If someone is low on longevity, and high on playoff performance, how does their GOAT list change?

[ceiling raiser]

Title is a bit loaded, so some operational definitions…

Longevity - Basically one of the following:

(1) Seasons below a certain threshold don’t matter at all.
(2) Seasons in higher tiers scale superlinearly vs others.

High On Playoffs - More straightforward here; games weighted higher than regular season games.

How does your own top 10 GOAT change given the above? A lot is degree obviously.

Mine (alphabetically listed):

Abdul-Jabbar: stock v
Curry: stock -
Duncan: stock v
Garnett: stock vv
James: stock -
Johnson: stock ^
Jordan: stock ^
O’Neal: stock ^^
Olajuwon: stock ^
Russell: stock ^

Might see Robertson enter the top 10?

[rk2023]

Title is a bit loaded, so some operational definitions…

Longevity - Basically one of the following:

(1) Seasons below a certain threshold don’t matter at all.
(2) Seasons in higher tiers scale superlinearly vs others.

High On Playoffs - More straightforward here; games weighted higher than regular season games.

How does your own top 10 GOAT change given the above? A lot is degree obviously.

Mine (alphabetically listed):

Abdul-Jabbar: stock v
Curry: stock -
Duncan: stock v
Garnett: stock vv
James: stock -
Johnson: stock ^
Jordan: stock ^
O’Neal: stock ^^
Olajuwon: stock ^
Russell: stock ^

Might see Robertson enter the top 10?

This is a question where it is much harder for me to directly answer - let alone track the stock of these players you mentioned. I could second the Magic and Jordan ones (add another ^ imo in Magic's case).

I am not sure how strong I feel about Curry's not quite moving up (longevity and durability is where he's lower, per how I rank careers) or Shaq having a significant up-tick.

Two names I would have to disagree with are Kareem, and Duncan. They have some of the best (near or at GOAT level impact) playoff runs to this date - both achieved within the heart of their primes. Sure being able to play up to a decade after these boosts their overall ranking (as it should), but it is very hard to see why 70-80 and 98-07 in their respective cases don't place them rather high when comparing best ~decades in itself.

One other name I would throw in there would have to be Jerry West. A lot of people who aren't the highest on his standing on an all-time scale cite his durability and his longevity (or relative lack thereof) as major drivers why. I find the longevity thing to not be the best take at surface value.

If you (using that same logic), factor in less longevity and weight more for PS play/translation, I don't see how West isn't a beneficiary of said approach.

https://medium.com/@RK001/the-truth-behind-jerry-wests-career-and-nba-finals-performances-6dea4496e3a5

I wrote an article on West back in early fall, where I highlight some of the main views I have on his career. Linked below is some more West content (WiltStats on Twitter and 70sfan have a ton of unique pieces of information, if it intrigues you ). For the TB ranking, would focus more on reading the impact assessment.

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=L8ezIP9MsVUopAVIvbEMJw

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=L8ezIP9MsVUopAVIvbEMJw

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=L8ezIP9MsVUopAVIvbEMJw

Read on Twitter

?s=20&t=L8ezIP9MsVUopAVIvbEMJw

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2017/12/18/backpicks-goat-17-jerry-west/

[capfan33]

Title is a bit loaded, so some operational definitions…

Longevity - Basically one of the following:

(1) Seasons below a certain threshold don’t matter at all.
(2) Seasons in higher tiers scale superlinearly vs others.

High On Playoffs - More straightforward here; games weighted higher than regular season games.

How does your own top 10 GOAT change given the above? A lot is degree obviously.

Mine (alphabetically listed):

Abdul-Jabbar: stock v
Curry: stock -
Duncan: stock v
Garnett: stock vv
James: stock -
Johnson: stock ^
Jordan: stock ^
O’Neal: stock ^^
Olajuwon: stock ^
Russell: stock ^

Might see Robertson enter the top 10?

This is a question where it is much harder for me to directly answer - let alone track the stock of these players you mentioned. I could second the Magic and Jordan ones (add another ^ imo in Magic's case).

I am not sure how strong I feel about Curry's not quite moving up (longevity and durability is where he's lower, per how I rank careers) or Shaq having a significant up-tick.

Two names I would have to disagree with are Kareem, and Duncan. They have some of the best (near or at GOAT level impact) playoff runs to this date - both achieved within the heart of their primes. Sure being able to play up to a decade after these boosts their overall ranking (as it should), but it is very hard to see why 70-80 and 98-07 in their respective cases don't place them rather high when comparing best ~decades in itself.

