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

[Bidofo]

Criteria:

Spoiler:

I'll be making my list based on cumulative value for the entirety of a player's career. Basically looking at each year and thinking by how much would that season improve the championship-winning odds of the average NBA team (though I will be taking into account scalability on better teams as well). This means that even late-career years on low minutes, such as '13/'14 Duncan, add value to a player's career. There's no way I'm going to be able to calculate a specific number a la ElGee (which I find very arbitrary), so I'll be putting individual seasons into tiers, and pretty much gauging who has the most value. My analysis of a player's season is based on statistics + eye test + other good analysis, though I will say the further back in time we go the less I can rely on eye test, so more emphasis will be placed on statistics (accounting for era of course) and what other good posts in this project tell me about the player.

In order to grade an individual season, I look at RS+PS with more emphasis on PS performance. Missed games and underperformance in either matter though.

Pretty excited about this project, so let's jump into it. This is the first time I'm actually looking closely at each season for all these players and actually ordering them. For all I know, the GOAT list might be something different than what I had previously thought based on guestimating, so hopefully I learn something.

To start, I have 3 names in mind that in my opinion separate themselves from the rest of the pack: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, and LeBron James. They have the 3 best primes in history, and so the best collection of top tier seasons. One might ask why Russell, Duncan, Wilt, Shaq, etc. might not be in contention. KAJ and James have a longevity advantage compared to those guys, and stronger primes anyway. Jordan has weaker longevity (though still very good; nothing like Bird/Magic), but I'm of the opinion his prime is the best in history (he jammed GOAT level seasons in a relatively short amount of time). I will say though that Bill Russell is in the back of my mind, so it could very easily be a top 4 for me, but not particularly right now. I am open to discussion ofc.

I'll be ranking individual player seasons against his own other seasons, so each column is in order of goodness, but there is no ranking between player seasons within tiers. I'll also give the order of total value added within the tier. The tiers for these 3 would go as follows (note: I'm labeling them numerically, but that's going to be relative to the candidates remaining. Since these are the top tiers anyway though, considering we are voting for the GOAT, I'll try giving the tiers appropriate names as well):

Tier 1: GOAT seasons
1991 Jordan 2012 James 1977 KAJ
1990 Jordan 2009 James 1974 KAJ
1989 Jordan 2013 James 1980 KAJ

Some of the greatest seasons in history. From an individual perspective, pretty much perfect years from end-to-end. Dominating RS, dominating PS. 91 Jordan, 12 James, and 77 KAJ are their peaks. Jordan > James > KAJ.

Tier 2: GOAT seasons...except...
1992 Jordan 2016 James 1971 KAJ
1993 Jordan 2017 James 1970 KAJ
1996 Jordan 2020 James 1979 KAJ
1997 Jordan 2018 James
1988 Jordan 2014 James

Seasons, for one reason or another, have something about them that precludes them from the GOAT tier.

92+93 Jordan was worse on defense than his earlier, GOAT-motor years. I'm also of the opinion that as Jordan got older and resorted more to the post, he was exerting less pressure on the opposing defense, but he was so damn good idk if it mattered. I'm confident 96/97 Jordan > 93 Jordan on defense, though I'm not sure vs. 92 Jordan, but the offensive trend of going to the post more continued. His RS in 96 looks great and it was, but I feel as though some of his stats might be inflated in an expansion league; his post-season was just as good though, and against some great competition, but I think 93 was more of a carryjob. 97 Jordan is pretty much 96 Jordan with a worse playoffs. 88 Jordan was just an athletic freak, but raw offensively, which was kind of exposed by the Pistons at the end of the year (Magic tore up that same Pistons defense a series later).

I think after the 13 series against the Spurs his offense reached another level (when healthy) in terms of scoring skillset+confidence, and also commenced LeCoast. 16 was his best regular season in this group, and he had a very strong finish to the playoffs. 17 James had a mediocre regular season, which is pretty much the only thing I'm docking him for here. It was his best scoring playoffs imo and kept his team in the game whenever he was on the floor against the GOAT team. 20 James was great end-to-end but I don't think we saw him dominate like prior since he didn't need to. 18 James is pretty much 20 James with worse defense. 14 James had the worst playoffs of them all, which is pretty crazy since he was a scoring machine starting this year, but his RS was mediocre like in 17 and I don't think he upped his defense in the playoffs enough.

Young Kareem was a beast and made the Bucks historic level good almost instantly. I dock some points for a weaker league, though I think the strength of the league is perhaps up for debate. He was a worse passer than his later years. I am open to opinions about his defense these years. I prefer the more experienced versions of Kareem that are in tier 1. 79 was the second of two meh regular seasons but he had a good playoffs and performed much better against the Sonics than in the previous year. James > Jordan >> KAJ.

Tier 3: Relatively flawed, high level seasons
1998 Jordan 2015 James 1972 KAJ
....................2011 James 1973 KAJ
....................2010 James 1981 KAJ

I'd say the last season of Jordan's prime belongs here. He carried the Bulls through an injury-riddled RS and to the chip, but he wasn't tasked to do much else. He also faced less than stellar defenses in the playoffs. I think this season is the best of this tier though.

15 James had back issues, but the Cavs were pretty dominant starting around the middle of the season. Not a portable LeBron season so he gets docked for that, but I'm confident in saying if he at least had a healthy Kyrie, the Finals goes 7 games. 11 James was actually really good up until the Finals lol he dominated two tough defenses b2b in the Celtics and Bulls and had a great defensive season in total, but those last 6 games hurt. 10 James had a dominant RS but was bad against the Celtics, whether it be to injury or whatever. I think it's the worst season here.

Not a fan of 72 and 73 KAJ. Dominant RS results, but didn't play well in the PS. Much of this was due to going against some of the best defenders ever at his position, though. 81 KAJ got dominated and upset by Moses in the first round, and that ended up ultimately being the last season where he was the clearcut #1 player on the team. KAJ > LeBron > Jordan.

Tier 4: Low-level MVP seasons
1987 Jordan 2007 James 1976 KAJ
....................2008 James 1978 KAJ
....................2006 James

87 Jordan was very raw despite the gaudy scoring numbers with questionable defense. Didn't really do much in the playoffs against just the 9th best defense. Obviously a long ways away from prime Jordan.

