RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #7 (Magic Johnson)

[Tim Lehrbach]

Unfortunately I could not get myself free in time to participate in the top five. I didn't expect to have a significant influence anyway, but it feels a little odd to jump in at this point when my POV on this exercise is altogether different from others'.

So, I am not sure whether I will vote, but am sure I won't launch into my whole philosophy on how "greatness" is a kind of narrative not reducible to "championship value added," how sport is about the meaningful narratives it generates for participants and observers alike, and that a view of sport that subordinates other considerations to the measuring and ranking of competitors is one that misses what makes sport such a durable feature of culture, and... well, I won't go on here because I think I'm too late to the game. For more on all that, see ya in 2023.

What I will do is try to chime in with a question here and there. Jordan is already in, and Garnett is set to gain a lot of support. Guys like Bird, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, and Draymond will follow. What do y'all make of sportsmanship as an element of greatness?

There's a fine line here, I know. I don't expect everybody to be a robot, and displays of genuine emotion in competition -- determination, elation, relief, frustration, disappointment -- are to be expected and embraced. We laud players for their intensity and commitment to winning, whatever it takes. Even good-natured trash talk has long held a place in the game. For me, though, on-court demeanor and obsession with beating down one's opponent and being the greatest can cross a line into detrimental to the sport. Taunting, belittling, physical intimidation like standing over players or threatening violence, dirty plays, snarling and yelling in all directions, undressing teammates, officials (even Duncan would have drawn scrutiny from me over this), etc.: there are not positive contributions to the sport.

Jordan, of course, whose votes I missed but whom I would not have voted for yet, epitomizes a model of competition that doesn't stop with trying to win the game but escalates to dominating and demoralizing your opponent by any means, including means not part of the design of the sport. I am not interested in how players perform against such tests, nor in encouraging anybody to subject their opponents to them. I think Jordan and some of the other guys I named above are poor sports and represent unhealthy conduct and mindset. For me, this counts enough to reduce their standing among all-time greats.

Garnett, runner up for #6, seemed not to match Jordan's sociopathic need to elevate himself above everybody else, but he was as demonstrative and obnoxious an example of the sport-as-total-warfare, win-at-all-costs mindset as anybody I can think of. Why did he need to crawl on the floor and bark at Jerryd Bayless, pick fights with smaller guys, and stomp around the court uttering or shouting all manner of ugliness to motivate himself or maximize his effectiveness? I won't push it too much with Garnett (because I don't believe his antics undermine his legacy in quite the same way that Jordan's antisocial competitiveness or Stockton/Malone/Bad Boys' programmatic brutal, dirty play do), but I just wonder whether and to what extent this stuff enters into anybody else's consideration? Is there room alongside our attempts to coldly measure a player's impact on winning for asking what kind of sportsman he is? (I mean, beyond the usual attempts to discredit LeBron James for taking his talents to superteams? Although, FWIW, he loses some points with me for his own self-conscious obsession with writing his narrative, too.)

[limbo]

Eh, personally, i'm more interested in judging people as basketball players in a conversation about the GOAT basketball players, rather than judging them based on the personality they choose to display in public/on the court. I don't know any of these guys on a deep level, and neither do most people. People are allowed to have their own personality as human beings, right? Obviously within good taste, and people can debate what that good taste is.

As long as it clearly isn't effecting the larger goal at hand, which is winning basketball games/championships, then i'm gucci.

This also adds a whole new host of unnecessary variables to what is already a difficult enough project, imo.

Some may argue Jordan's attitude was actually crucial to the success of his teams, in a military-esque way. He doesn't need his teammates to like him personally, but he does need them to not get complacent and be ready to show fight in the Playoffs.

Also, does Jordan then get extra credit for building schools and donating millions of dollars to the black community? Or he's just permanently an arsehole for punching Steve Kerr and thus deserves to be placed lower than his actual basketball ability to win games would dictate?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Magic Johnson
3. Hakeem Olajuwon.

I'm just going to go ahead and vote because it's the same as last time. I'll try to keep my mind open, but it's unlikely I'll make a shift.

Y'all have heard the basic arguments so I'm going to go quick through those and then speak about some other guys being brought up:

1. I think every single person who thinks Tim Duncan was Top 7 worthy should strongly consider Garnett here. I don't expect many to be sway into doing this because I have a first hand experience with what it was like to see these guys as belonging on different tiers. It's a hard thing to shake. It's something you just "know". No way a top tier superstar would let his team miss 3 playoffs in a row!

I'm here to tell you though that there are very, very, very few players in history that I would say are anything close to immune from this. Simply put, this is a team game, and when other core facets of the team fall apart, there's only so much you can do. And if that "so much" isn't "enough", then a player likely won't remain at his absolute sharpest.

Incidentally, if you're curious about the guys who were most close to immune: Mikan, Russell, Bird, Shaq, LeBron. I can elaborate if people request, but I'll note that none of the guys I'm voting for now make that list, nor most the guys already voted in. That speaks both to how rare the skill is, and also how it isn't everything.

These players are not superior and inferior versions of each other. They have different n-dimensional shapes as players on the court, they all have advantages and disadvantages over each other. I think we need to really guard ourselves against the notion that a player's consistent team success implies in any way that he is causing the baseline we're painting in our minds.

2. Magic Johnson just really to me always felt like a guy who was becoming the closest thing to what we've now seen LeBron actually become. LeBron has the game "solved". That doesn't mean he can make every shot he takes, but what it does mean is that he basically knows what the right move is in every circumstance, he knows what he needs to pay attention to, and he's built up his skillset about as much as he can build it up, and it's enough that he can dominate offensively even as he slows down.

