The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP)

[Winsome Gerbil]

I suppose I should have added to my own:

6) the NON-playoff theory. in that I don't consider playoffs to be as important as regular season play in comparing players. Why? Because its luck. Luck of teammates to even get there. Luck of opponents drawn once you do make it. There's too little variety in opponents, and too much luck of the draw in order to make it a great way to compare players against each other. One guy plays 7 games against Wally Sczerbiak. The other plays 5 against Bruce Bowen. And we're supposed to align their numbers as if that's an equal test?

That's not to say it's no factor at all. Going back to Hakeem and Barkley I have been fascinated by guys putting up monster playoff series. But the inflated importance put on it misses that unlike the balanced schedule of the regular season, different players face much different sets of opponents in the playoffs. I don't get truly comfortable with playoff results until guys have maybe 80+ playoff games, a full regular season or more of them and things maybe start averaging out.

[Outside]

First off, I want to say that I am impressed with the range of approaches and amount of effort everyone is putting into this.

For the most part, I've purposely avoiding all-time rankings up to this point. There are so many variables that can't be accounted for, like differences between eras and how to rate players I haven't seen play. Beyond the benefit of engaging in interesting discussions about the sport I love, this project has value for me because it forces me to establish criteria to reflect what I value in the game. It also has value to me and (I hope) everyone else who participates by educating ourselves about players we know little about and gaining new perspectives on players we know fairly well.

If I had the time, I'd put together a spreadsheet or database to quantify my criteria categories and come up with a total score for each player. However, I'm not going to sweat it because a) while I'd use statistics for part of my criteria, key aspects of my criteria are inherently subjective; and b) the weighting I would apply to each category would also be subjective. I use statistics to inform my rankings, but I don't adhere to a statistics-only approach.

I also love the idea promoted by several others that this is a ranking of individuals within a team game and that performance within the team concept is a foundational tenet of my ranking method. I know it is, and it seems sorta obvious, but yeah, that's worth repeating.

If I were to give a numerical ranking to each category, it would likely be from +5 to -5 rather than 0-10. I know that they can be considered essentially the same, but using the +5/-5 scale in my head gives me clear separation between a player who benefits his team in a particular category versus a player who hurts his team in that category. Going with a 0-10 scale puts me more in a mindset of trying to measure benefit only.

So here are my criteria. Please note that these are not necessarily in order of how I would weigh them.

1. Offensive dominance. How dominant is the player relative to other players in his era? How much does the opposing defense gameplan to stop him? How much does the player open up opportunities for teammates? Guys like Wilt, Jordan, and Bird shine here for their individual ability, guys like Magic, Stockton, and LeBron for how they create for others, with some obviously doing well in both areas. A third or fourth scorer on a good team gets a reduced bump.

2. Defensive dominance. This includes both individual defensive play -- one on one, helping off the ball -- and the impact the player has within the team defensive scheme. How versatile is the player defensively? Russell is the gold standard, as are DPOY-level players, but I also look to recognize players like Bird who weren't necessarily intimidating defenders one on one but were smart and effective within the team concept. This is a challenging area to assess for players who were known primarily for their offense -- are they solid defenders, or are they traffic cones?

3. Playoff performance. The regular season matters, but the playoffs are when the truly great players separate themselves. Shrinkage in the playoffs can be a negative for a player. Lack of appearances in the playoffs can also be a negative because, over the course of a career, great players should get there, and someone who doesn't carries the implication that they didn't contribute to making a playoff-worthy team. Their playoff struggles may not be all their fault, but Tracy McGrady and Chris Paul take a hit for me here.

4. Longevity. Did the player exhibit elite performance levels over many years? Kareem and Karl Malone set the bar here. Players who were good but not elite and maintained that level over a long career like Robert Parish and Dikembe Mutumbo get a bump.

5. Peak performance. As we discussed in another thread, a guy like Bill Walton deserves recognition for achieving an exceptionally high peak even if his longevity was poor. Anyone who had an exceptional peak performance deserves a bonus bump in the ranking. Anyone who had an exceptional peak that lasted for years deserves a max bump.

6. Historical impact. Did the player affect the way the game is played? Guys like Mikan, Russell, and Wilt deserve credit here, but I temper it a bit for them because part of their impact was due to the fact that the game was still in its relative infancy and more easily impacted. An obvious more recent example is Steph Curry, who accelerated the onset of three-point centric offenses. This is really a minor consideration, maybe 1% in my overall thinking, but can serve as a tiebreaker when evaluating players at similar spots in the rankings.

7. Intangibles. Does a player make his teammates better, or is he a stat-grabbing anchor to team success? How does the player rank for selflessness, fitting within a system, leadership, clutchness, and other squishy factors?

8. Titles. Winning matters. It's not the only thing, but it makes a difference on where a player lands in the rankings.

9. Eyeball test. As if I don't have enough subjectivity in my criteria, but to say that I don't include this in my wetware ranking method would be disingenuous.

[Texas Chuck]

I just want to weigh in on the debate centered around Walton. I am a big longevity/total career value guy. But at the same time I realize just how valuable a single season can be from that level of player. I spend a lot of time over on the Trade Board where many posters try and suggest trades for stars where a team gives up very little value because after all the player is a "rental" and might leave in FA so why give up anything good for them. But the impact of a truly great player is immense. One year of Lebron means championship contention that year for instance. We see Sheed go as a deadline rental and be the final piece to a title, we see Tyson Chandler go as a rental and be the final piece to a title.

Well Walton isn't a final piece, he's the centerpiece. That one singular season meant championship contention and his playoff performance led them beyond contention to an actual title. That's extraordinarily valuable. I'm not sure where I will end up voting for Walton, but I can't imagine reaching a conclusion that 100 players had superior careers to Walton's in terms of what they meant to his team. That is unless I am willing to give him negative scores in years when he was being paid a lot and couldn't perform. I typically don't take that approach, but I'm willing to entertain it. Tho I think most franchises would trade the bad for that one great good making it a tough sell.

Rose was brought up but he's so far removed that I don't see much relevance. Yeah he was an MVP, but not a deserving one and without that voted on award attached to his name he's less than a footnote to the NBA. If Dwight wins it or if Dirk doesn't miss 10 games and he wins it or if the media didn't hate Lebron for the decision and he wins it, Rose is a forgotten flash in the pan.

[wojoaderge]

Yeah he was an MVP, but not a deserving one and without that voted on award attached to his name he's less than a footnote to the NBA.

As as i'm concerned, he has to be on my list. In the 90s, but still present.

[Texas Chuck]

I was going to touch in this in the Walton post, but decided to pull it out because I thinks its important and I didn't want it to go unnoticed in a somewhat unrelated post:

I want us while asking people to provide criteria and to try and be consistent to that criteria is very important, I don't want us to expect everyone to be rigid. Even with the most rigid criteria we have to be open to the exceptions or we do ourselves a disservice and I especially don't want to see us attacking or questioning someone's thoughts on a specific player just because it doesn't fit a narrow box of how we perceive their criteria. I know I personally have to really watch myself from doing just that---and sometimes I don't stop myself.

I'm a big longevity guy who values Walton. I'm a big team success guy who is no longer especially troubled by the lack of playoff success for KG in Minnesota. I'm a believer in the importance of big man defense who feels Dirk and Shaq are as impactful as just about any bigs ever. I disagree that PG defense is largely irrelevant while understanding that Steve Nash was still one of the best players of all-time, etc....

[Texas Chuck]

Yeah he was an MVP, but not a deserving one and without that voted on award attached to his name he's less than a footnote to the NBA.

As as i'm concerned, he has to be on my list. In the 90s, but still present.

Fair enough. I don't imagine I'd consider him if the list went to 200. So obviously opinions can vary widely.

[andrewww]

Combination of peak, prime, offensive impact, defensive impact, portability, accolades, longevity..all in the context of winning. Averaging a triple double in and of itself isn't necessarily an accurate barometer of one's peak IMO.. it simply means you are a swiss army knife able to everything..independent of whether or not you are the more impactful player. In a vacuum if your life depended on it today, whom would you draft sequentially, aka taking the best available player with the information we have.

I do want to say that what's often overlooked in these comparisons is results. We can't say player B couldn't have done what player A did, but if player A did accomplish what player B didnt, then the onus is bringing up player B rather than discredit what player A did. You always go with what is proven because it actually happened, not what could or might have.

What's interesting to see.. was Russell really so much more impactful defensively that it outweights Wilt's offensive superiority (even if that offensive dominance isn't what the raw numbers say, I'm sure most would agree Wilt > Russell offensively)? The Celtics were always a roadblock to Wilt, but one would also agree that the HOF talent around Russell was superior to Wilt's supporting cast. If we use a similar modern day comparison, does that mean KD is essentially playing the Russell role while Lebron is Wilt? But then based on how we've voted in the past here, the same principle would mean KD > Lebron? Obviously Lebron is ranked higher than KD, but then the (slight?) consensus here is Russell > Wilt.

Does Duncan's superior team accomplishments outweigh the greater peak that his closest comparision imo (Dream) had? I do value peak a lot especially if said player's prime is quite long, but this is the classic "greater career" or "greater peak". Does the fact that Duncan earned most of his 1st team all nba honors as a F inflate his comparison to Dream who had "only" 6 first team selections, but then when you factor in Dream's competition as guys like Admiral/Shaq/Kareem/Ewing you can understand why Duncan may be more accomplished in this respect, Pop's managing of his minutes later in his career notwithstanding.

