Top 150+ GOAT (Peak, Prime, Longevity, Award)

[mdonnelly1989]

What do you think it will take Lebron to overtake Bill Russell?

How about Kareem?

And do you ever likely seeing Lebron overtake MJ?

[2klegend]

What do you think it will take Lebron to overtake Bill Russell?

How about Kareem?

And do you ever likely seeing Lebron overtake MJ?

Lebron trails Russell by 3pts and Kareem by 6pts. There is a couple way for him to surpass them. If he wins an MVP or a title, that will give him 3.5pts. A season above 18+PER will grant him 1pt. His peak and prime value are set. Therefore the most likely scenario Lebron to surpass Russell is through having 3+ more good quality season. For Kareem, he will need to win something along the line of title or MVP because I doubt he will put more than 6+ good quality season. It is doable but unlikely path because it will requires Lebron to put good quality season in his 19 season in which he'll be 37 or 38 years old.

No. I don't expect Lebron to overtake MJ. He trails too far and his chance of title is closing rapidly now with the Warriors. To surpass MJ, he will needs to win at least 2 titles and MVP and I don't see that happening.

Hope that answer your question.

[mdonnelly1989]

What do you think it will take Lebron to overtake Bill Russell?

How about Kareem?

And do you ever likely seeing Lebron overtake MJ?

Lebron trails Russell by 3pts and Kareem by 6pts. There is a couple way for him to surpass them. If he wins an MVP or a title, that will give him 3.5pts. A season above 18+PER will grant him 1pt. His peak and prime value are set. Therefore the most likely scenario Lebron to surpass Russell is through having 3+ more good quality season. For Kareem, he will need to win something along the line of title or MVP because I doubt he will put more than 6+ good quality season. It is doable but unlikely path because it will requires Lebron to put good quality season in his 19 season in which he'll be 37 or 38 years old.

No. I don't expect Lebron to overtake MJ. He trails too far and his chance of title is closing rapidly now with the Warriors. To surpass MJ, he will needs to win at least 2 titles and MVP and I don't see that happening.

Hope that answer your question.

So it's likely Lebron passes up Bill Russell for certain, slim chances to past up Kareem and VERY slim chances to pass up MJ.

I feel the same and in fact your top 3 are my top 3 as well! Yea, Kareem is 2nd GOAT. I don't take into All Stars into account a whole lot but I mean in terms of overall resume Kareem's is just too similar to that of MJ's. But my list basically goes.

[2klegend]

What do you think it will take Lebron to overtake Bill Russell?

How about Kareem?

And do you ever likely seeing Lebron overtake MJ?

Lebron trails Russell by 3pts and Kareem by 6pts. There is a couple way for him to surpass them. If he wins an MVP or a title, that will give him 3.5pts. A season above 18+PER will grant him 1pt. His peak and prime value are set. Therefore the most likely scenario Lebron to surpass Russell is through having 3+ more good quality season. For Kareem, he will need to win something along the line of title or MVP because I doubt he will put more than 6+ good quality season. It is doable but unlikely path because it will requires Lebron to put good quality season in his 19 season in which he'll be 37 or 38 years old.

No. I don't expect Lebron to overtake MJ. He trails too far and his chance of title is closing rapidly now with the Warriors. To surpass MJ, he will needs to win at least 2 titles and MVP and I don't see that happening.

Hope that answer your question.

So it's likely Lebron passes up Bill Russell for certain, slim chances to past up Kareem and VERY slim chances to pass up MJ.

I feel the same and in fact your top 3 are my top 3 as well! Yea, Kareem is 2nd GOAT. I don't take into All Stars into account a whole lot but I mean in terms of overall resume Kareem's is just too similar to that of MJ's. But my list basically goes.

In my opinion, it is more likely Lebron will pass Russell and has a good chance to pass Kareem but very slim chance of passing MJ.

[2klegend]

Add 10 new players to the Top 70.

Amar'e Stoudemire
Blake Griffin
Shawn Kemp
Bob Pettit
Robert Parish
Tony Parker
Dave Bing
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Lenny Wilkens

[trex_8063]

Add 10 new players to the Top 70.

Amar'e Stoudemire
Blake Griffin
Shawn Kemp
Bob Pettit
Robert Parish
Tony Parker
Dave Bing
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Lenny Wilkens

Off the top of my head, below are players due (or overdue) to be put thru the formula (certainly more relevant careers than Dave Bing or Lenny Wilkens (or Blake Griffin thus far), imo):

Artis Gilmore (are you including ABA in this formula? curious, as I noted Dr. J is only #25, Rick Barry outside top 40, etc)
Manu Ginobili
Bob Lanier
Bob Cousy (couldn't tell from OP if you've implied you're not considering years prior to 1960, though)
Shawn Marion
Chris Bosh
Dolph Schayes (same question as for Cousy)
Grant Hill
Paul Arizin
Sidney Moncrief
Dave Cowens
Alex English

Again, just off the top of my head....