I really think if he hadn't been forced to retire there ends up being a serious GOAT debate between him and Jordan when all is said and done. (Others would still be part of the conversation of course, though Kareem's stature might be further hurt - Not saying that would be right.)

I think you really have to ask yourself how much you're willing to ding a guy for only playing for 12 great years. I'm not saying the answer should be zero or else I wouldn't be voting for Duncan & KG ahead of him, but 12 years of greatness is a long time.

3. Hakeem Olajuwon. Alright I'm going to talk about Shaq here. Hakeem vs Shaq is a specific comparison I always go back to. I'll tell you straight out that the argument for Hakeem in the end is very simple, and something I don't expect everyone to want to consider in their assessment:

I feel like Hakeem's a true franchise player and Shaq isn't. And by this I mean in Shaq's case that there was a combination of traits that always seemed like it caused it him to need to go elsewhere when the wisest course was to stay, stay happy, and be his best self. Shaq struggled to get in shape, tended to visibly coast, took criticism poorly, nursed grudges, and was very public about whatever he was unhappy about. Look at that step by step and to me what you're seeing is someone who was always going to be somehow who you couldn't count on forever, and it would end badly and destructively in the end.

Shaq's defenders will point to bad things everyone else did and sure, Shaq's very worst moments happened it involved people who also escalated the conflict, but there was a lot of other stuff that the other party either didn't escalate things or wasn't even on his team for that matter. We're talking about a trend here, and as an owner/GM, this is the type of thing I'd be pondering when considering Shaq against other guys here.

Is the good worth the bad? Well, how good is the good compared to other available good?

Hakeem is the Dream. He's really freaking good. As I've said, I think Hakeem's page in the Back Picks 40 is probably my favorite. He's just such a spectacular player to watch between his agility, grace, and cleverness.

Do I think he had the same typical impact as Shaq? No. Impact came ridiculously easy and early for Shaq, Hakeem had to learn a ton to get to that point, but at his very best, yeah, I think he did. It was a glorious crescendo for a guy who had first joined the team a decade earlier.

That delay does register for me when I evaluate Hakeem in this project, and it hurts him some. But any team would be thrilled to have to have this kind of "patience" while our franchise player grows from a mere B-list superstar to something transcendent if it's a choice between that and a guy who you know is something of a roman candle.

And so it's clear, I feel the same way about Wilt as I do about Shaq.

Alright, on other guys being brought up:

I love the admiration others have for Bird, he's a transcendent basketball genius....but that longevity is a problem for me on a clear-cut level beyond Magic's. I completely understand why folks would see it as unfair to credit Bird with only 9 real "Bird" seasons, but the Celtics felt like a spent force after that despite the fact they still had other guys with major talent. From that onward, Magic remained a guy in the conversation for Top 2 in the league. That difference seems meaningful to me for two guys who started at the same time. (And yes, go ahead and give Bird credit for a quicker start, but Magic's start was pretty quick too.)

By this same token, it's hard for me to consider Curry this high up, and I tend to see myself as a guy who is particularly high on Curry. That might me I need to re-calibrate how I see his longevity, but I really feel like he's only been relevant for 7 years, and that limits him.

Now, regarding Mikan, my reasons for not voting for him are totally different. I'm actually mostly fine with Mikan's longevity. My issue is that I've never been able to convince myself that if he matched up against particular bigs that he'd be able to thrive.

I think about him vs a guy like Artis Gilmore. Wouldn't he overmatched in length, size, and quickness? I do have Mikan in my Top 50 here so it's not that I don't think highly of him - they don't name a drill after you if you aren't known for actually doing drills, I understand he was fiercely competitive in a way that has bee likened to Jordan - but I do think that the bar got raised a bit in the wake of his success.

And here's where I'll note that while I can mostly ignore longevity questions on Mikan, I'd feel more confident if his game had aged more gracefully. Who knows how long he could have gone with modern medicine? I certainly don't claim to know these things, but because we didn't see him prove he could dominate into advanced age, there's a very real question of how well his game would really fare against players he wasn't physically dominant over.

Re: Dirk. I am finding myself questioning whether Bird (and others) should really rank above him. Now, I'm less high on his prime that some folks are, and I also am a bit less impressed with longevity than I am on Garnett & Duncan because I think that his defense became a clear cut weakness in a way that the other two wouldn't be on either side of the ball, but dude's still got a pretty big longevity edge over Bird that really feels significant in terms of the two franchises.

Dirk led Dallas to be a really good team for a really long time in a way that the franchise had never had before. Bird's tenure in Boston by contrast feels quite short in comparison. It just doesn't loom the same way. Maybe that's because of Russell's tenure looming over Bird's I don't know. But I will say that Bird shone brighter, I don't know if you can say he did more for the Celtics than Dirk did for the Mavs.

Oscar & West. Two amazing players. I frequently debate the two of them against Magic & Bird. I don't think I've ever voted for the '60s duo over the '80s duo though. Perhaps it's just winning bias, but Magic & Bird both seemed to me to have stronger instincts for how they would impact the game than any offensive players in history. Maybe you could argue Shaq, but only because it was physically obvious there.

Finally Kobe. I think I'm going to try not to talk about him. People who know me know that I'm low on Kobe next to most. In the wake of his passing, I'd rather not go there. Know that he's on my pre-Project list in the Top 15 and that I'm fairly certain that he'll be voted in before I actually get the chance to.

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Magic Johnson

These are 3 guys that peaked very high. I would order them as Hakeem (maybe even #1 ever), Shaquille and Magic.