06-08 James tried carrying defensive rosters on offense but couldn't quite do it to the same level 09 James and after could. Worse passing and shooting than his later years, so much worse portability. Hadn't quite put it all together, but could still churn out elite playoff series/performances.

76 KAJ is weird since he missed the playoffs. Idk where else to put him. 78 KAJ had a poor series against the Sonics, who were an elite defense, but it also seems like he didn't do much in the way of stopping the opponent from scoring so well. The Sonics shoot 48% from the field in the series, an improvement from their 45% in the RS. These late 70s seasons of Kareem show the problem of having your big men try to carry the offense I suppose. I've watched very little tape of this series though, so I am open to opinion. KAJ => James >> Jordan.

Tier 5: Strong All-Star seasons
1985 Jordan 2005 James 1982 KAJ
.......................................1983 KAJ
.......................................1984 KAJ
.......................................1985 KAJ
.......................................1986 KAJ
.......................................1987 KAJ

This is where KAJ's longevity really stands out imo. These seasons aren't ordered, I just lumped them together as they are all pretty similar. He enjoyed an easy transition into the second option as Magic hit his prime, but he still had his elite moments (85 Finals). Now not all them are better than 85 Jordan and 05 James, I'd say half are and half aren't. I just didn't want to make another tier that just had him lol. KAJ >>> James ~ Jordan.

Every other season by these guys were injury plagued or 88 KAJ who was just old, so they add minimal value. James and Jordan are ahead of KAJ comfortably among their best seasons. KAJ however adds many more years just below that level (tiers 3-5) to catch up and surpass Jordan, but I don't think it's enough to surpass James. The gap in tier 2 in particular is massive. This ended up being pretty long, so I think I'll do shorter versions for future votes. For the number one spot though, my vote is:

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

EDIT: Feel free to disagree with these evaluations and let me know. There could definitely be some glaring discrepancies in how I graded these seasons and how someone else might, and I'm willing to switch things up given enough reason. Even my final voted order may be inaccurate; I'm really only confident at LeBron being number 1, KAJ and Jordan could be switched, but that's the way I have it as of now.

[Whopper_Sr]

My pick is set but the prime candidates are:

Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
LeBron James

My evaluate players based on peak/prime/longevity with an emphasis on defense, passing, longevity, playoff resiliency, and versatility/portability/scalability.

I can eliminate the following players right off the bat:
1. Kevin Garnett: KG's individual scoring game was not robust enough for him to fill the role of a first option scorer as adequately as the other players on this list (Russell included) have which weakens his case enough for me to eliminate him. This weakness seems rather glaring compared to the flaws of the other candidates.

2. Wilt Chamberlain: Wilt left a ton of value on the table by hijacking his team's offenses with his domineering play style. This hurts since we have to split hairs in an exercise like this. If he had learned to take on a lesser role on offense while allocating most of his fuel to defense earlier in his career, he would've been a serious candidate.

The next two candidates on the chopping block are:
1. Michael Jordan: While MJ's peak and prime stack up well against anyone else's, his relatively subpar longevity brings down his stock. He's also the weakest defender on this list by a big margin (vs. the big men) and a small but clear margin (vs. LeBron). He's the GOAT scorer and his motor/season-to-season consistency is arguably second to none but that's where the buck stops.

2. Tim Duncan: By my criteria, Duncan should be a surefire GOAT candidate. Top 5 defender ever (I have him at #2), stellar longevity, raised his game in the playoffs, and any team would kill to have him on their team without having to sacrifice anything. However, his average prime season was a rung below the guys ahead of him as well as Jordan. That's enough for me to drop him just below the top 3.

This leaves LeBron, Russell, and Kareem.

Kareem suffers a similar fate as Duncan where his average prime season doesn't quite reach the necessary heights for GOAT status. I also view his peak a half tier below the very best. He's is the longevity king but LeBron is right there with him. Peak Russell vs. peak KAJ is a wash and Kareem's longevity edge is offset by Russell's superior prime. It's very close but Russell's otherworldly defense and vision of the game gives him the nod over Kareem. Overall, Kareem's peak/prime/longevity combination isn't as good as LeBron's and I prefer Russell's ever so slightly.

On LeBron vs. Russell: LeBron has the higher peak (2017 as GOAT peak season), comparable prime (although I would still take 12-18 LeBron over 60-66 Russell without too much hesitation), and of course the superior longevity. LeBron is the perfect perimeter player while Russell is the perfect big man. Ultimately, LeBron's longevity is too much to overcome for Russell and my picks are:

#1: LeBron James

#2: Bill Russell

#3: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[trex_8063]

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.

It is frequently used as a negative/detracting point in an inappropriate manner, imo.
It should be additive. I'll explain....

Not long ago, I had a discussion with someone here who was going on about '11 as the "check mate" argument as to why Lebron can't be compared to Jordan.
So I suggested just taking '11 out of the equation and evaluating the other SIXTEEN seasons of his, asking how those 16 stack up against MJ's full career. This poster then tried to be like "Aha! Caught you! Why would you take '11 out of the equation unless you want to give Lebron an unfair advantage?"

I was sort of incredulous, asking how on Earth removing a prime season from the equation is an advantage to that player?
I cited a hypothetical example using Donovan Mitchell as a talking point (though any number of other very very good [All-Star] players could also be suitable): if next year Donovan Mitchell had a season that was in EVERY way identical to '11 Lebron, it would be the unanimous pick as his peak season, and would be considered extremely additive to his career/legacy, moving him up substantially on any ATL.

We could even say that with a higher class of player like Jimmy Butler or Paul George: it would almost assuredly be the consensus peak season for either of them, would be seen as very additive to their career value and all-time rank.

Why should it be any different for Lebron?


If someone is using one standard to judge one player, and then a different standard for another player.......that's pretty much the definition of the expression "shifting goal-posts".

If one admits to doing this, one is openly admitting that his list DOES NOT contain internal consistency. Plain and simple.

[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.

It is frequently used as a negative/detracting point in an inappropriate manner, imo.
It should be additive. I'll explain....

