RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #2 (Michael Jordan)

[Jordan Syndrome]

OP

Could we get a ruling on how much we are going to keep talking about LeBron James? Is there any way we can limit the LeBron James discussion to the #1 thread? It seems some people just can't accept that a majority of the people participating in this project perceive LeBron as the GOAT and it is, in my opinion, derailing and cluttering the great discussion about Hakeem and other greats.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'd say he covered as much ground as Kevin Garnett

I might be wrong here (or misinterpreting), my scouting eye is not good, but this seems optimistic. Wasn't Garnett used at the top of zones under Saunders? I'm not sure sure if Olajuwon did anything like that (not that he should).

I get that Olajuwon being the rim protector he was, you don't want him guarding 1-5 but still I don't think he did (and to a lesser degree could) cover the ground that Garnett could, and sometimes did, cover on the perimeter.

He didn't do that cause he wasn't asked to do it.

But when he had to switch to guards they would not get easy outside shots or go by him at ease. He really could cover them and he had the speed to even go back and contest at the rim.

He was that good.

[Joao Saraiva]

A cultural icon is just one titbit of Jordan greatness. It is the combination of eye tests, stat production, winning, and the determination to achieve all those on the court. This is why I can't have Kareem, the Russell, the Wilt, and even Lebron. None of them have that complete factor I mentioned.

If that is something you really take into account... then yeah Michael has that going for him. Hope to see you voting for Curry, AI, Barkley, Wilt, Kobe or Shaq sooner than others, because they bring that to the table as well.

Not saying that is wrong, but I'm more interested in knowing who played better basketball as an individual myself. It's a matter of criteria only, and I'm more than OK with that.

[Joao Saraiva]

OP

Could we get a ruling on how much we are going to keep talking about LeBron James? Is there any way we can limit the LeBron James discussion to the #1 thread? It seems some people just can't accept that a majority of the people participating in this project perceive LeBron as the GOAT and it is, in my opinion, derailing and cluttering the great discussion about Hakeem and other greats.

Just don't address that part dude. LeBron has been chosen as #1 (not unanimous obviously) so you can let him out of discussions. Jordan will be selected for #2 (most likely) and you can choose to foccus on the posts about KAJ, Russell, or any other player that is still in the conversation.

I'm hoping for a good KAJ vs Russell debate for #3. I think the most interesting part however will come between #10 and #30. It gets a lot more guys up for debate then.

[Hornet Mania]

Spoiler:

I actually look at it the opposite way most times. On youtube all you get are highlights. Showing the best times of MJ's career like he never did anything wrong because there is not much out there proving the contrary position. So, people don't realize that MJ also had many failures in his career. Series where he did not play well. A lot of people don't even know he got eliminated in 95...So, I think it actually works to his advantage in that sense.

A guy like LeBron most people on this board have likely seen most of his career. All the ups and downs that a career has which they did not get to witness first hand with MJ. So, people come on here that have maybe viewed 5% or less of MJ's career and think he never did anything wrong.

I think in all reality most viewers only watch the highlights for both players and not full games. It's especially easy with social media and probably one of the big contributors to the dip we've seen in ratings the last few years, people can just digest the game in five minutes the night after.

One thing I will say about the difference in being able to see Jordan during his prime as opposed to years later via highlights is that you lose sight of how competitive he was on both sides of the floor every game of every season. Jordan's pathological competitiveness certainly shines through in the playoffs, but it's also what made him great on a nightly basis and produced such insane stats as him not losing three games in a row from Dec 1990 - June 1998.

Lebron is an incredible player, he'd rank only behind Jordan/Kareem imo, but he has definitely loafed on defense during the regular season the last 5+ years. Of course in the playoffs he turns it on, but I do value the game-to-game consistency to some degree and have to knock him a bit for it compared to Jordan. It's far less drastic, but similar in a sense to how I feel about Shaq. Could Shaq dominate like no other? Yes, I believe he has the GOAT peak, but Shaq only cared sometimes. Lebron has saved his true best effort for the playoffs since basically 2015 so he loses value as a regular season performer, I do think there is value in grinding every game like that. I don't point this out to bash Lebron, but simply as an example of something that isn't necessarily discernible on Youtube highlights after the fact.

