Question to members ranking Russell or/and Wilt in their top 5

[kshutts1]

Of course. However, people CERTAINLY value numbers or winning in higher %s in their GOAT formulas. For instance, I take winning as significantly more valuable than numbers, but of course numbers still play a part.

Of course people value different things more highly than others. Everyone has their own criteria, which is why almost no list can be considered "bad" or "wrong", but rather "different".

You say you value winning as "significantly more valuable than numbers", and my criteria barely includes winning. Everyone is different, which is what makes it so much fun.

[Dbrog]

Does that mean you rate Hondo over West or Oscar? Winning matters, but so does having the right team around you.

For example, I wonder where Kareem would be ranked if Magic hadn't demanded to play for the Lakers.

Oh context definitely matters. Hondo's J was wet as f@ck but realistically he wasn't "the man" on most of those teams. Still, he's definitely in my top 50, probably top 25. Oscars actually one of the hardest to rate for me since he didn't really win anything as the man, and yet his numbers are just insane. It kinda comes down to a Karl Malone type thing I suppose. As for the Lakers, I wonder where Magic would be rated if he didn't have Kareem? There are too many instances of this so I decide not to look at them. All we know is what actually happened. Why not base things on that?

[kshutts1]

Oh context definitely matters. Hondo's J was wet as f@ck but realistically he wasn't "the man" on most of those teams. Still, he's definitely in my top 50, probably top 25. Oscars actually one of the hardest to rate for me since he didn't really win anything as the man, and yet his numbers are just insane. It kinda comes down to a Karl Malone type thing I suppose. As for the Lakers, I wonder where Magic would be rated if he didn't have Kareem? There are too many instances of this so I decide not to look at them. All we know is what actually happened. Why not base things on that?

I believe that context is one of the most important pieces.

If someone from the year 2065 were to look at the NBA as it is right now, there would be a historical debate about whether Curry was better than Durant. Do you think Curry is a better historical player than Durant? A better current player?

[Dbrog]

I believe that context is one of the most important pieces.

If someone from the year 2065 were to look at the NBA as it is right now, there would be a historical debate about whether Curry was better than Durant. Do you think Curry is a better historical player than Durant? A better current player?

Oh, definitely guarantee people in 2065 won't remember either of these players. I don't see either being dominant or winning enough to warrant that. However, lets say hypothetically Curry gets 2 more chips and KD gets 1, Curry will most certainly be seen as the greater player. Hell, right now he's the "greater" player. He's won more in less time. Who knows maybe KD will have a reggie miller career (with better scoring).

[FKAri]

Oh, definitely guarantee people in 2065 won't remember either of these players. I don't see either being dominant or winning enough to warrant that. However, lets say hypothetically Curry gets 2 more chips and KD gets 1, Curry will most certainly be seen as the greater player. Hell, right now he's the "greater" player. He's won more in less time. Who knows maybe KD will have a reggie miller career (with better scoring).

They'll be debating about how Curry couldn't play in today's league

[RoundMoundOfReb]

They deserve high rankings due to the fact that they are pioneers (Russell mainly) not because they are actually top10 all time in playing ability. Mikan deserves a high ranking as well.

[nba_55]

Of course people value different things more highly than others. Everyone has their own criteria, which is why almost no list can be considered "bad" or "wrong", but rather "different".

You say you value winning as "significantly more valuable than numbers", and my criteria barely includes winning. Everyone is different, which is what makes it so much fun.

Well said. Many in here act like there's an official GOAT list and do everything to get their favorite players higher in that ''official'' GOAT list. This summarises 95% of the discussions in this forum.

[K Xerxes]

I don't think there's anything wrong with people ranking players they haven't seen, but it needs to be qualified. You can't possibly apply the same criteria to ranking Wilt as you have to ranking LeBron when you've followed the latter since he came into the league, but only read accounts of the former or watched highlights.

Personally, I'm most comfortable ranking the players I've seen, starting with Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq and so on. That doesn't mean that Wilt, Russell, Oscar etc weren't as great, but I couldn't apply the same robust criteria to all the players I'm ranking. I've seen more of Magic and Bird, but still not enough IMO.

