Consistent GOAT criteria

How do we determine the NBA GOAT? It seems like a lot of people go with narratives that are selective and biased.

Let's try to apply CONSISTENT criteria, no shifting the goal posts please.

1. Number of rings
Russell has 11. He has 5 MVPs too.

2. MVPs
Kareem has 6. +6 rings. +2nd highest scorer ever.

3. Best two-way players
Olajuwon and Kawhi have 2 DPOYs and 2 FMVPs. Duncan has 15 All Defensive selections, the most all time. You know the rest. Surely, these 3 are the greatest 2-way players ever.

4. Highest peak
Olajuwon won DPOY, MVP, and FMVP is 94. Nothing tops that for a full year peak.

Duncan beat peak Shaq & Kobe in 2003 without an All Star Spur teammate. Both Shaq & Kobe were in the All NBA FIRST team. Both were in the top 5 of MVP voting. Meanwhile. DRob was on his last year. Manu was a rookie. Both averaged single-digit ppg. Parker was a sophomore, 3 years away from making his first All Start appearance. Shot poorly in the playoffs too: 40.3%. Duncan's 2003 run has the all time highest single season playoff WS, 2nd all time in VORP. Greatest playoff peak ever.

5. Winning percentage
Russell was champ in 11 of his 13 seasons. That's 85% of the time.

Jordan is 6 for 15 seasons: 40%. Let's take away '95 and the Wizards years: 6 of 12 is still just 50%.

We all know "Finals record" is dumb. How is losing BEFORE the Finals better than progressing deeper into the playoffs? In any case, because somebody will inevitably bring it up, Havlicek went 8-0 in the Finals.

6. Quality of rings
LeBron was FMVP in 2016, after beating the 73-win GSW. In fact, he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. He had higher FG% than Kyrie, Steph, and Klay.

Btw, he's also the NBA's all time top scorer. He did that at higher FG% than MJ. When LeBron passed Jordan, he did it with 1,300 less shots.

As mentioned, Duncan's 2003 ring was extremely alpha.

7. Winnability on different franchises
LeBron is the only player to lead three franchises into rings. Kareem and Kawhi did it 2x. All three won FMVP under different coaches, teammates, and systems.

Jordan never won without Phil or Pippen. In fact, he won just 1 playoff game without those two. Phil won 5 rings without Jordan. Pippen was 1 solid quarter away from a very probable 7th ring. Rodman, Harper, and Kerr all have rings outside of Jordan.
----------------

Try to think of the criteria FIRST, then work out who the GOAT is. Doing it the other way around is just disingenuous.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748811]How do we determine the NBA GOAT? It seems like a lot of people go with narratives that are selective and biased.

Let's try to apply CONSISTENT criteria, no shifting the goal posts please.

1. Number of rings
Russell has 11. He has 5 MVPs too.

2. MVPs
Kareem has 6. +6 rings. +2nd highest scorer ever.

3. Best two-way players
Olajuwon and Kawhi have 2 DPOYs and 2 FMVPs. Duncan has 15 All Defensive selections, the most all time. You know the rest. Surely, these 3 are the greatest 2-way players ever.

4. Highest peak
Olajuwon won DPOY, MVP, and FMVP is 94. Nothing tops that for a full year peak.

Duncan beat peak Shaq & Kobe in 2003 without an All Star Spur teammate. Both Shaq & Kobe were in the All NBA FIRST team. Both were in the top 5 of MVP voting. Meanwhile. DRob was on his last year. Manu was a rookie. Both averaged single-digit ppg. Parker was a sophomore, 3 years away from making his first All Start appearance. Shot poorly in the playoffs too: 40.3%. Duncan's 2003 run has the all time highest single season playoff WS, 2nd all time in VORP. Greatest playoff peak ever.

5. Winning percentage
Russell was champ in 11 of his 13 seasons. That's 85% of the time.

Jordan is 6 for 15 seasons: 40%. Let's take away '95 and the Wizards years: 6 of 12 is still just 50%.