From what I've read of Lebron fans on the General Board, most are no doubt quite young, Jordan's failures are well-known and the context is stretched as far as possible to demean him. It's just par for the course with super fans unfortunately.

On the other hand even if you do think Jordan's competitiveness is insufficiently highlighted, mythologized (and he certainly was competitive) ...

1) There is arguably a trade-off here with him taking those retirements. An argument that he burnt out going night-after-night for 8 full seasons (plus 18 and the Celtics series in '86) and near two years off allowed him to get to full intensity more easily. Fwiw, I'd take the extra seasons of LeBron for the marginal extra effort from Jordan, especially given ...

2) We can discern (to whatever degree of accuracy) LeBron's total impact through impact metrics. I'd posit he's pretty darn good on those, but regarless, whilst he might have even even better with more effort, people can see the actual value provided which is the main thing (rather than what hypothetical more he might have provided).

If it was unclear, my argument was not that Jordan is insuffiently mythologized, it was that I don't think myth in itself is a sufficient explanation for why he is so highly regarded or that it's simply a product of favorable highlight reels. There are actual factors which led to his reputation that don't show up in highlights, so the 'kids just watch highlights and think he's perfect' is imo not the reason he remains in the GOAT conversation.

Lebron has a substantial mythology of his own crafted by many of the same marketers who sold the public Air Jordan, but I wouldn't disregard praise for him as being driven by selective memory. In any case my post wasn't to bash Lebron, it was just highlighting one example of the sort of hair-splitting you can't glean from youtube highlights. Reasons such as the ones you gave in your response are far more credible in terms of delving into player comparisons than simply assuming people watched the right highlights for one guy and not the other and that's how they came to their conclusions.

[trex_8063]

OP

Could we get a ruling on how much we are going to keep talking about LeBron James? Is there any way we can limit the LeBron James discussion to the #1 thread? It seems some people just can't accept that a majority of the people participating in this project perceive LeBron as the GOAT and it is, in my opinion, derailing and cluttering the great discussion about Hakeem and other greats.

There's a little bit of grey area when it's framed as MJ v LBJ debate (since MJ is still on the table). But generally I agree this one is coming off the rails a little.

I expected the #1 thread to be the peppery one, and was really proud that posters mostly kept calm. But it's here in the #2 thread where we're getting a handful of incredulous and indignant responses relating to the outcome of #1. It's as though some in the Jordan camp didn't follow/read the #1 thread much and merely assumed it was in the bag for MJ. So the delayed reaction is spilling over into this thread.

So we can stay on track: everyone itt frame [to the best of your ability] MJ arguments vs the other candidates who are actually still around. If you still wish to debate MJ vs LBJ, that's absolutely fine......just please do it in the #1 thread (you can even quote snippets from this thread to the #1 thread for continuity).


fwiw, unless there are objections, I may even close this thread early (like this afternoon or evening), since it seems Jordan will run away with this spot, and him being off the table may better facilitate posters shifting discussion to the candidates who remain.

[Owly]

I'd say he covered as much ground as Kevin Garnett

I might be wrong here (or misinterpreting), my scouting eye is not good, but this seems optimistic. Wasn't Garnett used at the top of zones under Saunders? I'm not sure sure if Olajuwon did anything like that (not that he should).

I get that Olajuwon being the rim protector he was, you don't want him guarding 1-5 but still I don't think he did (and to a lesser degree could) cover the ground that Garnett could, and sometimes did, cover on the perimeter.

He didn't do that cause he wasn't asked to do it.

But when he had to switch to guards they would not get easy outside shots or go by him at ease. He really could cover them and he had the speed to even go back and contest at the rim.

He was that good.

As I state he wasn't supposed to do such. (Edited to correct typos, this refers back to what he "should" be doing both actual team scheme wise and how to optimally use him)

I would argue that:

1) "covered as much ground as Garnett" is thus, at best, optimistically vague with a positive spin (i.e. "he could ... [with qualifiers]").
2) a switch cover is different, with height, speed, and quick springs Olajuwon is ideal to get back and contest off a switched pick. I would suspect that there is limited evidence for him covering exterior guys one-to-one, including more laterally (say, after a pick that wasn't followed by a quick shot / dart to the basket) and that Garnett is a very high baseline for this and thus would need to see an in depth look at this to be persuaded.

