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

freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,205
And1: 1,733
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#161 » by freethedevil » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:34 pm

liamliam1234 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
No, if that applied to the NBA, Mikan would be a consensus GOAT candidate.

:lol:

Maradona and Pele are counterparts to Jordan and Russell respectively. Mikan predates those two. People dismiss the first players because it makes comparisons easier. No, the idea of players getting better over time applies across sports, as much as basketball fans may try to rationalize otherwise. People who dismiss russell because the case for players who played in the 60's is largely forgotten comapred to the case for the likes of mj who was three peating during most people's lives. You'll find that oncethe 90's come up, the sport progressing over time suddenly stops mattering, because that doesn't fit the argument they want to make. As long as players play or are idealized in the scope of the lives of those who are currently alive, they're largely compared relative. Then when players become ancient people start excusing dismissing them because of how long ago they played. When people talk of all the centers a player played against, or how dominant a class of superstars was, they are treating eras as equal. Players are dominantly judged based on acoomplishments/impact relative to era, assuming the era is one the person arguing for is one they have an emotional tie to.



I didn't say he had to be. I said that was what most soccer fans/pundits were saying back in 2014, and 2015. You also seemed to miss this


And people said the same about Lebron after 2014. So what. Dumb narratives tend to diminish over time, and the idea that Pele or Maradona were untouchable unless Messi mimicked their international success was always one which was bound to diminish.

Yes, the "dumb narrative here" is that your teams winning or failing to win x chips will be what lasts. Who are you arguing against?
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 294
And1: 268
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#162 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:35 pm

I am arguing against this framing:

Messi was seen as someone who never won when it mattered and 4 years later he's consensus goat despite failing to win anything post 2014 and his own contemporary three peating and winning multiple international titles.


The first part is outright untrue in a meaningful sense, the second part is not representative of his accomplishments, and the third part itself suggests that the first part was never seriously in play.
Eballa wrote:The gap here is I'm not trying to tell people they're wrong for what they value.
Eballa wrote:I'm saying you're wrong for valuing a style of play that led to a worse team offense
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#163 » by Baski » Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:59 pm

freethedevil wrote:You completely misunderstand the hierarchy of how things work in soccer. While I don't personally like the system, as far as success is concerned in the eyes of soccer fandom..

1. World Cup/Copa America/Euros
2. Champions league
3. Everything else

This is rich. You're calling it soccer and telling me the football equivalent of "water is wet". Did I give the impression that I don't know which trophy means the most? You haven't said anything that disputes what I said. I'll say again:
1. Messi is one of the most successful football players of all time. Karl is not close to that in basketball.
2. Ronaldo just had a phenomenal 5-year run. It's a feat for Ronaldo, not an anti-feat for Messi


When the 2014 wc arrived, soccer media and the public put a milestone messi would have to cross to be considered goat.

1. Win a world cup.
2. Have a assist/goal in the international final

Messi was the best player in the 2014 world cup but he didn't win and that sentiment was repeated post the world cup.
Then we got the copa america, where the milestone was changed to
1. Win an international title
2. Score a goal/assist

Again, Messi was he best player in the tournament but he still wasn't considered goat because he had failed to win in the biggest stage.

Your milestone No. 2 is made up. It was simply to win the world cup in 2014. Noone would've cared about his stats in the finals if Argentina had won. See "coach Ronaldo" winning his oh so special international trophy while cheering from the sidelines for reference.
For the bold, I personally felt that he was not the best player in the WC. He was the best player who happened to play in
the WC though. FIFA and the media were pandering to Messi to an embarassing degree, culminating in that consolation prize golden ball they gave him at the end of the tournament. He disappeared throughout the knockout stages.
Them lowering the bar to just "win an international trophy", and him subsequently choking in the Copa didn't help my image of him either.

Which is the soccer equivalent of stacking olympic medals and conference final apps. A la liga holds next to no weight compared to a champions league or a euro or a copa. Messi didn't become goat through winning, he became goat through longetivty.

