MVP competition of GOAT-caliber players

[Roundball_Rock]

This thread looks at the MVP competition various GOAT-caliber player faced. I will look at the top 5 finishers in MVP voting not just in the years they won but in the period they were strong contenders to be MVP to get a better idea of what players were consistent MVP caliber players during the respective eras. I have limited this thread to KAJ, MJ, Wilt, Russell, LeBron, Magic and Bird.

One thing that really sticks out is Wilt and Russell played in the toughest era to win MVP's. They had to face not only each other, that is another strong GOAT candidate (KAJ, MJ, Wilt, Russell) but also had three other top 15 players in West, Baylor, Oscar. The MVP obviously is a regular season award and arguably if you are looking at the RS only Oscar and Baylor both are top 10 all-time. No one else had that level of competition for MVP's. Only the 80's come close with Magic, Bird, KAJ early and MJ late along with other top 15 types like Moses and Dr. J.


LeBron:

2006: Nash, LeBron, Dirk, Kobe, Billups.

2007: Dirk, Nash, Kobe, Duncan, LeBron.

2008: Kobe, Paul, KG, LeBron, Howard.

2009: LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Howard, Paul.

2010: LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Howard, Wade.

2011: Rose, Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Durant.

2012: LeBron, Durant, Paul, Kobe, Parker.

2013: LeBron, Durant, Anthony, Paul, Kobe.

2014: Durant, LeBron, Griffin, Noah, Harden.


Jordan:



1987: Magic, Jordan, Bird, McHale, Wilkins.

1988: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Barkley, Drexler.

1989: Magic, Jordan, Malone, Ewing, Hakeem.

1990: Magic, Barkley, Jordan, Malone, Ewing.

1991: Jordan, Magic, Robinson, Barkley, Malone.

1992: Jordan, Drexler, Robinson, Malone, Pippen.

1993: Barkley, Hakeem, Jordan, Ewing, Wilkins.

1994: Hakeem, Robinson, Pippen, Shaq, Ewing.

1995: Robinson, Shaq, Malone, Ewing, Hakeem.

1996: Jordan, Robinson, Penny, Hakeem, Pippen.

1997: Malone, Jordan, Hill, T. Hardaway, Rice.

1998: Jordan, Malone, Payton, Shaq, Duncan.



Magic/Bird



1980: Kareem, Erving, Gervin, Bird, three players tied for 5th.

1981: Erving, Bird, Kareem, Moses, Gervin.

1982: Moses, Bird, Erving, Parish, Williams.

1983: Moses, Bird, Magic, Moncrief, Erving.

1984: Bird, King, Magic, Kareem, Thomas.

1985: Bird, Magic, Moses, Kareem, Cummings.

1986: Bird, Wilkins, Magic, Hakeem, Kareem.

1987: Magic, Jordan, Bird, McHale, Wilkins.

1988: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Barkley, Drexler.

1989: Magic, Jordan, Malone, Ewing, Hakeem.

1990: Magic, Barkley, Jordan, Malone, Ewing.

1991: Jordan, Magic, Robinson, Barkley, Malone.



KAJ in the 70’s



1970: Reed, West, Kareem, Frazier, two players tied for 5th.

1971: Kareem, West, Bing, Reed, Oscar.

1972: Kareem, West, Wilt, Havelick, Haywood.

1973: Cowens, Kareem, Archibald, Wilt, Havelick.

1974: Kareem, McAdoo, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes.

1975: McAdoo, Cowens, Hayes, Barry, Kareem.

1976: Kareem, McAdoo, Cowens, Barry, McGinnes.

1977: Kareem, Walton, Maravich, Lanier, Erving.

1978: Walton, Gervin, Thompson, Kareem, Davis.

1979: Moses, Gervin, Hayes, Kareem, Dandrige.



Wilt/Russell in the 60’s and 50’s



1957: Cousy, Pettit, Arizin, Yardley, two tied.

1958: Russell, Schayes, Yardley, Pettit, Stokes.

1959: Pettit, Russell, Baylor, Cousy, Arizin.

1960: Wilt, Russell, Pettit, Cousy, Baylor.

1961: Russell, Pettit, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar.

1962: Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Baylor, West.

1963: Russell, Baylor, Oscar, Pettit, West.

1964: Oscar, Wilt, Russell, Pettit, West.

1965: Russell, Oscar, West, S. Jones, Wilt.

1966: Wilt, West, Oscar, Russell, two tied.

1967: Wilt, Thurmond, Russell, Oscar, Barry.

1968: Wilt, Wilkens, Baylor, Bing, Oscar.

1969: Unseld, Reed, Cunningham, Russell, Baylor.

[SexSymbol]

Yeah, we know who played in the NBA

[played0ut]

These comparison threads are good. Gives depth and shows different perspectives in how people judge/gauge players.

i.e, If Bird's Celtics were in a different era w/o Magic, how many would he win and how would that affect his overall standing

[dubeta]

LeBron's competition is way tougher

[Roundball_Rock]

These comparison threads are good. Gives depth and shows different perspectives in how people judge/gauge players.

i.e, If Bird's Celtics were in a different era w/o Magic, how many would he win and how would that affect his overall standing

Yeah, it helps put things in context. Wilt would have had more MVP's had he played in any other era so his 4 MVP's need to be judged accordingly.

[played0ut]

Yeah, it helps put things in context. Wilt would have had more MVP's had he played in any other era so his 4 MVP's need to be judged accordingly.

You're right.

I've always considered luck a huge part of the equation in being ranked on GOAT lists. Teammates, other stars, and FO (front office SO so so ****ing much).

But unfortunately, context isn't considered as much (understandably) on GOAT rankings.

That's why I believe there are BOAT (Best of all time) lists and GOAT lists, where one list judges based solely on individual skill/impact, and the other an 'overall' list.



Michael Jordan was the perfect storm.

-Lack of a 'true' rival who can maybe steal some rings (though i firmly believe with teammates being equal, he would still come on top more than not by sheer force of his competitive drive)
-Great FO (smart draft pickings, not idiots)
-Great coach (if Jordan had crappy coaches he probably wouldn't win as much)
-Great agent (sponsorships, his 'spectacular' playstyle elevated basketball popularity around the world at a time when NBA just started being available globally)
-Actual BOAT skills




If he came in an earlier or later area he probably wouldn't be as big.

[Roundball_Rock]

You're right.

I've always considered luck a huge part of the equation in being ranked on GOAT lists. Teammates, other stars, and FO (front office SO so so ****ing much).

But unfortunately, context isn't considered as much (understandably) on GOAT rankings.

That's why I believe there are BOAT (Best of all time) lists and GOAT lists, where one list judges based solely on individual skill/impact, and the other an 'overall' list.



Michael Jordan was the perfect storm.

-Lack of a 'true' rival who can maybe steal some rings (though i firmly believe with teammates being equal, he would still come on top more than not by sheer force of his competitive drive)
-Great FO (smart draft pickings, not idiots)
-Great coach (if Jordan had crappy coaches he probably wouldn't win as much)
-Great agent (sponsorships, his 'spectacular' playstyle elevated basketball popularity around the world at a time when NBA just started being available globally)
-Actual BOAT skills




If he came in an earlier or later area he probably wouldn't be as big.

MJ stans will crucify you but what you said is the truth. Moreover, MJ had the perfect timing of his team hitting its prime after LA/BOS/DET declined and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or Duncan Spurs rose. If MJ was born a few years earlier or later his resume would be weaker as a result of greater competition.

[SamuraiSWISH]

MJ stans will crucify you but what you said is the truth. Moreover, MJ had the perfect timing of his team hitting its prime after LA/BOS/DET declined and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or Duncan Spurs rose. If MJ was born a few years earlier or later his resume would be weaker as a result of greater competition.
A "Bulls fan" saying this ...

Jumping through hoops, a gold medal @ mental gymnastics to throw shade at Jordan. This could literally be said about ANY player.

Particularly James, whose cowardly post 2010 decision NBA he has faced the weakest MVP / team competition I've seen in my basketball viewing lifetime.

He's in his prime, and his ONLY competition is young / early prime Kevin Durant.