That's why I find it interesting so many have Duncan ahead of Dream when this forum seems to be very high on peak. To me, the simplest way to define a player's peak is "how were they at their best, throw out team success because a lot of that is dependent on the players around them". If you get a player's peak season incorrectly imo, then that goes a long way into either underrating or overrating said player. Was 91 Jordan really greater than 88 Jordan if you throw out the better team around MJ in 91? Was 08 really Kobe's peak season? I don't think so which is why he is generally viewed as overrated on this forum.

I also think its worth questioning a player's contributions to a team's ceiling and floor. A player whom is very portable will often be on more historically dominant teams, but perhaps isnt the floor raiser that an all around player is.

The notion of being a sidekick or "taking the easy way out" is ridiculous to me. For example, if Jordan and Shaq were on the same team would that suddenly mean Shaq is any lesser of player, or for the current GSW does that mean Curry is a "sidekick" too? I didnt think so.

A player can also be a good prototype to build around, but if their talent simply doesn't match that of a player whose style isnt as optimal to build around but was more talented and had much better team success under the same circumstances, does that mean one better than the other?

Offensive impact should outweigh defensive impact because you can dictate the game offensively, but if a team just insists on spamming 3s then theoretically the big plodding center even if great defensively won't impact the game as much.

Lots of food for thought.

[LA Bird]

1. Evaluation method
Watch game footages to get a general idea of where to rank each player's offense/defense on ElGee's SIO scale. Smaller year to year changes throughout career are added based on individual stats as well as team performance relative to league both regular season and playoffs. RAPM and single / multiple player on-offs are important but by no means the only stat I look at. I think a single statistical formula can't accurate evaluate outliers / unique qualities that make the best players so good which is why I don't intend to create such an all in one formula myself. Playoffs can add / subtract from regular season value but not by much unless it is over a large sample size. The added value of each season is summed to generate a cumulative career value which determines each player's ranking. It is possible to get a negative value added if a player keeps playing when they should have retired earlier. Players who missed an entire season whether by injury or other factors are rated a zero for that year even though their absence could have a negative influence on their team's success due to limitations on cap space and roster flexibility.

2. Peak vs Prime vs Longevity
While I do have a separate list just for peaks, the cumulative career value is not determined by any arbitrary weighting of peak/prime/longevity. Beside peak which is usually well defined (top 1 season), prime and longevity are both very vague concepts. How do we account for variances in quality of prime as well as non-prime seasons? Does the number of seasons affect the average quality of a prime/non-prime or is it only the top 8 or so seasons which count as a prime? Evaluating a career as weighted X%/Y%/Z% of peak/prime/longevity without explaining how the prime/longevity is measured doesn't really mean anything in my opinion. The only way to methodically rank a career is to rate each season individually (as we do when evaluating peaks) and add all seasons together for the total career value. The difference in the quality of an average prime season for the top players is very small in my opinion and is exaggerated by winning bias most of the time. A player with a marginally worse prime can rank higher if he is able to be a solid contributor for much longer. Longevity is almost always a plus, but I think offensive longevity of bigs is limited in general and it is possible to still generate good box score offensive stats in the latter part of a career without the matching offensive impact.

3. Offense vs Defense
As a rule of thumb, elite offense is more impactful than elite defense. Relative to league average, the best offense has been better than the best defense in both regular season and playoffs with the single exception being Russell's Celtics which while being more dominant than the best regular seasons offenses, weren't close to being as good as the best postseason offenses outside of 1964 anyway. With the increasing number of 3s in the game today, I also don't think we will ever see a defense more dominant than the best offense again. In general, guards are more valuable on offense and bigs are more valuable on defense but this is kind of balanced out by bigs having a larger impact offensively than guards do defensively. There are some exceptions but as a whole, I don't think too highly of volume scoring centers in the low post or the defense of superstar guards. One way dominance on either ends of the court is more valuable for me than solid two way play (for example: +6 on offense is rated higher than a +3 on both offense and defense) but it's hard to finish on top of the GOAT list as a one way only player when there are others who were dominant on one end of the court and still solid on the other end. Being a slight negative on one end of the court isn't too much of an issue but a very bad defensive big / offensive guard is a major problem. I think higher of the defense of non-stars and this goes for both guards and big men.

4. Health
There is a key difference in rate vs cumulative totals which applies to both players from earlier eras when stars play heavy minutes as well as players in recent years as minutes go down and strategic rest days are used more frequently. Each season is evaluated on a per possession basis and then multipled by a 'health' fraction between 0 and 1 to obtain the total value added for the season. Health is evaluated as the proportion of total minutes played (excluding overtimes) based on a sigmoid curve to reflect diminishing returns for players who play too many minutes while also penalizing players who can't stay on the court for majority of a game. Playoff minutes are weighed more heavily as the ability to contribute in the playoffs is more important than in the regular season which really only determines playoff seeding. A player who missed games in the regular season but was otherwise healthy for the playoffs won't be penalized too heavily and similarly, a player who is capable of ramping up their minutes consistently in the playoffs will be rewarded. The different weights on regular season vs playoff minutes also helps to balance out the difference between players whose team made/missed the playoffs. Playoff minutes per game are usually higher than in regular season and thus the total season value would increase the deeper a player advance which I think is appropriate given that the heavier toll postseason minutes bring may lower their contribution in the future via lower per possession impact from fatigue or shorter careers from increased risk of injuries.

5. Pace / Possessions
Similar to the previous section on minutes but this part is more about how offense/defense is evaluated rather than a player's ability to stay on the court and contribute. Per 100 possession numbers are usually a good place to start for players from the 60s and 70s although I understand their are other factors which affect the pace adjustment - superstar usage decreasing vs easier scoring opportunities in transition as pace increases. Any pace adjustments need to be considered along with the league efficiency in mind which makes it tricky when both are changing at the same time. I also think there are some issues with the assumption in the calculation of ORtg and DRtg to evaluate offenses and defenses although this will probably need a separate thread in the future. Given the high minutes of stars in earlier eras, I would have expected a larger disparity between star-led teams and the rest of the league - the lack of which (particularly in the 50s) casts doubt on the level of per possession impact of these stars.

6. Era
I only rank players who have played in the post shot clock era and specifically, seasons from 1952 onward since minutes played is used to evaluate health. The lack of basic box score stats, team offense/defense numbers and game footage makes evaluation of anything before the 1950s practically impossible. If one was to include late 40s in their list, there is no reason to exclude earlier pre-BAA leagues such as the NBL or even ABL of the 20s/30s and I just don't see the point in ranking a league of undersized players where the only stat we can use is ppg and most are scoring less than 10 a game. Players are evaluated relative to their own era but some time periods with weaker competition are slightly penalized. League expansion is roughly matched by growing talent pool and I don't consider a 8 team league any stronger than a 30 team league simply because talent is being condensed. One thing I would point out though is that public perception in different eras do not affect a player's skillset. Just because the corner 3 was not popular in previous eras does not make it any less valuable a shot. Turnovers and poor shot selection is bad basketball whether the coaches at the time realized the importance of efficiency or not.

7. Other considerations
• Accolades: Awards are not comparable across seasons since they are affected by the level of competition which is not constant over the years. This goes for individual accolades such as All Star, All NBA, etc (which are further affected by poor voting) as well as team achievements such as making the playoffs, finals, or winning the championship. I pick players with more accolades to rank first but the awards themselves don't boost the seasonal ratings.
• Portability: Team fit is a zero sum game for me. If a player is a good fit on almost all teams because of his style of play, this should be a plus in how the player is evaluated. As such, outside shooting and off ball play are more highly valued. Conversely, players who are a poor fit on almost all teams will be ranked lower.
• Intangibles: Off-court or leadership qualities are divided into offense and defense. Part of this is because I don't have a separating rating beside offense/defense and also because it is possible for a player to be only a positive locker room influence on only one end of the court.
• Clutchness: Unless there is significant evidence to prove otherwise, I don't add any points for a player having clutch reputation. Clutch defense is something which is generally overlooked and a key defensive stop is just as important as making the last shot although it is difficult to credit just one player for a good team defensive effort.
• Expectations: Players with unfulfilled potential don't get extra value for having more upside or penalized for not putting in more effort to maximize their career. Young players are ranked only based on their careers up to that point which is why they tend to be ranked lower on my list since I don't forecast where they will end by the time they retire.
• Legacy: Since each season is evaluated individually, there is no bonus points for any overall career legacy. This also means that a player bombing it completely in one season/playoffs only negatively affects the value for that one season. There is no black mark which caps a player's all time ranking.
• Career: My list is only based on a player's NBA/ABA career (from 1952 onwards). Any other basketball whether it was in high school, college or overseas are not taken into account. A player's cultural impact, popularity and post-playing career also do not factor into my rankings.

8. All time list
1 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2 Michael Jordan
3 LeBron James
4 Tim Duncan
5 Shaquille O'Neal
6 Kevin Garnett
7 Hakeem Olajuwon
8 Wilt Chamberlain
9 Magic Johnson
10 Bill Russell
11 Dirk Nowitzki
12 Larry Bird
13 Kobe Bryant
14 Karl Malone
15 David Robinson
16 Oscar Robertson
17 Julius Erving
18 Jerry West
19 Charles Barkley
20 John Stockton
21 Chris Paul
22 Steve Nash
23 Moses Malone
24 Patrick Ewing
25 Dwyane Wade
26 Scottie Pippen
27 Jason Kidd
28 Reggie Miller
29 Artis Gilmore
30 Ray Allen
31 Clyde Drexler
32 Dikembe Mutombo
33 Gary Payton
34 Kevin Durant
35 John Havlicek
36 Paul Pierce
37 Dwight Howard
38 Elgin Baylor
39 Bob Pettit
40 Rick Barry
41 Alonzo Mourning
42 Walt Frazier
43 Kevin McHale
44 George Gervin
45 Elvin Hayes
46 Dolph Schayes
47 Chauncey Billups
48 Rasheed Wallace
49 Vince Carter
50 Manu Ginobili
* Bellamy and Issel are the only players I haven't rated yet who I think has a chance at making the top 50.