No. The football equivalent of stacking olympic medals is......stacking olympic medals. It's a thing in football too. And no, freaking conference finals apps are not as important as a La Liga or Copa del Rey. The conference finals is literally the semifinals of the NBA championship. A conference finals app is the same as winning a quarter finals tie in the UCL. That's laughably unimpressive.
You may not know this, but these are all separate competitions. The top teams compete in at least 3 major competitions every season, each of which start from matchday one or group stages. Every season, teams have to juggle lineups in order to balance the fatigue and injury risk that comes with playing 2 or even 3 big matches in a week. Some years teams just flat out give up on moderately big competitions like the Europa league and send their B-teams to play knockout games in favour of keeping their starters fresh for a marquee league match that will affect their league title chances.
We can all appreciate that there's only one major trophy in basketball, but that doesn't mean that every trophy in other sports has to be placed on some stupid scale where the NBA title is the highest level. League titles and domestic cups have no equivalent in basketball, don't force it.

Messi was considered > Ronaldo, he was also considered < maradona and pele. Ronaldo won a lot to "catch up" was considered messi/goat level durng the winning, but once it stopped, Messi became a near unanimous goat. Winning gets you hype when it happens. As time passes it stops holding weight. Ronaldo goat consideration is now roughly on par with kobe goat consideration in popularity.

He did not stop winning. His and Barca's trophy cabinet continues to grow every year. I keep saying this. Messi didn't win a UCL between 2011 and 2015, and that period contained arguably his greatest and most hyped years. He was still tearing everyone apart then. Where do you think the hype you're talking about came from? He was just playing the best football anyone's ever seen, that's what it came down to with Messi. Sure the trophies followed naturally, but you just knew that it didn't get better than that. This is why I said that you had to have been following it in real time to get it.

Messi is missing the soccer equivalent of an nba title. Hence karl malone is an apt comparison.

Umm no he is not. The football equivalent of the NBA title is the UCL trophy. The NBA title is nothing before the WC. The WC is seen as a sort of holy grail in the football world that stops the entire world in it's tracks every 4 years. It's so elusive, and that's why Pele winning 3 has given him a godlike status among fans. So far I've been trying really hard not to get into the context of why Messi and Ronaldo can't win the world cup when clearly inferior players like Cannavaro, Ronaldinho, fat Ronaldo, Klose, Lahm, Iniesta, Torres, Henry, heck even Griezman and Pogba have won it. I'm sure you know that this is a huuuge huuuge discussion which would have its own thread that would go on for a loooong long time. Lmao @ the NBA title being close to that level of significance.


Pele has more goals per game, chances created per game, dribbles taken on per game, and basically evert per game stat you can think of over peak messi, and it's by a significant margin too. Mess's goat worthy resume is based on longevity, not peak. Ronaldo's "goat case" is also based on longetvity.

Not too surprising tbh. Pele was the Wilt/Russell combo of his era. Plus the rules and competition back then inject some context into it, but that's another story.
Longevity on its own means very little in football. If it doesn't come along with team success, it means jack. The only one whose legacy has received any meaningful bump from the past few years is Ronaldo, and that's because he won 4 UCLs in 5 years. At both their peaks (which again, the football gods made sure to align for us), Messi was by far the better player, and was actually the best we'd ever seen. Contrary to what you believe, he continues to win meaningful trophies because he's that good.
Any GOAT case about Messi that does not include his peak is a ridiculous one.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
Run DLC
Analyst
Posts: 3,334
And1: 1,603
Joined: Nov 13, 2010
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#164 » by Run DLC » Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:48 pm

Kevin Durant is the goat
Thanks for all the great memories, LeBron! The show must go on! #Heatnation
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 10,229
And1: 4,141
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#165 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:51 am

liamliam1234 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:You realize this also applies to the nba? Should we now skew our rankings towards newer players? Whether you like it or not, soccer fans generally subscribe to the same "relative to era" comparison nba fans do.


No, if that applied to the NBA, Mikan would be a consensus GOAT candidate.

Not to mention Russell has fallen out of the majority of people’s top three anyway.

I didn't say he had to be. I said that was what most soccer fans/pundits were saying back in 2014, and 2015. You also seemed to miss this


And people said the same about Lebron after 2014. So what. Dumb narratives tend to diminish over time, and the idea that Pele or Maradona were untouchable unless Messi mimicked their international success was always one which was bound to diminish.

Interestingly enough, during the Top 100 projects I always preach the idea of taking the GOAts of each era, and then comparing. Mikan at one point the hands down GOAT, though that ended in the 60's. Still, he's on the ballot, evne if his era weighs him down heavily.

