RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #1

[Winsome Gerbil]

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.

Wilt should be mentioned, and before Russell as he was not a product of a great team. Russell playing for the Pistons of that era is a forgotten man. Wilt on the other hand was the show. He made the team.

That said, since we are only going 2-deep per vote, my general inclination is to give LeBron the wannabe-MJ nod as the #2, and then move onto the Wilt/Kareem/Russell trifecta next.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Michael Jordan never lost in his prime? He was 26 years old in 1990, how on earth is that not his prime?

Is only 91-93 his prime or something? If we're saying 96-98 is his prime then that doesn't make sense since he was better in 88-90

Prime is traditionally 26 on until you begin to fade. Especially back in the day when guys actually got a little reading and rithmetic in college rather than 1 and doning it.

So if you want to instead say, that "after Jordan's first year in prime, in which his team took the defending (and future) NBA champion Bad Boy Pistons to a deciding game 7 in the ECF in which Jordan put up 31pts 8rebs and 9ast on 13-27 shooting, while Horace "Top 100" Grant shot 3-17, Pippen chipped in with a 1-10, and the entire non-Jordan team combined for 15-63(!) shooting, he never lost again", go for it.

[HeartBreakKid]

Michael Jordan never lost in his prime? He was 26 years old in 1990, how on earth is that not his prime?

Is only 91-93 his prime or something? If we're saying 96-98 is his prime then that doesn't make sense since he was better in 88-90

Prime is traditionally 26 on until you begin to fade. Especially back in the day when guys actually got a little reading and rithmetic in college rather than 1 and doning it.

So if you want to instead say, that "after Jordan's first year in prime, in which his team took the defending (and future) NBA champion Bad Boy Pistons to a deciding game 7 in the ECF in which Jordan put up 31pts 8rebs and 9ast on 13-27 shooting, while Horace "Top 100" Grant shot 3-17, Pippen chipped in with a 1-10, and the entire non-Jordan team combined for 15-63(!) shooting, he never lost again", go for it.

Or we could go with actual history, and just say that Michael Jordan did lose in his prime and only won when his team stopped being total ****. There's less hyperbole in that statement then saying that Michael Jordan never lost in his prime, which isn't remotely true. Why do we have to make all these fantastic dramatic statements?

[HeartBreakKid]

Another thing that bothers me about the Jordan narrative is that people pretend that he did not lose to O'Neal in Orlando.

Michael Jordan should be punished for that year the same as anyone else who has underperformed. If we can punish some guy like Shawn Kemp for getting fat as hell then why should Jordan be immune? Out of shape is out of shape, no matter what the reason is. He got his ass beat fair and square.

[scrabbarista]

I've changed my second place vote from Tim Duncan to Bill Russell. It's changed in my original post. #1 is still Jordan.

[ThaRegul8r]

Another thing that bothers me about the Jordan narrative is that people pretend that he did not lose to O'Neal in Orlando.

Everyone knows that doesn't count.

[trex_8063]

2) MJ was the ultimate winner. Once he hit his prime, He NEVER lost,

Correction: once Pippen and Grant/(Rodman) got to their primes, he never lost. Declaring he wasn't actually in his prime until '91 seems a rather convenient arbitration put in place for no other reason than to be able to state this narrative. Personally, I have a hard time calling a season of 37.1 ppg/5.2 rpg/4.6 apg with 2.9 spg and 1.5 bpg (2nd to only peak Magic in MVP vote, fwiw) a NON-prime season. Likewise a 35.0/5.5/5.9 season while also winning DPOY (and MVP) a NON-prime season.

Fact is: MJ multiple times fell WELL short of a title in his prime. No one gets it done without a lot of help, even the best in the world (which he was).
Unless this is one of those arguments that says the only years that "count" are the years in the finals because it hinges on the backward logic that doing worse is better (i.e. getting eliminated short of the finals is better than making it to the finals and losing----even if the only reason they got to the finals was due to amazing play in earlier rounds by player in question).

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.....

Come on, you know this isn't true. You can declare PER and WS/48 to be the end-all be-all of statistical measures, but that doesn't make it so. One could just as arbitrarily put all their stock in metrics like BPM (and the associated VORP). For certain circumstantial numbers, we could compare them in average performances in elimination games, or avg performance in elimination + close-out games (where Lebron holds a small but clear edge). Could look at cumulative playoff WS, etc.

With Kareem it's a somewhat different tack. His argument obviously hinges more on longevity, which I know you and I will never see eye to eye on meaningful longevity......

EDIT: And Elgee did previously itt cite multiple examples of "failed" playoff performances (by MJ).

