Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #1

This is the player pool:

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/VN7jY7Zz/Top-10-Candidates.jpg[/IMG]

For a full player pool see the [URL="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ARaI3VCNauULLYL1Yu24HIRY768FYQdip56sp6uRFGk/edit?usp=sharing"]link[/URL].

Everyone may post in this thread but only votes from serious contributors will be considered. Not everyone has to write an essay but there should be some justification or explanation and some coherent arguments being presented. I encourage people to be open-minded and willing to adjust their rankings in response to strong evidence. Debate and discussion is encouraged.

I see the four main candidates for the #1 spot to be Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Lebron.

I will break down each player’s GOAT case as I see it but first of all let me talk about the major criteria and the way that I see the greatest player of all time so that people can understand my arguments better.

The purpose of playing basketball is to win championships. In the context of the greatest players ever though, the more specific purpose is not just to win but to lead teams to championships. Depending on how restrictive or loose one’s definition is of leading a title team, there have been anywhere between 20 and 30 players in NBA history that have led teams to championships.

However it isn’t quite that simple or else no one who hasn’t led their team to a title could crack the top 20 or top 30 and we know that isn’t the case. Other aspects such as dominance are considered, accolades (MVP for instance), and circumstances should be looked at as well. Some players may legitimately have been in better or worse situations to win because of the quality of teammates, quality of opponents, good/bad luck etc. However circumstances are also very subjective and I would only use broad brush strokes here and not try to precisely quantify these factors.

For me the most important criteria is how many championships the player in question has led their team to and also how many realistic shots at a championship did that player lead his team to. Titles won as supporting players are much much less valuable because there have been many players in NBA history that did that. We are going from an exclusive club of 20-30 to a club of 100+ players that have been second best players or simply all-star (not superstar) level contributors on title teams. Championships as the best player are by far the most important accomplishments to me in the context of the GOAT debate.

The second most important criteria for me and this one is kind of slippery and less tangible but it’s the level of dominance. Yes this guy led his team to that many titles but was he dominant? Was he clearly the best player in the league or was it a debate? Did his teams look unbeatable at times? How many times was he outplayed in his prime in the playoffs or how many times did he underperform?

Therefore my GOAT ideal player is the player who:
1 - led their team to the most championships
2 - was always unanimously the best player on the court in his prime

Of course no real player is ideal but my GOAT will be the guy closest to this ideal player. I make no effort to compare eras which is impossible to do objectively. Every candidate is judged relative to their own era.

[B]Lebron James
[/B]
Titles as Best Player: 3 (2012, 2013, 2016)
Titles as Co-Best Player: 1 (2020)

Lebron James’ GOAT case has been steadily growing in recent years to the point where he’s often compared to the other men on this list but in my opinion he isn’t there yet and we are grading him as if he is retired from basketball and will not play another game in the NBA. Even if given full credit for this 2020 title, he still led his team to only 4 championships and I don’t see an excuse for that. In fact, and this is where the dominance argument comes in, but Lebron lost the very winnable 2011 Finals and looked terrible in that series. He had other occasions like the 2006 ECSF, 2007 Finals, 2008 ECSF and 2010 ECSF and 2021 R1 series, all of which he didn’t play particularly well in.

Lebron’s case is built on the body of work as in “Lebron may not be as good as Jordan but he’s almost as good and given his longevity his expected championships won are higher.” To me that isn’t a good argument because like explained Lebron wasn’t good in the six series listed above. He also had a rookie year that was far below the level of his prime, a weak second year missing the playoffs and had a season lost to injury in 2019 where he missed the playoffs as well. That leaves him with nine great years (2009, 2012-2018, 2020) which isn’t enough top-level longevity to swing this argument because the other GOAT candidates had as many as if not more top-notch years. Thus, his longevity is being misused in my opinion and having a longer less dominant career is rarely better than a shorter, more dominant career when the latter also resulted in more championships. Given that he’s turning 37, he is unlikely to make much more of a boost to his case but he could. It’s possible.

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
[/B]
Titles as Best Player: 2 (1971, 1980)
Titles as Co-Best Player: 2 (1982, 1985)
Titles as Supporting Player: 2 (1987, 1988)

Like Lebron before him, Kareem’s GOAT argument is centered on his remarkable longevity but again, in my eyes, that argument falls apart to scrutiny. 1981 was the last year of Kareem’s prime and from 1982 onwards he won all titles as either the co-best player or a supporting player. Titles as a supporting player in particular are just far far less valuable.