I would say Hakeem had the best 3 year prime, followed by Shaq and then Magic.

However, if we go longer than a 3 year prime, I think both Shaq and Magic surpass Hakeem in many years. And given Shaq's longevity (1992-2006 as great seasons) I gotta give him the edge here. That means he had 15 good/very good seasons. He's not among the best longevity wise, bu it's not like he's very far. Magic still lacks a bit of longevity (for a sad reason I know, but can't give him credit for what he actuall didn't do).

Flawed on defense, in his best years Shaq was actually a great force defending the painted area. His presence was amazing and he was a hell of a rim protector. A bit lazy in PnR situations and getting out on shooters, but in the league he played (post driven) that made no big difference. Maybe we could see a faster version of Shaq like his Orlando days if he played today, and that is still absolutely amazing.

His gravity in the post is unmatched among modern era NBA. He got it in the paint, and he would score or get fouled. You fronted him, he would rise for the alley oop and play tremendously well without the ball. Fast for a big guy. Very fast for a very big guy! And if you doubled him in the post he could pass to other guys, cutting to the basket or working in the 3 PT line. His passing is the offensive tool that gives him and edge over Hakeem.

He has the peak in tier 1 for me (#4 all time), a very good and extended prime too. He's not in tier longevity wise, but he's not far from that.

His intangibles are not among the best for me. But I'll discount that, because unlike what we've seen from some teams, when he said he'd be ready for the playoffs he usually was.

3 Finals MVPs, 1 MVP, 4 rings, 8 times in the top 5 in MVP voting. That speaks about his great prime.

He was also a very good and consistent playoff peformer.

To sum it up:
- Tier 1 in peak,
- Tier 1 in prime,
- Tier 2 in longevity,
- Playoff consistency,
- Great gravity on offense,
- Very good defender in his peak even tough he was flawed,
- Very good on and off ball big man,
- Has got a good list of accodales even if he isn't #1 from the guys left.

[Owly]

Vote:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Magic Johnson
3. Hakeem Olajuwon.

I'm just going to go ahead and vote because it's the same as last time. I'll try to keep my mind open, but it's unlikely I'll make a shift.

Y'all have heard the basic arguments so I'm going to go quick through those and then speak about some other guys being brought up:

1. I think every single person who thinks Tim Duncan was Top 7 worthy should strongly consider Garnett here. I don't expect many to be sway into doing this because I have a first hand experience with what it was like to see these guys as belonging on different tiers. It's a hard thing to shake. It's something you just "know". No way a top tier superstar would let his team miss 3 playoffs in a row!

I'm here to tell you though that there are very, very, very few players in history that I would say are anything close to immune from this. Simply put, this is a team game, and when other core facets of the team fall apart, there's only so much you can do. And if that "so much" isn't "enough", then a player likely won't remain at his absolute sharpest.

Incidentally, if you're curious about the guys who were most close to immune: Mikan, Russell, Bird, Shaq, LeBron. I can elaborate if people request, but I'll note that none of the guys I'm voting for now make that list, nor most the guys already voted in. That speaks both to how rare the skill is, and also how it isn't everything.

These players are not superior and inferior versions of each other. They have different n-dimensional shapes as players on the court, they all have advantages and disadvantages over each other. I think we need to really guard ourselves against the notion that a player's consistent team success implies in any way that he is causing the baseline we're painting in our minds.

2. Magic Johnson just really to me always felt like a guy who was becoming the closest thing to what we've now seen LeBron actually become. LeBron has the game "solved". That doesn't mean he can make every shot he takes, but what it does mean is that he basically knows what the right move is in every circumstance, he knows what he needs to pay attention to, and he's built up his skillset about as much as he can build it up, and it's enough that he can dominate offensively even as he slows down.

I really think if he hadn't been forced to retire there ends up being a serious GOAT debate between him and Jordan when all is said and done. (Others would still be part of the conversation of course, though Kareem's stature might be further hurt - Not saying that would be right.)

I think you really have to ask yourself how much you're willing to ding a guy for only playing for 12 great years. I'm not saying the answer should be zero or else I wouldn't be voting for Duncan & KG ahead of him, but 12 years of greatness is a long time.

3. Hakeem Olajuwon. Alright I'm going to talk about Shaq here. Hakeem vs Shaq is a specific comparison I always go back to. I'll tell you straight out that the argument for Hakeem in the end is very simple, and something I don't expect everyone to want to consider in their assessment:

I feel like Hakeem's a true franchise player and Shaq isn't. And by this I mean in Shaq's case that there was a combination of traits that always seemed like it caused it him to need to go elsewhere when the wisest course was to stay, stay happy, and be his best self. Shaq struggled to get in shape, tended to visibly coast, took criticism poorly, nursed grudges, and was very public about whatever he was unhappy about. Look at that step by step and to me what you're seeing is someone who was always going to be somehow who you couldn't count on forever, and it would end badly and destructively in the end.

Shaq's defenders will point to bad things everyone else did and sure, Shaq's very worst moments happened it involved people who also escalated the conflict, but there was a lot of other stuff that the other party either didn't escalate things or wasn't even on his team for that matter. We're talking about a trend here, and as an owner/GM, this is the type of thing I'd be pondering when considering Shaq against other guys here.

Is the good worth the bad? Well, how good is the good compared to other available good?

Hakeem is the Dream. He's really freaking good. As I've said, I think Hakeem's page in the Back Picks 40 is probably my favorite. He's just such a spectacular player to watch between his agility, grace, and cleverness.

