GOAT methodology for GOAT lists

[falcolombardi]

(1) Determine per season baselines:
a. Regular season NPI RAPM from 96-97 to the present
b. WOWYR, minutes, SRS to estimate prior to 96-97
(2) Evaluate playoff performance
a. On a series by series basis look at team performance
b. Observe any in-series adjustments by both teams
(3) Identify player portability:
a. See how player performs in different offensive loads
b. Note differences in floor and ceiling raising situations

I like this process but I would add some adjustment for intangibles/leadership. Seems clear to me to be easier to win with guys like Russ/Magic/Hakeem/Curry/Robinson/Duncan/Dirk/Wade than toxic personalities with similar talent like MJ/LBJ/Shaq/Wilt/Kobe/KD/Barkley/Barry/Harden etc.

notorius success lacking players like jordan, lebron, shaq kobe or even wilt ?(led two goat level champion teams)

[Lou Fan]

(1) Determine per season baselines:
a. Regular season NPI RAPM from 96-97 to the present
b. WOWYR, minutes, SRS to estimate prior to 96-97
(2) Evaluate playoff performance
a. On a series by series basis look at team performance
b. Observe any in-series adjustments by both teams
(3) Identify player portability:
a. See how player performs in different offensive loads
b. Note differences in floor and ceiling raising situations

I like this process but I would add some adjustment for intangibles/leadership. Seems clear to me to be easier to win with guys like Russ/Magic/Hakeem/Curry/Robinson/Duncan/Dirk/Wade than toxic personalities with similar talent like MJ/LBJ/Shaq/Wilt/Kobe/KD/Barkley/Barry/Harden etc.

notorius success lacking players like jordan, lebron, shaq kobe or even wilt ?(led two goat level champion teams)

You can be a toxic **** who's good enough at basketball to win in spite of it. All other things being equal there's no sane person who'd rather have someone with a Duncan personality to lead their franchise than any of those guys and that absolutely has a tangible impact on winning. I'm a bulls fan I LOVE Mj but I don't think his personality helped the Bulls win. It's certainly not the be all end all 4 of the guys I named are in my top 10 all time including my GOAT. I just think it's clear that there are guys who are better at elevating their team indirectly through leadership and culture building which can help win championships and should be a part of evaluations.

Edit: I will say MJ and Kobe's styles were prolly less detrimental than the other guys I listed.

[scrabbarista]

My original methodology was to

a) try not to leave anything out; include as much information as possible, and

b) quantify everything

On the first point: so that when something was unbalanced (like a player had too many or too few MVP votes or All-NBA's), something else (maybe he had a lot - or not a lot - of counting stats) would balance it out. I found this to be an ingenious method that helped in many problem areas. If I can be clever for a second, a critic might say, "Literally every part of your formula is flawed," and I'd respond, "I know. That's what makes it so good."

On the second point: so that I wouldn't have to deal with the excruciating dilemma(s) involved in navigating my own bias and constantly wondering where my blind spots are, etc.. I do enough of both of those things without having to add the extra pressure of my rankings being at stake. I still tweak the formula toward my own biases (wins are good is one of those biases - and points), but at the end of the day, the same formula is applied to hundreds of different players, so at least I know I'm being consistent.

[DQuinn1575]

I just don't like the argument or the precedent. MJ said he had nothing left to prove after 3 rings. A GOAT tier rookie might feel that way after a single year and a title.

It's fine to say player X felt they had a good reason to retire but yeah most greats retire above replacement level, most will have had valid reasons. And I get the motivation. I don't see where you can go from there: Junk longevity? Grant hypothetical years? It's down to each individual of course, and these things are messy, we don't have a level playing field of training or opportunity or healthcare or competition etc. But I can see an internal rationale, consistent rationale that seems okay [to me] for CORP type models. I'm struggling to see one for "I don't want to tell this player to his face that although I do feel that he left stuff on the table it seems ... impolite? nonsensical?? ... to tell him that players who played at that level for longer deserve more credit." that resolves neatly and seems okay [to me].

fwiw ... do we have a source on "11 (13? is that with USF?) is "enough", Alexander the Great etc type reasoning as motivation for retiring. It makes sense, but I'd prefer to have it from him and I couldn't see a reason in the first Celtic history I skimmed.

