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: 3,185
And1: 1,731
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#141 » by freethedevil » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:16 am

Baski wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
First off wilt was never consensus goat. Russell was widely understood as the more imapctful player of the time and kept being so throuout their careers. Wilt's conversation started after box stats were popularized and there wasn't much else available footage/data to remember what russell did, but since then that's been shut down with newer datathat reflect russell's superior impact over the course of his career.



Huh? Since when. Russell has been passed by mj, kareem and lebron in the eyes of most. 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.

You are welcome to use whatever narrow criteria and selective filters arrives you at the conclusion jordan has an argument and lebron doesn't, but there is no precedent for that criteria being the one that ages better than anyone else's. The only widely held goat who won the most is tom brady, and he also happened to have the best longevity, and a case for best peak and a case for best resume.

Messi being a choke artist is a recent thing. He won plenty

Lebron also won plenty, none of this changes that messi has failed to
a. win any interntional titles
b. failed to win as many ucl's as his own in era rival.

As far as winning is concerned, relative to his atg compeition, messi is closer to a malone than a lebron. And again, it doesn't matter, because 4 years of winless play elevated him from goat candidate to consensus goat. Even as his own direct rival three peated, mathched him in the soccer equivalent of mvp's, and won multiple international titles. Messi's peak is not on par with pele's statistically, and he has no goat case as a winner. Messi is missing many things from his goat case, and it doesn't matter.
User avatar
Baski
Starter
Posts: 2,399
And1: 1,682
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#142 » by Baski » Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:33 am

freethedevil wrote:Lebron also won plenty, none of this changes that messi has failed to
a. win any interntional titles
b. failed to win as many ucl's as his own in era rival.

As far as winning is concerned, relative to his atg compeition, messi is closer to a malone than a lebron.


Well yes Lebron has a case for GOAT in large part because he has won a lot.
The bolded doesn't really register considering Messi is one of the most successful players of all time, even counting all his big game chokes and Karl is far far from that in basketball. You're talking about 4 vs 5 UCLs here. And his in era rival happens to also be one of the greatest players to ever live who just had a phenomenal 5 year run of his own. Where is the knock on Messi here?
And again, it doesn't matter, because 4 years of winless play elevated him from goat candidate to consensus goat.

I mean..............this is just blatantly false. Football doesn't have just one trophy, so not winning the champions league does not make you winless. If that were the case there would be a **** ton of GOAT candidates. Like I said, Messi continues to stack up La Liga and Copa del Rey trophies, and continues to put up mind boggling stats, so calling him winless makes no sense. You're trying to make a case that consistent failure does nothing to hurt a GOAT case when your chosen case study disproves that just by existing.
Even as his own direct rival three peated, mathched him in the soccer equivalent of mvp's, and won multiple international titles. Messi's peak is not on par with pele's statistically, and he has no goat case as a winner. Messi is missing many things from his goat case, and it doesn't matter.

I think you're missing the context of Messi and Ronaldo's "rivalry" the way you're talking about it. If you were following football in real time over their careers, the above would seem misleading even though technically true. Up until about 2014, Messi was seen as by far the superior player, to the extent that bringing up a comparison between the two would get you laughed out of the room, if not browbeaten into apologizing for such blasphemy. Every accomplishment listed here is Ronaldo simply "catching up" to Messi, which should tell you the gargantuan lead he had over Ronaldo before this 5 year run. Yes on resume basis, they're much much closer than they were before, and a lot of people are willing to entertain Ronaldo as a GOAT candidate now, but Messi made his case half a decade ago, mostly by eviscerating Ronaldo's teams himself while winning pretty much everything there was to win and eating the best defenders and GKs in the world alive (well except for Chelsea's, but that's another story :hug: ). Messi could've retired in 2015 and his case for GOAT would be as strong as ever.
I mean, looking back it's kind of hilarious how much better Messi was, especially considering the football gods continued to pit them against each other in pretty much all possible settings, and we all saw who was better when they shared the pitch (again, numerous times) . It really is not close. I urge you to look at their trophy count even now, and pay attention to what was happening from 2009 to 2014. Check out their head to heads. It was staggering how far behind Messi Ronaldo was. Kudos to him for catching up and making a case for possibly surpassing him, but this picture you're painting of Messi being outperformed by his rival is pretty tainted.
Also no, Messi is missing just one thing (which can be reasonably argued away anyway), and yes it does matter as evidenced by people still putting Maradona and Pele ahead of him.
I'd like to see which stats exactly you're talking about with regards to Pele, not because it matters that much, but because Messi (with Ronaldo to his credit) has put together a beyond GOAT worthy statistical profile that I can't imagine anyone but Pele beating.
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
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 10,657
And1: 3,719
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#143 » by Joao Saraiva » Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:58 am