Do I think he had the same typical impact as Shaq? No. Impact came ridiculously easy and early for Shaq, Hakeem had to learn a ton to get to that point, but at his very best, yeah, I think he did. It was a glorious crescendo for a guy who had first joined the team a decade earlier.

That delay does register for me when I evaluate Hakeem in this project, and it hurts him some. But any team would be thrilled to have to have this kind of "patience" while our franchise player grows from a mere B-list superstar to something transcendent if it's a choice between that and a guy who you know is something of a roman candle.

And so it's clear, I feel the same way about Wilt as I do about Shaq.

Alright, on other guys being brought up:

I love the admiration others have for Bird, he's a transcendent basketball genius....but that longevity is a problem for me on a clear-cut level beyond Magic's. I completely understand why folks would see it as unfair to credit Bird with only 9 real "Bird" seasons, but the Celtics felt like a spent force after that despite the fact they still had other guys with major talent. From that onward, Magic remained a guy in the conversation for Top 2 in the league. That difference seems meaningful to me for two guys who started at the same time. (And yes, go ahead and give Bird credit for a quicker start, but Magic's start was pretty quick too.)

By this same token, it's hard for me to consider Curry this high up, and I tend to see myself as a guy who is particularly high on Curry. That might me I need to re-calibrate how I see his longevity, but I really feel like he's only been relevant for 7 years, and that limits him.

Now, regarding Mikan, my reasons for not voting for him are totally different. I'm actually mostly fine with Mikan's longevity. My issue is that I've never been able to convince myself that if he matched up against particular bigs that he'd be able to thrive.

I think about him vs a guy like Artis Gilmore. Wouldn't he overmatched in length, size, and quickness? I do have Mikan in my Top 50 here so it's not that I don't think highly of him - they don't name a drill after you if you aren't known for actually doing drills, I understand he was fiercely competitive in a way that has bee likened to Jordan - but I do think that the bar got raised a bit in the wake of his success.

And here's where I'll note that while I can mostly ignore longevity questions on Mikan, I'd feel more confident if his game had aged more gracefully. Who knows how long he could have gone with modern medicine? I certainly don't claim to know these things, but because we didn't see him prove he could dominate into advanced age, there's a very real question of how well his game would really fare against players he wasn't physically dominant over.

Re: Dirk. I am finding myself questioning whether Bird (and others) should really rank above him. Now, I'm less high on his prime that some folks are, and I also am a bit less impressed with longevity than I am on Garnett & Duncan because I think that his defense became a clear cut weakness in a way that the other two wouldn't be on either side of the ball, but dude's still got a pretty big longevity edge over Bird that really feels significant in terms of the two franchises.

Dirk led Dallas to be a really good team for a really long time in a way that the franchise had never had before. Bird's tenure in Boston by contrast feels quite short in comparison. It just doesn't loom the same way. Maybe that's because of Russell's tenure looming over Bird's I don't know. But I will say that Bird shone brighter, I don't know if you can say he did more for the Celtics than Dirk did for the Mavs.

Oscar & West. Two amazing players. I frequently debate the two of them against Magic & Bird. I don't think I've ever voted for the '60s duo over the '80s duo though. Perhaps it's just winning bias, but Magic & Bird both seemed to me to have stronger instincts for how they would impact the game than any offensive players in history. Maybe you could argue Shaq, but only because it was physically obvious there.

Finally Kobe. I think I'm going to try not to talk about him. People who know me know that I'm low on Kobe next to most. In the wake of his passing, I'd rather not go there. Know that he's on my pre-Project list in the Top 15 and that I'm fairly certain that he'll be voted in before I actually get the chance to.

12 great years for Magic?

'81 misses more than half the games (and very poor by his standards in a short playoff series).

Even '80 ... 2.45 SRS increase and arguably a tightened rotation (and from a low baseline) is a big a boon as Magic directly.
Hudson, Boone, Ford, Robisch, Price, Carr (and yes, Dantley) out of the 1000+ minute-ers.
Magic, Chones, Cooper, Haywood in. I don't love the 4s. Still there are only 2 of them and they are 4s (well Chones also backup 5, I'd guess). I'm open to him being great in absolute terms (moreso if you weigh playoffs heavily) certainly very strong for (young) rookie.

[eminence]

Now, regarding Mikan, my reasons for not voting for him are totally different. I'm actually mostly fine with Mikan's longevity. My issue is that I've never been able to convince myself that if he matched up against particular bigs that he'd be able to thrive.

I think about him vs a guy like Artis Gilmore. Wouldn't he overmatched in length, size, and quickness? I do have Mikan in my Top 50 here so it's not that I don't think highly of him - they don't name a drill after you if you aren't known for actually doing drills, I understand he was fiercely competitive in a way that has bee likened to Jordan - but I do think that the bar got raised a bit in the wake of his success.

And here's where I'll note that while I can mostly ignore longevity questions on Mikan, I'd feel more confident if his game had aged more gracefully. Who knows how long he could have gone with modern medicine? I certainly don't claim to know these things, but because we didn't see him prove he could dominate into advanced age, there's a very real question of how well his game would really fare against players he wasn't physically dominant over.

Obviously Mikan is almost impossible to discuss, but I think you're a little low on his athleticism. Gilmore has length on almost anyone, but I'd say Mikan was on the same level as him for both strength and quickness. A little bit stronger and about as quick as early career Gilmore, and a little bit quicker but as strong as later career Artis. Ahead enough overall in the skills department that I'd rank prime MIkan notably ahead of prime Gilmore.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Dirk Nowitzki

3. Undecided, weighing Bird, Shaq and Magic.

To summarize, I think the 2000's era of basketball was the most competitive and most difficult era in NBA history. The game had 4 all-time great big men with primes overlapping in KG, Duncan, Dirk and Shaq, arguable the greatest offensive player of all-time in Steve Nash pioneering the way for modern offenses and the second coming in Jordan in Kobe Bryant.

