Order how you define GOAT Players

[Black and White]

Order the criteria based on what you feel is most important to least important in defining the GOAT players, I have added a few criteria that factor in context:

Championship ring
Finals MVP award
MVP award
Strength of competition/era
Efficiency/PER
Strength of supporting cast
Individual stats
Ability in the clutch
Longevity
Winning % (finals, playoff and RS)

curious to see if the answers for this support the consensus top 10

[Deuce Bigalow]

A winning Finals series record

[jzek]

# of rings + # of MVPs + # of FMVPs + did he play in the modern era (i.e., 80s and up) = GOAT

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Order the criteria based on what you feel is most important to least important in defining the GOAT players, I have added a few criteria that factor in context:

Championship ring
Finals MVP award
MVP award
Strength of competition/era
Efficiency/PER
Strength of supporting cast
Individual stats
Ability in the clutch
Longevity
Winning % (finals, playoff and RS)

curious to see if the answers for this support the consensus top 10

Can't lose in the finals- thats how I rate GOAT players.

[KingPush]

FMVPs
Rings
MVPs
Career Stats



Thats all that should matter tbh

[fpliii]

Level of play alone, and how long it's maintained. Don't look at accolades at all.

Now, stats (at least box score numbers, or shit box score based metrics like PER or WS) don't define level of play to me. IMO it's about how much you help your teams win as much as possible.

[Black and White]

Level of play alone, and how long it's maintained. Don't look at accolades at all.

Now, stats (at least box score numbers, or shit box score based metrics like PER or WS) don't define level of play to me. IMO it's about how much you help your teams win as much as possible.

So a combination of individual play and winning %?

[jzek]

FMVPs
Rings
MVPs
Career Stats



Thats all that should matter tbh

Which era he played should also matter. The NBA was so different (read: weak) in the 50s, 60s, 70s compared to 80s and up.

Shaq and Jordan for example would dominate any era whereas Russell or Wilt won't be able to reproduce their accomplishments inthe modern era. Russell got his rings when there were like only 12 or 15 NBA teams total. WTF!

[fpliii]

So a combination of individual play and winning %?
I mean, it's tough to say. Not so much individual play, but the level of play of the individual. Win % is problematic since level competition varies depending on who/when we're talking about, but I want the high level play to be in the context of winning basketball.

When I evaluate a player, I like to do a few things:

1) Determine his role (from watching games, pace-adjusted box score stats like DRB%, reading articles/quotes from teammates and such, etc.).
2) Determine his level of impact (stuff like RAPM, team ORtg/DRtg, etc.).
3) Determine how he does what he does (watching more games, looking at shot charts, etc.).

It's very imprecise, but I don't have a GOAT list, so I don't mind being as subjective as I am.

[Black and White]

I mean, it's tough to say. Not so much individual play, but the level of play of the individual. Win % is problematic since level competition varies depending on who/when we're talking about, but I want the high level play to be in the context of winning basketball.

When I evaluate a player, I like to do a few things:

1) Determine his role (from watching games, pace-adjusted box score stats like DRB%, reading articles/quotes from teammates and such, etc.).
2) Determine his level of impact (stuff like RAPM, team ORtg/DRtg, etc.).
3) Determine how he does what he does (watching more games, looking at shot charts, etc.).

It's very imprecise, but I don't have a GOAT list, so I don't mind being as subjective as I am.

No its fair enough, everybody has their own critera, your criteria is great for comparing players I think, if we took two players and used yours to compare them I can't imagine us getting it wrong :cheers:

[kennethgriffin]

i think players should be ranked by total ring prestige

judging guys is never as clearcut as fmvp, 2nd banana, role player

some teams have a ton of stars. others only have 1

some teams are built with a 2 man combo. others have a deep all around team built on just chemistry


russells 11 rings obviously arent worth 11 full rings. he had 5 hall of fame team mates at a time. most of the time he wasnt a top offensive player. but he was the leader. then you factor in era's


for kobe

2000 - 21/5/5 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 60% prestige
2001 - 29/7/6 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 90% prestige
2002 - 27/6/5 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 85% prestige
2009 - 29/6/5 playoffs ( 1 HOF'r team ) = 100% prestige
2010 - 29/6/5 playoffs ( 1 HOF'r team ) = 100% prestige

