What do you think are the top criteria, in order, for the GOAT list?

[Westbrook0]

For me:


1. MVPs - This means you were the best in the league for an entire season. A hard category to top.

2. Finals MVPs - This means that not only did you win a ring, but you were the most instrumental player in doing so.

3. Rings - Championships. Self-Explanatory.

4. Stats - Stats don't tell the whole story, but they certainly tell a huge part of it.

5. Eye Test

6. All-NBA 1st team

7. All-defensive team / DPOY

8. All-star

9. Scoring Champ

10. Longevity

[RRR3]

1. Whatever fits my agenda

[riseagainst]

1. be named lebron james

2. have exactly 4 MVPs

3. have exactly 2 FMVPs

4. been to the finals exactly 6 times

5. show your d1ck on public television

[BlakFrankWhite]

Have combined Rings/FMVP/MVP in double diigits

For e.g Jordan is at 16....6/6/5

Duncan is at 5/3/2 ahead of Kobe who's 5/2/1

[jzek]

First of all, I discard every accomplishment prior to 1980. NBA's a joke from 1950-1979. LOL at having only 15 teams in the 50s and 60s. LOL at not being able to dribble with the weaker hand. LOL at averaging 50 points and 50 rebounds per game. LOL LOL LOL!

Then I look at the number of MVPs, FMVPs, Finals appearances and number of titles won.

Result of the above would be the GOAT (Jordan).

[SouBeachTalents]

For me:


1. MVPs - This means you were the best in the league for an entire season. A hard category to top.

2. Finals MVPs - This means that not only did you win a ring, but you were the most instrumental player in doing so.

3. Rings - Championships. Self-Explanatory.

4. Stats - Stats don't tell the whole story, but they certainly tell a huge part of it.

5. Eye Test

6. All-NBA 1st team

7. All-defensive team / DPOY

8. All-star

9. Scoring Champ

10. Longevity

These two are completely false. I don't think anybody in the world would consider Rose in 2011 or Nash in '05 & '06 to be the best player in the world. Hell, you could argue they weren't even top 5 in those seasons. And there have been several times a Finals MVP was not the most instrumental player on their team, just look at Iggy this past season, same goes for Parker in '07, Worthy in '88, Maxwell in '81 etc.

I do think MVP's & Finals MVP's are important, but you have to have context. No way in hell do I think Steve Nash is better than Elgin Baylor because he has a 2-0 MVP count over him

[Fallen Angel]

Longevity is #1

[Akrazotile]

In order of importance for consideration on the GOAT list:

1. NO raping

2. NO snitching

3. Basketball reasons

[Westbrook0]

These two are completely false. I don't think anybody in the world would consider Rose in 2011 or Nash in '05 & '06 to be the best player in the world. Hell, you could argue they weren't even top 5 in those seasons. And there have been several times a Finals MVP was not the most instrumental player on their team, just look at Iggy this past season, same goes for Parker in '07, Worthy in '88, Maxwell in '81 etc.

I do think MVP's & Finals MVP's are important, but you have to have context. No way in hell do I think Steve Nash is better than Elgin Baylor because he has a 2-0 MVP count over him


I knew someone would come in here with this bullshit.

:facepalm

Edit: What I'm trying to say before you get your panties in a bunch is, calm the f.uck down. There are always exceptions to every rule. I realize that a handful of MVPs and Finals MVPs over the last however many decades are debatable.

[Westbrook0]

These two are completely false. I don't think anybody in the world would consider Rose in 2011 or Nash in '05 & '06 to be the best player in the world. Hell, you could argue they weren't even top 5 in those seasons. And there have been several times a Finals MVP was not the most instrumental player on their team, just look at Iggy this past season, same goes for Parker in '07, Worthy in '88, Maxwell in '81 etc.

I do think MVP's & Finals MVP's are important, but you have to have context. No way in hell do I think Steve Nash is better than Elgin Baylor because he has a 2-0 MVP count over him

Also, if you don't factor in MVPs or Finals MVPs, what are YOUR top criteria for GOAT? Rings only?

[SouBeachTalents]

Also, if you don't factor in MVPs or Finals MVPs, what are YOUR top criteria for GOAT? Rings only?

I think those are obviously important, but your definitions of them were completely wrong, especially in regards to MVP. MVP is clearly not given out to the best player in the league, otherwise that would mean Nash had more seasons as best player in the league than Shaq, Kobe, & Hakeem. Ditto Rose over West, Baylor, and Wade.