[trex_8063]

Can you clarify if this is NBA/ABA only, or whether you include NBL/ABL/Euroleague/Olympics/College etc.?

From project main thread (I'll copy this into OP, too):

This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). We are not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking (more on this below). However, the one thing we do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

I know there are a few individuals who only rank players post-merger or only back to some other arbitrary cut-off in time. For the purposes of this project, that is simply inadequate. We ask that you familiarize yourself [to the best of your ability] with players from all eras (going back as far as the BAA), and from the ABA and '47-'49 NBL as well, so that you can make educated speculations on the appropriate rank of players in an “all-time” sense.

If you do not feel up to this task, we ask that you be up front about this and refrain from voting in the project (though please still participate in the discussion where you are comfortable). We ask this to avoid an excess of bias AGAINST older eras/players.

NOTE (because it was asked about): highschool, college, international play, and NBL (or other barn-storming leagues) prior to '47 are NOT to be considered. This perhaps undermines the premise of "all-time", but it has been tradition that we're talking about the greatest in NBA/ABA/BAA [and corresponding NBL years] history.

[70sFan]

That's why I don't take the 50-60s era player stat that seriously considered the early age of basketball is very amateur.

No it wasn't and I'd argue that the league was stronger in the mid-1960s than during second part of 1990s.

[limbo]

No it wasn't and I'd argue that the league was stronger in the mid-1960s than during second part of 1990s.

Based on what?

[Owly]

No it wasn't and I'd argue that the league was stronger in the mid-1960s than during second part of 1990s.

Based on what?

Without supporting the claim (and whilst noting demographics and talent pool would need to be looked at including international participation and coaching level) ...

My guess would be 9 pro teams in '66 to 29 in '96 (yes those years are conveniently picked and it would be helpful to get a precise framing)

Some might be cynical about the quality of the late 80s early 90s drafts that should be peaking around this window (arguably only Robinson a top tier superstar 87-91)? MInd you the league isn't just superstars and it's hard to say whether they were just competing versus are really good, good longevity of quality prior "generation" (MJ, Barkley, Stockton, Malone et al).

But those are guesses and would require tighter framing and more detailed study to fully justify.

[Mazter]

[list=][/list]2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Russell

Jordan retired early twice keeping me from getting a rwal good look of what he could haven gotten on the long haul. Still one if not the best scorer the league has seen. Kareem the better longevity but looses on peak against Jordan, also played pre-merger which Im not very high on. Russell is up nex for me.

[penbeast0]

No it wasn't and I'd argue that the league was stronger in the mid-1960s than during second part of 1990s.

Based on what?

Based on the ridiculous expansion of the 70s and 80s; it is extremely unlikely that there was an equivalent expansion of the population base they were drawing from. It wasn't until the nineties (a little originally) then the 21st century where the world players really began to compose a signficant part of the NBA.

The average player on the average team in the 60s was probably a better player than the average player on the average team in the 80s, for me a little worse than the average player on the average team in the 90s as the generation that grew up on Bird/Magic grew up (so more people wanting to play basketball) and a few foreigners (Hakeem, Detlef, Toni K) were starting to make a difference. But it's close and I would guess that the average big man was stronger in the 60s than the 90s while the average guard was stronger in the 90s.

[Doctor MJ]

I mean in 10 years, people will remember Lebron as one of the All-Time Greats just like they remember the like of Wilt, Kareem. The dominant player in his era but will likely not transpire a new group of kids growing up wanting to be like Mike, the icon. It is not a coincident Jordan sells more shoes than Lebron despite already retired. That is an amazing legacy I'm talking about.

What is the relevance of any of this? AI is going to be a bigger cultural icon than Steve Nash. He wasn't better at basketball.

And it goes without saying Lebron will be inspiring more kids over the next decade than Mike.

Not really. AI would kill Nash in a 1vs1 basketball game of death but Nash talent is making others competing at a higher level than AI.

I'm not sure about that many kids growing up idolizing Lebron style of play.

Basketball is a team sport. The end.

1 v 1 is a fun practice novelty, but the fundamental basketball skill from Day 1 has been the pass. When you start focusing on a variation of the sport too simplistic to include passing, you start talking about something that's literally not what the game has ever been.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow Lebron edges out Jordan @ GOAT?? That is crazy to think considering 10 years later, people will forget the legacy of Lebron than MJ.