If we took the GOats of each era, that would be the ebst ballot simply because each player can say they were ebst of their time.

50s - Mikan
60s - Russell
70s - KAJ
80s - Magic
90s - MJ
00s - Kobe
10s - Lebron

Players like Wilt, Bird, Duncan, weren't the best of their era, and really don't fit by proxy. Shaq had a great 3 year run in the 00s, but a lackluster 90s, and is more about the arguable GOAt peak than career.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,205
And1: 1,733
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#166 » by freethedevil » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:00 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:You realize this also applies to the nba? Should we now skew our rankings towards newer players? Whether you like it or not, soccer fans generally subscribe to the same "relative to era" comparison nba fans do.


No, if that applied to the NBA, Mikan would be a consensus GOAT candidate.

Not to mention Russell has fallen out of the majority of people’s top three anyway.

I didn't say he had to be. I said that was what most soccer fans/pundits were saying back in 2014, and 2015. You also seemed to miss this


And people said the same about Lebron after 2014. So what. Dumb narratives tend to diminish over time, and the idea that Pele or Maradona were untouchable unless Messi mimicked their international success was always one which was bound to diminish.

Interestingly enough, during the Top 100 projects I always preach the idea of taking the GOAts of each era, and then comparing. Mikan at one point the hands down GOAT, though that ended in the 60's. Still, he's on the ballot, evne if his era weighs him down heavily.

If we took the GOats of each era, that would be the ebst ballot simply because each player can say they were ebst of their time.

50s - Mikan
60s - Russell
70s - KAJ
80s - Magic
90s - MJ
00s - Kobe
10s - Lebron

Players like Wilt, Bird, Duncan, weren't the best of their era, and really don't fit by proxy. Shaq had a great 3 year run in the 00s, but a lackluster 90s, and is more about the arguable GOAt peak than career.
:lol:
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,205
And1: 1,733
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#167 » by freethedevil » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:03 am

liamliam1234 wrote:I am arguing against this framing:

Messi was seen as someone who never won when it mattered and 4 years later he's consensus goat despite failing to win anything post 2014 and his own contemporary three peating and winning multiple international titles.


The first part is outright untrue in a meaningful sense, the second part is not representative of his accomplishments, and the third part itself suggests that the first part was never seriously in play.

No idea what you mean by "meaningful" here, the original post was about consensus, so whather you find it meaningful or not doesn't make the first part "outright untrue". It was outright true. Messi coverage as of 2015 and 2014 was basically identical to Lebron coverage these last couple of years but even harsher.

The third part was an argument against another poster saying "winning is the only thing that lasts". The first part not mattering in the end refutes that.
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 294
And1: 268
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#168 » by liamliam1234 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:07 am

Obviously plenty of people here disagree it was anything near consensus.
Eballa wrote:The gap here is I'm not trying to tell people they're wrong for what they value.
Eballa wrote:I'm saying you're wrong for valuing a style of play that led to a worse team offense
Franco
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,993
And1: 1,668
Joined: May 10, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#169 » by Franco » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:52 am

Messi is not the consensus GOAT. Not even close.
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
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#170 » by Baski » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:05 am

bledredwine wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:I really like the idea that playing in an era with greater competition and therefore comparatively depressed numbers at the top is a negative on one’s candidacy to be the greatest ever player. And I absolutely love the implication that the greatest player in history can never conceivably come from a country without the talent to win international competitions. That all really tracks with the data-ball era and is totally different from the mindset that makes people say Kobe >>>>> Garnett because 5 >> 1. :roll:


Kobe is better than Garnett because Kobe was a better player than Garnett, period and even Garnett said so. Kobe was the best for a little while. Garnett was top three at best. And yes, winning is very important, as evidenced by Russell and Wilt. You want that guy that puts you over the top. KG has never been that guy.

You guys are giving KG some airtime in a thread he has no business in. Please stop.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#171 » by Baski » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:15 am

liamliam1234 wrote:I am arguing against this framing:

Messi was seen as someone who never won when it mattered and 4 years later he's consensus goat despite failing to win anything post 2014 and his own contemporary three peating and winning multiple international titles.


The first part is outright untrue in a meaningful sense, the second part is not representative of his accomplishments, and the third part itself suggests that the first part was never seriously in play.

