RealGM

Here’s what I think.

Wilt = no Russell without him standing in his way.

Wilt now has 6 MVPs and possibly 8 to 9 rings to go along with his insane stats.

Therefore = undisputed goat status on this board.


Lebron = winning the 2015 finals.

As the feat of taking down a 67 win team basically by himself.

To go along with taking down a 73 win team the very next year.

Plus having the all time scoring record to go along with his insane longevity would cement LeBron as the Undisputed Goat on this board.


Kareem= winning in 1972 and 1974.

Kareem now has 8 rings and four finals MVP”s to go along with his many other accolades.

Therefore he would now be seen by most as the undisputed goat on this board.


Russell= average close to 20 PPG on a respectable shooting percentage.

As having better numbers to go along with his accolades would make it undeniable for most people.

Jordan = win in 1990

A four peat to go along with another three peat would make it undeniable for most on this board not to put Jordan as the undisputed goat.

You left out a hypothetical for MJ but I think an interesting question with him would be what if he kept playing in 94&95 and had two more great rs with scoring titles and maybe another mvp but lost to the Rockets in 94 and then to the Magic again in 95 before coming back with the 3 peat. Would he be thought as greater with a 6-1 finals record and two more strong rs or would that somehow make people see his goat argument as weaker due to two losses without the rusty excuse?

Cavsfansince84 wrote:You left out a hypothetical for MJ but I think an interesting question with him would be what if he kept playing in 94&95 and had two more great rs with scoring titles and maybe another mvp but lost to the Rockets in 94 and then to the Magic again in 95 before coming back with the 3 peat. Would he be thought as greater with a 6-1 finals record and two more strong rs or would that somehow make people see his goat argument as weaker due to two losses without the rusty excuse?

1990 is the better hypothetical.

As MJ is now 7 and 0 in the finals while pulling off the hardest feat in sports which is four peating

Jordan stans would be even more insufferable in this timeline as Jordan”s legacy would get even more mythical.


Losing to Hakeem twice in the finals even through he would add two great seasons would shatter his Aura of being unbeatable.


And Jordan fans as a result of this would no longer be able to hide behind his perfect finals record in debates.
.

coastalmarker99 wrote:

1990 is the better hypothetical.

As MJ is now 7 and 0 in the finals while pulling off the hardest feat in sports which is four peating

Jordan stans would be even more insufferable in this timeline as Jordan”s legacy would get even more mythical.


Losing to Hakeem even through he would add two great seasons would shatter his Aura of being unbeatable.
.

What I mentioned wasn't meant to make him into an undisputed goat. It was more just hypothetical in general. idk if adding 1990 makes his case that much stronger since the main thing lacking for MJ is longevity and needing a near two year break while other guys just kept going year after year. I don't think adding 2015 for LeBron would give him undisputed status on this board either. Most who put MJ #1 would still say its MJ due to 2011 and a 5-5 record in the finals imo. It would be almost the same.

To be undisputed they'd need more than 1 or 2 extra titles. You can't have an unanimous GOAT case if others are ahead of you in certain categories. This player would need the highest peak, the best longevity, the most sustained impact in both the regular season and play-offs, carry scrubs to a ring, create a dynasty, win the most MVPs and FMVPs, just never lose in general tbh.

LeBron being drafted to any franchise except for Kings, Cavs or Wolves.

coastalmarker99 wrote:Here’s what I think.

Wilt = no Russell without him standing in his way.

Wilt now has 6 MVPs and possibly 8 to 9 rings to go along with his insane stats.

Therefore = undisputed goat status on this board.


Lebron = winning the 2015 finals.

As the feat of taking down a 67 win team basically by himself.

To go along with taking down a 73 win team the very next year.

Plus having the all time scoring record to go along with his insane longevity would cement LeBron as the Undisputed Goat on this board.


Kareem= winning in 1972 and 1974.

Kareem now has 8 rings and four finals MVP”s to go along with his many other accolades.

Therefore he would now be seen by most as the undisputed goat on this board.


Russell= average close to 20 PPG on a respectable shooting percentage.

As having better numbers to go along with his accolades would make it undeniable for most people.

Jordan = win in 1990

A four peat to go along with another three peat would make it undeniable for most on this board not to put Jordan as the undisputed goat.

Wilt with no Russell (and Russell scoring at a respectable but not spectacular level) would still have a lot of people dismissing it as 1960s basketball. It doesn't matter now to most how many titles Russell won or how ridiculous Wilt's statistical footprint is.

What might matter is if Wilt or Russell had played 4 more years and taken down Kareem each of those years as Kareem played into the Magic/Bird era as a force and so they feel that he is more "modern basketball."

Similarly, I can't see one more title for Jordan mattering in the debate against Russell (who would still have 11/13 v. 7/however many Jordan seasons you wish to count. Nor would it matter against LeBron fans who discount Jordan as pre-modern basketball the way Jordan fans discount Wilt and Russell. The thing that would matter most for Jordan would be either not quitting for two years or having a reputation as a classy leader type like Jerry West rather than the personality reputation he has.

