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

[DQuinn1575]

A note on Kareem:
.......

And on offense, as amazing as Kareem was, I just think that you have to be able to handle the ball on the perimeter to be a truly top tier offensive player in a world where goaltending isn't allowed. In any given year it's possible for interior big man to have the most offensive impact (it's rare but it can happen), but such players are forever at the mercy of their perimeter teammates.

While you can argue that by 2-way play Kareem is overall ahead of these 3 other guys, I think in practice Kareem's lift was an incremental thing while the other guys were more transformative to their team's play.

While I tend to agree with most of these, Kareem is arguably the most portable player in the game's history. There's not a single era that Kareem would be less dominant due to changes in environment. One can not get any more "all-time great" than that.

When I think of Bill Russell in the '90s or '10s, that's quite a challenge because Russell's utilization on offense gets so different.
Thinking Jordan or James in the '60s is also a challenge.

Looking at Kareem's career OTOH though;
Kareem in his younger days played against the legends of the '60s as Wilt, Reed, Thurmond. And then his older days, he played against Hakeem and Pat. In 1985-86 regular season, when Hakeem tried to defend Kareem 1v1, he got just demolished. Kareem averaged 41 ppg on .675 fg on Hakeem in those 3 games.
Following that train; Hakeem played against young Shaq. Shaq played against Duncan, and Duncan stayed as a major force in the '10s. Cut short to stay on topic.

I strongly disagree with the underlined part BTW. In terms of offensive peaks, Kareem, Shaq and Wilt, all matched the offensive level Jordan, James and Magic reached. The bigs are not even in the minority on that part.
When I think of the goat offensive players, half of 'em are bigs.

Kareem led the league in scoring twice and was in the top couple multiple times. He was THE top tier offensive player in the game for all of the 70s. The game is a lot different now, but the whole NBA was focused on stopping Jabbar for the decade.

[Ainosterhaspie]

LeBron James

What gives me doubt:

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

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

As to number 1, I think it is related to #2 and was solved because of #2. Up to 2011, he managed to get away with pure athleticism, and there was always a reason not to come to terms with the need to improve that aspect of his game. 2011 forced him to come to terms with that weakness. He dedicated his off-season to addressing it and the end result was game 6 in Boston. Where the series might have been lost previously because of this weakness, it was now won through it having been converted to a strength.

He has continuously improved on that and I think it culminated in game 1 of the 2018 finals. His cast wasn't particularly talented offensively and the Warriors were a high quality defensive team and it didn't matter. He couldn't be stopped outside and he couldn't be stopped from getting to the rim.

As for 2011. I think it was necessary for his growth as alluded to above. But I also think much of it had to do with trying to work through the ego challenges with a near peer teammate. He was too worried about being a good teammate, not stepping on Wade's toes, that his play suffered. Perhaps that is an overly charitable take and he should be viewed as petulant. Either way, they needed to work out who was the main guy and while that process cost them the 2011 title, it also forced a resolution of the issue. It didn't linger, and the team was able to come together with clearly established roles from that point forward. Without that, I'm not sure they get by the Celtics in '12 or the Spurs in '13, so it may not have cost them any titles in the end.

It's hard to conjecture how Jordan would have handled a similar situation. Would the tension between him and his near peer teammate have steadily worsened? That's easy to suspect. He would have found it hard to dial back and a teammate who feels he is at the same level as a scorer could have grown resentful. Magic certainly struggled with taking over from Kareem when the time was right and had to be pushed into it by Riley. That may have cost the Lakers a title. Could Kareem have stepped back sooner and pushed Magic to step forward?

Egos of these guys are a tricky thing and in 2011, it ruined a title run, but James improved as a player because of that challenge and has managed 8 post seasons since without that problem emerging again. Put it in a bin with MJ's ball hogging, an early flaw the player resolved, one which wasn't severe enough to prevent them from vying for a title or even winning one given the right circumstances, but one which needed to be resolved (and was resolved) before their full potential could be unlocked.

[trex_8063]

.

Are you wanting to vote in this project?

.

In future please bold your picks, so I can see them easily when just quickly scanning pages.

[LA Bird]

Jordan and LeBron both peaked higher on defense than Kareem despite him being a big man.

