How many have a logical case for GOAT?

Moderators: Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, PaulieWal

Possible GOATs

1-MJ
96
24%
2-LBJ
82
21%
3-KAJ
76
19%
4-Wilt
37
9%
5-Russell
62
16%
6-Shaq
8
2%
7-Duncan
20
5%
8-Magic
8
2%
9-Hakeem
3
1%
10-Other
7
2%
 
Total votes: 399

pipfan
Head Coach
Posts: 6,020
And1: 1,142
Joined: Aug 07, 2010

How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#1 » by pipfan » Sat Sep 7, 2019 6:21 am

Most of us have a GOAT. But, as educated fans we can see good arguments for other players. For me, MJ is the clear GOAT, but I can see an argument for LBJ, KAJ and maybe for Russell or Wilt. Therefore, I see 5 GOAT candidates. Shaq, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem and Bird are the rest of my top 10-but I see no logical argument that can be made for them being the best of all time-no matter the criteria.

Which players do you see a possible, logical argument for GOAT? If the name is not there, please click other and list in the comments
migya
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,184
And1: 385
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#2 » by migya » Sat Sep 7, 2019 6:48 am

For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.
Franco
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,991
And1: 1,667
Joined: May 10, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#3 » by Franco » Sat Sep 7, 2019 6:50 am

migya wrote:For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.


Who are the two all-star types? I'm curious.

Also, FWIW, I have 5 GOAT candidates:

MJ, Kareem, Bron, Russell and Duncan. Can see an argument made for Wilt, but doubt I'll ever be that high on him.
About 2018 Cavs:

euroleague wrote:His team would be considered a super-team in other eras, and that's why commentators like Charles Barkley criticize LBJ for his complaining. He has talent on his team, he just doesn't try during the regular season
Pg81
Veteran
Posts: 2,514
And1: 1,109
Joined: Apr 20, 2014
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#4 » by Pg81 » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:16 am

Those 5 have the best case imho in no particular order: Wilt, Russell, KAJ, MJ and LBJ.
migya
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,184
And1: 385
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#5 » by migya » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:23 am

Franco wrote:
migya wrote:For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.


Who are the two all-star types? I'm curious.

Also, FWIW, I have 5 GOAT candidates:

MJ, Kareem, Bron, Russell and Duncan. Can see an argument made for Wilt, but doubt I'll ever be that high on him.



Wilkes, Nixon, Worthy, Scott.
Odinn21
Junior
Posts: 310
And1: 236
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#6 » by Odinn21 » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:40 am

4; Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, LeBron James, Bill Russell.

I don’t see a case for Wilt to be the goat.
70sFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,676
And1: 5,058
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#7 » by 70sFan » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:47 am

Six for me - Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, Duncan and James. Magic has also a case, though I'm not convinced it's "logical" enough.
70sFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,676
And1: 5,058
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#8 » by 70sFan » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:49 am

migya wrote:For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.


You didn't even touch Russell here and by your criteria, he should be the main candidate here.
migya
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,184
And1: 385
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#9 » by migya » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:51 am

70sFan wrote:
migya wrote:For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.


You didn't even touch Russell here and by your criteria, he should be the main candidate here.



So Russell didn't have any great players as teammates?
Franco
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,991
And1: 1,667
Joined: May 10, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#10 » by Franco » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:51 am

migya wrote:
Franco wrote:
migya wrote:For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.


Who are the two all-star types? I'm curious.

Also, FWIW, I have 5 GOAT candidates:

MJ, Kareem, Bron, Russell and Duncan. Can see an argument made for Wilt, but doubt I'll ever be that high on him.



Wilkes, Nixon, Worthy, Scott.


I was specifically talking about the two all-stars that played with LeBron during his first 7 years in Cleveland.
About 2018 Cavs:

euroleague wrote:His team would be considered a super-team in other eras, and that's why commentators like Charles Barkley criticize LBJ for his complaining. He has talent on his team, he just doesn't try during the regular season
migya
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,184
And1: 385
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#11 » by migya » Sat Sep 7, 2019 7:58 am

Franco wrote:
migya wrote:
Franco wrote:
Who are the two all-star types? I'm curious.

Also, FWIW, I have 5 GOAT candidates:

MJ, Kareem, Bron, Russell and Duncan. Can see an argument made for Wilt, but doubt I'll ever be that high on him.



Wilkes, Nixon, Worthy, Scott.


I was specifically talking about the two all-stars that played with LeBron during his first 7 years in Cleveland.



The two allstars with Lebron were not very reliable, mostly due to injury so had he won it would have made him a greater player.