I just hate when people blindly rank players simply on the number of accolades they receive without any context

[SHAQisGOAT]

You put MVP's 1st then rings, yet you don't even mention competition (or even teammates)... Very important as well.

I'd say impact (on one's team, towards winning) and peak/prime as an overall player are the most important things, then you got MVP's/rings considering competition, followed by performances at the highest level, stats and eye test go hand-in-hand, longevity is important but I wouldn't put it as a top priority - if a player shows tremendous impact for some years and has a solid career duration, he shouldn't be below a player who's had terrific longevity but not as good of a prime (that won't include players like Penny or even Walton).

[ClipperRevival]

No mention of peak or clutch play?

But I don't use a certain rating system, I look at the entire picture and try to come to an objective conclusion. You always have to look at context. Of course, things like rings, mvps, fmvps, peak, longevity, two-way ability, etc all matter.

[G0ATbe]

Eye test

Rings

Era

[Westbrook0]

Eye test

Rings

Era


:roll: :roll:

[Rocketswin2013]

1A. Ability in the regular season
1B. Ability in the playoffs
2. Prime production
3. Peak production
4. Consistency/longevity

Anything after this should be used as a tie breaker. If two guys played at the same level and, one has more significant accolades than the other, then I'd give the sight edge based on that.

I'm starting to not give a shit about rings more and more. It just doesn't make sense.

[RidonKs]

longevity should be way higher and 'eye test' does not count as a category unto itself since that just means watching them play basketball which is what we're talking about...

[DaHeezy]

Impact. Howmuchof a difference a player makes on a team.

Skill set. A players ability given the physical attributes.

Stats. Performance on the court.

Championships to me are a team accomplishment and have little bearing on player a vs b

[ClipperRevival]

If you guys don't care about rings, the all time great list is completely off because the one common deniminator besides being great players is they won multiple rings, even Wilt. If this was baseball or football, I could understand putting less weight on rings. But in bball? Where one player can have a huge impact on the game? It carries a lot of weight for me.

[ClipperRevival]

Impact. Howmuchof a difference a player makes on a team.

Skill set. A players ability given the physical attributes.

Stats. Performance on the court.

Championships to me are a team accomplishment and have little bearing on player a vs b

So you are not going to give extra credit to a guy like Hakeem who lifted his game in the playoffs? Or hamper Lebron in 2011 when he clearly got afraid of the moment and deferred? These guys aren't robots. You write your own legacy in the playoffs.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Basketball playing ability is the most important criteria....right after alphaness.

[LAZERUSS]

If you guys don't care about rings, the all time great list is completely off because the one common deniminator besides being great players is they won multiple rings, even Wilt. If this was baseball or football, I could understand putting less weight on rings. But in bball? Where one player can have a huge impact on the game? It carries a lot of weight for me.

Th problem is, one player only has so much control over the outcome, even in basketball. There are so many variables that go into team titles. Supporting casts, opposition's supporting casts, level of play by teammates and opposing teammates, injuries, coaching, officiating, and luck.

I always found it fascinating that Kevin Garnett's teams struggled to even get into the playoffs for the first half of his career, and then when he teamed up with Pierce and Allen...boom... a 66-16 team that dominated in the Finals. How many rings would he have had had he had teammates like that in his prime years?

Shaq won four rings, three as the primary player, and in his three-peat, he put up staggering performances in the Finals. BUT, Kobe was the player that got him there in the WC playoffs in '01 and '02.

MJ? Couldn't get to the Finals in his first six seasons. It wasn't until he was given the most stacked rosters of the 90's, that he won six rings.

A prime Kareem, in his first ten seasons...won one ring. Paired up with Magic...he won five more.

As you look back on Duncan's career, his rosters look a helluva lot better today, than they did at the time. He already has one HOF teammate (Robinson), and he likely will have at least two more.

[Sarcastic]

FMVP means absolutely nothing unless you also have a MVP somewhere along the line. Iggy, Parker, Kawhi, etc. aren't moving up the list massively because of their FMVPs. But players like Barkley and Malone are top 20 because of their MVPs.

[sdot_thadon]

Tier 1
Peak/prime play- just how good were they at their best?

Impact- ability to warp the game/team around them.

Stats- record of players production.

Tier 2
Mvps- sustained excellence over 82 games.

Finals Mvp- best player over 4-7 games while winning the chip.

Rings- winning. 1st option/best player rings most valuable.

Longevity- how long player was elite/effective.

Tier 3
Allstar teams/all nba- further validation of elite status.

Scoring titles- need explaining?

Competition/era


Different aspects are weighted differently. Context is a must for all information considered.