We all know "Finals record" is dumb. How is losing BEFORE the Finals better than progressing deeper into the playoffs? In any case, because somebody will inevitably bring it up, Havlicek went 8-0 in the Finals.

6. Quality of rings
LeBron was FMVP in 2016, after beating the 73-win GSW. In fact, he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. He had higher FG% than Kyrie, Steph, and Klay.

Btw, he's also the NBA's all time top scorer. He did that at higher FG% than MJ. When LeBron passed Jordan, he did it with 1,300 less shots.

As mentioned, Duncan's 2003 ring was extremely alpha.

7. Winnability on different franchises
LeBron is the only player to lead three franchises into rings. Kareem and Kawhi did it 2x. All three won FMVP under different coaches, teammates, and systems.

Jordan never won without Phil or Pippen. In fact, he won just 1 playoff game without those two. Phil won 5 rings without Jordan. Pippen was 1 solid quarter away from a very probable 7th ring. Rodman, Harper, and Kerr all have rings outside of Jordan.
----------------

Try to think of the criteria FIRST, then work out who the GOAT is. Doing it the other way around is just disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

Well you gotta do it the other way around so the guy you prefer can come out on top lol. Yeah the moving goalposts is crazy on most people's top 10 if you were to really ask and break them down.

In the end, criteria is subjective and flexible.

Mikan was dominant and had 5 titles, yet he's not even top 20 in most lists.

KD has two rings, but who really counts his rings as much as even one of Hakeem's rings.

As we can see, there can be no consistent criteria.

Lol. You're just going to trigger braindead casuals with this stuff, mind you.

To me it boils down to four things

1 Stats - where the player ranks in certain categories, how well he performed statistically
2 Accolades - awards, mvp, rings and the like
3 Eye test/context - how good really was he actually on the court? What’s the context of his stats and rings? We know not all rings are created equal.
4 impact/legacy - Did he change the game? How did they further popularize the nba?

"Eye test" is by far the most subjective. To me, it's basically "I feel like <insert claim here>". As for #4, "popularising" a sport is more of a business criterion rather than a competitive sports criterion.

Now that you mention it, GOAT debates often becomes "most popular player" rather the actual best player.

There's only one fanbase that wants everything boiled down to objective criteria, which really just means numbers. Numbers that can be manipulated to make a guy look better than he actually is, by the way. But since watching the game is thrown out, the calculator nerds win the debate. Gotcha.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748842]"Eye test" is by far the most subjective. To me, it's basically "I feel like <insert claim here>". As for #4, "popularising" a sport is more of a business criterion rather than a competitive sports criterion.

Now that you mention it, GOAT debates often becomes "most popular player" rather the actual best player.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's cause GOAT is about who's the greatest and not who's the best, most skilled player on the court.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14748853]Well, that's cause GOAT is about who's the greatest and not who's the best, most skilled player on the court.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Bron stans now resorting to having to redefine the English language to make their case

Just a quick clarification: personally, it's about sports achievement (e.g. winning, accolades, stats) within the NBA. Skill doesn't really count for that much. What's skill for if you didn't live up to your potential?

The thing with "watching the game" is that two people could watch the same game and reach different conclusions. It's "eye test" (aka "totally made up conclusion") all over again. Also, nobody said watching the game is "thrown out". If you're just interested in setting up strawman arguments, good luck with that.

Sports is entertainment first and foremost so skill and talent definitely counts. How much you think it weighs in overall GOAT criteria is arguable, but to write it off completely makes no sense

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748863]The thing with "watching the game" is that two people could watch the same game and reach different conclusions. It's "eye test" (aka "totally made up conclusion") all over again. Also, nobody said watching the game is "thrown out". If you're just interested in setting up strawman arguments, good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

Eye test isn’t ‘totally made up’. What do you think analysts mean when they talk about ‘intangibles’. Not everything shows up in the box score.

Exactly. Totally subjective. "Eye test". "Intangibles". Aka "some shit I felt like making up".

