What is the minimum number of seasons a player has to play to be the Goat in your eyes

[ty 4191]

And Wilt certainly isn't GOAT because he got outplayed by Russell too many times. And no, that wasn't about the rest of the Celtics over the rest of the Warriors/Lakers. It was because Russell understood what the goal was and Wilt often was concerned about individual glory over team success.

Nope. It was because Russell had much, much better teammates, overall, during the 60's.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexef2f.html?p=3543

[Texas Chuck]

And Wilt certainly isn't GOAT because he got outplayed by Russell too many times. And no, that wasn't about the rest of the Celtics over the rest of the Warriors/Lakers. It was because Russell understood what the goal was and Wilt often was concerned about individual glory over team success.

Nope. It was because Russell had much, much better teammates, overall, during the 60's.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/indexef2f.html?p=3543

Yeah we are going to just disagree that Russell vs Wilt wasn't far and away the biggest factor there. These arguments that dismiss players based on the quality of their teammates hold very little water with me. Everyone knew while it was happening that Bill Russell was the primary reason for the dynasty. It's only now looking back where people look at stats and undeserved HoF inductions and try and suggest differently.

But feel free to believe what you like. I know I'm not going to convince you differently and you definitely aren't going to me to think Wilt was Russ's equal so I'd hate for you to waste time trying.

[ty 4191]

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are? [/b]

I mean I mentioned it was a team endeavor so of course you need help to win.

But if Mike never experienced playoff success and if Jokic doesn't experience more then yeah nobody should be considering them for GOAT imo.

And Wilt certainly isn't GOAT because he got outplayed by Russell too many times. And no, that wasn't about the rest of the Celtics over the rest of the Warriors/Lakers. It was because Russell understood what the goal was and Wilt often was concerned about individual glory over team success.

I wanted to find out which ATG Players faced the best teams in the Playoffs, so I looked at the Net Rating of opposing teams (for every series) for each player, and ran the numbers using this criteria, which 70s Fan used, but for overall opponent production, (not just defense, this time):

Lower -2.0 Net Rating: Bad Team
From -2.0 to +1.9 Net Rating: Average Team
From +2.0 to +3.9 Net Rating: Good Team
From +4.0 to +6.0 Net Rating: Elite Team
Above +7.0 Net Rating: All-Time Great Team

Performance Against The Very Best: Versus Elite + All Time Great Teams

Kobe: (71.8% of total games): 38 MPG, 24.4 PPG, 4.9 RBS, 4.5 AST, (+2.4 rTS%)

Jordan: (60.9% of total games): 41.9 MPG, 34.1 PPG, 6.6 RBS, 5.8 AST, (+3.6% rTS%)

Curry: (53% of total games): 38.7 MPG, 26.4 PPG, 5.2 RBS, 7 AST, (+9.0 rTS%)

Duncan: (50.2% of total games): 38.0 MPG, 20.9 PPG, 12.2 RBS, 3.0 AST, (+0.6 rTS%)

Wilt: (46.2% of total games): 47.2 MPG, 26.8 PPG, 24.3 RBS, 3.4 AST, (+2.8 rTS%)

LeBron: (43.6% of total games): 41.8 MPG, 28.3 PPG, 8.9 RBS, 7.2 AST, (+2.6 tTS%)

Magic: (39.2% of total games): 39.9 MPG, 19.3 PPG, 7.8 RBS, 12.3 AST, (+3.9 tTS%)

Bird: (37.2% of total games): 43.0 MPG, 24.8 PPG, 10.8 RBS, 6.6 AST, (+4.3 rTS%)

West: (35.9% of total games): 39.7 MPG, 27.3 PPG, 4.8 RBS, 5.5 AST, (+0.8 rTS%)

Kareem: (27.1% of total games): 39.4 MPG, 27.1 PPG, 12.4 RBS, 3.3 AST, (+4.6% rTS%)

[b]Russell: (26% of total games): 47.6 MPG, 14.5 PPG, 24.4 RBS, 4.8 AST, (-1.6 rTS%)[/b]

And, the discrepancy between Wilt and Kareem is even more drastic when you look at quality of defenses faced:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300