[Marchesk]

If you guys don't care about rings, the all time great list is completely off because the one common deniminator besides being great players is they won multiple rings, even Wilt. If this was baseball or football, I could understand putting less weight on rings. But in bball? Where one player can have a huge impact on the game? It carries a lot of weight for me.

Sam Jones has 10 rings and Hondo has 8 (with Hondo winning in the 60s and 70s), but they're not in anyone's top 10.

[RidonKs]

So you are not going to give extra credit to a guy like Hakeem who lifted his game in the playoffs? Or hamper Lebron in 2011 when he clearly got afraid of the moment and deferred? These guys aren't robots. You write your own legacy in the playoffs.
this is the argument that has been the mainstay of insidehoops' favourite dog and pony show, the kblaze v dmavs epic.

I ALREADY KNOW HOW GOOD HE IS
BUT WHAT IF HES BETTER IN JUNE THAN APRIL
etc

i don't think its a soluble problem but it sure makes for interesting digressions from two dudes who know their shit.

[WillC]

1. Significance

[Hittin_Shots]

Have combined Rings/FMVP/MVP in double diigits

For e.g Jordan is at 16....6/6/5

Duncan is at 5/3/2 ahead of Kobe who's 5/2/1

Mathematic skills up there in importance?

[iamgine]

1. Impact (within context).

Of course since this is practically incalculable, people has been trying to invent useless ways to calculate it (ring count, stats, etc).

[Iceman#44]

Winnin' plus individual domination

[Nash]

1. fmvp = shows that you can lead your team to championships
2. mvp = shows that you're dominate player
3. championships = check fmvp but more of a team accomplishment
4. stats = shows how easy the game came to you.

[knicksman]

Of course rings. Only betas settle for less.

[DMV2]

These two are completely false. I don't think anybody in the world would consider Rose in 2011 or Nash in '05 & '06 to be the best player in the world. Hell, you could argue they weren't even top 5 in those seasons. And there have been several times a Finals MVP was not the most instrumental player on their team, just look at Iggy this past season, same goes for Parker in '07, Worthy in '88, Maxwell in '81 etc.

I do think MVP's & Finals MVP's are important, but you have to have context. No way in hell do I think Steve Nash is better than Elgin Baylor because he has a 2-0 MVP count over him
You don't just use MVP, FMVP, etc individually though...most people combine them, factor in other things too.

4 MVPs, 6 FMVPs, only 2-time 3-peat #1 option, GOAT Finals performances, 6 scoring titles, 30-40PPG in Finals in 6 championship seasons out in 8-year span gives Jordan a huge leverage on everybody else. Then add his other MVPs, DPOTY, iconic moments, etc... And he only played with Pippen, a Top 30 all-time...whereas Magic played with the GOAT center, vice versa Kareem playing with the GOAT PG and another top 3 PG in Big O to get his 6 rings.

[WillC]

1. Impact (within context).

Of course since this is practically incalculable, people has been trying to invent useless ways to calculate it (ring count, stats, etc).

Yup, pretty much.

[ClipperRevival]

Th problem is, one player only has so much control over the outcome, even in basketball. There are so many variables that go into team titles. Supporting casts, opposition's supporting casts, level of play by teammates and opposing teammates, injuries, coaching, officiating, and luck.

I always found it fascinating that Kevin Garnett's teams struggled to even get into the playoffs for the first half of his career, and then when he teamed up with Pierce and Allen...boom... a 66-16 team that dominated in the Finals. How many rings would he have had had he had teammates like that in his prime years?

Shaq won four rings, three as the primary player, and in his three-peat, he put up staggering performances in the Finals. BUT, Kobe was the player that got him there in the WC playoffs in '01 and '02.

MJ? Couldn't get to the Finals in his first six seasons. It wasn't until he was given the most stacked rosters of the 90's, that he won six rings.

A prime Kareem, in his first ten seasons...won one ring. Paired up with Magic...he won five more.

As you look back on Duncan's career, his rosters look a helluva lot better today, than they did at the time. He already has one HOF teammate (Robinson), and he likely will have at least two more.

That's why context is important. Of course one player can't beat a great team. No matter how great you are, you need some help. But we all know this. But most times, when teams face each other in the playoffs, the difference in talent isn't that drastic and "the man" on a team can make or break your team. A transcending player can impose his will on the game in stretches. We saw this with Bron this year in the finals. We saw it with MJ. We saw it with Wade. We saw it with Dirk. We saw it with Shaq.