I find his argument weird. Obviously we all agree that team success isn't the be all end all, but using Messi of all people as an argument that a GOAT candidate can just go on a 4 year drought and inexplicably get elevated into GOAT status during said drought when everything about Messi contradicts that is weird. Just make your case without reaching so hard on a sport I'm assuming you're not as familiar with as you are with basketball.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 10,229
And1: 4,141
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#172 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:31 am

freethedevil wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:
No, if that applied to the NBA, Mikan would be a consensus GOAT candidate.

Not to mention Russell has fallen out of the majority of people’s top three anyway.



And people said the same about Lebron after 2014. So what. Dumb narratives tend to diminish over time, and the idea that Pele or Maradona were untouchable unless Messi mimicked their international success was always one which was bound to diminish.

Interestingly enough, during the Top 100 projects I always preach the idea of taking the GOAts of each era, and then comparing. Mikan at one point the hands down GOAT, though that ended in the 60's. Still, he's on the ballot, evne if his era weighs him down heavily.

If we took the GOats of each era, that would be the ebst ballot simply because each player can say they were ebst of their time.

50s - Mikan
60s - Russell
70s - KAJ
80s - Magic
90s - MJ
00s - Kobe
10s - Lebron

Players like Wilt, Bird, Duncan, weren't the best of their era, and really don't fit by proxy. Shaq had a great 3 year run in the 00s, but a lackluster 90s, and is more about the arguable GOAt peak than career.
:lol:

Not sure what's funny. Duncan wasn't the ebst of his era. He was a great system player, who clicked well with Pop, and played great defense. But Kobe owned him in the playoffs. nevermind the 2004 Dream team debacle. Kobe was picked as the player of the 2000s back then, so really, i don't see a case for Duncan.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 294
And1: 268
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#173 » by liamliam1234 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:18 am

The case for Duncan, without using any analytics, is that he was a comfortably better player up until 2008, regardless of whether the Spurs had any wing players to effectively guard Kobe. :roll:
Eballa wrote:The gap here is I'm not trying to tell people they're wrong for what they value.
Eballa wrote:I'm saying you're wrong for valuing a style of play that led to a worse team offense
User avatar
Zeitgeister
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,756
And1: 2,182
Joined: Nov 11, 2008
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#174 » by Zeitgeister » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:12 am

Baski wrote:
bledredwine wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:I really like the idea that playing in an era with greater competition and therefore comparatively depressed numbers at the top is a negative on one’s candidacy to be the greatest ever player. And I absolutely love the implication that the greatest player in history can never conceivably come from a country without the talent to win international competitions. That all really tracks with the data-ball era and is totally different from the mindset that makes people say Kobe >>>>> Garnett because 5 >> 1. :roll:


Kobe is better than Garnett because Kobe was a better player than Garnett, period and even Garnett said so. Kobe was the best for a little while. Garnett was top three at best. And yes, winning is very important, as evidenced by Russell and Wilt. You want that guy that puts you over the top. KG has never been that guy.

You guys are giving KG some airtime in a thread he has no business in. Please stop.


He has as much business as Duncan does, deal with it.
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#175 » by Baski » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:56 am

Zeitgeister wrote:
Baski wrote:
bledredwine wrote:
Kobe is better than Garnett because Kobe was a better player than Garnett, period and even Garnett said so. Kobe was the best for a little while. Garnett was top three at best. And yes, winning is very important, as evidenced by Russell and Wilt. You want that guy that puts you over the top. KG has never been that guy.

You guys are giving KG some airtime in a thread he has no business in. Please stop.


He has as much business as Duncan does, deal with it.

You can stand up for Maurice without resorting to absurdities like this.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
Zeitgeister
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,756
And1: 2,182
Joined: Nov 11, 2008
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#176 » by Zeitgeister » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:13 am

Baski wrote:
Zeitgeister wrote:
Baski wrote:You guys are giving KG some airtime in a thread he has no business in. Please stop.


He has as much business as Duncan does, deal with it.

You can stand up for Maurice without resorting to absurdities like this.


