Happy 60th Birthday To The GOAT.

[PIP]

It's possible. We can't prove anything with my hypothetical thought experiment. It's just how I compare players, moving them to different times and teams. It all comes down to our opinions.

That’s very true.

Which is why I’m not. Russell 11 championships guy.

Do I think Russell has 11 rings if he’s plays in an 80’s to today NBA ? Nope.

Hell there was no western conference teams then. They stayed train traveling on the east coast.

Do I think Wilt dominates that era ? Nope. I think prime Shaq is way better.

Do I think Jordan can dominate in this era ? Yes I do. Just like I think Mark Price & Chris Jackson & Hakeem Olajuwon could smoke players in this era…

It’s hard to penalize them when their skill sets cater to this era…

 

[jjvors]

That’s very true.

Which is why I’m not. Russell 11 championships guy.

Do I think Russell has 11 rings if he’s plays in an 80’s to today NBA ? Nope.

Hell there was no western conference teams then. They stayed train traveling on the east coast.

Do I think Wilt dominates that era ? Nope. I think prime Shaq is way better.

Do I think Jordan can dominate in this era ? Yes I do. Just like I think Mark Price & Chris Jackson & Hakeem Olajuwon could smoke players in this era…

It’s hard to penalize them when their skill sets cater to this era…

That is why we're different human beings and not pencils from a factory. We have different experiences and different opinions. It's good to have a cordial discussion as opposed to the venom that usually accompanies GOAT discussions.

 

[PIP]

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I always wonder why Kobe gets so disrespected in these discussions. He's the closest thing we've seen to Jordan, was an all-star by age 19, & won 5 titles. If we're talking purely basketball, he has to be up there. People try to discredit him because of his off court issue.

Most of the other players we are discussing are different types of players, playing different roles, so the comparisons are never direct. But Kobe can be compared pretty directly to Jordan, and I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that Kobe was better than Michael Jordan.

That automatically relegates Kobe to the second tier of discussion.

 

[Phills14]

But that last sentence is the majority of your argument

right...

I forget who was saying it but they were claiming Russell had won 13 titles and that puts him in the conversation as GOAT. I'm saying using Championship totals as a defining statistic is not the best way to go about it. It's part of the conversation but it doesn't deserve the weight it is given, especially for the older players who didn't have the freedom to change teams easily and the overall depth of talent was less.

 

[Benway]

Terrible baseball player.

 

[jjvors]

Good reasoning, based upon his standards. He's looking at awards given by others, (DPOY, MVP) championships, which are team accomplishments, and scoring titles, which are one aspect of the offensive portion of the game.

Those aren't my standards. I look at what the player has done on the court: points, assists, rebounds, blocks, steals, the rate at which they do them, and how they make their team better. I look at how long they have performed at what levels, and how consistent they have been.

It's odd that he complains about 'throwing out' Jordan's college career. We're not talking about college. We're talking about the best NBA player of all time. Does he think Jordan's two years at NC are more significant than Lebron's two years in the NBA? I don't.

He also mentions Jordan's retirement, interrupting his basketball career. I thought it odd at the time, but interesting. I can't understand it to this day. It certainly doesn't help MJs case for being the GOAT, leaving at the prime of his career. He'd have a better case had he played through those years, and possibly gotten another title or two, or at least gotten to the Finals.

 

[PIP]

Good reasoning, based upon his standards. He's looking at awards given by others, (DPOY, MVP) championships, which are team accomplishments, and scoring titles, which are one aspect of the offensive portion of the game.

Those aren't my standards. I look at what the player has done on the court: points, assists, rebounds, blocks, steals, the rate at which they do them, and how they make their team better. I look at how long they have performed at what levels, and how consistent they have been.

It's odd that he complains about 'throwing out' Jordan's college career. We're not talking about college. We're talking about the best NBA player of all time. Does he think Jordan's two years at NC are more significant than Lebron's two years in the NBA? I don't.