I don't like the idea of people treating players like they are robots and assume that he will give you a certain amount of production in the playoffs and if he doesn't win, he didn't have help. Players can either rise or not show up when it matters. Players have a chance to write their own legacy. Again, context is key. Kg in Minn wasn't winning. Neither was 1987 Bulls or 2006 Lakers.

[ClipperRevival]

Sam Jones has 10 rings and Hondo has 8 (with Hondo winning in the 60s and 70s), but they're not in anyone's top 10.

Context. Context. What roles did they play? They weren't lead dogs. Just like no one has Pippen is in their top10 despite 6 rings. My point is, when judging the best ever in this sport, where you as "the man" can have a huge impact on the game, you need to win some rings at some point. This is the high rent district. We aren't talking about top 40-50 players, we are talking top 10. The best ever. The transcending players. And in that discussion, you need to win to get in that discussion and history agrees with me because the top 10 al have guys who won at least 2 rings.

[PickernRoller]

For me:

1. MVPs - This means you were the best in the league for an entire season. A hard category to top.

2. Finals MVPs - This means that not only did you win a ring, but you were the most instrumental player in doing so.

3. Rings - Championships. Self-Explanatory.

4. Stats - Stats don't tell the whole story, but they certainly tell a huge part of it.

5. Eye Test

6. All-NBA 1st team

7. All-defensive team / DPOY

8. All-star

10. Longevity

#1 is wrong, flat out wrong. Best player in the league stopped being automatic MVP a long time ago - and we are talking prime Shaq era (early 2000's, late 90's).

Best player in the league:

99-2002 - Shaq.
2003-2005 - Duncan.
06-10 Kobe.
11 - Rose.(11* (Kobe was on a bum knee, Rose played out of his god damn mind that year, unlike Lebron)).
12-15 Lebron

#1 Rings and Finals MVP
---subset: Repeats and 3-peats. Very important.

3 rings in a three-peat > 3 sparse championship rings. Likewise for FMVP etc.

#2 Eye Test
---- Best player in the league, dominance, no empty stats.
#3 Longevity
---- Sustained dominance at the highest level.
---- All-star selections
---- Final appearances
#4 MVP (today's media MVP)
----- Top 3 in the league in a given year with a great team record (Top 4 least).
#5 Stats
----- All NBA first team selections/DPOY/Scoring Champ.

[RidonKs]

pickernroller gets it but there is still no way the eye test should be subordinate to any other factor. remove any other factor and you can still use the eye test to prove x > y. remove the eye test and your proof for x > y will always be critically deficient.

team success and role played in team success comes after longevity imo

[toxicxr6]

#1 is wrong, flat out wrong. Best player in the league stopped being automatic MVP a long time ago - and we are talking prime Shaq era (early 2000's, late 90's).

Best player in the league:

99-2002 - Shaq.
2003-2005 - Duncan.
06-10 Kobe.
11 - Rose.(11* (Kobe was on a bum knee, Rose played out of his god damn mind that year, unlike Lebron)).
12-15 Lebron

#1 Rings and Finals MVP
---subset: Repeats and 3-peats. Very important.

3 rings in a three-peat > 3 sparse championship rings. Likewise for FMVP etc.

#2 Eye Test
---- Best player in the league, dominance, no empty stats.
#3 Longevity
---- Sustained dominance at the highest level.
---- All-star selections
---- Final appearances
#4 MVP (today's media MVP)
----- Top 3 in the league in a given year with a great team record (Top 4 least).
#5 Stats
----- All NBA first team selections/DPOY/Scoring Champ.


Typical Kobe stan totally inflating how long Kobe was the best player.. And reducing everyone else
Reality is the main criteria of defining the leagues best player shows Kobe was only the best one year... And that's pretty much true..
Shaq, Duncan and lebron had far longer periods of dominance than Kobe
:facepalm

[PickernRoller]

Typical Kobe stan totally inflating how long Kobe was the best player.. And reducing everyone else
Reality is the main criteria of defining the leagues best player shows Kobe was only the best one year... And that's pretty much true..
Shaq, Duncan and lebron had far longer periods of dominance than Kobe
:facepalm

You can call me out all you want. Fact is you will look like an ignorant clown when you claim Kobe was best-player-in-the-league for just 1 year. That's simply factually incorrect. In short, cry-me a river...