Wilt vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
45% of total playoff games played
47.2 MPG
25.0 PPG
26.6 RBG
3.5 AST/G
rTS%: +3.8%

Lebron vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
22.1% of total playoff games played
42.3 MPG
26.3 PGG
7.8 RBG
rTS%: -1.3%

Kareem vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
13.9% of total playoff games played
42.1 MPG
29.4 PPG
14.2 RBG
3.8 AST/G
rTS%: +4.8%

Playoffs, Primes, vs Elite plus All Time Great Defenses. (59'-66' for Russell and 60'-68' for Chamberlain):

Bill Russell (11.0% of playoffs games): 42.8 mpg, 26.2 rpg, 3.8 apg, 16.4 ppg on 42.7% FG, 60.9% FT, 45.4% TS (-1.90 rTS%)

Wilt Chamberlain (52.50% of playoffs games): 47.5 mpg, 28.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 28.1 ppg on 50.8% FG, 50.6% FT, 52.2% TS (+3.84 rTS%)

[Texas Chuck]

Right Wilt played against better teams because Russ was on a lot of those teams lol. You do realize Russ is the reason why those Celtics teams were great?

Your defense of Wilt is actually a defense of Russ, so I appreciate you making my point for me.

[ty 4191]

Right Wilt played against better teams because Russ was on a lot of those teams lol. You do realize Russ is the reason why those Celtics teams were great?

Your defense of Wilt is actually a defense of Russ, so I appreciate you making my point for me.

Yes, I realize it. In fact, I have Russell 2nd or 3rd all time, in fact, on my latest top 10 list.

But, the fact remains, Wilt faced drastically better competition, and, had it drastically tougher than Russell did. Switch teams and Wilt wins MVP nearly every year and the Celtics never lose once during his entire prime.

[Texas Chuck]

Switch teams and Wilt wins MVP nearly every year and the Celtics never lose once during his entire prime.

You can't possibly defend that statement and please don't try.

[ty 4191]

Switch teams and Wilt wins MVP nearly every year and the Celtics never lose once during his entire prime.

You can't possibly defend that statement and please don't try.

I don't have the time to, right now, but, I will.

No response here?

"But, the fact remains, Wilt faced drastically better competition, and, had it drastically tougher than Russell did."

We spend dozens of hours on that project, together. 70'sFan and I.

You dismiss it all and summarily ignore it, because it doesn't fit your conceived "RANGZZ" agenda.

[Texas Chuck]

Switch teams and Wilt wins MVP nearly every year and the Celtics never lose once during his entire prime.

You can't possibly defend that statement and please don't try.

I don't have the time to, right now, but, I will.

No response here?

"But, the fact remains, Wilt faced drastically better competition, and, had it drastically tougher than Russell did."

We spend dozens of hours on that project, together. 70'sFan and I.

You dismiss it all and summarily ignore it, because it doesn't fit your conceived "RANGZZ" agenda.

I didn't dismiss anyone's work. I disagree with your conclusions.

Good day.

[DQuinn1575]

Using team-based outcomes to inform an individual-level assessment seems a bit foolish, especially when taken to extremes.

The obvious counter argument is that its a team endeavor and team success is ultimately all that matters.

And it if leads certain posters to dismiss me as RINGZZZZZ guy so be it.

And here's my counter argument to your "RINGZZ" premise and stance:

Jordan didn't win anything until they built a Dynasty around him. Neither did Wilt, nor has Jokic.

Michael Jordan through age 27, Playoffs, before they built a Dynasty around him:

-Playoffs (53 games)
-Team Record: 24-29
-Team Series Record: 5-6
-3 first round exits, including 2 first round sweeps
-Two ECF

Jordan's line: 36.2/6.9/6.7 on +4.7% rTS. Led all players those years in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs.

Nikola Jokic through age 26, Playoffs:

-Playoffs: (48 games)
-Team Record: 21-27
-Team Series Record: 4-4
-1 first round exit
-1 WCF

Jokic's line: 26.4/11.5/6.4 on +4.1 rTS%. Top 3 player in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs.

