All-time top 200 one thousand scenarios

[Marchesk]

You get to pick the three players most likely to be GOAT given the following:

1. Top 200 all-time NBA players are randomly drafted (by position) as rookies onto 20 teams.

2. Top 20 coaches all-time coach those teams from the age they became head coaches.

3. Play with modern rules, training, etc.

4. League plays out for 10 years.

5. The scenario is repeated 1000 times with random distribution of players and coaches.

[SouBeachTalents]

Jordan
Kareem
Hakeem

[kshutts1]

Based on the large amount of available, quality big men, it's not likely that a big would be the unanimous, or even widely-considered-, GOAT. Rather, it would most likely be a wing that stood out among the rest, that was also paired with a big.

Edit: By that I mean that most big men would cancel out one another, or at least come close to it. But there are a few wings that are/were significantly better than the available crop of wings. Most notably... Jordan, Lebron, Oscar, Magic.

Though since we're only talking 10 years, Wade should get a mention in that group, too.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Jordan
Magic
Armstrong

[Marchesk]

It would be funny if it was someone that nobody considers a GOAT candidate in the real world, maybe because of injuries, or the team they were on, or whatever.

[ShawkFactory]

Dr. J would probably be up there.

[Marchesk]

Rather, it would most likely be a wing that stood out among the rest, that was also paired with a big.

Given a thousand different scenarios and only 200 players, everyone will be a teammate with everyone else at some point, probably several times.


But there are a few wings that are/were significantly better than the available crop of wings. Most notably... Jordan, Lebron, Oscar, Magic.

But every position is going to be deep in this setup. Even a guy like a healthy Moncrief is going to make Jordan work. And then the next game is against Kobe. And the game after that is against Wade and so on.

[Marchesk]

Dr. J would probably be up there.

Dr J would be a sleeper. That's one of the players I had in mind as someone we don't consider a GOAT candidate, but given tons of scenarios with all kinds of teammates, who knows?

Also consider that all of these players would be able to learn from each other. Elgin Baylor would be watching or playing with Mike, Lebron, etc.

[kennethgriffin]

the answer is whatever position is most rare

its most rare to have a great center

so the top 3 centers would stand out most


Kareem
Shaq
Wilt


russell wouldnt have the same extensive advantages so he's voided




each team would be full of great players. with more than half the leagues teams being exposed for having a big that doesnt compare with the top 5 teams

[3ball]

If we're only contemplating #1 options, then the best player would be the guy that can score at an elite level in the MOST number of ways, so he can fit best with any supporting cast.

The player who is an elite scorer in the most number of ways, will not only be able to fit in best with the widest range of supporting casts, but they can get their lofty stats while not diminishing the capacity of his teammates, regardless of the TYPE of teammates he has.

When the star player can develop great chemistry and not diminish the stats of teammates, the team's capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.
.

[kshutts1]

Given a thousand different scenarios and only 200 players, everyone will be a teammate with everyone else at some point, probably several times.



But every position is going to be deep in this setup. Even a guy like a healthy Moncrief is going to make Jordan work. And then the next game is against Kobe. And the game after that is against Wade and so on.
I understand the premise. But, using your example of Jordan v Moncrief then Kobe... while those may be difficult matchups, it's pretty apparent that Jordan is just flat-out better than both of them.

While not a valid GOAT argument, it's pretty clear that Jordan v Kobe is the largest gap between numbers 1 and 2 on a positional GOAT ranking, assuming Magic and Oscar are both considered PGs. What that shows is that, with a similar supporting cast (which your exercise is essentially setting up), Jordan will come out on top more often than Kobe.

To get more in depth, cuz I'm all about the length posts....
Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, Dream are generally considered the top 5 Cs ever. It is my belief that Dream is the worst of them all, but a lot of people may argue otherwise, and a lot of people will change up the order. Which shows that all 5 are, at least to a point, largely interchangeable.
PF? Duncan, Malone, Barkley all have arguments. KG and Dirk are nipping at their heels.
SF? Bird, Lebron, Doc are clearly the top 3. Baylor and Barry are the underappreciated stars. Pretty large drop-off after them, but there is discussion at the top.
PG? Magic is universally acknowledged as #1. I'm biased towards Oscar, and think he's hated on more than most legends, and I have him tied with Magic. But PG is, similar to C, so varied in what you may want. Stockton, Isiah, Magic, Oscar all offer something unique to themselves in which they excel, which makes their talent separation less meaningful.

That same can not be said about SG. Jordan is clearly first. Kobe is clearly second. Then Wade, West, Drexler all enter the conversation, though order is argued.

[kshutts1]

the answer is whatever position is most rare
its most rare to have a great center
so the top 3 centers would stand out most

Kareem
Shaq
Wilt


russell wouldnt have the same extensive advantages so he's voided

each team would be full of great players. with more than half the leagues teams being exposed for having a big that doesnt compare with the top 5 teams
I actually agree with his argument, just disagree with his conclusion.
Whatever position is "most rare" (talent gap in my novel of a response) will win out, in a sense, because all other positions are more even.

And I think SG is where that differential really shows through.

[Marchesk]

When the star player fits in and doesn't diminish the stats of teammates, the team's capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.

So who would be the other two on your list?

[kshutts1]

If we're only contemplating #1 options, then the best player would be the guy that can score at an elite level in the MOST number of ways, so he can fit best with any supporting cast.