[toxicxr6]

pickernroller gets it but there is still no way the eye test should be subordinate to any other factor. remove any other factor and you can still use the eye test to prove x > y. remove the eye test and your proof for x > y will always be critically deficient.

team success and role played in team success comes after longevity imo

The eye test is the worst way to define someone's career/ranking.. Out of all the criteria the eye test has the biggest flaw... It's completely bias... You will always be bias towards the players on your team and players you like more than others... That's just human nature.. And that's why the eye test is doomed to fail.. Also the eye test misses out on 80% of what actually happens on the court.. It always favours the flashy dunk.. The risky pass.. The gamble on defense.. And totally misses the more important things that influence the result of the game..

[toxicxr6]

You can call me out all you want. Fact is you will look like an ignorant clown when you claim Kobe was best-player-in-the-league for just 1 year. That's simply factually incorrect. In short, cry-me a river...


It's not factually incorrect because the only fact that actually exists to back up a claim like that is the mvp.. Anything else.. Is just an opinion and that is not factual at all

[sd3035]

https://media.giphy.com/media/11euRfYcW7YcqQ/giphy.gif

[toxicxr6]

You can call me out all you want. Fact is you will look like an ignorant clown when you claim Kobe was best-player-in-the-league for just 1 year. That's simply factually incorrect. In short, cry-me a river...

And really your post is the one that makes you look like an ignorant clown..
You put shaq, Duncan and lebron as having 3 years of dominance each.. Then you put Kobe has 5 years... The only people that will support anything close to that are going to be Kobe Stans.. Everyone else has a totally different opinion far from that

[warriorfan]

1. How many MVP's you have
2. How many Finals you have attended
3. How well you managed your receding hair line
4. How well you colluded
5. How well you wrestled uncontested rebounds from your teammates
6. How well you played through 3 quarters
7. Box Scores

[INDI]

1. Domination of your era

2. MVP'S

3. Stats

4. Accolades (ROY, DPOY, etc...)

5. Titles

6. Eye test

7. Skillset (ability to do things others cant)

[Kvnzhangyay]

I feel like people underrate longevity here

[34-24 Footwork]

Lol @ MVPs being first on some people's list.

[PickernRoller]

And really your post is the one that makes you look like an ignorant clown..
You put shaq, Duncan and lebron as having 3 years of dominance each.. Then you put Kobe has 5 years... The only people that will support anything close to that are going to be Kobe Stans.. Everyone else has a totally different opinion far from that

Lebron was arguably the best player in the league in 11 -- he didn't show it tho. Kobe went down on that bum knee and that resulted in decline, which became permanent in 2012. 2011 is probably the only arguable year for Lebron on my list that I can see a LeTard or two mad about for me taking out. Still, Rose played out of his goddamn mind - he didn't back it up due to his injury so the book is out if it was just a fluke stat padding year. I take into consideration both, Kobe's knees, Lebron's not so-spectacular showing (sharing with Wade) and Rose's monster year = my pick. Nonetheless if people pick 11' for Lebron that's legitimate too.

Duncan and Shaq are both split correctly. And so is Kobe. The only problem is LeTards denying crap and feeling butthurt. This is all about Lebron and Kobe, not about Shaq or Duncan.

Lebron stans try to push the envelope saying Lebron was better than Kobe in 09/10 because of MVPs. Mind you, the sole reason being stats and team record. Give me the player that took his team to 3 straight Finals and won 2 FMVPS back-to-back. Did Kobe need to put up monster stats every year to win a media trophy and prove a point??? NO. Just like Lebron doesn't need the MVP in 13/14, 14/15 to prove that he's the best, winning rings while at it. Lebron is still leading his team with great stats, just not the stats the media wants in their fickle criteria for that award. Lebron didn't even come to his own about true Finals leadership until 2012 but whatever...it's like the 11 chokejob didn't even happen.

But I really don't have to explain it to a LeTard. Lebron himself admitted he wasn't better than Kobe in those years so the debate is rather a nonsensical dream of his stans.

[34-24 Footwork]

I feel like people underrate longevity here


They aren't underating it. People are constructing lists that exclude players who they don't like. Lol.

[Wade's Rings]

Lebron stans try to push the envelope saying Lebron was better than Kobe in 09/10 because of MVPs. Mind you, the sole reason being stats and team record. Give me the player that took his team to 3 straight Finals and won 2 FMVPS back-to-back. Did Kobe need to put up monster stats every year to win a media trophy and prove a point???

The MVP is a regular Season award.


Best player in the league:

99-2002 - Shaq.
2003-2005 - Duncan.
06-10 Kobe.
11 - Rose.(11* (Kobe was on a bum knee, Rose played out of his god damn mind that year, unlike Lebron)).
12-15 Lebron


3 rings in a three-peat > 3 sparse championship rings. Likewise for FMVP etc.

