RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James)

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Kareem, Hakeem. They aren't in the elite group on your graph.

Re: Kareem didn't lead an offensive dynasty? The Lakers really got their offensive groove a few years later when they shoved Kareem to the side and let Magic have full reign. If you seriously want to argue that the Showtime Laker offense was primarily about Kareem, go ahead. You can start by explaining how Kareem inspired the "Showtime" nickname.

I think that Kareem was also an exception though. When you look at Kareem-led offenses in RS and playoffs, he looks quite strong:

1970 Bucks: +2.9 in RS, +5.7 in playoffs
1971 Bucks: +7.1 in RS, +4.5 in playoffs
1972 Bucks: +5.8 in RS, +2.8 in playoffs
1973 Bucks: +3.2 in RS, +0.4 in playoffs
1974 Bucks: +3.5 in RS, +5.1 in playoffs

1977 Lakers: +1.9 in RS, +0.8 in playoffs
1978 Lakers (with Kareem): +4.3 in RS, +2.4 in playoffs
1979 Lakers: +2.3 in RS, +4.2 in playoffs
1980 Lakers: +4.2 in RS, +6.2 in playoffs

I know some may argue that Oscar was very important for leading 1971-73 teams, but Kareem did impressive things before he got Oscar and after Oscar was no longer a star. I also won't find convincing argument that 1980 Lakers team was Magic's team.

Those are good numbers. Others had better numbers.

[70sFan]

I'm going to pretty open with my vote. I'll lay out what would change my mind and hopefully get some responses. If you want to convince someone to vote for your guy, this is your chance. But I first should first explain how I will vote.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate players in the context of their era. I don't know anyone who self-evaluates by averaging over all possible alternate timelines. The context will always be important but there's a subtle difference between asking "who did the most given the cards they were dealt" and "who could do the most over all hands they could be dealt". I also think it's appropriate for there to be a small, subjective human element to the voting.

That said, for me it is a more interesting to ask who is the best player in general, meaning there is an attempt to remove the circumstance from the evaluation. In other words, assuming the NBA's continued existence, how would I answer the following question

If I were an NBA GM in some random year in the future, without any knowledge of my team or the competition, but I was told I could have one player from the past on my team, who would it be?

I should add I make a distinction between these two modes of evaluation. In my own terminology, the first is the "greatest" player and the second is the "best" player. I'm not saying people need to follow suit, but I think those terms capture the idea, as "greatest" entails something less formulaic and logical than "best" in my opinion. With the stage set this is where I'm at.

I see several candidates.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

My reasons to vote for Kareem:

1. Possessed probably the most efficient, undeniable shot in NBA history. After Kareem added some strength in the mid-70s, his sky-hook was remarkably accurate. If I remember correctly, based on my tracking, he shot high 50s on sky hooks during his peak offensive years in an over 100 FGA sample. Super robust half-court scorer.

2. Became a very capable passer from certain spots on the court. His interior passes to cutters were very good and he was capable with high post passing when the lanes were more open.

3. Would benefit greatly from a slightly more open paint to receive the pass on-the-move, from the middle of the lane where his sky-hook was probably a 60%+ shot regardless of the defense.

4. Footage from 1979 and earlier reveals Kareem could show high and switch on the PnR. He looked very comfortable getting in a wide defensive stance (he got wide enough that his head would be level with a 6'5'' player) and was able move well.

5. Among the best rim protectors ever when he was fully engaged defensively.

What gives me doubt:

1. Kareem's best offensive years came after his best defensive years minus a few seasons of overlap. As a result I think his peak level play was not very sustained.

2. How would Kareem defend on the perimeter with all the space today? I don't believe Kareem was a very vocal defender, would every one be on the same page?

3. Limited footage of his peak seasons.

4. Was inconsistent with his game-to-game energy on defense. Likely to have one game a series where his rotations are just a bit slow. This keeps him from being in the same tier as the very best defenders ever.

5. Was better with interior passes than cross-court passer. The further the pass, the more likely it was to have too much heat or be off target.

6. Not a great screen setter, team may need another PnR big, but we also teams are moving towards guard-guard screens.

Michael Jordan

My reasons to vote for MJ:

1. No obvious weakness to target on offense. Could score 30 without every getting to the rim. But still one of the greatest finishers as a guard. Excellent passer though clearly below the very best in this regard. Able to play off-ball very well. On any lineup, against any team, he remains a huge scoring threat. As a result was due for at least one insane shooting night per series.

2. Very capable defender 1-3, super quick reflexes and could absorb impact. A very good defender for the other team's best offensive player if Michael isn't giving up size. Great hands and good at helping the deflect the ball on drives.