- Young MJ had MVP comp from prime Magic, prime Bird, prime Nique
- Prime MJ had MVP comp from peak Drexler, peak Barkley, peak Hakeem, peak Nique, peak Ewing young D. Rob.
- Past Prime MJ had MVP comp from prime Shaq, peak Malone, peak GP, young Penny, young Hill

[played0ut]

MJ stans will crucify you but what you said is the truth. Moreover, MJ had the perfect timing of his team hitting its prime after LA/BOS/DET declined and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or Duncan Spurs rose. If MJ was born a few years earlier or later his resume would be weaker as a result of greater competition.

heh I'm a huge MJ fan but i'm not an idiot.


**** the stans. That's why i'm in the red lol

[JT123]

A "Bulls fan" saying this ...

Jumping through hoops, a gold medal @ mental gymnastics to throw shade at Jordan. This could literally be said about ANY player.

Particularly James, whose cowardly post 2010 decision NBA he has faced the weakest MVP / team competition I've seen in my basketball viewing lifetime.

He's in his prime, and his ONLY competition is young / early prime Kevin Durant.

- Young MJ had MVP comp from prime Magic, prime Bird, prime Nique
- Prime MJ had MVP comp from peak Drexler, peak Barkley, peak Hakeem, peak Nique, peak Ewing young D. Rob.
- Past Prime MJ had MVP comp from prime Shaq, peak Malone, peak GP, young Penny, young Hill
meltdown alert! :roll: :roll: :roll:

[G.O.A.T]

Probably should be it's own thread, but here are the years off the top my head where the MVP competition was the toughest.

1962 - Russell wins despite Wilts 50/28 and 100 point game, Oscars triple double and Baylor's near 40/20 without practicing. Bellamy and Pettit were almost 30/20 guys and Jerry West and Richie Guerin made a total of seven 30 ppg scorers in a nine team league. Enough to go around.

1990 - Magic wins because some writers hated Barkley but in truth Hakeem (24-14-3-3-5) and MJ (33-7-7-3-1) probably had the best case for the award. Malone went 31-11, Robinson 25/12/3/2/4 and Ewing had maybe his best season 28/11 nearly 60% shooting and they are afterthoughts. Crazy deep year.

1993 - Barkley won but should have finished third here. MJ and Hakeem again. By now they were the clear #1 and #2 i think. Another big year for Ewing at a bad time, Nique, Robinson, Shaq, Malone all had good years too.

[SouBeachTalents]

1987 was probably the most stacked year ever

1. Magic
2. Jordan
3. Bird
4. McHale
5. Dominique
6. Barkley
7. Hakeem
8. Isiah
9. Fat Lever
10. Moses

Malone finished tied for 12th with Parish as well

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

A "Bulls fan" saying this ...

Jumping through hoops, a gold medal @ mental gymnastics to throw shade at Jordan. This could literally be said about ANY player.

Particularly James, whose cowardly post 2010 decision NBA he has faced the weakest MVP / team competition I've seen in my basketball viewing lifetime.

He's in his prime, and his ONLY competition is young / early prime Kevin Durant.

- Young MJ had MVP comp from prime Magic, prime Bird, prime Nique
- Prime MJ had MVP comp from peak Drexler, peak Barkley, peak Hakeem, peak Nique, peak Ewing young D. Rob.
- Past Prime MJ had MVP comp from prime Shaq, peak Malone, peak GP, young Penny, young Hill

Nothing he said was outlandish. Yes there are other players just as fortunate, naturally, but they were talking about MJ here.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah, it helps put things in context. Wilt would have had more MVP's had he played in any other era so his 4 MVP's need to be judged accordingly.

I have mentioned it many times before, but the MVP voting, which was done by the players at that time, was very suspicious on several occasions in the 60's.

Wilt not only won the ROY in '60, he easily won the MVP. And that is the baseline for the voting in '62. Russell and his Celtics had nearly identical seasons in both '60 and '62. And, Wilt's teams had nearly an identical mark in both years, as well. However, while Wilt had an amazing season in '60, he was clearly far more dominant in '62.

I will be the first to admit that Wilt, playing on a 31-49 team, didn't deserve an MVP in '63...albeit, he played his heart out. But still, in a season in which he ran away with the scoring title by 10 ppg, led the league in rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark, to go along with leading the league in 12 more of their 22 statistical categories...to finish seventh was absurd. He was behind Red Kerr, whom, in their seasonal H2H's, he outscored per game, 43-19, including two games by margins of 60-21 and 70-14 was just ridiculous. Not only that, but Terry Dischinger, playing on a 25-55 team, had more first place votes.

Then, Wilt took basically the same exact roster to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals the next season, and still didn't win the MVP. Oscar, playing on a far more stacked team, that went 55-25, won it.

And if there was ever evidence of an "anti-Wilt" sentiment, it came in the 68-69 season. Unseld (who won the MVP), Reed (who came in 2nd), and Russell (who came in 4th) all finished ahead of Wilt, who was nowhere to be found in the voting.

In that 68-69 season, only Unseld's team had a better record, at 57-25 to Wilt's 55-27. Chamberlain's Lakers had a better record than Reed's Knicks, and were well ahead of Russell's Celtics. And, in the team H2H's, Wilt's Lakers went 3-3 against Unseld's, 4-2 against Russell's, and 5-1 against Reed's.

Then, in their personal H2H battles, Chamberlain just crushed all three of them. On top of all of that, Wilt was statistically, considerably greater than all three, as well. Add in the fact that teammate West missed 21 games (and LA went 12-9 in them), and teammate Baylor, who also finished ahead of Wilt in the voting, missed six games, and the Lakers went 5-1 in those games.

And while Russell and Wilt each won four MVPs in the decade of the 60's, it was interesting that Wilt held a 7-2 margin in first-team All-NBA selections in their ten years in the league together.

[SHAQisGOAT]

People always gotta consider stuff like this when comparing MVP's and it also goes for other accolades, individual or collectively.

[Sarcastic]

You should include the age of all the people listed, and where they were in their career.

For example, Kevin Durant was 21 years old in 2010 when he finished 2nd in voting. Much easier to beat a 21 year old (a player that young has never won) than it is to beat an all time great in his prime/peak (1989 Magic Johnson).


Not all MVPs awards are equal.

[TheMan]

MJ stans will crucify you but what you said is the truth. Moreover, MJ had the perfect timing of his team hitting its prime after LA/BOS/DET declined and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or Duncan Spurs rose. If MJ was born a few years earlier or later his resume would be weaker as a result of greater competition.
You're a disgusting POS who's only purpose is to diminish MJ and prop up James, get the fvck outta here, ph@ggot :mad:

[dubeta]

You're a disgusting POS who's only purpose is to diminish MJ and prop up James, get the fvck outta here, ph@ggot :mad:

MJ is a present day DeMar Derozan u mad?

[JT123]

You're a disgusting POS who's only purpose is to diminish MJ and prop up James, get the fvck outta here, ph@ggot :mad:
20four? :eek:

[BlkMambaGOAT]

MJ is a present day DeMar Derozan u mad?
ARREST THIS MAN

[guy]

Yeah, it helps put things in context. Wilt would have had more MVP's had he played in any other era so his 4 MVP's need to be judged accordingly.

Ummm Wilt played in a league for many years that was a quarter of the size it was in later eras. So there's a good chance you are completely wrong, might even have less.

[TheMan]

MJ is a present day DeMar Derozan u mad?
You saying this has no affect on me whatsoever, you're literally the worst poster here.

Sit down, kid.

[SamuraiSWISH]

You saying this has no affect on me whatsoever, you're literally the worst poster here.

Sit down, kid.
Past his bed time too.

[Dragonyeuw]

MJ stans will crucify you but what you said is the truth. Moreover, MJ had the perfect timing of his team hitting its prime after LA/BOS/DET declined and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or Duncan Spurs rose. If MJ was born a few years earlier or later his resume would be weaker as a result of greater competition.

The same could be said about the Shaq/ Kobe and Duncan Spurs, they came around after the Bulls dynasty ended. Unless you're saying none of the bulls squads are capable of beating any of those teams? If they all existed in the same decade, none of those teams have as many rings as they wound up having. The Pistons dynasty also benefitted from Boston aging, and magic's injury in 89. They benefitted in 90 from the bulls being one year away from hitting their peak, and a Pippen migraine while still being taken to 7 games. Timing and circumstance is everything in sports, and pretty much can be applied to a number of teams/players if one is going to actually make a fair argument.

As to the thread, Lebron's MVP competition has been weak since 2012. All the 00 stars are past prime, Durant, Melo, Paul, Rose hasn't played in 2 years, Howard hasn't been relevant since 2011. MJ faced far greater prime competition for his awards.