One other name I would throw in there would have to be Jerry West. A lot of people who aren't the highest on his standing on an all-time scale cite his durability and his longevity (or relative lack thereof) as major drivers why. I find the longevity thing to not be the best take at surface value.

If you (using that same logic), factor in less longevity and weight more for PS play/translation, I don't see how West isn't a beneficiary of said approach.

https://medium.com/@RK001/the-truth-behind-jerry-wests-career-and-nba-finals-performances-6dea4496e3a5

I wrote an article on West back in early fall, where I highlight some of the main views I have on his career.

Agree with all of this, I also don't think Shaq was in a different tier as a playoff performer than Jordan or Lebron prime for prime, and I think it's very debatable with Kareem and Olajuwon as well.

[rk2023]

Title is a bit loaded, so some operational definitions…

Longevity - Basically one of the following:

(1) Seasons below a certain threshold don’t matter at all.
(2) Seasons in higher tiers scale superlinearly vs others.

High On Playoffs - More straightforward here; games weighted higher than regular season games.

How does your own top 10 GOAT change given the above? A lot is degree obviously.

Mine (alphabetically listed):

Abdul-Jabbar: stock v
Curry: stock -
Duncan: stock v
Garnett: stock vv
James: stock -
Johnson: stock ^
Jordan: stock ^
O’Neal: stock ^^
Olajuwon: stock ^
Russell: stock ^

Might see Robertson enter the top 10?

This is a question where it is much harder for me to directly answer - let alone track the stock of these players you mentioned. I could second the Magic and Jordan ones (add another ^ imo in Magic's case).

I am not sure how strong I feel about Curry's not quite moving up (longevity and durability is where he's lower, per how I rank careers) or Shaq having a significant up-tick.

Two names I would have to disagree with are Kareem, and Duncan. They have some of the best (near or at GOAT level impact) playoff runs to this date - both achieved within the heart of their primes. Sure being able to play up to a decade after these boosts their overall ranking (as it should), but it is very hard to see why 70-80 and 98-07 in their respective cases don't place them rather high when comparing best ~decades in itself.

One other name I would throw in there would have to be Jerry West. A lot of people who aren't the highest on his standing on an all-time scale cite his durability and his longevity (or relative lack thereof) as major drivers why. I find the longevity thing to not be the best take at surface value.

If you (using that same logic), factor in less longevity and weight more for PS play/translation, I don't see how West isn't a beneficiary of said approach.

https://medium.com/@RK001/the-truth-behind-jerry-wests-career-and-nba-finals-performances-6dea4496e3a5

I wrote an article on West back in early fall, where I highlight some of the main views I have on his career.

Agree with all of this, I also don't think Shaq was in a different tier as a playoff performer than Jordan or Lebron prime for prime, and I think it's very debatable with Kareem and Olajuwon as well.

I would have to look into Shaq more-so (planning to store and analyze both film and data leading up to whenever this board does greatest careers). Hakeem is one who intrigues me a lot, as there are some very impressive impact signals and playoff "rises" throughout his career before 1993 - seen as his peak and the turning point of who he was as a offensive force. Thank you for sharing this and re-iterating.

[migya]

Garnett takes a big hit, Jordan rises even more, perhaps Robinson rises with more great seasons than most.

[ShaqAttac]

shaq goes brrr.

[Proxy]

Without diving into my list too much I imagine mainly just Jordan and West benefitting from it the most - Jordan with having a much, much stronger GOAT case in my eyes and West with a stronger case for my top-10 (his longevity really isn't weak IRL in terms of number of good seasons especially for the era IMO, but he has a fair amount of durability issues compared to other players I consider t20-ish careers in those years).

I suppose Bird and Steph could move into a similar tier to the players I rank 5-9 ish as well instead of being a tier or so behind? I think they stack up pretty well in the heart of their primes (even in the playoffs when healthy - but I guess playing through health problems could still have them end behind them here cuz it does hurt their performance in some years). The lack of MVP seasons or strong post-prime years in comparison is usually what's holding me back the most. It's pretty interesting but my list already slants towards those things to a degree as is

[Dutchball97]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

[frica]

Almost ironically, Trace McGrady takes the biggest hit.

[youngcrev]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

Wait, what? No it's not.

