding the top candidate group to a top three: Russell, Jabbar, Jordan.
Here are quick explanations why I'm not including the others in my top three. Please understand that I consider all of them great, great players. I'm not taking the time to list their positives, and the explanations below may give the impression that I'm unfairly criticizing them, but I'm by necessity nitpicking to explain why I didn't include them in the top 3.
Wilt -- criticized too much for being too concerned with stat padding and individual achievement, but he did demand high salaries which priced owners out of acquiring the additional talent needed to better compete for titles, and he did let his ego get in the way of team accomplishment.
Magic -- his career was cut short, so he takes a hit on longevity. Was a mediocre outside shooter early in his career then became much more productive and reliable later. Was a pretty good individual defender and very good team defender early but became a liability as an individual defender later when he bulked up and lost quickness.
LeBron -- the 2011 finals is a black mark that Russell and Kareem don't have. He's used enormous power over the Miami and Cleveland franchises to shape his teams how he wants, which is to rely enormously on his individual play, and while he's a dominant individual player, relying so heavily on him brings with it a lower ceiling compared to all-time great teams.
Bird -- great team defender but limited individual defender. Like Magic, his career was cut short. Was the centerpiece on all-time great teams, but fell short compared to Magic in both Celtic-Laker finals and era dominance (three titles compared to five).
Duncan -- steadily great in almost every area but had lower peaks compared to other top candidates. Was able to have an exceptionally long career had significantly diminished impact the last third, both in productivity and due to sitting so many RS games.
Shaq -- great dominance over his peak but had a pronounced tendency to coast in the RS. Great all-around athleticism early in his career but became far less so later. Gets downgraded for letting conflict with Kobe impact team achievement. Caused chemistry issues by being overly egocentric and petty.
Hakeem -- great all-around player but like Wilt versus Russell and Bird versus Magic, loses out by playing in an era dominated by Jordan.
Oscar -- dominating individual player, but his prickly temperament was an impediment to team success. I don't have adequate information about his defense, but my sense is that he wasn't nearly as impactful on that end compared to other greats. Loses out head to head playing in an era dominated by Russell and Wilt.
Now onto my top three (Russell, Kareem, and MJ), who I'm taking in chronological order.
Russell Offensive dominance -- generally a poor shooter who benefited greatly by having a diverse group of offensively capable teammates and an all-time great coach. However, he is too easily dismissed as poor offensively because he wasn't a good shooter, but he does have significant arguments in his favor offensively. He was all-time great at transition offense by igniting the fast break through his rebounding prowess, being a great shotblocker who had control and awareness to turn blocks into outlet passes, and using his world-class athleticism to outrun others and finish on the break. Considering that those Celtic teams relied on the fast break as much as any team in history, that makes his impact offensively huge.
Also, despite being limited offensively in a conventional sense, he consistently improved his production in the playoffs, was the leading playoff scorer in one championship season, second twice, and third in other seasons on teams that featured great scorers like Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. You can mitigate his scoring (15.1 RS, 16.2 PO) based on pace and minutes played -- pace for those Celtics was above 120 compared to low 100s for Showtime Lakers, around 100 for this year's Warriors, and low 90s for Jordan's Bulls -- but even so, he was significantly more productive than true defensive specialists like Ben Wallace (5.7 RS, 7.2 PO) and Dikembe Mutumbo (9.8 RS, 9.1 PO).
Defensive dominance -- unparalleled in this area. The concept of offensive gravity has emerged for players like Steph Curry and Shaq, but Russell exerted defensive gravity, creating a wide bubble around the basket where opponents had to be constantly aware of him. Great rebounder, which is essential to finish a defensive possession. He was a great shotblocker, but he had a greater impact getting into the opponents' heads, making them so concerned about him that they'd miss shots or not even take them. He used a combination of supreme athleticism, IQ, will, and ferocity to dominate the game defensively.
Playoff performance -- was in the playoffs every season. Changed the Celtics from a good team that lost in the first or second round to one that failed to reach the finals only once. Consistently upped his performance in the playoffs. Was the playoff leader in rebounds per game in seven seasons.
Longevity -- played 13 seasons, which is significantly fewer than guys who played around 20 like Kareem, Karl Malone, and Robert Parish, but was a long career by the standards of the day.
Peak performance -- his scoring declined in his last few seasons, but he otherwise maintained a high level of performance throughout his career. Averaged at least 10 points and 20 rebounds every postseason. In RS, averaged at least 12.9/21.0 in seasons 2-11, 14.7/19.6 his rookie season, and 12.5/18.6 and 9.9/19.3 his last two seasons.
Historical impact -- changed the role of center from floorbound plodder to athletic leaper. Essentially introduced the concept of a shotblocker. Changed the notion of how defense impacts the game. Set the standard for winning with 11 titles in 13 seasons. This is a small factor but still relevant.
Intangibles -- consistently elevated his teammates' performance, turning marginal role players into significant contributors and good players into even better ones. Whenever to opportunity arose, sacrificed individually for the betterment of team goals. Top marks in leadership, IQ, clutch play, and will to win.
Titles -- 11 in 13 seasons.
Eyeball test -- he and Hakeem were the best athletes to ever play the center position. Was the foundation of teams that were the epitome of how the game is played at its peak level, the central defensive anchor that allowed his teammates to extend defensive pressure outward, and part of a offense that mixed fast breaks with halfcourt offense that maximized effectiveness by utilizing everyone as a capable scorer.
---
(Edit: added the material below)
Kareem Before getting into my criteria categories, I want to point out what I consider to be a significant factor in people's assessment of Kareem for GOAT status, that he is mostly remembered as the player he was at the end of his career with the Lakers. This is partly a downside of such a long career, that his least productive and dominant years will be remembered most vividly because they were the most recent, but it's also a function of the fact that his Showtime Laker years are played frequently as classic NBA reruns. However, Kareem had 10 full seasons prior to Magic's arrival, and these are the years when he was at his most athletic and dominant. Kareem won five MVPs during those 10 years, with his sixth coming in 1979-80, Magic's rookie season.
