i kind of want to do a "who would be #1 if this were the only thing that mattered" with my individual criterion. something like:



this is the part that usually is the biggest factor in these lists, so its no surprise that the candidates are the usual suspects: Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan, Mikan, etc. i think longevity really complicates it, so let's break it down this way:

1 season peak: '67 Wilt, as I've said, is an absolute monster. '13 LeBron too. both are less statistically productive than their younger seasons, but have improved in ways that make them peak at a higher value overall in terms of winning. Wilt changed his approach to the game dramatically, while LeBron just added more tools and learned to pick his spots more. '77 Kareem AND '77 Walton are in the conversation as well (amazingly), as is '00 Shaq. but for me, '91 Jordan is the answer, even if its not by much. i think he had the best combination of athleticism, two-way impact, competitiveness, and skills ever. Wilt would be #2 imo. winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: Wilt Chamberlain

5 season peak: this one is just a tad bit easier, because Jordan was so amazingly dominant from '88-'92. Kareem from '76-'80 is in the conversation, as is LeBron from '09-'13 (who would probably be my #2 here). Russell from '61-'65 is also up there for me, and so is the underrated '84-'88 Bird. Shaq was so up-and-down that he kinda does better in a 1-season peak and a longer peak conversation where the ups and downs are either a non-factor or kinda even out. Wilt had such a dramatic change in play-style mid-career and had that weird gap year that means more in a 5 season peak than a 10 season peak, but i guess we're saying his 5-season peak is '64-'68? idk. he doesn't win this one though. Magic '87-'91 and Mikan '51-'54 are in the mix too. '14-'18 Durant would probably be here if he hadn't got hurt in '15. winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: LeBron James

10 season peak: we can play the injury/retirement/whatever game if we want, but the idea here is not really about 10 perfect years of 82 games, so let's say this is more of a best 8 or 9 out of 10 of whatever. most of the greats missed a chunk or two for whatever reason, so it is what it is with a 10 year sample vs a 5 year sample where a lost season means more. candidates would be '88-'97 Jordan, '57-'66 Russell, '01-'10 Duncan, '96-'05 Shaq, '60-'69 Wilt, '09-'18 LeBron, '82-'91 Magic, '81-'90 Bird, and '71-'80 Kareem. shocking? no, those are the 9 greatest players in NBA history. like i said, lot of correlation here between the "all-time" lists and this particular criterion. this one is very very close imo, particularly between Jordan, LeBron, Russell, and Kareem, but Jordan is still my answer. winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: LeBron James

career: so this in some ways gets simpler, because LeBron and Kareem just kept fucking going. the 10 season peak covers most of the careers of the other guys, except Duncan and Shaq (but Shaq's longevity is a bit trickier and he's not in the conversation here). its Jordan's own fault he isn't here cause he retired in his prime twice. but even if he kept going, its hard to imagine anyone being as good as LeBron is at his age. its beyond remarkable. winner: LeBron James, runner-up: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

overall balancing the 4 different methods: 1. Michael Jordan, 2. LeBron James, 3. Kareem-Abdul-Jabbar, 4. Bill Russell, 5. Wilt Chamberlain, 6. Tim Duncan, 7. Magic Johnson, 8. Larry Bird, 9. Shaquille O'Neal, 10. George Mikan (remember, this is relative to their era).



i'll try to be more succinct with the rest of these. aside from the obvious great players like Jordan, Russell/Wilt, Magic/Bird, Kareem, Oscar, etc, I think the player who excels in this category the most relative to their normal positioning is Julius Erving. in fact, i think he's in the mix for #1 overall in this category. but, and I hate to sound like a Jordan fanboy here cause I'm not, i do think this once again favors Jordan. i mean, he has so many direct copiers, including another top 10 all-time player (Kobe) and countless all-stars. guys wanted to be like him in every way, from the look, the jersey number, the moves, the business moves, etc. winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: Julius Erving


all due respect to the modern players who made big impacts like Shaq, Barkley, Jordan, Steph, Magic, Dirk (who has a fantastic underrated case in this part of the criteria), KG/Kobe (for draft reasons), and others, this one almost inherently will go to a player in the first half of NBA history because the degree of change was just so much higher. George Mikan is an obvious choice at the beginning and Cousy too, as is Julius Erving right towards the birth of the modern game. but I think the answer probably lies with the evolving game towards the end of the 1950s into the 1960s. i think you can point to Oscar, Baylor, and Russell, but my choice here is Wilt, who famously resulted in several rule changes as well as was there right when the level of athleticism in the NBA was skyrocketing and was maybe the best example of it. winner: Wilt Chamberlain, runner-up: George Mikan