If you factor in the Playoffs how is Wade not better than Kobe in 2006? How is Rose better than Dirk or Wade in 2011 factoring in the Playoffs?

[toxicxr6]

Lebron was arguably the best player in the league in 11 -- he didn't show it tho. Kobe went down on that bum knee and that resulted in decline, which became permanent in 2012. 2011 is probably the only arguable year for Lebron on my list that I can see a LeTard or two mad about for me taking out. Still, Rose played out of his goddamn mind - he didn't back it up due to his injury so the book is out if it was just a fluke stat padding year. I take into consideration both, Kobe's knees, Lebron's not so-spectacular showing (sharing with Wade) and Rose's monster year = my pick. Nonetheless if people pick 11' for Lebron that's legitimate too.

Duncan and Shaq are both split correctly. And so is Kobe. The only problem is LeTards denying crap and feeling butthurt. This is all about Lebron and Kobe, not about Shaq or Duncan.

Lebron stans try to push the envelope saying Lebron was better than Kobe in 09/10 because of MVPs. Mind you, the sole reason being stats and team record. Give me the player that took his team to 3 straight Finals and won 2 FMVPS back-to-back. Did Kobe need to put up monster stats every year to win a media trophy and prove a point??? NO. Just like Lebron doesn't need the MVP in 13/14, 14/15 to prove that he's the best, winning rings while at it. Lebron is still leading his team with great stats, just not the stats the media wants in their fickle criteria for that award. Lebron didn't even come to his own about true Finals leadership until 2012 but whatever...it's like the 11 chokejob didn't even happen.

But I really don't have to explain it to a LeTard. Lebron himself admitted he wasn't better than Kobe in those years so the debate is rather a nonsensical dream of his stans.


Stopped reading there.. It's total crap it's not correct at all.. Not even close
To be honest I don't expect anything else from a Kobe nut rider... That's what you do underrate other players to prop Kobe up. That's your life goal.. That's it..
And I'm not a lebron stan.. Lebron is a bittcchh as well.. I'm just calling you out because you are talking total crap

[K Xerxes]

#1 Rings and Finals MVP
---subset: Repeats and 3-peats. Very important.

3 rings in a three-peat > 3 sparse championship rings. Likewise for FMVP etc.


Since 1998, Duncan has won 5 championships in: 99, 03, 05, 07, 14

Kobe has won 5 championships in: 00, 01, 02, 09, 10

Both have the same number of championships in 17 years, yet Kobe's are a lot more valuable because he won it as a 3 peat and 2 peat? Perhaps it's a bit more impressive to regain your title, but the other guy won his championships over a longer period, basically meaning he was in contention for longer.

You're just trying to force criteria to prop up Kobe. 5 championships is 5 championships.

[Wade's Rings]

Since 1998, Duncan has won 5 championships in: 99, 03, 05, 07, 14

Kobe has won 5 championships in: 00, 01, 02, 09, 10

Both have the same number of championships in 17 years, yet Kobe's are a lot more valuable because he won it as a 3 peat and 2 peat? Perhaps it's a bit more impressive to regain your title, but the other guy won his championships over a longer period, basically meaning he was in contention for longer.

You're just trying to force criteria to prop up Kobe. 5 championships is 5 championships.

He also says the same applies for FMVPs to negate Duncan having more FMVPs than Kobe :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Longevity seems to get under valued here.

If the goal is to give your team the most chances to win...being able to do that for like 18 years like Duncan has matters a lot when you compare him to other guys that didn't have that longevity, but might have had same tier peaks.

Clearly how good the damn player was at the game (his impact) should be number 1 by a huge margin.

Then you have to look at results vs expectations and circumstances...etc.

All defense and all nba should mean very little in a good discussion.

[PickernRoller]

Since 1998, Duncan has won 5 championships in: 99, 03, 05, 07, 14

Kobe has won 5 championships in: 00, 01, 02, 09, 10

Both have the same number of championships in 17 years, yet Kobe's are a lot more valuable because he won it as a 3 peat and 2 peat? Perhaps it's a bit more impressive to regain your title, but the other guy won his championships over a longer period, basically meaning he was in contention for longer.

You're just trying to force criteria to prop up Kobe. 5 championships is 5 championships.

WTF are you talking about? How does any of that nonsense has to do with Duncan being the best player in the league 2003-2005? Nothing, so in short, STFU.