[Psileas]

Ummm Wilt played in a league for many years that was a quarter of the size it was in later eras. So there's a good chance you are completely wrong, might even have less.

First of all, it was one third of what it is when he won most of his MVP's. Second and more important, the size of the league is not directly proportional with the number of MVP caliber players. It doesn't mean that in the late 60s there were 3 times less legit MVP candidates than nowadays - how many legit MVP candidates have there existed in the last 5 years or so apart from James and Durant? Wilt playing in a league with more superstar delusion (less superstars per team) would probably enhance his individual dominance and MVP chances.

[Roundball_Rock]

Nothing he said was outlandish. Yes there are other players just as fortunate, naturally, but they were talking about MJ here.

Exactly. Does it even matter? If MJ had 4 MVP's and 5 rings would that make him a lesser player? I only point that out because people put too much stock into raw numbers, i.e. the simplistic 6>5 type thinkers. If you switched MJ and Wilt their accolades and team achievements would be different--but they would remain the same players.

It is funny Samuri implies I am not a real Bulls fan because I don't worship MJ. This is a person who constantly "throws shade at" (Samuri and TheMan love to say that--are they alts? :oldlol: ) Rose, Pippen, and Noah. You know, a majority of Bulls' legends...


He's in his prime, and his ONLY competition is young / early prime Kevin Durant.

Kobe, Howard and Chris Paul have consistently been among the top finishers in MVP voting during those years. Wade was up there as well in 09' and 10' (3rd and 5th).


- Young MJ had MVP comp from prime Magic, prime Bird, prime Nique
- Prime MJ had MVP comp from peak Drexler, peak Barkley, peak Hakeem, peak Nique, peak Ewing young D. Rob.
- Past Prime MJ had MVP comp from prime Shaq, peak Malone, peak GP, young Penny, young Hill

You are naming anyone who ever received top 5 MVP consideration during those years. Several of those people were not real MVP threats.

*Wilkins finished 2nd once but his next best finishes were 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 11th.
*Drexler finished 2nd once but had only one other top 5 finish, a 5th place, and only three top 10 finishes (6th and 10th were the other ones).
*Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP voting.
*Penny finished 3rd once. His only other years receiving MVP votes resulted in a 10th place and 16th place finish.
*Hill had a 3rd place in 97' but other than that it was a pair of 8th's and a pair of 9th's.
*Payton also finished 3rd once but never was in the top 5 in any other year.

MJ's top MVP competitors were K. Malone and David Robinson. LeBron's thus far have been Durant and Kobe. There is no massive difference there.

It is interesting you invoked Wilkins, Drexler, Penny, Hill and Payton. MJ's teammate had a MVP voting record comparable to them. It helps to have one of your competitors on your team, although LeBron had that with Wade as well.


People always gotta consider stuff like this when comparing MVP's and it also goes for other accolades, individual or collectively.

Exactly. Things need to be placed into context.


The same could be said about the Shaq/ Kobe and Duncan Spurs, they came around after the Bulls dynasty ended.

This is true. That should be factored in when people say things like Duncan>Bird because 5>3. Compare the relative competition they faced (which favors Bird), although in Duncan's favor you also have to look at what he had to work with relative to Bird.



First of all, it was one third of what it is when he won most of his MVP's. Second and more important, the size of the league is not directly proportional with the number of MVP caliber players. It doesn't mean that in the late 60s there were 3 times less legit MVP candidates than nowadays - how many legit MVP candidates have there existed in the last 5 years or so apart from James and Durant? Wilt playing in a league with more superstar delusion (less superstars per team) would probably enhance his individual dominance and MVP chances.

:applause:

Exactly. There were two top 4 players of all-time in the 60's, three more top 15 players in Baylor, West and Oscar and several other legends like Petit, Cousy, and Havelick around. Only the 80's can come close to that deep a MVP pool.

I agree. Wilt's individual impact would be greater in a diluted league. He had to face legitimate competition every night in the 60's since there were so few teams. Today you play average starters most nights and weak ones on some other nights. How often does a LeBron or Durant face a good opposite number?


I have mentioned it many times before, but the MVP voting, which was done by the players at that time, was very suspicious on several occasions in the 60's.

Wilt not only won the ROY in '60, he easily won the MVP. And that is the baseline for the voting in '62. Russell and his Celtics had nearly identical seasons in both '60 and '62. And, Wilt's teams had nearly an identical mark in both years, as well. However, while Wilt had an amazing season in '60, he was clearly far more dominant in '62.

I will be the first to admit that Wilt, playing on a 31-49 team, didn't deserve an MVP in '63...albeit, he played his heart out. But still, in a season in which he ran away with the scoring title by 10 ppg, led the league in rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark, to go along with leading the league in 12 more of their 22 statistical categories...to finish seventh was absurd. He was behind Red Kerr, whom, in their seasonal H2H's, he outscored per game, 43-19, including two games by margins of 60-21 and 70-14 was just ridiculous. Not only that, but Terry Dischinger, playing on a 25-55 team, had more first place votes.

Then, Wilt took basically the same exact roster to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals the next season, and still didn't win the MVP. Oscar, playing on a far more stacked team, that went 55-25, won it.

And if there was ever evidence of an "anti-Wilt" sentiment, it came in the 68-69 season. Unseld (who won the MVP), Reed (who came in 2nd), and Russell (who came in 4th) all finished ahead of Wilt, who was nowhere to be found in the voting.

In that 68-69 season, only Unseld's team had a better record, at 57-25 to Wilt's 55-27. Chamberlain's Lakers had a better record than Reed's Knicks, and were well ahead of Russell's Celtics. And, in the team H2H's, Wilt's Lakers went 3-3 against Unseld's, 4-2 against Russell's, and 5-1 against Reed's.

Then, in their personal H2H battles, Chamberlain just crushed all three of them. On top of all of that, Wilt was statistically, considerably greater than all three, as well. Add in the fact that teammate West missed 21 games (and LA went 12-9 in them), and teammate Baylor, who also finished ahead of Wilt in the voting, missed six games, and the Lakers went 5-1 in those games.

And while Russell and Wilt each won four MVPs in the decade of the 60's, it was interesting that Wilt held a 7-2 margin in first-team All-NBA selections in their ten years in the league together.


:applause:

[Roundball_Rock]

Look at the all-time MVP vote shares to get another idea of how many strong MVP candidates were in each era (this needs to be put into context with active players since they are still adding to their record but it is a gauge for retired players):

Members of the Hall of Fame are marked with an asterisk (*).

Rank Player MVP Shares

1. Michael Jordan* 8.138
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6.203
3. LeBron James 6.100
4. Larry Bird* 5.693
5. Magic Johnson* 5.129
6. Bill Russell* 4.827
7. Shaquille O'Neal 4.380
8. Karl Malone* 4.296
9. Tim Duncan 4.278
10. Wilt Chamberlain* 4.269
11. Kobe Bryant 4.206
12. David Robinson* 3.123
13. Kevin Durant 3.005
14. Moses Malone* 2.873
15. Kevin Garnett 2.753
16. Bob Pettit* 2.628
17. Hakeem Olajuwon* 2.611
18. Oscar Robertson* 2.479
19. Charles Barkley* 2.438
20. Steve Nash 2.429
21. Jerry West* 2.090
22. Dirk Nowitzki 1.810
23. Elgin Baylor* 1.659
24. Allen Iverson 1.567
25. Bob McAdoo* 1.494
26. Chris Paul 1.459
27. Patrick Ewing* 1.424
28. Julius Erving* 1.407
29. Dave Cowens* 1.338
30. Dwight Howard 1.249
31. Willis Reed* 1.073
32. Derrick Rose 0.981
33. Alonzo Mourning* 0.968
34. Jason Kidd 0.933
35. George Gervin* 0.911
36. Bob Cousy* 0.882
37. Tracy McGrady 0.855
38. Dominique Wilkins* 0.849
39. Gary Payton* 0.823
40. Dwyane Wade 0.793
41. Clyde Drexler* 0.778
42. Scottie Pippen* 0.716
43. Sidney Moncrief 0.695
44. Dolph Schayes* 0.690
45. Wes Unseld* 0.639
46. Bernard King* 0.625
47. Rick Barry* 0.592
48. Chris Webber 0.588
49. Elvin Hayes* 0.571
50. Grant Hill 0.529

Active

Rank Player MVP Shares

1. LeBron James 6.100
2. Tim Duncan 4.278
3. Kobe Bryant 4.206
4. Kevin Durant 3.005
5. Kevin Garnett 2.753
6. Steve Nash 2.429
7. Dirk Nowitzki 1.810
8. Chris Paul 1.459
9. Dwight Howard 1.249
10. Derrick Rose 0.981

[3peated]

2011: Rose, Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Durant.

