Is Kareem the greatest player of all-time?

[PauloCatarino]

Back to Kareem: will anybody provide any meaningfull info why he should/shouldn't be regarded as GOAT material?

[Mattsanity]

I know I made this thread, but these are why I think KAJ isn't the greatest:

-Kareem was the finals MVP only twice. That's significant because that means he played second fiddle to Magic for several championships.
-He had a 9 year drought before winning his 2nd title with the help of Magic's classic game. He still should've won the 1980 finals MVP though.
-The Bucks lost at home in the 1974 finals. Jordan didn't go to 7 games but I doubt he would've let a championship slide in the last game.
-Kareem has the most career points but only 2 scoring titles. Jordan has 10, which proves he was the more dominant scorer.
-He has one more MVP than Jordan, but Jordan should've won the award in 1993 and 1997.
-His teams were 6/10 in the NBA finals. That's equal to Jordan's rings, but he went 6/6. It's like saying a player shooting 6/10 from the free throw line is better than a player who shoots 6/6 from the line. Rings are obviously a team accomplishment, but Jordan's 6 titles seem more impressive since his team won in clusters of 3 straight.

I won't use the argument of playing in a weak era. Both players dominated their eras because that's simply when they were playing.

[PauloCatarino]

Originally Posted by Mattsanity

I know I made this thread, but these are why I think KAJ isn't the greatest:

-Kareem was the finals MVP only twice. That's significant because that means he played second fiddle to Magic for several championships.
-He had a 9 year drought before winning his 2nd title with the help of Magic's classic game. He still should've won the 1980 finals MVP though.
-The Bucks lost at home in the 1974 finals. Jordan didn't go to 7 games but I doubt he would've let a championship slide in the last game.
-Kareem has the most career points but only 2 scoring titles. Jordan has 10, which proves he was the more dominant scorer.
-He has one more MVP than Jordan, but Jordan should've won the award in 1993 and 1997.
-His teams were 6/10 in the NBA finals. That's equal to Jordan's rings, but he went 6/6. It's like saying a player shooting 6/10 from the free throw line is better than a player who shoots 6/6 from the line. Rings are obviously a team accomplishment, but Jordan's 6 titles seem more impressive since his team won in clusters of 3 straight.

I won't use the argument of playing in a weak era. Both players dominated their eras because that's simply when they were playing.

Don't you think player's College career should matter regarding the over-all career?

[Mattsanity]

Originally Posted by PauloCatarino

Don't you think player's College career should matter regarding the over-all career?

I'm a little biased towards the NBA but college certainly does matter. Kareem's college career trumps Jordan's, but I just feel like Jordan's accomplishments as a pro are second to none.

[l0st1]

MVP award is such a sketchy qualifier. I mean honestly if we are talking the GOAT shouldn't they have gotten EVERY MVP during the tenure in the league?

[Mattsanity]

Originally Posted by l0st1

MVP award is such a sketchy qualifier. I mean honestly if we are talking the GOAT shouldn't they have gotten EVERY MVP during the tenure in the league?

yeah, I know what you mean. Lebron should've been the MVP like 5 straight seasons since 2009, including this season

[JBKB]

There are far too many variables to put together a formula of who is the GOAT.

If we go by championships, then Bill Russell is GOAT. Do we determine GOAT by great offense or defense, or must the GOAT possess both? Does offense carry more wait than defense, or is it a tie? What about era? How do we measure competition across eras? What about health, training and equipment? Surely training equipment has become more advanced over the years, and the healthcare of today benefits today's players far more than the healthcare of the past did for yesterday's players.

If GOAT were a fact, then there would be no disagreement about who is GOAT. GOAT is simply an opinion that cannot be proven right nor wrong. There are hardcore Wilt Chamberlain fans who say Wilt is GOAT. I've also heard some say Magic is the GOAT. In fact, I've even heard some argue why Larry Bird is the GOAT. Who is right and who is wrong? Well, we don't know because it's all just an opinion. Someone can technically put forth an argument that Luke Walton is among the greatest players to ever play the game, and I personally have a wonderfully written article that outlines Luke's amazing talent during his Lakers tenure.