However, the reason I still rank Kareem slightly higher than Lebron is that for the first 12 years of his career from 1970 to 1981, Kareem was unanimously or almost unanimously the best player in the NBA every single year. He had a major disappointment in the 1973 playoffs but apart from that he played most of the 70’s either without an all-star teammate or with key injuries and he always performed really well in those losses. He thus gets a higher grade in dominance compared to Lebron. With better circumstances, Kareem could have realistically won more but given that he won only 2 championships as the clear-cut best player on his team, I still find his GOAT argument weaker than the other two left because he has a lot of ground to make up in that department. Even if he had 1-2 more titles as the best player he’d still probably be a little short. Kareem had ten elite years (minus the 1973 debacle and 1975 injury) which is great but it isn’t noticeably better than anyone.

[B]Bill Russell
[/B]
Titles as Best Player: 8 (1959 to 1966)
Titles as Co-Best Player: 3 (1957, 1968, 1969)

Russell is the only one that gets an A+ for leading teams to titles. As far as winning he’s the greatest ever. During Boston’s eight-peat (!!) from 1959 to 1996, Russell was the best player on his team and the biggest reason for their dominance. Since the purpose of the game is to win, I can’t argue with anyone who picks Russell. His case is arguably the strongest and I can admit it.

Here is the reason why if I had to choose, gun to my head, I would say he’s the second greatest player ever. It comes down to dominance. Russell was the best player on his team and a juggernaut on defense which we can hardly show on the stat sheet but he was arguably never or seldom the clear-cut best player in the world. From the moment Wilt Chamberlain came in the league in 1960 when Russell was going for his third title, Wilt was arguably the better basketball player. I am of the opinion that Russell was better for most of those years (1967 being the obvious exception) but it’s far from a consensus. And Russell did have weak individual series against Wilt in the playoffs where it was somewhat difficult to walk away thinking he was better.

[B]Michael Jordan
[/B]
Titles as Best Player: 6 (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998)

MJ may be the most popular choice for GOAT and often for the wrong reasons. 6-0 in the finals is a poor argument for instance. But in my opinion, Jordan is the greatest ever because he led his teams to 6 championships which is more than anyone except Russell with the difference being that Jordan was the most consistently dominant player of all time as well. From 1987 to 1998 which is ten full seasons, Jordan was the most dominant player in NBA history. He was top 3 in MVP voting every season including 5 wins, top 5 in DPOY voting 7 times, and won 10 consecutive scoring titles. He was 1st Team All-NBA and 1st Team All-Defense for 9 consecutive seasons.

His overall longevity of 13 seasons (11 full seasons) with the Bulls doesn’t seem impressive but Jordan was efficient with those years. He was a monster every year in the playoffs. Never gave an inch, never showed any vulnerability. And not just him individually but his team was rarely ever challenged as soon as he Pippen became an all-star caliber player. On the route to winning 6 titles, the Bulls only ever faced two elimination games (both Game 7’s) and won one of them in a blowout. In 7 seasons of all-star Pippen, Jordan led the Bulls to 6 titles.

Jordan was the best at combining winning with individual dominance. Russell just wasn’t as dominant and Kareem and Lebron have a longevity edge that in the end didn’t amount to accomplishing more in terms of winning.

[B]I vote for Michael Jordan[/B] and this is my top 4 right now:

#1 Michael Jordan
#2 Bill Russell
#3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
#4 Lebron James

I look forward to reading other people’s posts.

Jordan, don't really think he needs an explanation :lol

Wilt has a case for being the GOAT as the man has over 250 records to his name still to this very day.




Plus Wilt played on 12 winning teams in his 14 seasons, and in the two that he did not, he had a monumental season in 62-63, and that 64-65 playoff run.

where he carried a 40-40 team to within one point, in a game seven, of beating the 62-18 Celtics who featured 7 hall of fame players plus the GOAT coach in Red.

He went to 12 Conference Finals (by contrast Jordan went to nine or ten)

He played on six teams that went to the Finals. He played on six teams that were Conference champions.

He played on four teams that had the best record in the league.

He played on four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight games.)

And he anchored two of the two top 5 teams in NBA history in the 1967 76ers and 72 Lakers.