If you want to have discussions on entertainment and skill in isolation (i.e. outside of actual achievements), then go ahead. Not my cup of tea, though. I'm more interested in an NBA GOAT discussion based on sports achievement (e.g. winning, accolades, stats). Mixing it up with the entertainment and business aspect of it devolves into a simple popularity contest.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748861]Just a quick clarification: personally, it's about sports achievement (e.g. winning, accolades, stats) within the NBA. Skill doesn't really count for that much. What's skill for if you didn't live up to your potential?[/QUOTE]

That's your own subjective criteria though.

And that's why there can't be consistent GOAT criteria.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748811]How do we determine the NBA GOAT? It seems like a lot of people go with narratives that are selective and biased.

Let's try to apply CONSISTENT criteria, no shifting the goal posts please.

1. Number of rings
Russell has 11. He has 5 MVPs too.

2. MVPs
Kareem has 6. +6 rings. +2nd highest scorer ever.

3. Best two-way players
Olajuwon and Kawhi have 2 DPOYs and 2 FMVPs. Duncan has 15 All Defensive selections, the most all time. You know the rest. Surely, these 3 are the greatest 2-way players ever.

4. Highest peak
Olajuwon won DPOY, MVP, and FMVP is 94. Nothing tops that for a full year peak.

Duncan beat peak Shaq & Kobe in 2003 without an All Star Spur teammate. Both Shaq & Kobe were in the All NBA FIRST team. Both were in the top 5 of MVP voting. Meanwhile. DRob was on his last year. Manu was a rookie. Both averaged single-digit ppg. Parker was a sophomore, 3 years away from making his first All Start appearance. Shot poorly in the playoffs too: 40.3%. Duncan's 2003 run has the all time highest single season playoff WS, 2nd all time in VORP. Greatest playoff peak ever.

5. Winning percentage
Russell was champ in 11 of his 13 seasons. That's 85% of the time.

Jordan is 6 for 15 seasons: 40%. Let's take away '95 and the Wizards years: 6 of 12 is still just 50%.

We all know "Finals record" is dumb. How is losing BEFORE the Finals better than progressing deeper into the playoffs? In any case, because somebody will inevitably bring it up, Havlicek went 8-0 in the Finals.

6. Quality of rings
LeBron was FMVP in 2016, after beating the 73-win GSW. In fact, he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. He had higher FG% than Kyrie, Steph, and Klay.

Btw, he's also the NBA's all time top scorer. He did that at higher FG% than MJ. When LeBron passed Jordan, he did it with 1,300 less shots.

As mentioned, Duncan's 2003 ring was extremely alpha.

7. Winnability on different franchises
LeBron is the only player to lead three franchises into rings. Kareem and Kawhi did it 2x. All three won FMVP under different coaches, teammates, and systems.

Jordan never won without Phil or Pippen. In fact, he won just 1 playoff game without those two. Phil won 5 rings without Jordan. Pippen was 1 solid quarter away from a very probable 7th ring. Rodman, Harper, and Kerr all have rings outside of Jordan.
----------------

Try to think of the criteria FIRST, then work out who the GOAT is. Doing it the other way around is just disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

I see your point, but #4 probably belongs to MJ.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14748874]That's your own subjective criteria though.

And that's why there can't be consistent GOAT criteria.[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's fine. We are free to choose our own criteria. It's actually good to iron out exactly what somebody means when they say GOAT. If somebody says Jordan and his marketing team greatly increased NBA's revenue, that's why he's my GOAT. No arguments there.

What I find irksome are conversations like below.

A: LeBron is the GOAT because he's the all time leading scorer.

B: Nah, it's all about winning. Jordan is the GOAT with 6 rings.

A: Wait, that means Russell is the GOAT because he has 11 rings.

B: That doesn't count, <insert reason here>
*goalpost shifted*

... <10 pages of arguments later>

*still changing goalposts, making GOAT criteria on the fly just to stick with original GOAT choice*

That's what I'm going after: criteria FIRST, applied consistently, then work out who the GOAT is. If we can't have all the same criteria, then at least have a consistent set of criteria for yourself from the beginning. What ends up happening is that people keeps modifying their criteria just so their favourite player comes out on top. :oldlol: It's disingenuous.