[Dutchball97]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

[Owly]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

Assuming that's true for the sake of simplicity (I don't know either way) arguing someone "shouldn't be seen as the GOAT" and "even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial", seem to me at least to be quite far away. The "candidate", in-the-discussion thing can be a bit woolly but that by itself seems strong and in concert with it being "controversial" seems ... implausible.

[ShaqAttac]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

idt its even longetiviy anymore. his "impact" just dont seem that good and ppl thin the box stuff overrates his d

[youngcrev]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

I don't know that I've ever seen someone actually put up their rankings with any level of sincerity and not have him in the top-2, and I'd say the majority of people on here (that aren't just trolling) have him as the GOAT. I think for a certain generation of people he'll always be the GOAT, while some of the younger people that didn't grow up in that era might go Lebron.

But you can pretty safely write off anyone that says that don't consider him a legit candidate.

[70sFan]

I'm already relatively low on longevity and high on play-off performance so not sure how I could change it based on that principle. The big difference with me and most here is having Jordan as my GOAT (or even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial) and probably Bird as a top 10 lock.

Of course it adds to someone's case if they have a really strong 15th season but a player's top seasons take priority for me. The approach of adding value as you go is one important perspective to look at but I find that it's often the only thing a lot of people here look at. If player A plays 3 seasons at say a +8, while player B has 3 seasons at +7 and another season at +4 then in career value approaches player B comes out on top but I wonder if that's fair when player A was better every year. In this scenario player B wins just by virtue of playing an extra season.

Now I hope people don't take this as a 1-1 MJ vs LeBron analogy as that case obviously isn't as black and white. It's more relevant for what happens after the top 20 (since all the top guys have strong peaks and at least like a decade of meaningful longevity anyway). Wade vs Stockton for example. Stockton easily wins in career value approaches due to his insane longevity and commendable consistency but Wade straight up was a much better player at his best. The problem here is that where do you draw the line? If you're just looking at peaks you take the best peak, if you just want career value you add up the numbers and pick the highest score but here there are cases where it's hard to say. My general rule of thumb is when a player has 4-5 seasons above the best season of another player, then longevity becomes pretty much an afterthought.

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

Not being considered a clear GOAT and not being considered a GOAT candidate are two different things though. Jordan is still seen as the GOAT candidate here.

[70sFan]

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

I don't know that I've ever seen someone actually put up their rankings with any level of sincerity and not have him in the top-2, and I'd say the majority of people on here (that aren't just trolling) have him as the GOAT. I think for a certain generation of people he'll always be the GOAT, while some of the younger people that didn't grow up in that era might go Lebron.

But you can pretty safely write off anyone that says that don't consider him a legit candidate.

I don't have Jordan in my top 2 for years, am I a troll?

[ShaqAttac]

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

Assuming that's true for the sake of simplicity (I don't know either way) arguing someone "shouldn't be seen as the GOAT" and "even having him as a legit GOAT candidate these days is controversial", seem to me at least to be quite far away. The "candidate", in-the-discussion thing can be a bit woolly but that by itself seems strong and in concert with it being "controversial" seems ... implausible.

the args seem p good tho

[ShaqAttac]

Wait, what? No it's not.

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

Not being considered a clear GOAT and not being considered a GOAT candidate are two different things though. Jordan is still seen as the GOAT candidate here.

ppl do be pushin against that tho and its not like they are bein dismissed. Nevah thought id see hakeeem and dunc vs mj but here we are

[70sFan]

Don't know if you've been around here often because I can't say I remember you but click on any thread mentioning MJ and at least half the people there are arguing he shouldn't be seen as the GOAT because he doesn't have jawdropping +- and lacking longevity.

Not being considered a clear GOAT and not being considered a GOAT candidate are two different things though. Jordan is still seen as the GOAT candidate here.

ppl do be pushin against that tho and its not like they are bein dismissed. Nevah thought id see hakeeem and dunc vs mj but here we are

Some people do that, it doesn't mean it's widely accepted. Jordan is still viewed as GOAT candidate in all major projects.

[ShaqAttac]

Not being considered a clear GOAT and not being considered a GOAT candidate are two different things though. Jordan is still seen as the GOAT candidate here.

ppl do be pushin against that tho and its not like they are bein dismissed. Nevah thought id see hakeeem and dunc vs mj but here we are

Some people do that, it doesn't mean it's widely accepted. Jordan is still viewed as GOAT candidate in all major projects.

mayb, but them posts be getting mad likes. p impressive considerin this place voted mj #1 like yesterday.

gold vs kd boss battle was kinda cool ngl