435 prestige points = 4.35 rings


lebron

2012 - 30/9/5 playoffs ( 3 HOF'r team/ lockout season/ east ) = 20% prestige
2013 - 26/8/6 playoffs ( 4 HOF'r team/ ray allen/ east ) = 30% prestige


lebrons 2 rings is probably worth closer to 0.5

[fpliii]

No its fair enough, everybody has their own critera, your criteria is great for comparing players I think, if we took two players and used yours to compare them I can't imagine us getting it wrong :cheers:
Well, I'm not sure if it would tell us who was better, but at least after going through these criteria, I'll generally come out knowing more about those two players than when I started. :D That's enough for me at least.

[Bless Mathews]

Jordan than everybody else fighting for second.


Very easy.

[Warfan]

Some link/tie up with each other, but these are pretty much the main 5 things I'd look at when comparing players:

Prime & Peak

Impact (so basically level of play and this relates to a players prime/peak, and stats are pretty important for this part)

Accolades (context is VERY important here, atleast for me)

Skills (pretty important however effectiveness is more important, because effectiveness leads to impact moreso than skills IMO)

Longevity (don't care for it much, I won't neglect it but I think people overrate it)


I dont really care for lists anymore, mainly because whenever I make a list it would be different if I tried it the next day, so If i had to i would just put players in tiers, which would look something like this (again this is probably different to a list I've already posted here)


Mj/Kareem/Wilt/Russell
Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem/Bird
Magic/Kobe/LeBron

[SouBeachTalents]

i think players should be ranked by total ring prestige

judging guys is never as clearcut as fmvp, 2nd banana, role player

some teams have a ton of stars. others only have 1

some teams are built with a 2 man combo. others have a deep all around team built on just chemistry


russells 11 rings obviously arent worth 11 full rings. he had 5 hall of fame team mates at a time. most of the time he wasnt a top offensive player. but he was the leader. then you factor in era's


for kobe

2000 - 21/5/5 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 60% prestige
2001 - 29/7/6 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 90% prestige
2002 - 27/6/5 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 85% prestige
2009 - 29/6/5 playoffs ( 1 HOF'r team ) = 100% prestige
2010 - 29/6/5 playoffs ( 1 HOF'r team ) = 100% prestige

435 prestige points = 4.35 rings


lebron

2012 - 30/9/5 playoffs ( 3 HOF'r team/ lockout season/ east ) = 20% prestige
2013 - 26/8/6 playoffs ( 4 HOF'r team/ ray allen/ east ) = 30% prestige


lebrons 2 rings is probably worth closer to 0.5




The 2012 Thunder & 2013 Spurs were better than any team the Lakers beat in their 09-10 title runs

[Psileas]

Order the criteria based on what you feel is most important to least important in defining the GOAT players, I have added a few criteria that factor in context:

Championship ring
Finals MVP award
MVP award
Strength of competition/era
Efficiency/PER
Strength of supporting cast
Individual stats
Ability in the clutch
Longevity
Winning % (finals, playoff and RS)

curious to see if the answers for this support the consensus top 10

It's tough to order the criteria, tomorrow my order may be a little different from today, but in general (and only among the things you mentioned):

Championship ring --> Not necessarily important. Their performance in the Finals counts more than the ring itself. And not just in the Finals.

Finals MVP award --> Somewhat, but not necessarily highly important. It's more like a "reminder", not a "certificate". Finals = 4-7 games, most players are already tired when having reached them and at times you don't even have to play great in all of them to win F.MVP. I view their whole postseason, not just the Finals, not to mention that there have been some screw ups in the past.