I have always put Duncan, Garnett and Dirk in the same tier and it makes little sense for me space them out in an all-time sense. I have read strong arguments for Garnett in these discussions which has helped cement my feeling on him as being a top-10 player of all-time. Among the 5 players mentioned above at the top of my post, Garnett is the most portable. His impact is felt on far more team building exercises than the rest of these players and frankly it isn't close. There is a reason all players in the top 6, sans Jordan, were defenders who could completely take over games and anchor "Greatest of all-time" defenses. Yet, Garnett is far more than just a defensive juggernaut. He meshes and melds with dominant perimeter stars, dominant post scorers and savvy off-ball players like Ray Allen in a way none of the other players mentioned above do. Unlike someone like Draymond Green who is a jack-of-all-trades type player, Garnett can be a 1A/1B on all-time great teams as a scorer yet his impact does not diminish, perhaps it even increases, when put into a 2nd or 3rd offensive option.

Dirk Nowitzki is routinely seen as a fringe top 15 guy by most and there are plenty who put the likes of Bird and Magic ahead of him. Dirk has a bit of Kevin Garnett in him for the fact he is easy to build around and anchored all-time great offenses throughout his prime during an era where scoring was difficult.

Statistically, Dirk started anchoring great offenses in his 3rd season. Here are some Offensive On/Off numbers for Dirk during this period.

2001: Dallas +4.1 Offense, Offensive On/Off +9.5 (+6.5 offense to league avg when on)
2002: Dallas +7.7 Offense, Offensive On/Off +9.5 (+10.1 offense to league avg when on)
2003: Dallas +7.1 Offense, Offensive On/Off +14.3 (+10.1 offense to league avg when on)
2004: Dallas +9.2 Offense, Offensive On/Off +7.1 (+11 offense to league avg when on)
2005: Dallas +4.2 Offense, Offensive On/Off +11.5 (+6.4 offense to league avg when on)
2006: Dallas +5.6 Offense, Offensive On/Off +11.3 (+6.7 offense to league avg when on)
2007: Dallas +4.8 Offense, Offensive On/Off +14.6 (+9.1 offense to league avg when on)
2008: Dallas +3.8 Offense, Offensive On/Off +10.6 (+6.5 offense to league avg when on)
2009: Dallas +2.2 Offense, Offensive On/Off + 6.9 (+3.8 offense to league avg when on)
2010: Dallas +1.6 Offense, Offensive On/Off +4.8 (+2.8 offense to league avg when on)
2011: Dallas +2.4 Offense, Offensive On/Off +10.1 (+6.3 offense to league avg when on)

On/Off numbers come with noise and, in general, do not directly tell us what a player is doing while on the court. However, with enough sample size, say over 11,000 minutes from 2005 through 2008 or even a larger sample size, 32,300 minutes from 2001 through 2011, the numbers end up as a framework for a picture.

Over this 11-year period, the Mavericks were a +4.8 Offense, on average. Birds Celtics, from 1980 through 1990, excluding 1989, averaged a +4.1 Offense. Bird's advantage defensively is real and apparent, both from a statistical standpoint and through thorough film analysis, where Bird rates out in the above average to good defensive category for a large chunk of his prime. Now, in defense of Dirk on this end, he is not bad. In fact, he falls into a category of "good enough to build a strong defensive team around". The only seasons where the Mavericks were a bad defensive team was the two seasons Dirk was forced to play Center, 2002 and 2004 and they were above average all but the previously mentioned seasons and 2009 where they were a +0.1 defense.

Per-100 Statistics paint Dirk as a 119/107 player in the post-season and Bird as a 114/104 player. Dirk scored 33.3 Points on 27.9 TSA (58.4 TS%) while Bird scored 28.4 Points on 25.7 TSA (55.5 TS%).

Ultimately, in the comparison between Dirk and Bird, I come away thinking Dirk was a slightly better player in an 11 vs 10 year prime comparison. Dirk's seasons from 2012 through 2016, 5 seasons, add real value, more so than the two seasons of Bird in 1991 and 1992.

[Doctor MJ]

Now, regarding Mikan, my reasons for not voting for him are totally different. I'm actually mostly fine with Mikan's longevity. My issue is that I've never been able to convince myself that if he matched up against particular bigs that he'd be able to thrive.

I think about him vs a guy like Artis Gilmore. Wouldn't he overmatched in length, size, and quickness? I do have Mikan in my Top 50 here so it's not that I don't think highly of him - they don't name a drill after you if you aren't known for actually doing drills, I understand he was fiercely competitive in a way that has bee likened to Jordan - but I do think that the bar got raised a bit in the wake of his success.

And here's where I'll note that while I can mostly ignore longevity questions on Mikan, I'd feel more confident if his game had aged more gracefully. Who knows how long he could have gone with modern medicine? I certainly don't claim to know these things, but because we didn't see him prove he could dominate into advanced age, there's a very real question of how well his game would really fare against players he wasn't physically dominant over.

Obviously Mikan is almost impossible to discuss, but I think you're a little low on his athleticism. Gilmore has length on almost anyone, but I'd say Mikan was on the same level as him for both strength and quickness. A little bit stronger and about as quick as early career Gilmore, and a little bit quicker but as strong as later career Artis. Ahead enough overall in the skills department that I'd rank prime MIkan notably ahead of prime Gilmore.