What gives me doubt:

1. Is not a rim protector despite tallying some blocks. Lacks defensive versatility as he could not guard power players in the post. On paper, he should be the best of these candidates at guarding small players, but on film he does not appear much better than LeBron in this way. Gambled a bit too much, liked to shoot the gap while chasing off screens. Back cut with some frequency. Very good defender but a tier below every one else on this list.

2. Defenses of the 90s typically doubled one-pass away even if the player was underneath the rim. Help-the-helper rotations were missing more than today. It was more common for two players to double (meaning it was a triple team) due to miscommunication. Also the defensive profile has tended towards larger, longer wings. Jordan will have less time with an undersized defender on him. I expect the more open lanes will improve his averages but I think the best defenses today are a little more equipped to defend Jordan.

3. Related to the above, Jordan's skip passes were less precise and quick than his interior passes. As he wasn't very tall, I wonder how he would counter being doubled / helped from the weakside by longer, taller players than him? Would he make the skip pass with enough accuracy and speed often enough?

Shaq

My reasons to vote for Shaq:

1. You simply can't play small against him. Most players who could challenge Shaq in any way are not suited for either side of the court today. But at the same time he would obliterate any small ball lineup.

2. Very capable rim protector if he's allowed to sit beneath the rim.

What gives me doubt:

1. Does not defend well on the perimeter. With teams putting so much shooting on the court, how much defensive value does Shaq lose? What does the rest of the lineup need to look like to make up for this weakness?

2. Would not cover tons of ground to help. During his peak defensive years, even when the rotation was short, was prone to lazily staying with his defender.

3. Ball-denial could limit his volume. So could hard doubling if the defense was athletic enough to recover to shooters. But this starts with having a massive player to put on Shaq and limited shooting next to Shaq. Maybe this isn't feasible any more?

Kevin Garnett

My reasons to vote for Garnett:

1. Rare player who could defend 1-5 at points in his career. Effective 2-5 for most of his career. Did this while being a rim protector. The smartest help defender I've watched. Combined with his mobility, Garnett is my preferred defender for the current and future NBA.

2. One of the best playmaking centers and capable of passing off-the-dribble. Very capable outside shooter, helps space the floor, excellent PnP/PnP big. Makes him extremely versatile offensively and fit well with anyone.

What gives me doubt:

1. Not strong enough to power to the rim like Giannis. I don't see him as a great offensive player in general because I think the matchup needs to be pretty specific for him to get to the rim at the rate required for him to be an offensive engine. He's still very good.

2. Could be bullied in the post by stronger players. Would give up position or offensive rebounds this way. Didn't absorb contact as well as a guy like Duncan.

Tim Duncan

My reasons to vote for Duncan:

1. Required a lot of strength to guard in the post. But he was also quick enough, with a comfortable handle and good touch, that he could score on larger players from the perimeter. Would be a mismatch against many lineups.

2. Good passer in general and very good short roll passer. Had an above average but not great jumper. Can be very effective as a PnR big or high post passer if the matchup requires it.

3. One of the best rim protectors in the drop coverage or helping from the dunkers spot.

4. Many seasons of production.

What gives me doubt:

1. Liked to play a drop coverage, can't keep up with quick guards when defending in open space. Teams with the right personnel can reduce his defensive value this way. To what degree? And how can a lineup be formed around Duncan to help him retain maximum defensive value?

2. I see his offensive value dropping against teams that can defend him one-on-one. Same if the opponent can scramble and close out super well since then they can start doubling or showing help on Duncan, and while he was a very good passer, I think he's missing the velocity and decisiveness to get the shooters fully open.

LeBron James

My reasons to vote for LeBron:

1. One of the most defensively versatile perimeter players I've watched. He provides rim protection, and though not as much as a center, this is extremely valuable when playing small lineups or if the team's primary rim protector is caught above the action. He can spot minutes on really strong players like Giannis and taller players like Pau Gasol while still be able to play quick guards.

2. Excellent passer, throws the best skip passes in NBA history. Passes that would lead to semi-contested shots for most every player lead to open shots when LeBron is the passer. Gets the most value from good shooters and these players are becoming a key ingredient to championship contention.

3. Super potent scorer, can bully and power through players who are larger than him, the best perimeter player at getting to the rim and finishing. As lineups get smaller to play offense and defense on the perimeter, he is able to score at the rim consistently even with poor shooting around him.

4. At nearly age 36, had one of the greatest finals games (G5) I've watched, comparable to Jordan's G2 in 1991 and G1 in 1992. Has sustained near peak level play longer than any one.

What gives me doubt:

1. I think LeBron is no longer countered by packing the paint. But that wasn't always true. When did that change happen, though? Did it happen before his second Cavs stint?

2. The 2011 finals. LeBron has succeeded in enough high pressure situations since then -- and ones with even higher pressure than 2011 -- that I don't think LeBron's 2011 finals reflects on his career after the event. I see the fallout as being isolated to 2011-and-before. But there's no denying it hurts his 2011 season and my valuation of his earlier seasons.