Wilt Chamberlain through age 28, Playoffs:

-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 21-26
-Team Series Record: 4-5
-Much shorter playoffs structure, so they're incompatible. Still:

Wilt's line: 33.4/26.0/3.2 on +4.7 tTS%. Clearly the MVP in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional metrics.

What did Michael Jordan win before they built a Superteam around him, while also bringing in the greatest coach of all time?

What did Wilt win, while he had coaches (that got fired or resigned every year or so) 1960-1965? What did he win before he got great coaches, teammates, ownership, management around him?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

Alex Hannum had already beaten Auerbach and was considered a great coach.
Jackson was a CBA guy they brought in; he happened to work out, it wasnt like LA where they brought in a great coach. They brought in this guy and got lucky.

Do you really think the Bulls, who did a lousy job for decades became masterminds all of a sudden?

[ty 4191]

You can't possibly defend that statement and please don't try.

I don't have the time to, right now, but, I will.

No response here?

"But, the fact remains, Wilt faced drastically better competition, and, had it drastically tougher than Russell did."

We spend dozens of hours on that project, together. 70'sFan and I.

You dismiss it all and summarily ignore it, because it doesn't fit your conceived "RANGZZ" agenda.

I didn't dismiss anyone's work. I disagree with your conclusions.

Good day.

You disagree with the facts presented about Wilt facing drastically better competition (overall) and especially defenses?

[Texas Chuck]

I don't have the time to, right now, but, I will.

No response here?

"But, the fact remains, Wilt faced drastically better competition, and, had it drastically tougher than Russell did."

We spend dozens of hours on that project, together. 70'sFan and I.

You dismiss it all and summarily ignore it, because it doesn't fit your conceived "RANGZZ" agenda.

I didn't dismiss anyone's work. I disagree with your conclusions.

Good day.

You disagree with the facts presented about Wilt facing drastically better competition (overall) and especially defenses?

Did I? Or did I point out one of the reasons he faced better competition and defenses is because he had to play against Russell and Russell didn't?

I also disagree that if a team is literally beating every team put in front of them, that we should be quick to suggest that the level of competition means that a player or team who beat those teams is somehow inferior because of it.

[penbeast0]

If Wilt played on the Celtics from 1960-1969, there would be ZERO question as to who the GOAT is. Switch his teams with Russell's.

They'd have won the championship every single year, he'd have (at the very least) 5-6 MVP's in 10 years, and would have put up numbers and records so ridiculous it would be laughable.

If you did this, Russell would have about 8 rings to Wilt's 4 and people would be talking about how much better Arizin and Gola (who won a ring with Neil Johnston) were than Cousy and Sharman (who didn't with Ed Macauley) plus how much more talent the Sixers and Lakers had during the Russell years than the Celtics. When you have a guy like Wilt, it's hard for others to shine as bright. Russell was considerably the better defender (and Wilt was a great defensive center!) and gave his team the best defense in the league pretty much every year, sometimes by unprecedented amounts, plus his lack of scoring gave a lot of shots to his teammates so they could look better. You have to look at more than just scoring.

If you want deeper analysis on this particular issue, there have been numerous threads on switching the two, one as recently as last month I believe.

[oaktownwarriors87]

If a dude came in from the street, went to the worst team in the league and got them to 82-0 and a chip going 16-0 averaging 32-10-15-3-4 on 60/50/75 and then dipped out into the hall of fame he’d be the GOAT for me (2k)

Yeah, there is no minimum games played. If the dude is the best to ever play then he is the best to ever play. Playing longer has no impact on that.

It's like when people ask what LeBron has to do to catch Jordan. He's not catching Jordan. He's past his prime and Jordan was straight up a better basketball player.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd say at least 8 with 10 being more realistic. Even making the top 20 with 7 or less seasons played would be extremely difficult to imagine happening because most guys aren't even entering their primes until their 3rd or 4th season. On a sidenote LeBron was ranked 18th in the 2011 project after 8 seasons and 7th in the 2014 project after 11 seasons. So even if you cut off his first two seasons and say he came in at 20 with equal skill level after going to college for two years it would have taken him 9 years to reach the top 10 with 4 mvps and 2 rings on his resume.

[Jaivl]

Four years if he ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES a title each year. More realistically, I guess around 10-12. LeBron is rising the bar.