You need to start conceptualizing all-time player comparisons with the recognition that there are many, many different lists that can be made based on different attribute focus.

What you're talking about is essentially culture significance to basketball. We can make lists on that, but this Top 100 has never focused on that, which is why George Mikan not only isn't a lock for Top 5, but isn't even really considered.

I've seen your subsequent posts where you described this as only one facet of a larger whole for player comparison. What you need to understand, other than the fact that you're focusing here on something that's not what's being emphasized, is that it is inherently subjective how much to weight each of these aspects of things.

We can disagree on how impactful a player's scoring ability is, but we all tend to at least see a player's scoring ability as something that tends to dramatically shape what he can accomplish on the basketball court. When we get into domains such as the one you're speaking to here, the person-to-person, there's just going to be a lot of variance.

And you've got to accept that variance if you want to have good discussions where people can learn from each other. You've got to recognize when you're starting to talk past each other and at least try to just agree to disagree.

With all that said, yeah, it's a really big f-ing deal that we've put LeBron at #1. It's quite understandable you have a visceral reaction to it. I think we all do. Making a list where I actually put LeBron at #1 felt very strange to me, and I've explained my specific uncertainties about it. Know that I did not do so lightly or out of any obvious form of ignorance.

I may be wrong, but I've considered a great deal. The same is true for pretty much everyone on the panel who displayed and incredible amount of knowledge and evidence of intellectual processing in the last thread as people voted for the various people they voted for.

I mean, I'm very much in the camp that thinks Wilt had massive issues that hamper him on this particular list, but I saw some really compelling arguments for him.

And I think that's fantastic.

[Ainosterhaspie]

90s was an era where talent was diluted. It was more concentrated in the 80s on teams like the Celtics, Sixers, Lakers and Pistons. Then in the 90s those super teams were gone except for the Bulls. Heavy expansion and those teams all getting old, left a talent gap in the 90s. Even if the league overall had more talent, (not sure I agree, but assuming for the sake of argument it did) the talent was so spread out, there was only one great team. Compare that to the 80s with the above mentioned teams, then the 00s with the Spurs/Lakers, then LeBron dynasty, Warriors and tail end of Spurs in 10s.

[limbo]

Based on the ridiculous expansion of the 70s and 80s; it is extremely unlikely that there was an equivalent expansion of the population base they were drawing from. It wasn't until the nineties (a little originally) then the 21st century where the world players really began to compose a signficant part of the NBA.

And the 60's weren't ridiculously expanding? Not to mention expansion is far more impactful when you have a smaller league and everyone is playing everyone 8 times per seasons. Boston was far ahead of any team in the early 60's, and then you had maybe another two teams on a given year which were decent, and that was about it. Jerry West and Elgin Baylor almost won two titles by themselves in the early 60's on a crap Lakers team... Then the league added a garbage team in Chicago in 1962. Wilt was still learning how to play basketball instead of being a Globetrotter at this point in time... 1966 was probably the first year in the 60's where Boston wasn't completely lapping every team in terms of strength. You actually had Philadelphia and LA somewhat close. The rest of the league was still irrelevant...

After 1966 is where the league began really expanding by adding 1 team in 1967 and then 2 teams both in 1968 and 1969... in 1967 it was mostly a two-team league between Boston and Philly, in 1968 you could add the Lakers into the mix, and in 1969 finally we see a bit more contenders with the rise of the Knicks and Bullets, but at the point of time Russell was no longer at the level he was in the early-to-mid 60's...

The average player on the average team in the 60s was probably a better player than the average player on the average team in the 80s, for me a little worse than the average player on the average team in the 90s as the generation that grew up on Bird/Magic grew up (so more people wanting to play basketball) and a few foreigners (Hakeem, Detlef, Toni K) were starting to make a difference. But it's close and I would guess that the average big man was stronger in the 60s than the 90s while the average guard was stronger in the 90s.

I don't know man... The 60's were basically Bill Russell and a Boston team that went 6 guys deep, battling Pettit/Hagan/Lovllette and nobody else on the Hawks for a couple of years until 1963, a decent but undermatched Syracuse team that went sour after moving to Philly and changing the coach in 1964, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor trying to do a 2-man carry job at the Lakers, Wilt Chamberlain needing until 1967 to figure out how to play basketball and get enough help to contend, and Oscar who stuck on a crap Cincinnati team... That was the competition through most of Russell's prime.