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?

idk, is it?
I don't personally feel that's the only achievement that matters. And fwiw, you're on record multiple times lauding volume stats (regardless of the team result or scaleability of imapct) in other threads.

But where titles are concerned: again, no one does it without a lot of help. So Kareem is clearly not the best player for his last two titles.....but does Magic win it in '87 if instead of '87 Kareem he's only got Greg Kite? I would wager no, that they do not get by the Celtics. Kareem's contributions at that stage of his career are still important. Being a major contributing factor on a title team is still fairly important, imo. I don't buy at all into any implication that if you're not Batman or Robin, you're no one.

[kayess]

Another thing that bothers me about the Jordan narrative is that people pretend that he did not lose to O'Neal in Orlando.

Michael Jordan should be punished for that year the same as anyone else who has underperformed. If we can punish some guy like Shawn Kemp for getting fat as hell then why should Jordan be immune? Out of shape is out of shape, no matter what the reason is. He got his ass beat fair and square.

You know, I never realized that. Extenuating circumstances are a thing, but I realized that this loss gets overlooked because the next year he whooped their asses and went on a remarkable run. But I was really just making excuses for him!

[Winsome Gerbil]

Michael Jordan never lost in his prime? He was 26 years old in 1990, how on earth is that not his prime?

Is only 91-93 his prime or something? If we're saying 96-98 is his prime then that doesn't make sense since he was better in 88-90

Prime is traditionally 26 on until you begin to fade. Especially back in the day when guys actually got a little reading and rithmetic in college rather than 1 and doning it.

So if you want to instead say, that "after Jordan's first year in prime, in which his team took the defending (and future) NBA champion Bad Boy Pistons to a deciding game 7 in the ECF in which Jordan put up 31pts 8rebs and 9ast on 13-27 shooting, while Horace "Top 100" Grant shot 3-17, Pippen chipped in with a 1-10, and the entire non-Jordan team combined for 15-63(!) shooting, he never lost again", go for it.

Or we could go with actual history, and just say that Michael Jordan did lose in his prime and only won when his team stopped being total ****. There's less hyperbole in that statement then saying that Michael Jordan never lost in his prime, which isn't remotely true. Why do we have to make all these fantastic dramatic statements?

My statement was pretty much true.

Here, there's even been statistical looks at what basketbal prime is:

http://www.nbaminer.com/golden-ages-of-basketball-players/

Summarized: about 26-29, and guards are about 28-32.

Personally I normally call it an expansive 26-32 to catch everything, but that's a little broad for many players. And Jordan himself kept right on winning until age 34, which you can do if you are a GOAT level guy.

[HeartBreakKid]

Another thing that bothers me about the Jordan narrative is that people pretend that he did not lose to O'Neal in Orlando.

Michael Jordan should be punished for that year the same as anyone else who has underperformed. If we can punish some guy like Shawn Kemp for getting fat as hell then why should Jordan be immune? Out of shape is out of shape, no matter what the reason is. He got his ass beat fair and square.

You know, I never realized that. Extenuating circumstances are a thing, but I realized that this loss gets overlooked because the next year he whooped their asses and went on a remarkable run. But I was really just making excuses for him!

Giving up isn't an extenuating circumstance. Lebron James gave up twice and no one says he was unbeatable in his prime

Jordan burned out and went to become a D rate baseball player. Yes his father was murdered as are many people's, he has the right to grieve the way he wants but it's a silly thing to ignore.

If a player rolls his ankle and misses two playoff games he gets crapped on and his season is thrown out the window

If Jordan joins another sport and makes a cheesy movie for two years, people essentially assume he would have been defacto champion. It's a double standard that annoys me.

[trex_8063]

My statement was pretty much true.

Here, there's even been statistical looks at what basketbal prime is:

http://www.nbaminer.com/golden-ages-of-basketball-players/

Summarized: about 26-29, and guards are about 28-32.

Hmm......So Wade was still in his prime in '14, and wasn't in his prime in '06 (or perhaps '09 either). Interesting.....


Personally, I'm more inclined to define a player's prime on the basis of how they're actually performing.

[therealbig3]

Prime is traditionally 26 on until you begin to fade. Especially back in the day when guys actually got a little reading and rithmetic in college rather than 1 and doning it.

So if you want to instead say, that "after Jordan's first year in prime, in which his team took the defending (and future) NBA champion Bad Boy Pistons to a deciding game 7 in the ECF in which Jordan put up 31pts 8rebs and 9ast on 13-27 shooting, while Horace "Top 100" Grant shot 3-17, Pippen chipped in with a 1-10, and the entire non-Jordan team combined for 15-63(!) shooting, he never lost again", go for it.