Not long ago, I had a discussion with someone here who was going on about '11 as the "check mate" argument as to why Lebron can't be compared to Jordan.
So I suggested just taking '11 out of the equation and evaluating the other SIXTEEN seasons of his, asking how those 16 stack up against MJ's full career. This poster then tried to be like "Aha! Caught you! Why would you take '11 out of the equation unless you want to give Lebron an unfair advantage?"

I was sort of incredulous, asking how on Earth removing a prime season from the equation is an advantage to that player?
I cited a hypothetical example using Donovan Mitchell as a talking point (though any number of other very very good [All-Star] players could also be suitable): if next year Donovan Mitchell had a season that was in EVERY way identical to '11 Lebron, it would be the unanimous pick as his peak season, and would be considered extremely additive to his career/legacy, moving him up substantially on any ATL.

We could even say that with a higher class of player like Jimmy Butler or Paul George: it would almost assuredly be the consensus peak season for either of them, would be seen as very additive to their career value and all-time rank.

Why should it be any different for Lebron?


If someone is judging one player by one standard, and then a different standard for another player.......that's pretty much the definition of the expression "shifting goal-posts".

If one admits to doing this, one is openly admitting that his list DOES NOT contain internal consistency. Plain and simple.

But players are judged by different standards. That is normal for sports. It's not exclusive to the NBA or to Lebron.

What's great for 1 player can be construed differently for another player.

[trex_8063]

But players are judged by different standards. That is normal for sports. It's not exclusive to the NBA or to Lebron.

What's great for 1 player can be construed differently for another player.

You're right that casuals and media alike shift standards all over for all kinds of arbitrary reasons [bias, habit, narrative, whim, etc].

But that it is "normal" [or at least common] for people to do this doesn't make it right.
I believe people who take this business of ranking players in an all-time sense seriously (like I presume many here on a "Player Comparisons" forum do) should strive for a greater degree of internal consistency.

What meaning does one's ATL really have, if it's not internally consistent?


I don't judge players by different standards. I'm trying my best to use the same yard-stick for all of them.
I think any manner of "total value over replacement level" [my criteria basis], "total wins added", "championship probability added", or similar achieves this.
Though one doesn't have to hang his hat on these kinds types of criteria wherein longevity necessarily becomes a major factor. They can judge things strictly on peak-basis, or best 5 years basis, or other "best X years" basis. Those would all be fine to [even though it's not the way I choose to do things]; as long as one applies it consistently to everyone.

[Odinn21]

Re: focus on creating and leading an offense vs carrying. To me this reads as focusing on ceilings rather than floor, and yes, I am.

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

How's that Kareem's not in the elite group in there? 70-74 Bucks had a rORtg Better +4 rORtg in both regular seasons and playoffs.

Re: Dirk, Bird. Not in the big man category I was talking about. These are guys who spent a lot of time on the perimeter.

They were still not primary ball handlers. Both played on the perimeter more than a traditional big man, but they still did not touch the ball that much.

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.

By the time they shoved Kareem aside, he was 39. You're talking like they shoved prime Kareem aside.

It's insane that how you keep belittling Kareem's impact and quality. The Lakers from 1979-80 to 1983-84 were anything but Showtime Lakers.
They shifted from Kareem to Magic on half court when the time Kareem's offensive output and impact weren't enough to secure a finals trip in years. And he was 39.

I've never seen a worse argument than this from you. Like you never watched any of those games at the time. Even naming Calvin Murphy was better than this.

Again my emphasis is that whenever you look at league leading ORtg teams that keep it going for an extended period of time, they always end up being perimeter guys who are running it. I concede Shaq could have been the exception that proved the rule, and he is certainly the best volume scoring big man in history by a good margin. Glad you brought him up.

I'd like to see your results when you made the effort to see this. Because I very much doubt this.
Again with running an offense without looking at on-court production...

Wish you'd hear yourself saying these things.
"Calvin Murphy or Steve Nash is better than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to have because with him, my team would have higher ORtg."
Utterly ridiculous.

I'd like to see Steve Nash running an offense that good by ORtg metrics while he had to score 25+ per game instead of 15-20 because he didn't have one of the best PnR partners around. Talking like these ball handlers never benefited from scoring volume of the big men had.

[TheGOATRises007]

But players are judged by different standards. That is normal for sports. It's not exclusive to the NBA or to Lebron.

What's great for 1 player can be construed differently for another player.

You're right that casuals and media alike shift standards all over for all kinds of arbitrary reasons [bias, habit, narrative, whim, etc].

But that it is "normal" [or at least common] for people to do this doesn't make it right.
I believe people who take this business of ranking players in an all-time sense seriously (like I presume many here on a "Player Comparisons" forum do) should strive for a greater degree of internal consistency.

What meaning does one's ATL really have, if it's not internally consistent?


I don't judge players by different standards. I'm trying my best to use the same yard-stick for all of them.
I think any manner of "total value over replacement level" [my criteria basis], "total wins added", "championship probability added", or similar achieves this.
Though one doesn't have to hang his hat on these kinds types of criteria wherein longevity necessarily becomes a major factor. They can judge things strictly on peak-basis, or best 5 years basis, or other "best X years" basis. Those would all be fine to [even though it's not the way I choose to do things]; as long as one applies it consistently to everyone.

Are you suggesting that a great game for one is a great game for all?

I mean, if a role player has a great game, that likely won't be seen as a great game for a superstar. That's basically my point regarding different standards. How can you judge a role player and a superstar in the same manner? They have completely different roles and responsivities on the court.

Heck, I'm not going to judge someone like Paul George the way I'd judge Lebron. I wouldn't even judge Wade or Kobe the way I'd judge Jordan.

But this isn't exclusive to the NBA. If a non-ranked tennis player makes a slam final and loses, that's an incredible achievement for them. If Federer makes a slam final and loses, it's still a great achievement, but not to the same effect.

I do try to hold the same consistency for similar caliber players. Keyword: similar caliber players.

As an example: I've always debated the point that Jordan only won because he was often on the best team in the nineties, despite tangible evidence pointing out that Jordan was a large reason those teams were the best.