What about kobe? Why do some guys here have him as goat, despite not possessing any convincing factors as to why he should be? :confusedshrug: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748882]Oh, that's fine. We are free to choose our own criteria. It's actually good to iron out exactly what somebody means when they say GOAT. If somebody says Jordan and his marketing team greatly increased NBA's revenue, that's why he's my GOAT. No arguments there.

What I find irksome are conversations like below.

A: LeBron is the GOAT because he's the all time leading scorer.

B: Nah, it's all about winning. Jordan is the GOAT with 6 rings.

A: Wait, that means Russell is the GOAT because he has 11 rings.

B: That doesn't count, <insert reason here>
*goalpost shifted*

... <10 pages of arguments later>

*still changing goalposts, making GOAT criteria on the fly just to stick with original GOAT choice*

That's what I'm going after: criteria FIRST, applied consistently, then work out who the GOAT is. If we can't have all the same criteria, then at least have a consistent set of criteria for yourself from the beginning. What ends up happening is that people keeps modifying their criteria just so their favourite criteria comes out on top. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

That is also not possible. It all comes to subjectivity. For example, it's very subjective which rings are more valuable. Or which era is more valuable.

Like in your example, that's not shifting goalpost. A person might legitimately feels Hakeem's 2 rings are much more valuable than Mikan's 5 rings.

[QUOTE=Axe;14748884]What about kobe? Why do some guys here have him as goat, despite not possessing any convincing factors as to why he should be? :confusedshrug: :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

That's a great example. A lot of people put him in the GOAT debate because of his similarity to Jordan. He's supposed to be the improved version. Almost all objective criteria says he's not. He's not even the best of his generation since Duncan is by most objective measures the greater player.

Kobe has something Duncan never had: The Mamba Mentality. Also when applying the eye test, Kobe is one of the few players in nba history that passes nearly flawlessly. This is why I have Kobe as #2 behind Jordan.

[QUOTE=bison;14748897]Kobe has something Duncan never had: The Mamba Mentality. Also when applying the eye test, Kobe is one of the few players in nba history that passes nearly flawlessly. This is why I have Kobe as #2 behind Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Here we go: intangibles, eye test, ... :facepalm

Duncan has +1 FMVP, +1 MVP, +3 All Defensive selections. Duncan is universally considered as the best PF ever and the best Spur ever. Kobe is not even the best SG ever nor the best Laker ever. :oldlol:

For the calculator boys... for the first 12 full seasons, MJ led the league in a per-game stat 13 times: 10 offensive and 3 defensive. In the playoffs, he led the league in a per-game stat 12 times: 10 offensive and 2 defensive. As far as I know, only Wilt topped that back in the 60's. Kareem comes close if they had recorded blocks before the 73-74 season. Two HOF Centers. MJ was a 6-6 guard. Add in 6 titles, 5 MVPs, 6 Finals MVPs and DPOY you have a career even Wilt would envy.

I would imagine if someone is regarded as the best of all time, he'd show he was at least the best of the league he played in.

That's something a calculator boy can understand. Add in the flair, charisma, creativity, clutch moments...those things you can only perceive by watching the games...and maybe you can understand why many consider MJ the best they've ever seen play.

See, there are no "big" moments on basketball-ref. All regular season games are treated the same. All playoff games are treated the same. All moments within the game are treated the same way. All points are regarded the same way whether stat padding or not. A guy can score all his points in garbage time against the 2nd unit and all the stat sheet will show is 24 points. All rebounds are treated the same, whether they land in your lap or you had to fight for it. All assists treated the same whether you actually put your teammate in a position to score or he just happened to hit the shot after a lazy pass. Only by watching the game can you detect that some moments, points, assists, rebounds are more important than others. Only by watching can you see how some numbers can be manipulated to make the stat sheet look good for the calculator boys.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748900]Here we go: intangibles, eye test, ... :facepalm

Duncan has +1 FMVP, +1 MVP, +3 All Defensive selections. Duncan is universally considered as the best PF ever and the best Spur ever. Kobe is not even the best SG ever nor the best Laker ever. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Oh wow Wheelchair with another alt acting like he's trying to have a legitimate GOAT argument when it's just another thread slurping Bran.