[2klegend]

Add 10 new players to the Top 70.

Amar'e Stoudemire
Blake Griffin
Shawn Kemp
Bob Pettit
Robert Parish
Tony Parker
Dave Bing
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Lenny Wilkens

Off the top of my head, below are players due (or overdue) to be put thru the formula (certainly more relevant careers than Dave Bing or Lenny Wilkens (or Blake Griffin thus far), imo):

Artis Gilmore (are you including ABA in this formula? curious, as I noted Dr. J is only #25, Rick Barry outside top 40, etc)
Manu Ginobili
Bob Lanier
Bob Cousy (couldn't tell from OP if you've implied you're not considering years prior to 1960, though)
Shawn Marion
Chris Bosh
Dolph Schayes (same question as for Cousy)
Grant Hill
Paul Arizin
Sidney Moncrief
Dave Cowens
Alex English

Again, just off the top of my head....

No ABA. I didn't use Dr.J ABA career. 1950s players are hard to evaluate. They play with such different rules and the level of skills but I'll see if it's possible to do it.

[trex_8063]

Add 10 new players to the Top 70.

Amar'e Stoudemire
Blake Griffin
Shawn Kemp
Bob Pettit
Robert Parish
Tony Parker
Dave Bing
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Lenny Wilkens

Off the top of my head, below are players due (or overdue) to be put thru the formula (certainly more relevant careers than Dave Bing or Lenny Wilkens (or Blake Griffin thus far), imo):

Artis Gilmore (are you including ABA in this formula? curious, as I noted Dr. J is only #25, Rick Barry outside top 40, etc)
Manu Ginobili
Bob Lanier
Bob Cousy (couldn't tell from OP if you've implied you're not considering years prior to 1960, though)
Shawn Marion
Chris Bosh
Dolph Schayes (same question as for Cousy)
Grant Hill
Paul Arizin
Sidney Moncrief
Dave Cowens
Alex English

Again, just off the top of my head....

No ABA. I didn't use Dr.J ABA career.

Ah. Still, with 70 players done already, it might still be worth putting Gilmore thru (I'll bet he doesn't come out last, even without his ABA years).

1950s players are hard to evaluate. They play with such different rules and the level of skills but I'll see if it's possible to do it.

If deemed possible to run them, then throw Mikan into the mix too, imo.

[2klegend]

Off the top of my head, below are players due (or overdue) to be put thru the formula (certainly more relevant careers than Dave Bing or Lenny Wilkens (or Blake Griffin thus far), imo):

Artis Gilmore (are you including ABA in this formula? curious, as I noted Dr. J is only #25, Rick Barry outside top 40, etc)
Manu Ginobili
Bob Lanier
Bob Cousy (couldn't tell from OP if you've implied you're not considering years prior to 1960, though)
Shawn Marion
Chris Bosh
Dolph Schayes (same question as for Cousy)
Grant Hill
Paul Arizin
Sidney Moncrief
Dave Cowens
Alex English

Again, just off the top of my head....

No ABA. I didn't use Dr.J ABA career.

Ah. Still, with 70 players done already, it might still be worth putting Gilmore thru (I'll bet he doesn't come out last, even without his ABA years).

1950s players are hard to evaluate. They play with such different rules and the level of skills but I'll see if it's possible to do it.

If deemed possible to run them, then throw Mikan into the mix too, imo.

Finally done with your requested players along with some modern name. I was able to research some of the 50s player and do my best to evaluate their OBPM and DBPM value which I think it is satisfying. George Mikan PER stat is missing and he has such a short career that it is hard to evaluate him. I might have to skip him.

Manu Ginobili - EXTREMELY underrated player. I was surprised by his GOAT rank but not anymore after evaluating his career.
Rasheed Wallace
Kevin Johnson
Dennis Rodman
Lamarcus Aldridge
Penny Hardaway
Grant Hill
Mark Price
Baron Davis
Stephon Marbury
Bob Lanier
*Bob Cousy
Shawn Marion
Chris Bosh
*Dolph Schayes
*Paul Arizin
Sidney Moncrief
Dave Cowens
Alex English
Elton Brand

I have 10 more left to go...