[scrabbarista]

I am one of those who rely on a formula to develop my list. I had one formula for the last three or four years, one that I altered regularly over that time. I've recently scrapped it for a new one.

The reason I use a formula is because I believe that not relying on one is too slippery of a slope. (Anyone who's read Bill Simmons' book surely noticed a slant toward the Celtics, e.g.). The goal, for me, is always to develop a formula that matches my subjective opinions as closely as possible. I may think Dirk Nowitzki was better than Karl Malone, but until I can develop a formula that applies the same criteria to both of them (and that same criteria to every other player who ever played in the league) and has Dirk coming out on top, then my official opinion - the opinion I will share in casual conversation and formal debate - will be that Malone was the better player.

I'm a lifelong reader, and basketball is one of my favorite subjects, so I've read a number of books on it. The biographies of Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Jordan, and Bill Russell spring to mind first, as well as Bill Simmons' book, which I devoured in about twenty-four hours (getting no sleep) and is one of my favorite books of any kind. It inspired me to make my first ATG List.

I'm actually a huge believer in intangibles and off-court qualities. In fact, it's my belief that they translate so consistently into on-court success (when combined with talent, obviously) that I actually feel comfortable using a formula in spite of my belief in them.

I'm familiar with the argument that a formula is always going to have gaps, is always going to miss things that any careful observer could plainly see. However, I believe that no observer is perfect either, least of all myself, and I simply prefer to use a formula. As a side note, it has the added entertainment value of giving me a visual (i.e., numerical) representation of the historical "hunt for greatness."

What goes into my formula: (I will probably forget a few small details, but I'll do my best to get everything down here.)

"Winning." Players get points for being the undisputed best player on a championship team, the undisputed best player on a finalist, one of two more-or-less equal "best" players on a championship team (happened this year), or simply a member of a championship roster at the end of a season. A bonus is added to a player's career for every "Best on Champ" he achieves. "Winning" is one of the categories, probably the most important, that is meant to capture the intangible qualities that I so firmly believe in.

Post Season Totals. My old formula was far more complicated, but became much too time-consuming (it involved players' career rankings in numerous categories - rankings which are constantly changing). Now I simply add up a player's career points, blocks, steals, assists, and rebounds. There is a small penalty for ABA totals. I don't worry about some stats not being counted before 1974, etc, because I find that pace balances out this discrepancy. Also, as it's much harder to even get into the league as time goes on, I see nothing wrong with giving modern players small advantages of this kind.

Regular Season Totals. Same as above. For nearly every player, career RS Totals have far more total value than PS Totals. The only exceptions I'm aware of, and all of them barely qualify, are Magic Johnson, Lebron James, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili.

Regular Season Stats. Weight is given to a total of 19 statistical categories. Any time a player finished in the Top 5 in any of these categories, it is recorded. Eight categories earn 1 point, while eleven earn half of a point. Some players like Oscar Robertson earn huge totals in this area, while others like Scottie Pippen are nearly invisible.

Honors. This category is meant to incorporate the eye-test, just not my eye-test. I would love to do without the category, as obvious media bias can be found here, but there are more players who need these points than there are players who benefited unjustly from them, so I include it. Points are given for Top 5 MVP finishes (fifth through first are weighted accordingly), and All-NBA finishes. The 3rd team is worth less than 1st, 2nd, and All-Defensive. Any time a player finishes in the Top 5 in MVP voting, his total career score receives a bonus. I don't like the fact that small-market players suffer historically in MVP voting, but again, I think MVP voting is much more helpful than detrimental in creating an ATG List.

"Loyalty." Based on the number of teams a player played for (so, Lebron only played for two, because Cleveland only counts once), this category has a miniscule weight the higher one climbs on the list. However, it may often flip two players who are close to each other. This is another attempt at quantifying intangibles. It measures a team's loyalty to a player as well as a player's loyalty to his team.

Era. Tiny penalties are accrued for each decade before the 2000's. 2001-present are considered equal.

RealGM 2014 List. Fairly significant points are earned here. I have projected rankings for Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, and Anthony Davis to make sure they aren't unfairly penalized. Once the 2017 List starts to take shape, my own list will change to reflect the new RGM rankings.

[mischievous]

I'm not sure i have a totally concrete criteria set in place, but to emphasize the order of importance it would be something like this.

1. Prime (with heavy emphasis on what's done within their 5-7 best seasons)
2. Longevity- they have to be close to all star level for it to carry any real weight
3. Accolades, both individual, as well as team and the context as well as how they performed in them.

Peak is a part of prime so it makes no sense for me to separate it. If i were to weight the 3 by % it probably goes prime- 50%, longevity- 25%, and accolades 25%.

For evaluating a player's impact, i tend to use a combination of box scores with eye test primarily. +/-, or RAPM may occasionally be used to support an argument but i would never begin with it.

[Clyde Frazier]

Hmm... thought I had a few more days, but looks like we started early so I have to get something down. Apologies if it's a little all over the place.

To start, i value context very highly. We can't take a player's accomplishments or numbers at face value without digging deeper and looking at the entire picture.

Basketball is a team game, so while winning is most important, some players are more fortunate than others to play with great teammates. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to players who weren't in great situations.

I value longevity and durability highly. Of course it isn't just number of games played, but post prime impact seasons make a difference to me, especially when 2 players are close. During prime seasons, being able to stay on the court matters. Just because you played 55 games and you still made a deep playoff run doesn't mean the missed games should be ignored. That player was fortunate enough to have teammates around him to keep the team above water.

I spent much of the 2014 project researching players throughout history to make the best conclusions I could. The more information the better as far as I'm concerned. In coming to my conclusions, i look at scouting reports, public opinion at the time, box score stats, impact stats, and of course watching footage. I hope to spend more time watching full games in this project as i've already done the preliminary research on many of the older players in 2014.

I feel like i'm stating the obvious for most of the voting pool, but i'll say it anyway: there's no reason to think eye test vs. analytics is a thing. We should look at all this information as tools in a tool box, and use them to come to conclusions. There are unfortunately analytics people out there who don't watch enough footage, and they give the majority who do a bad name.

I do value offense over defense to an extent. This is more targeted towards players like ben wallace, rodman, etc. who weren't a threat to score at all (i realize rodman was with detroit). I'm much higher on a player like mutombo whose impact defensively was excellent, but could still be relied on offensively when necessary.

And quickly going back to longevity, if a player only has average longevity, but i feel they had an extraordinary career in that span (jordan, magic, bird come to mind), I won't knock them down a notch for it. These guys will pop up few and far between. I'm still tackling how to rate the currys of the world as I really consider a full career to be in the 10 season range. I'll at least have some time to figure that out.

I don't really try to do the time machine method hypothetically inserting players into different eras. I judge them based on how successful they were in their era, and weigh that against how strong I consider their era. As for playoffs vs. regular season, this again goes back to context. I do think performing better in the playoffs is impressive, as the competition does get tougher. However, If a player performed as well as reasonably expected in a playoff year, that's fine by me. I'm not going to disregard a great regular season because playoff production was underwhelming, and vice versa.

Oh, and lastly, sample size, sample size, sample size. Tiny sample sizes with lots of noise should be ignored. The larger the sample size the better.

[Pablo Novi]

20170701 Pablo’s NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT Criteria PART I (1st Draft)
Imo, THE MOST OBJECTIVE (& therefore UNIQUE) CRITERIA:

20170701 Pablo’s NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT Criteria PART I (1st Draft)
Imo, THE MOST OBJECTIVE (& therefore UNIQUE) CRITERIA:

3 INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS: My Viewing History; small GOAT gaps; & UNIQUE Objectivity;
MY 58 YEARS OF “RABID” FANHOOD: I had the great fortune to have seen a really great “Point Guard”, Wilt Chamberlain, LIVE with the Harlem Globetrotters a number of times. He was so amazing that I "followed" him into the NBA. In other words, I got to see the ENTIRE careers of ALL the GOAT PLAYERS from the 1959-1960 season onwards. (Additionally, early-on, between my “encyclopedic” dad (I was raised on the “Mikan Drill”, etc.); & OUR reviewing all available pre-1960 info; I was RELATIVELY familiar with ALL the All-Time Greats starting with George Mikan’s earliest year, 1946-1947.

SMALL GOAT GAPS: Also, contrary to virtually every other GOAT ranker I've ever seen; personally, I view the gaps between these players as quite small rather than as large, much less “gigantic”.

OBJECTIVITY: (Given that, as of writing this, I haven’t run the final calculations) EVEN I DON’T KNOW HOW THIS WILL TURN OUT YET: Boy am I excited to find out! Due to being raised by an incredibly TOLERANT dad, in an incredibly INTOLERANT era, (the 1950s in the U.S.), I’ve never really had “homerist-based” favorite players. I’ve ALWAYS loved: great plays, great games (especially overtime games), great players, great careers & great teams. So, until the very last moment, when I finally run all the calculations, I have NO IDEA how “my” GOAT rankings are going to turn out! (Talk about “objectivity”!)

UNIQUE: Given this concerted effort on my part to achieve the maximum objectivity; what follows is both truly UNIQUE in its composite; and in its individual components.