Still salty as fk about this. It will forever be the reason I hate Rose and don't respect him.

[G.O.A.T]

2011: Rose, Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Durant.

Still salty as fk about this. It will forever be the reason I hate Rose and don't respect him.

The NBA has really done a poor job of picking MVP's the last decade.

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011 are all not the best choice for that season.

[Warfan]

2011: Rose, Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Durant.

Still salty as fk about this. It will forever be the reason I hate Rose and don't respect him.

:biggums: It's not like he voted. He had a great year and led Chicago to a league best 62 wins with Noah and Boozer missing a combined 57 games. Youngest player to ever win it :applause:

[GODbe]

One thing that really sticks out is Wilt and Russell played in the toughest era to win MVP's.

http://myreactiongifs.com/gifs/nicolascageconfusedemotions.gif

[Roundball_Rock]

2011: Rose, Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Durant.

Still salty as fk about this. It will forever be the reason I hate Rose and don't respect him.

As a Kobe fan or just because Rose won? If it is the former I don't understand it. Kobe wasn't going to win absent Rose.

The Bulls went from #1 in the league in consecutive years with Rose to #5 and #4 (45 and 48 wins--they won 62 with Rose in 11' and had a 67 win pace with Rose in 12') in their own conference without Rose. Their offense went from #11 and #5 with Rose to #28 and #30 without him.

Often teams can fill a void for a guard much easier than players at other positions; this did not even come close to happening with Rose. Rose deserved his MVP.


The NBA has really done a poor job of picking MVP's the last decade.

Will they ever formally announce criteria for that award and designate it as a "best player award"? It seems the MVP in the NBA is the most disputed of any of the major sports.

[tmacattack33]

1995: Robinson, Shaq, Malone, Ewing, Hakeem.

1996: Jordan, Robinson, Penny, Hakeem, Pippen.


That's some good competition right there.

[guy]

First of all, it was one third of what it is when he won most of his MVP's. Second and more important, the size of the league is not directly proportional with the number of MVP caliber players. It doesn't mean that in the late 60s there were 3 times less legit MVP candidates than nowadays - how many legit MVP candidates have there existed in the last 5 years or so apart from James and Durant? Wilt playing in a league with more superstar delusion (less superstars per team) would probably enhance his individual dominance and MVP chances.

It was just an estimate. For 7 seasons of his career, the league had 8-9 teams. Thats between a quarter and a third of the size of the league today.

The media/fans will always mostly focus on the top 2 candidates. That doesn't change with the amount of teams increasing. Of course its not directly proportional, but it does effect their chances. Its one thing if the size of the talent pool stayed the same while the number of teams just increased, but thats clearly not the case as the sport got so much more popular in later eras (much to players like Wilt's credit) with more people playing. So the idea that Wilt would have more playing in any other era is a ridiculous assumption. In fact, its not like back then every year he was losing he was always 2nd place. He was 2nd place only two other times, and only one of those was behind Bill Russell. So with that being the case, we are supposed to assume its going to be easier for him if he's playing in an era where at least 3 of Bird/Magic/Jordan/Hakeem/Barkley are legit candidates for example? (By the way, I hope it goes without saying that he's not putting up the astronomical numbers he was putting up).

I don't really understand your superstar dilution comment. Two of the 5 best players in the league in that era, Baylor and West, played on the same team. Of course that helps Wilt's chances. Put both of those guys on different teams in that era, which is much more likely to happen in later eras, and they probably become greater candidates for MVPs. It might not be a coincidence that neither of them won MVP.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Nothing he said was outlandish. Yes there are other players just as fortunate, naturally, but they were talking about MJ here.
Sure it is. MJ's Bulls faced many great players, and teams. He's fortunate he didn't play in the 80s? Why? Whose to say with a competent cast that he had in the 90s were with him in the 80s that he wouldn't still win championships? MJ is better than Bird, and Magic. Clearly. It's a dumb thing to even mention or hold against someone. This isn't a LeBron situation where he stacked the deck in his own favor through free agency.

[dankok8]

Jordan's MVP competition is a bit overrated. Lots of big names like Hakeem Barkley but they played on mediocre crap teams in Houston and Philly, respectively. After 1988 Bird was practically done and after 1991 Magic was done.

Bird had very rough competition for MVP's. Kareem and Erving still in their primes, Moses, Magic, Jordan near the end of his reign...

[riseagainst]

Jordan's MVP competition is a bit overrated. Lots of big names like Hakeem Barkley but they played on mediocre crap teams in Houston and Philly, respectively. After 1988 Bird was practically done and after 1991 Magic was done.

Bird had very rough competition for MVP's. Kareem and Erving still in their primes, Moses, Magic, Jordan near the end of his reign...

80s is definitely the GOAT era.

[JT123]

Jordan's MVP competition is a bit overrated. Lots of big names like Hakeem Barkley but they played on mediocre crap teams in Houston and Philly, respectively. After 1988 Bird was practically done and after 1991 Magic was done.

Bird had very rough competition for MVP's. Kareem and Erving still in their primes, Moses, Magic, Jordan near the end of his reign...
:applause: MJ had no competition whatsoever in the 90's. Lebron goes up against guys like Kobe, Pierce, Carmelo, and Durant. Jordan went up against Reggie Miller and John Starks. :lol

[TheMan]

Jordan's MVP competition is a bit overrated. Lots of big names like Hakeem Barkley but they played on mediocre crap teams in Houston and Philly, respectively. After 1988 Bird was practically done and after 1991 Magic was done.

Bird had very rough competition for MVP's. Kareem and Erving still in their primes, Moses, Magic, Jordan near the end of his reign...
So what, MJ is still better than all those players you mentioned.

[JT123]

Exactly. Does it even matter? If MJ had 4 MVP's and 5 rings would that make him a lesser player? I only point that out because people put too much stock into raw numbers, i.e. the simplistic 6>5 type thinkers. If you switched MJ and Wilt their accolades and team achievements would be different--but they would remain the same players.

It is funny Samuri implies I am not a real Bulls fan because I don't worship MJ. This is a person who constantly "throws shade at" (Samuri and TheMan love to say that--are they alts? :oldlol: ) Rose, Pippen, and Noah. You know, a majority of Bulls' legends...



Kobe, Howard and Chris Paul have consistently been among the top finishers in MVP voting during those years. Wade was up there as well in 09' and 10' (3rd and 5th).



You are naming anyone who ever received top 5 MVP consideration during those years. Several of those people were not real MVP threats.

*Wilkins finished 2nd once but his next best finishes were 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 11th.
*Drexler finished 2nd once but had only one other top 5 finish, a 5th place, and only three top 10 finishes (6th and 10th were the other ones).
*Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP voting.
*Penny finished 3rd once. His only other years receiving MVP votes resulted in a 10th place and 16th place finish.
*Hill had a 3rd place in 97' but other than that it was a pair of 8th's and a pair of 9th's.
*Payton also finished 3rd once but never was in the top 5 in any other year.

MJ's top MVP competitors were K. Malone and David Robinson. LeBron's thus far have been Durant and Kobe. There is no massive difference there.

It is interesting you invoked Wilkins, Drexler, Penny, Hill and Payton. MJ's teammate had a MVP voting record comparable to them. It helps to have one of your competitors on your team, although LeBron had that with Wade as well.
Damn, Roundball dropping knowledge on these Jordan mythologists! :eek:

[aboss4real24]

Rose shouldnt have won in 2011

n nash shouldnt have won either of the 2 mvps he got

[TheMan]

Roundball Rock, I ain't nobody's alt. Please point out where I've talked shit about Pippen, Rose or Noah. Unlike you, I respect Bulls greats and don't go around making thread after thread denigrating their achievements...

Go ahead, point out any thread or post where I do that, I think it's Samurai who doesn't like Noah, I disagree with him, I loves me some Jo. I get called an MJ stan even though I'm a Bulls fan first, I didn't even follow MJ's Wizards years because I couldn't stand seeing him in another uniform. MJ is my favorite all time Bull, if that makes me a stan, so be it.