there are 3 and only 3 candidates: Magic, Bird, and Jordan. the answer is Jordan, it isn't debatable. this is the easier category of them all. and maybe the only one where if you disagree you probably should exit the conversation lol (shout out to Yao Ming though, who has a real niche in this particular category). winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: Magic Johnson/Larry Bird tie


this one is a little tricky, because you want to focus on their cultural impact as a basketball player, not like "so and so became a senator later in life", and so basketball is still intertwined with this even though its "outside of basketball". and because you could go in two different directions. one is pop-culture, where Jordan reigns supreme yet again. Magic, LeBron, Shaq, Julius Erving, and Kobe are all up there too (Iverson is the underrate pick here). the other direction is harder to define, but involves impacting social change, which a lot of black players in the 60s were involved in, most notably Bill Russell. and what makes it trickier is that Jordan famously stayed away from doing the latter, so his claim to number 1 here is a little bit harder, but I still think his cultural icon status is tops for a basketball player. Magic is probably #2 for a lot of reasons, including the AIDS awareness and his pop culture status. winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: Magic Johnson


here me out, i know I'm biased, but doesn't Reggie have a really really damn good argument for this? the Lakers and Celtics have tons of great players, so one doesn't just reign supreme over the others (Russell, Havlicek, Bird, Kobe, West, and Magic all have good claims though). LeBron would have won but he left Cleveland twice lol. Malone and Stockton were always a duo, so neither were the unquestioned number 1 for the fans. forget about Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, i don't even know which franchise you'd pick for them. a player doesn't have to spend their entire career to count, cause Iverson and Jordan are both great picks and Wade too. but you'd almost certainly need to play for the same franchise for most if not all of your prime, and be the unquestioned top guy during that period. Dirk, Reggie, Jordan, Iverson, Magic, Bird, Russell, Duncan, and Steph seem like the top answers to me. i think the cliche pick is probably the answer, its Jordan, cause he took Chicago away from the Bears for a decade and pretty much got God status in that city. Steph is kinda putting in the work to be number 1 though, but i gotta pick guys who are retired in case stuff changes with active players. Reggie was the unquestioned man in Indy and pretty much saved professional basketball in my state. okay fine, i'll pick Magic even though fuck the Lakers, he helped make them the Yankees of the NBA. winner: Michael Jordan, runner-up: Magic Johnson


i feel like this one may actually be mathematically quantifiable with the right formula, but i dont wanna waste that time. so let's do the quick look version. this isn't about which player "earned" it, this is straight up who won and who got the awards. let's compare the only 3 candidates:

Jordan: 5 MVPs, 10 1st Teams, 11 All-NBA total, 6 Finals MVPs, 14 All-Stars, 3 All-Star MVPs
Kareem: 6 MVPs, 10 1st Teams, 15 All-NBA total, 2 Finals MVPs, 19 All-Stars, 0 All-Star MVPs
LeBron: 4 MVPs, 13 1st Teams, 18 All-NBA total, 4 Finals MVPs, 18 All-Stars, 3 All-Star MVPs

goddamn that's close. the longevity helps Kareem/LeBron, but Jordan's combined 11 regular season/finals MVPs fuck. winner: LeBron James, runner-up: Michael Jordan/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar tie


for this, forget the nuance of what it means to play winning basketball. lets pretend its a one-on-one sport, and look at who just straight up produced the most fucking basketball ya know what i mean?
*Michael Jordan scored 30.3 points per 75. now keep in mind per 75 data only means much to modern players where the data is complete (1980-present or so). but #2 among retired players is Kobe at 26.8. freaking 3.5 point difference between #1 and #2. the players in between are all active in their prime, so their post-prime will bring their average down. in the playoffs? Jordan is 32.5, next retired player is AI at 27.2 lol. 5.3 point difference between Jordan and the next closest. LeBron fyi is 27.8, so he may end up staying above AI when he retires.
*in terms of career totals balanced with per-75 stats among modern players, LeBron is king with 7.5 in both assists and rebounds per 75, plus 27.5 in points (might stay above Kobe by the time he retires), and pretty great efficiency for that volume. as far as scoring, Durant and Steph are near the top too (Steph is the most efficient volume scorer in history, but let's see if his post-prime takes him down a bit). Jordan overall is probably second when balancing everything out, but 1st on a per-minute basis.
*pre-modern players, obviously we know the bulk stats go to Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem. pace and minutes make comparisons between eras very difficult. nobody in the modern era plays 45+ minutes a game. and the pace and missed shots in the 60s create some crazy rebound numbers that have to be taken with a massive grain of salt. idk man, i know the bulk and per game stats sometimes get super love, but i don't think any pre-merger player should really win this one. the scoring efficiency was way lower then, the per-minute stats all favor modern players, and you know the per-75 stats would flat-out tear down those 60s guys to the floor. sorry Wilt and Oscar.
winner: LeBron James, runner-up: Michael Jordan