Bill Russell

This is an honorable mention. I think it's debatable if Bill Russell would be the best defender for the current trending NBA climate (though he's near the top and is a fair choice). Garnett has a very real argument here, and since I think it's quite clear that Garnett is the better offensive player, it's hard to put Bill on the list. Frankly I'm not sure a defender can be much better than Garnett. I don't think there's enough possessions where Garnett could have played better for that to be possible. But if Russell was that much better, I think the burden of evidence would be much higher than what can be found from the small amount of film we have available. However, I mentioned I make a distinction between the "best" and "greatest" player, and brought that up for a reason. I think Russell has a stellar argument for the greatest player ever. He was a visionary who succeeded in his era as much as any one else ever has. And that was only possible because he was a rare person who was decades ahead of his time. His role as a player-coach is very impressive. He fought for equal rights, and yes, that matters to me when talking about greatness. Even if it's basketball greatness. I have a ton of admiration for what Bill Russell did and wanted to make that clear. For people who evaluate players in the context of their era, or even more subjectively like I do when I think about "greatness", I see Bill as a very good #1 choice.

---

Anyways, I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about my concerns for each player. What would be most appreciated is recommendations for specific games to watch that answer some of my questions.

I would like to ask - you don't see any case for Wilt or Hakeem?

[70sFan]

Re: Kareem, Hakeem. They aren't in the elite group on your graph.

Re: Kareem didn't lead an offensive dynasty? The Lakers really got their offensive groove a few years later when they shoved Kareem to the side and let Magic have full reign. If you seriously want to argue that the Showtime Laker offense was primarily about Kareem, go ahead. You can start by explaining how Kareem inspired the "Showtime" nickname.

I think that Kareem was also an exception though. When you look at Kareem-led offenses in RS and playoffs, he looks quite strong:

1970 Bucks: +2.9 in RS, +5.7 in playoffs
1971 Bucks: +7.1 in RS, +4.5 in playoffs
1972 Bucks: +5.8 in RS, +2.8 in playoffs
1973 Bucks: +3.2 in RS, +0.4 in playoffs
1974 Bucks: +3.5 in RS, +5.1 in playoffs

1977 Lakers: +1.9 in RS, +0.8 in playoffs
1978 Lakers (with Kareem): +4.3 in RS, +2.4 in playoffs
1979 Lakers: +2.3 in RS, +4.2 in playoffs
1980 Lakers: +4.2 in RS, +6.2 in playoffs

I know some may argue that Oscar was very important for leading 1971-73 teams, but Kareem did impressive things before he got Oscar and after Oscar was no longer a star. I also won't find convincing argument that 1980 Lakers team was Magic's team.

Those are good numbers. Others had better numbers.

Not many and it's not like Kareem played with some all-time level rosters (outside of 1971 and healthy 1972 Bucks).

[ZeppelinPage]

Before I get into it:

I have watched every available piece of footage on Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain (thank you 70sfan.) I have also delved into hours worth of 50s, 60s and 70s footage and studied rules and playstyle of the era, as well as a number of books, articles and newspaper clippings on the players of the era. What I care about most is overall impact and performance in the playoffs, with a slight favor on prime over longevity, as well as the regular season, to a lesser degree. I only slightly factor in championships and accolades, as the former is a team accomplishment and the latter is a subjective perception of impact.


1. Wilt Chamberlain
Most dominant player, at the most important position, with the highest overall impact. Lead two of the greatest teams of all time for their era, with the '67 Sixers having the highest Off Rtg and SRS yet for their time; and the '72 Lakers having the 3rd highest SRS of all time, as well as the highest OPP SRS in the playoffs and winning a ring. Played in (easily) the hardest era in regards to defense because of the rules and playstyle, especially for a big man. The spacing was abysmal, which also made the illegal defense rule non-existent, allowing easy doubles and triples on Wilt. On top of that, the competition of the league in comparison to the talent available on his team had the greatest gap of any player--Wilt had the worst teammates of any superstar in history for most of his career. He was playing against a team that was head and shoulders above the rest of the league, with the greatest coach of all time. In my opinion, for players like Wilt, Oscar and West, there was no other time in NBA history where it was harder to win a ring, simply because Red Auerbach had collected an overwhelming amount of talent in comparison to other teams.

In terms of playoff numbers, Wilt suffered little drop-off, which is incredible considering he was playing against the greatest defensive team and center of all time. Consistently lead a team significantly less talented to game 7s vs the 7-8+ SRS Celtics. Proved he could play defense at a high level later on in his career, but even earlier he would go to another level in the playoffs, where his teams consistently performed better on the defensive side of the ball. He had multiple all-time playoff runs (and that's without stat padding in the 1st round,) especially in '64, where he posted a .323 WS/48--only LeBron, Jordan, and Kareem have posted a higher mark (again, less stat padding, no steals/blocks accounted for, and facing the greatest defensive dynasty ever.)