[KobesScarf]

Rings(Main Focus) Rings(Complemtary) MVP Final MVP Total
1 *Bill Russell 110

Russell wasn't the main focus for all 11 championships Cousy was the main focus in the beginning, Havlicek was the focus at the end

[Quotatious]

Great work. Surprised there's such a big gap between Jordan and Kareem, though.

[Gibson22]

I like this in some ways but basically the list gives the same amount of points to durant if he wins the next 3 rings with GS and to lebron if he wins the next 3 rings against golden state and luckily the world doesn't work like that. And that is unarguable.

[yoyoboy]

Yeah, I really like the idea of utilizing a formula and yours definitely has merit, but the lack of any plus/minus related metric being factored in, along with the idea that all rings are weighted equally, no matter the era, competition, and roster circumstances detracts from it in my opinion.

[2klegend]

Rings(Main Focus) Rings(Complemtary) MVP Final MVP Total
1 *Bill Russell 110

Russell wasn't the main focus for all 11 championships Cousy was the main focus in the beginning, Havlicek was the focus at the end

It's arguable. Rookie Russell is putting up comparable number to Cousy and late Russell is still a household name. I might have to investigate if what you say is right and adjust goat value accordingly.

[2klegend]

I like this in some ways but basically the list gives the same amount of points to durant if he wins the next 3 rings with GS and to lebron if he wins the next 3 rings against golden state and luckily the world doesn't work like that. And that is unarguable.

That depends if Durant lead his team as a bus driver or a bus rider.

Yeah, I really like the idea of utilizing a formula and yours definitely has merit, but the lack of any plus/minus related metric being factored in, along with the idea that all rings are weighted equally, no matter the era, competition, and roster circumstances detracts from it in my opinion.

OBPM and DBPM is plus/minus metric.

All rings count the same to me regardless of the era. I don't see why a ring in the 1960s should count less than one in 2000s. They still have to win it right? Sure it was easier to win with the few team competition. But they didn't have the benefit of scouting and performance enhancement of today. Everything eventually balance out somewhat.

[yoyoboy]

I like this in some ways but basically the list gives the same amount of points to durant if he wins the next 3 rings with GS and to lebron if he wins the next 3 rings against golden state and luckily the world doesn't work like that. And that is unarguable.

That depends if Durant lead his team as a bus driver or a bus rider.

Yeah, I really like the idea of utilizing a formula and yours definitely has merit, but the lack of any plus/minus related metric being factored in, along with the idea that all rings are weighted equally, no matter the era, competition, and roster circumstances detracts from it in my opinion.

OBPM and DBPM is plus/minus metric.

All rings count the same to me regardless of the era. I don't see why a ring in the 1960s should count less than one in 2000s. They still have to win it right? Sure it was easier to win with the few team competition. But they didn't have the benefit of scouting and performance enhancement of today. Everything eventually balance out somewhat.

OBPM and DBPM are based entirely on the box-score though. They create a box-score version of plus/minus in an attempt to predict it, with the goal of replicating what RAPM already tells us. I think it's be interesting how the results shake up if you were able to incorporate RAPM in some fashion.

And I disagree that rings should matter the same no matter the era. Scouting and performance enhancement is irrelevant considering every player and every team these days has the same access to it. With fewer teams and worse competition, it was undoubtedly a lot easier to win 60 years ago compared to the modern era. If you're trying to argue otherwise, just ask yourself, could any team today manage to win 11 rings in 13 years or even CLOSE to something like that? Of course not. The sport has evolved, and while I'm not suggesting those titles are meaningless, I'm simply saying they're value is definitely lesser next to, say, LeBron potentially leading the Cavs to a championship against this year's Warriors with Durant. Personally, I'm just not a fan of placing so much weight on the achievements portion, seeing that media-voted awards aren't always accurate and rings are team achievements that aren't always equal to one another in terms of how much a player contributed to attain that ring, along with the competition he had to face to get it.

[homecourtloss]

Great work here. I like your formula better than most if not all. The only thing I would change are the weights.

I would say: 35% prime, 25% peak, 25% award, 15% longevity OR 35% prime, 30% peak, 25% award, 10% longevity.

[2klegend]

I like this in some ways but basically the list gives the same amount of points to durant if he wins the next 3 rings with GS and to lebron if he wins the next 3 rings against golden state and luckily the world doesn't work like that. And that is unarguable.

That depends if Durant lead his team as a bus driver or a bus rider.

Yeah, I really like the idea of utilizing a formula and yours definitely has merit, but the lack of any plus/minus related metric being factored in, along with the idea that all rings are weighted equally, no matter the era, competition, and roster circumstances detracts from it in my opinion.

OBPM and DBPM is plus/minus metric.