Kareem also suffers in perception by spending four years on good but not great teams after being traded to LA, but he was the best player in the league during that time while playing in relative obscurity compared to the 80s,
Offensive dominance -- Kareem's height, length, skill, and athleticism combined to create the Sky Hook, the most unstoppable go-to shot in the history of the game. He had a variety of other moves, but his hook shot set him apart offensively. He could shoot it with either hand, he was adept at getting it off against single- or double-coverage with only a minimum of space to operate, and he shot it reliably out to 15 feet or more, if necessary. Kareem shooting the Sky Hook was a metronome of consistency that his team could go to all game long and down the stretch when they needed a bucket.
It remained effective into his latter playing days when he could shoot it on tiptoes, but the height he achieved on the release in his younger days was truly impressive.
Unlike many centers, Kareem was a good free throw shooter (72% career RS, 74% PO), which made him even more effective. He is 6th all time in RS FT attempts, 10th in RS FTs made, 9th in PO FT attempts, and 10th in PO FTs made.
He was also a willing and skilled passer. His assist percentages were excellent for a center, particularly in the first half of his career, when he was above 16% for nine straight seasons. That compares favorably with noted passers Bill Walton and Tim Duncan and is better than others like Dave Cowens, Hakeem, and Shaq.
Defensive dominance -- he wasn't in Russell's class, but he was a very good rim protector, individual defender, and help defender. He led the league in blocks four times and averaged 2.6 blocks for his career, but that doesn't include his first four seasons, which were before blocks were officially recorded. That trails Olajuwon (3.1) and Robinson (3.0) but compares favorably to Walton (2.2), Shaq (2.3), and Duncan (2.2).
He was a very good rebounder for the first half of his career and a good rebounder after that. He is fourth all-time in rebounds, trailing only Wilt, Russell, and Moses Malone. He's more than 2,000 ahead of Duncan, 3,000 ahead of Hakeem, and 4,000 ahead of Shaq.
Kareem was a cerebral player, and that was particularly true on the defensive end. He used his length and athleticism early in his career and became a smarter defender as his athleticism waned. He didn't have a dominant defensive mindset, but he was still very effective and a capable anchor for the defense even late into his career.
Playoff performance -- Kareem generally maintained his high RS levels of productivity in the playoffs, sometimes exceeding his RS performance and sometimes not, but was overall a very good playoff performer. He set numerous playoff and finals records in a variety of categories.
Longevity -- excellent productivity tapering off to very good productivity over a 20-year career. Simply outstanding longevity, as evidenced by his place in career statistics.
Peak performance -- he had a peak that lasted 12 years or more. He averaged 23.4 RS and 25.9 PO points in his 17th season. A remarkable combination of longevity and peak.
Historical impact -- didn't so much blaze the trail as extend the one set by Russell, Wilt, and the other great centers of the 60s.
Intangibles -- was a leader by example, the calm amid the storm during crunch time. As reliable as any player ever. Elevated his teammates play. Applied his exceptional individual talent and skill toward the achievement of team goals. A seamless teammate on championship teams, enhancing chemistry rather than causing drama.
Titles -- six in 10 finals appearances over his 20-year career.
Eyeball test -- he was the focal point of the game for most of his career and an essential contributor even late into his career. The most reliable and unstoppable offensive force ever, even more so than Wilt's fadeaways and power moves and Shaq's bull rushes, because he could always, always get that shot away, no matter the defense. Had a great combination of skill, talent, size, and intellect, plus a deep-seated desire to put team first. His longevity had the downside of diminishing his early years. He was taken for granted.
I'm tired and feel like I've done a poor job making his case. Hopefully others will do a better job, particularly pointing out his numerical case since his accumulation of statistics over such a long, productive career is so impressive.
Michael Jordan I intended to make a similar case for him, but he's third in my ranking, and I'm out of gas. What I'll say is that here are the reasons I put him behind Kareem and Russell:
-- Took a few years to learn how to properly utilize his individual talents in service of team goals and to trust his teammates.
-- I downgrade him for the two-year baseball hiatus. Too many people assume that he would've won titles those two years too, but he was burnt out and need that time off to recharge his passion for the second three-year title run. Russell and Kareem maintained their excellence year after year.
First choice: Kareem, by a hair, due to his offensive ability and longevity.
Second choice: Russell, the greatest winner and defensive force the NBA has ever seen.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Joao Saraiva wrote: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.
I've noticed a double standard as far as this goes.
Typically, on the internet posters will list teammates a player played with in order to put them below whatever other player they're championing, saying that they won because they played with X, Y and Z. But then, when a player has passed his prime and no longer what he once was, but still at least as good as X, Y and Z, then suddenly his contribution to his team's success doesn't matter at all, because he's passed his prime and not the best player anymore.
People can't have it both ways. People both take away what a player did because other teammates who weren't as good as he was were the reason he won, not solely his own efforts, but then once he's not as good as he used to be but still at least as good as those teammates who were said to be the reason his team won when he was in his prime, his efforts don't matter at all anymore because he isn't the best player on the team. It's inconsistent, but common in sports discussion.
For me it's all about production and impact.
If the player keeps producing and having impact, I'll give him credit for it. Not as much credit as I would give to him on his prime carrying a bigger load and having a bigger role, but he definitely brought something to the table so I have to take that into account.
But you're absolutely right in that regard.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
#1 in PER #1 in WS/48 #1 in MVP award shares #2 in VORP #4 in WS
#1 in playoff WS/48 #1 in playoff PER #2 in playoff BPM #2 in playoff VORP
Best peak (1991), best prime (1988-1993)
I value peak/prime over a longevity advantage that Kareem has. I also believe he was a more consistent playoff performer in his career than Kareem was from 70-82 or 71-83, whichever 13 year Kareem stretch you prefer (not going to penalize Kareem for playing more seasons than Jordan).
Second Vote: KAJ
LookToShoot wrote:Melo is the only player that makes the Rockets watchable for the basketball purists. Otherwise it would just be three point shots and pick n roll.
Re: Kareem's scoring dominance vs modern bigs (box score volume comp; argument for pace-adjusting)
Below, I'll paste a recent post from a thread that was meant to compare Kareem with Duncan and Garnett on the basis of longevity and dominance. Before I do, though, I want to speak about pace adjusting. I think, if boxscore volume in any way influences your analysis, some version of pace adjusting is absolutely VITAL. But, I had a conversation with Blackmill in response to the post below, that made me realize that I should clarify a bit WHY I believe pace adjusting is so important.