hard to really pick an individual player for this, because this is about the era. but let's see which greatest player played the toughest league and conference over their career. major things that impact this are: expansion/contraction, league competition (international and domestic), growth of the talent pool, and length of careers. flat out lets just say pre-1957 is just out. they had limits on black players, guys were getting jobs as car salesmen because it paid more, guys left for years for military service, etc. that's out. and the ABA-era is out too. so let's narrow it down to:

'60-66: smaller amount of teams, no ABA, growth of the talent pool heading in to this era, etc. but obviously this is still early on in the game's history, and there are still questions about the talent pool, with no international talent, shorter careers, worse medical, etc.
'77-'89: post-merger but the talent influx outweighed the expansion, pre-90s expansion, boom in popularity led to a talent influx especially in the mid-to-late 80s.
'08-present: 90s saw a lot of expansion along with some bad drafts between '88-'93, so that's out. by '08, the league was stable at 30 teams, the internal game was bringing in lots of talent, careers were getting longer and longer. however, should be noted that there's a gulf between the western and eastern conference in this era.

most of Magic/Bird's careers were in a loaded era, with both conferences having some great teams, but I'd say the East was stronger. but Bird himself never had to face the 80s Celtics of course, just like Magic never had to face the 80s Lakers. they faced each other in the finals, but that was it. they still had the Sixers, Pistons, Bucks, Hawks, Rockets, etc. i mean, the 80s rocked. but you know who really got fucked? Chris Paul. dude's prime was literally 2008 to the present in the western conference without ever actually being on the best team in that conference. Spurs, Durant-era Thunder, Warriors, Kobe-era Lakers, etc. when people gave him shit about never making the finals, it kinda made sense that he hadn't. Harden has the same claim as well. now, if we change this to who "overcame" the most competition (since CP and Harden lost the matchups they should've lost), I think even with the loaded team and the weaker of the two conferences, the Showtime Lakers making the finals 9 times in 12 years in a loaded league, winning 5 titles, including against a loaded Celtics team and a loaded Sixers team. i mean, goddamn. so i'll split the difference and say winner: Chris Paul, runner-up: Magic Johnson

again, its not about the result. Tracy McGrady contributed a ton, as did Oscar Robertson. it doesn't matter to me that they lost cause it wasn't their fault that they did. not sure how i didn't explain this clearly in my post.

if you are talking about players not having a chance because they didn't make the playoffs very often, well, if you can't make the playoffs in a league in which over half the teams make the playoffs in a sport where the best player impacts a majority of the game, i'm not really concerned about you very much when it comes to the 100 Greatest Players of All Time. sorry Shareef Abdur-Rahim, hope life is going well for you.





nope

pave irl: holistic approach where everything matters and everything needs context and everything is complicated.
what bruce sees in pave: "ringzzz bitches!"


what pave sees in bruce: "statzzz bitches!"

help me understand you bruce.

How about you analyze each player's numbers without regard to what each player's team did. If you were hired purely for data analysis and were not given the player's names or anything else, just their stats, and told that they were two players from a foreign basketball league, you would think that it was some kind of joke that they were even being compared.