He also mentions Jordan's retirement, interrupting his basketball career. I thought it odd at the time, but interesting. I can't understand it to this day. It certainly doesn't help MJs case for being the GOAT, leaving at the prime of his career. He'd have a better case had he played through those years, and possibly gotten another title or two, or at least gotten to the Finals.

Actually I think it’s the opposite and adds to the mystique.

The only thing I think Jordan could have done in that era to enhance his legacy even more would have been to win the title in ‘95 instead of losing to the Magic. That’s it. Getting to the finals, facing the defending champion Rockets and winning that thing is really the only enhancer I see.

If someone wants to suggest him leading the Wizards to a title or something at 40 then okay but that was about as gimmicky as it gets — wanting all those old guys like Oakley & Lattener (tried to get Ewing to sign there)

But to retire, then come back essentially 2 years later and not just come back- but to absolutely destroy the league and go 72-10 ? Really just adds to part of the storyline…

 

[2 For The Brew]

I think it's impossible to compare players from different eras.

I'd look at it this way: there have been five eras in the NBA: Mikan, Russell, Kareem, MJ, LeBron. All five were dominant.

Who will be the next Era? The next man who will do what no others have done before him?

Who has the skills, poise, creativity and attitude?

One thing we know: There will be one.

I would give Jordan the edge over the rest because he proved dominance was not just for centers.

 

[foucault87]

Since this has kind of turned into a GOAT thread, Ill throw in my two cents. Feel free to move this somewhere else if it fits better there. First, I dont think championships are a good measure of ranking. There is too much randomness that goes into winning it all - you need good health, a good FO, good coaching, no rare events etc. Anything that says Patrick McCaw is a better player than Linas Kleiza is incorrect.


So, how do you measure how "good" a player is? I think there are two factors that are important. The first is something I would refer to as championship equity. Given the overall package of skills, attitude, drive, health etc if you were to put this player on a team, how do much do they help you get a championship. This matters a lot for ranking role players (if you want to do that for some reason) when you consider guys like Robert Horry and why they are better than someone like Terrance Ross. When talking GOAT level players, health and attitude become the major factors since all of these guys have enough as far as skills to qualify. I think longevity is pretty important here since the discussion of which player had the best single season is not the same as who is the best player. I think you basically want to optimize on both height and length of peak for this factor. Portability does matter a bit here too, how well does your game survive if you are paired with another star level player (looking at you Russ).

The second factor is a way to hopefully address the eras issue. That is the question of how does a player perform against their peers over the course of their career. Whether LeBron would average a 40-15-15 against the 1947 BAA or not doesn't really matter here. This more of a question of how well does our player scale up against the other greats of his era. Alex Groza and Bill Walton both shine under this factor.

I haven't really looked into this numerically or anything, so this ranking is not based on any math but my feeling is that you can make a pretty clear hierarchy of top players with the above two factors. I also don't think you can walk away with a clear ordinal ranking, so I am going to group my list in tiers. Tiers ordered by time period. Showing active players with longer bodies of work with asterisks for where I think they end up (except Bron and CP3 who are already there)

Tier 0 - True GOATs
Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Jordan
LeBron James

These four are pretty clearly the tippy top for me. All four were pretty much a guaranteed top 3 team in their primes and had relatively long lasting peaks for their eras. Three of the four were statistically the best player on the planet at their peaks. I think Russell was too since he absolutely dominated Wilt in the head-to-head.

Tier 1 - 2nd level GOATs
Wilt Chamberlain
Jerry West
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Steph Curry*

All guys who had long careers at MVP level. Also amongst the most dominant players in their primes. They all missed on something that the tier 0 guys had but are the next tier of player in my mind. If I had to pick one guy to move up, I think its super close between Timmy and Magic and I am not sure who I would pick at the end.

Tier 2 - High level MVPs
Oscar Robertson
Moses Malone
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kevin Garnett
Kobe Bryant
Giannis Antetokounmpo*

These guys were basically in the MVP discussion every year of their prime. Some limitations in terms of what they offer for pushing championships (not enough scoring, not enough passing, etc).

