Acid Test for GOAT Top 10

[Jim Naismith]

These are the players that pass the acid test of at least 1 MVP and 2 Finals MVPs:

Kareem
Jordan
Bird
Magic
Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Wilt*
Russell*

* would join the above list if the Finals MVP were given before 1969

These 10 players (LeBron is excluded because of recency) are exactly the top 10 of the 2011 RealGM GOAT list. (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731)

Do you think that the 1x MVP, 2x FMVP resume is a good criterion for top 10?

With LeBron now included, is #12 the ceiling on the GOAT list for anyone for who fails the test?

[ceiling raiser]

Willis Reed? Dr. J (including ABA)?

[Jim Naismith]

Willis Reed? Dr. J (including ABA)?

Forgot about Reed. But Dr. J is #11 on the 2011 list, which fits well.

Perhaps the test is more of a filter. Passing the test does not necessarily imply inclusion.

But failure implies exclusion.

This top-10 cutoff certainly seems to apply to Dirk, West, Moses, Karl, Robinson, KG, Barkley.

[SactoKingsFan]

You could use it as a filter, but that means Oscar and KG don't even get in the discussion. I could see Kobe falling to 12-14 and KG sneaking in at 10.

[Jim Naismith]

You could use it as a filter, but that means Oscar and KG don't even get in the discussion. I could see Kobe falling to 12-14 and KG sneaking in at 10.

This is possible but unlikely. Right now the voting is

#1 Jordan
#2 Kareem
#3 Russell

This leaves Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, LeBron, Magic, Kobe

For KG to be #10, he has to beat at least 2 of the above players.

They all have more accolades than KG (hence the acid test). The majority of the RealGM voters need to ignore the accolade gap twice for KG to be in the top 10.

[CaliBullsFan]

Willis Reed throws a wrench in to your test. Also I am not sure it is a given that Wilt would of won Finals MVP over Hal Greer in 67

[Jim Naismith]

Willis Reed throws a wrench in to your test. Also I am not sure it is a given that Wilt would of won Finals MVP over Hal Greer in 67

Reed is indeed a false positive, which I acknowledged in the 3rd post.

The 1967 Finals MVP being awarded to Wilt is a way of "rounding up" in a hypothetical situation.

If we assume Wilt's hypothetical FMVP, the test still works as a filter for top-10 candidacy.

The acid test is a useful rule that reflects the often-unacknowledged priorities and cutoffs of many voters. It closely tracks the actual 2011 voting, with the ABA Dr. J coincidentally serving as the gatekeeper at #11.

[ceiling raiser]

Willis Reed throws a wrench in to your test. Also I am not sure it is a given that Wilt would of won Finals MVP over Hal Greer in 67

Admittedly most of us haven't watched the series, but how would you frame an argument around Greer, aside from raw ppg?

[Purch]

Well done op, gun to my head, and those would be my top 11 players. After that I Usally put Oscar Robertson.

[penbeast0]

I was thinking Mel Daniels too, but with Roger Brown's performance in 70 and McGinnis in 73, he only would have the 72 Finals MVP (if it had been given) to go with his 2 MVPs.
\
And possibly the reason Reed is an outlier is that Frazier deserved those two FMVPs (particularly the second one) but didn't get it . . . possibly for style reasons (it was the early 70s and Reed fit the stereotype the NBA wanted to project whereas Frazier didn't).

[ThaRegul8r]

I am not sure it is a given that Wilt would of won Finals MVP over Hal Greer in 67

?

[Basketballefan]

I don't mind the criteria. For my criteria you certainly need an MVP and at least 2 rings, somebody could sneak in with only 1 FMVP as long as they were the clear best player for both rings. Accolades aren't everything but i don't simply ignore them for my own biases like some posters on here do. And yes, if you then add Oscar i think that would more or less be the consensus top 12.

[Jim Naismith]

I don't mind the criteria. For my criteria you certainly need an MVP and at least 2 rings, somebody could sneak in with only 1 FMVP as long as they were the clear best player for both rings. Accolades aren't everything but i don't simply ignore them for my own biases like some posters on here do. And yes, if you then add Oscar i think that would more or less be the consensus top 12.