[Dragonyeuw]

:applause: MJ had no competition whatsoever in the 90's. Lebron goes up against guys like Kobe, Pierce, Carmelo, and Durant. Jordan went up against Reggie Miller and John Starks. :lol

You realize that Kobe called Reggie Miller the toughest cover he faced, right? There's nothing lol worthy about facing him like he was scrub competition. You also forget Clyde Drexler, Mitch Richmond, Nique, pre-injury Hill and Penny, Glove, Sprewell but please do go ahead with your cute little narrative.

What the 'Jordan's direct competition was weak' argument fails to address is that Jordan dominated an era that 1) wasn't tailor-made rule-wise for perimeter players to thrive and 2) still operated under conventional logic that dynasties were built around dominant bigs, not guards.

[TheMan]

You realize that Kobe called Reggie Miller the toughest cover he faced, right? There's nothing lol worthy about facing him like he was scrub competition. You also forget Clyde Drexler, Mitch Richmond, Nique, pre-injury Hill and Penny, Glove, Sprewell but please do go ahead with your cute little narrative.

What the 'Jordan's direct competition was weak' argument fails to address is that Jordan dominated an era that 1) wasn't tailor-made rule-wise for perimeter players to thrive and 2) still operated under conventional logic that dynasties were built around dominant bigs, not guards.
Ether

[Roundball_Rock]

Roundball Rock, I ain't nobody's alt.

I'll take your word for it. You and SS are the only ones who accuse me of being a faux Bulls fan (who do I root for then? The Sixers?) and both loving saying "throwing shade at MJ." Hence the suspicion that you were him. MJ is just one Bulls legend, albeit the premier one. Where is your outrage when SS bashes Pippen, Rose and Noah?


You also forget Clyde Drexler, Mitch Richmond, Nique, pre-injury Hill and Penny, Glove, Sprewell but please do go ahead with your cute little narrative.

I think he meant in the playoffs. Wilkins, Hill were SF's, Drexler and Richmond (the next best SG's of that era) were in the West the entire time and only faced MJ once (Drexler had a bum knee that series too). Penny, Payton were PG's. I don't think MJ ever faced Sprewell in the playoffs--if I recall correctly he was still in GS in 96--and Sprewell was a role player in New York anyway. It is a legitimate point that MJ played in a weak era at SG--and the best SG's other than him happened to be in the West. In contrast, and it came up comparing MJ and LeBron, LJ has faced Pierce and George multiple times in competitive series and faced Durant in the Finals. Carmelo is in the East so he likely will face LeBron at some point as well. LeBron is playing in a strong era for players at his position.

The two best perimeter players of the 90's were on the same team. That makes up for not having a great big man.

[guy]

Jordan's MVP competition is a bit overrated. Lots of big names like Hakeem Barkley but they played on mediocre crap teams in Houston and Philly, respectively. After 1988 Bird was practically done and after 1991 Magic was done.

Bird had very rough competition for MVP's. Kareem and Erving still in their primes, Moses, Magic, Jordan near the end of his reign...

Well Jordan played on an equally mediocre crap team in 1988 and still won MVP :confusedshrug:

Kareem was 33 in Bird's rookie season and didn't even average a double-double starting in Bird's 3rd season. Dr. J was 30 in Bird's rookie and in 81 was statistically one of the worst MVPs ever, and his numbers kept declining from there. Neither of these two were really a threat to Bird for a significant time in his career. Even how much of a threat Magic was is overstated. For a long time, he suffered from the fact that he played with Kareem. In fact, you can argue Jordan and Magic were bigger threats to each other in MVPs then Magic and Bird were (Jordan and Magic were top 2 in the same year 3x, Bird and Magic were top 2 in the same year 1x). Not saying either Jordan or Bird had it tougher then the other. Just saying you can easily pick apart anybody's competition just like this.

[Dragonyeuw]

You are naming anyone who ever received top 5 MVP consideration during those years. Several of those people were not real MVP threats.

*Wilkins finished 2nd once but his next best finishes were 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 11th.
*Drexler finished 2nd once but had only one other top 5 finish, a 5th place, and only three top 10 finishes (6th and 10th were the other ones).
*Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP voting.
*Penny finished 3rd once. His only other years receiving MVP votes resulted in a 10th place and 16th place finish.
*Hill had a 3rd place in 97' but other than that it was a pair of 8th's and a pair of 9th's.
*Payton also finished 3rd once but never was in the top 5 in any other year.

MJ's top MVP competitors were K. Malone and David Robinson. LeBron's thus far have been Durant and Kobe. There is no massive difference there.

:

What about Barkley and Hakeem? What were their top 5 finishes?

[guy]

Carmelo is in the East so he likely will face LeBron at some point as well. LeBron is playing in a strong era for players at his position.


They already have, and you as well most people don't even remember. Goes to show how much this argument really matters. Just another dumb argument to downplay Jordan's competition/prop up someone else's.

[JT123]

You realize that Kobe called Reggie Miller the toughest cover he faced, right? There's nothing lol worthy about facing him like he was scrub competition. You also forget Clyde Drexler, Mitch Richmond, Nique, pre-injury Hill and Penny, Glove, Sprewell but please do go ahead with your cute little narrative.

What the 'Jordan's direct competition was weak' argument fails to address is that Jordan dominated an era that 1) wasn't tailor-made rule-wise for perimeter players to thrive and 2) still operated under conventional logic that dynasties were built around dominant bigs, not guards.
Richmond was on a bad team, and wasn't even in Jordan's conference! :facepalm Glove and Sprewell were good players, but never anywhere near the conversation for best player in the game. How many injury free seasons did Penny and Hill have? 3? :roll:
Kobe called Miller a tough cover because he had to chase him around, but let's not act like Miller is some huge legend. Zero rings and no MVP's, basically a modern day Kyle Korver.

[Dragonyeuw]

I think he meant in the playoffs. Wilkins, Hill were SF's, Drexler and Richmond (the next best SG's of that era) were in the West the entire time and only faced MJ once (Drexler had a bum knee that series too). Penny, Payton were PG's. I don't think MJ ever faced Sprewell in the playoffs--if I recall correctly he was still in GS in 96--and Sprewell was a role player in New York anyway. It is a legitimate point that MJ played in a weak era at SG--and the best SG's other than him happened to be in the West. In contrast, and it came up comparing MJ and LeBron, LJ has faced Pierce and George multiple times in competitive series and faced Durant in the Finals. Carmelo is in the East so he likely will face LeBron at some point as well. LeBron is playing in a strong era for players at his position.

.

If he meant playoffs, Lebron hasn't faced Kobe in the playoffs nor do they play the same position, if we're scratching penny, payton, hill off the list due to not playing the same position then you'd need to do the same for Kobe. As far as direct playoff competition, Pierce and Durant are obviously legit, its a stretch to put George in that category though. He started out the year strong but came back to earth pretty hard as the season progressed. If we're talking about 'top tier' competition I don't think he's quite there yet.

And, despite the silly lol poke at Reggie by the other poster, MJ did face him in 98 and he was a tough cover all the way through his mid 30s.

[Roundball_Rock]

They already have, and you as well most people don't even remember. Goes to show how much this argument really matters. Just another dumb argument to downplay Jordan's competition/prop up someone else's.

You are right. The reason it is not talked about is it was a first round series where one team was vastly superior. Pierce and George are memorable because they were competitive series.

Is it a big deal? No. MJ and LeBron are at a level where they will outplay their counterparts anyway. Still, it should be remembered when MJ's gaudy stats are mentioned and when MJ is compared to others who had legitimate competition at their position like Wilt, Russell and KAJ did--his top competitors for GOAT as well as LeBron.


What about Barkley and Hakeem? What were their top 5 finishes?

They were MVP contenders on a different level than those other guys. What Samuri did is akin to someone talking about MVP contenders in the 2010's and invoking players like Parker, Noah, Harden and Carmelo as contenders. They were but only once and none of them were strong contenders other than Carmelo in 13'.


If he meant playoffs, Lebron hasn't faced Kobe in the playoffs nor do they play the same position, if we're scratching penny, payton, hill off the list due to not playing the same position then you'd need to do the same for Kobe. As far as direct playoff competition, Pierce and Durant are obviously legit, its a stretch to put George in that category though. He started out the year strong but came back to earth pretty hard as the season progressed. If we're talking about 'top tier' competition I don't think he's quite there yet.