[BEEZ]

Not to knock or discredit anyone, but its hard for me as a older gentleman to see 16-25 year olds proclaim Jordan the best when you have never seen other greats play. This age bracket even caught the tail end of MJ "Dominance" as a player. I dont know if there is a specific GOAT. But there is a triumvirate IMO of Wilt, Kareem, MJ in no particular order and then its the next tier. There have been so many GREAT players through time, Magic, Oscar Robertson, Tim Duncan, Bill Russell. Too much talent. Michael Jordan making basketball relevant has no bearing on what happens on the court and that gets blurred to often in this goat discussion. It is whats happened on the court and thats it. Kareem makes a case, Wilt makes a case and so does Jordan. When I see people say no one will ever supplant Jordan, that makes no sense. Its called the circle of life and at some point someone else will come along better. It may have been Kobe, it may be Lebron or Durant, or some young boy thats sitting on the bench in AAU just awaiting his turn.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by l0st1

MVP award is such a sketchy qualifier. I mean honestly if we are talking the GOAT shouldn't they have gotten EVERY MVP during the tenure in the league?

Sir Charles and The Mailman both got MVP awards during Mike's prime so what's that worth? No one has gotten every MVP award, it's too subjective - it's an easy argument to make that Kareem was jobbed out of a couple in 70s just like Mike was in the 90s

[Mattsanity]

Originally Posted by e-monk

Sir Charles and The Mailman both got MVP awards during Mike's prime so what's that worth? No one has gotten every MVP award, it's too subjective - it's an easy argument to make that Kareem was jobbed out of a couple in 70s just like Mike was in the 90s

That's why Kareem's 6 MVP's can't be argued against Jordan. This is like saying Nash > O'Neal because he won 1 more MVP.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Mattsanity

That's why Kareem's 6 MVP's can't be argued against Jordan. This is like saying Nash > O'Neal because he won 1 more MVP.

or you could say that Kareem should have 8 MVP awards - he was the most dominant player in the 70s in the same way that Mike was the most dominant in the 90s - and that + voter fatigue swayed by nice narrative is about all you can take away in either case

[Floods]

Or you could just ignore MVP awards, since they're meaningless.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Floods

Or you could just ignore MVP awards, since they're meaningless.

except that they're not meaningless - they're flawed and subjective but not entirely meaningless - they're usually close to right despite odd exceptions and if you know a thing or two contextually (like say Sir Charles got traded and the Suns were suddenly relevant etc) then you can kind of decipher what was happening in the voters minds

your real problem here is that there is really no objective metric at all when it comes to comparing two different players from different eras, especially players at different positions with vastlyy different roles and responsibilities and in fact it's a phrase like "the greatest of all time" that is ultimately meaningless

[Floods]

They're entirely meaningless. Because they're not earned, they're given. It's based entirely on the opinions of a select group of subjective people who don't even try to hide their bias. That's a bullshit award if there ever was one. The credentials of the people holding these votes don't mean dick, because they're doing an awful job. I don't care who they are.

If the award had any real credibility, then Jordan would have won it every single year from 87-88 through 97-98, excluding his two retirement years. After Jordan's second retirement, Shaq should have won it the next five seaons, up until 03-04. But he didn't, despite clearly being the most dominant force in the league. LeBron should be working on his fifth straight MVP right now. But he's not, Shaq didn't, and Jordan didn't, because the MVP voters have the attention spans of ADHD schoolgirls and always want the new people to win it. They only care about novelty.

[Da Grinch]

Originally Posted by Floods

They're entirely meaningless. Because they're not earned, they're given. It's based entirely on the opinions of a select group of subjective people who don't even try to hide their bias. That's a bullshit award if there ever was one. The credentials of the people holding these votes don't mean dick, because they're doing an awful job. I don't care who they are.

If the award had any real credibility, then Jordan would have won it every single year from 87-88 through 97-98, excluding his two retirement years. After Jordan's second retirement, Shaq should have won it the next five seaons, up until 03-04. But he didn't, despite clearly being the most dominant force in the league. LeBron should be working on his fifth straight MVP right now. But he's not, Shaq didn't, and Jordan didn't, because the MVP voters have the attention spans of ADHD schoolgirls and always want the new people to win it. They only care about novelty.

on this i agree , they should go back to letting players vote for the award.