When did Jordan and LeBron play better defense than young Kareem? Unless you are judging him out of era against a 2010s 3pt offense, a 7'2 rim protector with Kareem's length and mobility is more valuable on defense than any wing. The Bucks led the league in FG% allowed for 4 straight seasons and were 0.1 DRtg away from 4 straight #1 defenses too. Kareem at his best was one of the more dominant interior defenders in league history and I would say neither Jordan nor LeBron is at that level.

[Owly]

Something I would need to get past to put Kareem top 3 (or even 4th). When he was at his most dominant, in the 1970s, in the weakest era of NBA history other than the segregated 1950s, his teams weren't. They seemed to underperform their talent level outside of the great run in 71. From what you hear from contemporaries, he very much withdrew from his teams and teammates in this period and it took Magic to bring him back out of his shell.

To be fair to him, his withdrawal was based on brutal and extremely nasty circumstances. He was a sensitive and highly intelligent man during one of the most racially divisive eras (even more than the early 60s) who made the choice to become a overt Muslim so there was a lot of blowback from fans (even hometown fans were often extremely hostile to him), Christian teammates, and the older white establishment owners and coaches. Then you had the group of Muslims murdered in Kareem's house. It's not surprising he withdrew into himself.

However, it seems to have made him a less effective team basketball player for most of a decade. He was always clearly head and shoulders talentwise about everyone else in the league including end of era Wilt and even the one relatively healthy year of Bill Walton. His teams were not like Garnett's Minnesota teams but had players who proved themselves championship caliber sidemen in other circumstances (Dandridge, Wilkes, etc.) but they never seemed to coalesce into great team ball.

The other top candidates here, Russell, Jordan, LeBron, took their teams further than the raw talent level of their teammates would indicate (see the many long posts I have made about the overrating of Russell's Celtic teammates outside of Sam Jones and 67-69 Havlicek). Kareem, except probably the ATG candidate 1971 Bucks team, didn't.

Kareem was pretty individually, statisticallly dominant whilst the Bucks rode to (checks Basketball Reference) still the most dominant SRS season in NBA history (true expansion, direct and ABA ... though counter, his was one of the expansion teams) so even if team dominance (whilst at/around individual peak) were a bar for a specific position, it seems a curious one for Jabbar. '72 5th best SRS ever (again, yes inflated) and go down to an even more dominant team.

I also lean cynical on Magic bringing him "out of his shell". That seems a popular narrative but short of a clearer explanation of meaning - and it seems here to tilt personality-wise in this phrasing, rather than him enjoying playing "fun" ball/with a great point guard - I can't get behind it. I can't recall him being notably effusive about Magic, honestly my guess/impression is he preferred Oscar (notable praise in Kareem's first autobiog and, fwiw, seems a better personality match though this is really guesswork).

I'd say he did well with Dandridge and for Wilkes ... okay who's next ... (and, as pertinent, who's above him in the minutes queue). Don Ford plays more playoff minutes in the 76-79 era. Then a competent but nothing more young Nixon (14.9 PER, other box composites lean below average - as they do for Wilkes, next in minutes whose PER is marginally better 15.2 and of course defensive rep is superior) then after Nixon, Wilkes it's Chaney, old Cazzie Russell (no longer productive on offense, so worse than useless), Dantley (good, productive but still young not as good as his production, not an optimal fit), old Boone, Abernathy, Lucius Allen in a bad shooting playoffs, old Lou Hudson, Kenny Carr playing poorly in spot minutes, Jim Price playing to his playoff standard (i.e. very poorly indeed). Maybe it was Kareem's fault but for me the onus is those who would say so to clarify why/how?

[Owly]

going down the list of greatest ever players coincides with almost every NBA championship ever won. Thats not an accident and I don't think any honest assessment can pretend like it is, especially given the importance of titles and awards by many ATG players across the NBA and all competitve sports. They matter a lot.

The thing is I don't think anyone pretends this, or sincerely claims it either.

It's simply a matter of how you interpret the correlation. "Oh look this list of the greatest players accounts for a lot of the titles so ..."

great player -leads to- teams improving -leads to- improved, typically good title odds over a large sample

or

title -leads to (or equals)- great player.

[PistolPeteJR]

Jordan and LeBron both peaked higher on defense than Kareem despite him being a big man.