Plus Wilt is arguably the greatest 7 foot defensive center in NBA history. The late, great Harvey Pollack did keep track of blocked shots when Wilt played for the Warriors/76ers, and despite the 76ers in the 1980s later discarding a good number of those statistics that Pollack kept in his notebooks.

He estimated that the Big Dipper averaged 8-10 blocks a game during his prime years.

In Chamberlain's last 2 seasons with the 76ers and his 5 years with Lakers, sportswriters (e.g., UPI, AP, Sixer/Laker beat writers) were being more diligent about keeping track of blocked shots. This was especially the case in the playoffs. Examples include...



1967 PLAYOFFS 21.7 PTS 29.1 REBS 9.0 ASTS 9.2 BLKS FG% 57.9


1968 PLAYOFFS 23.7 PTS 24.7 REBS 6.5 ASTS 9.7 BLKS FG% 53.4


1969 PLAYOFFS 13.9 PTS 24.7 REBS 2.6 ASTS 8.5 BLKS FG% 54.5


1971 PLAYOFFS 18.3 PTS 20.2 REBS 4.4 ASTS 6.0 BLKS FG% 45.5


1973 PLAYOFFS 10.4 PTS 22.5 REBS 3.5 ASTS 6.9 BLKS FG% 55.2


Also it should be noted that Wilt had five seasons in which his team lost game seven's to the eventual champions, and four of them were by razor-then margins... of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

in series in which he generally played well, or was downright dominant. Think about that...Wilt was an eyelash away from winning a total of seven rings for his career.

For me personally

I really found this stat very interesting between Wilt and Kareem

First 10 seasons for each player:

Kareem's teams in POs: 9-7 in series, 44-34 in games 1 champ, 2 total Finals

Wilt's teams in POs: 10-8, 51-47 1 champ, 3 Finals



In Kareem’s 5 seasons without one of the 2 best point guards ever, which also should be 5 of, if not his 5 best seasons (ages 27-31) Kareem:

Missed the playoffs twice – Left a team that had the same exact record after he left with the same main pieces intact – Got swept once (With home court advantage) –

Won 2 MVPs (one of which he won without making the playoffs in 1976)

Won a grand total of 2 playoff series (one of which required 2 victories to win) – Beat 0 teams with 50+ wins (While playing alongside 3 HOF players along the way in Goodrich, Wilkes, and Dantley.



Keep in mind Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron are a combined 48-1 vs sub-50 win teams

so it is an accurate cutoff in deciding whether a team is elite or not).





Now with Magic joining the Lakers in 1979...LA immediately won a title.


They averaged 59 wins per season in his 12 years...going to nine Finals (a Finals appearance in 75% of the seasons)...and five titles.

After Kareem retired ...the Lakers actually improved the very next season, going from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last year, to a league-leading 63-19 record the next year.

Then, Magic took a washed-up and injury-riddled cast to a 58-24 record and yet another final.

Then after Magic...the Lakers immediately plummetted to records of 43-39 and 39-43.

BTW, in their ten years playing together,

Magic held a 3-1 edge in MVPS, a 3-1 edge in Finals MVPs, and outvoted Kareem in the MVP voting in eight of those ten seasons (the last eight BTW.)

So it is very clear as to who had the most impact on the Lakers in those ten years between Magic and Kareem.


Also if we examine Kareem's only title without Magic in the 1971 season.

The Bucks were wiped out by the Knicks in the previous season, 4-1.



They subsequently acquired Oscar and ran roughshod over the NBA in '71. Kareem was magnificent that season (IMHO it was his greatest all-around season if you include the post-season.)

However, has any title team ever had an easier road to a title than Kareem's Bucks that year? They beat a 41-41 Warrior team in the first round of the playoffs.

Then, in the next round, they beat a 48-34 Laker team that was without their second and third best players in the entire post-season (West and Baylor.

And while an aged Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery battled Kareem to a statistical draw, the Bucks overwhelming edge in talent was just too much for LA to overcome.

Then, Kareem's Bucks swept a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

However in defence of Kareem.




I do believe that Kareem would be acknowledged as the undisrupted GOAT nowadays with just a few historical changes.

Criteria:


Kareem stays the exact same quality as a player.

Make only minor changes by teammates/opponents


If ...
Kareem's teammates played decently in 1972 & 1974 (and possibly 1977 &1981) POs.


Kareem won the 1980 FMVP.

Magic hadn't been injured in 1981.