Wilt also unfortunately played in an era where nutrition, technology and game knowledge were lesser than any player after him. He would usually have to play 3 to 4 straight games in a row, sometimes even in the playoffs, playing 48 minutes. I even found examples where he was playing 5 straight games in a row. He would often not get home till early in the morning and have to play that day, for multiple days in a row, over the course of an 82 game season. This amount of workload is unfathomable for other players and no doubt contributed to injuries over the years, which affected his overall condition. This is something that LeBron and Jordan did not have to go through. The reason I mention this is that Wilt could have been even better in later eras.

The fact that Wilt managed to come out of the 60s with a ring is impressive in and of itself, the talent the Boston Celtics possessed was comparable on a modern scale to a team like the 17 Warriors or 14 Spurs, but for a decade. Unfortunately, he did not have the talent around him that was necessary to compete for a ring until '67.

2. Michael Jordan
Jordan posted insane offensive numbers, minuscule turnover rates and was a force on defense. He took his game to another level in the playoffs, and even though the rules and playstyle of the era suited Jordan, he was still able to impact a team on both ends of the ball at an all-time level. The reason I have him ahead of LeBron would be because of his playoff performances, Jordan consistently performed at the level expected of his talent over the course of his career, and never faltered in the playoffs much like LeBron did in the 2011 Finals. I believe Wilt was an overall more impactful player, but never had quite the coaching or team talent Jordan had--Wilt also had to play in a more difficult era, that was tougher on offense and didn't suit his playstyle as well as Jordan's did.

3. LeBron James
One can argue LeBron James post-2015 is the most impactful player in modern NBA history, but factoring playoff prime play, the 2011 Finals is a black mark on an otherwise pristine resume. His 2016 Finals is the single greatest Finals performance in NBA history, but I think Jordan's consistency slightly allows him to overtake LeBron. The reason why I look down upon LeBron's 2011 Finals so much is because that was a Finals he should win. If a player is an underdog, I can understand a loss, as basketball is a team game. But in LeBron's case, had he played better--the Heat would have won. Jordan didn't really have a moment quite like that.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Its no surprise that LeBron's 2011 finals is popping up in votes as justificstion for putting others above him, but I have a hard time accepting the reasoning behind this. Sure that was a terrible series for him especially compared to his standards and those of others in a similar class of player, but at the end of the day he has something like 50 other series to look at, and by placing so much emphasis on that series, people are basically ignoring the rest of the resume. That is a mistake, and it increasingly looks like a deliberate one since there aren't really any other significant flaws to point to.

If he had gone down with an injury after game 3 and missed the rest of the series people would look back and shrug. Instead, he had 3 bad games and now everything else is not exactly ignored, but clouded over and tainted.

Its not like that's the tie breaking series when you compare him to the other guys at the top. He has series after series he can stack up against whatever anyone else has and then when they run out of quality series, he's got a dozen more that they've got nothing to match. Then at the very bottom of his bag is the 2011 finals. He could leave that in the bag and what he has laid out comfortably exceeds what others have in their favor. But we have to take out 2011, and it erases for some reason numerous quality series that happened before and after.

I view a career as additive. Each thing you do adds something unless you are a below replacement level player. At worst that series should be a zero as far a legacy contribution, but using it to erase other achievements reeks of bad faith.

[TheGOATRises007]

Its no surprise that LeBron's 2011 finals is popping up in votes as justificstion for putting others above him, but I have a hard time accepting the reasoning behind this. Sure that was a terrible series for him especially compared to his standards and those of others in a similar class of player, but at the end of the day he has something like 50 other series to look at, and by placing so much emphasis on that series, people are basically ignoring the rest of the resume. That is a mistake, and it increasingly looks like a deliberate one since there aren't really any other significant flaws to point to.

If he had gone down with an injury after game 3 and missed the rest of the series people would look back and shrug. Instead, he had 3 bad games and now everything else is not exactly ignored, but clouded over and tainted.

Its not like that's the tie breaking series when you compare him to the other guys at the top. He has series after series he can stack up against whatever anyone else has and then when they run out of quality series, he's got a dozen more that they've got nothing to match. Then at the very bottom of his bag is the 2011 finals. He could leave that in the bag and what he has laid out comfortably exceeds what others have in their favor. But we have to take out 2011, and it erases for some reason numerous quality series that happened before and after.

I view a career as additive. Each thing you do adds something unless you are a below replacement level player. At worst that series should be a zero as far a legacy contribution, but using it to erase other achievements reeks of bad faith.

I don't think it's being used to erase other achievements at all.

It's just used as a negative or black mark against Lebron's totality argument for GOAT.