The best SF's of this era are LeBron, Durant, Carmelo (three superstars at the position), Pierce, and George (two other franchise players/perennial all-stars). LeBron has played all of them in the playoffs and four of them in major, competitive series, including three ECF's and the Finals. You don't see the differences with MJ and 90's SG's? In 2012 LeBron faced Carmelo, George, Pierce and Durant in successive series...compare that to playing Majerle, Starks, Nick Anderson and Hersey Hawkins.

[TheMan]

Richmond was on a bad team, and wasn't even in Jordan's conference! :facepalm Glove and Sprewell were good players, but never anywhere near the conversation for best player in the game. How many injury free seasons did Penny and Hill have? 3? :roll:
Kobe called Miller a tough cover because he had to chase him around, but let's not act like Miller is some huge legend. Zero rings and no MVP's, basically a modern day Kyle Korver.
KD isn't in LeBron's conference either but that didn't stop you from mentioning him as LeBron's competition, dat consistency.

And just wow at the bolded part :facepalm

If you have to make a comparison to a current player, Ray Allen is a much much better example than Korver, come on, kid.

[guy]

Is it a big deal? No. MJ and LeBron are at a level where they will outplay their counterparts anyway. Still, it should be remembered when MJ's gaudy stats are mentioned and when MJ is compared to others who had legitimate competition at their position like Wilt, Russell and KAJ did--his top competitors for GOAT as well as LeBron.


Huh? So when Jordan puts up gaudy stats against someone like John Starks it matters less then when Lebron does it against Melo? Even though Starks is clearly a better defender then Melo was? We mostly have offensive statistics. No one should make a bigger deal out of CP3 scoring 50 points and dishing 20 assists against Steve Nash instead of Avery Bradley just cause Nash is a much bigger star and the better overall player.

[Dragonyeuw]

Richmond was on a bad team, and wasn't even in Jordan's conference! :facepalm Glove and Sprewell were good players, but never anywhere near the conversation for best player in the game. How many injury free seasons did Penny and Hill have? 3? :roll:
Kobe called Miller a tough cover because he had to chase him around, but let's not act like Miller is some huge legend. Zero rings and no MVP's, basically a modern day Kyle Korver.

Neither was Kobe in Lebron's conference, yet you threw him in as Lebron's competition when they never faced in the playoffs. Melo has never been near the discussion for best player either, is that any different from glove? Glove had several years of being the best PG in the league, and only an idiot would say he's not a better overall player than Melo. What difference does it make how many injury-free seasons hill and penny had? Point is they were competition at one point, legit competition. MJ faced Penny twice in the playoffs which is more than Lebron has faced Durant.

Im not even bothering with the Reggie- Korver comparison, GOAT level ignorance.

[Roundball_Rock]

What difference does it make how many injury-free seasons hill and penny had? Point is they were competition at one point, legit competition. MJ faced Penny twice in the playoffs which is more than Lebron has faced Durant.

You are just naming 90's perimeter players. When did Hill play the Bulls in the playoffs? Besides, he was a SF whose rivalry was with Pippen. Penny was a PG, although I think MJ spent some time guarding him. Nick Anderson was Orlando's SG.


Huh? So when Jordan puts up gaudy stats against someone like John Starks it matters less then when Lebron does it against Melo?

Yes. MJ can focus on offense when he doesn't have to face a great offensive player on the defensive side. Why do you think we hear so much about MJ facing Drexler? It is the one time he had real comp at SG--and he destroyed him.

Wilt had to face Russell every year...

[Dragonyeuw]

You are right. The reason it is not talked about is it was a first round series where one team was vastly superior. Pierce and George


The best SF's of this era are LeBron, Durant, Carmelo (three superstars at the position), Pierce, and George (two other franchise players/perennial all-stars). LeBron has played all of them in the playoffs and four of them in major, competitive series, including three ECF's and the Finals. You don't see the differences with MJ and 90's SG's? In 2012 LeBron faced Carmelo, George, Pierce and Durant in successive series...compare that to playing Majerle, Starks, Nick Anderson and Hersey Hawkins.

As you said, both MJ and Lebron were/are at a level where they will outplay their opposition. I don't think the other guy was talking about playoff competition, thats your point so on that note agreed, Lebron has faced higher level 'direct' competition in the playoffs.

But in saying that, too much emphasis is being placed on 'direct' positional competition, and comparing the eras are not apples to apples. Lebron plays in an era that is suited to perimeter play, and where the majority of great players are guards/forwards partly due to rules changes that have taken the game outside and marginalized bigman to a degree where they aren't critical to win a title. Thats just the way the game has gone, MJ played in an era more prominent with dominant bigmen. It doesn't take away from his legacy not having stronger guards to play against, nor does it take away from Lebron's playing in a 'weak' era for bigs. Its pretty much a case of playing who is front of you, which is why I much prefer judging players by the standards of their era and not comparing across eras.

[Dragonyeuw]

You are just naming 90's perimeter players. When did Hill play the Bulls in the playoffs? Besides, he was a SF whose rivalry was with Pippen. Penny was a PG, although I think MJ spent some time guarding him. Nick Anderson was Orlando's SG.


.

When did Lebron play Kobe in the playoffs? Again, the other guy didn't specify that he was talking about playoff competition, you are. If he had mentioned that he was referring to playoffs, then I wouldn't have mentioned Hill nor Richmond and Spreewell. Penny and MJ spent alot of time guarding each other, enough to make mention of them being competitors anyway. Pippen guarded Penny alot too, even though they were two different positions.

[JT123]

KD isn't in LeBron's conference either but that didn't stop you from mentioning him as LeBron's competition, dat consistency.

And just wow at the bolded part :facepalm

If you have to make a comparison to a current player, Ray Allen is a much much better example than Korver, come on, kid.
Difference is Durant actually plays on a good team, meaning he should have a shot at MVP every season. Durant and Lebron also faced off in the Finals, so there is that.
Allen was not just a shooter in his prime though. Ray could put the ball on the floor and take you to the rack. Miller, like Korver, wasn't really a threat off the dribble. :confusedshrug:

[guy]

Yes. MJ can focus on offense when he doesn't have to face a great offensive player on the defensive side. Why do you think we hear so much about MJ facing Drexler? It is the one time he had real comp at SG--and he destroyed him.


This argument is overblown since Jordan rarely ever conserved his energy on defense regardless of who he was playing i.e. the way Kobe has done for the last 5 years. I know thats the cool thing to say 20 years later but that doesn't mean its true.

Either way, even if true, I don't see the difference. So Lebron has a harder time on defense against Melo then Jordan does against Starks, but Jordan also would have a harder time on offense against Starks then Lebron would against Melo. Again, don't see the difference. By the way, I'm ignoring the fact that neither Jordan or Lebron's offense and defense was 100% solely against their positional counterparts, which would make this argument even less relevant.

We hear so much about him facing Drexler? No we don't. We hear about his game 1 but not the rest of the series. It actually should be mentioned more cause not only was he amazing offensively but he completely shitted on him defensively, and Drexler was a very good two-player himself.

[Psileas]

It was just an estimate. For 7 seasons of his career, the league had 8-9 teams. Thats between a quarter and a third of the size of the league today.

The media/fans will always mostly focus on the top 2 candidates. That doesn't change with the amount of teams increasing. Of course its not directly proportional, but it does effect their chances. Its one thing if the size of the talent pool stayed the same while the number of teams just increased, but thats clearly not the case as the sport got so much more popular in later eras (much to players like Wilt's credit) with more people playing. So the idea that Wilt would have more playing in any other era is a ridiculous assumption. In fact, its not like back then every year he was losing he was always 2nd place. He was 2nd place only two other times, and only one of those was behind Bill Russell. So with that being the case, we are supposed to assume its going to be easier for him if he's playing in an era where at least 3 of Bird/Magic/Jordan/Hakeem/Barkley are legit candidates for example? (By the way, I hope it goes without saying that he's not putting up the astronomical numbers he was putting up).

I don't really understand your superstar dilution comment. Two of the 5 best players in the league in that era, Baylor and West, played on the same team. Of course that helps Wilt's chances. Put both of those guys on different teams in that era, which is much more likely to happen in later eras, and they probably become greater candidates for MVPs. It might not be a coincidence that neither of them won MVP.

The NBA had 8, 9, 10 and 12 teams during his MVP seasons.