When did Jordan and LeBron play better defense than young Kareem? Unless you are judging him out of era against a 2010s 3pt offense, a 7'2 rim protector with Kareem's length and mobility is more valuable on defense than any wing. The Bucks led the league in FG% allowed for 4 straight seasons and were 0.1 DRtg away from 4 straight #1 defenses too. Kareem at his best was one of the more dominant interior defenders in league history and I would say neither Jordan nor LeBron is at that level.

While Kareem was great as a rim protector and post-defender, I value the following more:

1) LeBron's crazy versatility to defend the perimeter and inside exceptionally well, as well as his ability to play a free-safety role tremendously, all in a no-hand checking era.

2) Jordan's versatility (to a lesser extent than LBJ), his ability to defend the perimeter exceptionally well.

I guess I might have rushed a bit in hindsight to say that I'd take Kareem over Jordan on D and can be budged on that, but not LBJ.

[PistolPeteJR]

.

Are you wanting to vote in this project?

.

In future please bold your picks, so I can see them easily when just quickly scanning pages.

Done. And yes.

[70sFan]

I won't vote here, but if there's anyone who would like to take a look at some 1960s and 1970s players (mostly Russell and Kareem in that thread), I can share some games and clips of them that aren't available online. Not that it will have significant role, but for someone who would like to, for example, get the idea of how Russell played it could be significant. Or for someone who would like to see differences and growth of prime Kareem (I have quite a lot Kareem games from the 1970s).

Sorry if this post is useless here, but I would like to help anyone who want to gain knowledge about older GOAT candidates.

I'd like to specifically request that you do share stuff if you can do so without putting a ton of additional work beyond what you've already done.

I do feel like I need to be clear up front that I'm not sure how much time I'll have to actually watch right now, but having the option for people to know where to find video is something that may allow some folks to "level up".

I'm uncomfortable asking you to do much work here and now though because, as stated, I cannot guarantee that folks (myself or others) will use the resources to the extent they deserve to be used.

To me, it's not much work to be honest. It costed me a lot of work (and some money) to get the footage, but I have most for around a year and I don't feel like I should keep it to myself. I'm fine with posting games you'd like to see, so let me know if there's anything that you're interested in

[70sFan]

I want to point out one thing - I hear quite a lot arguments that someone wouldn't be as good in today's environment, but I'm thinking how much weight should we put on this. I mean, Russell played the way it was supposed to play in his era with given rules. It's not his fault that the standards are different today and a lot of modern players wouldn't be successful in 1960s either.

I think that blaming someone that played in right way in his era, but didn't do optimal things by modern standards is not fair.

[90sAllDecade]

Time limits my posting so I'll be brief.

Jordan and LeBron are close for me but I go with Jordan as his offensive dominance would be even greater with current rules and he was a complete player on both ends, as LeBron was as well.

Since little things matter, Jordan's mental strength under pressure is better than LeBron's who has become incedible in that area as well. But since small things matter the 2011 finals loss isn't something Jordan has in his peformances and even though I have LeBron's longevity better, likely to surpass Kareem's with time. If they met head to head at thier prime or peaks with similar rules, coaching and team support I believe Jordan would be the superior player.

Vote
1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Olajuwon

[70sFan]

I won't vote here, but if there's anyone who would like to take a look at some 1960s and 1970s players (mostly Russell and Kareem in that thread), I can share some games and clips of them that aren't available online. Not that it will have significant role, but for someone who would like to, for example, get the idea of how Russell played it could be significant. Or for someone who would like to see differences and growth of prime Kareem (I have quite a lot Kareem games from the 1970s).

Sorry if this post is useless here, but I would like to help anyone who want to gain knowledge about older GOAT candidates.

I’d personally love to hear your thoughts on centers dependency for a creating ball handler, and to what degree you think it limited Kareems ability to provide offensive lift.

Just looking at his skill set, I don’t think he’d have the typical problem of getting the ball in good position since anything free-throw line or lower he could make a play from. Someone might claim that a zone akin to what Miami run to limit AD’s post touches and shadowing to dissuade him from the lane would be effective. Personally though I think Kareem’s ability to more consistently punish 1vs1 coverage, shadow or no, and better passing from that high post make him more resilient.