Russell is registry a GOAT candidate, he won so much and was the main reason for the winning. He wasn't a great scorer so wasn't a complete player.
70sFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,676
And1: 5,058
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#12 » by 70sFan » Sat Sep 7, 2019 8:00 am

migya wrote:
70sFan wrote:
migya wrote:For me Jordan is the greatest because he took low talented teams to championships. Jabbar won five of his championships with Magic, known as a top 10 player ever, and two or more other allstar type players, loaded teams. Same for Magic. Bird didn't have another top player alltime, as in top 30 or so, but Parish was among the top 20 players pretty much every season in the 1980s and McHale really was a superstar for a few seasons in the late 1980s. Bird had loaded teams. Chamberlain also need a fairly high amount of talent to win. Jordan had Pippen and players who were never much outside with paying alongside him, like Horace and Kukoc.

Lebron would have had a better case of he had won one in his first stint in Cleveland, with two allstar types and moderate talent. Instead he needed a superteam and two other young superstars, top 10 players in the previous few seasons before they teamed up. Same thing in Cleveland the second stint, two other superstars and good role players.

Olajuwon won one as the sole superstar and allstar and that was huge but with another star the following season his team win but performed worse as a whole. Duncan similarly won as the sole star more than once but he failed a few times as well. Jordan won every time his last six full seasons in the Bulls.

Least failure, stepping up when it counted and winning with least talent - Jordan one and only.


You didn't even touch Russell here and by your criteria, he should be the main candidate here.



So Russell didn't have any great players as teammates?


He won with far less talented teams than Jordan. For example, in 1969 he had his Pippen in John Havlicek, but other than that who was his second best teammate? Washed up Sam Jones? Bailey Howell? That's nothing special for champions, especially in smaller league.

Even look at his best defensive teams like 1964 -only Sam Jones was really good offensively, the rest are defensive specialists.
User avatar
henshao
Junior
Posts: 443
And1: 159
Joined: Jul 29, 2018

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#13 » by henshao » Sat Sep 7, 2019 9:05 am

Jordan and Russell were the only two I picked
migya
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,184
And1: 385
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#14 » by migya » Sat Sep 7, 2019 9:50 am

70sFan wrote:
migya wrote:
70sFan wrote:
You didn't even touch Russell here and by your criteria, he should be the main candidate here.



So Russell didn't have any great players as teammates?


He won with far less talented teams than Jordan. For example, in 1969 he had his Pippen in John Havlicek, but other than that who was his second best teammate? Washed up Sam Jones? Bailey Howell? That's nothing special for champions, especially in smaller league.

Even look at his best defensive teams like 1964 -only Sam Jones was really good offensively, the rest are defensive specialists.



Cousy was known as a good player that I can remember? Known as a top 10 PG :wink:
Amares
Junior
Posts: 436
And1: 158
Joined: Aug 29, 2011

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#15 » by Amares » Sat Sep 7, 2019 11:46 am

LeBron is GOAT at this moment, but obviously there were few other players with strong arguments too. I see 4 players that can be called GOAT - Russell, Kareem, Jordan and LeBron.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 21,200
And1: 3,697
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#16 » by penbeast0 » Sat Sep 7, 2019 11:52 am

70sFan wrote:
migya wrote:
70sFan wrote:
You didn't even touch Russell here and by your criteria, he should be the main candidate here.



So Russell didn't have any great players as teammates?


He won with far less talented teams than Jordan. For example, in 1969 he had his Pippen in John Havlicek, but other than that who was his second best teammate? Washed up Sam Jones? Bailey Howell? That's nothing special for champions, especially in smaller league.

Even look at his best defensive teams like 1964 -only Sam Jones was really good offensively, the rest are defensive specialists.


Russell's teammates get grossly overrated. Sam Jones was a good shooting guard. Havlicek was a good defense, inefficient scorer for most of his time with Russell; Russell is the more efficient scorer of the 2. KC Jones and Tom Sanders had almost no offensive game (KC may be one of the lowest assist PGs of all time in addition to never shooting). Tom Heinsohn and Bob Cousy were grossly inefficient (Cousy may be the worst playoff shooter of all time if you just look at the Russell years) but continued to shoot as if they were stars. Sharman and Ramsey weren't the kind of talents you rate teams as monsters for by the Russell era (Ramsey stepped it up in the playoffs like an early version of Robert Horry though). Lotscutoff had no offensive game; Bailey Howell was a good scorer for the couple of years he played in Boston too but wasn't there through most of the 11 championships.

Compare to Jordan.