He announced it in Sports Illustrated, and he said "l, I've played approximately 3,000 games, organized and otherwise. I think that's enough."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1969/08/04/im-not-involved-anymore

The 13 successful seasons is my words not his; I think an mvp year and a 4th place mvp finish as the best player for one of the best teams in the league is successful to most.

And he's levels above replacement player; he was the Retro Player of the Year for this board his last year; the list of players who voluntarily retired as a top 10 player in the league is real small, and I'm not sure it's been done since Russell.

MJ twice lol and Magic too.

Well, MJ didnt really retire obviously
and Magic is a multi-parter
in 91 he definitely didnt voluntarily retire
and in 96, not sure if he was top 10 player in league
besides which he had an involuntary 4 year gap.

I'm really more talking Pettit and Russell although other older players who also qualify

[scrabbarista]

My original methodology was to

a) try not to leave anything out; include as much information as possible, and

b) quantify everything

On the first point: so that when something was unbalanced (like a player had too many or too few MVP votes or All-NBA's), something else (maybe he had a lot - or not a lot - of counting stats) would balance it out. I found this to be an ingenious method that helped in many problem areas. If I can be clever for a second, a critic might say, "Literally every part of your formula is flawed," and I'd respond, "I know. That's what makes it so good."

On the second point: so that I wouldn't have to deal with the excruciating dilemma(s) involved in navigating my own bias and constantly wondering where my blind spots are, etc.. I do enough of both of those things without having to add the extra pressure of my rankings being at stake. I still tweak the formula toward my own biases (wins are good is one of those biases - and points), but at the end of the day, the same formula is applied to hundreds of different players, so at least I know I'm being consistent.

I forgot something extremely important that's implied by what I already wrote. I consider there to be two approaches in making all-time lists. I call them the historian's approach and the GM's approach. The GM is concerned with questions of portability and different what-if scenarios. The historian just asks what happened. Because I want my list to be objective (this is strictly for my own sanity, as implied in my original post), I take the historian's approach. That doesn't mean I don't absolutely love to indulge in what-if's, etc.. It just means I don't incorporate those things into my all-time list (unless I can quantify them).

[ronnymac2]

1. Skillset evaluation
2. Stats/Impact across seasons (longevity)
3. Global merch sales
4. Ratings - Is this player a draw?

All of roughly equal importance.

[JordansBulls]

My primary criteria is simply how well each player played in the only context they could impact--in their own era. And its cumulative for me. If you keep stacking up seasons that benefit your team I keep adding value to your ledger. I don't care how you impact games, just that you do. No bonus for offense over defense. No bonus for being well-rounded. If you can dominate like Shaq? great. If you instead do it like David Robinson great. If you can dominate like Steph, great. But if you can do it like Kidd, that's great also.

I try and have as little arbitrary criteria as I can in terms of defined seasons that matter versus ones that don't--so I'm not at all hung up on peak or prime. I don't say perimeter players must be great offensive players nor bigs must be elite defenders. We've seen too many great players who don't fit a template.

Team success matters to me. The goal is not individual stats of any kind, but rather the team winning games, series, and championships. If you are consistently helping your teams win that means more to me than a high TS% or +/-.

So how would I compare Russell to Lebron? I wouldn't really. Russell gets compared to players in his era and Lebron in his and then I figure out which one I think had a better career. For years that was Russ. I've pretty much conceded Lebron has matched or exceeded him at this point.

Russell won 11 championships, and you can assign whatever value to that you wish. BUT
he retired with nothing left to prove, so should you count value someone else who continued, be it Karl Malone or LeBron for playing those years 14+ that were completely irrelevant to Bill?

We don't know how many more years Russell could have played, but it wouldnt make any sense to me to tell him, boy if you would have played 5 more years at a decent level you would be considered the greatest of all time? But you are not the greatest, because you only played 13.

But 13 was enough, it was above average for the time, and he won multiple titles, mvps. etc. He was like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer.