Well, the easiest way to look at it is to watch some 1977 Lakers playoff games. His team had absolutely horrible guards rotation (due to injuries), they were so bad that they couldn't bring the ball to the HC at times. Yet Kareem didn't see any statistical decline (quite contrary) and it's not like it was empty effort - Lakers beat more talented Warriors in 7 games and they played competitive series against Blazers (I know it was sweep, but outside of game 1 all games were close).

It's also quite telling that Kareem never played in below average offensive team and 1976 Lakers roster was terrible.

[Gibson22]

1) Lebron
2) Jordan
3) Kareem

I will definitely give my reasonings and partecipate from tomorrow on. Hyped as hell.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Disagree about offensive peaks. Well what I'd say is that the list of offensive dynasties in history is entirely led by perimeter guys.

Bob Davies
Oscar Robertson
Calvin Murphy
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Steve Nash
Steph Curry

None of those big men you talk about led these dynasties. None of them. It's literally never happened in a league that's been around for 70+ years. I think that says something.

Again. You're looking at offense as creating and leading an offense and overlook carrying an offense part.

Also;

As a result, Shaq’s playoff offenses were nearly unrivaled. From 1995-2002, he had the second-best eight-year run of any lead player in NBA history (+8.8 rORtg) and his 1997-2001 Lakers had the best five-year postseason offense in history.

https://backpicks.com/2018/03/29/backpicks-goat-5-shaquille-oneal/
https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Shaq-5-yr-PS-Offenses.png

Shaq didn't lead an offensive dynasty? You're going overboard.

If non ball-handlers were incapable of leading an offensive dynasties, what the hell are Kareem's Bucks, Dirk's Mavs, Hakeem's Rockets, Bird's Celtics doing up there in that graph?

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?

One has to be mad to pick Curry over Kareem and Shaq considering how Curry struggles against proper postseason defenses while Kareem and Shaq rose to the occasion.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1971138
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300

Calvin Murphy?
Bob Davies?
I mean that should be a joke...

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.

I do have to say, what I said before about no big men leading great offensive dynasties, Shaq is the theoretical exception. I think it's fine to say that Shaq was too lazy to try as hard as could during the regular season but picked up in the playoffs.

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

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.

Beyond that, the graph does seem to indicate that big-men based offense tend to outperform their regular season performance. That's interesting, but the top tier is still basically perimeter guys and Shaq.

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.

Re: Murphy, Davies, joke. I'm not trying to argue for either of these guys in the Top 100 context, but they did run elite offenses over an extended period of time.

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.

[TheGOATRises007]

I can't go much in depth as I'd like.

I have 3 GOAT candidates: MJ, Lebron and Kareem. Russell and Wilt just a shade below.

I can see arguments for all 3.

I do have MJ and Lebron ahead of Kareem by a clear but not significant margin.

On MJ vs Lebron:

I think there's compelling arguments on both sides. Lebron's longevity is definitely well document and he has that over Jordan.

Lebron's peak and prime are thereabouts to Jordan's whereas Jordan's longevity definitely lags behind Lebron's.

Since everything has to be nitpicked and analyzed under a microscope, I still have a real hard time ignoring Lebron's 2011 finals performance. It wasn't that he lost. He lost in the 2017 finals and 2018 finals too, but he left no doubt who the best player was. He left that doubt heavily in 2011. He was outplayed by Wade and Dirk in the series. This is the 2nd time in a series where Lebron wasn't even the 2nd best player. 2007 finals would be the other. I know his team was severely outmatched, but I don't think Lebron played as well as he could have(even back then). I also thought Lebron's performance vs the Celtics in 2010 is another mystery. Rondo arguably outplayed him too and Lebron didn't give off this impression that he was going down swinging(like he did in 2017 and 2018). I don't want to say that he quit, but I felt he could have done more. Was he much worse as a player in 2010 than 2009? I don't think so. You saw his excellence vs the Magic a year prior. I'm not saying he should have replicated that vs the Celtics, but I do think he could have played better.

Jordan isn't perfect and he's lost plenty of series, but I'm not sure there's a series on his resume where he was to blame for the loss. Whenever Jordan was expected to win, he did win. I also firmly believe and have stated that I do think Lebron has aged better than Jordan. I think old man Lebron is better than old man Jordan. However, I think younger Jordan is better than younger Lebron. I see Lebron's peak in his 30's. I think MJ peaked clearly when he was under 30.