3-STEPS: THREE “CALCULATIONS” FOR THE MOST-OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF G-O-A-T PLAYERS
A: THREE BASIC “OBJECTIVE UNITS”:
1. BASIC “MEASURING UNIT”: “GREAT YEARS” based on YEARLY ALL-LEAGUE SELECTIONS:
For me, THE basic “measuring unit” when comparing NBA-ABA-NBL players is individual “GREAT YEARS”. I define a player as having a “GREAT YEAR” as when he is selected to a yearly ALL-LEAGUE TEAM.

Imo, no single (regular or advanced) stat, nor any combination of them is good enough. ALL are “flawed”, including ALL combinations of them. In addition to their inherent flaws; the very use of them by GOAT rankers is automatically quite subjective. So …

Why not rely on the “experts” themselves, the ALL-League Selectors, to decide how well each great player played each year? (Though the opinion of each of them is, naturally, “biased”; taken together, their COLLECTIVE OPINION, as represented by the final tallies, is very “OBJECTIVE”.

Given the large number of Selectors, individual subjectivity (homerism, etc.) of INDIVIDUAL Selectors IS overcome by their sheer numbers. (Similar to the way that, in diving competitions, the highest & lowest scores are thrown out. Generally speaking, professional evaluators give (much) better results; and the more of such evaluators there are; the less the chance of “political” or “agenda-driven” collective evaluations.)

I call these “ALL-LEAGUE SELECTIONS” because I include: ALL-NBL, ALL-ABA & ALL-NBA/BAA.
N.B. See “B” below for the various adjustments I make in “weighing” these.

2. BASIC G-0-A-T COMPARISON “UNIT”: C-A-R-E-E-R VS C-A-R-E-E-R (Totals of “GREAT YEARS”):
Imo, GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) comparisons are NOT comparisons of either player’s PEAKS (1-year to 3-5 years); nor player’s PRIMES (5 years – 10 years). Instead, it should be based on a comparison of their TOTAL BODY OF WORK (as defined by their total number of “GREAT YEARS”).

N.B. Thus any and all non-“Great Years” play no role in my version of such comparisons. A weak rookie year or weak late-career years do not count as deductions. While this might SEEM like a comparison of PRIMES, it is not. In THIS analysis, the Great Years do not have to be consecutive; but even more importantly – there is no “set number of years” being compared; but instead each player’s TOTAL number of “Great Years” – however many he had.


3. “POINTS”: 5 “POINTS” (1st-Team Selection); 3 “POINTS” (2nd-Team Selection); …
Each year, there are 5 1st-Team selections (per League); and 5 2nd-Team selections. The basic part of my compilation or calculations is derived from totally up each player’s yearly “Points” subtotals; based on: 5 “Points” for each 1st-Team selection; 3 “Points” for each 2nd-Team selection; and additional, smaller numbers of points for still-lower selections. SEE “B” BELOW.

B: THREE RELATIVE-EQUALITIES: ERAS & YEARS; DUAL-LEAGUE YEARS; POSITIONAL-“EQUALITY”:
4. “THREE ERAS” & 80 YEARS:
Imo, there have been 3 DISTINCE “ERAS” in the 80 years of NBL-ABA-NBA history:
a. “The Pre-Mikan Era”: 10 Years: 1938 season – 1947. I pro-rate the quality of play during this era as steadily rising by 2% per year, from 50% (of the “Modern Era”) to 68%; with an average of 59%.

SHORT SEASONS: Additionally, because seasons were so much shorter then; I pro-rate these years downward (by the percent under 82 games they played). This seems reasonably fair to me because on the one hand it doesn’t players back credit for anything close to 82-game seasons; yet their Great Years do count for something; so this system still keeps them in the discussion of the GOAT Top 100.

b. “The Mikan Era” or “Pre-Wilt Era”: 12 Years: 1948-1959. I include Mikan’s first 1/3 of a year in the 47 season in the previous Era; so this Era starts BECAUSE the NBL was shocked by that limited number of games into universally raising the level of player. So, for the first year of this Era, imo, the level of play was bumped up by 5%, followed by it rising an additional 2% every subsequent year. So, I pro-rate the quality of play during this era as ranging from 73% (of the “Modern Era”) to 95%; with an average of 84%.

SHORT SEASONS: Again, because seasons were so much shorter then; I pro-rate these years downward (by the percent under 82 games they played).

c. “The Modern Era”: 58 Years: 1960-2017: NBA players were very much aware of the amazing stuff that Wilt was doing with the Harlem Globetrotters. In his very first year Wilt did not disappoint; the whole League had to respond. Further, integration FINALLY took off. So, for the first year of this Era, imo, the level of play was bumped up by 5% - to its present general level.

SHORT SEASONS: For the purposes of this “study”, a “full-season” is determined as having at least 75 games (thus all “Modern Era” seasons were “full-seasons”). (Also I don’t pro-rate the 50-game season, nor the 66 games season).


Another way to put why I consider these past 58 years to all be part of the “Modern Era” is because, in contrast to the previous Eras’ All-Time Greats, the All-Time Greats from each of these decades (60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 00’s and 10’s) could switch decades and still be All-Time Greats.

RED BLEEPING AUERBACH. I hated his ARROGANT SOB *SS; but credit where CREDIT IS DUE
Era-Wise, RED was THE most ahead-of-his-contemporaries as both a GM and as a Coach. This new level of professionalism played NO SMALL PART in the 1960’s deserving to be included within the Modern Era – the first decade of it.)

On the other hand, imo, there is no denying that, while the All-Time Greats have had comparable careers, the overall level of play has been GRADUALLY improving.

For these reasons, I “allot” the following number of All-Time Great players to @ decade:
5 Players: 1950’s (and earlier)
6 Players: 1960’s
7 Players: 1970’s
8 Players: 1980’s
9 Players: 1990’s
10 Players: 2000’s
11 Players: 2010’s (or 8 players so far, with 3 players to be added in the next 2 years).

“Conveniently” this gives us 53~ players to “fit into” our GOAT Top 50~; and for a GOAT Top 100, we’d just double the number of players from each “decade” and end up with some 106 or so to “squeeze” into that GOAT Top 100.


5. SPECIAL CASES: DUAL-LEAGUE YEARS:
a. THE THREE NBL-BAA DUAL-LEAGUE YEARS: 3 Years: 1947-1949:
The NBL was the established League (with decidedly better quality but playing in decidedly less-economically-viable cities; the BAA the new-comer (with, naturally, weaker players and teams; but with decidedly more-economically-viable cities).

So, for the first 2 years, the NBL was the better League, with the better teams and better All-Time Greats. By the 3rd year, the best ex-NBL teams & players had switched to the BAA; so the exact opposite relationship in quality now prevailed.

For these reasons, I give 5 “Points” to the ALL-NBL 1st-Teamers the first 2 years; and to the ALL-BAA 1st-Teamers the 3rd year. Similarly, I give 3 “Points” to the ALL-BAA 1st-Teamers the first two years; and to the ALL-NBL 2nd-Teamers the 3rd year.

b. THE NINE NBA-ABA DUAL-LEAGUE YEARS: 9 Years: 1968-1976:
A similar situation existed during these 9 Dual-League years. Generally speaking, I give very few points to the ABA in its earliest years; but increase that year by year. More specifically, with good reason, the ABA was known as a “Forwards’ League” – so, in most cases, ALL-ABA Forwards get “my” combined-ALL-LEAGUE 1st-Team Selections; with the other three positions being mostly ALL-NBA 1st-Team Selections. (While this is the general framework I’ve applied, the precise details of this are quite a bit more complicated.)

6. POSITION VS POSITION:
A. RELATIVE EQUALITY OF POSITIONS: It has been almost universally the case that GOAT lists are (utterly) dominated by Centers. The reasoning is obvious: until the Guard-oriented 20th Century, centers have had about the same effect on Offense; but much more so on Defense. As a result of this type of thinking, most people have as many as 4 Centers in their GOAT Top 10 (such as: Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Bill Russell; if not also: Hakeem & others).

I reject this as being unbalanced and unfair. While it IS true that Centers do play significantly bigger roles on Defense; what has been almost completely ignored is the extra EFFORT put out by the non-Centers – they run around quite a bit more; and, as a result, their careers generally TEND to be a bit shorter. To take this into account, I introduce a “General Equality Of Positions”.

Also, I FIRST rank each position separately (PGs vs PGs, PFs vs PFs); then I include one player from each position in each descending set of 5 GOAT players.


20170701 Pablo’s NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT Criteria PART I (1st Draft)

END “PART I”
-----
AN EARLIER VERSION OF PABLO’S NBA++ GOAT LIST.
PABLO’s FINAL VERSION will probably not be hugely different.
-----

My NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT List:
1. KAJ (67% more Finals than MJ; about 67% more Reg. Seas. WinShares; most clutch & unstoppable shot - Sky Hook).
2. Magic (Best TEAM-mate ever (prior to LBJ); I value his 9 Finals more than MJ's 6 Finals & 3 earlier P-O Losses.)
3. MJ (NOT the best TEAM-mate; he QUIT on his team TWICE - the first time for gambling)
4. LBJ (I have had him moving up ONE spot each year for several years; he'll probably keep on like that & end up GOAT).
5. TD

6. Wilt (not counting Mikan in a terribly weak era, Wilt was the most era-dominant player ever)
7. Dr J (I include his phenomenal days in the ABA)
8. Kobe
9. "O"
10. Karl Malone

11-15. Shaq, Bird, J.West, Stockton, Pettit ("Shaq & the White Boys")

16. Bill Russell. (You can’t be DOMINATED at YOUR OWN POSITION, during your own career; and be in PABLO’s GOAT TOP 15. And comparing their combine-career for each’s GREAT YEARS, we find that Wilt DOMINATED Russell to the tune of 7 Greater Great Years vs 2 Greater Great Years.
...