Thoughts?

I agree! It should be about accolades and not how long they played. Because if you are losing you will play longer more likely. In Russell's case he only had to win 2 series for a title so that is completely different from any star from 1985 going forward who had to win 4 series.

[penbeast0]

Dominance in era adjusted for strength of era is my shorthand. I don't care if the player created great offense, great defense, or some of both. I don't care much if they are tremendously portable or whether they could play in other eras. If you have a person that could be on a reasonable GOAT list, you build around that person.

Generally, I focus around an 8 year span with serious penalties for not playing that long and a bonus for longer. I focus on those prime seasons, I'm not as worried about seasons where a person was not significantly above the average NBA starter level. I adjust this slightly as average career length gets longer so players from the early years get a bit of a curve on career length; especially relative to the years of great players generally going 1 and done (or straight from HS).

And, finally, when I say that I adjust for era, I look at (a) player pool, and (b) number of teams. I consider the 50s to be clearly weakest, (big gap) then the 70s, (significant gap), then the 80s, 60s, and 90s (yes, I consider the 60s to be slightly stronger in terms of average competition on a given night than the expanded NBA of the 80s), then the 00s, and strongest would be the 10s.

[Ginoboleee]

Dominance in era adjusted for strength of era is my shorthand. I don't care if the player created great offense, great defense, or some of both. I don't care much if they are tremendously portable or whether they could play in other eras. If you have a person that could be on a reasonable GOAT list, you build around that person.

Generally, I focus around an 8 year span with serious penalties for not playing that long and a bonus for longer. I focus on those prime seasons, I'm not as worried about seasons where a person was not significantly above the average NBA starter level. I adjust this slightly as average career length gets longer so players from the early years get a bit of a curve on career length; especially relative to the years of great players generally going 1 and done (or straight from HS).

And, finally, when I say that I adjust for era, I look at (a) player pool, and (b) number of teams. I consider the 50s to be clearly weakest, (big gap) then the 70s, (significant gap), then the 80s, 60s, and 90s (yes, I consider the 60s to be slightly stronger in terms of average competition on a given night than the expanded NBA of the 80s), then the 00s, and strongest would be the 10s.

My new methodology is still under development, but this post is so great that I might just use a bunch of it.
Tweak that typo with the 80s though lol.

[Doctor MJ]

This is a different kind of thread. Not about who is on your Top 10 list, or Greatest Peaks list, etc. But instead on what everyone feels is the best way to compare and actual pick a GOAT list.

First question I always asked in projects is...what's the criteria used, and how are we comparing. So what methodology does everyone use to derive various lists? And is there better ways we can improve how we choose player A vs player B?

For example, what's the best way to compare Russell vs Lebron? Very different eras, accolades, stats.

So, held off on this because it feels like it deserves a longer post than I'm ready to give, but with it popping up again let me at least say this:

1. It's a great question.

2. The truth is that it's not just that there different people approach this differently, but there are many different variations on these sort of lists that are meaningful, and that while you have to choose one approach as the one you use when participating in something like the Top 100, that doesn't mean you don't find the other approaches worth doing as well.

In terms of approaches that come to mind:

1. Career vs Prime vs Peak.

2. In-Era Dominance vs Talent-Adjusted In-Era Dominance vs Rule&Skill-Adjusted In Era Dominance

3. Competitive Impact vs Influence vs Aesthetics

4. Whole Game vs Offense vs Defense vs Specific Skills

Can't quite say that every possible permutation is meaningful, but many of them are.

For my own Top 100 approach, where I've been struggling is in the subtle distinction between what I called Talent-Adjusted vs Rule& Skill-Adjusted approaches.

By "Talent Adjusted", I mean a coarse approach where you look at the general talent pool and try to adjust accordingly. The big guy this tends to hurt, compared to the raw In-Era Dominance is George Mikan. And I'll note the fact that Mikan basically never gets talked about as a #1 contender on any of our Top 100 or Peaks projects tells us that no one is using raw In-Era Dominance as their criteria for these projects.