I think something clicked in Lebron following the 2016 finals, and he has this incredible gear since that I don't think he had before. He displayed that gear in certain games. Game 6 vs the Celtics in 2012 is still to me Lebron's greatest game. It was an incredible display of mental composure and confidence. The pressure he was facing that game probably eclipses any pressure an athlete has ever faced. I've seen full series of similar performances of that nature since 2016. His performance vs the Celtics in the 2017 ECF is like watching a man play vs HS kids. He was sensational.

I do think Lebron is somewhat lacking a 'perfect season' on his resume. A season where his RS and playoffs were both extremely dominant for Lebron's lofty standards. He's had dominant playoff runs, but the RS was a bit lacking. He's had dominant RS runs, but then his playoffs were a bit lacking. Jordan's 91 season remains the greatest peak to me, and I think his RS run and playoff run was excellent. He had arguably the GOAT RS. Then he followed that up by being even better in the playoffs. I'm well aware of Lebron's 09 season and I think this could fit that description, but I still have a hard time placing that season as Lebron's best, when what transpired in 2010 and 2011 follows a short time later. I know situations change, but I think Lebron had weaknesses then that could be somewhat exposed. These weaknesses do not exist in 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2017.

I think Jordan peaks just a teeny bit higher than Lebron and has a better prime by a teeny bit. I'd take Jordan's best 3 year or 5 stretch over Lebron's by the tiniest of margins. I'll go back to this again, but I don't think Jordan was to blame for any of his playoff losses. I think you can attribute that blame to Lebron in the 2011 finals, and arguably the 2010 series vs Boston. Lebron's longevity is definitely higher, but I value peak and prime a bit more for GOAT player.

My vote

1. Michael Jordan

2. Lebron James

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[Owly]

LeBron has had far more control over his destiny than virtually any other player considered near the top. For example, him winning 3 titles with 3 different franchises; I think this accomplishment is impressive but needs a bit of context. Not to take away from what a great athlete LeBron is, but its not as if he was traded to 3 different teams and had to build with what he was given, enduring to lead 3 different franchises...which would give proper context because then he would be working under the same front office conditions as every other great player has since before 2010. Instead, LeBron essentially hacked the system and for most of the last 10 years has ensured that he's had either the best or second best roster in the NBA, by working around FOs and calling his friends and associates. Then when his teammates got old or underperformed, he bolted for the next best situation. And then at times forced other franchises to deliver the goods he needed. This stuff matters a great deal to me, especially if I'm going to consider your longevity. If only because, over a long and fantastic 17 year career, I have to consider the cirucmstances in how you were able to maintain that level of relevance for so long compared to other players. Does anyone really believe that a guy like, for example, Hakeem Olajuwon, if he were able to go over the heads of rival FOs and attract, say, a prime Barkley plus a third star, that he wouldn't have been a much more consistently successful player throughout his prime? What if an aging Olajuwon had dinner with young Shaq and made him force his way out of Orlando in 1996 so they could stack a few title runs together? Its not the least bit difficult to imagine.
This is what causes me to hesitate with LeBron because although he is perhaps the most naturally gifted player I've ever seen, he's also had enormous advantages created by himself and his team to heavily influence this era.

Nobody seems to be picking him for 3 titles on 3 franchises.

Any accounting that LeBron has had the best or second best roster in the NBA has to (a) overvalue star power, (b) ignore injuries, trades and (c) include James himself without acknowledging that he himself is the one driving it to be a good roster.

(a) Yes, stars. Yes eventually Battier and Allen and Andersen (though late career versions), maybe, maybe Miller when healthy. But Chalmers, Haslem, Cole, Anthony, Jones. Lewis, Bibby these guys amassed serious playoff minutes ... were they above replacement level. Bar Chalmers, my instinct is no. We can do this in each location. Smith, Shumpert,(old) Korver, Delly (who was too good and expensive for his team to keep), Mozgov, Jefferson, Hill (a legit talent, albeit not at his best), Green, Jones again. Thompson was a solid big, I won't say where is he now because he's changed in that time but he's not some exceptional piece.

(b) The Wade of the '13 and '14 playoffs looks average by box composites and worse by on-off type stuff. In Cleveland '18 finals with only Love as a star (and I do think Love has taken an unfair hit over the years), '15 finals with Kyrie and Love both missing significant chunks ...

