Consistent GOAT criteria

[basketballcat]

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.

[sdot_thadon]

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.

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.

[iamgine]

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.

[Axe]

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

[bison]

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?

[basketballcat]

"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.

[Da_Realist]

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.

[iamgine]

"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.

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

[bison]

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

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

[basketballcat]

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?

[basketballcat]

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.

[bison]

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

[bison]

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.

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.

[basketballcat]

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.

[iamgine]

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?

That's your own subjective criteria though.

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