All rings count the same to me regardless of the era. I don't see why a ring in the 1960s should count less than one in 2000s. They still have to win it right? Sure it was easier to win with the few team competition. But they didn't have the benefit of scouting and performance enhancement of today. Everything eventually balance out somewhat.

OBPM and DBPM are based entirely on the box-score though. They create a box-score version of plus/minus in an attempt to predict it, with the goal of replicating what RAPM already tells us. I think it's be interesting how the results shake up if you were able to incorporate RAPM in some fashion.

And I disagree that rings should matter the same no matter the era. Scouting and performance enhancement is irrelevant considering every player and every team these days has the same access to it. With fewer teams and worse competition, it was undoubtedly a lot easier to win 60 years ago compared to the modern era. If you're trying to argue otherwise, just ask yourself, could any team today manage to win 11 rings in 13 years or even CLOSE to something like that? Of course not. The sport has evolved, and while I'm not suggesting those titles are meaningless, I'm simply saying they're value is definitely lesser next to, say, LeBron potentially leading the Cavs to a championship against this year's Warriors with Durant. Personally, I'm just not a fan of placing so much weight on the achievements portion, seeing that media-voted awards aren't always accurate and rings are team achievements that aren't always equal to one another in terms of how much a player contributed to attain that ring, along with the competition he had to face to get it.

RAPM is limited to mid 1990s, that's why I don't want to use RAPM when so many are missing in the 80s. I doubt anyone will do RAPM for the 80s, 70s, 60s because it is too much work. BPM number is very close to RAPM and it does provide a degree of effectiveness so I don't think it will change dramatically if replace with BPM with RAPM. Though I hope when RAPM is available for older players, I will switch it.

Everything has a purpose and reason to every title. I don't believe title should be treat differently because one player is fortunate to play in a weaker era or a stronger era. It is not Russell fault that he was born to play in the 1960s. We can't penalize Russell for being born in that era. He was put in that era and he ended up winning the most. The path to get there is not important. The result is what matter. You can make a case Lebron is playing against a weaker upper echelon of talents as well, with a lot of rest time in between, training, scout, etc...

There are many ways to criticize how a title is won. At the end of the day, 20 years from now, nobody really care how you win it. It is always either you win it or you don't. The purpose of playing basketball is to win championship and basketball is a team sport. So everything depends on team makeup, including your production as well. For example, if you play with a lot of talent, you are less likely to put up bigger number but you win more championship. So you can choose, do you want to put up big number but sacrificing your title chance? The Wilt vs Russell. As you can see, Wilt's stat result value is much higher than Russell, but Russell's achievement is much higher than Wilt and the end result is Russell's achievement large enough than Wilt that it marginalized Wilt's advantage in stat. It is also important to realize that luck play a big role in everything. How can you measure luck? You can't.

[2klegend]

Rings(Main Focus) Rings(Complemtary) MVP Final MVP Total
1 *Bill Russell 110

Russell wasn't the main focus for all 11 championships Cousy was the main focus in the beginning, Havlicek was the focus at the end

It's arguable. Rookie Russell is putting up comparable number to Cousy and late Russell is still a household name. I might have to investigate if what you say is right and adjust goat value accordingly.

Update. After investigating Russell. There is only two seasons which can be argue who is the best Boston, Russell's rookie season and his last season with the Celtics. I make my case for Russell as the best in both seasons below.

You can make a case for MVP 1957 Cousy as the best player over rookie Russell. However Cousy's Boston didn't win anything until Russell arrived. In addition to the fact, Russell is putting up comparable stat to Cousy, it is easy to see that on the outside, Cousy might be Boston's most important player, but on the inside it is Russell that contribute the most to 1957 championship, similar to the 2014 Spurs with Kawhi and Duncan/Parker.

1957 Cousy playoff
16.5, 5reb, 7.6ast per 36
17.1 PER, .134 WS48

1957 Russell
12.2, 21.5reb, 2.8ast per 36
18.9 PER, .162 WS48

His last season title..

It comes down to the simple fact that Russell won his last title and the next season, Boston didn't make the playoff with Havlicek. In 1969, Russell again despite 34 years of age, is still putting up comparable number to prime Havlicek.

So I have to say Russell did in fact win 11 titles as the team's most valuable or best player, or biggest contributor.

[mikejames23]

Looking at your Manu Ginobilli rank, I've gotta say I am pretty shocked.

That being said, I have thought of him as #3 between Kobe and Wade during his era. I need to look deeper into your ranking method, but you have come up with some interesting statistical conclusions.

Perhaps investigate why some greats ( like Steve Nash) ended up so low. Otherwise, great work, keep building and improving and your system.