The Athletics 100 GOAT Players List

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14967625]I'm trying to determine which the worst one is, I can't quite decide between Karl Malone at 5 or Steph at 27.[/QUOTE]

Harden at 13 made me almost spit out my coffee.

Karl Malone at 5. Sounds legit lol.

I was reading down their bullet point list of criteria and I thought it was pretty good. Even though it was all common sense stuff that pretty much any sane person factors in when ranking players.

Then I got to the actual list …. :lol


[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14967711]It's not even a real list if it's based off on some weird metrics. Might as well just list their PER and be done with it.

Trash list, but I think i have seen worse.

-Smak[/QUOTE]

This. Every time someone tries to do a ranking based on metrics it gets screwed up. It’s impossible not too. There’s just too much nuance that can’t be properly expressed by one formula. If you tinker long enough you can get some decent formulas that are pretty accurate but it’s impossible to make a perfect one.

Here is the entire article for those who want to dive deeper into the rankings.

[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5940794/2024/11/26/the-basketball-100-goat-points-book-excerpt/"]https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5940794/2024/11/26/the-basketball-100-goat-points-book-excerpt/[/URL]

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14967727]Here is the entire article for those who want to dive deeper into the rankings.

[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5940794/2024/11/26/the-basketball-100-goat-points-book-excerpt/"]https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5940794/2024/11/26/the-basketball-100-goat-points-book-excerpt/[/URL][/QUOTE]

Thanks. But I think I’m good off that :lol

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14967727]Here is the entire article for those who want to dive deeper into the rankings.

[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5940794/2024/11/26/the-basketball-100-goat-points-book-excerpt/"]https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5940794/2024/11/26/the-basketball-100-goat-points-book-excerpt/[/URL][/QUOTE]

I don't think I could stomach whatever rationale is being applied. Malone at 5? Harden at 13? Hakeem at 19? That's only a few of several atrocities in that list.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14967737]I don't think I could stomach whatever rationale is being applied. Malone at 5? Harden at 13? Hakeem at 19? That's only a few of several atrocities in that list.[/QUOTE]

Malone at 5 is about 10 spots high, Hakeem at 19 is about 10 too low.
James Harden is usually listed around the 40 mark, so he's way out there. Also, Isiah Thomas at 65 is criminal. So, it's either Isiah is overrated or the Bad Boy Pistons are the most underrated team ever.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14967752]Malone at 5 is about 10 spots high, Hakeem at 19 is about 10 too low.
James Harden is usually listed around the 40 mark, so he's way out there. Also, Isiah Thomas at 65 is criminal. So, it's either Isiah is overrated or the Bad Boy Pistons are the most underrated team ever.[/QUOTE]

Yea but the difference between those 10 spots is prob bigger than between 20-40..

[QUOTE=warriorfan;14967730]Thanks. But I think I’m good off that :lol[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

List is trash, there needs to be specific qualifiers for the top 15, which is they NEED to have won at least 1 ring/FMVP. If someone wants to put Karl Malone at 16th best all time then go for it, but him at 5 is dumb.

Peak performance needs more weight.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14967752]Malone at 5 is about 10 spots high, Hakeem at 19 is about 10 too low.
James Harden is usually listed around the 40 mark, so he's way out there. Also, Isiah Thomas at 65 is criminal. So, it's either Isiah is overrated or the Bad Boy Pistons are the most underrated team ever.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that sounds about right for those rankings re:Malone, Hakeem and Harden. Wade is also like 20 spots too low in my book, and Scottie is too low( cue the 3ball anti-Pippen rant).

As for Isiah, he was typically high 20s 15-20 years ago but a number of 2000s/2010s guys have passed him, then you got guys like Jokic and Giannis should be ranked higher now. Jokic and Giannis too. Anything below 30 is too far though.

.
[B]"DOMINANT CHAMPIONS" THAT AVERAGED 1 LOSS PER ROUND OR LESS (4 LOSSES MAX) SINCE 1997 AND THE ASSISTED RATE OF 1ST OPTION IN REGULAR SEASON, PLAYOFFS:[/B]


[Indent]1. 2017 Warriors (16-1)......... DURANT - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/201142/scoring?Season=2016-17]61.7[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/406/scoring?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs1]64.4[/url]

2. 2001 Lakers (15-1)............. SHAQ - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/406/scoring?Season=2000-01]64.5[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/201142/scoring?Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Playoffs]64.4[/url]

3. 1999 Spurs (15-2)............... DUNCAN - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1495/scoring?Season=1998-99]60.5[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1495/scoring?Season=1998-99&SeasonType=Playoffss]63.9[/url]

4. 2024 Celtics (16-3)............. TATUM - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1628369/scoring?Season=2023-24]40.0[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1628369/scoring?Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Playoffs]46.5[/url]

5. 2023 Nuggets (16-4).......... JOKIC - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/203999/scoring?Season=2022-23]62.7[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/203999/scoring?Season=2022-23&SeasonType=Playoffs]58.6[/url]

6. 2007 Spurs (16-4)............... DUNCAN - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1495/scoring?Season=1998-99]46.1[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/1495/scoring?Season=1998-99&SeasonType=Playoffss]48.3[/url]

7. 2002 Lakers (15-4).............. SHAQ - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/406/scoring?Season=2001-02]61.2[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/201142/scoring?Season=2001-1&SeasonType=Playoffs]59.1[/url]

8. 1997 Bulls (15-4).................. JORDAN - [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/893/scoring?Season=1996-97]53.0[/url], [url=https://www.nba.com/stats/player/893/scoring?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs]44.9[/url][/Indent]



[B]^^^^^ primary ball-handlers were never the 1st option for the best basketball (dynasties and dominant champions), which required elite jumpshooters or bigs for 8 of 8 dominant champions (above), and 4 of 4 dynasties as well (Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Curry)... [/B]

Primary ball-handlers cannot be the 1st option for dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball), which required 1st options that were jumpshooters or bigs 12 of 12 times since possession-tracking began in 1997 (previous post).

Since the best jumpshooters and bigs produced the best basketball 100% of the time, they're superior to the best ball-dominators, which easily puts guys like Lebron and Oscar out of the top 10 for anyone that doesn't want them to be there - primary ball-handlers cannot be 1st option for the best basketball, so they're inferior to the best of other skillsets that can.

The issue is that high-scoring primary ball-handlers like Luka, Lebron, Oscar, Westbrook and others have a high volume of unassisted buckets and a significant track record of weak chemistry, which produces weaker teams.

This list is really stupid for many reasons, but the #1 reason is it rewards longevity. It's like an all-nba list. Also it doesn't penalize anyone that falls short.

No one in their right mind has Lebron over Michael that was born before 2000, and no one has Karl Malone at #5 on any list.

[QUOTE=Shaquille O'Neal;14967813]This list is really stupid for many reasons, but the #1 reason is it rewards longevity. It's like an all-nba list. Also it doesn't penalize anyone that falls short.

No one in their right mind has Lebron over Michael that was born before 2000, and no one has Karl Malone at #5 on any list.[/QUOTE]

Look at the top 5 in that list. All top 12 in total games played (1392 to 1500+ games) all time. Only one has 1072 games played sitting at #112.