LeBron would be helped the most by having one more dominant finals series and win in his first title with the Heatles when Dallas beat them. That finals failure is thrown at his supporters constantly. The total points title should move him past Kareem for the Kareem fans as they tend to rate consistent outstanding longevity highly.

To be honest, had Russell started his career in 1955 and played a few more years at solid all-nba level until like 1973, he would have been my clear GOAT. Only longevity puts my question in his GOAT case.

penbeast0 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Here’s what I think.

Wilt = no Russell without him standing in his way.

Wilt now has 6 MVPs and possibly 8 to 9 rings to go along with his insane stats.

Therefore = undisputed goat status on this board.


Lebron = winning the 2015 finals.

As the feat of taking down a 67 win team basically by himself.

To go along with taking down a 73 win team the very next year.

Plus having the all time scoring record to go along with his insane longevity would cement LeBron as the Undisputed Goat on this board.


Kareem= winning in 1972 and 1974.

Kareem now has 8 rings and four finals MVP”s to go along with his many other accolades.

Therefore he would now be seen by most as the undisputed goat on this board.


Russell= average close to 20 PPG on a respectable shooting percentage.

As having better numbers to go along with his accolades would make it undeniable for most people.

Jordan = win in 1990

A four peat to go along with another three peat would make it undeniable for most on this board not to put Jordan as the undisputed goat.

Wilt with no Russell (and Russell scoring at a respectable but not spectacular level) would still have a lot of people dismissing it as 1960s basketball. It doesn't matter now to most how many titles Russell won or how ridiculous Wilt's statistical footprint is.

What might matter is if Wilt or Russell had played 4 more years and taken down Kareem each of those years as Kareem played into the Magic/Bird era as a force and so they feel that he is more "modern basketball."

Similarly, I can't see one more title for Jordan mattering in the debate against Russell (who would still have 11/13 v. 7/however many Jordan seasons you wish to count. Nor would it matter against LeBron fans who discount Jordan as pre-modern basketball the way Jordan fans discount Wilt and Russell. The thing that would matter most for Jordan would be either not quitting for two years or having a reputation as a classy leader type like Jerry West rather than the personality reputation he has.

LeBron would be helped the most by having one more dominant finals series and win in his first title with the Heatles when Dallas beat them. That finals failure is thrown at his supporters constantly. The total points title should move him past Kareem for the Kareem fans as they tend to rate consistent outstanding longevity highly.

I don’t hear this much as a pro bron argument lol

I also don’t think I’ve heard someone mention the Dallas series seriously since like 2018

Maybe Michael Jordan if he plays in 94 and full-season of 95, and then continues playing after 98 until he no longer is an all-star level guy, is an interesting proposition.

Bird not shoveling his mom’s driveway.

You're adding rings here and there. Well, Russell has 11 and he's far from undisputed. So I don't think anything can happen to be undisputed.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
I don’t hear this much as a pro bron argument lol

I also don’t think I’ve heard someone mention the Dallas series seriously since like 2018

What can I say, I'm old.

There can never be an undisputed GOAT candidate but...

LeBron -- Not take on the villain mentality in 2011, healthy Kyrie in 2015 Finals, KD and the Thunder defeat the GSW in 2016

Kareem -- Defeat Houston in 1981, Not losing with a 3-2 lead in the 1974 NBA Finals [Wasn't his fault]

Russell -- Play longer

Jordan -- Play Longer, specifically 1994 & 1995

Duncan -- Not get injured in 2002, Not choke [Spurs, not Duncan] in 2013

Garnett -- Get drafted to a competent franchise or Timberwolves acting as a competent franchise, Cassell stays healthy in 2004, get traded to LA before the 2006 season

coastalmarker99 wrote:Here’s what I think.

Wilt = no Russell without him standing in his way.

Wilt now has 6 MVPs and possibly 8 to 9 rings to go along with his insane stats.

Therefore = undisputed goat status on this board.

1 I'm pretty certain (and hopeful) that the outlined circumstantial changes in general wouln't yield "undisputed GOAT[s]" both because I would hope most acknowledge signiciant scope for uncertainty and because if there is no perceptible change in their performance - and performance change is rarely stated mainly just circumstance (MJ's involves significantly more MJ though still with uncertain quality) - I think hope many, including myself would rate them the same. It seems you'd have to move a lot of people a long way to get to "undisputed" too.


2) On Wilt specifically, Wilt won 2 titles. To get to "8 to 9" he needs to add 6 to 7. So if that's based on nothing else changing that would mean having to think Wilt's teams were circa 100% locks win the title but for Boston, as Russell-era Celtics eliminated them 7 times.