So, just like all of these other schmucks, championships are what you think matter most when comparing individual players.

ah yes, the tried and true scientific method of ignoring a majority of information because its easier to just glob on to one data set and draw all conclusions from that and that alone. you really know what you are doing sir.

bruce, do you have a stat for leadership?

bruce, do you have a stat that shows how a player impacts team chemistry?

bruce, do you have a stat that shows the value of when a player sacrifices their own production in order to boost the confidence of a younger teammate by getting them more involved in the regular season?

bruce, do you have a stat that captures the impact a player has on a franchise when they make a public trade request mid-season?

bruce, do you have a stat that shows when a player's personality invites other players to want to play with them and increases the team's championship odds? or when a player's personality drives away other star players from the team and torpedos their chance to win?

bruce, can your stats demonstrate the opportunity cost that comes with basically every on-ball decision?

bruce, can your stats demonstrate the value of being double-teamed away from the ball?

bruce, can your stats demonstrate the value of lock-down defense that doesn't end in a steal or block?

bruce, can your stats demonstrate the value of off-ball motion on offense?

bruce, can the stats you choose to value demonstrate when a player has real human fears and anxiety in high-pressure moments that make them play worse in those moments despite being consistent through a regular season in non-tight games?

bruce, do you even know what your favorite stats really show? do you understand the formulas? do you understand what is missing? do you understand how different stats are weighted and why?

I don't buy that leadership means anything at all. Do you believe that a player will make a shot that he otherwise would miss because of the leadership of one of his teammates. I don't. Is Scott Brosious gonna hit a line drive in the gap on a pitch that he normally would pop up because of Jeter's awesome leadership? The Yankees got progressively worse every year from 2003 when Jeter was named Captain until 2008, 6 straight seasons. Then they won the WS in 2009. Did his awesome leadership take 7 seasons before it took effect?



If that actually means anything, which I don't believe, it will be reflected in the team's stats.



I don't believe in that mattering either. If the young teammate is not scoring efficiently then it is hurting the team to give him possessions, not helping the team.



Of course not. I am solely interested here in rating individual players. Some players demand a trade and then take their new team to a championship that they otherwise would not have won without him.



I don't buy that as a factor either. These are professional players who care more about their own contracts than about any team thing. They are not gonna let a disliked teammate interfere with that....see the Yankees of 1977-1978 where several of them hated each other. See multiple NBA teams where guys did not get along but won anyway.



I don't think that's possible in any sport, but it will be reflected in the team's point differential, for instance. I say that going strictly by the stats is more accurate than trying to include subjective opinions of things like that. You're always gonna find two so called experts who have diametrically opposed opinions about something, for instance experts who will tell you that Trump was the best president we ever had vs. people who will tell you that he was the worst president we ever had. I mean, you have people like Magic Johnson and many others claiming that I. Thomas was better than Stockton despite the numbers saying the opposite most emphatically. They base it on on quarter when Thomas scored 25 points in a playoff game, as opposed to their full body of work where Stockton was FAR better in every facet of the game.



Yes, the team's PD will be effected one way or another. And that's how guys like Wilt lead the league in assists as opposed to guys like Russell who never drew a double team in his life.



First of, a block is good, but many times it goes right back to the shooter who then scores. A steal is far better than a block as it end the other's team's possession with a shot or free throw attempts. But to answer your question, yes, it's called FG% defense. It's a team stat of course, and attempting to attribute it subjectively to individual players is just a guess at best, although guys like you want to attribute the Celtics skill at this entirely to Russell.



That's where the great coaching that Jordan had makes him look better at times than LeBron, who never had a coach like Phil Jackson/



Are you contending that over the course of an entire career in the NBA that some players constantly choke while others constantly play better than usual. Let me ask you, if some guys can "raise" their game in clutch moments, why don't they just "raise" their game all the time? If playing better in the clutch is an actual ability, why wait until then to turn it on? How do you explain things like Manny Ramirez hitting .170 with RISP in one season, and then hitting .370 in that same split in the next season? If clutch hitting is an ability things like that wouldn't happen. Clutch play in any sport is a very small sample and will vary from season to season just on random chance.



I understand that I trust stats more than ANYBODY'S subjective opinion from "seeing them play."

I trust that anybody who concludes that Russell was a better basketball player than Wilt has their head up their ass. Wilt's teams when he was on the Warriors were weak, aside from him, and they lost more often against Boston than they won, but once he went to the 76ers and Lakers his teams were over .500 against Russell's teams. In those years the Celtics had like 5 hall of fame players, maybe more, while the Warriors just had Wilt.

I'm currently arguing with schmucks on FB who think that Tony Gwynn is a better hitter than guys with an OPS+ like 20-30 points higher because he had a high batting average and rarely struck out. I pointed out that Judge has like 160 strikeouts this year, and they insist that prime Gwynn was better than this season's Judge.