[ty 4191]

I'd say at least 8 with 10 being more realistic. Even making the top 20 with 7 or less seasons played would be extremely difficult to imagine happening because most guys aren't even entering their primes until their 3rd or 4th season. On a sidenote LeBron was ranked 18th in the 2011 project after 8 seasons and 7th in the 2014 project after 11 seasons. So even if you cut off his first two seasons and say he came in at 20 with equal skill level after going to college for two years it would have taken him 9 years to reach the top 10 with 4 mvps and 2 rings on his resume.

Interesting.

Would you say if Jordan played 1991-1998, only, would he be a GOAT candidate, however?

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd say at least 8 with 10 being more realistic. Even making the top 20 with 7 or less seasons played would be extremely difficult to imagine happening because most guys aren't even entering their primes until their 3rd or 4th season. On a sidenote LeBron was ranked 18th in the 2011 project after 8 seasons and 7th in the 2014 project after 11 seasons. So even if you cut off his first two seasons and say he came in at 20 with equal skill level after going to college for two years it would have taken him 9 years to reach the top 10 with 4 mvps and 2 rings on his resume.

Interesting.

Would you say if Jordan played 1991-1998, only, would he be a GOAT candidate, however?

He would be for some people. Personally I'd say he dropped off too much from 96-98 for me to consider him. 88-93 would be a better question and even then I'd say something like 6-10.

[coastalmarker99]

If Wilt played on the Celtics from 1960-1969, there would be ZERO question as to who the GOAT is. Switch his teams with Russell's.

They'd have won the championship every single year, he'd have (at the very least) 5-6 MVP's in 10 years, and would have put up numbers and records so ridiculous it would be laughable.

If you did this, Russell would have about 8 rings to Wilt's 4 and people would be talking about how much better Arizin and Gola (who won a ring with Neil Johnston) were than Cousy and Sharman (who didn't with Ed Macauley) plus how much more talent the Sixers and Lakers had during the Russell years than the Celtics. When you have a guy like Wilt, it's hard for others to shine as bright. Russell was considerably the better defender (and Wilt was a great defensive center!) and gave his team the best defense in the league pretty much every year, sometimes by unprecedented amounts, plus his lack of scoring gave a lot of shots to his teammates so they could look better. You have to look at more than just scoring.

If you want deeper analysis on this particular issue, there have been numerous threads on switching the two, one as recently as last month I believe.

Wilt most likely would win 9 to 10 rings with Russell's teams from 1957 to 1969 but in the process, he would lose many of his individual records.

While Russell would win in 1967 1969/1970/1972/1973 for a total of 5 rings.

[ty 4191]

I'd say at least 8 with 10 being more realistic. Even making the top 20 with 7 or less seasons played would be extremely difficult to imagine happening because most guys aren't even entering their primes until their 3rd or 4th season. On a sidenote LeBron was ranked 18th in the 2011 project after 8 seasons and 7th in the 2014 project after 11 seasons. So even if you cut off his first two seasons and say he came in at 20 with equal skill level after going to college for two years it would have taken him 9 years to reach the top 10 with 4 mvps and 2 rings on his resume.

Interesting.

Would you say if Jordan played 1991-1998, only, would he be a GOAT candidate, however?

He would be for some people. Personally I'd say he dropped off too much from 96-98 for me to consider him. 88-93 would be a better question and even then I'd say something like 6-10.

I'd agree on that. People forget Jordan was actually more dominant/more productive 1985-1990 than he was 1991-1998...

[ty 4191]

Do you really think the Bulls, who did a lousy job for decades became masterminds all of a sudden?

Pretty much.

The Bulls had a .521 winning percentage (including the playoffs) 1985-1990 and Jordan had a losing record in the playoffs, overall.

1991-1998 they had an aggregate .746 winning percentage and Jordan had a 25-1 series record in the playoffs.

Jordan was statistically better 1985-1990 than he was 1991-1998.

So what changed? His teammates, coach, and that makes ALL the difference.

Nobody wins championships alone.

Not Wilt, not Jokic, not Kareem (1975-1979, when he was by FAR the best player in the NBA), not Jordan (before they built a Dynasty around him).