Or we could go with actual history, and just say that Michael Jordan did lose in his prime and only won when his team stopped being total ****. There's less hyperbole in that statement then saying that Michael Jordan never lost in his prime, which isn't remotely true. Why do we have to make all these fantastic dramatic statements?

My statement was pretty much true.

Here, there's even been statistical looks at what basketbal prime is:

http://www.nbaminer.com/golden-ages-of-basketball-players/

Summarized: about 26-29, and guards are about 28-32.

Personally I normally call it an expansive 26-32 to catch everything, but that's a little broad for many players. And Jordan himself kept right on winning until age 34, which you can do if you are a GOAT level guy.

But everyone is different. Prime is typically considered the stretch of your career when you're playing your best basketball. 88-90 Jordan has a stronger argument as being his prime than 96-98 Jordan. He was simply a better player at that time. And a sizable minority of people in fact have gone on record here as saying that he peaked in 89 or 90, years in which he did not win the title, and years that you are discounting as not even being part of his prime.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Another thing that bothers me about the Jordan narrative is that people pretend that he did not lose to O'Neal in Orlando.

Michael Jordan should be punished for that year the same as anyone else who has underperformed. If we can punish some guy like Shawn Kemp for getting fat as hell then why should Jordan be immune? Out of shape is out of shape, no matter what the reason is. He got his ass beat fair and square.

You know, I never realized that. Extenuating circumstances are a thing, but I realized that this loss gets overlooked because the next year he whooped their asses and went on a remarkable run. But I was really just making excuses for him!

Giving up isn't an extenuating circumstance. Lebron James gave up twice and no one says he was unbeatable in his prime

If you are clinging onto a 17win half assed late season emergency comeback as demonstrative of anything except that no human who has ever played the sport could have pulled that off, I don't know what to say. it was hubris to attempt it. And I was very much rooting for him to fail. Was a bit concerned when he went out and dropped 50 on the Knicks a few weeks after coming back. But overall it played out how I hoped/expected. It was apropos of nothing, aside from an attempt to do the impossible.

It was actually the only time I really saw prime Michael Jordan beaten. Not the only time he lost a game -- although it was the only time he lost a series. But significantly the only time I actually saw him beaten, as in, his fault, failed. When he got picked out in the open court...that did not happen to Michael Jordan. Was an ominous moment actually, because by that point anybody who had ever watched Jordan knew that hell was going to be riding in on a white horse the next season. Making Jordan mad was universally fatal.

[kayess]

Another thing that bothers me about the Jordan narrative is that people pretend that he did not lose to O'Neal in Orlando.

Michael Jordan should be punished for that year the same as anyone else who has underperformed. If we can punish some guy like Shawn Kemp for getting fat as hell then why should Jordan be immune? Out of shape is out of shape, no matter what the reason is. He got his ass beat fair and square.

You know, I never realized that. Extenuating circumstances are a thing, but I realized that this loss gets overlooked because the next year he whooped their asses and went on a remarkable run. But I was really just making excuses for him!

Giving up isn't an extenuating circumstance. Lebron James gave up twice and no one says he was unbeatable in his prime

Jordan burned out and went to become a D rate baseball player. Yes his father was murdered as are many people's, he has the right to grieve the way he wants but it's a silly thing to ignore. If a player rolls his ankle and misses two playoff games he gets crapped on and his season is thrown out the window

If Jordan joins another sport and makes a cheesy movie for two years, people essentially assume he would have been defacto champion. It's a double standard that annoys me.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that ISN'T an extenuating circumstance - if he wasn't ready, why play?

[mischievous]

Vote: Michael J. To me Jordan has the best peak and prime, with little or no weakness in his game. The numbers speak for themselves.

7 year stretch regular season 1987-1993:

33.2/6.4/6.0 2.9 tov 30.5 PER 59.4 ts% 8.9 OBPM, 10.6 BPM

7 year playoff stretch 1987-1993:

34.6/6.7/6.6 3.3 tov 29.8 PER 58.4 ts% 9.5 OBPM, 11.9 BPM

Remarkable consistency, very good durability and very good defender with a high iq. Didn't turn the ball over a ton, could score at will, pass well etc. I prefer Mj over Lebron because, he was clearly better early in their careers and doesn't have any head scratching performances like Lebron in the 2011 finals. If their longevity is comparable, i have to go MJ for having a little more consistent prime. Kareem is right there for longevity and sheer accomplishments, but i see his prime as clearly worse than the other 2, not a lot worse but I can't put his peak or prime as their equal.