MVP award --> More important than F.MVP, but again only as a reminder, a super individual season that, for some reason, didn't win someone an MVP may count as much or at times more. I'm not taking '62 Russell's season over Wilt's, I'm not taking Cowens' '73 season over Kareem's, etc. Accolades+awards = certain people's opinion. I don't necessarily share it.

Strength of competition/era --> At times plays a strong role that tends to be historically downplayed or forgotten. Problem is, pretty much anyone has his own competition/era bias and this doesn't help compile an impartial list.

Efficiency/PER --> Individual level of play is what I consider the most important factor, but some stuff, like blending with your teammates, making them better, being a role model in practice, etc, are things that can't be seen by fans and are majorly ignored. It's not easy to blend in a team if you're much more talented than your teammates, because your level of play gives off the biased view that your behavior to your teammates is always justifiable. If you're very good and you're being an asshole, you're "ultra competitive", if you're mediocre and you're being an asshole, you're, well, an asshole.
PER is a manufactured mix, and I don't necessarily agree with the extent it values each stat, I can create such stuff myself.

Strength of supporting cast --> Goes both ways usually. If high, it helps you win more, but it prevents you from padding certain stats. Each case is specific and it has to be combined with level of competition to become more meaningful.

Individual stats --> Yes, especially if it's combined with playing for a serious team.

Ability in the clutch --> Yes, but a bit overrated in that in order to even have a chance to have clutch situations, you have to at least have tried hard enough during all the previous minutes to stay relatively close. Also, "clutch player" > "clutch scorer" (and little else), meaning that any superstar with some decent ability in the clutch (e.g, Shaq) is still more important than Robert Horry in the clutch (which is why I laugh at any notion that Horry may be anywhere near the GOAT clutch players).

Longevity --> Important, but longevity without some really elite/dominant seasons will never enter you into the GOAT discussion.

Winning % (finals, playoff and RS) --> Yes, displaying individual dominance while playing for winners always counts more than dominating for losers, but only to the extent that I deem that the "losers'" leader would not be able to dominate and win as much if he played for a better team and vice versa. So, yes, K.Leonard is a damn good player, but I'll still take Kevin Love over him any day, until Leonard approaches Love's productivity with a good team or proves that he can lead a mediocre team better than Love or Love proves that he can't do the stuff Leonard did even with a good team.

[GimmeThat]

Order the criteria based on what you feel is most important to least important in defining the GOAT players, I have added a few criteria that factor in context:

Championship ring
Finals MVP award
MVP award
Strength of competition/era
Efficiency/PER
Strength of supporting cast
Individual stats
Ability in the clutch
Longevity
Winning % (finals, playoff and RS)

curious to see if the answers for this support the consensus top 10


Championship rings/Individual stats/Winning %

FMVP/Efficiency/PER

MVP Award/Ability in the clutch/Longevity


I'd probably break it down by those 3 tiers.

The first tier shows team achievments/accomplishments at the highest level as well as individual performance

the second tier is really about jutifying and differentiating the first tier at a closer level

the third tier is giving credit to effort.


And no, it probably doesn't even fit the consensus of my top 10 going by this criteria I just told ya.

[jayfan]

Compile a field of 64 players. Have a bracket tournament. The winner of each match-up is determined by answering the following question objectively:

Game 7, for all the marbles, which player would you rather have on your team?

Winner of the tourney is GOAT. :cheers:

[Marchesk]

Game 7, for all the marbles, which player would you rather have on your team?

http://www.ultimate-youth-basketball-guide.com/images/robert-horry-lastsecond-shot-vs-sacramento-kings-21385896.jpg

[SouBeachTalents]

Compile a field of 64 players. Have a bracket tournament. The winner of each match-up is determined by answering the following question objectively:

Game 7, for all the marbles, which player would you rather have on your team?

Winner of the tourney is GOAT. :cheers:

That strategy definitely has it's flaws, I feel like Shaq for example could potentially jump up to #2 according to that logic

[dubeta]

Being able to average 25+ ppg while shooting 55% and able to shoot the 3 also

This means that the player can score easily, in a high volume, while having the total arsenal to also score the 3, the complete basketball player who can completely dominate and is highly efficient, not someone who chucks bricks.