Everything is nitpicked to the finest detail during these discussions.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Lebron James

When it comes to Lebron and Jordan it's just a matter of longevity at this point. Lebron has been a superstar for the last 15 seasons, even if you remove the 2019 campaign, it's still 14. Jordan's 85, 86-93 and 96-98 is 11 seasons. Those 3 full seasons, Lebron's 2017, 2018 and 2020, provide more value than the majority of players who will be on this list entire career's.

Do I see anything to overcome that difference? No. Lebron is a basketball god in terms of talent and consistency. He is a better teammate than Jordan, and on average he had worse coaching. Lebron has changed teams enough times that he proved he can play with a variety of players and personalities. He has contended with 4 completely different teams. The only one of the four he didn't win a title with, he took the worst supporting cast in history to the finals, and won 66 games with a team with about as much talent as the 2020 Lakers MINUS Davis. Lebron is one of the best playoff players in history and his record from 2012 on is pretty much spotless. Yes in 2010 and 2011 he had some shakiness, but much like the maturation of Jordan in the 80s, he wasn't his final form yet. I strongly disagree with anyone still using the 6 titles > 4 titles it's the only argument I need, Shawn argument. Jordan did not play the overpowered Warriors with Durant. Jordan didn't have his 2nd and 3rd best players get injured in a finals. I consider 2010s basketball to both be a higher level in terms of strategy than the 90s, and for the competition to be stronger.

Lebron is as good as anyone in history at his peak, amazing in the playoffs, is an amazing teammate and now has GOAT level longevity.

vs Kareem - I consider 70s and 80s to be weaker competition and I just don't see enough to make me think he peaked higher than Lebron, and his longevity advantage is almost gone. He is worse at connecting with teammates as well. On the whole though I think he gets underappreciated as GOAT level. He is higher on the lists of best passing and defending big men in history than given credit for. I will lean on longevity argument to put him over Jordan.

vs Russell - This is the argument I'm willing to listen to the most against Lebron, since he is an overall hard player to rate for a whole bunch of reasons. At this point I sort of split the difference between the most pro Russell and most anti Russell and see his impact as roughly Curry level with both his shotblocking and Curry's shooting being court shaping and league changing. With great longevity/clutch/intangibles that's still high ranking. But not voting him over Lebron.

Vote

1. Lebron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan

[LA Bird]

1. LeBron James
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan

I have yet to take my time and evaluate LeBron's 2020 season in full but since I had LeBron in more or less a tie with Kareem for #1 as at the end of last year, I am pretty confident in saying he has moved ahead clearly with the season he has just had. Jordan had a slightly better peak and Kareem slightly better longevity but LeBron has the best of both worlds and is catching up on the longevity fast. There was a time when I thought Jordan would be the GOAT if he hadn't cut his own career short but LeBron is now at a point where I think he has passed Jordan anyway retirement or not. I don't think most people really understand how utterly ridiculous it is for LeBron to play at the level he is still playing at with the mileage he has. Duncan is a top 5 player all time and is known for his longevity. Duncan was almost limping to the finish line in his last season and he would have needed to play for two more years beyond that just to match the total RS+PO minutes LeBron has played to date. LeBron, meanwhile, just had a season arguably better than any of Duncan's best outside of his peak in 02/03. The level of sustained excellence LeBron has achieved over the years is absolutely insane and I feel that the lofty expectations heaped upon him since his high school years has actually worked against him because so many people already made up their mind on his placing among all time greats and overlook the fact that he is still adding plenty of value to his career.

Funnily enough, I actually thought LeBron's career was going downhill back in 2015 since he had turned 30, had a back injury and couldn't shoot at all in the playoffs. Turns out I couldn't be more wrong.

[Blackmill]

Spoiler:

I'm going to pretty open with my vote. I'll lay out what would change my mind and hopefully get some responses. If you want to convince someone to vote for your guy, this is your chance. But I first should first explain how I will vote.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate players in the context of their era. I don't know anyone who self-evaluates by averaging over all possible alternate timelines. The context will always be important but there's a subtle difference between asking "who did the most given the cards they were dealt" and "who could do the most over all hands they could be dealt". I also think it's appropriate for there to be a small, subjective human element to the voting.

That said, for me it is a more interesting to ask who is the best player in general, meaning there is an attempt to remove the circumstance from the evaluation. In other words, assuming the NBA's continued existence, how would I answer the following question

If I were an NBA GM in some random year in the future, without any knowledge of my team or the competition, but I was told I could have one player from the past on my team, who would it be?

I should add I make a distinction between these two modes of evaluation. In my own terminology, the first is the "greatest" player and the second is the "best" player. I'm not saying people need to follow suit, but I think those terms capture the idea, as "greatest" entails something less formulaic and logical than "best" in my opinion. With the stage set this is where I'm at.