[Pablo Novi]

20170701 Pablo’s NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT Criteria PART 2 (1st Draft)
Imo, THE MOST OBJECTIVE (& therefore UNIQUE) CRITERIA:

NOTES REGARDING Part 2. Part 2 concerns itself with two main questions:
X. A few more factors to be addressed before producing an INITIAL GOAT list.

Y. The SUBJECTIVE FACTOR: The overall scheme produced here would mean that EVERYBODY would have the same INITIAL GOAT list. I actually thing this is great. It means the flame-warring and subjective influences are greatly reduced - a GREAT THING in my book.

Still, what fun would this be if everybody were forced to the same conclusions.
So here's where SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS come into play:

How much "worth" should the "2nd Season", the Play-Offs, have? Just by sheer number of games played, it is only worth about 1/8th of a Regular Season - but clearly with the stakes so much higher - the average game here is much more "valuable." I leave the question of the ratio between Regular Season performance and Play-Off performance up to the individual GOAT ranker.

There are also such things to consider as: TEAM-work, special / unique skills, All-Time Great Years (as compared to average Great Years) AND the consideration of any and all stats AND such post-season rankings as: MVPs, ALL-Defense, ROYs, etc.

MY SUGGESTION: EACH GOAT Ranker GETS TO MOVE EACH PLAYER UP OR DOWN ONLY ONE POSITIONAL-GOAT-Ranking.
For example, under this system the two following sets of players rank in the GOAT Top 5; while their counterparts, rank in the GOAT #s6-10.

Kobe had more Great Years than MJ (so, INITIALLY, Kobe is a GOAT Top 5er; and MJ is a GOAT Top 6-10er. Same for:
Karl Malone over Tim Duncan. ON MY LIST, the other, more-subjective factors (plus Play-Off roles) mean that ...

MJ passes Kobe and TD passes K. Malone.
Thus my INITIAL GOAT Top 5 = KAJ, Magic, MJ, Lebron & TD;
#s 6-10 then are: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, Big "O" and K. Malone

[euroleague]

My ranking system is based highly upon four factors.

1. Versatility and Team-Impact - Is this player impacting a team well, in terms of his fit into team schemes and ability to play team-focused ball? Is he playing hero-ball, or hero-passer where the ball has to be in his hands for the offense to work? Is this player a 2-way player, who can impact the game on both ends? Or is he primarily 1-dimensional, and a weakness that a team has to hide on one end? Does this player have diva like antics, or is he a good teammate (this one is subjective, but we can make define criteria for "good teammate" in a general sense).

2. Peak vs Prime vs Longevity - I value peak play by far the highest of these three. I would rather have one championship then make it to the finals 5 times from the eastern conference, a very easy route to the finals these days, and then lose. After peak, I consider prime - if a player is a 2nd option on a team for a very long time, but an all-time amazing 2nd option, that is still worthy of consideration over something such as a 1-year peak. Longevity, in my opinion, is mostly garbage time stats and role-playing that isn't worthy of being considered in terms of "GOAT" placement.

3. Impact on the Game - Did this player affect the way everyone else played the game? Players like Cousey seem bad now, but that's because we are standing his shoulders looking at the game from improvements he first made. Wilt caused more rule changes than any other player combined. Hack-a-Shaq has a rather obvious inspiration. When a player is so dominant that he changes the way the game is played, this is a hugely important thing that transcends stats and to a large extent even supersedes playoff success in terms of the most important factor in a player.

4. MPG and Efficiency- Was this player affecting a whole game? How did his efficiency stand up when he played heavy minutes per game? Often in the playoffs, players can affect a game by playing far more minutes than their norm. I use this metric to predict potential winners in matches between players where one is far better in terms of his stamina and heavy minute play than the other - the high stamina player will win.

[Pablo Novi]

Underappreciated: the non-Bigs' extra effort early-in-the-shot-clock & on fast breaks?
Is this a valid consideration?

Suppose you take the GOAT Top 5 for each separate position and have a tournament of the 5 teams [N.B. I include MY GOAT Top 5 as examples, just for clarity's sake]:
the A-T PG team (Magic, "O", Cousy, Stockton, PG3),
the A-T SG team (MJ, Kobe, Jerry West, Gervin, DWade),
the A-T SF team (LeBron, Dr J, Bird, Baylor, Rick Barry),
the A-T PF team (TD, K.Malone, Pettit, Barkley, Nowitski) and
the A-T C team (Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Bill Russell, Hakeem).

The question is: comparatively speaking, wouldn't the teams of Bigs have much greater difficulties bringing the ball up in 8 seconds or less to even be able to get into their half-court sets? I'd assume this would clearly be the case. So doesn't that argue that all our available stats (and combinations of them) leave out a HUGE part of the game (most of the stuff that goes on BEFORE the assist & shot attempt): the extra work of dribbling, passing, cutting, stop-and-starting, adjusting-to-broken-plays and defending all that PLUS fast-break opportunities which tend to exclude the Bigs?

I ask because in my GOAT ranking system, I include one player PER POSITION in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots (so my GOAT top 5 has: 1 PG, 1 SG, 1 SF, 1 PF and 1 C). My system is an attempt to include all that extra effort, so vital to the game but not necessarily showing up anywhere in the stats.

In my GOAT Top 50, I DO have the Center ranked highest in each descending set of 5 spots (giving a slight edge to C's added role on defense OVER that extra effort I've just referred to) so I THINK I'm being fair to both:
a) the Centers increased defensive role; and
b) the non-Bigs' increased role/effort "early in the shot clock" and on fast-breaks.

I've never seen anybody else include in their GOAT analysis this (important) aspect of the game. So, for me, other GOAT lists are overly Center-centric if you will.

Am I missing something important?

[penbeast0]

I will say that when I read coaches, they always say that if the players would cooperate, there would be NO dribbling bringing the ball up, just hard crisp passes all the way up. So, no need for extra role/effort early in the clock. Realistically, one of the hardest things I have to get through kids' heads is NOT to constantly dribble (particularly on swing pass opportunities where it lets the defense get there). So, realistically, guards do expend more energy than bigs getting upcourt (unless you count carrying all those extra pounds and inches as extra energy which I guess it truly is . . . probably more than just bouncing a ball).

[penbeast0]

I will say that when I read coaches, they always say that if the players would cooperate, there would be NO dribbling bringing the ball up, just hard crisp passes all the way up. So, no need for extra role/effort early in the clock. If the PG team plays the C team, the big guys just toss it upcourt over the guards heads . . . bada bing bada boom, ball is upcourt and going into the post.

Realistically, one of the hardest things I have to get through kids' heads is NOT to constantly dribble (particularly on swing pass opportunities where it lets the defense get there). So, realistically, guards do expend more energy than bigs getting upcourt (unless you count carrying all those extra pounds and inches as extra energy which I guess it truly is . . . probably more than just bouncing a ball).

[Pablo Novi]

I will say that when I read coaches, they always say that if the players would cooperate, there would be NO dribbling bringing the ball up, just hard crisp passes all the way up. So, no need for extra role/effort early in the clock. Realistically, one of the hardest things I have to get through kids' heads is NOT to constantly dribble (particularly on swing pass opportunities where it lets the defense get there). So, realistically, guards do expend more energy than bigs getting upcourt (unless you count carrying all those extra pounds and inches as extra energy which I guess it truly is . . . probably more than just bouncing a ball).

This is a kind of non-answer, isn't it? Whatever coaches may say or want, doesn't change the fact that most times the PG dribbles the ball up past half-court - and another PG (or other non-big) challenges him along the way - extra effort on both's part. Then once across half-court, the PG TENDS to be the guy to still do more dribbling than anyone else as he initiates the half-court set. Likewise, it tends to be the PG that leads the break (or a PG-type like LeBron); and non-bigs who do most of the work trying to stop the fast breaks. Right?

I'm not at all talking about UNNECESSARY dribbling; just normal dribbling.

Seemingly (please correct me if I'm wrong), your main point is that small player dribbling is no extra effort; so I don't get why you say, "So, realistically, guards do expend more energy than bigs getting upcourt".

[Pablo Novi]

I've just posted this in the GOAT thread #46; but it also should be posted in this "GOAT Criteria" thread (N.B. There is some repetition of points I've made earlier here in this thread):

I have THREE main arguments for my GOAT-list building system being better than any other I've seen:
1. It's "VALIDITY" as A basic measurement of player performance; no, much more accurately stated, as THE BEST measurement of the performance of the League's best players - i,e, THE BEST way to seperate the "men from the boys", the ALL-Time Greats from the other All-Stars)
2. The question of comparability of the 5 positions (particularly in previous decades); and
3. The actual results it produces (i.) my overall GOAT list; ii.) my DECADES' GOAT lists; iii.) my POSITIONAL GOAT lists:
and a BONUS, yippee!:
4. "Predictive Power" and "Ease Of Usage"


1. THE "VALIDITY" OF MY METHOD (greatest emphasis on the number of a players' ALL-League selections, with more points for higher team selections):
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20810860/superteam-standings-thunder-big-three-warriors-level
Here's an article by Tom Haberstroh today at ESPN. The focus of the article is comparing the League's teams based on if they have at least 3 big stars - up to the moment (just after the Melo trade to OKC and before DWade's destination is determined). Notice please that he rates the players by EXACTLY MY ONE DOMINANT CRITERIA: ALL-NBA selections (though in his case here: from the previous three seasons for players under 35 years of age). From all the incredible variety of "stats" and/or opinions and/or combinations of them, this top NBA analyst chose the single criteria of: ALL-NBA selections. Additionally, he sets up a "Points" system as: 1st-Team = 5 "Points"; 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 3rd-Team = 1 "Point" (This is nearly an exact duplicate of my system; but for the 2010s, I give 1.8 "Points" for 3rd-Team selections - a very minor difference).

