Backpick all time rankings..

[Sudanese Sensation]

In a few weeks, he will likely move to No. 2 on this list. If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history. And, barring injury or premature retirement, James will likely retire with the most valuable career ever. For now, he’s etched on the Mt. Rushmore of the sport at No. 3.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bill Russell at #4 is refreshing to see... I thought for sure the author of this list was some delusional idiot who was going to place a one-dimensional player (who played the majority of his career in an era that was dominated by Offensively inept players... hence, giving off the illusion that he was soooo good Defensively) in the #1 spot.

[Bush4Ever35]

Bill Russell at #4 is refreshing to see... I thought for sure the author of this list was some delusional idiot who was going to place a one-dimensional player (who played the majority of his career in an era that was dominated by Offensively inept players... hence, giving off the illusion that he was soooo good Defensively) in the #1 spot.

Good job avoiding the humiliating posts only posted a couple of posts prior to this one.

Moreover, Russell beat out (with fewer played years) two-way star players in Hakeem/Duncan/KG/Shaq (if one counts Shaq), which illustrates the same principle (i.e.-someone can have more impact on one side than a two-way player can have on both sides combined).

For a slightly less aggressive example see Bird or Johnson compared to a D-Rob or Ewing.

[Bush4Ever35]

#2...

Michael Jordan. lol

More seriously, I can't vouch for the scouting report since I haven't read it, but in skimming it, it simply seems like the bottom line for the rankings part is simply "Jordan has the best peak, but not wildly so...and gets somewhat dinged on longevity, allowing Kareem (and soon Lebron) to overcome his contributions in a cumulative manner".

Which is perfectly reasonable if you conceptualize career value in the same way as the author.

Of course, some people can have different conceptualizations of career value that are reasonable, where Jordan would probably be first.

In any event though, the smart kids who said Jordan wasn't "head and shoulders" above everyone else are again...proven correct.

Even if you believe Jordan is 1 (which is perfectly reasonable), what is *not* reasonable is to say he is head and shoulders above everyone else. It's just not true.

[Bush4Ever35]

Just finished the report.

Very interesting evaluation of his defense, especially on a year-to-year basis. Not quite as high on it overall as the common narrative would suggest, and certainly below the impact of the star defensive bigs of the era, which makes perfect sense.

One thing that he pointed out that I liked was how low-turnover Jordan actually was relative to his usage and offensive load/burden...that's a real thing and a huge plus to his game that rarely gets discussed in my experience. It's also nice that he confirms Jordan is *clearly* the best scorer ever, which honestly shouldn't have even been a question, but you still get people holding onto Wilt for some reason.

He also puts Jordan's peak (I think it was 89 or 91, although 89-91 are all basically at the same level) clearly above Shaq's peak, which was informative...I had usually had them as 1a and 1b or even 1/2 in Shaq's favor but it seems like I'll have to revisit that opinion.

I'm looking forward to the Kareem report. I never watched him in real-time and haven't watched his peak/prime seasons much at all even after the fact, so I'll be interested to hear about "70s Kareem".

[Sudanese Sensation]

I would put Jordan over Kareem but I don't believe it is absurd to put Kareem over Jordan. Jordan is rated so highly because of his perfect 6-0 Finals record. Is Marciano the greatest heavyweight because of his perfect 49-0 record. Is Mayweather the greatest pfp fighter because of his perfect 50-0 record. I would argue they aren't and one needs to look at all the criteria, just not select criteria.

[Sudanese Sensation]

It is virtually impossible to remove all bias from research, even so called value free empirical research.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bill Russell at #4 is refreshing to see... I thought for sure the author of this list was some delusional idiot who was going to place a one-dimensional player (who played the majority of his career in an era that was dominated by Offensively inept players... hence, giving off the illusion that he was soooo good Defensively) in the #1 spot.

Good job avoiding the humiliating posts only posted a couple of posts prior to this one.

Moreover, Russell beat out (with fewer played years) two-way star players in Hakeem/Duncan/KG/Shaq (if one counts Shaq), which illustrates the fact that the criteria for this list is bush-league, and as such, many of the rankings are laughable... which is what TDK told my dumb-ass pages ago.

For a slightly less aggressive example see Bird or Johnson compared to a D-Rob or Ewing.

Fixed for you... now get mad.

[Y2K]

Just finished the report.

Very interesting evaluation of his defense, especially on a year-to-year basis. Not quite as high on it overall as the common narrative would suggest, and certainly below the impact of the star defensive bigs of the era, which makes perfect sense.

One thing that he pointed out that I liked was how low-turnover Jordan actually was relative to his usage and offensive load/burden...that's a real thing and a huge plus to his game that rarely gets discussed in my experience. It's also nice that he confirms Jordan is *clearly* the best scorer ever, which honestly shouldn't have even been a question, but you still get people holding onto Wilt for some reason.

He also puts Jordan's peak (I think it was 89 or 91, although 89-91 are all basically at the same level) clearly above Shaq's peak, which was informative...I had usually had them as 1a and 1b or even 1/2 in Shaq's favor but it seems like I'll have to revisit that opinion.

I'm looking forward to the Kareem report. I never watched him in real-time and haven't watched his peak/prime seasons much at all even after the fact, so I'll be interested to hear about "70s Kareem".

No complaints about the evaluation from me. Basically, longevity held him back from being #1.

[Bush4Ever35]

And at number 1....The Captain!

[FPL]

Direct link since the homepage loads slowly on mobile: http://www.backpicks.com/2018/04/12/bac ... ul-jabbar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think a lot of people only remember the older, slower version that took mostly skyhooks, but KAJ had a very versatile offensive game, with tons of counters, and (through 1980 at least, since he had foot and ankle injuries the next couple of years that limited his mobility) tremendous athleticism for any big, let along someone of his size. His combination of efficiency and volume was tremendous.

The article touches on his evolution in the late 70s. Evidently KAJ added weight to his frame, and big defenders that bothered him when he was younger weren't a problem anymore. One thing the article didn't explore was the Moses Malone matchup, witch did give him trouble in the early 80s.

[Bush4Ever35]

One question I had was the relative contribution of Magic vs. Kareem during the Lakers titles in the 1980s.

At a glance, according to the seasonal valuations, it would seem to go:

1980: Kareem overwhelmingly
1982: Kareem by a quarter/half-step
1985: Magic overwhelmingly
1987: Magic overwhelmingly
1988: Magic overwhelmingly

The only year they were particularly close was 1982.

I was surprised how differently valuable the were in 1985. I kind of new the common narrative of "Riley passed the reins to Magic in 1987" was somewhat flawed, but I didn't know to what extent. It seems like it's not only wrong, but bigly, yugely wrong.

[Bush4Ever35]

Wrapup and thoughts:

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/04/13/goa ... longevity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Major points as I skim:

1. Who the GOAT is, is heavily dependent on your exact criteria (for example, peak vs. best 7 year run vs. cumulative career impact).

2. We give too much credit to "first options" in our minds, at the expense of devaluing secondary players (he uses the example of Steph vs. Klay).

3. Top defensive bigs are WAY more valuable (and consistent over the career) than top wing defensive players.

4. Within some tiers, the players involved were freakishly close.

5. Longevity is extremely important, and we might not be giving enough credit to the cumulative effect of "good but not peak/prime" years a player accumulates towards the mid-end of his career.

[AlaskaHawks]

A Laker takes the top spot. Well Deserved, Cap.

[LNS]

Kareem is officially the GOAT