If one considered them 50% chance but for the Celtics in each of those individual years, there'd be about a 0.8% chance of winning all 7 (0.0078125) or 5.5% chance of winning 6 (0.0546875) for a combined 6.25% chance of winning 6 or more of the 7.

Or if we hit reset from day 1 and he stays in one place ... I think it's harder, the Warriors were pretty inconsistent and won't get a chance to reload (unless you're punting '65 for Barry, [and I don't love the fit, and we need them to keep Barry ...] but even then you need to make up that title in one of the weaker years [and in the spirit of the framing one of the Russell-era years].

Even in a smaller league with stable rosters, where you don't need 7+SRS to be a serious contender ... it seems like a huge ask to be expecting someone to claim 7-8 titles in 10 years.

SNPA wrote:Bird not shoveling his mom’s driveway.

Daniel Lee Levine raises issues as to how much it was thought of as "his mom's" at the time. And Bird hurt himself in places he probably shouldn't have been at least 3 times in his career.

Not saying this isn't an interesting discussion (having more Bird would be great) and the general discussion is necessarily about things that didn't happen. But the "for his mother" framing is often a deliberate emotional tug and that view is contested. And there's an argument you're changing who Bird is if he isn't ... making his own choices.

not one damn thing. There will never be a consensus. And that's okay. Better than okay really.

But people value different things.

Owly wrote:

SNPA wrote:Bird not shoveling his mom’s driveway.

Daniel Lee Levine raises issues as to how much it was thought of as "his mom's" at the time. And Bird hurt himself in places he probably shouldn't have been at least 3 times in his career.

Not saying this isn't an interesting discussion (having more Bird would be great) and the general discussion is necessarily about things that didn't happen. But the "for his mother" framing is often a deliberate emotional tug and that view is contested. And there's an argument you're changing who Bird is if he isn't ... making his own choices.

Also not to beat a dead horse, but how exactly does this make him "undisputed" on this board?

Owly wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Here’s what I think.

Wilt = no Russell without him standing in his way.

Wilt now has 6 MVPs and possibly 8 to 9 rings to go along with his insane stats.

Therefore = undisputed goat status on this board.

1 I'm pretty certain (and hopeful) that the outlined circumstantial changes in general wouln't yield "undisputed GOAT[s]" both because I would hope most acknowledge signiciant scope for uncertainty and because if there is no perceptible change in their performance - and performance change is rarely stated mainly just circumstance (MJ's involves significantly more MJ though still with uncertain quality) - I think hope many, including myself would rate them the same. It seems you'd have to move a lot of people a long way to get to "undisputed" too.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? The wording here confuses me ("rarely stated") and I'm confused how to interpret the gist of what you're trying to say.

OhayoKD wrote:

Owly wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Here’s what I think.

Wilt = no Russell without him standing in his way.

Wilt now has 6 MVPs and possibly 8 to 9 rings to go along with his insane stats.

Therefore = undisputed goat status on this board.

1 I'm pretty certain (and hopeful) that the outlined circumstantial changes in general wouln't yield "undisputed GOAT[s]" both because I would hope most acknowledge signiciant scope for uncertainty and because if there is no perceptible change in their performance - and performance change is rarely stated mainly just circumstance (MJ's involves significantly more MJ though still with uncertain quality) - I think hope many, including myself would rate them the same. It seems you'd have to move a lot of people a long way to get to "undisputed" too.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? The wording here confuses me ("rarely stated") and I'm confused how to interpret the gist of what you're trying to say.

It's the MJ thing I say after (and Russell).

Initially this was clearer, as I was going to say the poster doesn't really give any indication the player is changing performance levels, in Wilt's case it's pretty explicitly just "get rid of Russell". But the MJ version from another poster does give a significant additional quantity of MJ and that should move where I'd have him. So whilst I can't be precise about where he'd be in the added years (or where the poster thinks he'd be - or be sure how this affects him later) we're getting more of an elite in prime player but then, as I say that's all off another poster's Jordan scenario anyway. But the Russell change does seem to be significant improvement of the player. The how (turnovers, time on ball, exact degree of efficiency, how it is achieved) would matter, of course, but as I say on the surface a significant change in the player's play. In that case a performance change is indicated, not just circumstances.

Basically, based off what the poster posted personally I would hope not to change, for instance, KAJ's ranking at all if he played exactly the same level and teammates happening to do better. And the focus here, as I read it, was explicitly on the team level stuff and not that they played at a specific level.

If we're getting meta I'd have to think more about removing Russell. I guess it does make Chamberlain more dominant at the position, a greater outlier from from both the mean and a large gap ahead of nearest primarily overlapping positional rival (rather than, as I think most now perceive it, a deficit). Removing Russell ... I can see a case that that changes notional championship probability added and legitimately improves him as perceived by the best tools we have (and we can't know the players that might have been but weren't, so maybe it should push up how we're rating him). But in general my preference in ranking is that I want to measure your contribution, not what happened to happen around you.

Hope this clarifies things.