That's why I've always pushed back the notion that Lebron having Anthony Davis this season diminishes/cheapens the title. I don't think the Lakers would have been as good if Kawhi replaced Lebron or if anyone else replaced Lebron for that matter.

[Doctor MJ]

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).

Not many guys above him on my GOAT list either.

[Jordan Syndrome]

The way I have viewed what my basketball GOAT 'is' has changed throughout my various understandings of basketball. Growing up, Jordan was The GOAT and nothing could tell me otherwise. I loved watching Jordan play basketball and, to me, he was the perfect basketball player. He could score effortlessly from anywhere of importance on the court [Yes, we did think this way in the 1990s] and he had a flawless finals record; the only record that mattered. Bird and Magic's imperfect finals records were a blackmark and Russell could never replicate what Jordan did with the ball while never winning like Jordan did "with more opponents". Hakeem? Please, he only won when Jordan was playing America's Past-Time while Kareem spent part of his prime missing the post-season. Wilt has impressive box-scores but he couldn't even win when American's drank out of different water fountains and used separate bathrooms.

Everything changed for me when Tim Duncan won in 1999. This is the first time I was able to see the league's baton passed from one GOAT to the next. This is the first time I ever thought "maybe my way of thinking about 'GOAT' isn't truly objective". I re-assessed and since this time I have been using this method as a starting point: Jordan has the highest level 10-year prime of any player in NBA History. A player needs to equal Jordan in an X vs 10-year prime, with X being greater than 10 years, to have a case over Jordan.

Advanced Cumulative-Statistical Profile:

*Michael Jordan's numbers will include his 22 game stretch in 1995, it is simply far easier to include them

Michael Jordan RS ('87-'98): 29.4 PER, 189.0 WS (.281 WS/48), 8.1 OBPM, 101.9 VORP
Michael Jordan PS ('87-'98): 28.7 PER, 38.6 WS (.258 WS/48), 8.8 OBPM, 23.8 VORP

Tim Duncan RS ('98-'10): 25.0 PER, 162.3 WS (.219 WS/48), 3.8 OBPM, 72.8 VORP
Tim Duncan PS ('98-'10): 25.7 PER, 28.6 WS (.204 WS/48), 4.2 OBPM, 15.0 VORP

LeBron James RS ('08-'18): 29.1 PER, 170 WS (.261 WS/48), 7.8 OBPM, 93.2 VORP
LeBron James PS ('08-'18): 29.1 PER, 45.6 WS (.256 WS/48), 8.0 OBPM, 27.1 VORP

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar RS ('70-'84): 26.0 PER, 235.7 WS (.247 WS/48), 5.0 OBPM, 72.7 VORP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar PS ('70-'84): 25.3 PER, 28.4 WS (.223 WS/48), 6.0 OBPM, 10.5 VORP

Bill Russell RS ('57-'67): 19.4 PER, 144.4 WS (.201 WS/48)
Bill Russell PS ('57-'67): 20.4 PER, 24.7 WS (.204 WS/48)

I come away with asking myself how much value do the other non-Jordan years account for? Duncan from 2011-2014, LeBron in 2006, 2007 and 2020, Kareem from 1985-1987 and Russell in 1968 and 1969.

The Spurs in 2011 were disappointing, Duncan was bad in the post-season and the Spurs dynasty appeared to be nearing an end. Duncan would ignore all doubters in 2012, anchoring a team which went 19-2 in Duncan's final 21 regular season games. In 2013 and 2014 Duncan was the defensive anchor and key contributor on 2 NBA Finals team, finally getting over the hump for the final time in 2014. Duncan's game 6 in the 2013 NBA Finals was an all-time classic performance, as were his game 3's against the Lakers and Grizzles.

LeBron had a "coming to age" season in 2006, leading the Cavaliers to a seven-game series against an elite Detroit Pistons team with a historic first round series against Gilbert Arenas and the Washington Wizards. In 2007 LeBron had one of the greatest 4th quarter and overtime performances of all-time, scoring 29 of the Cavaliers 30 points to end the game. James's 2020 Campaign resulted in an evisceration of all opponents faced, going past 5 games in just 1 series while playing one of his best NBA Finals of his career.

The 1985 Finals featured Kareem posting a ridiculous 28.4/10.2/6.0 in the games 2-6 while being un-guardable as a scorer on the floor. Although Kareem's 1986 campaign ended poorly, Kareem willingly took on a lesser, still impactful role in 1987 to help the Lakers win Kareem's 5th title on behalf of Magic Johnson.

Russell's impact didn't fall on a game by game basis until 1969, where Russell was still phenomenal in the post-season. At age 35 Russell led the Celtics, in the finals, in rebounds and assists on the way to his 11th title after dismantling a soon-to-be-champions in the New York Knicks with their newly acquired secret weapon, Dave DeBusschere. The Celtics and Russell in 1968 were able to stave off two juggernauts in the 76ers and Lakers on the way to their 10th title.

There is no question to me...LeBron James is the player who added the most value to his resume in this stretch of "extra seasons". His 2020 campaign is without a doubt the best season here while his 2006 and, more importantly 2007, add legitimate value as a season in the GOAT discussion. The other three players still have seasons mentioned above which add significant and serious value in a GOAT discussion. Russell's ability to come out on top twice in the post-season is very telling of his impact while both Kareem and Duncan, although having relative "stinkers" here in 2011 and 1986, still add significant value.

It is late, I am tired but I wanted and felt like I needed to get my votes in here, tonight, to generate more positive discussion. I am excited to discuss my theories of "Offensive Catalysts" vs "Offensive Portables" as this GOAT projects continues down the pantheon of greatness. I'll end on this note: LeBron is arguable the greatest "Offensive Catalyst" of all-time while Jordan is arguable the greatest "Offensive Portable" of all-time. Perhaps my decision on who I vote for as GOAT is a reflection of myself putting more value in Catalysts vs Portables and I hope I can answer that, among other things, at the end of this project.

1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Bill Russell

[Blackmill]

Spoiler:

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.

It is frequently used as a negative/detracting point in an inappropriate manner, imo.
It should be additive. I'll explain....