Early Russell teams v. 1st 3 peat Jordan. Second best player: Cousy v. Pippen. For all the abuse Pippen gets, Cousy never adjusted to the changed league of the late 50s/early 60s and probably hurt the team in the playoffs pretty consistently. Horace Grant was as good defensively as anyone Russell played with and was a decent 3rd/4th option offensive player as well; easily better than Sharman (Sharman in the early/mid 50s might well be a different story but we are only looking at Russell years). BJ Armstrong was okay, Heinsohn was one of the most overrated players to ever play the game -- weak defense, weak rebounding, high volume shooter who shot appreciably worse than the league. And Bill Cartwright was better on both ends than Jim Lostcutoff. Russell's only advantage is his superior bench led by Ramsey who was pretty spectacular at times (Red Auerbach may not have been a GOAT level coach but he did a great job as GM getting above average guys to play limited minutes off the bench -- what we now call ring chasers).

Late Russell teams v. 2nd 3 peat Jordan. Second best player: Havlicek v. Pippen. Havlicek matured from grossly inefficient to average efficiency with excellent defense and playmaking. Pippen also matured into an even better player, better scorer, better playmaker, and better defender -- similar players but with a clear edge to Pippen. Defensive specialist: KC Jones (and Tom Sanders) v. Dennis Rodman (and Ron Harper). KC was probably a better defender than Rodman but he brought nothing else, he was not a playmaker and couldn't score. Sanders similarly brought weak rebounding and little scoring to his good defense. Rodman adds GOAT level rebounding to his defense; huge edge to Chicago. Harper is similar to Sanders in impact, I'd say a little higher but it's very close. Other scoring: Jordan being primarily a scorer, Chicago didn't need the extra scoring of a Sam Jones,and the points Jordan gives you are a lot more efficient. Jordan had Toni Kukoc who was a very efficient scorer and excellent playmaker. Sam Jones is the better scorer than Kukoc but can't match the playmaking. Kukoc also compares very well to Bailey Howell who was the other reasonably efficient scorer but again, who wasn't anything special as a rebounder or passer. I would give Howell a strong edge in value over Chicago's 3 headed center rotation however as he provided exactly what Boston needed once they moved Russell to the high post. Jordan's top end talent was clearly better, Russell's teams had better depth.

The end of career Russell team with guards Larry Siegfriend (picked up off waivers), Em Bryant, amuch improved John Havlicek, end of career Sam Jones off the bench, and Don Nelson playing 3rd forward behind Sanders and Howell is a lot closer to the early Jordan teams with Oakley and a bunch of guys like Gene Banks and Dave Corzine than the 3 peat teams . . . only, of course, Jordan didn't win rings with those teams while Russell beat Wilt, Elgin, and West despite this patched together crew.

The only reason Russell isn't a legit GOAT candidate is that he wasn't a scorer or recency bias. I can see Jordan (or Kareem or LeBron) over him, but saying he isn't even in the mix is like saying Jordan (or LeBron) can't be the GOAT because he wasn't a center and center has been clearly the most important position on the court through most of NBA history.
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
User avatar
bledredwine
RealGM
Posts: 10,555
And1: 2,761
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#17 » by bledredwine » Sat Sep 7, 2019 12:07 pm

Jordan, KAJ, Russell are the only three. Anyone else looks ridiculous to me, unless someone claims Wilt is since he’s a question mark.

The next tier - Wilt, Lebron, Bird, Magic, maybe Hakeem.

This poll is going to change significantly for Lebron (downwards) in the next five years and KAJ won’t just be equal but quite a bit ahead, as he should be, much like Kobe’s realgm fan base changed when he became obsolete to current events.
picko
Senior
Posts: 543
And1: 593
Joined: May 17, 2018
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#18 » by picko » Sat Sep 7, 2019 12:08 pm

Only four: MJ, LeBron, KAJ and Russell.

Can't include Wilt because consensus view from that era is that Russell was better.
70sFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,676
And1: 5,058
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#19 » by 70sFan » Sat Sep 7, 2019 12:12 pm

migya wrote:
70sFan wrote:
migya wrote:

So Russell didn't have any great players as teammates?


He won with far less talented teams than Jordan. For example, in 1969 he had his Pippen in John Havlicek, but other than that who was his second best teammate? Washed up Sam Jones? Bailey Howell? That's nothing special for champions, especially in smaller league.

Even look at his best defensive teams like 1964 -only Sam Jones was really good offensively, the rest are defensive specialists.



Cousy was known as a good player that I can remember? Known as a top 10 PG :wink:


Cousy didn't play with Russell in 1964-69 period and he wasn't in his prime after 1960. It's like saying that Duncan had Robinson.
70sFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,676
And1: 5,058
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#20 » by 70sFan » Sat Sep 7, 2019 12:12 pm

picko wrote:Only four: MJ, LeBron, KAJ and Russell.

Can't include Wilt because consensus view from that era is that Russell was better.


I consider Russell better overall than Wilt, but there is no consensus in that aspect.

Return to Player Comparisons