The Lakers won in 1984 as they should have





If all that had happened, Kareem would have:

6 MVPs

9-11 rings (instead of 6: including 1972, 74, 84, and possibly 1977, 81).

6 FMVPs (instead of 2: including 1972, 74, 80, 84)

3 Finals losses (instead of 4)

These numbers (along with his legendary stats) would make him the undisputed GOAT, IMO


Hell If Kareem's teammates had played decently in 1972 & 1974 POs then he would have had


In his first 5 seasons:

3 MVPs (plus one robbed)

3 rings

3 FMVPs

By 1974 (year 5), he'd be a strong 3rd place as GOAT.

Also, I fail to understand the logic behind you not including Lebron title in 2020 to his tally of winning titles as the best player on his team.


As Lebron finished second in MVP voting that season ahead of AD.


Plus Lebron in the postseason was three points away from leading the entire postseason in TRB AST and PTS which would have been an incredible achievement.

I would also like to make a case for Wilt Chamberlain as the #1 player of all time. I agree with the points above that it is a team sport and that the ultimate goal is to win a Championship, but that can sometimes cloud our judgement.

If it was only about winning Championships, then Russell would be considered the best, but most people don't consider him to be. Why? Because individual ability and statistics still have to come into play.

And in this realm, Chamberlain is without peer. At his peak and in his prime, he is the greatest scorer, rebounder, and shot blocker of all time.

When comparing the greatest defenders in history, I give an advantage to great post defenders over great perimeter defenders. The easiest shot to make is a dunk or a lay up, so being a strong post defender is more important. Apart from actual blocked shots, a strong post defender changes opponents' shots and even deters them from penetrating, sometimes forcing them into lower percentage outside shots.

His one weakness, free throws, was a league fabrication. Wilt was so athletic that he could dunk his free throws, so he'd be the only guy in history with a 99% FT% if they hadn't changed the rules BECAUSE of him.

Like he told Jordan, "they changed the rules to make it easier for you. They changed the rules to make it harder for me."

If you told me that I could have the best scorer and the best defender in one player, I'd take him without a second thought. Now add in things like superlative speed, strength, and athleticism. An ability to play 48 minutes in a fast paced era. And never once fouling out while playing dominant inside defense.

What do you get? A guy who basically owns the record book.

MJ.
Good analysis, however the “co-best player” aspect is extremely subjective and going to lead to arguments.

Thank you for a detailed post coastalmarker99.

I will post my response regarding Wilt because he is a GOAT candidate to some. There is maybe 5% of fans who consider him the GOAT but the ones that do defend that opinion feverishly. The famous jlauber/LAZERUSS, CavsFTW, TeoTheGreek13 and others. However I will tell you where I think the mistake is with having Wilt as the greatest ever. Statistics and records are the by-product of greatness and not the measure of greatness. No team will say "I want to draft the biggest, strongest and most dominant player who will set scoring and rebounding records that will never be broken." but they will say "I want to draft a player who will help my team win the most." That is the major disconnect between who Wilt was and what the ultimate goal of the game of basketball was. For whatever reason, his own mentality, the makeup of the team around him, the stacked Celtics early in his career... honestly it was probably a combination of reasons but Wilt just didn't always or even often play winning basketball and managed to win a grand total of 2 titles in his career. And it's hard to look past the fact that most of his records are in the regular season. He has little or no postseason records apart from rebounding which was heavily inflated by pace.

I think there is and there was even in Wilt's time a major disconnect between how people perceived Wilt as a player and where Wilt really brought value to his team. The 50 ppg season did him a huge disservice in that everyone looked at him as an offensive juggernaut. He was a really good offensive player but poor free throw shooting and unwillingness to play a power game made him a slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency. Against the likes of Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs, Wilt couldn't score at a high volume at good efficiency... Where Wilt brought real value is his defense where he really was a juggernaut and arguably the best defensive center ever with the exception of Bill Russell. Alex Hannum seemed to be Wilt's only coach during his prime that realized Wilt's strength... his huge size and scoring reputation down low can collapse the defense and give his teammates open shots and guess what Wilt was a willing passer but there was no need for him to score a lot. In addition, by being a decoy more and shooting much less, he exerted less energy on offense which kept his tank full to shut down the lane defensively. It's not a coincidence that Wilt's best defensive seasons/postseasons like 1964, 1967, 1968 (when healthy), 1972 and 1973 coincided with the most successful stretches for his team. There is one game from 1971 that I've seen on YT against the Atlanta Hawks IIRC where Wilt blocked like 12+ shots... at some point the other team's guards were shooting long 2's from 3pt range and wouldn't even come near the rim. That kind of impact simply guaranteed wins in the pre-3pt era. Wilt should have been a defensive anchor his entire career IMO.