I see several candidates.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

My reasons to vote for Kareem:

1. Possessed probably the most efficient, undeniable shot in NBA history. After Kareem added some strength in the mid-70s, his sky-hook was remarkably accurate. If I remember correctly, based on my tracking, he shot high 50s on sky hooks during his peak offensive years in an over 100 FGA sample. Super robust half-court scorer.

2. Became a very capable passer from certain spots on the court. His interior passes to cutters were very good and he was capable with high post passing when the lanes were more open.

3. Would benefit greatly from a slightly more open paint to receive the pass on-the-move, from the middle of the lane where his sky-hook was probably a 60%+ shot regardless of the defense.

4. Footage from 1979 and earlier reveals Kareem could show high and switch on the PnR. He looked very comfortable getting in a wide defensive stance (he got wide enough that his head would be level with a 6'5'' player) and was able move well.

5. Among the best rim protectors ever when he was fully engaged defensively.

What gives me doubt:

1. Kareem's best offensive years came after his best defensive years minus a few seasons of overlap. As a result I think his peak level play was not very sustained.

2. How would Kareem defend on the perimeter with all the space today? I don't believe Kareem was a very vocal defender, would every one be on the same page?

3. Limited footage of his peak seasons.

4. Was inconsistent with his game-to-game energy on defense. Likely to have one game a series where his rotations are just a bit slow. This keeps him from being in the same tier as the very best defenders ever.

5. Was better with interior passes than cross-court passer. The further the pass, the more likely it was to have too much heat or be off target.

6. Not a great screen setter, team may need another PnR big, but we also teams are moving towards guard-guard screens.

Michael Jordan

My reasons to vote for MJ:

1. No obvious weakness to target on offense. Could score 30 without every getting to the rim. But still one of the greatest finishers as a guard. Excellent passer though clearly below the very best in this regard. Able to play off-ball very well. On any lineup, against any team, he remains a huge scoring threat. As a result was due for at least one insane shooting night per series.

2. Very capable defender 1-3, super quick reflexes and could absorb impact. A very good defender for the other team's best offensive player if Michael isn't giving up size. Great hands and good at helping the deflect the ball on drives.

What gives me doubt:

1. Is not a rim protector despite tallying some blocks. Lacks defensive versatility as he could not guard power players in the post. On paper, he should be the best of these candidates at guarding small players, but on film he does not appear much better than LeBron in this way. Gambled a bit too much, liked to shoot the gap while chasing off screens. Back cut with some frequency. Very good defender but a tier below every one else on this list.

2. Defenses of the 90s typically doubled one-pass away even if the player was underneath the rim. Help-the-helper rotations were missing more than today. It was more common for two players to double (meaning it was a triple team) due to miscommunication. Also the defensive profile has tended towards larger, longer wings. Jordan will have less time with an undersized defender on him. I expect the more open lanes will improve his averages but I think the best defenses today are a little more equipped to defend Jordan.

3. Related to the above, Jordan's skip passes were less precise and quick than his interior passes. As he wasn't very tall, I wonder how he would counter being doubled / helped from the weakside by longer, taller players than him? Would he make the skip pass with enough accuracy and speed often enough?

Shaq

My reasons to vote for Shaq:

1. You simply can't play small against him. Most players who could challenge Shaq in any way are not suited for either side of the court today. But at the same time he would obliterate any small ball lineup.

2. Very capable rim protector if he's allowed to sit beneath the rim.

What gives me doubt:

1. Does not defend well on the perimeter. With teams putting so much shooting on the court, how much defensive value does Shaq lose? What does the rest of the lineup need to look like to make up for this weakness?

2. Would not cover tons of ground to help. During his peak defensive years, even when the rotation was short, was prone to lazily staying with his defender.

3. Ball-denial could limit his volume. So could hard doubling if the defense was athletic enough to recover to shooters. But this starts with having a massive player to put on Shaq and limited shooting next to Shaq. Maybe this isn't feasible any more?

Kevin Garnett

My reasons to vote for Garnett:

1. Rare player who could defend 1-5 at points in his career. Effective 2-5 for most of his career. Did this while being a rim protector. The smartest help defender I've watched. Combined with his mobility, Garnett is my preferred defender for the current and future NBA.

2. One of the best playmaking centers and capable of passing off-the-dribble. Very capable outside shooter, helps space the floor, excellent PnP/PnP big. Makes him extremely versatile offensively and fit well with anyone.

What gives me doubt:

1. Not strong enough to power to the rim like Giannis. I don't see him as a great offensive player in general because I think the matchup needs to be pretty specific for him to get to the rim at the rate required for him to be an offensive engine. He's still very good.

2. Could be bullied in the post by stronger players. Would give up position or offensive rebounds this way. Didn't absorb contact as well as a guy like Duncan.