Please note. This then is treating players REGARDLESS OF POSITION as equal - with EVERYTHING depending on ALL-NBA selections.

So this is a kind of Step 1 in a would-be defense of my system.

2) POSITIONAL "COMPARABILITY" (particularly in previous decades (those before the great lowering of the value assigned to the Center position, particularly in the 2000s and 2010s).

I think it can safely be assumed that IF we just go by the standard way of evaluating players, Centers dominate the 1900s. BUT I strongly disagree with that "standard". Sure, as we all know, Centers play a more important STATISTICAL, measureable, role on DEFENSE. BUT, there is one GENERAL AREA of play that virtually NEVER gets included in the discussion: NON-STATISTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS:

i) Bringing the ball up the court Centers are terrible at this and it does count for a significant portion of EVERY POSSESSION - including the defensive pressure put up by the non-Centers to stop it. Generally speaking, the smaller the position, the greater the role in bringing the ball up (and the more wear-and-tear over a career);

ii) The half-court sets DRIBBLING: Same understanding here: the smaller the position, the more dribbling involved AND the more effort to try to interfere with that dribbling on defense;

iii) The half-court sets PASSING: Again, the smaller the position the more effort involved in both the passing and in trying to disrupt effective passing on defence;

iii) Half-Court cutting, stop-and-starting and general running around: Once again, the smaller the position the more effort on both sides of the ball - I wonder if there have been studies done comparing the amount of "mileage" PER POSITION that's happening.

iv) Fast-Breaks: Still another example of the "smalls" putting out more effort than the bigs.

v) TEAM-work: I take a Magic pass or LeBron pass over a Magic or LBJ shot any day of the week. The assist is the ESSENCE of TEAM-work imo. I appreciate teams with better quality TEAM-work than I do teams with players with crazy scoring ability (although naturally I love that too; just less so). But TEAM-work effort involves all the other things (other than passing; i.e.: bringing the ball up, dribbling, cutting, fast-break work; that contribute up to the moments when the stats mostly start to represent things

To sum up this (sub-)section: imo, the overwhelmingly non-statistical additional contributions listed above ALMOST equal the extra contributions statistically measured for the BIGS - thus, why in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, I have one player per position WHILE, for my GOAT Top 50, the Center is always ranked first within each set of 5. (Another way to put this, no team composed only of BIGS would ever beat a team composed of the Top PGs, or smalls in general - because the BIGS won't be able to: bring the ball up, run the half-court sets, succeed on the fast break, or have good-enough passing-based TEAM-work.)

3) RESULTS:
3A) My GOAT List is better than any of your's AND better than our collective RealGM GOAT list (nah-nee, nah-nee, nah-naa! lol)
I've never seen a better list than my GOAT list (in order) ... All facetiousness aside, I think this is a darned good list.

01-05: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ, TD
06-10: Wilt, Kobe, Dr J, "O", Karl Malone
11-15: Shaq, Jerry West, Larry Bird, Pettit, Cousy
16-20: Russell, Bill Baylor, Elgin; Barkley, Charles; Stockton, John; Gervin, George
21-25: Olajuwon, Hakeem; Barry, Rick; Nowitzki, Dirk; Paul, Chris; Wade, Dwyane
26-30: Malone, Moses; Durant, Kevin; Garnett, Kevin; Kidd, Jason; Moncrief, Sidney
31-35: Robinson, David; Payton, Gary; Schayes, Dolph; Pippen, Scottie; Greer, Hal
36-40: Howard, Dwight; Iverson, Allen; McGrady, Tracy; Lucas, Jerry; Westphal, Paul
41-45: Ewing, Patrick; Nash, Steve; Wilkins, Dominique; Stoudemire, Amar'e; Harden, James
46-50: Mikan, George; Frazier, Walt; Hill, Grant; Drexler, Clyde; McGinnis, George

I'd take my "GOAT Top 5" as a team over any other set of 5 players, INCLUDING RealGM's new GOAT Top 5.
I'd take my "GOAT Top 10" as a team (with 5 bench players) over any other set of 10 players.
Also, I've NEVER seen a more Center-centric GOAT list than our developing RealGM list. In other words, ours represents, for me, the worst example of the over-valuing of the role of Centers in previous decades; the worst example of under-valuing the roles of "smalls".

3B) MY DECADAL GOAT LISTS (are a darned good reflection of who actually the best players each decade):

1938 - 1949 (12 years: NBL & BAA)
....... ALL-Lg
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 7.4 6 McDermott, Robert
2 6.0 3 Mikan, George
3 5.7 8 Edwards, Leroy
4 5.6 4 Cervi, Al
5 5.1 5 Jeannette, Buddy
6 4.5 7 Shipp, Charley
7 4.3 2 Pollard, Jim
8 4.2 5 Dancker, Edward
9 4.1 3 Fulks, Joe
10 4.1 3 Zaslofsky, Max
11 4.0 2 Davies, Bob
12 3.4 2 Holzman, Red
13 2.6 3 Stephens, Ben
14 2.3 2 Riebe, Mel
15 2.1 4 Bush, Gerard
16 2.0 1 Todorovich, Mike
17 1.9 2 Feerick, Bob
18 1.7 1 Lewis, Freddie
19 1.7 3 Vaughn, Ralph
20 1.7 3 Cable, Howard
21 1.6 2 Sadowski, Ed
22 1.5 2 Glamack, George
23 1.4 4 Ozburn, Jack
24 1.4 1 Carpenter, Bob
25 1.3 1 Patrick, Stan
26 1.2 2 Kautz, Wilbert
27 1.1 1 Brian, Frankie
28 1.1 1 Englund, Gene
29 1.1 1 Mehen, Dick
30 1.1 1 Otten, Don
31 1.1 2 Pelkington, Jake
32 1.0 1 Armstrong, Curly
33 1.0 1 Chuckovits, Charles
34 1.0 1 Dallmar, Howie
35 1.0 2 Lautenschlager, Reuben
36 1.0 2 Suesens, Kenneth
37 1.0 1 Wager, Clint
38 1.0 2 Calihan, Robert
39 0.9 1 McKinney, Bones
40 0.9 1 Miasek, Stan
41 0.7 2 Young. Jewell
42 0.7 1 Novak, Mike
43 0.6 1 Hartman, Pierre
44 0.6 1 Triptow, Dick
45 0.5 1 Andres, Ernest
46 0.5 1 Boswell, Wyatt
47 0.5 1 Frankel, Nat
48 0.5 1 Kolar, Otto
49 0.5 1 Schaefer, Herm
50 0.4 1 Birch, Paul
51 0.4 1 Sines, John
52 0.4 2 Bloedorn, Charles
53 0.3 1 Hapac, William
54 0.2 1 Moir, John
55 0.2 1 Armstrong, Scott
56 0.2 1 Neu, Robert
57 0.1 1 Kessler, Robert
58 0.1 1 McGowan, Vince
59 0.1 1 Quinn, Bart
60 0.1 1 Wooden, John

1 9 5 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 25.5 8 Cousy, Bob
2 23.2 10 Schayes, Dolph
3 17.0 5 Pettit, Bob
4 17.0 6 Sharman, Bill
5 13.8 5 Johnston, Neil
6 13.0 5 Mikan, George
7 11.0 4 Arizin, Paul
8 8.5 4 Macauley, Ed
9 8.5 4 Davies, Bob
10 8.5 5 Martin, Slater
11 5.5 2 Russell, Bill
12 5.5 2 Yardley, George
13 5.3 4 Mikkelsen, Vern
14 5.2 3 Stokes, Maurice
15 5.0 3 Pollard, Jim
16 4.5 2 Gallatin, Harry
17 4.2 3 Wanzer, Bob
18 4.0 2 Groza, Alex
19 3.7 1 Baylor, Elgin
20 3.7 2 Hagan, Cliff
21 3.3 2 Beard, Ralph
22 3.0 1 Foust, Larry
23 3.0 2 Seymour, Paul
24 2.9 2 Brian, Frankie
25 2.7 2 Phillip, Andy
26 2.3 1 Zaslofsky, Max
27 1.8 1 Guerin, Richie
28 1.8 1 Garmaker, Dick
29 1.8 1 Gola, Tom
30 1.5 1 Fulks, Joe
31 1.5 1 Braun, Carl
32 1.5 1 George, Jack
33 1.5 1 Lovellette, Clyde
34 1.4 1 Cervi, Al
35 1.2 1 Schaus, Fred
36 1.2 1 McGuire, Dick


1 9 6 0 s (including ABA)
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 45.0 9 Robertson, Oscar
2 42.5 9 Baylor, Elgin
3 40.0 9 Chamberlain, Wilt
4 35.0 8 West, Jerry
5 27.5 6 Pettit, Bob
6 25.0 8 Russell, Bill
7 17.5 5 Lucas, Jerry
8 17.5 7 Greer, Hal
9 15.0 3 Barry, Rick
10 15.0 4 Cousy, Bob
11 10.0 2 Hawkins, Connie
12 10.0 4 Heinsohn, Tom
13 7.5 3 Havlicek, John
14 7.5 2 Daniels, Mel
15 7.5 2 Shue, Gene
16 7.5 3 Jones, Sam
17 5.0 1 Bing, Dave
18 5.0 2 Johnson, Gus
19 5.0 2 Schayes, Dolph
20 5.0 2 Guerin, Richie
21 5.0 2 Twyman, Jack
22 5.0 1 Monroe, Earl
23 2.5 1 Cunningham, Billy
24 2.5 1 Reed, Willis
25 2.5 1 Sharman, Bill
26 2.5 1 Costello, Larry
27 2.5 1 Howell, Bailey
28 2.5 1 Unseld, Wes