I've seen others post in recent years similarly to Blackmill did, essentially arguing that pace adjusting isn't an accurate means of projecting exactly what one player would produce in different circumstances. That, since prominent/iso scorers generally get much of their production in the half-court, their production doesn't ramp up linearly with pace. And I buy that, to some extent.
HOWEVER
I also think that pace HAS to be accounted for, as far as volume stats go, just for common sense sake. If one player gets 120 possessions a game and another gets 90, there's NO WAY you can just judge their relative volume stats as though they are on the same plane. One guy got 33% more opportunity than the other...you can't just ignore that, if the raw volume numbers mean anything to you.
So, if both stances have merit, what't the solution? Well, what I realized when debating with Blackmill, was, I don't actually CARE that pace-adjusting doesn't necessarily accurately predict a player's volume if he switched circumstances. Because if they switch circumstances, there's a LOT of variables that change. Swapping Duncan with Kareem, for example, completely changes the types of offensive schemes that are run, the types of defensive schemes that are run, the pace, the 3-point line, other rule changes, the way that rules are enforced, the types of training techniques available, the economic realities of professional athletes then vs now, etc. etc. etc. There are WAY too many variables to accurately predict, with numbers, what Kareem's stats would have looked like for the 2003 Spurs or what Duncan's stats would have looked like for the 1977 Lakers.
But...THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
I don't want to know exactly what each would produce in the other's shoes, there's no way to know that. Instead, I want to use their volumes, in their given eras, to estimate how much weight each was carrying in their own time! And to THAT end, I think pace adjusting is vital. Because while 1977 Kareem had a higher scoring average than 2003 Duncan by a few points per game, it actually turns out that 1977 Kareem scored 24.5% of the Lakers' points that year while Duncan in 2003 scored 24.3% of the Spurs' points. That is virtually identical, and a much more accurate representation of how much scoring load each was carrying for their team than the raw totals. And, bringing it full circle, that type of equality in scoring load carried is revealed in pace-adjusted numbers.
Kareem is getting a lot of votes in this thread, whereas I haven't seen a Duncan vote yet. And while I could be wrong, I strongly believe that a) the incumbent factor (e.g. we've believed in Kareem's inherent greatness for a LONG time) and b) the raw numbers that suggest Kareem's scoring dominance are very, very influential in the votes so far. So...let me repost what I put in the other thread. Maybe it doesn't influence anyone here at all, but for me it really forces me to think. WAS Kareem really more dominant than modern bigs like Duncan? Or are his numbers just better because the era in which he played was more conducive to big volume numbers (this same argument will relate to Wilt, Oscar, West, and everyone else from that era)
Without further ado, here's a re-post from this location: viewtopic.php?p=56233070#p56233070
Re: Kareem vs Duncan (and a bit of Garnett)
There are some interesting things, here. I did some very basic looks at stats today, and I think there are some definite things that are accepted as givens that should be re-thought.
1) Longevity. Kareem had amazing longevity, but upon examination there's a reasonable argument that Duncan's is better. Consider (purely boxscore measurements, per 100 possessions where available):
Kareem played 78 games, 31 minutes a game. Duncan played 77 games, 29 minutes a game.
Now, you guys all know that the boxscore alone isn't nearly enough for me to feel good about an evaluation. Also, per 100 numbers aren't perfect for analyzing different eras, but it does provide some type of pace normalization which I think is necessary. But with those said...
Are we sure that Kareem's longevity is better? Duncan's year 18 certainly looks more impressive in the regular season boxscores, to me. Slight advantage to Kareem as a scorer, but Duncan was a SIGNIFICANTLY better rebounder and also a much more efficient distributor at this point in their careers. And, stepping outside of the boxscores, we know that Duncan was still an elite defender at that point in his career and Kareem wasn't.
At the moment, I'm seeing longevity as, at worst, a wash and at best a slight advantage for DUNCAN when compared to Kareem.
2) Peak play. Again, just a quick boxscore analysis from regular season, but with pace adjusted number. Also, per the OP, let's throw KG in there:
Same disclaimers as before. Boxscore isn't enough, we're looking at regular season only, pace adjusting isn't perfect...all of that.
That said again...perfect or not, the pace adjusting really puts things in a different perspective. Because much of Kareem's claim to "more dominance" than Duncan or KG comes from his mega scoring. But he was also playing at the breakneck pace of the 1970s vs the grind-it-out early 2000s and...perfect or not, the per 100 stats indicate clearly that at their peaks Duncan and Garnett were scoring at volumes (relative to their teammates & pace) that were very similar to where Kareem was operating.
Way more would need to go into a real analysis of who was better at their peaks than just this. But with this as a reasonable first cut look...I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be reasonable to find after looking deeper that Duncan or Garnett (or both) may have actually peaked higher than Kareem. Conclusion: I really hope that this type of conversation does help people to look into this/these comps in more depth and not just go with the default. Because there is some legitimate "there" there. Longevity, dominance and scoring are Kareem's calling cards...but they aren't givens, here.
Taking per 100 into account there are also other things: - more pace equals more fastbreak situations. KAJ is hardly the guy profiting from those. So actually higher pace might hurt a bit his production in a per 100 possessions basis; - why don't you relate ts% to league average? If you're putting everything into perspective, then this shall be made too.
Your first point is exactly what I was talking about with my discussion with Blackmill. He also pointed out pace, and Kareem playing half-court offense. And as I said in the post you quoted, I can buy that to an extent. But again, I think of more interest (at least to me) is how much volume he was carrying with respect to his team, with respect to his time. The ratio of fast breaks, to me, fits under the style of play umbrella along with spacing, offensive schemes, defensive schemes, and a bunch of other things that can't fully be quantitatively accounted for with our present amount of information. Thus, pace adjustment lets me see how much load each was carrying in their times and circumstances, which I find to be more important than raw volume.