By "Rule&Skill-Adjusted", what I mean is that when the actual shape of the game changes, some guys scale better to the new landscape than others. So Bill Russell was the best player of his time (shout out to Wilt's '67 peak tho), but I think it's very possible that the best prospect of players in that era for the modern game is Jerry West. What do I do with this?

Many push back against this sort of thought, and understandably so. It puts you in a place where you get ugly comparison triangle where A > B in era, but B > C > A when comparing the two against a 3rd player from a more recent time. How do you decide who "wins" the comparison then? There's no cathartic answer. The only true answer is that these players are more complicated than can be conveyed by a ranked list, and that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the rankings are only ever a means to a more meaningful end of understand basketball players and through them, understanding basketball a bit better.

[Ginoboleee]

This is a different kind of thread. Not about who is on your Top 10 list, or Greatest Peaks list, etc. But instead on what everyone feels is the best way to compare and actual pick a GOAT list.

First question I always asked in projects is...what's the criteria used, and how are we comparing. So what methodology does everyone use to derive various lists? And is there better ways we can improve how we choose player A vs player B?

For example, what's the best way to compare Russell vs Lebron? Very different eras, accolades, stats.

So, held off on this because it feels like it deserves a longer post than I'm ready to give, but with it popping up again let me at least say this:

1. It's a great question.

2. The truth is that it's not just that there different people approach this differently, but there are many different variations on these sort of lists that are meaningful, and that while you have to choose one approach as the one you use when participating in something like the Top 100, that doesn't mean you don't find the other approaches worth doing as well.

In terms of approaches that come to mind:

1. Career vs Prime vs Peak.

2. In-Era Dominance vs Talent-Adjusted In-Era Dominance vs Rule&Skill-Adjusted In Era Dominance

3. Competitive Impact vs Influence vs Aesthetics

4. Whole Game vs Offense vs Defense vs Specific Skills

Can't quite say that every possible permutation is meaningful, but many of them are.

For my own Top 100 approach, where I've been struggling is in the subtle distinction between what I called Talent-Adjusted vs Rule& Skill-Adjusted approaches.

By "Talent Adjusted", I mean a coarse approach where you look at the general talent pool and try to adjust accordingly. The big guy this tends to hurt, compared to the raw In-Era Dominance is George Mikan. And I'll note the fact that Mikan basically never gets talked about as a #1 contender on any of our Top 100 or Peaks projects tells us that no one is using raw In-Era Dominance as their criteria for these projects.

By "Rule&Skill-Adjusted", what I mean is that when the actual shape of the game changes, some guys scale better to the new landscape than others. So Bill Russell was the best player of his time (shout out to Wilt's '67 peak tho), but I think it's very possible that the best prospect of players in that era for the modern game is Jerry West. What do I do with this?

Many push back against this sort of thought, and understandably so. It puts you in a place where you get ugly comparison triangle where A > B in era, but B > C > A when comparing the two against a 3rd player from a more recent time. How do you decide who "wins" the comparison then? There's no cathartic answer. The only true answer is that these players are more complicated than can be conveyed by a ranked list, and that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the rankings are only ever a means to a more meaningful end of understand basketball players and through them, understanding basketball a bit better.

Thank you so much.
I am taking personal notes from this entire post in particular (and bits from throughout the thread in general), and it will be big help as I further develop my own approach.

[Doctor MJ]

Thank you so much.
I am taking personal notes from this entire post in particular (and bits from throughout the thread in general), and it will be big help as I further develop my own approach.

I appreciate the kind words Ginobolee, glad I can be of help. Cheers!

[Cavsfansince84]

Dominance in era adjusted for strength of era is my shorthand. I don't care if the player created great offense, great defense, or some of both. I don't care much if they are tremendously portable or whether they could play in other eras. If you have a person that could be on a reasonable GOAT list, you build around that person.

Generally, I focus around an 8 year span with serious penalties for not playing that long and a bonus for longer. I focus on those prime seasons, I'm not as worried about seasons where a person was not significantly above the average NBA starter level. I adjust this slightly as average career length gets longer so players from the early years get a bit of a curve on career length; especially relative to the years of great players generally going 1 and done (or straight from HS).

