Which players/teams/concepts have you changed your mind on in the past 5 years?

[falcolombardi]

Does anybody else struggle with a playstyle bias in evaluating players? It's not just the LeBron/Curry dichotomy, in general I really prefer guys who are versatile, portable, fluidly mobile, not ball dominant, etc.

I mean I have bias, but I really don't care how a player has impact as long as they have it. We've simply seen too many great players having massive impact in completely different ways. Draymond Green and Dirk are both amazing PF's. Nash and Kidd amazing PG's.

Duncan and Lebron amazing cornerstone players. Same with Russell and Magic.

I honestly think one of this board's biggest blind spots is their preferred style of play or arbitrary rules based on position in what has become more and more a positionless league particularly with all of the PNR and switching that occurs on almost every possession in the league.

And you get some really silly narratives in an attempt to dismiss why a guy who does it "wrong" isn't really having the impact he's having or trying to spin a narrative explaining why a guy who isn't having a ton of impact but has the "correct" traits is really much better than the results over big samples are telling us.

Do you drive winning? Great, don't really care how you do it. Do you not? Sorry then I don't carry about your TS% or 3PG volume and accuracy. That stuff is role player stuff more than star stuff anyway.

you could include all basketball media

mainstream media with " the right way to play" (usually not many 3's and from the post) or with the heavy emphasis on hero ball shooting in the clutch

analytics media like ben taylor (who i like a lot actually) blindspot around portability

everyone has their own idea of what basketball should look like or be about anf that clouds objective analysis on players

[ceiling raiser]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

Code: Select all

   Player   Ability (off.)   Ability (def.)   Portability (off.)   Portability (def.)   Resiliency   Durability   Longevity
Tier 1   Michael Jordan   5   3   3   5   5   4   4
Tier 1   Bill Russell   2   5   4   5   5   4   4
Tier 2   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar   4   3   4   4   4   5   5
Tier 2   LeBron James   5   3   2   4   3   5   5
Tier 2   Magic Johnson   5   2   3   2   4   3   2
Tier 2   Hakeem Olajuwon   4   5   2   5   5   4   4
Tier 3   Stephen Curry   5   2   5   2   4   3   3
Tier 3   Tim Duncan   3   5   4   5   4   4   5
Tier 3   Kevin Garnett   3   5   4   5   3   4   5
Tier 3   Shaquille O’Neal   5   3   2   3   5   3   4
Tier 3   Jerry West   5   3   5   5   5   4   4
Tier 4   Larry Bird   5   2   5   2   4   3   2
Tier 4   Wilt Chamberlain   3   4   2   4   2   4   4
Tier 4   Kevin Durant   5   3   4   5   4   3   3
Tier 4   David Robinson   3   5   4   5   3   4   3
Tier 5   Giannis Antetokounmpo   3   4   3   5   3   5   2
Tier 5   Kobe Bryant   4   1   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   Kawhi Leonard   4   3   4   5   5   3   3
Tier 5   Reggie Miller   5   1   5   1   5   5   5
Tier 5   Steve Nash   5   1   3   1   4   4   4
Tier 5   Dirk Nowitzki   4   2   5   3   4   4   5
Tier 5   Chris Paul   4   3   2   5   3   3   5
Tier 5   Scottie Pippen   3   2   3   5   3   4   4
Tier 5   Oscar Robertson   5   2   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   John Stockton   4   3   3   5   4   5   5

[Odinn21]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

There quite a few inconsistencies imho.