Your second point, I agree with and would love to see someone do. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I really thought this project was going to be starting a week to 10 days later. I had hoped to do some preparatory analysis in that intervening time, including stuff like a TS% comp here. Unfortunately, I didn't get that time and now I'm trying to squeeze my posts in around work, family and travel. Long story short, I haven't had time to do more analysis. It's why I had to re-post a previous post to make my point here, when I'd much rather have done new analysis just for this. SO I guess my point is...I agree with you, and if you've got the time I'd love for TS% to be considered as well.
But more than TS%, more even than boxscores, I'd love to see some really good, in-depth comp analyses for Kareem vs Duncan vs Russell vs Jordan vs anyone else in the discussion right now. I just posted a quick Kareem/Duncan thumb nail, but it's not nearly enough to tell the whole story. But what it is, I hope, is enough to make more of you guys interested in looking deeper into it and seeing if there is more grist to the comp than we tend to default to.
I'm hoping to do a pretty in depth comparison of Kareem/Duncan/Russell/Jordan/Lebron later today, especially considering my #1 choice may be Duncan.
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
drza wrote: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.
This interested me, so I did some work, though not exactly what you described. I searched for players that were, at some point in their career, predicted a +3 on offense and did the same for defense. For each list I found teams where several of the players played together, checking that when they played together was near a season each player recorded a +3 (mainly to filter out rookie and old man years), and returned their RAPM scores around the time they played together. I make no attempt at quantitative analysis since I don't have the time. However, some general notes:
________________________________________________Offense________________________________________________ Ray Allen's offense suffered when joining the Big Three in Boston and Pierce less so. Garnett's didn't change much.
Durant, Westbrook, and Harden were unable to simultaneously reach their potentials on offense, though when they played together it was still early in their careers.
Shaq and Kobe's offensive RAPM scores didn't change much once they parted.
When Miami formed their Big Three all players saw a drop in their offensive RAPM. Bosh saw the largest drop.
The 08-10 Laker's experienced essentially additive benefits to playing Gasol and Kobe.
Lebron, Kyrie, and Love experienced nearly additive benefits to playing together. Love's drop off was largely countered by Kyrie's improvement. Did Kyrie improve because of a season's experience or the interaction between his play and that of Lebron and Love?
Iggy, Bogut, and Green don't appear to have taken away from each other's defensive impact.
Garnett and Perkins both improved defensively once they went to Boston.
Kawhi and Splitter showed better DRAPM as Duncan's got worse but this could be explained by age.
Mutombo joining the Rockets didn't seem to hurt Yao's defensive scores. That said, Mutombo had limited play time.
Rasheed's DRAPM dropped when he played a full season with Ben. This is one of few examples of two +4 defenders playing together and the only such example I could find where we know their DRAPM scores before they played together.
________________________________________________Overall________________________________________________ By an entirely non-quantitative approach, there does appear more diminishing returns to playing multiple good offensive players than defensive players.
However, the diminishing returns on offense is most apparent when three very good offensive players play together, and usually it's a single player among the three who burdens most of the deadweight loss.
Ultimately, some offensive pairing appear additive, and some defensive pairings don't. Context must be considered.
So I've never had a GOAT list before, as I never cared. I'm not a "list" guy either. I've never advocated for a player as GOAT, which I made clear in my first year or two here. I don't get a commission or anything for doing so, so I never saw the point. I was more interested in team-building exercises than GOAT lists.
But I came up with criteria that I've used in comparisons between two players, but didn't use it for a list, because it would take a while to rank a bunch of players relative to each other, and I have an inordinate amount of information that would take more time to go through for everyone than I felt was worth. But with this project, I'll make my first attempt at a list using my criteria.
ThaRegul8r wrote:1. The ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one’s team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, and the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose. An NBA game is not a game of AND1, so who would do what against another player one-on-one—as if they were the only two players on the court in an empty gym—is irrelevant.
The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters is results. How well what a player brings to the table translates into victories for his team. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.
This is to eliminate stylistic bias. I don't care how a player helps his team win, I only care that he does it. The end matters, not the means. With the Warriors, there were various people who said a jump-shooting team can't win a title. This criterion doesn't care. If a player can win doing it, that's all that matters. It doesn't care who's more aesthetically pleasing to watch. It doesn't care what convention thinks.
ThaRegul8r wrote:2. The ability to both identify what the team needs at any given moment in order to realize the ultimate object of winning and provide it. Players who can do this will rank higher than those who can’t figure out what needs to be done without being told.
It's the player's job to do whatever the current situation requires and recognize what needs to be done. They're the ones on the court. From RealGM's last Top 100 list, this eliminates Wilt from GOAT contention.
1. Michael Jordan 2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3. Bill Russell 4. Wilt Chamberlain 5. Tim Duncan 6. Shaquille O'Neal 7. LeBron James 8. Magic Johnson 9. Hakeem Olajuwon 10. Larry Bird
ThaRegul8r wrote:3. The possession of the rational self-interest to put ego aside in order to do #1 and #2, disregarding the opinions of irrelevant others who are not on the team and thus have no effect on the team’s success.
Another strike against Wilt, as he spent too much time worrying about what people who weren't on the team were saying and responding to them instead of doing what he needed to do to help his team win.
ThaRegul8r wrote:4. The ability to block out distractions and anything irrelevant to the maximization of the team’s chances of victory.
A player focusing on anything other than helping his team will receive a lower evaluation. Basketball is a job like any other, and a player’s job is to help bring his team wins, just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. Nothing else matters or is relevant. A basketball player has more impact on the outcome of a basketball game than a baseball player does on the outcome of a baseball game, or an American football player does on the outcome of a game of American football. A baseball player is one of nine players on the field of play, and position players only come to bat 3-4 times during the course of a three-hour game. A pitcher has the most impact on a baseball game, but only pitches once every five games. An American football player is one of 11 players on the field of play, and there are entirely separate teams for offense and defense. American football is the most specialized of the major sports—which limits the impact an individual player can have, and for half of the game an American football player has no impact on the game whatsoever—Chuck Bednarik, who played with the Philadelphia Eagles from 1949 to 1962, was the last American football player to play on both offense and defense. A basketball player however, is one of five players on the field of play, and can be involved in everything that occurs on a basketball court on both offense and defense. Since a basketball player has more impact on the outcome of a basketball game than it is possible for a player to have in any other of the major sports, helping his team win carries more importance for a basketball player. Thus comparing basketball players to players in other sports is flawed and reveals a lack of understanding of the varying natures of the sports.