And, finally, when I say that I adjust for era, I look at (a) player pool, and (b) number of teams. I consider the 50s to be clearly weakest, (big gap) then the 70s, (significant gap), then the 80s, 60s, and 90s (yes, I consider the 60s to be slightly stronger in terms of average competition on a given night than the expanded NBA of the 80s), then the 00s, and strongest would be the 10s.

This is somewhat close to what I do though playoffs are a big factor as well. If a guy has 12 chances at winning a ring and always comes up way short and never raises his game that is something of a red flag to me. Because even though playoffs are a small sample at some point a guy has to work on his weaknesses that teams may exploit or gameplan for in the postseason then show the ability to perform when its most relevant. The guys who do that are the ones who most care about winning imo and often end up with the most rings relative to peers. The ones who lose then ask 'what do I need to do better' and make those improvements which also goes into how much they may need to rely on others at certain parts of a game. Maybe this is also why Russell didn't develop much offensively since what he was doing seemed to always work in terms of winning.

[ty 4191]

The most important criteria to me is relative dominance. How good was a player compared to his peers. Then when I know that I look at for how long they were able to play at a high level and the level of their competition. Longevity is important to me but a top 5/top 10 season weighs a lot more to me than a fringe All-Star level season when it comes to top 100 comparisons. Being able to actually have a claim as the best player in the league for a prolonged time is usually the fastest way for players to climb my list. I think I also put above average emphasis on play-off performance. Play-off basketball is a different beast and players who impress there are a lot more convincing than guys who can't consistently make an impact in the post-season.

Very nice. Agreed, Sir!

Who are your top 10 players of all time?

[Ginoboleee]

The most important criteria to me is relative dominance. How good was a player compared to his peers. Then when I know that I look at for how long they were able to play at a high level and the level of their competition. Longevity is important to me but a top 5/top 10 season weighs a lot more to me than a fringe All-Star level season when it comes to top 100 comparisons. Being able to actually have a claim as the best player in the league for a prolonged time is usually the fastest way for players to climb my list. I think I also put above average emphasis on play-off performance. Play-off basketball is a different beast and players who impress there are a lot more convincing than guys who can't consistently make an impact in the post-season.

Very nice. Agreed, Sir!

Who are your top 10 players of all time?

So that now makes (at least) three of us on Team Relative Dominance (plus more emphasis on Playoffs; much more in my case).

Don't get me started on Harden - I might need to tweak my approach to make sure he doesn't look too good - CP3 and Mailman are also in my ATG Bias Doghouse - but by doing so I suspect that my guys Dirk and Chuck are going to be negatively impacted - we shall see.

Bold = straight talk

[f4p]

This is somewhat close to what I do though playoffs are a big factor as well. If a guy has 12 chances at winning a ring and always comes up way short and never raises his game that is something of a red flag to me. Because even though playoffs are a small sample at some point a guy has to work on his weaknesses that teams may exploit or gameplan for in the postseason then show the ability to perform when its most relevant. The guys who do that are the ones who most care about winning imo and often end up with the most rings relative to peers. The ones who lose then ask 'what do I need to do better' and make those improvements which also goes into how much they may need to rely on others at certain parts of a game. Maybe this is also why Russell didn't develop much offensively since what he was doing seemed to always work in terms of winning.

Honestly, when we're talking about the GOAT, I really don't understand considering almost anything other than the playoffs. Based on my analysis of NBA history, all of the titles have been handed out for the playoffs and none have been given for the regular season.
The playoffs are simply too important.

This isn't baseball. There you have decades of history where hardly any teams make the playoffs, and if you didn't play for the Yankees, you might never make the playoffs. Ted Williams has 5 career playoff games and 25 career at-bats. Your regular season performance to get your team to the postseason is a huge part of who you are as a player. And even once you reach the postseason, it's so random that it's hard to really grade anyone on what might only be 30 or 40 games.

And it's not football, where basically anyone who isn't a QB is hard enough to judge already from a legacy perspective, and even QB's can be affected by so many things like their offensive line or the defense they face that it might not be possible to even do a statistical playoff comparison, much less grade by who wins and who loses.