Not long ago, I had a discussion with someone here who was going on about '11 as the "check mate" argument as to why Lebron can't be compared to Jordan.
So I suggested just taking '11 out of the equation and evaluating the other SIXTEEN seasons of his, asking how those 16 stack up against MJ's full career. This poster then tried to be like "Aha! Caught you! Why would you take '11 out of the equation unless you want to give Lebron an unfair advantage?"

I was sort of incredulous, asking how on Earth removing a prime season from the equation is an advantage to that player?
I cited a hypothetical example using Donovan Mitchell as a talking point (though any number of other very very good [All-Star] players could also be suitable): if next year Donovan Mitchell had a season that was in EVERY way identical to '11 Lebron, it would be the unanimous pick as his peak season, and would be considered extremely additive to his career/legacy, moving him up substantially on any ATL.

We could even say that with a higher class of player like Jimmy Butler or Paul George: it would almost assuredly be the consensus peak season for either of them, would be seen as very additive to their career value and all-time rank.

Why should it be any different for Lebron?


If someone is using one standard to judge one player, and then a different standard for another player.......that's pretty much the definition of the expression "shifting goal-posts".

If one admits to doing this, one is openly admitting that his list DOES NOT contain internal consistency. Plain and simple.

This is more or less the conversation I had with myself when deciding what to make of LeBron's 2011 finals. The only way to conclude that 2011 fully removes LeBron from the discussion as best player of all time is if you think he never changed as a player. If you think there is always the chance for a 2011 finals version 2.0 then I can understand it being a sticking point. But the near decade of evidence since then suggests the opposite. He's been in 8 finals since 2011 and played in over a dozen elimination games. Some (in fact, surprisingly many) of those of have been among the greatest games played. If there was another 2011 finals "in" LeBron it would have happened. It's an easy target, so people will always talk about LeBron's 2011 finals like it was a cardinal sin, but I'm glad to see a lot of people here have come to same the conclusion.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: focus on creating and leading an offense vs carrying. To me this reads as focusing on ceilings rather than floor, and yes, I am.

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

How's that Kareem's not in the elite group in there? 70-74 Bucks had a rORtg Better +4 rORtg in both regular seasons and playoffs.

I was talking about dynasties and mentioned about a half dozen guys.

There are 8 teams on that chart in the +8 range. That's the type of outlier tier I was talking about.

Re: Dirk, Bird. Not in the big man category I was talking about. These are guys who spent a lot of time on the perimeter.

They were still not primary ball handlers. Both played on the perimeter more than a traditional big man, but they still did not touch the ball that much.

Please consider my description suitably amended.

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.

By the time they shoved Kareem aside, he was 39. You're talking like they shoved prime Kareem aside.

It's insane that how you keep belittling Kareem's impact and quality. The Lakers from 1979-80 to 1983-84 were anything but Showtime Lakers.
They shifted from Kareem to Magic on half court when the time Kareem's offensive output and impact weren't enough to secure a finals trip in years. And he was 39.

I've never seen a worse argument than this from you. Like you never watched any of those games at the time. Even naming Calvin Murphy was better than this.

I mean if you're going to try to credit a 37 year old Kareem with leading an offensive dynasty, then yeah he's going to be even older in the denouement.

You can certainly make an argument than peak Kareem deserves to be rated very highly but to the extent we're talking about Kareem's value add to the Showtime Lakers, yes, he was old and past his prime when he was on his most effective team offenses, and yes, they got even better when they gave him a smaller role.

Re insane keep beilttling Kareem...I mean, we're in a GOAT thread and people are asking me why, among other things, I have Bill Russell ahead of Kareem given that Kareem was mega scorer. You expecting me to respond to those questions by ignoring the question and just saying happy things about him?

I'll reiterate: I expect have him 4th on my list. That's higher than every human being who has ever lived except for 3 guys for those keeping track at home.

Re: Even naming Murphy... I named Murphy because it's the truth. Over the course of 5 years, the Houston Rockets had the league's best ORtg 4 times, and typically Murphy is credited as being the main offensive guy over that run.

Again my emphasis is that whenever you look at league leading ORtg teams that keep it going for an extended period of time, they always end up being perimeter guys who are running it. I concede Shaq could have been the exception that proved the rule, and he is certainly the best volume scoring big man in history by a good margin. Glad you brought him up.

I'd like to see your results when you made the effort to see this. Because I very much doubt this.
Again with running an offense without looking at on-court production...

Wish you'd hear yourself saying these things.
"Calvin Murphy or Steve Nash is better than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to have because with him, my team would have higher ORtg."
Utterly ridiculous.

I'd like to see Steve Nash running an offense that good by ORtg metrics while he had to score 25+ per game instead of 15-20 because he didn't have one of the best PnR partners around. Talking like these ball handlers never benefited from scoring volume of the big men had.

See what? League leading ORtg teams? I can share that if you want, but are you talking about that or something else?

I never said Murphy was better than Kareem on offense let alone that he was better overall and you know it.

Nash over Kareem on offense (not overall) is a legit argument though.

[DQuinn1575]

Good post, a few opinions

Tier 2: GOAT seasons...except...
1992 Jordan 2016 James 1971 KAJ
1993 Jordan 2017 James 1970 KAJ
1996 Jordan 2020 James 1979 KAJ
1997 Jordan 2018 James
1988 Jordan 2014 James

71 Kareem and 96 Jordan are by far the best player in the league on 2 of the greatest teams in the history of the league. They are GOAT seasons.

87 Jordan was very raw despite the gaudy scoring numbers with questionable defense. Didn't really do much in the playoffs against just the 9th best defense. Obviously a long ways away from prime Jordan.

Questionable defense? He helped the team to be average league defense with Corzine/Waiters at center, Gene Banks at forward, and Paxson at guard. Banks was out of the league the next season. One year before making all-defense, but 3rd in steal %, high in whatever defense stats we do have. Just feel there are 3 weak links and 2 strong ones (Oakley)
And he scored 35 a game against the defending champs who only had to stop him as Oakley was the team's second option.

Not a fan of 72 and 73 KAJ. Dominant RS results, but didn't play well in the PS.