I get the expansion thing diluting the late 90's and stuff, but in 1998 the league still had more teams with positive than negative net ratings than it had through most of the 60's, and teams like the Jazz, Pacers, Lakers, Sonics that were all on par with the Bulls, as well as some middle-ground dark horses in the form of the Heat and Suns which the league lacked in the 60's. The only year even remotely comparable to this in the 60's was 1969, Russell's last season in the league, where you had the Knicks, Sixers, Lakers, Bullets and Celtics all somewhat close to the top.

[Ainosterhaspie]

I mean, I'm very much in the camp that thinks Wilt had massive issues that hamper him on this particular list, but I saw some really compelling arguments for him.

And I think that's fantastic.

Not just Wilt. Most players talked about so far have had things said about them that make me question my views of them in good and bad ways. Great discussion for the most part in these threads even in many of the posts I dont agree with.

[Odinn21]

I'll write my preferences with the ongoing vote rank. As in, this one will have #2, #3 and #4 and the next one will have #3, #4, #5.
Just to have a better sense while writing for the rank I'm voting for.
Though this vote will be full with quotes. The next one will be spicy. The battle between Duncan and Chamberlain to complete the top 5.

2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Spoiler:

Going by main criterias; his peak, average quality in his prime, his prime duration, his overall longevity, all them were there. I don't think he was necessarily better than James or Jordan on offense, but he was better defensively. What puts him above Jordan and James for me is that his intangibles. In an all-time draft, if I get #1 pick, I know that I'm getting him because he has the quality and longevity and also the leadership I'd want. Better than what I'd get from James and Jordan.
Longevity is one of the strongest suit of Kareem and James is certainly catching him. Though I'd like to remind that the time is different now. Kareem stayed as a force until his 39 in the '80s, not in the '20s. I wouldn't say James has to play on this level until his 39. Just saying Kareem doing that in the '80s should have some context value.

3. Bill Russell

Spoiler:

No one won better and more than him. I don't have a certain goat, but in terms of single aspects, Bill Russell is definitely the goat defender. Also the goat winner. He's definitely one of the best leaders a team can have, probably the best. Interestingly, # of his quality seasons is bigger than Jordan's. If we look at box numbers, his last title in 1969 might not seem that impressive but if anything he did what Jordan did in 1998 playoffs, just on the other side of the game. He was the one that saved game 4 against the Knicks and possibly the series and the title. And it wasn't just one game like that.

4. Michael Jordan

Spoiler:

In terms of peak and average level of prime, what makes Jordan the best is him being the goat postseason scorer. I mean, Kareem and James are also great. Goat level great. But they are not still Jordan. Him having only 10 seasons of prime and no proper longevity hurt his case though.

[limbo]

90s was an era where talent was diluted. It was more concentrated in the 80s on teams like the Celtics, Sixers, Lakers and Pistons. Then in the 90s those super teams were gone except for the Bulls. Heavy expansion and those teams all getting old, left a talent gap in the 90s. Even if the league overall had more talent, (not sure I agree, but assuming for the sake of argument it did) the talent was so spread out, there was only one great team. Compare that to the 80s with the above mentioned teams, then the 00s with the Spurs/Lakers, then LeBron dynasty, Warriors and tail end of Spurs in 10s.

And the 60's wasn't diluted in talent for most of the decade? Only Boston was able to accrue the best of all Worlds; superstars (yes plural) depth and coaching... Every other team was hemorrhaging in multiple of those areas. Oscar and Jerry West had garbage casts the entire decade. Matter of fact, West had Baylor for like 3 seasons in the early 60's and was able to get to the Finals and almost beat Boston with just Baylor playing 2v5 basketball... Same with the Hawks there for a couple of seasons. They had a good 3-man core, but everyone else was trash. Wilt was a Globetrotter with no proper help and wrong coaching until 1967. Richie Guerin had trash on the Knicks... Syracuse had more depth than anyone else but no superstars...

These were mostly 1-man,2-man bands trying to take down the Celtics with no depth...