But the NBA? So many teams get to the playoffs that even guys who weren't in blessed circumstances, like Hakeem, played almost 2 years worth of playoff games (145). And some guys are closer to 3 years. That's a large sample to draw from, usually over many different years. The sport isn't as random as baseball and 7-game series make winning or losing less random than football (and even compared to series in baseball). And you typically don't have massive fluctuations in stats based on your opponents. A few points, a few percentages here or there? Sure. But you don't see the equivalent of a QB going from 3 TD/0 INT against a weak team to 1 TD/3 INT against a great team. The great players usually go down swinging with big time numbers. And great players have a huge impact on the game compared to anyone other than QB's or starting pitchers (for the 1 out of 4 or 5 games they are starting).

So you get plenty of chances to prove yourself, you usually get a chance every year, whether you win or lose might have a lot to do with your teammates but it won't be fluky and you almost always have a chance to shine statistically. And because basically everyone makes the playoffs, it's the only time that really matters. And in a sport where great players routinely take it easier in the regular season and build for the playoffs, it can truly be a different sport. A great regular season followed by a poor playoffs isn't just criticized by fans, the player himself is usually hugely disappointed. i guess i can see a little emphasis on the regular season because it's still a lot of games but it just usually doesn't mean much. winning MVP and losing in the first round is a disaster, not a feather in your cap.

now further down the list, i can see comparing lesser players with their regular seasons more accounted for because you are usually talking about people with flawed playoff resumes and the regular season can be a big part of what they did.

[f4p]

Don't get me started on Harden - I might need to tweak my approach to make sure he doesn't look too good - CP3 and Mailman are also in my ATG Bias Doghouse - but by doing so I suspect that my guys Dirk and Chuck are going to be negatively impacted - we shall see.

Bold = straight talk

harden already gets hated on plenty. and usually way too much. for a guy with nearly identical playoff stats to steph curry (and even better head to head), with playoff dropoffs like curry/bird/durant and many other greats, who basically never loses as a favorite even though his team's seed is often higher than it should be because he's one of the great regular season hard-carry guys in nba history (see 2015), has never blown any significant series lead (no 2-0 or 3-1), averaged at least 26 ppg for 8 straight years in the playoffs, had to try to go through arguably the most ridiculous 5 year stretch by any team ever, and almost beat the durant warriors with post-prime chris paul and had the only other series where someone was tied 2-2 with the warriors with a really bad version of chris paul, you'd think he showed up to every playoffs and lost to the 7th seed while averaging 15 ppg. he's not lebron or kawhi in the playoffs, but his failures get way overstated and his good games are basically ignored.

[Cavsfansince84]

Honestly, when we're talking about the GOAT, I really don't understand considering almost anything other than the playoffs. Based on my analysis of NBA history, all of the titles have been handed out for the playoffs and none have been given for the regular season.
The playoffs are simply too important.

This isn't baseball. There you have decades of history where hardly any teams make the playoffs, and if you didn't play for the Yankees, you might never make the playoffs. Ted Williams has 5 career playoff games and 25 career at-bats. Your regular season performance to get your team to the postseason is a huge part of who you are as a player. And even once you reach the postseason, it's so random that it's hard to really grade anyone on what might only be 30 or 40 games.

And it's not football, where basically anyone who isn't a QB is hard enough to judge already from a legacy perspective, and even QB's can be affected by so many things like their offensive line or the defense they face that it might not be possible to even do a statistical playoff comparison, much less grade by who wins and who loses.

But the NBA? So many teams get to the playoffs that even guys who weren't in blessed circumstances, like Hakeem, played almost 2 years worth of playoff games (145). And some guys are closer to 3 years. That's a large sample to draw from, usually over many different years. The sport isn't as random as baseball and 7-game series make winning or losing less random than football (and even compared to series in baseball). And you typically don't have massive fluctuations in stats based on your opponents. A few points, a few percentages here or there? Sure. But you don't see the equivalent of a QB going from 3 TD/0 INT against a weak team to 1 TD/3 INT against a great team. The great players usually go down swinging with big time numbers. And great players have a huge impact on the game compared to anyone other than QB's or starting pitchers (for the 1 out of 4 or 5 games they are starting).