[K Xerxes]

Oh, definitely guarantee people in 2065 won't remember either of these players. I don't see either being dominant or winning enough to warrant that. However, lets say hypothetically Curry gets 2 more chips and KD gets 1, Curry will most certainly be seen as the greater player. Hell, right now he's the "greater" player. He's won more in less time. Who knows maybe KD will have a reggie miller career (with better scoring).

Then you'd have old timers saying 'I was there to watch both Durant and Curry, and Durant was easily better!!!'. Then the youngsters will come back with 'But Curry won more ships, so Durant was a choker... Curry > Durant'

[sdot_thadon]

How many full games of them have you watched and at what time of their career were those games?

No full games, I've seen what was available previously. Also done lots of reading, that's how you get a feel for the climate at the time they played. I can't rank anyone highly without some data. I used to rank russell fairly low because I didn't know anything about him. Through reading you really get a good understanding of how good he was.

On a side note some people ranking Mj as goat haven't watched him play much either, what's your point?

[Marchesk]

The real question is whether the server gets upgraded by 2065.

[Kblaze8855]

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of the thousands of people here remember watching prime Jordan at an age they had a real understanding of what they were seeing.

Even less for Magic and Bird. Hell anyone short of 32 was a child when Shaq was at his best. The way people here behave I'd bet anything half of us aren't 32.

A couple of the biggest Kobe supporters here I know for a fact were 8 years old when the Lakers first 3 peat ended. There are people here well over 10,000 posts who were eleven or twelve when Kobe started falling off and hate on him everyday as if they watched his whole career.

ISH is filled to bursting with people who have half of their top 10 list full of people they know from highlights and ESPN Classic.

Most of us don't really know our top 10 as well as we know Russell Westbrook and it's always been that way.

But its a problem when two of the most decorated players in the history of athletics slide into prominent positions when we know maybe 15% of what they did as opposed to 25% for someone else who accomplished less?

[nba_55]

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of the thousands of people here remember watching prime Jordan at an age they had a real understanding of what they were seeing.

Even less for Magic and Bird. Hell anyone short of 32 was a child when Shaq was at his best. The way people here behave I'd bet anything half of us aren't 32.

A couple of the biggest Kobe supporters here I know for a fact were 8 years old when the Lakers first 3 peat ended. There are people here well over 10,000 posts who were eleven or twelve when Kobe started falling off and hate on him everyday as if they watched his whole career.

ISH is filled to bursting with people who have half of their top 10 list full of people they know from highlights and ESPN Classic.

Most of us don't really know our top 10 as well as we know Russell Westbrook and it's always been that way.

But its a problem when two of the most decorated players in the history of athletics slide into prominent positions when we know maybe 15% of what they did as opposed to 25% for someone else who accomplished less?

I don't take those people and their lists seriously. The difference between MJ/ Bird/Magic and Wilt/Russell is we can access MJ and company's games easily and it's almost impossible to access Wilt and Russell's games.

[nba_55]

No full games, I've seen what was available previously. Also done lots of reading, that's how you get a feel for the climate at the time they played. I can't rank anyone highly without some data. I used to rank russell fairly low because I didn't know anything about him. Through reading you really get a good understanding of how good he was.

On a side note some people ranking Mj as goat haven't watched him play much either, what's your point?

My point is basketball is much more than stats. You really need to watch the players play full games to really judge them. box scores are not enough. Those who rank MJ as GOAT and haven't seen him play are not taken seriously by me.

[nba_55]

No full games, I've seen what was available previously. Also done lots of reading, that's how you get a feel for the climate at the time they played. I can't rank anyone highly without some data. I used to rank russell fairly low because I didn't know anything about him. Through reading you really get a good understanding of how good he was.

On a side note some people ranking Mj as goat haven't watched him play much either, what's your point?

When I look at your GOAT list, I want to know who the best players are from your perspective, not from an old guy who wrote an article about wilt/russell from his own perspective.