It's also interesting how people who want to talk about so called intangibles and "seeing them play" and stats that can't be measured always claim that their choice (like Russell) is the one being hurt by these factors while the player they are arguing against (like Wilt) is not being hurt by those same factors. It's always their guy whose value is not able to be measured accurately by stats alone.

of course you don't




which you will discount because its not an individual stat, got it.




wow both leadership and player development out the window... do you think players are like inanimate objects that are permanently one thing and never evolve, change, etc? how is this even logical thinking?

would you take a job where you made 2 dollars less an hour if 6 months from now it meant you got a raise and made $4 more an hour from that point on?




umm, there are literally countless examples of players who absolutely care about that, but okay




and you will discount that because its a team stat and not an individual one, we've already covered this




wait, wait, hold the fuck up. so a player can be impacted by a coach but not another player? and if they are impacted by a coach, then they don't get credit for what they are doing?




umm, yes, im contending that NBA players are subject to basic human emotions and inconsistencies and faults and having ups and downs in their motivation and etc etc.

wait, am i breaking the news to you that NBA players exist in real life and not just in fantasy sports?

hey Bruce, how do you contend that Wilt could score 100 points in one game, but only 23 in another game? shouldn't he just score 100 points in every game? the fuck is wrong with Wilt? only showed up for one game, apparently.

hey Bruce, 3 years ago I got an award from my work for excelling at my job. last year, i got a disciplinary warning for fucking up at my job. how is this possible? did I become a different person?


right now I'm at my job talking on a forum about basketball, and yet just yesterday I worked very hard for 8 hours straight. i think I may be possessed, because this isn't normal at all from what I understand.

That's all I need, no. I have not had an actual job where I was on a payroll and got paid with a pay check since 1976.

Of course. If the coach or manager does not recognize the player's ability and doesn't play him how can he get credit while sitting on the bench, or not even being on the active roster. There are tons if instances where a managerial or coaching change gave someone playing time that they were not getting before, and that player became a star.



None of those players are in the discussion for what this thread is about. If they are even brought up as a possibility for the 100 Greatest NBA Players then they had proved early on that they could produce under pressure. We're not talking about borderline NBA players here who are hoping to make a roster, like Kent Coluko or Clinton Wheeler. We are talking about degrees of all time greatness.



Are you contending that the 100 point game was the best game Wilt ever played and that's all he should be concerned with his scoring as many points as possible?

He had to go 28 for 32 from the foul line to score those 100 points. Clearly he did not have the skill involved to do that at will. He just got lucky that night. When he was on the Warriors they did not have anybpody else who could score anywhere near as efficiently as he did. So he scored as much as he could, shooting 50% or more when most of his teammates had trouble shooting 40% at a time when there were no threes.

If Auerbach hadn't been able to pull some shit and get Russell to add to a team that had already been very good, how do you think Russell would gave done playing for the Pistons, or the Warriors before Wilt was there?

Russell hooked up with an already good team with the best coach of the era.

Same question about Jeter. Would people think he was a "winner" if he had played for the Pirates or the Twins?

Bob Cousy was the league MVP in Russell's rookie season. Russell was not even the Rookie of the Year, that went to Heinsohn.

By the way, my father played for Auerbach when my father was a waiter in the Catskills in like 1954. He played against Wilt up there when Wilt was still in high school I think, or maybe his first year at Kansas, Wilt came up to the Catskills during the summer to play for one of the hotels up there. Auerbach coached one of the hotel's teams up there every summer in those days.

The hotels would play each other and hold a pool where guests would bet on the total points scored in each game.

all-time greats have all kinds of flaws and holes in their game. why would that not include psychological ones? there is literally a current NBA all-star who sat out last season for stated mental health reasons.

hell, players literally talk about the pressure of playoff basketball ALL THE TIME. you think they discuss it because it has no impact?

your lack of understanding of human beings is just maddening to me right now. is this a troll? am i being punked?

Of course. If the coach or manager does not recognize the player's ability and doesn't play him how can he get credit while sitting on the bench, or not even being on the active roster. There are tons if instances where a managerial or coaching change gave someone playing time that they were not getting before, and that player became a star. /quote]

if a point guard does not recognize a teammates shooting ability and doesn't pass the ball to him as often, how can that shooter get credit while standing in the corner? there are tons of instances where teammates make decisions that impact another player's development, confidence, production, etc.