While I can see the point you are making eg only looking at playoffs since they matter the most but at the end of the day that's likely less than 20% of games played for most players. Maybe only 10%. So I think you are going to reach a better and more complete assessment of a player by also looking at the rs. More so because I think most players give close to full effort in both the rs and ps and are trying to win things like mvps if they are a top 5 player and win games. Sure it means more in the playoffs but it does mean something when a guy has a tremendous rs.

[Ginoboleee]

Don't get me started on Harden - I might need to tweak my approach to make sure he doesn't look too good - CP3 and Mailman are also in my ATG Bias Doghouse - but by doing so I suspect that my guys Dirk and Chuck are going to be negatively impacted - we shall see.

Bold = straight talk

harden already gets hated on plenty. and usually way too much. for a guy with nearly identical playoff stats to steph curry (and even better head to head), with playoff dropoffs like curry/bird/durant and many other greats, who basically never loses as a favorite even though his team's seed is often higher than it should be because he's one of the great regular season hard-carry guys in nba history (see 2015), has never blown any significant series lead (no 2-0 or 3-1), averaged at least 26 ppg for 8 straight years in the playoffs, had to try to go through arguably the most ridiculous 5 year stretch by any team ever, and almost beat the durant warriors with post-prime chris paul and had the only other series where someone was tied 2-2 with the warriors with a really bad version of chris paul, you'd think he showed up to every playoffs and lost to the 7th seed while averaging 15 ppg. he's not lebron or kawhi in the playoffs, but his failures get way overstated and his good games are basically ignored.

I really appreciate your note.
Your main point is that he gets hated on "way too much" and that seems like a fair interpretation.
As you so correctly and helpfully shared, there are all kinds of statistical accomplishments in his playoff resume that look quite good.
And better than good - quite special - and thus "his failures get way overstated and his good games are basically ignored".
This particular point is extremely important.
Whenever we put too much focus on (a few?) failures and then ignore the other side of the scale, we are not thinking clearly.
I think that sort of thing happens all the time (ex. recency bias anytime somebody special comes up short; ignoring the fact that at all times there are at least 3-7 active legends playing, and every year only 1-2 typically get a ring).

But I appreciate your note most to help support my deeper (subtle) skepticism about statistics/analytics.
There are so many different ways to evaluate/slice up these player's accomplishments, that once we are talking about the best player on every team, especially the best player on every playoff team, there is practically always going to be some good numbers to find.
And that will be because the best players tend to average out good stats across a series, whereas more minor players may have at best one magical game.
Typically, the best players are (in terms of their average overall stats) not the cause of why a team wins/loses.
Playoff Team outcomes are largely due to (a) Dramatic Last Minute developments that get washed out in the statistical soup, or (b) Net Positive Contributions by One Team's Non-Star Rotation Players (in the old days, usually the home team).
The stars tend to balance each other out; it is The Others that matter most in the end.
And injuries, and ref's, and coaching/matchups/defense, and especially culture/morale/personality/resiliency/comradery.

All the stat sophistry in the world will never obscure Harden's IRL clutch game playoff shortcomings - which only points to the fundamental limitations of these statistical approaches.

[Owly]

This is somewhat close to what I do though playoffs are a big factor as well. If a guy has 12 chances at winning a ring and always comes up way short and never raises his game that is something of a red flag to me. Because even though playoffs are a small sample at some point a guy has to work on his weaknesses that teams may exploit or gameplan for in the postseason then show the ability to perform when its most relevant. The guys who do that are the ones who most care about winning imo and often end up with the most rings relative to peers. The ones who lose then ask 'what do I need to do better' and make those improvements which also goes into how much they may need to rely on others at certain parts of a game. Maybe this is also why Russell didn't develop much offensively since what he was doing seemed to always work in terms of winning.

Honestly, when we're talking about the GOAT, I really don't understand considering almost anything other than the playoffs. Based on my analysis of NBA history, all of the titles have been handed out for the playoffs and none have been given for the regular season.
The playoffs are simply too important.