I voted for the first five on the list. MJ, LeBron, KAJ, Russell and Wilt. All of them have something unique that makes them legit GOAT candidates.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
User avatar
SeniorWalker
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,905
And1: 740
Joined: Jan 14, 2009
Location: at the event horizon and well on my way in, but you're wondering when i'll get there

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#144 » by SeniorWalker » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:21 pm

freethedevil wrote:
SeniorWalker wrote:Forgot about Kevin Garnett. Yep he deserves to be considered absolutely. Not the best defender of his era, not the best offensive player of his era, never led his minny teams to the finals. The one finals he won Paul Pierce was the most valuable player. Routinely outplayed by other positional match ups in his prime. How could I forget? :)

I wonder how you reconcile this take with the 08 celtics improving more with post prime garnett than the 08 lakers did with peak kobe....

Look I'm not as high on Garnett's all time ranking as many on the PC board but I'm clearly trolling you here. Relax ;)

I definitely think Garnett was a phenomenal player throughout his career and one of the greatest talents in the era spanning his prime years. I also think he was overall the most important piece of that 2008-2010 celtics group. I dont think PP was ever a better player than KG in a vacuum, though he was the best Celtic in the finals. I just think KG is the worst example of the 'what if' game, that people like to play when a guy consistently underachieved despite popular metrics rating him very highly. He had valid excuses for sure but we really never even saw a glimmer of KG carrying a team to success throughout his career until he was on a team that was clearly the most talented in the NBA, and even then he had a teammate was arguably better in the most important moments. Just leaves a lot to be desired for me in conversations about the 10 greatest players to ever play NBA basketball. I mean the bar has to be very very very high, does it not? That's all.
I've always liked KG's game and was a fan growing up, so I'm not a hater. I just think it's quite funny to poke at him here.
"And always remember: one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish, knick knack, paddy whack, give a dog a bone, two thousand, zero, zero, party, oops! Out of time, my bacon smellin' fine."
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,185
And1: 1,731
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#145 » by freethedevil » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:23 pm

SeniorWalker wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
SeniorWalker wrote:Forgot about Kevin Garnett. Yep he deserves to be considered absolutely. Not the best defender of his era, not the best offensive player of his era, never led his minny teams to the finals. The one finals he won Paul Pierce was the most valuable player. Routinely outplayed by other positional match ups in his prime. How could I forget? :)

I wonder how you reconcile this take with the 08 celtics improving more with post prime garnett than the 08 lakers did with peak kobe....

Look I'm not as high on Garnett's all time ranking as many on the PC board but I'm clearly trolling you here. Relax ;)

You know, the use of complex sentences doesn't necessitate stress...
but I respect subtle troll jobs so i digress..


I just think KG is the worst example of the 'what if' game, that people like to play when a guy consistently underachieved despite popular metrics rating him very highly.

Isolating a player's quality of play isn't a "what if" you know.
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,185
And1: 1,731
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#146 » by freethedevil » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:44 pm

Baski wrote:The bolded doesn't really register considering Messi is one of the most successful players of all time


, even counting all his big game chokes and Karl is far far from that in basketball. You're talking about 4 vs 5 UCLs here. And his in era rival happens to also be one of the greatest players to ever live who just had a phenomenal 5 year run of his own. Where is the knock on Messi here?

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

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.


Like I said, Messi continues to stack up La Liga and Copa del Rey trophies, and continues to put up mind boggling stats, so calling him winless makes no sense. You're trying to make a case that consistent failure does nothing to hurt a GOAT case when your chosen case study disproves that just by existing.
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.