- LeBron's resiliency? Easily 5. If anything, we learnt that Kareem and LeBron were actually more resilient than Mike against tough postseason defenses. homecourtloss has quite a few posts about this.
- Kareem's resiliency should be 5 too. His defense is also underrated with that 3 rating. He was a far better defender than Jordan and O'Neal.
- If Garnett's resiliency is 3 and O'Neal's is 5, Duncan is a lot closer to O'Neal (actually considering his performances after playoffs 1st rounds during his prime, he was better than O'Neal in this regard) and should've been 5. If this is a career overlook, not just peak or prime, then Duncan should stay at 4 and O'Neal should be downgraded to 4.
- Defensive ratings; Nash 1 / Miller 1 / Bryant 1 / Magic 2 / Nowitzki 2. Putting Bryant on Nash's level and below Magic and Nowitzki, that's just wrong.
- Even if ability ratings are about peaks, Olajuwon did not have enough significant edges over Garnett and Duncan on offense to be on the next level.
- Durant's 5 on offense looks definitely too generous when we compare it to Curry's 5, Paul's, Bryant's and Nowitzki's 4s. You have Olajuwon at 4 which is a grand overrating considering who you have at 4. Durant's defensive portability is nowhere near of 5. You have defensive monster centrepieces as Russell, Olajuwon, Duncan, Garnett, Robinson at 5. Even Jordan is a long shot. Then there's Durant.
- West is definitely not ahead of Robertson by 2 tiers. You underrate Robertson's portability on both ends and resiliency. Also there's this thing with ability and impact. Ability wise West and Robertson were on the same level but Robertson brought considerably more impact. Think of this comparison as Durant and Curry with West being more resilient than Durant.
- O'Neal's and Bryant's offensive portability ratings are hugely underrated.
- Stockton and Pippen are hugely overrated to be considered top 25 or so. They definitely did not have peak and prime to be involved. In the last top 100 project, we've been over how Stockton's resiliency was actually bad. It wasn't talked at the time with a comparison to Garnett but he had more worries than Garnett considered his scoring role on his team. Stockton on the same level as Nowitzki, Paul, Bryant and Nowitzki offensively? That's not just true. Also Stockton is rated at 3 defensively which makes him on the same level as Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, James, West and Leonard who are each of them peaked significantly higher on defense. Kareem, LeBron and the Logo had more than enough duration at that level too to be above Stockton.
- Chamberlain is totally underrated. Why is his defense rated at 4? He definitely had enough duration in his defensive level throughout the seasons to be put next to Olajuwon/Garnett/Duncan/Robinson. He was certainly the king of longevity before Abdul-Jabbar. If you take era into account, which we should, he definitely had top tier longevity.
- Magic and Bird feel off. Bird was definitely the better defensive player with significant enough edge. Both at 2 for defensive ability isn't right. Also looking at ratings, they're pretty much identical. In fact, the only edge between the two is in favour of Bird with offensive portability. Why Bird is tier 4 and Magic is tier 2? That's a pretty big inconsistency right there.

Fwiw, I think a scale of 5 is pretty limiting and also is the major reason for these inconsistencies than your perception of these players being off.

[Zarozzor]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

Code: Select all

   Player   Ability (off.)   Ability (def.)   Portability (off.)   Portability (def.)   Resiliency   Durability   Longevity
Tier 1   Michael Jordan   5   3   3   5   5   4   4
Tier 1   Bill Russell   2   5   4   5   5   4   4
Tier 2   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar   4   3   4   4   4   5   5
Tier 2   LeBron James   5   3   2   4   3   5   5
Tier 2   Magic Johnson   5   2   3   2   4   3   2
Tier 2   Hakeem Olajuwon   4   5   2   5   5   4   4
Tier 3   Stephen Curry   5   2   5   2   4   3   3
Tier 3   Tim Duncan   3   5   4   5   4   4   5
Tier 3   Kevin Garnett   3   5   4   5   3   4   5
Tier 3   Shaquille O’Neal   5   3   2   3   5   3   4
Tier 3   Jerry West   5   3   5   5   5   4   4
Tier 4   Larry Bird   5   2   5   2   4   3   2
Tier 4   Wilt Chamberlain   3   4   2   4   2   4   4
Tier 4   Kevin Durant   5   3   4   5   4   3   3
Tier 4   David Robinson   3   5   4   5   3   4   3
Tier 5   Giannis Antetokounmpo   3   4   3   5   3   5   2
Tier 5   Kobe Bryant   4   1   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   Kawhi Leonard   4   3   4   5   5   3   3
Tier 5   Reggie Miller   5   1   5   1   5   5   5
Tier 5   Steve Nash   5   1   3   1   4   4   4
Tier 5   Dirk Nowitzki   4   2   5   3   4   4   5
Tier 5   Chris Paul   4   3   2   5   3   3   5
Tier 5   Scottie Pippen   3   2   3   5   3   4   4
Tier 5   Oscar Robertson   5   2   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   John Stockton   4   3   3   5   4   5   5

Very interesting method for a GOAT list. I've toyed around with something like this in the past. Have you considered using a 1-10 scale instead?