It is interesting how inconsistent your arguments are when you go from basketball to football.
DatAsh
Senior
Posts: 521
And1: 279
Joined: Sep 25, 2015

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#177 » by DatAsh » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:58 am

Baski wrote:
bledredwine wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:I really like the idea that playing in an era with greater competition and therefore comparatively depressed numbers at the top is a negative on one’s candidacy to be the greatest ever player. And I absolutely love the implication that the greatest player in history can never conceivably come from a country without the talent to win international competitions. That all really tracks with the data-ball era and is totally different from the mindset that makes people say Kobe >>>>> Garnett because 5 >> 1. :roll:


Kobe is better than Garnett because Kobe was a better player than Garnett, period and even Garnett said so. Kobe was the best for a little while. Garnett was top three at best. And yes, winning is very important, as evidenced by Russell and Wilt. You want that guy that puts you over the top. KG has never been that guy.

You guys are giving KG some airtime in a thread he has no business in. Please stop.


I don't see KG as having "no business here", at least not in comparison to some of the other guys. I personally have him 5, but I can see a case for GOAT. I don't see it as a strong case, but it's comparable to guys like Duncan, Shaq, and Wilt.
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#178 » by Baski » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:46 am

Zeitgeister wrote:
Baski wrote:
Zeitgeister wrote:
He has as much business as Duncan does, deal with it.

You can stand up for Maurice without resorting to absurdities like this.


It is interesting how inconsistent your arguments are when you go from basketball to football.

1. First of all, we're talking about two very different sports here. For anyone who understands how both sports work in terms of history, what defines team success, individual success, the impact one player can have, the dynamics of player movement and contracts etc., the method for evaluation of players can't be the same for both. It's almost impossible really.
2. Not that they matter, but care to point out some of the inconsistencies?
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#179 » by Baski » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:50 am

DatAsh wrote:
Baski wrote:
bledredwine wrote:
Kobe is better than Garnett because Kobe was a better player than Garnett, period and even Garnett said so. Kobe was the best for a little while. Garnett was top three at best. And yes, winning is very important, as evidenced by Russell and Wilt. You want that guy that puts you over the top. KG has never been that guy.

You guys are giving KG some airtime in a thread he has no business in. Please stop.


I don't see KG as having "no business here", at least not in comparison to some of the other guys. I personally have him 5, but I can see a case for GOAT. I don't see it as a strong case, but it's comparable to guys like Duncan, Shaq, and Wilt.

I guess I'll just say that I heavily heavily disagree. Looking at the thread title, KG is hilariously out of place here.
Funniest Nicknames for NBA players I've ever heard on realgm:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Lasoftus Aldridge
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Stone Cold Steve Adams
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis :lol: :lol: :lol:
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
User avatar
LKN
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,267
And1: 4,973
Joined: Jun 04, 2018
       

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#180 » by LKN » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:27 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:You realize this also applies to the nba? Should we now skew our rankings towards newer players? Whether you like it or not, soccer fans generally subscribe to the same "relative to era" comparison nba fans do.


No, if that applied to the NBA, Mikan would be a consensus GOAT candidate.

Not to mention Russell has fallen out of the majority of people’s top three anyway.

I didn't say he had to be. I said that was what most soccer fans/pundits were saying back in 2014, and 2015. You also seemed to miss this


And people said the same about Lebron after 2014. So what. Dumb narratives tend to diminish over time, and the idea that Pele or Maradona were untouchable unless Messi mimicked their international success was always one which was bound to diminish.

Interestingly enough, during the Top 100 projects I always preach the idea of taking the GOAts of each era, and then comparing. Mikan at one point the hands down GOAT, though that ended in the 60's. Still, he's on the ballot, evne if his era weighs him down heavily.

If we took the GOats of each era, that would be the ebst ballot simply because each player can say they were ebst of their time.

50s - Mikan
60s - Russell
70s - KAJ
80s - Magic
90s - MJ
00s - Kobe
10s - Lebron

Players like Wilt, Bird, Duncan, weren't the best of their era, and really don't fit by proxy. Shaq had a great 3 year run in the 00s, but a lackluster 90s, and is more about the arguable GOAt peak than career.


For much of the 80s Bird was actually considered better than Magic. No on talked about Magic be3ing the GOAT - Bird was talked about as the best ever right before the rise of MJ in the mid 80s (up until at least 1986). Magic might have had one year (1987) where he was considered the best... but MJ took over after that.

And come on - Duncan was better than Kobe in 1999 and still better in 2014....I actually think Kobe gets too much hate, but let's not be silly here.

Return to Player Comparisons