(c) LeBron caused the goodness. With LeBron off the floor these teams went to ... pieces.

Does he have more talented casts than non-contending year but still prime Olajuwon, yes otoh. Does that matter in a comp versus Jordan, Russell and Jabbar. Not really. Does he have the optimal cast for a superstar versus Jordan or Russell. My inclination is no.

Oh and (d) framing. LeBron left money on the table (quite a lot over his career given how increases are based old salary and LeBron gave up money early) to join a good team and try to win. If you're a good GM this is great news, if you let Carlos Boozer walk because you think you've got an under the table deal with him, spend your free agent money on Larry Hughes, draft DeJuan Wagner and Luke Jackson in surrounding years ... if you think your priority for your big 3 is locking up Joel Anthony and rewarding Udonis Haslem's service ... if you aren't willing to spend to keep the champs together (not saying you "should" match on Delly, the Cavs weren't a good enough team to expect them to win again and it's bad value ... but when you've got a GoAT candidate and you can't replace the player ... you signal your ambition) and you trade your superstar for pennies on the dollar with the main piece back being damaged goods ... and you live in an era where teams literally can't offer you all the cap or 25 years ... do you expect to keep someone who isn't driven only by money. Do you ding a player for seeking a winning situation? I can't see it.

[Doctor MJ]

I want to point out one thing - I hear quite a lot arguments that someone wouldn't be as good in today's environment, but I'm thinking how much weight should we put on this. I mean, Russell played the way it was supposed to play in his era with given rules. It's not his fault that the standards are different today and a lot of modern players wouldn't be successful in 1960s either.

I think that blaming someone that played in right way in his era, but didn't do optimal things by modern standards is not fair.

So I've long had a similar view, but as I've tried to indicate, my view is shifting.

I'm certainly not trying to "punish" Russell, but the role of the sport in pop culture when it was popular matters.

Wilt once said to Jordan "When you were great, they made the rules easier for you. When I was great, they made the rules harder for me." This isn't entirely true and Wilt's big issue wasn't rule changes, but there is truth in the sense that the NBA has made a lot of savvy rule choices to make basketball look like it does today which has everything to do with why NBA players are the most iconic American athletes in the world.

Let me present an example to get more extreme:

Without the goal tending rule, guys like Jordan are simply never going to be in the running for the best in the league. It's going to be a game that's purely about how much you can dominate the area right by the cylinder. While we can quibble about calling Mikan/Kurland the optimal player for this stuff, the reality is that if there had been a best-possible-no-goaltending-called player playing in the '40s he'd have been the true most dominant ever. Had he played that way a long time, he'd have an understandable case for GOAT based on this dominance.

And he'd have played a sport that was entirely different to viewers, and a sport no one would want to watch play, so if we then made a GOAT list with him at #1, what exactly would be doing? "Jordan/LeBron isn't the GOAT, the GOAT is some guy from long before you were born who dominated the sport when no one liked it and who wouldn't be all that great today." What is the value of that list?

Now, Russell's scenario is not nearly so extreme. The reality is that he was beautiful to watch and had a physical build that largely remains the ideal for a DPOY even today. But when we talk about people who are built to be the best player in the league at a time where basketball is played in a way that people really like, it's not Russell.

[70sFan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[70sFan]

I want to point out one thing - I hear quite a lot arguments that someone wouldn't be as good in today's environment, but I'm thinking how much weight should we put on this. I mean, Russell played the way it was supposed to play in his era with given rules. It's not his fault that the standards are different today and a lot of modern players wouldn't be successful in 1960s either.

I think that blaming someone that played in right way in his era, but didn't do optimal things by modern standards is not fair.

So I've long had a similar view, but as I've tried to indicate, my view is shifting.

I'm certainly not trying to "punish" Russell, but the role of the sport in pop culture when it was popular matters.

Wilt once said to Jordan "When you were great, they made the rules easier for you. When I was great, they made the rules harder for me." This isn't entirely true and Wilt's big issue wasn't rule changes, but there is truth in the sense that the NBA has made a lot of savvy rule choices to make basketball look like it does today which has everything to do with why NBA players are the most iconic American athletes in the world.