Basketball players are grown men who make choices. They have the right to make whatever choice they want, but with action comes consequence. That choice they make will be honored and they will be evaluated on the basis of that choice, whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to their team’s chances of winning.
Shaq and Kobe both are eliminated from GOAT contention by this criterion. The Lakers after 2001 were talked about in the same vein as these Warriors after they set the playoff record the '17 Warriors just surpassed.
Get used to it, NBA fans. The Los Angeles Lakers are here to stay for a while.
Taking into consideration the ages of their key players, the contract situations, the league's salary cap rules and competition from other teams, there is no reason to think that barring the unforeseeable, the Lakers won't be favored to win at least the next four league championships.
But the Lakers fell victim to the Disease of Me. People on the internet talk about various players who didn't have help, but Shaq and Kobe had the luxury of having another Top 10 player of all time in his prime (this was pre-LeBron, so however high LeBron ultimately ranked is irrelevant to this period of time), but couldn't make it work.
The best duo of all time?
Lakers’ O’Neal, Bryant form a powerful pairing
Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant have just one NBA championship, though hardly anyone believes they won’t win a second within the next two weeks.
With an undefeated run through the playoffs thus far, against three teams that each won at least 50 games in the regular season, the Lakers have been drawing comparisons with the great teams in NBA history.
And O’Neal and Bryant may be earning a unique distinction—the best tandem ever to play pro basketball together.
“I guess you would have to look back on this organization first,” Lakers coach Phil Jackson said. “At Jerry West and Wilt [Chamberlain] when they won 69 games and 33 in a row. Gail Goodrich had a really good year. But Wilt was coming back that year after a knee operation, and he was in his 30s and so was West, at the back end of their careers. Here we have two guys in their 20s, even though they are almost a generation apart, at the top of their games.
“I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything quite like this.”
But they threw it all away. If they couldn't make it work with each other, they lost the right to ever complain about "not having help." They won more together than they did apart.
It also eliminates Hakeem pre re-embracing Islam. For all the talk of the Rockets upsetting the Lakers in '86, Hakeem wasn't even on the floor when they eliminated the Lakers because he couldn't stay focused on the task at hand. “Akeem Olajuwon, an immensely talented center in only his second pro season, had become the leader as the Rockets defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in three of their first four games. Yet, Olajuwon was in the dressing room, ejected after a fracas with Mitch Kupchak, when the fifth game of the Western Conference finals was decided” (The Palm Beach Post, May 24, 1986).
1. Michael Jordan 2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3. Bill Russell 5. Tim Duncan 6. Shaquille O'Neal 7. LeBron James 8. Magic Johnson 9. Hakeem Olajuwon 10. Larry Bird
ThaRegul8r wrote:5. Clutchness. The ability to rise to the occasion during big games and crucial moments in order to bring about the ultimate objective of winning, and the mental fortitude to do so.
ThaRegul8r wrote:6. Playoff Translatability. The ability of a player to continue to effectively employ whatever it is he brings to the table to help his team win during the postseason. The sole purpose of the regular season is to determine seeding for the postseason and playoff brackets.
This criterion would eliminate Karl Malone if he were in the top ten.
ThaRegul8r wrote:7. Statistics. Statistics are team-dependent. Doing what is needed in order for the team to win may require sacrificing individual statistics. There will be no penalty levied for doing so, nor will a player’s evaluation be lowered for putting the needs of the team above his own individual statistics. It shows he has the right priority.
ThaRegul8r wrote:8. Rings. Rings are only relevant so far as the player’s contribution to his team winning the title that year. Mitch Richmond won an NBA championship as a member of the Los Angeles Lakers in 2002, but played all of four minutes that postseason. Thus, the ring that he won is as irrelevant as he was to the Lakers that year. He gets no boost against a ringless player. Neither does a player who bandwagons his way to a ring.
9. Individual Contribution. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly.
Someone like a Jerry West doesn't get penalized for playing well but losing. Someone like Karl Malone does get penalized for not playing like an MVP in a loss. Henceforth, I'm calling this criterion The "Mr. Clutch" or "Failed Delivery" Determinant when applied to a losing player's performance.
ThaRegul8r wrote:10. Awards and Accolades. The object of the game is to help your team win. Awards are extraneous to this objective. A trophy has never once stepped onto a court to help a team win a game. Awards are not needed in order to know how much a player helped his team win.
Awards have nothing to do with how well a player played, as a player’s performance stands independently of whether or not he received an award for it. A player’s performance doesn’t magically get any better for receiving an award for it, nor does it magically get worse for not receiving one. It only matters for people incapable of looking at how a player played and forming an opinion from that.
Players don't get artificial boosts over other players by winning an award it wasn't possible for earlier players to win. Everyone's on equal footing and will be evaluated by criterion #9. No copy and paste of awards and accolades.
11. Playoff Advancement. The object of the game is to help your team win. In lieu of actually achieving that objective, helping your team get as close to it as possible. Helping your team get to the semifinals > losing in the opening round; helping your team get to the conference finals > losing in the semifinals; helping your team get to the Finals > losing in the conference finals. Getting closer to the ultimate goal of winning is always a positive. Finishing farther away from it is always a negative. Helping your team get to the Finals but losing is always better than losing in an earlier round.
Kareem helping his teams get to 10 Finals, Russell helping his teams get to 12 Finals, Magic helping his teams get to 9 Finals, James helping his teams get to 8 Finals, and Jordan and Duncan helping their teams get to 6 Finals are all positives. They will then be evaluated by criterion #9.
12. Longevity vs. Peak. The object of the game is to help your team win. Nothing else matters. Thus longevity is only relevant as far as when evaluating a player, the question is: how much did that player help the team(s) he played on during his career win, from draft day to retirement? This encompasses more than just a player’s peak/prime, it encompasses the moment he plays his first NBA game to the moment he announces his retirement, not an arbitrarily selected portion of his career. A player can help his team win before reaching his peak/prime (e.g., Magic Johnson), and can continue to do so after passing it (e.g., Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Tim Duncan). These years will not be excluded simply because they didn’t fall inside the period labeled as that player’s peak/prime.