1 9 7 0 s (including ABA)
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 37.5 9 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
2 30.0 7 Erving, Julius
3 27.5 7 Barry, Rick
4 22.5 5 Frazier, Walt
5 20.0 4 West, Jerry
6 18.0 8 Gilmore, Artis
7 15.8 4 Maravich, Pete
8 15.5 5 McGinnis, George
9 15.0 4 Archibald, Nate"Tiny"
10 14.3 5 Hayes, Elvin
11 13.3 4 Gervin, George
12 12.5 3 Westphal, Paul
13 12.5 4 Thompson, David
14 11.8 3 Cunningham, Billy
15 10.8 4 Issel, Dan
16 7.5 7 Havlicek, John
17 7.0 4 Haywood, Spencer
18 6.5 2 Walton, Bill
19 5.5 3 Calvin, Mack
20 5.0 2 Davis, Walter
21 5.0 3 Jones, Bobby
22 5.0 1 Bing, Dave
23 5.0 1 Goodrich, Gail
24 5.0 1 Johnson, Marques
25 5.0 1 Malone, Moses
26 5.0 1 Reed, Willis
27 5.0 1 Robinson, Truck (Leonard)
28 4.5 3 Daniels, Mel
29 3.8 2 White, Jo Jo
30 3.5 2 Knight, Billy
31 3.3 2 Robertson, Oscar
32 3.3 2 Boone, Ron
33 3.3 2 McAdoo, Bob
34 3.3 1 Dandridge, Bobby
35 3.0 1 Ford, Phil
36 2.5 1 Free, Lloyd B.
37 2.5 2 Freeman, Donnie
38 2.5 2 Kenon, Larry
39 2.5 1 Lucas, Maurice
40 2.5 2 Jones, Jimmy
41 2.5 1 Silas, James
42 2.5 1 Simpson, Ralph
43 2.5 1 Chamberlain, Wilt
44 2.5 1 Hawkins, Connie
45 2.5 2 Johnson, Gus
46 2.5 1 Jones, Larry
47 2.0 1 Melchionni, Bill
48 1.0 1 Scott, Charlie
49 1.0 1 Hollins, Lionel
50 1.0 1 Maxwell, Cedric
51 1.0 1 Smith, Randy
52 1.0 1 Taylor, Brian
53 1.0 1 Williams, Gus
54 0.8 1 Chenier, Phil
55 0.8 1 Dampier, Louie
56 0.8 1 Jabali, Warren
57 0.8 1 Nater, Swen
58 0.5 1 Beaty, Zelmo
59 0.5 1 Brown, Roger
60 0.5 1 Clark, Archie
61 0.5 1 Hudson, Lou
62 0.5 1 Love, Bob
63 0.5 1 Verga, Bob

1 9 8 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 45.0 9 Bird, Larry
2 39.0 9 Johnson, Magic
3 28.0 8 Malone, Moses
4 27.0 7 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
5 23.0 5 Erving, Julius
6 22.0 6 Thomas, Isiah
7 19.0 5 Olajuwon, Hakeem
8 18.0 4 Jordan, Michael
9 18.0 4 Gervin, George
10 18.0 6 Moncrief, Sidney
11 16.0 4 Barkley, Charles
12 13.0 3 King, Bernard
13 12.0 4 Wilkins, Dominique
14 9.0 3 Johnson, Dennis
15 9.0 5 Dantley, Adrian
16 9.0 3 English, Alex
17 8.0 2 Malone, Karl
18 8.0 2 Williams, Gus
19 7.0 3 McHale, Kevin
20 7.0 5 Parish, Robert
21 7.0 3 Johnson, Marques
22 6.0 2 Stockton, John
23 6.0 2 Ewing, Patrick
24 6.0 4 Drexler, Clyde
25 5.0 1 Westphal, Paul
26 5.0 3 Roundfield, Dan
27 4.0 2 Cummings, Terry
28 4.0 2 Paxson, Jim
29 4.0 2 Lever, Fat (Lafayette)
30 3.0 1 Johnson, Kevin
31 3.0 1 Mullin, Chris
32 3.0 1 Chambers, Tom
33 3.0 1 Archibald, Nate "Tiny"
34 3.0 1 Birdsong, Otis
35 3.0 1 Williams, Buck
36 3.0 3 Nance, Larry
37 3.0 3 Richardson, Micheal Ray
38 3.0 1 Sampson, Ralph
39 3.0 1 Robertson, Alvin
40 2.0 2 Gilmore, Artis
41 2.0 2 Cheeks, Maurice
42 2.0 2 Blackman, Rolando
43 1.0 1 Price, Mark
44 1.0 1 Daugherty, Brad
45 1.0 1 Davis, Walter
46 1.0 1 Jones, Bobby
47 1.0 1 Rollins, Tree
48 1.0 1 Washington, Kermit
49 1.0 1 Aguirre, Mark
50 1.0 1 Ruland, Jeff
51 1.0 1 Williams, Ray
52 1.0 1 McCray, Rodney
53 1.0 1 Floyd, Eric (Sleepy)
54 1.0 1 Ellis, Dale


1 9 9 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 50.0 10 Malone, Karl
2 35.0 7 Jordan, Michael
3 28.6 8 Robinson, David
4 25.9 9 Stockton, John
5 25.3 7 Barkley, Charles
6 24.9 8 Olajuwon, Hakeem
7 23.6 7 Pippen, Scottie
8 18.3 6 Payton, Gary
9 17.0 5 Ewing, Patrick
10 15.3 5 Hardaway, Tim
11 14.9 6 O'Neal, Shaquille
12 14.0 4 Hill, Grant
13 11.6 5 Richmond, Mitch
14 11.3 3 Hardaway, Anfernee
15 10.6 4 Drexler, Clyde
16 10.3 4 Johnson, Kevin
17 10.0 2 Duncan, Tim
18 10.0 2 Johnson, Magic
19 9.3 3 Mullin, Chris
20 9.0 3 Kemp, Shawn
21 7.6 3 Price, Mark
22 7.3 3 Wilkins, Dominique
23 5.6 3 Dumars, Joe
24 5.0 1 Kidd, Jason
25 5.0 1 Iverson, Allen
26 5.0 1 Mourning, Alonzo
27 5.0 1 Sprewell, Latrell
28 4.3 2 Baker, Vin
29 4.3 2 Rice, Glen
30 3.9 3 Miller, Reggie
31 3.0 1 Webber, Chris
32 3.0 1 Bird, Larry
33 3.0 1 Chambers, Tom
34 3.0 1 Johnson, Larry
35 3.0 1 Strickland, Rod
36 2.6 2 Worthy, James
37 2.6 2 Coleman, Derrick
38 2.6 2 Rodman, Dennis
39 1.3 1 Bryant, Kobe
40 1.3 1 Garnett, Kevin
41 1.3 1 Mutombo, Dikembe
42 1.3 1 Mason, Anthony
43 1.3 1 McDyess, Antonio
44 1.3 1 King, Bernard
45 1.3 1 Daugherty, Brad
46 1.3 1 Willis, Kevin
47 1.3 1 Petrovic, Drazen
48 1.3 1 Schrempf, Detlef
49 1.3 1 Howard, Juwan


2 0 0 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 44.0 10 Duncan, Tim
2 42.6 10 Bryant, Kobe
3 36.6 8 O'Neal, Shaquille
4 32.1 9 Nowitzki, Dirk
5 30.6 8 Garnett, Kevin
6 23.0 5 Kidd, Jason
7 22.1 7 McGrady, Tracy
8 21.1 6 Nash, Steve
9 21.0 5 James, LeBron
10 20.6 6 Iverson, Allen
11 12.6 4 Wade, Dwyane
12 12.6 4 Webber, Chris
13 12.1 5 Wallace, Ben
14 11.6 3 Howard, Dwight
15 11.0 3 Stoudemire, Amar'e
16 10.7 5 Ming, Yao
17 9.6 3 Payton, Gary
18 8.0 2 Paul, Chris
19 7.7 4 Pierce, Paul
20 6.1 3 Billups, Chauncey
21 6.1 3 O'Neal, Jermaine
22 6.1 3 Arenas, Gilbert
23 4.7 3 Anthony, Carmelo
24 4.6 2 Malone, Karl
25 4.6 2 Mutombo, Dikembe
26 4.6 2 Carter, Vince
27 4.6 2 Allen, Ray
28 3.1 2 Robinson, David
29 3.1 2 Marbury, Stephon
30 3.1 2 Marion, Shawn
31 3.0 1 Williams, Deron
32 3.0 1 Roy, Brandon
33 3.0 1 Bosh, Chris
34 3.0 1 Hill, Grant
35 3.0 1 Mourning, Alonzo
36 3.0 1 Cassell, Sam
37 3.0 1 Stojakovic, Peja
38 3.0 1 Brand, Elton
39 1.6 1 Parker, Tony
40 1.6 1 Gasol, Pau
41 1.6 1 Ginobili, Manu
42 1.6 1 Boozer, Carlos
43 1.6 1 Mashburn, Jamal
44 1.6 1 Jones, Eddie
45 1.6 1 Davis, Baron
46 1.6 1 Redd, Michael
47 1.6 1 World Peace, Metta