72 post season Jabbar was 33.7/17.5/4.8 against 69-13 Lakers, and LA shot 40.5% as a team. Oscar was a shadow of his former self, playing 30 minutes a game and shooting 36%. 73- totally agree, Jabbar always said Thurmond gave him the most trouble, and this series showed it. Big big difference between 72 and 73 playoffs. It was probably his only bad post season until Moses.

These late 70s seasons of Kareem show the problem of having your big men try to carry the offense I suppose. I've watched very little tape of this series though, so I am open to opinion. K

Kareem had no help in these seasons and couldn't win a championship alone. He came really close in 74, but the Bucks couldn't dribble the ball up the court against the Celtics. The late 70s Lakers had no other star to help - the 2nd best player went from over-the-hill Goodrich to over-the-hill Cazzie Russell. Dantley was a good player, but not a good fit with Jabbar as he was a low post scorer. None of these 3 won a championship without a good second player, so it's not fair to fault Jabbar here as he had no sidekick. 77 Trail Blazers had Maurice Lucas helping out Walton, 78-79 Sonics had two HOFers in Sikma and DJ, plus Gus Williams. who was Top 10 player in 80 and 81. Two champs, and a team that lost in 7.



Stat credits to Basketball-Reference.com

[Doctor MJ]

There are some great posts from posters I don't really know that well. It's awesome to see.

I also like the meta discussion that's going on and the philosophical territory involved.

I want to draw a distinction between what I'll call incrementalist and holistic assessment in a setting such as athletic accomplishment analysis and evaluation.

A pure incrementalist approach would mean literally adding up every basket made, and other such granular "good plays" and "bad plays" to decide who did the most net good in his career. The common theme is that the specific end result doesn't matter and that how good a player has been is determined by their good plays regardless of what team ends up on top.

A pure holistic approach could be argued to be essentially RINGZ! if we grant that the RINGZ philosophy is a bit more expansive than counting rings. The common theme is one of treating a team sport as if the results are determined by individuals.

In reality, the vast majority of us - maybe all of us - fall somewhere in between and it's not all that easy to figure out coherent rubric.

For me the fundamental issue with the former is that the play of the players is always focused in the end on team results, and specifically season-length team accomplishments. If a guy coasts through the regular season and turns it on in the playoffs on his way to a Finals MVP, he wins. If a guy can coast through the first round too, why not? Whether a team wins by 5 or 25, they win. They are not incentivized to win every single game by as much as possible, and thus the incrementalist approach is something of a lie we tell ourselves. It's an attempt to quantify things bottom-up in a context where the actors approach from the top down.

Meanwhile of course the holistic route can lead to the worst sort of argumentative sports fan who feels very, very strongly about a think he only can only make sense of backward, constructing a causal narrative around the event cast as grand effect.

In the end we're left trying to find equilibrium somewhere in the middle trying actually analyze things forward while acknowledging that some games matter more than others and some moments matter more than others.

[eminence]

Good discussion here y'all!

Where was I the last time we did this project? What has changed since then?

Looking back - I voted 1) Duncan 2) KAJ and considered MJ/LBJ/Russell.

In terms of actual accomplishment LBJ has added quite a bit since then with '18/'20. Does Duncan deserve a small uptick with the fall of the Spurs after he left?

How has my perspective changed? I think I've shifted slightly towards prime/accomplishment from then. Maybe more of what Doc would call a holistic approach.

Still more consideration for defense than most I believe - there was a discussion on the scarcity of elite defensive impact vs elite offensive impact and pairing it with mere 'good' impact that stuck with me. The gist of it being that a +5 defender is arguably as valuable as a +6 offensive player due to how talent is distributed around the league.

[Odinn21]

I was talking about dynasties and mentioned about a half dozen guys.

There are 8 teams on that chart in the +8 range. That's the type of outlier tier I was talking about.

You might want to reconsider that +8 range in absolute because the distribution is different over time.

Quick example;
In 1984, the highest ORtg was 111.5 (the Pistons) and the lowest DRtg was 103.1 (the Knicks). The gap between the highest ORtg and the lowest DRtg was less than 8. How could anyone get +8 or -8 relative numbers in that range.

I think a better way to look at would be comparing the relative numbers to the room they had along with also considering direct relative values.

There was less room to operate from 1974 to the mid to late '80s. That also overlaps with a good chunk of Kareem's good or great seasons.

I mean if you're going to try to credit a 37 year old Kareem with leading an offensive dynasty, then yeah he's going to be even older in the denouement.

I didn't do such thing. This is what I said;

From 1979-80 to 1982-83 Kareem was the offensive leader and the top offensive performer of his team. He also stayed as their half court leader until end of 1985-86 season. I guess that wasn't an offensive dynasty as well.
Why is it that the late '80s Lakers are offensive dynasty and the early '80s version isn't?

The Lakers were also an offensive dynasty with Kareem as their leading offensive weapon.

You can certainly make an argument than peak Kareem deserves to be rated very highly but to the extent we're talking about Kareem's value add to the Showtime Lakers, yes, he was old and past his prime when he was on his most effective team offenses, and yes, they got even better when they gave him a smaller role.

The West from 1984-85 to 1988-89 was quite weak.
viewtopic.php?p=85634556#p85634556
Something to think about while evaluating the Lakers in the '80s. When Kareem was in charge he had less room to have good relative Rtg numbers and the team faced a tougher competition. Not saying Kareem did better than Magic, but "they got even better when they gave him a smaller role" is relative to circumstances like anything else.

This is just a comparison within the team.
Utilization of three pointers, change in defensive schemes, expansion teams, all of them had significant impacts on having bigger crotches in rORtg/rDRtg numbers.

Having +6 rORtg offense or defense in 1982 was different than having them in 2005 or 2015. Purely from statistical POV, it was harder. Though still context dependant surely.

Re insane keep beilttling Kareem...I mean, we're in a GOAT thread and people are asking me why, among other things, I have Bill Russell ahead of Kareem given that Kareem was mega scorer. You expecting me to respond to those questions by ignoring the question and just saying happy things about him?

No, I find your this line of arguments highly inaccurate. That's all.

See what? League leading ORtg teams? I can share that if you want, but are you talking about that or something else?

The work you had done to say perimeter players leading better offenses. I don't know exact criterias which you selected.