Tim Duncan

My reasons to vote for Duncan:

1. Required a lot of strength to guard in the post. But he was also quick enough, with a comfortable handle and good touch, that he could score on larger players from the perimeter. Would be a mismatch against many lineups.

2. Good passer in general and very good short roll passer. Had an above average but not great jumper. Can be very effective as a PnR big or high post passer if the matchup requires it.

3. One of the best rim protectors in the drop coverage or helping from the dunkers spot.

4. Many seasons of production.

What gives me doubt:

1. Liked to play a drop coverage, can't keep up with quick guards when defending in open space. Teams with the right personnel can reduce his defensive value this way. To what degree? And how can a lineup be formed around Duncan to help him retain maximum defensive value?

2. I see his offensive value dropping against teams that can defend him one-on-one. Same if the opponent can scramble and close out super well since then they can start doubling or showing help on Duncan, and while he was a very good passer, I think he's missing the velocity and decisiveness to get the shooters fully open.

LeBron James

My reasons to vote for LeBron:

1. One of the most defensively versatile perimeter players I've watched. He provides rim protection, and though not as much as a center, this is extremely valuable when playing small lineups or if the team's primary rim protector is caught above the action. He can spot minutes on really strong players like Giannis and taller players like Pau Gasol while still be able to play quick guards.

2. Excellent passer, throws the best skip passes in NBA history. Passes that would lead to semi-contested shots for most every player lead to open shots when LeBron is the passer. Gets the most value from good shooters and these players are becoming a key ingredient to championship contention.

3. Super potent scorer, can bully and power through players who are larger than him, the best perimeter player at getting to the rim and finishing. As lineups get smaller to play offense and defense on the perimeter, he is able to score at the rim consistently even with poor shooting around him.

4. At nearly age 36, had one of the greatest finals games (G5) I've watched, comparable to Jordan's G2 in 1991 and G1 in 1992. Has sustained near peak level play longer than any one.

What gives me doubt:

1. I think LeBron is no longer countered by packing the paint. But that wasn't always true. When did that change happen, though? Did it happen before his second Cavs stint?

2. The 2011 finals. LeBron has succeeded in enough high pressure situations since then -- and ones with even higher pressure than 2011 -- that I don't think LeBron's 2011 finals reflects on his career after the event. I see the fallout as being isolated to 2011-and-before. But there's no denying it hurts his 2011 season and my valuation of his earlier seasons.

Bill Russell

This is an honorable mention. I think it's debatable if Bill Russell would be the best defender for the current trending NBA climate (though he's near the top and is a fair choice). Garnett has a very real argument here, and since I think it's quite clear that Garnett is the better offensive player, it's hard to put Bill on the list. Frankly I'm not sure a defender can be much better than Garnett. I don't think there's enough possessions where Garnett could have played better for that to be possible. But if Russell was that much better, I think the burden of evidence would be much higher than what can be found from the small amount of film we have available. However, I mentioned I make a distinction between the "best" and "greatest" player, and brought that up for a reason. I think Russell has a stellar argument for the greatest player ever. He was a visionary who succeeded in his era as much as any one else ever has. And that was only possible because he was a rare person who was decades ahead of his time. His role as a player-coach is very impressive. He fought for equal rights, and yes, that matters to me when talking about greatness. Even if it's basketball greatness. I have a ton of admiration for what Bill Russell did and wanted to make that clear. For people who evaluate players in the context of their era, or even more subjectively like I do when I think about "greatness", I see Bill as a very good #1 choice.

---

Anyways, I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about my concerns for each player. What would be most appreciated is recommendations for specific games to watch that answer some of my questions.

I would like to ask - you don't see any case for Wilt or Hakeem?

I should probably add Hakeem. I think he has a case if one can argue for his late 80's / early 90s seasons being closer to his peak level of play than I thought. Wilt falls into the Bill Russell category for me, where if he does have a case, it's going to be really hard to make it a strong one based on the small number of games we have. Again, I'm asking myself

If I were an NBA GM in some random year in the future, without any knowledge of my team or the competition, but I was told I could have one player from the past on my team, who would it be?

The more extrapolation that is required, the more supporting evidence that is required. And unfortunately, as we go further back in time, we must extrapolate more despite the shrinking body of evidence (film). Because of this, I think it's almost impossible for there to be an argument that would make me answer "Russell" or "Wilt" to my question above.

[ardee]

I had no idea this was already happening. Can you add me to the voting list?

[ardee]

Assuming I get added, LeBron and Jordan are my no. 1 and 2 votes (will make a formal post later).

I want to ask people for their thoughts on Russell and Wilt vs Kareem. How do you evaluate the fact that while Kareem was the superior scorer to both (a bit better than Wilt and hugely better than Russell), both were better rebounders, passers and defenders? Do you think it reflects in the impact gap, whichever way you see it?