[No-more-rings]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

Code: Select all

   Player   Ability (off.)   Ability (def.)   Portability (off.)   Portability (def.)   Resiliency   Durability   Longevity
Tier 1   Michael Jordan   5   3   3   5   5   4   4
Tier 1   Bill Russell   2   5   4   5   5   4   4
Tier 2   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar   4   3   4   4   4   5   5
Tier 2   LeBron James   5   3   2   4   3   5   5
Tier 2   Magic Johnson   5   2   3   2   4   3   2
Tier 2   Hakeem Olajuwon   4   5   2   5   5   4   4
Tier 3   Stephen Curry   5   2   5   2   4   3   3
Tier 3   Tim Duncan   3   5   4   5   4   4   5
Tier 3   Kevin Garnett   3   5   4   5   3   4   5
Tier 3   Shaquille O’Neal   5   3   2   3   5   3   4
Tier 3   Jerry West   5   3   5   5   5   4   4
Tier 4   Larry Bird   5   2   5   2   4   3   2
Tier 4   Wilt Chamberlain   3   4   2   4   2   4   4
Tier 4   Kevin Durant   5   3   4   5   4   3   3
Tier 4   David Robinson   3   5   4   5   3   4   3
Tier 5   Giannis Antetokounmpo   3   4   3   5   3   5   2
Tier 5   Kobe Bryant   4   1   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   Kawhi Leonard   4   3   4   5   5   3   3
Tier 5   Reggie Miller   5   1   5   1   5   5   5
Tier 5   Steve Nash   5   1   3   1   4   4   4
Tier 5   Dirk Nowitzki   4   2   5   3   4   4   5
Tier 5   Chris Paul   4   3   2   5   3   3   5
Tier 5   Scottie Pippen   3   2   3   5   3   4   4
Tier 5   Oscar Robertson   5   2   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   John Stockton   4   3   3   5   4   5   5

I mean i can tell you must not value longevity that much if Giannis and Kawhi can go that high. I see that it's a category, but that's only like 14-15% of the calculation.

Looking at the tier 5 in particular, i mean Oscar is a clearly better player than almost everyone in that group. Pippen and Miller are not even close and i think basically everyone would agree with that assertion. With a low weight on longevity and durability i don't know how in the hell Wade is left below a group that contains Kawhi and Giannis.

[homecourtloss]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

There quite a few inconsistencies imho.

- LeBron's resiliency? Easily 5. If anything, we learnt that Kareem and LeBron were actually more resilient than Mike against tough postseason defenses. homecourtloss has quite a few posts about this.
- Kareem's resiliency should be 5 too. His defense is also underrated with that 3 rating. He was a far better defender than Jordan and O'Neal.
- If Garnett's resiliency is 3 and O'Neal's is 5, Duncan is a lot closer to O'Neal (actually considering his performances after playoffs 1st rounds during his prime, he was better than O'Neal in this regard) and should've been 5. If this is a career overlook, not just peak or prime, then Duncan should stay at 4 and O'Neal should be downgraded to 4.
- Defensive ratings; Nash 1 / Miller 1 / Bryant 1 / Magic 2 / Nowitzki 2. Putting Bryant on Nash's level and below Magic and Nowitzki, that's just wrong.
- Even if ability ratings are about peaks, Olajuwon did not have enough significant edges over Garnett and Duncan on offense to be on the next level.
- Durant's 5 on offense looks definitely too generous when we compare it to Curry's 5, Paul's, Bryant's and Nowitzki's 4s. You have Olajuwon at 4 which is a grand overrating considering who you have at 4. Durant's defensive portability is nowhere near of 5. You have defensive monster centrepieces as Russell, Olajuwon, Duncan, Garnett, Robinson at 5. Even Jordan is a long shot. Then there's Durant.
- West is definitely not ahead of Robertson by 2 tiers. You underrate Robertson's portability on both ends and resiliency. Also there's this thing with ability and impact. Ability wise West and Robertson were on the same level but Robertson brought considerably more impact. Think of this comparison as Durant and Curry with West being more resilient than Durant.
- O'Neal's and Bryant's offensive portability ratings are hugely underrated.
- Stockton and Pippen are hugely overrated to be considered top 25 or so. They definitely did not have peak and prime to be involved. In the last top 100 project, we've been over how Stockton's resiliency was actually bad. It wasn't talked at the time with a comparison to Garnett but he had more worries than Garnett considered his scoring role on his team. Stockton on the same level as Nowitzki, Paul, Bryant and Nowitzki offensively? That's not just true. Also Stockton is rated at 3 defensively which makes him on the same level as Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, James, West and Leonard who are each of them peaked significantly higher on defense. Kareem, LeBron and the Logo had more than enough duration at that level too to be above Stockton.
- Chamberlain is totally underrated. Why is his defense rated at 4? He definitely had enough duration in his defensive level throughout the seasons to be put next to Olajuwon/Garnett/Duncan/Robinson. He was certainly the king of longevity before Abdul-Jabbar. If you take era into account, which we should, he definitely had top tier longevity.
- Magic and Bird feel off. Bird was definitely the better defensive player with significant enough edge. Both at 2 for defensive ability isn't right. Also looking at ratings, they're pretty much identical. In fact, the only edge between the two is in favour of Bird with offensive portability. Why Bird is tier 4 and Magic is tier 2? That's a pretty big inconsistency right there.