I think you're missing the context of Messi and Ronaldo's "rivalry" the way you're talking about it. If you were following football in real time over their careers, the above would seem misleading even though technically true. Up until about 2014, Messi was seen as by far the superior player, to the extent that bringing up a comparison between the two would get you laughed out of the room, if not browbeaten into apologizing for such blasphemy.

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.

Also no, Messi is missing just one thing (which can be reasonably argued away anyway), and yes it does matter as evidenced by people still putting Maradona and Pele ahead of him.

Messi is missing the soccer equivalent of an nba title. Hence karl malone is an apt comparison.
I'd like to see which stats exactly you're talking about with regards to Pele, not because it matters that much, but because Messi (with Ronaldo to his credit) has put together a beyond GOAT worthy statistical profile that I can't imagine anyone but Pele beating.

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.
User avatar
_Game7_
Starter
Posts: 2,240
And1: 1,054
Joined: Sep 05, 2011
Location: CT raised me-WA saved me
     

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#147 » by _Game7_ » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:40 am

Jordan, Lebron, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Russell
Exodus wrote:I think Kyrie Irving in the best player on the team to be honest
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 294
And1: 268
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#148 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:58 am

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:
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: 5,754
And1: 2,182
Joined: Nov 11, 2008
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#149 » by Zeitgeister » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:40 am

SeniorWalker wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
SeniorWalker wrote:Forgot about Kevin Garnett. Yep he deserves to be considered absolutely. Not the best defender of his era, not the best offensive player of his era, never led his minny teams to the finals. The one finals he won Paul Pierce was the most valuable player. Routinely outplayed by other positional match ups in his prime. How could I forget? :)

I wonder how you reconcile this take with the 08 celtics improving more with post prime garnett than the 08 lakers did with peak kobe....

Look I'm not as high on Garnett's all time ranking as many on the PC board but I'm clearly trolling you here. Relax ;)

I definitely think Garnett was a phenomenal player throughout his career and one of the greatest talents in the era spanning his prime years. I also think he was overall the most important piece of that 2008-2010 celtics group. I dont think PP was ever a better player than KG in a vacuum, though he was the best Celtic in the finals. I just think KG is the worst example of the 'what if' game, that people like to play when a guy consistently underachieved despite popular metrics rating him very highly. He had valid excuses for sure but we really never even saw a glimmer of KG carrying a team to success throughout his career until he was on a team that was clearly the most talented in the NBA, and even then he had a teammate was arguably better in the most important moments. Just leaves a lot to be desired for me in conversations about the 10 greatest players to ever play NBA basketball. I mean the bar has to be very very very high, does it not? That's all.
I've always liked KG's game and was a fan growing up, so I'm not a hater. I just think it's quite funny to poke at him here.


You should demonstrate that you know what underachieving means because you haven't done so here.

The Celtics were not "clearly the most talented (team) in the NBA" because if that were true people would have formed a consensus that they were the favorites out of the East in 2007-2008, let alone the favorites to win a championship.
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,185
And1: 1,731
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#150 » by freethedevil » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:43 pm

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

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.
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. :

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 again, it doesn't matter, because 4 years of winless play elevated him from goat candidate to consensus goat.

I didn't say he couldn't be goat, i said people thought he wouldn't be goat due to a lack of winning and then he became the goat anyway. In fact, I have him as my goat...
User avatar
bledredwine
RealGM
Posts: 10,563
And1: 2,761
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#151 » by bledredwine » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:58 pm

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.
KTM_2813
Junior
Posts: 397
And1: 326
Joined: Mar 23, 2016
     

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#152 » by KTM_2813 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:32 pm

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.


Not sure I follow. Did KG not put the Celtics over the top when he joined the team in 2007?
User avatar
bledredwine
RealGM
Posts: 10,563
And1: 2,761
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#153 » by bledredwine » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:14 pm

KTM_2813 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.


Not sure I follow. Did KG not put the Celtics over the top when he joined the team in 2007?


