Usually we have one GOAT candidate per generation... so who do you think is next?

[LAL1947]

I don't think there's a GOAT candidate in this generation... but possible Top 10 candidates: Giannis, Jokic, Luka.

I like Luka best of these three. Winning also matters though. Giannis already has a quality team around him... while we can only guess if Dallas will continue to improve the roster around Luka... and if Jokic will get the help he needs in Denver.

Btw, I think you're missing Shaq from the GOAT candidates. The three greats from that generation were each great in different ways (Shaq: physical dominance, Kobe: pure talent, Duncan: all-around consistency). None of these three entered the GOAT debate but Shaq came closest. Ultimately, he screwed himself by becoming lazy and changing teams. It's the only thing that brought him down to Duncan's and Kobe's level, when he should have retired at least a tier above with his level of physical dominance. Who knows, Shaq could have ended up with 6-7 rings in a row as the 1-1A if he'd stayed lighter and been less toxic.

Also, if you never saw Shaq in person... words just can't describe it. He looked big enough to eat Duncan for breakfast, Garnett for lunch and Kobe for dinner. TBH, if the four of them were stuck on a boat like The Life of Pi, that's probably what would have happened.

[LAL1947]

1999
2001
2002
2003
2005
2007

I wouldn't have him that many times, but the case could be made. I definitely have him as the clear best in 2002, 2003 and 2007. 1999 and 2005 are likely as well, 2001 probably not due to Shaq but he had excellent season.

I guess you could make that case but you could just as easily make the case that it's only 1 or 2. 99 is close could be a lot of people I lean Duncan but it's far from clear. 01 clearly Shaq imo. 02 I still lean Shaq. 03 I lean KG and there's still a case for Shaq and call me crazy but even T-Mac deserves consideration. I get it hard to overlook his postseason run but that's not exactly fair to KG. 05 again cases for KG and Shaq but also Nash, Dirk, and even Manu. Far from clear cut. 07 seems the most clear but there's still a case to be made for guys like Nash, KG, and Lebron.

As I said, I don't have him for all 6 seasons. To give him only 1, you'd have to either have very anti-defense criteria or having a bias against Duncan.

I fail to see how 2001 is clearly for Shaq, but at the same time 2003 isn't clear between KG and Duncan for example. I don't see any case for Shaq in 2003 or 2005.

I think it's more like this...

1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 are all Shaq. You are trying to argue who may have had better stats or results in some years... but Shaq was king of the jungle in this time.

2002-03 is Duncan.

2003-04 is Garnett.

2004-05 is either Duncan or Garnett. Giving the edge to Duncan because Spurs won the title.

2005-06 is Kobe.

2006-07 is Kobe... and Dirk, Lebron were better than Duncan too. Duncan, Nash, Wade were probably equals around this time. You're only saying Duncan was clear best in 2007 because Spurs ended up winning the title... yet that was a title they would not have won but for the robbery against the Suns. He didn't even win FMVP that year. Is this the year when Duncan transitioned from being the Big Fundamental to the Big Slow? I can't rightly remember if it was this year or the previous one. I just remember Amar'e Stoudamire getting by him easier than vice versa somewhere around this time.

[70sFan]

1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02 are all Shaq. You are trying to argue who may have had better stats or results in some years... but Shaq was king of the jungle in this time.

Shaq was "king of the jungle" but he was outplayed by Duncan both in 1999 and 2002. In 2002 case, Duncan also guarded him. So not only Timmy had better RS in 2002, but he also outplayed Shaq h2h in the playoffs. Unfortunately, Duncan's best teammate was injured and Shaq had Kobe next to him.

2006-07 is Kobe... and Dirk, Lebron were better than Duncan too. Duncan, Nash, Wade were probably equals around this time. You're only saying Duncan was clear best in 2007 because Spurs ended up winning the title...

We had this discussion before and I explained you that I'd have Duncan as number one even without winning the title. Even had Spurs lost the series vs Suns, he was the best player in that series.

Why do you assume my reasoning behind ranking players? I already explained you in different thread why I have Duncan the highest, are telling me that I'm lying?