This isn't baseball. There you have decades of history where hardly any teams make the playoffs, and if you didn't play for the Yankees, you might never make the playoffs. Ted Williams has 5 career playoff games and 25 career at-bats. Your regular season performance to get your team to the postseason is a huge part of who you are as a player. And even once you reach the postseason, it's so random that it's hard to really grade anyone on what might only be 30 or 40 games.

And it's not football, where basically anyone who isn't a QB is hard enough to judge already from a legacy perspective, and even QB's can be affected by so many things like their offensive line or the defense they face that it might not be possible to even do a statistical playoff comparison, much less grade by who wins and who loses.

But the NBA? So many teams get to the playoffs that even guys who weren't in blessed circumstances, like Hakeem, played almost 2 years worth of playoff games (145). And some guys are closer to 3 years. That's a large sample to draw from, usually over many different years. The sport isn't as random as baseball and 7-game series make winning or losing less random than football (and even compared to series in baseball). And you typically don't have massive fluctuations in stats based on your opponents. A few points, a few percentages here or there? Sure. But you don't see the equivalent of a QB going from 3 TD/0 INT against a weak team to 1 TD/3 INT against a great team. The great players usually go down swinging with big time numbers. And great players have a huge impact on the game compared to anyone other than QB's or starting pitchers (for the 1 out of 4 or 5 games they are starting).

So you get plenty of chances to prove yourself, you usually get a chance every year, whether you win or lose might have a lot to do with your teammates but it won't be fluky and you almost always have a chance to shine statistically. And because basically everyone makes the playoffs, it's the only time that really matters. And in a sport where great players routinely take it easier in the regular season and build for the playoffs, it can truly be a different sport. A great regular season followed by a poor playoffs isn't just criticized by fans, the player himself is usually hugely disappointed. i guess i can see a little emphasis on the regular season because it's still a lot of games but it just usually doesn't mean much. winning MVP and losing in the first round is a disaster, not a feather in your cap.

now further down the list, i can see comparing lesser players with their regular seasons more accounted for because you are usually talking about people with flawed playoff resumes and the regular season can be a big part of what they did.

My issues with strong playoff weighting and/or things that make it hard to do fairly.

1) Proportionally it's still a much smaller sample.
2) It's an uneven sample (some will get long runs in their best years, others will get large ones in their larger samples in more pedestrian years).
3) Uneven schedules/matchups. Greater than normal variation in quality of opponents. Specific matchup much less varied. Related: increased planning may lead to increased defensive focus [unevenly so depending on teammates, opponent, matchup, coaches etc] limiting opportunity to produce, even where impact/advantage of increased attention continues to help the team.
4) slight disagreement with above - don't think for the majority of NBA history great players have tended to cruise through RS. Honestly as far as asset management, maximizing title odds etc, RS being insignificant [not always the prevailing thinking, I think] many on strong teams should have done so much, much more).
5) Playoff qualification not a given (GOAT candidate players have missed playoffs in prime).
6) Even playoff qualification is not always optimally aligned with team goodness - (an outlier but ... 5.57 SRS '72 Suns missed the playoffs).

Losing in the first round is a bad team outcome, but it doesn't mean that a player on the losing team had a bad year, is a bad player or had a bad series, just that the team they are on. The implication of "disaster" seems to be that the loss must mean the player did bad (or else relevance becomes a question mark - it being bad for the team is a given and the comment isn't about a team, it being frustrating for the player is a given ... it's hard for me to parse another meaning though I may have missed something). But let's just temporarily imagine a player can control everything on the court in his time on, regardless of the other 9 players ...Even just team level Embiid '19 +89 plus minus in ECSF, positive +/- in 6 of 7 games [double digits positive in 4]. His team lost and was outscored by 19. 34mpg would be a small ding on the player, but still. Leaving aside what you think of the specific player[Embiid]'s performance ... a guy could have been +100 and still had his team be outscored (difference between on and net is 108) ... and you don't need to be outscored to lose a series.

This is a bit rambly and could do with some editing - if it gets posted with this attached - I didn't do that. I feel like I'm missing some nuances somewhere.