MJ doesn't lose any points for winning with Phil & Pippen. It's much harder to win titles without stacking the deck and that's what Jordan did. Him taking a loser franchise like the Bulls and creating a dynasty without colliding with any superstars around the league is more impressive than anything Bran has ever done. Jordan did it the right way. He never came up short in a Playoff series. He was always the best player on his team in every single Playoff series. He dominated the league more consistently than anyone in league history. He never lost with HCA, never allowed his team to face elimination in the Finals. It's unlikely anyone's going to repeat what he did in his 11 healthy seasons in Chicago in the near future as the standard is just way too high.

Bran loses points for stacking the deck in 2011, 2014 & 2018. He ran when the supporting cast wasn't good enough to carry him to another championship. He's had more superstar help than any ATG in the modern NBA yet only has 4 rings which combined with his shortcomings has him out of the GOAT conversation.

Nice try though.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14748951]Oh wow Wheelchair with another alt acting like he's trying to have a legitimate GOAT argument when it's just another thread slurping Bran.

MJ doesn't lose any points for winning with Phil & Pippen. It's much harder to win titles without stacking the deck and that's what Jordan did. Him taking a loser franchise like the Bulls and creating a dynasty without colliding with any superstars around the league is more impressive than anything Bran has ever done. Jordan did it the right way. He never came up short in a Playoff series. He was always the best player on his team in every single Playoff series. He dominated the league more consistently than anyone in league history. He never lost with HCA, never allowed his team to face elimination in the Finals. It's unlikely anyone's going to repeat what he did in his 11 healthy seasons in Chicago in the near future as the standard is just way too high.

Bran loses points for stacking the deck in 2011, 2014 & 2018. He ran when the supporting cast wasn't good enough to carry him to another championship. [B]He's had[/B] [B]more superstar help than any ATG in the modern NBA yet only has 4 rings which combined with his shortcomings has him out of the GOAT conversation.
[/B]
Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
Kobe played with prime MDE Shaq who's sits firmly in the top 10 all time.

Who did LeBron play with (and won him 3 rings) that's currently in the top 10?

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;14748958]Kobe played with prime MDE Shaq who's sits firmly in the top 10 all time.

Who did LeBron play with (and won him 3 rings) that's currently in the top 10?[/QUOTE]

Why would that matter? Bran played with prime Wade, prime Irving & prime AD. Bran played in the WOAT conference where in 2015 the EC only had 3 All-NBA players total with 2 of them on the Cavs lmao.. He's had Finals runs where he didn't face a single 50-win team out East and all 3 teams were bottom 10 offensively as well.

Even if KB had better help (which is absolutely not true), he had to beat Duncan to make 4 of his 7 Finals and he was the better player in all 4 series. Kobe lost 3 years of his prime on a team that was rebuilding yet still made more Finals than Timmy and won more rings than Bran and he only needed a 1x All-Star who was barely considered a top 10-15 player at his peak to win B2B titles, something Duncan never did and Duncan was drafted to the best possible situation in the modern era with him going from D-Rob to TP/Manu & Kawhi with the GOAT coach and one of the GOAT GMs at his side for his entire career.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748811]
6. Quality of rings
LeBron was FMVP in 2016, after beating the 73-win GSW. In fact, he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. He had higher FG% than Kyrie, Steph, and Klay.

Btw, he's also the NBA's all time top scorer. He did that at higher FG% than MJ. When LeBron passed Jordan, he did it with 1,300 less shots.

As mentioned, Duncan's 2003 ring was extremely alpha.

7. Winnability on different franchises
LeBron is the only player to lead three franchises into rings. Kareem and Kawhi did it 2x. All three won FMVP under different coaches, teammates, and systems.