Let me present an example to get more extreme:

Without the goal tending rule, guys like Jordan are simply never going to be in the running for the best in the league. It's going to be a game that's purely about how much you can dominate the area right by the cylinder. While we can quibble about calling Mikan/Kurland the optimal player for this stuff, the reality is that if there had been a best-possible-no-goaltending-called player playing in the '40s he'd have been the true most dominant ever. Had he played that way a long time, he'd have an understandable case for GOAT based on this dominance.

And he'd have played a sport that was entirely different to viewers, and a sport no one would want to watch play, so if we then made a GOAT list with him at #1, what exactly would be doing? "Jordan/LeBron isn't the GOAT, the GOAT is some guy from long before you were born who dominated the sport when no one liked it and who wouldn't be all that great today." What is the value of that list?

Now, Russell's scenario is not nearly so extreme. The reality is that he was beautiful to watch and had a physical build that largely remains the ideal for a DPOY even today. But when we talk about people who are built to be the best player in the league at a time where basketball is played in a way that people really like, it's not Russell.

I understand this reasoning, but I still disagree. That's why this project is so exciting!

[Blackmill]

However, it seems to have made him a less effective team basketball player for most of a decade. He was always clearly head and shoulders talentwise about everyone else in the league including end of era Wilt and even the one relatively healthy year of Bill Walton. His teams were not like Garnett's Minnesota teams but had players who proved themselves championship caliber sidemen in other circumstances (Dandridge, Wilkes, etc.) but they never seemed to coalesce into great team ball.

The other top candidates here, Russell, Jordan, LeBron, took their teams further than the raw talent level of their teammates would indicate (see the many long posts I have made about the overrating of Russell's Celtic teammates outside of Sam Jones and 67-69 Havlicek). Kareem, except probably the ATG candidate 1971 Bucks team, didn't.

I would say that Kareem took the 1977 team further than their raw talent would have suggested. I don't think they had a + player on the roster outside of Kareem come the playoffs. Kermit Washington, who was suspended after 53 games in 1977, would have been their only other plus defender. Allen and Russell had average efficiency with low playmaking volume in the regular season and really struggled against better athletes in the post season. Neither were especially productive in LA's offense and both gave up points on defense. I believe it was in the Blazers series (G1?) that Rick Barry was a guest commentator and said

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but there is no semblance of pattern or structure to the Lakers offense.

LA struggled at times to advance the ball past half court. Regularly they were up against the clock by the time the ball was below the modern day three-point line. LA lacked confident passers and the ball wasn't delivered to the right players at the right time. All this led to Kareem moving towards the high block to receive the post entry. Players stood in or near the paint, allowing the double teams on Kareem to be free, but outside of Kareem the LA lineup was rather small. Their closeness to the basket wasn't earning them rebounds and LA's offense bled points through this.

In 1976 and 1977, Kareem played next to some of the least productive players I've watched. I have never seen a team which struggled so much to handle the ball -- something fundamental to any kind of functioning offense. There's a moment in the Blazers series shortly after Kareem goes to the bench where his team turns over the ball on three consecutive possessions. The defensive talent around Kareem, especially without Kermit, wasn't much better. Despite this, if not for an archaic rule that would no longer exist after 1976, both those teams would have made the playoffs. This is not the type of over achievement that gets talked about but I do think it is an over achievement.

When LA added Wilkes, Dantley, and Nixon they became rather talented offensively. At least on paper. But the fit wasn't great on offense. And they were still missing the "structure" that Barry had mentioned. Maybe more importantly, while the team had fewer major negatives on defense, they still did not have real positives outside Kareem. Jump shots tended to be open against LA as were backdoor cuts. Both years LA lost to the Sonics who were finalists which I don't think is surprising.

All this changed in 1980 when Paul Westhead became coach. You see it immediately with how the post entry to Kareem was almost always followed by a baseline cut from the passer, and if the cutter didn't get the ball back, he would immediately box out his man in anticipation of Kareem taking the shot. I won't discuss LA's new offense in great detail. The point is it's night and day. LA's offense progressed through clear sequences. Defensively Cooper was a boon, and while Magic was not in the same category, his size was an important upgrade and helped LA rebound. He also made trapping more viable because his size made it harder to pass out of the trap.

That said, I agree there is a limitation of Kareem underlying all this. You do need a competent ball handler and scheme next to him to have a great offense.