You believe Mikan was stronger than Gilmore?

Re: Mikan ahead in skills. Now I do get this, but you are talking about a guy who cracked 50% TS all of one time in his career. If Gilmore could have won titles by scoring at volume with a 46% TS then maybe he spends more time on volume scoring skills too.

I think it really needs to be asked what kind of a role you'd expect Mikan to thrive in in a more modern league. I seriously doubt he'd be volume scoring. I'd imagine that, like most bigs now, would have a more efficient game like the one Gilmore was known for.

So if we toss that out, are you siding with Mikan on defense and rebounding? Have we even seen him go up against someone bigger than himself and come out ahead?

[SHAQ32]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Larry Bird

3. Kevin Durant
I might get killed here but his longevity at this point is adequate when considering all of the proverbial boxes he checks. My highlights for KD are career playoff performances and portability.

And when you think playoff performances and portability, one name you think of is Dirk Nowitzki.

A very brief look at KD vs Dirk:

All-NBA Teams
KD - 9
Dirk - 12

Top 2 MVP Award Share Finishes
KD - 4
Dirk - 1


Also, does Dirk's extra few seasons of all-star level play hold more gravity than KD's considerable defensive edge? For me the answer is no.

First thing:

I think it's important to understand that Dirk rose up a great deal later in his career, and while you can certainly point to his chip to a tangible cause, the growth in his game combined with the fantastic jelling of the team allowed him to have a profound, robust impact that surpassed everyone else in the NBA for a time because the team always had offensive options and Dirk's decision making became fantastic. He'd read what needed to happen, he'd make the right play, the team would win.

Dirk's decision making has pretty much always been great, I agree with that. I also agree with him always having offensive options around him. I pointed this out to another poster in this project and his response was sort of implying that he didn't have enough around him, which I completely disagreed with. You can make a case against any other franchise player from his era, that Dirk clearly had more talent. Year in, year out. I rattled off the names in that post but can do so for you as well. Aside from Steve Nash: Nick Van Exel, Michael Finley, Josh Howard, Jason Terry, Keith Van Horn, Juwan Howard, Antawn Jamison, Shawn Bradley, Jerry Stackhouse, Antoine Walker, Raef LaFrentz, Raja Bell. I'm leaving a few names off here too.

Durant's never gotten there. He's never been able to have evidence of impact that matches up with how profoundly gifted his skill set is. While I don't mind anyone ranking Durant's best ahead of Dirk's if they're impressed with the way he was able to do his individual scoring stuff at the highest level, he's not ever had the kind of massive-impact-through-decision-making that Dirk had, and frankly he's lagged behind on that front his whole career.

I'm assuming you're leaning this take relatively heavily on some singular advanced metric, because I'm looking at some here and it doesn't agree. For example, individually, KD is 4th all-time in Playoff Points Per Game while being 3rd in OPBM (and this is a decent sample size at this point). Team-wise, he led elite team offenses. From 2011-2016 the Thunder offense finished 5th, 2nd, 1st, 6th, 10th, 2nd.

And even with Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka (and James Harden for 2 seasons), that those names I rattled off earlier were still consistently stronger supporting casts. And despite those stronger supporting casts, and in a weaker era in some years (01-04), KD was leading those casts as far or further in the playoffs.

Additionally, while Durant has the capacity for some incredibly impressive defense, he's never used it reliably. It takes an energy he's unable (or unwilling) to maintain. Not saying that can't be the edge for Durant in your comparison, but in terms of how much defensive value he actually can be relied upon to yield, I don't think it's so clear cut.

I'm not claiming that KD has consistently been some all-league defensive player. Not at all. I'm just saying that defensively Dirk ranged anywhere from slightly-below to slightly-above-average for the majority of his prime. KD has ranged from slightly above average to 2017, when he was one of the best defensive players in the league. So for me again, the advantage is clear.

[penbeast0]

Could you touch Magic vs Curry a bit more here? I don't see much of a case for Curry over Johnson to be honest, even if you think that Curry peaked higher (which is arguable).

Truth be told, I'm not sold on Curry, or even Mikan, quite this high. However, I'm not completely sold on anyone separating himself from the pack at this point and I thought that those two names deserved to be in the conversation so that I could hear the opinions of others.

In terms of longevity, Curry is very similar to Magic with 12 years in the league, 7 at an extremely high level. The health issue is my major qualifier, I feel the ability to be out there every day is extremely important and Curry hasn't been; that hurts him. His advantages over Magic are his extraordinary shooting, probably the greatest in the history of the game; and his versatility and ability to play on or off ball in an equally devastating fashion. I also am less impressed with the depth of quality players in the 1980s than I am with today's game. I think the 80s are roughly equal to the 60s in terms of player strength, far behind the current decade. My basic thinking is dominance of the league multiplied by a factor representing league strength.

Magic also came into the league on a team which already had championship level talent. I consider a team with prime Kareem, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon and Michael Cooper as one that should be competing for championships even without adding a top 10 of all time player. His primacy grew as Kareem's lessened and I do consider him a strong contender for this spot, but not a clear choice either. Relative to Curry, his ability to make his teammates enjoy basketball may be the all=time great in that sense. I think that was particularly important to Kareem who had seemed more and more isolated throughout the 70s. His passing and rebounding are also wonderful and he was an underrated scorer as well.

[SHAQ32]

I mean does Dirk even have his own YouTube Defensive Highlights Video?