I think some of your assessments of Kareem are a bit unfair (he was the best player in 1971 and 1980 pretty comfortably) but then you made a case for him being unlucky which I can agree with.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14425016]Thank you for a detailed post coastalmarker99.

I will post my response regarding Wilt because he is a GOAT candidate to some. There is maybe 5% of fans who consider him the GOAT but the ones that do defend that opinion feverishly. The famous jlauber/LAZERUSS, CavsFTW, TeoTheGreek13 and others.


However, I will tell you where I think the mistake is with having Wilt as the greatest ever. Statistics and records are the by-product of greatness and not the measure of greatness.



No team will say "I want to draft the biggest, strongest and most dominant player who will set scoring and rebounding records that will never be broken." but they will say "I want to draft a player who will help my team win the most." That is the major disconnect between who Wilt was and what the ultimate goal of the game of basketball was.



For whatever reason, his own mentality, the makeup of the team around him, the stacked Celtics early in his career... honestly it was probably a combination of reasons but Wilt just didn't always or even often play winning basketball and managed to win a grand total of 2 titles in his career.


And it's hard to look past the fact that most of his records are in the regular season. He has little or no postseason records apart from rebounding which was heavily inflated by pace.

I think there is and there was even in Wilt's time a major disconnect between how people perceived Wilt as a player and where Wilt really brought value to his team.




The 50 ppg season did him a huge disservice in that everyone looked at him as an offensive juggernaut.


He was a really good offensive player but poor free throw shooting and unwillingness to play a power game made him a slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency.




Against the likes of Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs, Wilt couldn't score at a high volume at good efficiency... Where Wilt brought real value is his defence where he really was a juggernaut and arguably the best defensive center ever with the exception of Bill Russell.


Alex Hannum seemed to be Wilt's only coach during his prime that realized Wilt's strength... his huge size and scoring reputation down low can collapse the defence and give his teammates open shots and guess what Wilt was a willing passer but there was no need for him to score a lot.



In addition, by being a decoy more and shooting much less, he exerted less energy on offense which kept his tank full to shut down the lane defensively.


It's not a coincidence that Wilt's best defensive seasons/postseasons like 1964, 1967, 1968 (when healthy), 1972 and 1973 coincided with the most successful stretches for his team.


There is one game from 1971 that I've seen on YT against the Atlanta Hawks IIRC where Wilt blocked like 12+ shots... at some point the other team's guards were shooting long 2's from 3pt range and wouldn't even come near the rim. That kind of impact simply guaranteed wins in the pre-3pt era. Wilt should have been a defensive anchor his entire career IMO.

I think some of your assessments of Kareem are a bit unfair (he was the best player in 1971 and 1980 pretty comfortably) but then you made a case for him being unlucky which I can agree with.[/QUOTE]

Wilt's 1963-1964 season is one of the greatest single seasons in NBA history. As no other all-time great as had a weaker supporting cast around him in the NBA Finals than '64 Wilt.

The Warriors finished 3rd in SRS with a rookie Nate Thurmond and players like Wayne Hightower, Tom Meschery, and Guy Rodgers leading in shots. Wilt had a .325 WS/48 in the regular season (3rd all-time), and his .323 WS/48 playoff run is 4th all-time in the Shot Clock Era.

In the WDF, with his team playing poorly, Wilt put up 38.6 PPG on a +7.8 rTS%.

In the Finals, he finished with 29.2 PPG on a +2.4 rTS% against the greatest defense of all-time. Only one other player (Tom Meschery) shot above 35 FG% in that series.



Wilt's impact even went beyond his offence.

I believe it was Hannum who commented on Chamberlain's incredible 1964 season, where he took one of the worst rosters in NBA history, to the Finals...

"He has to play like Russell on the defensive end, and like Wilt on the offensive end." BTW, even Russell made the comment that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than Russell could do in Wilt's




The mixture of scoring, passing, rebounding, and defence that Wilt provides is so impactful to a team and it's why I don't understand the narrative that his value in his high scoring days was not as impactful as his 1967 to 1973 self.