[Dr Positivity]

Assuming I get added, LeBron and Jordan are my no. 1 and 2 votes (will make a formal post later).

I want to ask people for their thoughts on Russell and Wilt vs Kareem. How do you evaluate the fact that while Kareem was the superior scorer to both (a bit better than Wilt and hugely better than Russell), both were better rebounders, passers and defenders? Do you think it reflects in the impact gap, whichever way you see it?

Defense isn't that big of a gap. In the PC board top defenders project Wilt ranked 5th for Cs, Kareem ranked 9th. However Wilt's best years on defense arguably were his worst offensive ones.

My biggest problems with Wilt are chemistry and choking. My impression is that for coming up huge in playoff games over and over again, Russell vs Wilt was like Brady vs Manning. It was just obvious to people by the time they retired who was the big game player and that's the biggest reason Russell got the nod as GOAT. It wasn't just ring counting, it was how they did it.

[Blackmill]

The reason why I look down upon LeBron's 2011 Finals so much is because that was a Finals he should win. If a player is an underdog, I can understand a loss, as basketball is a team game. But in LeBron's case, had he played better--the Heat would have won. Jordan didn't really have a moment quite like that.

I agree he didn't have a moment quite like the 2011 finals. Jordan never lost as the favorite, but he came dangerously close, and won because of a huge game from his teammates.

Going into the 1993 season Jordan had just repeated, and in many people's eyes, a three-peat would separate him from the likes of Magic and Bird. He would face the Knicks in the ECF. The Knicks were a tough opponent who had taken the Bulls to a game seven in the previous playoffs. That said, this was a surprise at the time, and no one considered the Knicks favorites.

Fast forward and the Bulls had lost their first two games. These were embarrassing losses too. Jordan was getting smothered at times by the much smaller John Starks. His gambling and off-court habits were being blamed and dragged through the mud. In a close G2 loss Starks made a poster dunk in the final minute with Jordan in the picture.

Game 3 was a must-win, legacy defining moment. It would be hard to imaging the Bulls coming back from a 3-0 deficit against a strong Knicks team. So what happened? Jordan put up a stinker and shot 3/18 from the field. He did make contributions in other areas like any great player would. But overall this was one of Jordan's worst playoff games and very arguably his worst of the first three-peat. And it happened when the Bull's desperately needed him to play his best.

Ultimately Chicago won the series. Pippen led the Bulls' charge along with Grant and Paxson to blow out the Knicks in G3. Jordan did have an incredible, bounce-back G4. But in the pivotal moment -- where a loss would have almost certainly cost the series -- he failed. This wasn't as bad as the 2011 finals and I don't make too much of it. But it was bad and the aura around Jordan would be very different if not for some great performances by his teammates.

Ultimately, what matters to me is LeBron became better because of the 2011 NBA finals, and we never saw him play like that again.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Will be hard for me to get my vote in by tomorrow, but I'll try. Any chance we could extend the discussion for #1 a little longer than other threads? Into the weekend, perhaps? Would like a chance to break into the discussion right from the top, but I'm still organizing my thoughts and here is where I intended to reveal a lot about my approach. I'll be faster on future threads, I swear!

[Sark]

To all the people who are citing longevity; I am sure you will also award Karl Malone for his incredible longevity as well, with at least a top 15 ranking.

[Gibson22]

To all the people who are citing longevity; I am sure you will also award Karl Malone for his incredible longevity as well, with at least a top 15 ranking.

Yeah I will

[Sark]

To all the people who are citing longevity; I am sure you will also award Karl Malone for his incredible longevity as well, with at least a top 15 ranking.

Yeah I will

As long as it stays consistent.

[trex_8063]

To all the people who are citing longevity; I am sure you will also award Karl Malone for his incredible longevity as well, with at least a top 15 ranking.

Yeah I will

Me too, though I don't recall if I've ever succeeded in getting enough people to agree with me. By consensus, I think he usually ends up at #17. But he's a lock in the top 14 (at worst) for me.

[trex_8063]

.

Are you wanting to vote in this project?
yes.

I've added you to the voter panel.
Please peruse this thread; and note that in the future I need you to give your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices (probably won't matter for this one).

[Dr Positivity]

To all the people who are citing longevity; I am sure you will also award Karl Malone for his incredible longevity as well, with at least a top 15 ranking.

I am not decided yet whether he will make my top 15. Malone ranked 32nd on the last peaks project - there was some highly questionable players ahead of him (WTF at Westbrook ranking), but he's still probably top 25 at best meaning longevity has to do a lot of work. Some of them of them Malone will easily rank over right now due to longevity, others may be harder. The reason I'm valuing Lebron and Kareem's longevity compared to Jordan is I think they're as good as him anyways, all three were the by far #1 guy of their era.