A player does not cease to help his team win after passing his peak/prime. He may not be able to make as large a contribution as he formerly did due to age, but continuing to contribute to team wins to the extent one is able is still valuable to the team he plays for and helps the team obtain the ultimate objective. A player’s career consists of more than just his peak. The mere fact that one player “peaked” higher than another at one point in his career does not mean that he helped the team(s) he played for win more from draft day to retirement.
Longevity only has any meaning insofar as the length of time a player can continue to effectively employ whatever skills he brings to the table at whatever degree he is able to at that point in time to remain a positive contributor to team success. Post-prime longevity only matters when adding extra value. That is to say, if a player failed to effectively employ whatever abilities he brings to the table to help his team win during his prime, then simply outlasting the competition long enough to luck into a favorable situation is not adding extra value. Post-prime longevity cannot make up for the failure to meet Criteria #1 and #5 during one’s prime. Only seasons in which a player helped his team win will be considered in the overall evaluation.
This was necessary due to the double standard I described to Joao Saraiva.
So from the last RealGM Top 10 it seems that leaves:
Michael Jordan Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Bill Russell Tim Duncan LeBron James Magic Johnson Larry Bird
For a second pass.
But of these seven, before even getting into an in-depth look, presuming there are no issues with the other criteria, Bird clearly comes in dead last on criterion #12. Draft day to retirement, every other player who's made it this far was able to help their team win for a longer period of time than Bird did, due to injury. And not being able to play was detrimental to his team. So that would be the tiebreaker (again, assuming he wouldn't come up short in the other criteria), and so his highest possible ranking would be #7.
Michael Jordan Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Bill Russell Tim Duncan LeBron James Magic Johnson Larry Bird
So that leaves the top six as: Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Duncan, LeBron, and Magic in an order to be determined. Which is the farthest I've ever gotten before. An equal mix of dominant individuals (Jordan, Kareem, LeBron) and team players whose value goes beyond statistics (Russell, Duncan, Magic). There's also an even distribution of big men and perimeter players, so there's no positional bias.
I like the fact that it so happens works out so that the '60s (Russell), '70s (Kareem), '80s (Magic), '90s (Jordan), '00s (Duncan), and 2010s (LeBron) are all equally represented. (Of course in the cases of Kareem and Duncan there's overlap from having played so long.) So there's no era bias either.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
trex_8063 wrote:Thru post #105 (just over 24 hours into thread; might go a little long with this thread since I started slightly earlier than some were expecting):
I would really appreciate that. I hope to have my post done by late this evening. Driving to and from LA this weekend, and some other things, have made it hard to make my writeup this soon.
Joao Saraiva wrote:What do you mean by close to perfection?
Closer to 100ts%? Closer to higher PER? What is it?
Or is it team results?
Because close to perfection doesn't say a lot.
Meaning player X passes the eye test, stats, impact, individual accolades, team results and maximized his career with whatever he have and whatever circumstances in a given amount of time.
Lots of great post for Russell. I'm currently leaning Jordan but can be talked into taking Russell. Also surprised no one is mentioning Wilt.
Frank Dux wrote:
LeChosen One wrote:Doc is right. The Warriors shouldn't get any respect unless they repeat to be honest.
According to your logic, Tim Duncan doesn't deserve any respect.
Joao Saraiva wrote:What do you mean by close to perfection?
Closer to 100ts%? Closer to higher PER? What is it?
Or is it team results?
Because close to perfection doesn't say a lot.
Meaning player X passes the eye test, stats, impact, individual accolades, team results and maximized his career with whatever he have and whatever circumstances in a given amount of time.
Lots of great post for Russell. I'm currently leaning Jordan but can be talked into taking Russell. Also surprised no one is mentioning Wilt.
Meh. For me a lot of guys fit into that.
MJ, Russell, KAJ, LeBron, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe...
In a given amount of time: well, doing great for 13 years is not the same as doing great for 17 or 18. (not talking about anyone in particular).
Having a bad day here and there doesn't change that. A player doing as much as he can for 10 years and making 2 bad series in 12 years has to be worth more than a player achieving all he can in a period of 5.
After all, the one that did it 10 years did it 5 times more.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Okay, as many know I consider this question as something approaching settled. Nonetheless I'll make some effort here to illustrate why.
1) Michael Jordan 2) LeBron James (this placement will deserve more in depth discussion when it comes up)
1) CANDIDATES: I consider the only other truly legit candidates for #1 to be MJ, Wilt, Russel, Kareem, and now LeBron. Of those Russell is mostly an honorary. He was given that status by playing for the only truly professional franchise in a 10 team league while surrounded by overwhelming talent and the first GOAT coach. And after that, hey, you could waste your whole life explaining why Duncan, KG, Kobe, and everybody down to Ben McLemore isn't in the same league if you wanted to, but really it should be obvious. Not the same level of player. The mega's are 4-6x MVPs who dominated whole decades and have legendary accomplishments to their names.
Now the thing is, that this question is SETTLED, was settled 20 years ago for all the guys not named LeBron. It was more than just a consensus, it was nearly universal. I consider it hubris indeed to go back and say, we the internet forum have figured out what you, all the basketball people who witnessed these great players play for decades foolishly didn't know.
Personally I have gone back and forth over time whether pre-MJ I would have had it Wilt->Kareem->Russell or Kareem->Wilt->Russell, but for this Top 100 I am going to go with Kareem as the best of the old centers...and then show why MJ and LeBron have now outpointed him.
2) MJ was the ultimate winner. Once he hit his prime, He NEVER lost, unless you count the half-assed 17game comeback season when he came racing in in April. But otherwise? Not only did he win every year, everybody knew and expected he'd win every year. And it wasn't a team or franchise thing. It was a Michael thing. We've seen LeBron lose. We've even seen LeBron cry. We've seen him fail. We've seen him run away from a challenge. We've also seen the opposite of course. He's done great things. But we know what LeBron defeated looks like. He's a great great player, but not a demigod, not a name that becomes synonymous with winning it all every single time. He can be and has been defeated. Meanwhile the MJ mystique and name rises to the level of Ali or Pele. Bigger than mere basketball.