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

[mailmp]

The notion of Durant being any sort of top defender in 2017/18 was basically just media manipulation (pushed in large part by the Warriors organisation) and had no real bearing in reality, or at least not on a level demonstrably beyond what you could do with Dirk.

[Doctor MJ]

Durant's never gotten there. He's never been able to have evidence of impact that matches up with how profoundly gifted his skill set is. While I don't mind anyone ranking Durant's best ahead of Dirk's if they're impressed with the way he was able to do his individual scoring stuff at the highest level, he's not ever had the kind of massive-impact-through-decision-making that Dirk had, and frankly he's lagged behind on that front his whole career.

I'm assuming you're leaning this take relatively heavily on some singular advanced metric, because I'm looking at some here and it doesn't agree. For example, individually, KD is 4th all-time in Playoff Points Per Game while being 3rd in OPBM (and this is a decent sample size at this point). Team-wise, he led elite team offenses. From 2011-2016 the Thunder offense finished 5th, 2nd, 1st, 6th, 10th, 2nd.

And even with Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka (and James Harden for 2 seasons), that those names I rattled off earlier were still consistently stronger supporting casts. And despite those stronger supporting casts, and in a weaker era in some years (01-04), KD was leading those casts as far or further in the playoffs.

The individual stuff you're talking about are production stats. I'm specifically saying that his impact seems to be less than his production.

For some perspective:

Dirk Nowitzki led his team in +/- 14 times, as has LeBron James.
James Harden has done this 6 times, as has Steph Curry.
Russell Westbrook has done this 4 times.
Kevin Durant has done this 3 time.

All standard disclaimers apply. No, this one stat doesn't clinch anything. I'm speaking to a general trend that's been part of the KD story from early in his career while pointing to a simple stat everyone can immediately understand.

If KD has had such weaker supporting casts, it's interesting he hasn't shown an ability to outshine his teammates reliably on something like this the way other players have.

[SHAQ32]

Durant's never gotten there. He's never been able to have evidence of impact that matches up with how profoundly gifted his skill set is. While I don't mind anyone ranking Durant's best ahead of Dirk's if they're impressed with the way he was able to do his individual scoring stuff at the highest level, he's not ever had the kind of massive-impact-through-decision-making that Dirk had, and frankly he's lagged behind on that front his whole career.

I'm assuming you're leaning this take relatively heavily on some singular advanced metric, because I'm looking at some here and it doesn't agree. For example, individually, KD is 4th all-time in Playoff Points Per Game while being 3rd in OPBM (and this is a decent sample size at this point). Team-wise, he led elite team offenses. From 2011-2016 the Thunder offense finished 5th, 2nd, 1st, 6th, 10th, 2nd.

And even with Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka (and James Harden for 2 seasons), that those names I rattled off earlier were still consistently stronger supporting casts. And despite those stronger supporting casts, and in a weaker era in some years (01-04), KD was leading those casts as far or further in the playoffs.

The individual stuff you're talking about are production stats. I'm specifically saying that his impact seems to be less than his production.

For some perspective:

Dirk Nowitzki led his team in +/- 14 times, as has LeBron James.
James Harden has done this 6 times, as has Steph Curry.
Russell Westbrook has done this 4 times.
Kevin Durant has done this 3 time.

All standard disclaimers apply. No, this one stat doesn't clinch anything. I'm speaking to a general trend that's been part of the KD story from early in his career while pointing to a simple stat everyone can immediately understand.

If KD has had such weaker supporting casts, it's interesting he hasn't shown an ability to outshine his teammates reliably on something like this the way other players have.

Oh, those are just production stats.

So what exactly is that saying (the +/- numbers)? He's played with a strong #2 with no depth(relative)?

[DQuinn1575]

1. Shaq
2. Bird
3.Hakeem

Shaq and Bird are the two most dominant players left - Shaq with sheer power was a force the league has rarely seen, and it wound up in 3 straight titles. Bird could do everything, he shot, passed, rebounded as well as virtually everyone, and played effective defense. I'm picking Shaq over Bird because of length of prime seasons. I'm going with Hakeem for 3rd, but in the next round I may reconsider. I won't change the pick in this thread.

[homecourtloss]

7. Larry Bird

Then you have defense, the most underrated part of Bird's game. Bird made 2 all-NBA defensive teams but you have to consider the era that he played in. Overall as a league, there was a TON of competition to make all-defensive teams back in Bird's era. There was more defense being played back then - dudes were really getting up in each other's jock, dudes were really going at it and givin' em hell when they played D back then. If Bird played today, he would make at least 5 or 6 all defensive teams. On the flip side, Chris Paul has made 9 all defensive teams and LeBron has made 6...because not as many elite defensive players anymore. You put those 2 dudes in the 80s and you can cut their all defensive selections in half.

I have no problem with Bird this high though I’d have him lower and there aren’t that many players that I’d rather watch.

That said, the bolded is simply untrue. It is harder to make an all NBA defense team now simply by virtue of a bigger league with more players vying for the same 10 spots.

That doesn’t even get into the notion of “there was more defense being played back then...givin’ em hell...” subjectivity.

[eminence]

Now, regarding Mikan, my reasons for not voting for him are totally different. I'm actually mostly fine with Mikan's longevity. My issue is that I've never been able to convince myself that if he matched up against particular bigs that he'd be able to thrive.

I think about him vs a guy like Artis Gilmore. Wouldn't he overmatched in length, size, and quickness? I do have Mikan in my Top 50 here so it's not that I don't think highly of him - they don't name a drill after you if you aren't known for actually doing drills, I understand he was fiercely competitive in a way that has bee likened to Jordan - but I do think that the bar got raised a bit in the wake of his success.