Again, I find it baseless to believe that because the popularity of the NBA increased, so did its elite stars. I've talked about this with another poster. My point is, this isn't the talent pool we're talking about here, this is the absolute best of the best, and knowing how hard it is to find some big man with Wilt's or Russell's athleticism and basketball talent, it's hard to believe that there existed many more than them that ignored basketball. So, the increased talent pool wouldn't likely affect Wilt's chances to earn an MVP.

You answered your assumption about the multiple 80's contenders by mentioning Wilt's competition: It wasn't always just Russell. However, in a league with more teams and, importantly, when non-players voted and stats played a more central role, Wilt's relative "increased" productivity (or even a non-"increased" one) would receive more respect among voters. Wilt's equivalent of 50/26, whatever it is, along with a good team record, a la '62, isn't going to only get 2nd position in that era, barring some other extreme season. Wilt's equivalent of 45/24, even with a mediocre record, a la '63, will still make him a contender, though not a winner. It might be a similar case with '87 Jordan, who finished 2nd, above Bird, despite having posted a 40-42 record. I don't know where Wilt's season would rank in such a case, but have a marginal all-star, like Red Kerr, finish above him, like in '63? And without that marginal all-star even playing for an elite team? No way.

[Roundball_Rock]

Lebron plays in an era that is suited to perimeter play, and where the majority of great players are guards/forwards partly due to rules changes that have taken the game outside and marginalized bigman to a degree where they aren't critical to win a title. Thats just the way the game has gone, MJ played in an era more prominent with dominant bigmen.

These are legitimate points in favor of MJ. It should be noted, though, that while MJ played in an era of big men he happened to also play with the second best perimeter player of his era so that helps explain the anomaly regarding a team without dominant big men. The Bulls had the two best wing players of the generation and--at least when they were winning--they had an all-star caliber PF who provided defense and rebounding. So it isn't as simple as "MJ was so great he is the only one who could win without a dominant big man" as some (not saying you) suggest. It also should be noted the Pistons won consecutive rings and made three consecutive Finals and five ECF's without a dominant big man. So it was done immediately prior to the Bulls' winning. Some people like to present the Bulls winning as revolutionary. It was evolutionary, not revolutionary, though. They took the Pistons' formula to the next level.


I don't think the other guy was talking about playoff competition, thats your point so on that note agreed, Lebron has faced higher level 'direct' competition in the playoffs.

Yeah playoffs is where it matters. Even if you are playing in a strong era at your position you will play the elite for only a fraction of the regular season.


When did Lebron play Kobe in the playoffs?

Even if the guy was talking about the regular season, he was talking about positional play. What does a SG have to do with this? I see your point about guarding players at other positions, and MJ did spend time on Penny, but Hill would have been guarded by Pippen. Would LeBron have guarded Kobe if they met in the Finals?

The best SF's of this era are LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, Pierce and George. LeBron has played them all, and other than Carmelo has played the others in significant series. The second best player in the league during LeBron's title years has been a SF, there is another superstar SF in Carmelo and Pierce and George both are/were perennial all-stars/top 10 players. All of these players are in the East except for Durant. The best players in the East today are predominantly SF's: LeBron, Rose, Carmelo, George. This is starkly different than MJ's era where, other than Drexler, the best SG's were borderline top 10 types like Miller and Richmond. Does it matter? Not much but it is worth noting.

Positional play is more relevant when comparing MJ to KAJ, Wilt and Russell, his top competitors for GOAT. They weren't playing against John Starks and Gerald Wilkins every year.

[guy]

The NBA had 8, 9, 10 and 12 teams during his MVP seasons.


Well I wasn't just talking about the seasons he actually won MVP, since for him to have won more and even otherwise he would've and could've won MVP in other seasons.



Again, I find it baseless to believe that because the popularity of the NBA increased, so did its elite stars. I've talked about this with another poster. My point is, this isn't the talent pool we're talking about here, this is the absolute best of the best, and knowing how hard it is to find some big man with Wilt's or Russell's athleticism and basketball talent, it's hard to believe that there existed many more than them that ignored basketball. So, the increased talent pool wouldn't likely affect Wilt's chances to earn an MVP.

Are you kidding me? Of course there's probably many people that would've been elite stars back then that ignored basketball. Shit, even today that's probably the case, just not as much. Look at where guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Kobe, Dirk, and Duncan came from. They probably don't even pick up a basketball if they were born 30-50 years earlier. Thats just concerning the widespread popularity of the game. There's also the motivational reasons. There became much more financial incentive not just with NBA salaries but also the increased ability to get college scholarships. Someone like David Robinson probably sticks to the military instead of going to basketball if it wasn't for that. There's probably way more players in general that would've played baseball if it wasn't for the increased popularity i.e. Michael Jordan for example. Black kids in general started getting more opportunities and beter guidance and by the way, the US and GLOBAL POPULATION increased as well.

If there's an increased talent pool, there's greater players. For example, if the talent pool back in the 50s/60s was 10 million, while in 80s/90s/00s it was 40 million, its not like the extra 30 million from the 80s/90s/00s that wouldn't have been playing in the 50/60s are all worse then the other 10 million. Sorry, but thats asinine.



You answered your assumption about the multiple 80's contenders by mentioning Wilt's competition: It wasn't always just Russell. However, in a league with more teams and, importantly, when non-players voted and stats played a more central role, Wilt's relative "increased" productivity (or even a non-"increased" one) would receive more respect among voters. Wilt's equivalent of 50/26, whatever it is, along with a good team record, a la '62, isn't going to only get 2nd position in that era, barring some other extreme season. Wilt's equivalent of 45/24, even with a mediocre record, a la '63, will still make him a contender, though not a winner. It might be a similar case with '87 Jordan, who finished 2nd, above Bird, despite having posted a 40-42 record. I don't know where Wilt's season would rank in such a case, but have a marginal all-star, like Red Kerr, finish above him, like in '63? And without that marginal all-star even playing for an elite team? No way.

Voters have always preferred the players with the reputation of being more team-oriented as opposed to those who were more individually dominant. So there's a good chance he would still lose out to guys with these reputations like Bird and Magic in the 80s.

I'm not saying Wilt wouldn't win any. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that he'd have an easier time winning them.

[ILLsmak]

Probably the second downfall of this forum, besides rabid trolling, is that we get essay threads like this. They may or may not be agenda driven, but people who are thoughtful posters are basically arguing shit we should all know.

Every thread devolves into... mj vs lbj, old vs new. Dudes get on here legitimately believing they've uncovered a reason why old is better than new or vice versa. It's sad shit mayne. This energy could be used in other ways. You don't only have to post in these threads, having a long worthwhile post elsewhere would be nice, too.

-Smak

[Dragonyeuw]

1)These are legitimate points in favor of MJ. It should be noted, though, that while MJ played in an era of big men he happened to also play with the second best perimeter player of his era so that helps explain the anomaly regarding a team without dominant big men. The Bulls had the two best wing players of the generation and--at least when they were winning--they had an all-star caliber PF who provided defense and rebounding.


2)Even if the guy was talking about the regular season, he was talking about positional play. What does a SG have to do with this?

3) I see your point about guarding players at other positions, and MJ did spend time on Penny, but Hill would have been guarded by Pippen. Would LeBron have guarded Kobe if they met in the Finals?

4)The best SF's of this era are LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, Pierce and George. LeBron has played them all, and other than Carmelo has played the others in significant series. The second best player in the league during LeBron's title years has been a SF, there is another superstar SF in Carmelo and Pierce and George both are/were perennial all-stars/top 10 players. All of these players are in the East except for Durant. The best players in the East today are predominantly SF's: LeBron, Rose, Carmelo, George. This is starkly different than MJ's era where, other than Drexler, the best SG's were borderline top 10 types like Miller and Richmond. Does it matter? Not much but it is worth noting.



1) That's tough to quantity, the value of two 'star' perimeter players against having a dominant bigman accompanied by say a star wing which was the mold for many a dynasty. Of course there were outliners who broke the mold: you mentioned the 80s Pistons, you could say the same about the 04 Pistons who were a cast of very good players but no 'superstar'( mind you Isiah was a 'legit' star), the 1994 Rockets and 2003 Spurs were led by a singular dominant big surrounded by quality role players. * Generally* speaking most dynasties have some form of dominant post play, heck Jordan as a SG was one of the best post players in the league the second 3peat. The 80s Pistons didn't have a singular dominant big, but they had a collection of tough, hard-hitting defensive forwards and centers. That team broke several molds during their reign, which is why they're so memorable.