Tier 3 - Frequently MVP level
Bob Pettit
Elgin Baylor
Julius Erving
Isiah Thomas
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant*
Joel Embiid*
Nikola Jokic*

Tier 2 but about 80% as good.

Tier 4 - Sometimes MVP + really good 2nd Bananas
Dolph Schayes
John Havliceck
Willis Reed
Walt Frazier
Rick Barry
Charles Barkley
Scottie Pippen
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Reggie Miller
Jason Kidd
Allen Iverson
Steve Nash
Dirk Nowitzki
Ben Wallace
Dwayne Wade

This is the last tier that is sort of a catchall for the top layer of players who don't fit into the above 3 tiers, were not deliberately ignored, or forgotten about by the author.

Whatever the lowest tier is
Kevin Pagnos

You know why.

Roughly a ranking of the top somethingish players of all time. A few players I was not really sure what to do with (Mikan, Cousy) or don't want to acknowledge (Utah Jazz players, Harden, Russ) were arbitrarily left off.

 

[cavsfever]

Since this has kind of turned into a GOAT thread, Ill throw in my two cents. Feel free to move this somewhere else if it fits better there. First, I dont think championships are a good measure of ranking. There is too much randomness that goes into winning it all - you need good health, a good FO, good coaching, no rare events etc. Anything that says Patrick McCaw is a better player than Linas Kleiza is incorrect.


So, how do you measure how "good" a player is? I think there are two factors that are important. The first is something I would refer to as championship equity. Given the overall package of skills, attitude, drive, health etc if you were to put this player on a team, how do much do they help you get a championship. This matters a lot for ranking role players (if you want to do that for some reason) when you consider guys like Robert Horry and why they are better than someone like Terrance Ross. When talking GOAT level players, health and attitude become the major factors since all of these guys have enough as far as skills to qualify. I think longevity is pretty important here since the discussion of which player had the best single season is not the same as who is the best player. I think you basically want to optimize on both height and length of peak for this factor. Portability does matter a bit here too, how well does your game survive if you are paired with another star level player (looking at you Russ).

The second factor is a way to hopefully address the eras issue. That is the question of how does a player perform against their peers over the course of their career. Whether LeBron would average a 40-15-15 against the 1947 BAA or not doesn't really matter here. This more of a question of how well does our player scale up against the other greats of his era. Alex Groza and Bill Walton both shine under this factor.

I haven't really looked into this numerically or anything, so this ranking is not based on any math but my feeling is that you can make a pretty clear hierarchy of top players with the above two factors. I also don't think you can walk away with a clear ordinal ranking, so I am going to group my list in tiers. Tiers ordered by time period. Showing active players with longer bodies of work with asterisks for where I think they end up (except Bron and CP3 who are already there)

Tier 0 - True GOATs
Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Jordan
LeBron James

These four are pretty clearly the tippy top for me. All four were pretty much a guaranteed top 3 team in their primes and had relatively long lasting peaks for their eras. Three of the four were statistically the best player on the planet at their peaks. I think Russell was too since he absolutely dominated Wilt in the head-to-head.

Tier 1 - 2nd level GOATs
Wilt Chamberlain
Jerry West
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Steph Curry*

All guys who had long careers at MVP level. Also amongst the most dominant players in their primes. They all missed on something that the tier 0 guys had but are the next tier of player in my mind. If I had to pick one guy to move up, I think its super close between Timmy and Magic and I am not sure who I would pick at the end.

Tier 2 - High level MVPs
Oscar Robertson
Moses Malone
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kevin Garnett
Kobe Bryant
Giannis Antetokounmpo*

These guys were basically in the MVP discussion every year of their prime. Some limitations in terms of what they offer for pushing championships (not enough scoring, not enough passing, etc).

Tier 3 - Frequently MVP level
Bob Pettit
Elgin Baylor
Julius Erving
Isiah Thomas
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant*
Joel Embiid*
Nikola Jokic*

Tier 2 but about 80% as good.