And here's where I'll note that while I can mostly ignore longevity questions on Mikan, I'd feel more confident if his game had aged more gracefully. Who knows how long he could have gone with modern medicine? I certainly don't claim to know these things, but because we didn't see him prove he could dominate into advanced age, there's a very real question of how well his game would really fare against players he wasn't physically dominant over.

Obviously Mikan is almost impossible to discuss, but I think you're a little low on his athleticism. Gilmore has length on almost anyone, but I'd say Mikan was on the same level as him for both strength and quickness. A little bit stronger and about as quick as early career Gilmore, and a little bit quicker but as strong as later career Artis. Ahead enough overall in the skills department that I'd rank prime MIkan notably ahead of prime Gilmore.

You believe Mikan was stronger than Gilmore?

Re: Mikan ahead in skills. Now I do get this, but you are talking about a guy who cracked 50% TS all of one time in his career. If Gilmore could have won titles by scoring at volume with a 46% TS then maybe he spends more time on volume scoring skills too.

I think it really needs to be asked what kind of a role you'd expect Mikan to thrive in in a more modern league. I seriously doubt he'd be volume scoring. I'd imagine that, like most bigs now, would have a more efficient game like the one Gilmore was known for.

So if we toss that out, are you siding with Mikan on defense and rebounding? Have we even seen him go up against someone bigger than himself and come out ahead?

I'd say closer to equal in strength. Pro Mikan was a really burly guy for the pre-weight training days. Weight around ~260. Steven Adams is my rough modern equivalent, though I think Adams has a bit longer arms and I think Mikan had a bit quicker feet. And of course the main factor - Mikan was willing to apply his strength in a way few bigs have been willing to do (Adams is nowhere near as aggressive) - I certainly don't think Gilmore hit that level.

Absolute percentages sell him well short, and I don't really see the value in using them for such a different league setting. Those are near top of the league type numbers at ridiculous volume. The 50%+ season he was dropping 28ppg and second in the league was 21 ppg, his team was scoring only 83 ppg.

I was mainly focusing on touch/passing ability/general feel to my eye. He/everyone else took bad shots by todays standards ('til Dirk brought the one legged fadeaway back). We only have like ~2 games worth of film available for him and he has this gem of a sequence:

Watch on YouTube

Now, I also don't expect him to truly be at the top of the league in terms of scoring due to general direction of the league, but among bigs, yeah, I think he'd be up there. Say high teen ppg on reasonable efficiency? I don't think that's unreasonable. Like most bigs most of his value is in defense/rebounding, I agree there. He led the 2nd/3rd best defensive dynasty of alltime by dominating the paint in his day, today, ehh, tougher sell, but it'd work through the late 00's at least.

'Seen' is a bit of a tricky word there. Wish I still had the bbref search function, but there were a couple guys around his size in his day - Chuck Share is the only guy I can think of off the top of my head, well and his teammate Clyde L.

Here's a short clip from his college days and and the Red Cross exhibition vs Kurland. Mikan/Kurland both picked up fouls extremely quickly and Mikan fouled out. College career I think Kurland said Mikan beat him 3-2. Kurland believed Mikan was the better scorer but he was the better rebounder. Not sure it's the most accurate depiction of his pro game (based off differences in how Kurland/Ray Mayer and Slater Martin/John Kundla/Bob Davies describe his game he seems notably more physical as a pro), but it is something.

https://media.gettyimages.com/videos/basketball-players-george-mikan-of-depaul-university-and-bob-kurland-video-id504866917

[mailmp]

Gilmore by repute pretty comfortably the strongest player in the league next to bulked up Wilt, but alright

[Dutchball97]

I do understand why people are voting for some guys by association with better players but I'm not sure I agree with that method. If LeBron is #1 why hasn't KD gotten a lot more traction? KD has been a rival to LeBron for a decade now and I don't think the gap between LeBron and KD is bigger than the gap between Duncan and KG. KD has less longevity but seeing as I voted Bird here at #7, I'm really not about to downplay players who have had a decade of top level play.

Duncan didn't make the number 5 spot just because he was a really good player. He was a 2-time MVP and a MVP candidate for many more years, 5 titles and most importantly he made the play-offs every year of his career. The Spurs only had less than 50 wins once in Duncan's career and that was the shortened 98/99 season where they ended 37-13, which was a 60 win pace in a normal season.

Even if KG's play was comparable to Duncan's, his accomplishments are not. We're comparing a legit GOAT resume with a could've been, that's odd. I see KG as a top 15 guy and I wouldn't lose it if he gets in much earlier but it's already become a slippery slope for some. It'd be a shame to see deserving players drop because there is another big man available that isn't THAT much worse than the guys we just voted in. This is how you get Patrick Ewing making it before Jerry West.

[2klegend]

1. Magic
2. Bird
3. Shaq

5× NBA champion (1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988)
3× NBA Finals MVP (1980, 1982, 1987)
3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1987, 1989, 1990)
12× NBA All-Star (1980, 1982–1992)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1990, 1992)
9× All-NBA First Team (1983–1991)
All-NBA Second Team (1982)
NBA All-Rookie Team (1980)
4× NBA assists leader (1983, 1984, 1986, 1987)
2× NBA steals leader (1981, 1982)

Look at that resume and tell me why Magic is not worthy of Top 5? And this is coming from a guy who is very unselfish. Had Magic is a bit more selfish, his stat line should be insane. This is a guy you can put any complimentary star and he can take you to the Final easy like in '91.