Are we discussing Duncan > Kobe or Kobe > Duncan.......??? No we're not. We're discussing criteria, if proper or improper. But leave it to clowns to hang to the lowest nut to dissuade because that's what clowns do on ISH.

As for my criteria:

Repeating and three-peating are harder to achieve than sparse championship runs. Kobe also has more Final appearances than Duncan. Book closed on that. Duncan does have one more FMVP..we're not discussing that however....plenty of Duncan vs. Kobe threads for you tards to pollute.

Fact is when you're looking at GOATs(Top 10) there is no single person that would not value or hold in high-esteem repeating and 3-peating over sparse championship runs. There is also consideration taken when you look at longevity for a player like Duncan and his late Final appearances - no one is negating that, it has a place in my criteria. Look it up. But that is nowhere near repeating and 3-peating and that's a simple fact.

The only people uncomfortable with my criteria are LeTards, or closet LeTards, Kobe haters, and your occasional Duncan stan taking exception - cause everyone has to push an agenda.


He also says the same applies for FMVPs to negate Duncan having more FMVPs than Kobe :oldlol:

Example.


Stopped reading there.. It's total crap it's not correct at all.. Not even close

Couldn't give a shit about your denial. What are your reasonable splits? ***crickets****

[branslowski]

This Jordan stan back in 06' on youtube made a criteria where he did a total point system...His name was HoopsEncyclopedia or something, but he added the following:

Titles, Finals MVPs, League MVPS, Total All-NBA, All-Star, and All-Defensive selections and ppg, reb, ast, stl, blk totals of NBA greats and he added them up:

EX: Lets say your player avg 10ppg 5reb 5ast 1stl 1blk, Final MVP, 2 All-Star selection...Then he would have 25pts.

Anyway back in 06' he did this and his All-Time list looked amazing....It had Jordan and Kareem 1 and 2. But that was in 06'.

[K Xerxes]

WTF are you talking about? How does any of that nonsense has to do with Duncan being the best player in the league 2003-2005? Nothing, so in short, STFU.

Are we discussing Duncan > Kobe or Kobe > Duncan.......??? No we're not. We're discussing criteria, if proper or improper. But leave it to clowns to hang to the lowest nut to dissuade because that's what clowns do on ISH.

I brought Duncan and Kobe up because they are a perfect example to highlight the nonsense in your repeating argument. Both have the exact same number of championships. One repeated twice (well, three times technically), the other didn't. But the latter won over a 15 year period, the other over 10 years.


Fact is when you're looking at GOATs(Top 10) there is no single person that would not value or hold in high-esteem repeating and 3-peating over sparse championship runs. There is also consideration taken when you look at longevity for a player like Duncan and his late Final appearances - no one is negating that, it has a place in my criteria. Look it up. But that is nowhere near repeating and 3-peating and that's a simple fact.

You clearly don't know what a fact is then. Duncan's and Kobe's 5 championships are equal in number, that's a fact. How much value you place in repeating is up to you. But I prefer to place a lot more importance on how well their team played, how well they individually played and the level of competition they faced in each run. And I'm sure most other people would too.

[toxicxr6]

I brought Duncan and Kobe up because they are a perfect example to highlight the nonsense in your repeating argument. Both have the exact same number of championships. One repeated twice (well, three times technically), the other didn't. But the latter won over a 15 year period, the other over 10 years.



You clearly don't know what a fact is then. Duncan's and Kobe's 5 championships are equal in number, that's a fact. How much value you place in repeating is up to you. But I prefer to place a lot more importance on how well their team played, how well they individually played and the level of competition they faced in each run. And I'm sure most other people would too.


He rates kobes threepeat higher than Duncan rings and Kobe wasn't even the best player in his own team.. Where Duncan was
:facepalm

[PickernRoller]

He rates kobes threepeat higher than Duncan rings and Kobe wasn't even the best player in his own team.. Where Duncan was
:facepalm

:oldlol: :oldlol: where you being for the past 8 years or so? Let me guess, hating Kobe....

[toxicxr6]

:oldlol: :oldlol: where you being for the past 8 years or so? Let me guess, hating Kobe....


Your the one bringing up shaqs threepeat to prop up Kobe..

[PickernRoller]

I brought Duncan and Kobe up because they are a perfect example to highlight the nonsense in your repeating argument. Both have the exact same number of championships. One repeated twice (well, three times technically), the other didn't. But the latter won over a 15 year period, the other over 10 years.


Lets look at the simple picture here...

One player got to 4 Finals in a 10 Year stretch. 4 sparse championship runs and won 4. Then, in the twilight of his career added a repeat Final appearance, winning one ring, 1 of 2.