The player who is an elite scorer in the most number of ways, will not only be able to fit in best with the widest range of supporting casts, but they can get their lofty stats while not diminishing the capacity of his teammates, regardless of the TYPE of teammates he has.

By fitting in the best and not diminishing the stats of teammates, the team's capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.
.
Using that criteria, Larry Bird and Charles Barkley come to mind. Jordan, as I mentioned.
Since we're only going by the first 10 years, TMac is a sleeper candidate, under that critera, as well.

[Marchesk]

And I think SG is where that differential really shows through.

That's an interesting argument. So Jordan is still GOAT to most in this setup. Who be your second and third?

[kshutts1]

That's an interesting argument. So Jordan is still GOAT to most in this setup. Who be your second and third?
I don't have him as THE current GOAT. Just one of the many candidates.

But melding my thoughts (talent gap) with 3ball's post of variety in scoring, I'd have to consider...
MJ, Bird, Lebron
as the three front-runners.

People may scoff at Lebron's inclusion, and note his fourth quarter deficiencies, but he's a legit spot-up shooter, and there's no denying that he's an effective scorer with the ball in his hands.

Others, considering it's a 10 year league, could be TMac because injuries had not yet ravaged him; Dirk because he's a matchup nightmare; and again with Magic because, even though he's not a scorer, a player with an innate ability to help others score really really stands out on a star-studded team.

[3ball]

So who would be the other two on your list?
Magic and Larry...

Along with MJ, those two have the widest capacity on offense (they are elite in the most number of ways - on-ball, off-ball, post, mid-range, you name it).

Because these guys have elite ability in the most areas, they have the most capacity to fit in with the widest range of teammates without diminishing these teammates' stats or capacity.

By fitting in the best and not diminishing the stats/capacity of teammates, the TEAM'S capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.

[HylianNightmare]

Shaq
Tmac
Lebron

[Marchesk]

Magic and Larry...

Those are really good choices for fitting in with a wide variety of teammates, but Lebron has elite athleticism and the body of PF, which might give him an added edge.

And I'm not a Bran stan at all, but the dude is a freakish athlete and one of the best all-around players ever.

[3ball]

I don't have him as THE current GOAT. Just one of the many candidates.


But we know this is just something you SAY - because you don't have any legitimate arguments for anyone over MJ..

It's always "well, MJ was 6/6 with the best stats-accolades-career, BUT...."

and then some garbage argument that pales in comparison that.
.

[kshutts1]

But we know this is just something you SAY - because you don't have any legitimate arguments for anyone over MJ..

It's always "well, MJ was 6/6 with the best stats/accolades/career, but...."

and then some garbage reason that pales to the "best stats/accolades/career/6/6" argument.

My way of ranking GOAT candidates... tiers... is strictly based upon lack of "legitimate arguments" for one player being above another. Jordan is one of 8 players in my first tier.

[3ball]

People may scoff at Lebron's inclusion, and note his fourth quarter deficiencies, but he's a legit spot-up shooter


He's not a good shooter - he shoots 35% on every distance outside of 5 feet..

This is a fact and proves he can't shoot - your statement that he's a good shooter is just another delusion by young fans so they can believe he's better than his postseason accolades and performance indicate.





People may scoff at Lebron's inclusion, and note his fourth quarter deficiencies, but he's a legit spot-up shooter, and there's no denying that he's an effective scorer with the ball in his hands.


Exactly, he's only an elite scorer in a point guard/ball-dominant capacity.. He can't score at an elite level playing off-ball, from the post, or from mid-range like Bird or MJ could...

Without this type of scoring versatility, he can't fit optimally with the wide range of supporting casts that MJ or Bird can.

In MJ's case, he led the league in scoring while playing off-ball, but was also a 30/9/11 point guard.. This is the kind of elite versatility in all scoring areas that would allow MJ to fit with a wider range of supporting casts than Lebron, who is only elite as a ball-dominator.

[kshutts1]

@3ball,

http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/player/catchshoot/?sort=PLAYER&dir=-1

The stats therein show Lebron shooting 40% from catch-and-shoot 3s.

[J Shuttlesworth]

He's not a good shooter - he shoots 35% on every distance outside of 5 feet..

This is a fact and proves he can't shoot - your statement that he's a good shooter is just another delusion by young fans so they can believe he's better than his postseason accolades and performance indicate.

He was one of the best catch and shoot players in the league in 2014

http://i.imgur.com/VtT6DVb.png
http://i.imgur.com/Wlz3E8l.png

40% from 3 in 2013, 38% in 2014

As far as outside of 5 feet, just complete bullshit. He was over 40% from 10-16 for four years excluding 2015. From 3-10, he was 55% in 2014, and 43% career

[3ball]

Lebron was over 40% from 10-16 for four years excluding 2015. From 3-10, he was 55% in 2014, and 43% career


Lebron is mediocre from 3-10 feet - only 43% for his career.

He's horrific from 10-16 feet and 16 feet to the arc - only 35% and 38% respectively.. So it's a fact that he's not a good shooter - he's mediocre at best.

MJ destroys these stats - in 1997, he shot over 50% from all of the aforementioned distances:

http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/shooting/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season


That's why the Spurs let Lebron take wide open jumpers in 2013 - because his shooting is mediocre at best... It would be certain death if they did that against ELITE shooters like Bird or MJ, and we all know that.