2) Exactly my point. Remember, the other guy brought up Kobe in reference to Lebron's competition. I responded with a list of star guards( point and off) that Jordan would have encountered in the 90s. We could expand the list to take into account other star point guards and small forwards that Jordan would have played against on each side of the ball, but the parameters of our line of discussion is centered on direct positional competition( and more to the point, in the playoffs). So on that note no SGs should be in the discussion, but that was what the other guy did bringing up Kobe initially.

3) In a Lebron/ Kobe final, should that have happened, they'd likely have guarded each other at select moments of the game. They'd both wear each other down if they were guarding each other the whole game....even if playing the same position its likely they'd be matched against someone else to conserve energy and fouls. Its too bad we never got to see that matchup where it counted because it would save a ton of space on these exhaustive 'Lebron or Kobe' threads but then again, Kobe in 2009 and 2010 was working with more than Lebron was so had the Lakers won, that wouldn't necessarily determine the superior player.

4) In the big picture, if we're agreeing that Jordan is the best SG, then at the end of the day he'd have risen to the challenge of playing the best shooting guards of the past decade. You had your elites, followed by second tier star guards. MJ wouldn't have had much of a harder time playing Vince than,say, Clyde Drexler. Ray Allen would be like playing Reggie Miller. Richmond? Hmm a Joe Johnson type I guess, though I'd say Mitch was the better player. Iverson would give MJ trouble with his speed and quickness, of course Iverson has no shot guarding MJ either.

There are three who would have given him a damn good workout: Kobe, Tmac, Wade. But heres the flip-side to that: Jordan never had to face those guys in their prime, but they never had to face him in his either. The argument goes both ways here. And in all seriousness, out of Lebron's main competition, the only one with top 20 GOAT potential is Durant. Pierce and Melo are probably in the 45-50 range, and Melo isn't exactly considered a winner, plus I think you're rating George a little too high. He's a very good player, but still very young and not at the level where he is truly an obstacle for a prime Lebron, not yet. You may be a little higher on him than I am.

[Psileas]

Are you kidding me? Of course there's probably many people that would've been elite stars back then that ignored basketball. Shit, even today that's probably the case, just not as much. Look at where guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Kobe, Dirk, and Duncan came from. They probably don't even pick up a basketball if they were born 30-50 years earlier. Thats just concerning the widespread popularity of the game. There's also the motivational reasons. There became much more financial incentive not just with NBA salaries but also the increased ability to get college scholarships. Someone like David Robinson probably sticks to the military instead of going to basketball if it wasn't for that. There's probably way more players in general that would've played baseball if it wasn't for the increased popularity i.e. Michael Jordan for example. Black kids in general started getting more opportunities and beter guidance and by the way, the US and GLOBAL POPULATION increased as well.

If there's an increased talent pool, there's greater players. For example, if the talent pool back in the 50s/60s was 10 million, while in 80s/90s/00s it was 40 million, its not like the extra 30 million from the 80s/90s/00s that wouldn't have been playing in the 50/60s are all worse then the other 10 million. Sorry, but thats asinine.

For every 1 curious case you name, I can name multiple "normal" ones. Predictably, you mainly chose players born or raised outside the US. I would see the case if Europe produced multiple Dirks or Nigeria multiple Hakeems (though I'll be more skeptical with Nigeria, given that basketball isn't that popular in Africa) - and argue, likewise, that, with things being so, it would be very implausible for 80's or even 90's superstars to win as many MVP's in later eras.
In the US, basketball had been known and frequently exercised even before Wilt's and Russell's era. It would be hard to have a tall person who had an inclination for the game and yet never practiced it, for the very simple reason that we're not talking about a new sport. Baseball? Yeah, sure, those 6'9+ guys must have put it at the top of their sports' priority list...Same argument that use some European basketball haters nowadays, that European soccer has an infinitely deeper talent pool, as if basketball is some oddity that only few and far between know about, as if there are many sports that even come close to basketball in popularity and steal lots of talent from it, especially big men...


Voters have always preferred the players with the reputation of being more team-oriented as opposed to those who were more individually dominant. So there's a good chance he would still lose out to guys with these reputations like Bird and Magic in the 80s.

I'm not saying Wilt wouldn't win any. I just find it incredibly hard to believe that he'd have an easier time winning them.

This doesn't explain why Moses won the MVP in 1982, Jordan won it in 1988 and came second in 1987 and a close second in 1989, Dominique surpassed Magic in 1986, King also surpassed Magic in 1984, etc. Wilt was at least on the same levels of dominance in his non-team oriented seasons and these players did not produce better team results those years than a "selfish" Wilt was doing in his non-MVP seasons.

[guy]

For every 1 curious case you name, I can name multiple "normal" ones. Predictably, you mainly chose players born or raised outside the US. I would see the case if Europe produced multiple Dirks or Nigeria multiple Hakeems (though I'll be more skeptical with Nigeria, given that basketball isn't that popular in Africa)

Really don't understand your point and your downplaying of the argument. There's more likely to be curious cases with a greater talent pool. I'm not even sure I'd call it a curious case. Its just that with a greater talent pool we should expect a more diverse background in that talent pool, and I didn't just mention diversity as far as where they're from, but also different motivations, interests, etc. I did mention financial incentive, players that went from other sports to basketball, players that went from different interests to basketball.



- and argue, likewise, that, with things being so, it would be very implausible for 80's or even 90's superstars to win as many MVP's in later eras.

I don't know. Maybe. I get the feeling though that the growth in popularity was way more between the 60s and 80s then the 80s and after even given the international growth. I don't have any proof of that, but that's just the general feeling I get. If someone has better information then that would be great.

Either way, I didn't even say there's no chance Wilt couldn't win the same. This is the original quote from the agenda-driven OP that I responded to: "Wilt would have had more MVP's had he played in any other era so his 4 MVP's need to be judged accordingly." Sorry, but all signs point to him getting more being extremely unlikely.



In the US, basketball had been known and frequently exercised even before Wilt's and Russell's era. It would be hard to have a tall person who had an inclination for the game and yet never practiced it, for the very simple reason that we're not talking about a new sport. Baseball? Yeah, sure, those 6'9+ guys must have put it at the top of their sports' priority list...Same argument that use some European basketball haters nowadays, that European soccer has an infinitely deeper talent pool, as if basketball is some oddity that only few and far between know about, as if there are many sports that even come close to basketball in popularity and steal lots of talent from it, especially big men...


Never practicing it and having a significant dedication to it are different things. Was there even as many basketball courts that were as easily accessible back then? I doubt it. And like I said, there was much more incentive in later eras. More poor kids literally dedicated their daily lives to it in order to better their situation. Meanwhile back in Wilt's era, there were literally people that still worked other jobs while they were playing in the NBA. This means that a lot of players who would've played in the NBA otherwise yet had different interests, like David Robinson with the Navy, probably didn't even bother. There was clearly more financial incentive. And like I said, more people transferring their interests from one sport to basketball. Shit, the dearth of black baseball players is pretty much a running subject in the media and they all seem to be in agreement that its because of the increasing excitement and accessibility of basketball and football to young black people.

I don't really see how this is even an argument.



This doesn't explain why Moses won the MVP in 1982, Jordan won it in 1988 and came second in 1987 and a close second in 1989, Dominique surpassed Magic in 1986, King also surpassed Magic in 1984, etc. Wilt was at least on the same levels of dominance in his non-team oriented seasons and these players did not produce better team results those years than a "selfish" Wilt was doing in his non-MVP seasons.

I shouldn't have said "always". But that is the case more often then not.

[guy]

plus I think you're rating George a little too high. He's a very good player, but still very young and not at the level where he is truly an obstacle for a prime Lebron, not yet. You may be a little higher on him than I am.

This. Paul George is nothing special nor has he done anything special. If we're going to mention him as the elite competition Lebron has had to face in the playoffs at his position, then its only fair we mention Joe Dumars (he should actually be mentioned regardless), Ron Harper, Alvin Robertson, Hersey Hawkins, Dan Majerle, Steve Smith and maybe some others. That's the problem with arguments like these. 20-30 years later, there's going to be a lot of forgotten names. But in the current era, everyone remembers everybody. Paul George might not be worth mentioning 20 years from now and the same can be said about a lot of other dudes in the league.

[houston]

mvp is an impact award anyways

[knicksman]

at the end of the day, bran lost to dirk and a team with no superstar. Thats how weak bran is so stop comparing bran