Jordan never won without Phil or Pippen. In fact, he won just 1 playoff game without those two. Phil won 5 rings without Jordan. Pippen was 1 solid quarter away from a very probable 7th ring. Rodman, Harper, and Kerr all have rings outside of Jordan.
----------------

Try to think of the criteria FIRST, then work out who the GOAT is. Doing it the other way around is just disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

These are exactly narrative points. So at pont 5 you found out the guy you made this alt for has no shot at GOAT under an objective criteria so you need to push some narrative? I thought you wanted to leave that out?

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14748961][B]Why would that matter? [/B]Bran played with prime Wade, prime Irving & prime AD. Bran played in the WOAT conference [B]where in 2015 the EC only had 3 All-NBA players total with 2 of them on the Cavs[/B] lmao.. He's had Finals runs where he didn't face a single 50-win team out East and all 3 teams were bottom 10 offensively as well.

Even if KB had better help (which is absolutely not true), [B]he had to beat Duncan to make 4 of his 7 Finals[/B] and he was the better player in all 4 series. Kobe lost 3 years of his prime on a team that was rebuilding yet still made more Finals than Timmy and won more rings than Bran and he only needed a 1x All-Star who was barely considered a top 10-15 player at his peak to win B2B titles, something Duncan never did and Duncan was drafted to the best possible situation in the modern era with him going from D-Rob to TP/Manu & Kawhi with the GOAT coach and one of the GOAT GMs at his side for his entire career.[/QUOTE]
Cause prime Shaq is by far the better player than those you mentioned James played with.

Cavs went up 2-0 on th 60 win Hawks without Love. Then Kyrie gets hurt, yet Cavs still go on to sweep Atlanta. Kobe would have no chance of winning a WCF if he didn't have 2 of the top 3 players on the team.

Kobe didn't face Duncan in the postseason (without Shaq) until 2008. That's when you can start talking about a series Kobe won against Duncan.

calculator goat is a good nickname for jokic

[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/p3JHjJd/Goat-Gestation-Calculator-1-1.jpg[/IMG]

1) How good were you at playing basketball in a vacuum(if I'm picking in the playground are you the 1st pick?)
2) How good were you relative to your competition(your era/opponents) at playing basketball
3) How good were you across different teams/playstyles/coaches/systems(and how well could you adapt mentally, physically, and change your play as needed and still be effective)

That's it. Nothing else matters to me. My answer is MJ based on this criteria. Though the 3rd one is not very applicable for him I do hugely value his ability to go from a quick slasher to more of a jump shooter as he got older.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748882]Oh, that's fine. We are free to choose our own criteria. It's actually good to iron out exactly what somebody means when they say GOAT. If somebody says Jordan and his marketing team greatly increased NBA's revenue, that's why he's my GOAT. No arguments there.

What I find irksome are conversations like below.

A: LeBron is the GOAT because he's the all time leading scorer.

B: Nah, it's all about winning. Jordan is the GOAT with 6 rings.

A: Wait, that means Russell is the GOAT because he has 11 rings.

B: That doesn't count, <insert reason here>
*goalpost shifted*

... <10 pages of arguments later>

*still changing goalposts, making GOAT criteria on the fly just to stick with original GOAT choice*

That's what I'm going after: criteria FIRST, applied consistently, then work out who the GOAT is. If we can't have all the same criteria, then at least have a consistent set of criteria for yourself from the beginning. What ends up happening is that people keeps modifying their criteria just so their favourite player comes out on top. :oldlol: It's disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

It's not goalpost shifted though. Russell was a great player in a league with 8 teams, and most of the great players all were on his team. 1961 there were 9 Hall of Fame players on the Celtics. Russell only scored 15.7 points per game for his career - great defensive player, but not exactly lighting it up offensively.
The GOAT is clearly Jordan - he scored 30 PPG on 50% shooting for his career, elevated his stats in the playoffs and beat the most 60 win teams. Every other person has major flaws in their GOAT case - Russell was only a 15 PPG game scorer, KAJ only won once in the 70's and didn't do crap until Magic came along, both he and Magic got swept in the finals, etc.
Lebron - 2007, 2011, 2014, 2018, 2010, too many years having done less with a stacked team. 0-8 in finals tying or game winning shots, 4 chips in 20 years (25% record) puts him around 10-11 just behind Kobe who has 5.