2nd choice: Kareem. Lebron is a hair behind.

[Jaivl]

Didn't have as much time as expected so... just going to get this over with:

Vote: LeBron James
Option 2: Michael Jordan

Why LeBron over Jordan:

Spoiler:

Longer prime at a similar quality. IMO 12-17 LeBron and 88-93 Jordan is probably a wash or Jordan ahead by the slightest of slightest, 08-11 LeBron is better than 95-98 Jordan, and 04-07 LeBron is miles better than 02-03 Jordan.

The last comparison is so obvious it doesn't really need explanation.
The second one becomes kinda obvious when you pair 95 Jordan vs 11 LeBron, 98 Jordan with 08 LeBron and 96-97 Jordan with 09-10 LeBron. Bron wins all the comparisons IMO (notice how I paired playoff fiascos? )

The first one is the most important, and that's where the bigger part of the argument rests because it's where both players peak -> most impact (in my list I have those 6 years as around 55% of LeBron's total impact). Bullet points on this, most are kinda random but I'm not for a writeup today:
-LeBron is more impressive on-ball, but he kinda needs the ball (which is obviously not a terrible thing, but...). Jordan thrived off-ball in a way LeBron never did.
-Jordan always looks impressive on D, even in his later years, and it's no secret that LeBron is fading on that end. But to counter it LeBron is peaking on offense while declining on D maintaining his total skill around the same, while old Jordan never came close to replicate his earlier offensive displays.
-LeBron is a mediocre 3-pt shooter for most of his career. Jordan doesn't even get to that. That can affect modern-era play by a slight margin. That game in 1992... yeah, kind of a fluke.
-Versatility of playing 5 positions > versatility of playing 3 positions

Why not Kareem:

Spoiler:

Worse prime. Seems to have a prime impact of around +5.5~6.5 SRS* (most of that in the offensive end)**, while I have both LeBron and Jordan as being north of +8 for their best years, and for example Garnett flirting on crossing +7. The wings have a production advantage that longevity can't really overcome, and I rate other bigs' primes as better while having similar longevity.

Re: defense, I'm not so sure on his first years. The film I've seen afterwards paints him as a lazy defender who didn't really want to use his length. I REITERATE, I have seen really few of his first years, so if somebody could hook me up on some early Bucks film (apart from Chamberlain Archive, which I have seen. He looks impressive on help D there, but obviously that's only highlights so it's to be expected) that makes me change my opinion... well, that could bump him up to #1, definitely.

* based on his 1975 and 1978 with/without and some stylistic comparison with modern-day players.
** based on both film and the aforementioned with/without.

Why not Russell:

Spoiler:

Just a quick reminder of how top impact on offense consistently beats top impact on defense across most eras.

Even if you consider his defense equal in impact to LeBron or Jordan's offense (well, if you are rating in-era you may argue than his defense > their offense and I would probably agree), both of them are notable defensive players, and I think I'm being generous rating Russell as a net zero on offense. Apart from being a great offensive rebounder (I'd guess), his offensive perks would be running on transition, which is quite situational, and his passing... which as a big isn't really special if you don't pair it with something else. He wasn't a great finisher* nor a shooter, and that's where most offensive bigs historically get their value from.

* I mean, just no. He has a 44%FG shooting mainly really close to the rim. Even if you think that only 40% of his shots came at rim and that he shot just 30% in the other 60%... that's a 65% at rim, good but not great. And both of my assumptions are really generous.

Worse longevity than LeBron at this point on time.

extra: -deleted because of lack of clarity-

Other remarks:

Spoiler:

As I said on my preliminary list, Duncan and Garnett are around the #1 spot too. I didn't really consider them yet in my votes because

1) Still wasn't sure where to put them, so I went the easier route and went with the 2 from my top 4 that were getting some traction.
2) If Jordan is selected at #1, I'll only have a "clear" vote for #2 (LeBron) and will have to start making the case for Duncan or KG for #3.
3) Yeah, Kareem can rise (highly!). I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up as my #1 after some reanalysis.

Well, that was quite disjointed, lol-

[Blackmill]

[..]

Re: defense, I'm not so sure on his first years. The film I've seen afterwards paints him as a lazy defender who didn't really want to use his length. I REITERATE, I have seen really few of his first years, so if somebody could hook me up on some early Bucks film (apart from Chamberlain Archive, which I have seen. He looks impressive on help D there, but obviously that's only highlights so it's to be expected) that makes me change my opinion... well, that could bump him up to #1, definitely.