One player got to 7 Finals in a 10 year stretch. Said player 3-peated in Final appearances twice, 3-peating in rings, and repeating in rings, 3 of 3 and 2 0f 3. Said player had a sparse championship run in between 3-peats (2004, 0-1).

That's all there is to it. You can make a case of longevity's value but you will also have to make a strong case for sustained dominance over a "shorter" period of time and balance both if you're going to appear to be at the very least objective. Not to mention the context lost, like team health, player injuries etc (which has plagued the Lakers since 2011 and is a theme for Kobe's twilight).

In short, the nonsense here is trying to prop up longevity while looking the other way at other things to balance the sheet. I've no problem with longevity, high on my list, but you also have to objectively look at other things in play.

A recap at my criteria anyway:

#1 Rings and Finals MVP
---subset: Repeats and 3-peats. Very important.

3 rings in a three-peat > 3 sparse championship rings. Likewise for FMVP etc.

#2 Eye Test
---- Best player in the league, dominance, no empty stats.
#3 Longevity
---- Sustained dominance at the highest level.
---- All-star selections
---- Final appearances

[PickernRoller]

Your the one bringing up shaqs threepeat to prop up Kobe..

Kobe wasn't a Laker in 00-02? Didn't knew that.....:oldlol: :oldlol:

[toxicxr6]

Kobe wasn't a Laker in 00-02? Didn't knew that.....:oldlol: :oldlol:

He was but his weight on those rings has no more than Duncan did in 2014... That's it

In the end
5/3/2>5/2/1 and that's factual

[PickernRoller]

He was but his weight on those rings has no more than Duncan did in 2014... That's it

In the end
5/3/2>5/2/1 and that's factual

I said 8 years, not 3. Learn to count.

[zizozain]

metality is #1

playoffs MVP is # 2


the most important stage of the NBA season

[scandisk_]

Longevity is the only criteria that's lacking in MJ's resume, OTH KAJ is god-tier on that. While having insane stats, impact, peak-play, and is well-decorated with accolades as well. Not to mention being dominant since HS.

Lock in no.2 easily with a great case for the GOAT title.

[DaHeezy]

So you are not going to give extra credit to a guy like Hakeem who lifted his game in the playoffs? Or hamper Lebron in 2011 when he clearly got afraid of the moment and deferred? These guys aren't robots. You write your own legacy in the playoffs.

What's with asking an opinion then criticizing it if you don't agree?

And TEAMS write their legacies in the playoffs.

[JellyBean]

Great question. For me, some of the things that I look at are:

1). Leadership: Kobe and Tim Duncan lead in different ways, just to use them as examples. Neither is wrong in their leadership style. Magic was a leader and he was a vocal leader. Moses Malone lead by example. He didn't say much. His actions did the talking. Same with Dr. J. The thing that I am considering when it comes to leadership is, on the floor or in the huddle during a timeout. When the coach stops talking, who is that one player (or two) that vocally or through their actions on the court, sets the tone for the team in the winning or losing moments.


2). Player Efficiency Rating: Pretty clear. This is another area that I consider when looking at a players criteria to be on the GOAT list.

3). Team Performance Relative to Expectations: This is my favorite. If you were on a stacked team, meaning you had 1 or more all-star players on your team, were you able to make it to the playoffs?

4). Individual Playoff Performance: Sure you will have games where you struggle. It is human nature to have a bad game. But for me, I am looking at many things. Were you a force on offense? If you were struggled on offense, did you help with rebounding, defense, making an extra pass?

5). Crunch-Time Performance/Presence: You dont' have to hit the game winning shot all the time. Crunch-Time is also about being so good that we you create looks for your teammates. Things like that.

6). Skill Level: Are you that great player on the downward slope of your career compared to a young player with an ego.

7). Basketball IQ: Knowing what the heck you are doing while on the court. Are you making the extra pass? Do you know where to rotate on help defense? Things of that nature.

8). Defensive Performance/Presence: Basically were you able to play both ends of the floor. You don't have to be a defensive stopper. But were you able to help your team on the defensive end or did you disappear?

9). Playground Mindset: To borrow a Bill Simmons phrase, "Would I want this guy in the foxhole with me in a battle?"

10). Player Performance Relative to Draft position and Expectations: Did this guy play to his potential or did exceed expectations.

[kunk75]

for me its stats both off/def and PER, obviously has to be best ever at the respective position, rings vs opportunities (meaning in a situation where he could have realistically led a team to the championship), needs a peak of at least 7 years.