Your slightly relaxed criteria don't add any new players to the pantheon.

It expedites the admission of a few eventual members, such as Kareem in 1980 and Bird in 1984.

[DQuinn1575]

I was thinking Mel Daniels too, but with Roger Brown's performance in 70 and McGinnis in 73, he only would have the 72 Finals MVP (if it had been given) to go with his 2 MVPs.
\
And possibly the reason Reed is an outlier is that Frazier deserved those two FMVPs (particularly the second one) but didn't get it . . . possibly for style reasons (it was the early 70s and Reed fit the stereotype the NBA wanted to project whereas Frazier didn't).

Willis reed was finals mvp primarily due to a game where he scored 4 points. The biggest thing he did that game was walk on the court. He was not really deserving of that award based on his play


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Basketballefan]

I don't mind the criteria. For my criteria you certainly need an MVP and at least 2 rings, somebody could sneak in with only 1 FMVP as long as they were the clear best player for both rings. Accolades aren't everything but i don't simply ignore them for my own biases like some posters on here do. And yes, if you then add Oscar i think that would more or less be the consensus top 12.

Your slightly relaxed criteria don't add any new players to the pantheon.

It expedites the admission of a few eventual members, such as Kareem in 1980 and Bird in 1984.

I don't follow what you're saying.

[Fencer reregistered]

It's not a crazy view, although "best player on a championship team" is a more robust criterion than "FInals MVP".

KG was the best player on the Celtics the year he won his only championship and Pierce won Finals MVP. Had KG not then blown out his knee, he might well both have won more rings as the best player and ascended to widely-agreed Top 12 status. Would he necessarily have had 2 Finals MVPs in that hypothetical scenario? Not necessarily.

[Jim Naismith]

I don't mind the criteria. For my criteria you certainly need an MVP and at least 2 rings, somebody could sneak in with only 1 FMVP as long as they were the clear best player for both rings. Accolades aren't everything but i don't simply ignore them for my own biases like some posters on here do. And yes, if you then add Oscar i think that would more or less be the consensus top 12.

Your slightly relaxed criteria don't add any new players to the pantheon.

It expedites the admission of a few eventual members, such as Kareem in 1980 and Bird in 1984.

I don't follow what you're saying.

When the criteria are slightly relaxed from mine to yours, no additional players (beyond the listed 11) pass the filter. However, some players "qualify" sooner.

Kareem "qualifies" sooner (in 1980 rather than 1985), since he was the best player on the 1980 Lakers even though he was not FMVP.

Bird "qualifies" sooner (in 1984 rather than 1986), since he was the best player on the 1981 Celtics even though he was not FMVP.

[Basketballefan]

Your slightly relaxed criteria don't add any new players to the pantheon.

It expedites the admission of a few eventual members, such as Kareem in 1980 and Bird in 1984.

I don't follow what you're saying.

When the criteria are slightly relaxed from mine to yours, no additional players (beyond the listed 11) pass the filter. However, some players "qualify" sooner.

Kareem "qualifies" sooner (in 1980 rather than 1985), since he was the best player on the 1980 Lakers even though he was not FMVP.

Bird "qualifies" sooner (in 1984 rather than 1986), since he was the best player on the 1981 Celtics even though he was not FMVP.

Well players must have the longevity too.

[Jim Naismith]

It's not a crazy view, although "best player on a championship team" is a more robust criterion than "FInals MVP".

KG was the best player on the Celtics the year he won his only championship and Pierce won Finals MVP. Had KG not then blown out his knee, he might well both have won more rings as the best player and ascended to widely-agreed Top 12 status. Would he necessarily have had 2 Finals MVPs in that hypothetical scenario? Not necessarily.

Best player is more holistic, but it's also more subjective than FMVP.

My cutoff is applied without reliance on individual discretion.

[Joao Saraiva]

I guess great players win individual awards more often than the others.