Since somehow only LeBron fits this criteria LeBron is GOAT :bowdown: :bowdown:

The rest are debatable #2-#10

[dubeta]

Compile a field of 64 players. Have a bracket tournament. The winner of each match-up is determined by answering the following question objectively:

Game 7, for all the marbles, which player would you rather have on your team?

Winner of the tourney is GOAT. :cheers:

LMAO kobe wouldnt qualify *cough* 6-24 *cough*

[jayfan]

That strategy definitely has it's flaws, I feel like Shaq for example could potentially jump up to #2 according to that logic

I suppose, but in my book Shaq's inability to shoot and make free throws would have him susceptible to loss against quite a few players.

[jlip]

Honestly it depends on the mood I'm in that day. For that reason I do not have a concrete GOAT list.

[Marchesk]

Peak (Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks)

Wilt estimated +24 on the entire field. :bowdown:

[KOBE143]

I define GOAT players base on:

50% - looks
40% - playing style (Should be aesthetically pleasing)
9% - accolades
1% - stats

Base on this definition, I can say unbiasedly and without a single trace of hidden agenda that Kobe is the GOAT..

[KyleKong]

Anyone having rings as their #1 factor are retarts.

[iamgine]

Level of play sustained during a reasonable amount of time should be the only criteria.

But it's impossible to determine for all players, so we look for other stuff that indicates level of play. Things like MVP, stats, titles, etc.

[Keno]

i think players should be ranked by total ring prestige

judging guys is never as clearcut as fmvp, 2nd banana, role player

some teams have a ton of stars. others only have 1

some teams are built with a 2 man combo. others have a deep all around team built on just chemistry


russells 11 rings obviously arent worth 11 full rings. he had 5 hall of fame team mates at a time. most of the time he wasnt a top offensive player. but he was the leader. then you factor in era's


for kobe

2000 - 21/5/5 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 60% prestige
2001 - 29/7/6 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 90% prestige
2002 - 27/6/5 playoffs ( 2 HOF'r team ) = 85% prestige
2009 - 29/6/5 playoffs ( 1 HOF'r team ) = 100% prestige
2010 - 29/6/5 playoffs ( 1 HOF'r team ) = 100% prestige

435 prestige points = 4.35 rings


lebron

2012 - 30/9/5 playoffs ( 3 HOF'r team/ lockout season/ east ) = 20% prestige
2013 - 26/8/6 playoffs ( 4 HOF'r team/ ray allen/ east ) = 30% prestige


lebrons 2 rings is probably worth closer to 0.5




nice way of looking at it. now, on top of that we discuss the coaches. one of them having the zen master, arguably the greatest coach in the history of the nba, 13 total rings. while the other player has an asian video coordinator, only got the head coach job due to his reputation in the organization, and can't handle player's egos like the zen master can. one of these coaches is carrying and coaching the team properly while the other is being carried by the player.

this increases lebron's prestige points by 200 while it decreases kobe's by 200. so lebron: 2.5 prestige points and kobe 2.3 prestige points. lebron > kobe.

[ILLsmak]

I look at consistency, ability to impact the game when playing at their highest level, and the amount of damage they do when they are playing terrible.

I take quitting very seriously also. Notroll. Kobe and Bron quitting is unforgivable.
Kobe didn't quit as much as act stupid and lose.

So longevity means nothing. If someone had the single greatest season in NBA history as a rookie and died, they would be GOAT to me.

That being said, if you are comparing someone who was great for 2 years to someone who was equally great for 1, it matters.

-Smak

[bizil]

When I define the greatest, the main criteria for me are:

Longevity being great
Numbers
Peak Value
Team Accolades
Solo accolades
Impact on the L (in terms or redefining a position or transcending the sport)

I think u weigh all of these factors, and u can come up with who are the GOAT's. In terms of GOAT ranking, its your resume. Peak value alone can be a different criteria. For example, I think Barkley is likely the best power forward of all time peak value wise. BUT Duncan is the GOAT PF. All of this is based on opinion. But the TWO THINGS that aren't based on opinion are numbers and championships. So I think those two things SHOULD weigh heavily. Things like MVPs and All NBA teams are actually accolades that are based on opinion, but of course they hold major weight too.