2 0 1 0 s (8 years so far: 2010-2017)
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 40.0 8 James, LeBron
2 31.0 7 Durant, Kevin
3 22.8 6 Paul, Chris
4 22.0 6 Westbrook, Russell
5 20.0 4 Bryant, Kobe
6 19.8 5 Howard, Dwight
7 16.8 4 Harden, James
8 16.0 4 Curry, Stephen
9 11.6 4 Wade, Dwyane
10 10.8 4 Griffin, Blake
11 10.0 2 Davis, Anthony
12 10.0 2 Leonard, Kawhi
13 9.0 3 Parker, Tony
14 8.6 3 Duncan, Tim
15 8.6 3 Jordan, DeAndre
16 8.4 4 Aldridge, LaMarcus
17 8.0 2 Gasol, Marc
18 7.8 3 Nowitzki, Dirk
19 7.8 3 Anthony, Carmelo
20 7.8 3 Gasol, Pau
21 6.0 2 Stoudemire, Amar'e
22 6.0 2 Love, Kevin
23 6.0 2 Cousins, DeMarcus
24 5.4 3 George, Paul
25 5.0 1 Rose, Derrick
26 5.0 1 Noah, Joakim
27 4.8 2 Lillard, Damian
28 4.8 2 Green, Draymond
29 3.6 2 Thompson, Klay
30 3.0 1 Nash, Steve
31 3.0 1 Williams, Deron
32 3.0 1 Bynum, Andrew
33 3.0 1 Antetokounmpo, Giannis
34 3.0 1 Gobert, Rudy
35 3.0 1 Thomas, Isaiah
36 1.8 1 Roy, Brandon
37 1.8 1 Ginobili, Manu
38 1.8 1 Johnson, Joe
39 1.8 1 Randolph, Zach
40 1.8 1 Chandler, Tyson
41 1.8 1 Jefferson, Al
42 1.8 1 Bogut, Andrew
43 1.8 1 Horford, Al
44 1.8 1 Rondo, Rajon
45 1.8 1 Lee, David
46 1.8 1 Dragic, Goran
47 1.8 1 Irving, Kyrie
48 1.8 1 Drummond, Andre
49 1.8 1 Lowry, Kyle
50 1.8 1 Butler, Jimmy
51 1.8 1 DeRozan, DeMar
52 1.8 1 Wall, John

3C: POSITIONAL GOAT RANKINGS: TOP 10 EACH
PGs
1 Johnson, Magic
2 Robertson, Oscar
3 Cousy, Bob
4 Stockton, John
5 Paul, Chris
6 Kidd, Jason
7 Payton, Gary
8 Iverson, Allen
9 Nash, Steve
10 Frazier, Walt

SGs
1 Jordan, Michael
2 Bryant, Kobe
3 West, Jerry
4 Gervin, George
5 Wade, Dwyane
6 Moncrief, Sidney
7 Greer, Hal
8 Westphal, Paul
9 Harden, James
10 Drexler, Clyde

SFs
1 James, LeBron
2 Erving, Julius
3 Bird, Larry
4 Baylor, Elgin
5 Barry, Rick
6 Durant, Kevin
7 Pippen, Scottie
8 McGrady, Tracy
9 Wilkins, Dominique
10 Hill, Grant

PFs
1 Duncan, Tim
2 Malone, Karl
3 Pettit, Bob
4 Barkley, Charles
5 Nowitzki, Dirk
6 Garnett, Kevin
7 Schayes, Dolph
8 Lucas, Jerry
9 Stoudemire, Amar'e
10 McGinnis, George

Centers
1 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
2 Chamberlain, Wilt
3 O'Neal, Shaquille
4 Russell, Bill
5 Olajuwon, Hakeem
6 Malone, Moses
7 Robinson, David
8 Howard, Dwight
9 Ewing, Patrick
10 Mikan, George

BONUS SECTION:
4. "Predictive Power" and "Ease Of Usage"
This is a kind of play on the words "Predictive Power". What I have in mind here is that using this system it's SUPER-EASY to predict what up-and-coming players will need to achieve (vis-a-vis All-League selections) to move up the GOAT lists.

As to "Ease Of Usage": What could be easier than just referring to one list (mine in this case, lol) for "all your needs"?
As compared to referring to one individual stat (regular or advanced) or some combination of them.
-----
Given how incredibly different from each other GOAT lists are; I wonder how my GOAT list compares to a "composite" GOAT list (composed of several highly-esteemed individual lists)?
-----
As to: "Lastly, I can't help being skeptical of a criteria that utilizes a VERY narrow scope of the available information and yields results which [at times] cannot be supported by almost ANY other means. To me, that's problematic."

Yes, I completely understand why, at first glance, this particular criteria (ALL-League selections) may APPEAR narrow in scope. BUT, the ALL-League selectors are the very people in THE BEST position to judge the players' performances of the just-passed Regular Season. It is their job to report on the games; and their results, imo, super-closely match how the players actually did (better, if not far better, than any other criteria).

In other words, their "subjective" collective opinion results in more "objective" analysis than any objective stat or combination of stats.

[Pablo Novi]

20170927 ALL-League Selections’ Merit
ALL-League Selections Are Closer To Valid Than They Are To Wildly-Off
It is true that there have been many and long back-and-forths involving me about "the importance of context" in weighting of All-NBA honors. I'm just weighing in here to say that "the importance of context" is a catch-word that very often is super-useful; but it can also, SOMETIMES, be a distraction.

The choice for us here is:
a) treat EVERY INDIVIDUAL REGULAR SEASON's ALL-NBA (/ABA / NBL) honors separately, "in context"; meaning this award is not very important because, by implication, what is represented is WILDLY UNEVEN performances; or
b) treat them all as RELATIVELY equal (with the proviso that, generally speaking, decade-by-decade, they become more valuable (read: in my system, they are worth more "Points")).

Imo, it comes down to this: either, relatively speaking one year's ALL-League selections are worth ABOUT as much as other year's OR they aren't. If they aren't, then the award isn't very useful for determining GOAT lists AND, necessarily, some other criteria must take precedence over it. BUT, there is nothing even remotely approaching UNIVERSAL agreement on WHICH criteria (singular or plural) should be used. Similarly, there is NOTHING close to UNIVERSAL agreement about which seasons were better generally (much less at specific positions) than others.

My belief is that the selections have been closer to equal than closer to super-unequal; IF that is the case, then the validity of using ALL-League selections comes into question. On that, I feel very strongly that using ALL-League selections as the FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT criteria is valid.

Imo, the SELECTORS are of the highest quality especially COLLECTIVELY speaking. It's been their very job to study what is going on on the court and report on it; and, at the end of each Reg. Season - vote on it. They have better access to the stats, the analysis of others, the eye-test, etc. Collectively, the process weeds out homerist votes.

Proof In The Pudding?
Tom Haberstoh has just used ALL-NBA selections (from the past 3 years for his particular analysis) to determine which 2017-18 teams are true super-teams (having 3 great players). He even assigns almost exactly the same number of "Points" per 1st-Team, 2nd-Team and 3rd-Team selections: 5, 3 and 1 (whereas I use: 5, 3 and 1.8). I consider him to be highly informed about what's going on in the NBA. (I'd argue for my "Points" values over his because, 2nd-Teamers are not nearly 3 times as good as 3rd-Teamers; and, instead, the gap between 2nd-Teamers and 3rd-Teamers should be relatively the same as between 1st-Teamers and 2nd-Teamers; with the lower-level guys meriting 60% in each instance).
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19795490/tom-haberstroh-nba-superteam-rankings-warriors-cavaliers-timberwolves-more

I make no claim to being any kind of expert, but, imo, my GOAT Top 5 (KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ & TD) would beat anybody else's GOAT Top 5 in a best-of-seven series most of the time. Same for my GOAT Top 10 (adding: Wilt, Kobe, Dr J, "O" & K.Malone) and GOAT Top 15 (adding: Shaq, Jerry West, Bird, Pettit & Cousy).

The Alternative(s):
I make ZERO claim that my system is anything approaching perfection. Instead, I merely claim that in a process so TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE (with as many GOAT lists as there are people opinionating on them); THE BEST system is the one that most closely approaches OBJECTIVE analysis - and, again, the ALL-League selectors are far more qualified than any of us, or all of us taken collectively.

I've been a heavy-duty peace-justice activist since 1965. To be effective such movements REQUIRE as much UNITY as possible. As an activist dedicated to building UNITY: First, Last & Always, I THINK (who knows if I'm right?) that formulating a plan to build such unity depends to some great extent on first, identifying what are the principal dis-unifying issues; and then, working towards overcoming them.

This was the exact process I used vis-a-vis the universally divisive issue of GOAT lists. I recognized disunifying issues as:
homerism (my favorite team, my favorite player(s)),
positional-ism,
decade-ism,
League-vs-League ism,
stas (and groups of them) vs other stats (and groups of them).

The one "metric" that best overcomes the mess of division-producing criteria is the ALL-League selections. While far from perfect, it both more-closely approximates the truth of what's happened AND less divisive than the 100s of sets other criteria AND quite simple and thus easy to understand and use.

N.B. My system is not solely composed on ALL-League selections - they are just my #1 criteria.


P.S. For what it's worth, I spent 40+ hours a week, 50+ weeks a year, 1965-1975 (20,000+ hours of volunteer effort) trying to help end US Gov slaughter of 2-3 million innocents in Vietnam. I ended up playing a leading role in the US Anti-War Movement; particularly in UNITING it. I've been a 9/11 Truther since the afternoon of 9/11. A year ago I presented: "The 9/11 Truth UNITY Manifesto" to a group of 40 9/11 Truth Movement leaders *; and for the first time in the history of that group, a proposal was given UNANIMOUS support ("subject to minor revisions for clarity" - which was accomplished about 2 weeks later in a subcommittee).

* In 50+ years of peace-justice activism, the 9/11 Truth Movement is easily the most-divided movement I've ever seen.