3) MJ's Eastern Conference was tougher than LeBron's. And MJ made his East eventually look weak. But he came up and had to grow through an era dominated by Bird's Celtics, still potent Philly and Milwaulkee teams, then the wars with the mini-dynastic Bad Boy Pistons. During his prime, there were still the rugged Riley/Ewing Knicks, Brown/Miller Pacers, Price/Daugherty/Wilkens Cavs, and Shaq n' Penny came of age as he was aging. He beat them all. He also put down Barkley, Mailman, aging Magic, Drexler, and a 64 win Sonics team. And it wasn't like he squeaked by these teams. A few mounted challenges, he put them all down.
4) there's basically no statistical measure you can find to justify flying in the face of the historical dominance and ranking. If you're going to try to gerrymander Jordan off his perch, you damn well better find SOMETHING he failed at. Some measure by which he was less dominant than LeBron, or Kareem.
-- MJ led the league in win shares 10 of his last 11 years (not counting the 17 game comeback season) -- WS/48 9 of the last 10 (in both cases he finally started to slip in his last year) -- led the league in PER for 7 straight years -- led the league in scoring his last 10 years straight
Jordan is the all time NBA leader in WS/48. Here are the Top 21 guys all time (min 10,000pts scored): Jordan .250 <--- Paul .250 Admiral .250 Mikan .249 Wilt .248 <---- NJohnston .241 LeBron .239 <--- Kareem .228 <--- Magic .225 Durant .219 Barkley .216 Petit .213 West .213 Harden .212 Duncan .209 Stockton .209 Shaq .208 Oscar .207 Mailman .205 Bird .203 Curry .203
Jordan is the all time NBA leader in PER. Here are the Top 21 guys all time (min 10,000pts scored): Jordan 27.9 <---- Lebron 27.6 <---- Mikan 27.5 Shaq 26.4 Admiral 26.2 Wilt 26.1 <---- Paul 25.7 Petit 25.3 Durant 25.2 NJohnston 24.7 Kareem 24.6 <---- Barkley 24.6 Wade 24.3 Duncan 24.2 Magic 24.1 Mailman 23.9 Westbrook 23.8 Hakeem 23.6 Bird 23.5 Curry 23.4 Oscar 23.2
What you see is a LeBron was great, Kareem was great, Wilt was great...and MJ was greater still. If you're going to be a guy with failures on your record, warts, and question marks, then you better be markedly superior to the guy you are trying to surpass.
if you go to the Per100s for MJ/LeBron/Kareem (a tad unfair for Kareem since his first couple of years predate them):
MJs Pts/per 100, PER and WS/48 there are of course all the best of all time.
And then the playoff per100 numbers: Jordan 43.3pts (.568TS%) 8.3reb 7.4ast 2.7stl 1.1blk 4.0TO 28.6PER .255WS/48 LeBron 36.7pts (.574TS%) 11.4reb 8.9ast 2.3stl 1.2blk 4.6TO 27.9PER .241WS/48 Kareem 31.1pts (.571TS%) 12.1reb 4.2ast 1.3stl 3.2blk 3.0TO 23.0PER .193WS/48
Where Jordan extends his lead even more, including an absolutely impossible 43.3pts per 100, on the same TS%, against playoff defenses.
There's just basically no argument to be made besides this guy or that played into old manhood. But even there, isn't the old saw that the point of playing is to win titles? Well Jordan won as many in his years as Kareem did in all of his, and he never had a Magic or Oscar caliber guy to help. He's still won more than Lebron.
Jordan is the GOAT. Has been the GOAT for 25 years. May even be the GOAT for another 25. The specials seem to come along about once every 15 years. We'll have another one here in the next decade, and then he came make his run. But he'll have to be completely epic to pull it off.
cpower wrote:... 1. His dominance on the defensive end. You and other peers have stated enough on how dominant he was in his era so I am not going to more details here. 2. His teammates. His teammates lead the WS in 5/11 championship runs and to say they had a super team is a understatement. 3. Fewer playoff series. 8/11 of the champions came in 2 series. I have developed a simple mathematical model to demonstrate this: To win a championship through 4 series , given the odds of winning each is (90%, 80%, 65%, 55% respectively), the overall odds is 26% for a single year. To win a championship through 2 series , given the odds of winning each is (80%, 65% respectively), the overall odds is 48% for a single year, the odds is basically doubled. 4. Luck, The Celtics won game 7 - five times and 4 of 5 had been less than 3 points. While winning close games is amazing, we have to acknowledge how rare is it to win multiple g7 games within such small margin.
in reverse order:
4. Is it luck or clutch performance? When MJ wins close games, it's always the narrative that he is the reason. When Russell wins close games, it's not? And yet, Russell consistently elevates scoring in the playoffs and is known for setting up opponents for failure with mental exercises that lead them into making the wrong play. Just something to think about.
3. That's why I didn't talk about titles won, I talked about series won. Russell won 93% of his playoff series; Jordan 79%, Kareem something below that. It's not about less series to win, it's about winning the series that you do play. Jordan DID win 90% plus once Phil Jackson came to Chicago and convinced him to play more team oriented ball rather than hero ball . . . but Russell had the focus on winning rather than individual performance from the very beginning.
4. Instead of just saying "superteam" it would be much more helpful if you actually compared the teams that they played on and looked at their teammates.
Russell played on basically 2 teams (with some transition between them). The first was with Cousy, Sharman, Lotscutoff/Ramsey, Heinsohn, and him. This is a "superteam" only in terms of guys who scored a lot. Cousy and Heinsohn were below average efficiency scorers, Sharman and Ramsey only average, Lotscutoff not a scorer (Auerbach did do a good job of getting deep bench, especially compared to Wilt's Warriors teams). Other than Lotscutoff (a pretty average defensive specialist), there isn't any stud defender there to help Russell either.