[red1]

I define GOAT players base on:

50% - looks
40% - playing style (Should be aesthetically pleasing)
9% - accolades
1% - stats

Base on this definition, I can say unbiasedly and without a single trace of hidden agenda that Kobe is the GOAT..
:lol

[red1]

Level of play alone, and how long it's maintained. Don't look at accolades at all.

Now, stats (at least box score numbers, or shit box score based metrics like PER or WS) don't define level of play to me. IMO it's about how much you help your teams win as much as possible.
reasonable answer

[aj1987]

Make up arbitrary bullshit criteria. That's what most GOAT lists are. Arbitrary BS lists.

If we actually go by MVP's, FMVP's, DPOY's, etc. Russell would be the undisputed GOAT.

@ the 32 year old alcoholic Canadian, you forgot to factor in the number of times that Kobe was carried. That leaves him with 0.1 rings.

[jstern]

Ability in the clutch > Circumstances > MVPs > Individual Stats > Finals MVP > Rings

[thefatmiral]

number of steals on a Thursday night after eating too much dominos pizza

[rhowen4]

Number of rings x number of times named Kobe Bryant

[smoovegittar]

There is no "Greatest Of All Time". Records are made to be broken, and the game evolves. I would pick the best player out of every decade just to be reasonable.

[knicksman]

1st option ring
2nd option ring
ringchaser(BRONze rings), RS MVPs

[ArbitraryWater]

I dont think ive ever read winning % as part of criteria lol

and you list all this grabage, dude, its called "accolades", no need to count down the mvp's..

[jlip]

Which era he played should also matter. The NBA was so different (read: weak) in the 50s, 60s, 70s compared to 80s and up.

Shaq and Jordan for example would dominate any era whereas Russell or Wilt won't be able to reproduce their accomplishments inthe modern era. Russell got his rings when there were like only 12 or 15 NBA teams total. WTF!

Half the accolades MJ has didn't exist before 1970. So there is no way he would be able to reproduce his accomplishments if he played in the 60's.

Is that how we play this game? :confusedshrug:

[G.O.A.T]

Contribution to Winning

That is my primary factor.

I've tried to choose a list of criteria, but as others have said, it becomes to subjective.

I've tried to base things on my objective personal opinions, but as others have said, that can be fleeting.

What it comes down to is this. At the start of every NBA season there should be 10-15 guys (depending on the era) on each team whose goal is to contribute as much as they can with their talents to their teams winning. This and this alone should be what is used to evaluate players. Who ever does the best job of that the most often wins.

Now lets understand that those other items mentioned by the OP and many others are not useless or to be ignored. By looking at stats, listening to popular and contrarian opinion, observing game play, reviewing accolades and accounts of players from the moment allows us to compile a list of players who should be eligible for the distinction of "best at winning games" each year.

This is not a perfect method, sometimes a player with the abilities to help a team win games at a significant level will go much or all of his career without the necessary factors around them in place to demonstrate said ability at a high level, but rarely. The cream often if not always rises.

Studing popular opinion and the thought that challenges it allows you to be (if you're willing and able) more objective as well. For example a few years ago I noticed there is a near consensus of 10 players who are in almost every top ten list...Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, Duncan. I happen to agree with this as the group of the best players all-time and upon studying their achievements found they were the only ten players who won at least two NBA titles as their teams best player, at least one Finals MVP and won a regular season MVP. Technically Mikan joins this group if you give him the MVP and Finals MVP's he'd have won if the awards were given then, but many exclude pre-shot clock era players. Since LeBron James has joined this group and he and Mikan with that ten make up my top 12.

Now I continue to group players and look for common bonds that allow me to better and more objectivley rank their accomplishments as well as their abilities.