It's easy to follow- how many Finals MVP's does KG have? championships?
For how long was he considered the legitimate best player on the team instead of Pierce or Rondo?
Only realgm re-writes that history. But those of us who lived through that know who the best players were. Kobe was always considered better. Even Lebron admitted that Kobe was the best in just 2009. Many believe that Kobe was robbed of a couple MVP's. You never hear that about Garnett. Kobe was just better.
Blazers-1977
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,838
And1: 309
Joined: Aug 19, 2015
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#154 » by Blazers-1977 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:12 pm

Career Wise :Jordan and Kareem only

Peak wise Jordan and Shaq


Overall : Jordan only
70sFan
General Manager
Posts: 8,682
And1: 5,062
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#155 » by 70sFan » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:08 pm

Blazers-1977 wrote:Career Wise :Jordan and Kareem only

Peak wise Jordan and Shaq


Overall : Jordan only


What makes Shaq so much better than Wilt and Kareem in terms of peak?
KTM_2813
Junior
Posts: 397
And1: 326
Joined: Mar 23, 2016
     

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#156 » by KTM_2813 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:26 pm

bledredwine wrote:
KTM_2813 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.


Not sure I follow. Did KG not put the Celtics over the top when he joined the team in 2007?


It's easy to follow- how many Finals MVP's does KG have? championships?
For how long was he considered the legitimate best player on the team instead of Pierce or Rondo?
Only realgm re-writes that history. But those of us who lived through that know who the best players were. Kobe was always considered better. Even Lebron admitted that Kobe was the best in just 2009. Many believe that Kobe was robbed of a couple MVP's. You never hear that about Garnett. Kobe was just better.


Sure, but you said that KG was never "that guy that puts you over the top". That's not really true considering he was exactly that guy in 2008.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 21,201
And1: 3,697
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#157 » by penbeast0 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:50 pm

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:


Greater competition would not necessarily depress numbers at the top. You can have greater competition (depth) with equivalent top end talent and coaching schemes that favor primary scorers become the norm rather than share the wealth schemes.

And, it's tough to believe the GOAT player can prove he was GOAT without going deep into the playoffs IF you believe that playoff competition is tougher and brings out key traits or key weaknesses in the best players.
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 294
And1: 268
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#158 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:53 pm

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.
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
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 294
And1: 268
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#159 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:59 pm

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


1. A player having a sense of modesty rather than being a raging egomaniac is a terrible means to judging their quality.
2. It is very arguable whether Kobe was ever truly the best.
3. Garnett was clearly top 1 in 2004 and top 2 in 2005.
4. And people still debate Wilt versus Russell, because teams matter.
5. The gap between 2 finals MVPs and 0 (unjustly, but whatever) is a lot smaller than (presumptively) 11 and 2.
6. As stated, Garnett literally was a guy who put a team over the top, at the tail end of his prime.
7. Your blind bias made you read past the point. The gap between Garnett and Kobe is nowhere near as large as, well, people like you want to pretend, and simply counting ring totals as justification is one of the most myopic ways to actually assess player quality.

penbeast0 wrote:Greater competition would not necessarily depress numbers at the top. You can have greater competition (depth) with equivalent top end talent and coaching schemes that favor primary scorers become the norm rather than share the wealth schemes.

And, it's tough to believe the GOAT player can prove he was GOAT without going deep into the playoffs IF you believe that playoff competition is tougher and brings out key traits or key weaknesses in the best players.


I was talking about Pele and Messi, and none of that is something I would say applies to their respective comparisons given the contrasting structure and function of the sport versus the NBA.
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
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,185
And1: 1,731
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: How many have a logical case for GOAT? 

Post#160 » by freethedevil » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:21 pm

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

Horry was better than Kobe because Horry was better than kobe. Stating what you think isn't an argument. Stating what other people think isn't an argument.

Garnett improved his teams more, hence he was better. Teams don't sign players to score or talk about how good other players are. Teams don't sign players to win media awards. They're signed to improve their teams, and garnett's teams almost always improved more with him than kobe's teams did with kobe, whether garnett was leading championship worthy casts like in 2004-2008 or missing the playoffs. And on top of that, garnett was good longer than bryant was. None of that is hypothetical, it's what actually happened on the court and it's why the counter argument hinges on what a team acheived, the opinions(not the reaoning) of others, or on stats which have low correlation with winning, near exclusively focus on offense, and don't draw directly from outcomes, not that kobe's box based stats were on par with prime kg's...

Return to Player Comparisons