Tier 4 - Sometimes MVP + really good 2nd Bananas
Dolph Schayes
John Havliceck
Willis Reed
Walt Frazier
Rick Barry
Charles Barkley
Scottie Pippen
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Reggie Miller
Jason Kidd
Allen Iverson
Steve Nash
Dirk Nowitzki
Ben Wallace
Dwayne Wade

This is the last tier that is sort of a catchall for the top layer of players who don't fit into the above 3 tiers, were not deliberately ignored, or forgotten about by the author.

Whatever the lowest tier is
Kevin Pagnos

You know why.

Roughly a ranking of the top somethingish players of all time. A few players I was not really sure what to do with (Mikan, Cousy) or don't want to acknowledge (Utah Jazz players, Harden, Russ) were arbitrarily left off.

Nice effort post here. But…Ben Wallace as good as Barkley and Pippen?

Contributions to winning in basketball are mysterious, it’s such a team game. But I feel like with Lebron for a very long stretch of his career, like over a decade, his contributions to winning were so incredibly visible. Like, with him his team was a championship contender, without him they sucked. Like, weren’t even a playoff team or were maybe barely a playoff team. I’ve never seen any other player who seemed to put teams on their back and drag them up to the heights the way he did. He just seems to do everything on the court like he’s boosting every other player. With Jordan, it was like his team with him was a championship team but without him they were still a good, well constructed team. I don’t know if this is sort of bad luck that Lebron has run into but his teams always felt kind of helpless without him. Even those Miami teams - after the first year Wades knee was fucked up and he wasn’t a great player any more.

That’s one reason I’d be excited to see Lebron come back to Cleveland, I’d really like to see what he can do in a true supporting role rather than having to do it all. Maybe I’m wrong but I think he’d like that too

 

[Lee]

Most of the other players we are discussing are different types of players, playing different roles, so the comparisons are never direct. But Kobe can be compared pretty directly to Jordan, and I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that Kobe was better than Michael Jordan.

That automatically relegates Kobe to the second tier of discussion.

Agreed,Kobe is the biggest copy cat there is and the shooting numbers arent even close, Jordan was much more effecient plus all the other accomplishents.

 

[Lee]

SO a bit off subject, but i was looking at the top 75 list the other day and they had Duncan at 8 and Hakeem at 13. I think they are decently comparable both being 2 way big men.

I love Duncan, but i was thinking I rather have Hakeem over Duncan if I had to pick between them, Not sure how Hakeem is that much lower than Duncan, but there have been allot of good NBA players, just curious on others opinions on Duncan vs Hakeem.

 

[jjvors]

SO a bit off subject, but i was looking at the top 75 list the other day and they had Duncan at 8 and Hakeem at 13. I think they are decently comparable both being 2 way big men.

I love Duncan, but i was thinking I rather have Hakeem over Duncan if I had to pick between them, Not sure how Hakeem is that much lower than Duncan, but there have been allot of good NBA players, just curious on others opinions on Duncan vs Hakeem.

Definitely would put Hakeem over Duncan. He was better offensively and defensively. I don't know who ranked them or how, but I'd guess he was influenced by the recency factor.

Bill Russell was better than both.

 

[foucault87]

Nice effort post here. But…Ben Wallace as good as Barkley and Pippen?

This is probably my spiciest take but I stand by it. Big Ben is one of a handful of players to be a pure defensive superstar. He was so good on that end. If we are going to give All O No D guys like Chuck and AI the benefit of the doubt, Ben deserves it too. I really think he is historically underrated.

On Hakeem vs Duncan

To me it comes down to the first of the factors I talked about. I think Duncan has more championship equity. He was the better passer and easier to fit an offense around. You could pair Timmy with a high usage guard or wing and he would be fine. Hakeem was more of a ball stopper and couldn't play well off the ball. I think both were excellent defenders and Hakeem was better on that end but not by so much that it offsets the portability and offensive skill of Tim Duncan.