Compare to Jordan's 1st 3-peat team: Pippen (better than any Celtic in terms of efficiency and certainly in terms of defense), Grant (again, better defensively than any of the Celtics and a good solid efficient scorer without volume . . . I'd certainly take him over Heinsohn on any team ever), Armstrong (one time questionable all-star, solid PG with MJ there to draw off attention but didn't do much beyond that) not up to Sharman level but considering Cousy's consistent record of miserable shooting in the playoffs in the Russell years, hardly a gaping hole, Cartwright/Perdue/King (certainly the equivalent of Lotscutoff, though Ramsey was a great step up from Perdue/King for the offensive half of the platoon).
Compare to Kareem's 71 to 73 Bucks: Oscar (again, Way better offensively than Cousy or anyone on the Celtics), Dandridge (better defensively than any early Celtic, better offensive efficiency relative to league than the likes of Heinsohn too), McGlocklin/Lucius Allen (solid but not spectacular guards) not in the Sharman/Ramsey category as scorers though again, efficient, Curtis Perry/Greg Smith (and Bob Boozer/Terry Driscoll for the scoring end) again, rough equivalent to Lotscutoff but not up to the Ramsey standard.
Compare to 80-82 Lakers: Magic Johnson at the 2 (already a great player though injured in 81), Jamaal Wilkes (very good scorer and defender, was the 2nd best player on the Warriors championship in 75, clearly better than any early Celtic relative to league), Norm Nixon (excellent distributing point with decent scoring skills) again, compared to Cousy's playoff woes, I'd take Nixon for this part of Cousy's career, Rambis/Kupchak/Michael Cooper (superior defensive play to Lotscutoff, not Ramsey level offensively though they did have McAdoo too). This is the real superteam . . . only 1 ring (Tragic Johnson!) but much more talent relative to the league (expansion watered league v. 8 teams, at least 6 of whom had 2 or more HOF players).
Early Russell is clearly NOT playing with the level of talent relative to his league as Kareem or even Jordan; just a lot of HOF players that were either 50s stars who weren't keeping up with the change in the NBA (Cousy, Sharman) or mediocre players who were overrated due to a limited skill set (Heinsohn, Lotscutoff).
LATE Boston is a stronger case, though you have the Greer/Walker/Jackson/Cunningham/Jones Sixers, plus a few teams with 2 greats (West and Baylor, Oscar and Lucas, etc.).
Russell played with John Havlicek (the consensus #2 player, a very good defender and below average shooter who did improve into the 67-69 seasons into an average or even above average one but whose real superstar offensive seasons were in the 70s), Sam Jones (very good scorer, particularly playoffs, average defender and playmaker), KC Jones (the Ben Wallace of PGs, hard to think of a PG who did less offensively but great defensive rep), and Bailey Howell/Satch Sanders (Sanders the defensive specialist, Howell the low post scorer that worked with Russell in the high post -- both undersized but with Russell there for rebounding and rim protection, they were very good fits).
Compare to 2nd 3peat Bulls where Jordan played with: Pippen (compare to 65-69 Havlicek, Pippen is more impressive on both sides of the ball though they are very comparable), Rodman (GOAT rebounder and capable of great defense) for most teams a player preferable to Sam Jones if his antics didn't destroy your team chemistry which they didn't on the Bulls, Harper/Kerr (Harper not KC Jones on the defensive end but more capable offensively, Kerr the 3 point specialist), Longley/Kukoc (Longley an underrated player, good passer and average offense/defense . . . I'd take him over Sanders but not close to Howell as a player, Kukoc more comparable to Howell though Howell's scoring more valuable than Kukoc's scoring/playmaking in their eras). Reasonably comparable talent levels; I'd put Chicago first but not by much.
Compare to post Nixon Showtime: Magic (takes over for Kareem as best player pretty clearly), Worthy (like Sam Jones, known for clutch play though weak rebounder; better defensive rep than Jones), Scott/Cooper (offense/defense pairing with stronger defense, less offense than Howell/Sanders), AC Green (defender with little offensive responsibility similar to KC Jones though less defensive rep and better offense).
So, of the 3 main GOAT candidates, who played with the superteams? Kareem in LA clearly had the most talent. Boston had a lot of big names early but I would argue for unimpressive play/impact . . . low efficiency gunners don't win many championships. Boston late had talent equal to that of Jordan's Bulls, better than Kareem's Bucks but hardly enough to say Russell played with superteams in comparison to the other GOAT contenders. Unless you just add up points and rep (ignoring pace and efficiency).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Doctor MJ wrote: 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.
Excellent points (nice that it's fairly concise with concrete examples, too). Thanks for taking the time.
btw, since you're participating anyway, are you sure you wouldn't care to be added to the panel and cast some votes, too? Not to lay on the flattery too heavily, but I feel the credibility of the list/project as a whole only increases for having your name attached to it.
Thanks for the invite and appreciate the compliment. Unfortunately, I have inconsistent availability. I also am in the process of refining my GOAT list (wanted to finish before this summer) but have limited time to devote to basketball these days. Will try and keep up and interact as I can - you've amassed a good panel.
ElGee wrote: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.
I'm a big LeBron fan so ill say it like this, because LeBron has some a big role in offenses, him removing himself from a scoring role and attacking is more dangerous to his team than Jordan being less efficient and keep going at it.
For someone of his stature and his gifts both scoring and offensively for him to pull back so much doesn't real cut off the effect of bad efficiency at a sustain level but takes away the chances of his team sporting that high of an ORTG.
So while Jordan has kept his offense going, while you can argue his role should have been more using his gravity to help teammates score he remained a good passer For the most part. His attacking style kept putting pressure on the defense which allowed others to get space or crash the boards allowed others to be able to capitalize on possessions where he doesn't shoot but the defense makes a mistake because of it.
Note, this isn't a huge problem for James outside of the 2011 finals and game 5 of 2010 but it's cropped it's head up enough times that's it's negatives are enough for me to have more confidence in Jordan for offensive consistency.
Also Jordan's style avoids the what should I do brain farts LeBron has had when he overthinks the defense, like 2013 game 6 in the final minutes or other times. Being caught between two good options and failing to fully commit or trying a crazy thing that is very high risk is playing with fire more than Jordan and though LeBron comes up on top usually I think this is also an edge to Jordan for offensive aptitude especially in the clutch.
Again this hasn't been as much of a problem lately but for early LeBron it is a flaw imo with his decision making in terms of his teams best strategy that Jordan didn't have