Nash over Kareem on offense (not overall) is a legit argument though.

You know I disagree with this but we'd be getting even further away from the topic, so I'd say we should save this one for another time.

[Bidofo]

I appreciate the feedback.

71 Kareem and 96 Jordan are by far the best player in the league on 2 of the greatest teams in the history of the league. They are GOAT seasons.

I agree, these two seasons are some of the greatest in history. But in the context of my tier ranking, you should keep in mind that:
1) these seasons are being compared to the other seasons of MJ/KAJ/LBJ. Compared to everyone else in history, these seasons are in the 99.9th percentile. But 96 Jordan was a clear rung below 89/90/91 Jordan imo, so putting them in the same tier didn't seem right to me. Same with Kareem.
2) re: greatest teams in the history of the league. For sure they are two of the greatest, and them playing a major part in allowing these teams to function is kind of baked into their ranking. At the same time, one has to consider other outside factors separate from the individual player that contributed to that. For instance, both teams benefitted from an expansion diluting the league (like I said, I am willing to hear differing opinions about this).
3) the names are arbitrary. They are in effect "GOAT seasons."

Questionable defense? He helped the team to be average league defense with Corzine/Waiters at center, Gene Banks at forward, and Paxson at guard. Banks was out of the league the next season. One year before making all-defense, but 3rd in steal %, high in whatever defense stats we do have. Just feel there are 3 weak links and 2 strong ones (Oakley)
And he scored 35 a game against the defending champs who only had to stop him as Oakley was the team's second option.

Well the fact that his steal % is so high kind of ties into the "questionable" aspect of his defense. Jordan was a notorious gambler early in his career, and he fixed it later, but it was kind of a problem this year. I think it's most made evident in the fact that in 1987, he had by far the worst DRB% (9.3) of his prime, which is interesting because that Bulls defense was good BECAUSE of their DRB%, which was number 1 in the league and the best aspect of their four factors. The Bulls were also only 17th in forcing opponent turnovers, the worst of the four factors, so it makes me question his value on defense that season. I agree though that Jordan/Oakley were carrying that defense, they did it the next year too.

Re: the playoff series vs Celtics, I don't really like spamming FGA as a way of carrying an offense. MJ just wasn't as proficient a passer this year as later years, so it hurts his overall offensive game, especially when he's scoring on middling efficiency. However, I do think I was harsh in saying "didn't really do much." The Bulls did put up a +3 offense with the trash around him, so it's definitely a better performance than I gave credit for. Still, I don't think it moves him out of that tier.

72 post season Jabbar was 33.7/17.5/4.8 against 69-13 Lakers, and LA shot 40.5% as a team. Oscar was a shadow of his former self, playing 30 minutes a game and shooting 36%. 73- totally agree, Jabbar always said Thurmond gave him the most trouble, and this series showed it. Big big difference between 72 and 73 playoffs. It was probably his only bad post season until Moses.

72 KAJ played Thurmond too in the first round though, and yea it wasn't pretty, so there's that. I recently saw some footage of KAJ against the Lakers that year, and I'll just say its damning that a 35 yr old Wilt (granted, he was completely focused on defense at this point) was able to visibly fluster a young Kareem so easily. It ties back into him being less polished. I don't think an older Kareem would struggle the same way, even if it meant putting up less gaudy box score numbers. Fwiw, I did have 72 KAJ > 73 KAJ, but I don't think 72 KAJ is making tier 2 anyway.

Re: his defense that series, very fair point. 49% from the field in the RS -> 40.5% vs the Bucks is no joke. That's an aspect I overlooked, so thank you.

Kareem had no help in these seasons and couldn't win a championship alone. He came really close in 74, but the Bucks couldn't dribble the ball up the court against the Celtics. The late 70s Lakers had no other star to help - the 2nd best player went from over-the-hill Goodrich to over-the-hill Cazzie Russell. Dantley was a good player, but not a good fit with Jabbar as he was a low post scorer. None of these 3 won a championship without a good second player, so it's not fair to fault Jabbar here as he had no sidekick. 77 Trail Blazers had Maurice Lucas helping out Walton, 78-79 Sonics had two HOFers in Sikma and DJ, plus Gus Williams. who was Top 10 player in 80 and 81. Two champs, and a team that lost in 7.

Well that's the thing with having your bigman be the focal point of the offense: if you can't get him the ball, the entire offense can be neutered! I'm not blaming him for not having help, I'm merely describing the inherent disadvantages that come with a center being your offensive centerpiece, as opposed to a guard who can get to any spot on the floor. Besides, I had 74, 77, and 80 KAJ in tier 1 and 79 KAJ in tier 2. He just didn't really play well in 78.

[ZeppelinPage]

72 KAJ played Thurmond too in the first round though, and yea it wasn't pretty, so there's that. I recently saw some footage of KAJ against the Lakers that year, and I'll just say its damning that a 35 yr old Wilt (granted, he was completely focused on defense at this point) was able to visibly fluster a young Kareem so easily. It ties back into him being less polished. I don't think an older Kareem would struggle the same way, even if it meant putting up less gaudy box score numbers. Fwiw, I did have 72 KAJ > 73 KAJ, but I don't think 72 KAJ is making tier 2 anyway.

Kareem seemed to struggle with bigger, more physical centers. Wilt, Moses, Thurmond, etc. His series loss vs the Warriors (who didn't even have an injured Rick Barry the entire series) was pretty bad. Bucks were a 60 win team and the rest of the Bucks played pretty well that series. In the next round, the Warriors played the Lakers and Wilt handled Thurmond quite easily and outrebounded him in route to a 4-1 series win. This is one of a few moments where Kareem didn't quite show up.

[Gregoire]

1. Jordan. Best peak and prime, best resume in terms of accolades, basically best player ever at his best.
2. Lebron - best prime longevity, best career in terms of wins added
3. Russell. Most champs won, best team resume.

[drza]

Some BIll Russell Thoughts:

So, Russell's placement is always an interesting question in these projects. I find that I tend to weigh things a bit differently than some, so I wanted to put a few things out there.