[...]

I'm going to be using lots of film for my post. In it I'll discuss Kareem and a few other players. Much of the discussion will be on his defense. I don't think he was a lazy defender but I can see where the sentiment comes from. Many of the good things he did were subtle while his mistakes were the opposite. I just hope this thread is given an extra day or so since I won't be done until late tonight at best. For me, it's really too bad that the thread was started early, since there's a couple games not on youtube that I was hoping to watch and upload for everyone to see.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Or we could go with actual history, and just say that Michael Jordan did lose in his prime and only won when his team stopped being total ****. There's less hyperbole in that statement then saying that Michael Jordan never lost in his prime, which isn't remotely true. Why do we have to make all these fantastic dramatic statements?

My statement was pretty much true.

Here, there's even been statistical looks at what basketbal prime is:

http://www.nbaminer.com/golden-ages-of-basketball-players/

Summarized: about 26-29, and guards are about 28-32.

Personally I normally call it an expansive 26-32 to catch everything, but that's a little broad for many players. And Jordan himself kept right on winning until age 34, which you can do if you are a GOAT level guy.

But everyone is different. Prime is typically considered the stretch of your career when you're playing your best basketball. 88-90 Jordan has a stronger argument as being his prime than 96-98 Jordan. He was simply a better player at that time. And a sizable minority of people in fact have gone on record here as saying that he peaked in 89 or 90, years in which he did not win the title, and years that you are discounting as not even being part of his prime.

Ok, that's...well, it's not what I was aiming for in my statement, but I've used that same artificiality in my own arguments at times. A convenient conflation of "whenever a guy starting putting up big numbers in line wiht his prime", and actual prime. Done it myself.

However I do think its a bit of an artificial cheat, because the fact is there is a reason that hyper-productive 23yr olds STILL don't beat older vets. Despite the numbers, there's a reason why young Dirk really wasn't going to win a title, why young Hakeem could look godly, but it took him reaching a late maturation to get over the hump. Young Jordan might well already have been the most talented player to ever enter the NBA, and his achievements were spectacular. But they were also the achievements of youth. The overwhelming athleticism and constant rim attacks, as opposed to the development of more discipline (and of course the triangle), sharpening the jumper to a razor's edge, adding the structured post game, and just generally, like all guys into their prime, developing the saavy and control to take the all world talent and achieve consistent, and in Jordan's case, nearly relentless results. You could say Lebron went through something similar in his early Cavs years to Miami, and now is in the decline phase in Cleveland II.

Put another way, '88 Jordan might have been the greatest player the league had seen, but '92 Jordan might well have beat him just because he knew and understood how to win and had picked up all the little tricks to control the game. And I think that's true of virtually all comparisons of a 23yr old and a 28yr old type player. You just figure it out. And its why championship teams are normally staffed with squads full of mid career and older guys rather than guys in that 21-25 year old athletic peak. True prime might be defined as the intersection of athleticism and saavy, when you've figured out the game and how to play it, but haven't yet lost so much athleticism that the saavy is all that's left.

[Narigo]

Vote: Kareem Abdul Jabbar

This was a difficult decision for me. It was between Jordan and Kareem for me. Jordan has a slightly better peak. Jordan was a edge in prime also. But I based my all-time rankngs on career value. In terms of longevity, Kareem has Jordan beat. Kareem happens to be #1 in total minutes played all-time. So that means he has the greatest longevity in NBA History.

Also, I heard many times that Kareem can not be GOAT because he played in a weaker era when the league is split into two leagues Thats true, but the center position was most stacked position in the 70s. This is the list of centers that Kareem played against:

Willis Reed
Wes Unseld
Wilt Chamberlain
Nate Thurmond
Bob Lanier
Bill Walton
Moses Malone
Artis Gilmore
Jack Sikma
Robert Parish
Dave Cowens

Kareem was the best among this group. (It occurred to me that Kareem has played against almost every HOF center ever.)

Its also worth mentioning that Kareem as a old man dominated against young Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing head to head.

Kareem somehow gets penalized by winning most of his rings playing with Magic. I think people failed to realize is that he was the first option for most of their championship runs

Second Vote: Michael Jordan

[ThaRegul8r]

(It occurred to me that Kareem has played against almost every HOF center ever.)

He missed, Mikan, Russell (by one year), Robinson (by one year), Shaq, and Dwight Howard (who, of course, isn't eligible yet).

That's it.

(EDIT: Well, Mutombo's in the Hall, but I imagine most people would have Howard ranked higher. But for the sake of accuracy...)