Meaning it's a combination of all of the above. Scoring & winning. Just getting titles won't get it, else Horry would be above Jordan. Scoring in bunches won't get it, else Wilt would be the GOAT with a 50 PPG season. It's the combination of both. I thought most people agreed on the combination of these two things?

There's only 1 player in the NBA who has:
10 scoring titles
5th FVMP ring
6th FVMP ring
Lead a 70+ win to win the title (followed up by doing the same with a 69 win team)
College & Olympic championships on top of all the above.

That is easily why MJ is the greatest basketball player ever - the combination of all the above.

Winning with different franchises is an unfair standard. To many all time greats spent all of their good years in one team for that to be relevant.

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14748900]Here we go: intangibles, eye test, ... :facepalm

Duncan has +1 FMVP, +1 MVP, +3 All Defensive selections. Duncan is universally considered as the best PF ever and the best Spur ever. Kobe is not even the best SG ever nor the best Laker ever. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

hey bitch, the fact that you have to argue that lequeen diva james is a goat shows that you are wrong ****ing ******. I hate people like you bruh, seriously, if I saw you in person, I would whip your ass, I ****ING HATE you

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14748975]Winning with different franchises is an unfair standard. To many all time greats spent all of their good years in one team for that to be relevant.[/QUOTE]

Lol is but another branstan adding bs criteria

every player's worst nightmare

this dude shows up at the playground and says you aren't as good as you think you are

[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/FJ2XKJ3/51208652-muchacho-con-la-calculadora-poco-muchacho-negocios-como-est-sentado-en-la-mesa-y-apuntando.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Shaquille O'Neal;14748973]It's not goalpost shifted though. Russell was a great player in a league with 8 teams, and most of the great players all were on his team. 1961 there were 9 Hall of Fame players on the Celtics. Russell only scored 15.7 points per game for his career - great defensive player, but not exactly lighting it up offensively.
[/QUOTE]

I like how you bring up all the "hof" players he played with, but fail to mention some of them are in the HOF just because they played with Russell. Seriously, K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey & Tom Sanders are all in the HOF, none of them never even made an All-star team.

The other Hofers he played with?
Russell won 7 rings without Bill Sharman
Won 5 rings without Cousy & Havlicek
Won 3 rings without Heinsohn

The only HOF player who played with Russell on most of those chips was Sam Jones, but he wasn't even an All-star player until his 5th season in the league.

By 1965 or so, his teams were even with Wilt's teams talent wise, and he was still beating him most of the time. You also brush off how much of a defensive force Russell was, not only was he "great", but his defensive impact has never been duplicated by any other player in history.

[QUOTE=post;14748992]every player's worst nightmare

this dude shows up at the playground and says you aren't as good as you think you are

[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/FJ2XKJ3/51208652-muchacho-con-la-calculadora-poco-muchacho-negocios-como-est-sentado-en-la-mesa-y-apuntando.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

:roll::roll::roll:

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14748975]Winning with different franchises is an unfair standard. To many all time greats spent all of their good years in one team for that to be relevant.[/QUOTE]

At least win with a different sidekick. Duncan won without DRob later on. Duncan didn't have Manu & Parker on his first ring.

Teacher: What is 1 + 1?

Captain Intangibles: The eye test tells me it's 4. :biggums:

---------

Is the Earth flat?

Mr. I-watched-games: "Yes, of course it's flat! Look at the ground. You can clearly see that it's flat. :kobe: Put your measurement instruments away, nerd." :facepalm

[QUOTE=basketballcat;14749001]At least win with a different sidekick. Duncan won without DRob later on. Duncan didn't have Manu & Parker on his first ring.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what narrative is all about. One circumstance that couldn't be met due to career path, but is met by another makes him greater.

You cried for objective standards. That's wins, stats and accolades. And even stats could be warped depending on era.