When watching film of Wilt such as the 1964 Finals you can see that Wilt touches the ball 15 times on 47 possessions.



Compare this to 2000 Shaq in the triangle offence where he is getting 34 touches on 36 possessions and the difference is night and day.

Had he been regularly receiving post-ups this would have lead to more open shots and therefore assist opportunities for Wilt. It didn't help that guards back then initiated the offence and were getting a massive amount of the touches.

Besides 1962, early Wilt was not getting the ball anywhere near as much as people think due to many shots coming off offensive rebounds.

He certainly wasn't getting as much usage compared to a modern player. In the 1964 Finals film they are up with 2 minutes to go and Wilt doesn't even touch the ball once, let alone shoot because the guards are controlling the offence and shooting up abysmal jumpers.

It's no surprise to me that when Frank McGuire had Wilt shooting more than ever that the offence rose by over 3 points--because the ball was being fed to Wilt more as opposed to worse players.

Wilt's teammates were getting quite a bit of shots up for their role even with the number of shots he was taking himself.

This made it harder to impact an offence from his role in a significant way.

Guards dominated the ball and controlled a large portion of the touches for an offence (big men back then were not used for dribbling and running an offence.


That was the guard's job, making it harder for big men to receive meaningful usage in the halfcourt unless they were used as a passing hub off screens like in Auerbach's system.)

So, while Wilt could definitely still bring a positive aspect to an offence, he was basically at the mercy of his guards getting the ball to him so he could create.

This can be seen in -game film from '64 and even '67 (where his touches are still much lower than a modern player.)

Because of the high amount of rebounds available, bigs were less involved in the offence than the numbers lead you to believe.


They would have been getting more offensive rebounds back then and if they put them back up as shots it would make bigs seem more involved in the offence than they really were.

In reality, it was mainly the guards and wings controlling the flow of the offence while the best rebounding big men like Wilt and Bellamy put up big numbers with help from their ability to offensive rebound missed shots.


I believe this helped cap their teams offensive potential if their teammates were poor.

Wilt's era was more predicated on having a good, well-rounded team than any after it.

You needed a roster that could score efficiently because many different players would be shooting and the rules were slanted to help the defence more--this also made having a team full of defenders very successful as well.

This is why players like Rodgers and Sauldsberry have such awful TS Adds because they were allowed to take more shots than they should have been. Players like that could sink an offence and make it difficult to rank high in ORTG.

I think that looking at how players (especially bigs) impacted an offence by simply plugging them onto the roster and seeing how much better they were in ORTG the next season is not fully taking into account the playstyle and era of the 50s/60s.

In modern play, players can impact an offence drastically because they are touching the ball more.

In the halfcourt, bigs weren't getting the ball as often while guards and wings controlled the ball more from the perimeter due to the lack of spacing, antiquated offensive schemes, and no enforcement of the zone defence rule.

Essentially: impacting an offence as a big was harder in general in the 1960s due to a combination of teams spreading shots around, fewer touches in the halfcourt, and a defensively focused era.

Kawhi has led 7 different teams in VORP that were top 3 SRS teams (2014,2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021).

He takes time off or whatever but he still ends up outproducing, out working his teammates and destroying them in VORP, so it doesn't matter. They are always top 3 in SRS. I can't think of any other player who has led 7 different top 3 srs reg seasons in VORP since the stat was invented in 1973, not Jordan or LeBron did it.

Then you have his incredible title runs in 2014, 2019 and his incredible short playoff runs in 2017 and 2021. Sometimes, I don't even know if kawhi knows how damn good he is.

Easy top 10 and should be considered for top 5/3ish range in my opinion.

[QUOTE=HBK_Kliq_2;14425051]Kawhi has led 7 different teams in VORP that were top 3 SRS teams (2014,2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021).

He takes time off or whatever but he still ends up outproducing, out working his teammates and destroying them in VORP, so it doesn't matter. They are always top 3 in SRS. I can't think of any other player who has led 7 different top 3 srs reg seasons in VORP since the stat was invented in 1973, not Jordan or LeBron did it.

Then you have his incredible title runs in 2014, 2019 and his incredible short playoff runs in 2017 and 2021. Sometimes, I don't even know if kawhi knows how damn good he is.

Easy top 10 and should be considered for top 5/3ish range in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

This isn't about the 30th place AT.