1) I don't rank Russell so highly because of the 11 rings. In fact, entering the first of these projects that I participated in on this board (the Retro Player of the Year project), I entered that project believing that Russell was likely OVERRATED because of the rings. I entered that project fully expecting to come out of it with Kareem as my GOAT (if I had to do a GOAT rating...ironically, I don't tend to prefer a dogmatic GOAT/top-X rankings across eras), and to have Wilt as the better player in the Russell/Wilt battle with the thought that Wilt was the better player but with less talented teammates and that Russell's argument was based on RIINNNNNGGGGGZ.

Instead, I came out of the project feeling that my default setting slightly overrated Kareem, may have solidly overrated Wilt, and WAY underrated Russell.

2) I rate Russell so highly, part 1, due to his in-era dominance. I don't evaluate players by their teams (thus ringz, and even accolades, are tangential to my valuation process, not causal). Instead, I judge them based upon my estimation of how much their individual play contributed to their team's success. Not the same thing.

Russell, as far as I can evaluate, had by-far the largest individual impact on his team's chances of success in NBA history. His brand of team defense and rebounding was so incredibly landscape-changing that he essentially broke the scale. I find analysis such as ElGee's old post on how Russell's presence correlated with the Celtics' defensive dynasty very compelling ( https://elgee35.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/bill-russells-defensive-impact/ ). Cliff notes: the Celtics were 6th/8 teams in team defensive rating before Russell arrived in 1956, finished 1st in 12 of the 13 seasons w/ Russell (2nd in Russell's 2nd-to-last season), then dropped to 7th/14 in the season after he retired. The team defense peaked during a 4-year stretch (not-coincidentally at Russell's peak) in which they were more than 10 PPG better on defense than league average (!) and more than 6.5 PPG better than the second best defense (!!!).

That level of domination is beyond the pale of what we consider normal analysis...normally the best is only incrementally better than the other good teams. But the Celtics' team defense, which I credit largely to Russell's individual impact, was SO much better than everyone else that it made their overall team's level so much HIGHER than everyone else. That's why they won 11 titles in 13 years...titles have a luck component at the top. For Russell's teams to win 11 times in 13 years, they had to be SO much better than everyone else that even "bad luck" could rarely derail them. And again, based on the analysis, I attribute Russell's individual impact for lifting his team to those heights.

Said another way, Russell's not GOAT because the Celtics won 11 titles...The Celtics won 11 titles because Russell was the GOAT.

3) Important elements in placing Russell in a historic sense: his physical and mental tools. As expected, several, including my old friend Doctor MJ, are questioning how Russell might fit into different eras and potentially holding that against his ranking in this project. That's fair, and we'll all have to decide how to compare players from by-gone eras to players from today in a rational way (and that dynamic is why, in fact, I don't necessarily love dogmatic GOAT lists).

WIth that said, it's important to me that I try to be as open and even-handed as I can be in estimating these era factors. First, as someone pointed out up-thread, players can only play the game that's in front of them. Russell dominated his era to an extent unmatched, so I question the value of giving demerits because he didn't have 3-point range on his jumper or even shoot very well from the line. In a very real way, a polished jumper was in no way pertinent to his ability to dominate the game as-was. What I have to ask myself, is, if he came along in another era, did he have the ability to evolve to continue to maximize his impact at other times. And again, since this moves into the unknowable, I have to give a wide latitude in my answers, built around certain parameters.

And I say, yes, Russell had the tools to be the best player in the NBA in any era. Including this one.

Physically, Russell was a video game cheat code. He's built similarly to Anthony Davis, but was almost certainly (much) faster, jumped (much) higher and had greater lateral agility. Russell was quite literally an Olympic caliber jumper/sprinter, and the only reason he didn't compete in the 1956 Olympics in track and field is because he instead competed in basketball.

And mentally, Russell showed every sign of being a basketball savant. From early on, Russell seemingly evaluated the game of basketball, noted things that he considered to be winning approaches, and implemented those approaches heavily into his playing style (often counter to the dogma and coaching of the era). He innovated jumping to block shots, which had previously been considered bad defense. He broke the 48-minute game down into about 1-2 minutes of shots, and 46 minutes of everything else and identified the successful elements of dominating those other 46 minutes. He innovated the concept of wedding horizontal defense and vertical rim protection into an amalgam that devastated the league. He innovated the personal, mental approach to dealing with his personal goliath of Wilt Chamberlain. He understood the game well enough, while playing, to win a championship as a player-coach.

So, if I put together a player with the natural physical tools of a megatron Anthony Davis with the mental acuity to think the game at least as well as LeBron, I find it hard to believe that such a player wouldn't, in his formative years of the 1990s/early 2000s (let's say), have evaluated the game-as-it-was and spent more time working on his perimeter skills and shooting. His shooting in the reality-that-was was very poor, so I can't just postulate that he would have been Dirk in this era. But could he have developed a reasonable jump shot to buttress his his already strong (for the era) ballhandling, passing game and decision making? Could he have grown up watching men of similar body type like Chris Webber and Kevin Garnett and saw them as his offensive template, while still turning in a defensive impact that tops what is possible in the current game?

Yes, I believe he could.

TL;DR: I believe that Russell was the biggest in-era outlier in terms of impact in NBA history. He had extremely rare physical tools AND extremely rare mental tools that, I believe, would have allowed him to max out his impact in any era. And while today's NBA isn't conducive to a single player driving a team defense off the top of the scale the way he did in the 60s, we do have impact stats indicating that even within the last decade or so the top of the individual defensive scale was only slightly smaller in magnitude to the best of the offensive scale. I believe Russell, in today's game, would be pushing the envelope of the top of the defensive scale, to the extent that his defensive impact very well could be the equal of the best of the offensive players. And if I'm considering era transportation in all fairness, I also believe that a Russell that matriculated in this era would have developed his jumper enough to be a plus offensive player in this generation as well...perhaps even an elite one. Because that's what the current game requires, he had the tools and work ethic to put in the work, and he had the innate basketball IQ to recognize where that work needed to happen.

[70sFan]

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.

It's well establish at this point that Wilt wasn't a "choker". He wasn't the best playoff performer ever but a lot of players performed worse than him and he faced brutal competition time and time again.