Fwiw, I think a scale of 5 is pretty limiting and also is the major reason for these inconsistencies than your perception of these players being off.

Man, I was half-way into a morning post during a work break when I realized you had covered what I wanted and more. This is at least the 4th or 5th time this happened the past few months.

Last point is vital—a 1 through 5 scale is so limiting and brings into the equation additional subjectivity, which is something I dislike about elGee’s portability numbers. Also, the difference between a “3” and a “5” is massive, and even between a 3 and a 4.

[ZeppelinPage]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

There quite a few inconsistencies imho.

- LeBron's resiliency? Easily 5. If anything, we learnt that Kareem and LeBron were actually more resilient than Mike against tough postseason defenses. homecourtloss has quite a few posts about this.
- Kareem's resiliency should be 5 too. His defense is also underrated with that 3 rating. He was a far better defender than Jordan and O'Neal.
- If Garnett's resiliency is 3 and O'Neal's is 5, Duncan is a lot closer to O'Neal (actually considering his performances after playoffs 1st rounds during his prime, he was better than O'Neal in this regard) and should've been 5. If this is a career overlook, not just peak or prime, then Duncan should stay at 4 and O'Neal should be downgraded to 4.
- Defensive ratings; Nash 1 / Miller 1 / Bryant 1 / Magic 2 / Nowitzki 2. Putting Bryant on Nash's level and below Magic and Nowitzki, that's just wrong.
- Even if ability ratings are about peaks, Olajuwon did not have enough significant edges over Garnett and Duncan on offense to be on the next level.
- Durant's 5 on offense looks definitely too generous when we compare it to Curry's 5, Paul's, Bryant's and Nowitzki's 4s. You have Olajuwon at 4 which is a grand overrating considering who you have at 4. Durant's defensive portability is nowhere near of 5. You have defensive monster centrepieces as Russell, Olajuwon, Duncan, Garnett, Robinson at 5. Even Jordan is a long shot. Then there's Durant.
- West is definitely not ahead of Robertson by 2 tiers. You underrate Robertson's portability on both ends and resiliency. Also there's this thing with ability and impact. Ability wise West and Robertson were on the same level but Robertson brought considerably more impact. Think of this comparison as Durant and Curry with West being more resilient than Durant.
- O'Neal's and Bryant's offensive portability ratings are hugely underrated.
- Stockton and Pippen are hugely overrated to be considered top 25 or so. They definitely did not have peak and prime to be involved. In the last top 100 project, we've been over how Stockton's resiliency was actually bad. It wasn't talked at the time with a comparison to Garnett but he had more worries than Garnett considered his scoring role on his team. Stockton on the same level as Nowitzki, Paul, Bryant and Nowitzki offensively? That's not just true. Also Stockton is rated at 3 defensively which makes him on the same level as Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, James, West and Leonard who are each of them peaked significantly higher on defense. Kareem, LeBron and the Logo had more than enough duration at that level too to be above Stockton.
- Chamberlain is totally underrated. Why is his defense rated at 4? He definitely had enough duration in his defensive level throughout the seasons to be put next to Olajuwon/Garnett/Duncan/Robinson. He was certainly the king of longevity before Abdul-Jabbar. If you take era into account, which we should, he definitely had top tier longevity.
- Magic and Bird feel off. Bird was definitely the better defensive player with significant enough edge. Both at 2 for defensive ability isn't right. Also looking at ratings, they're pretty much identical. In fact, the only edge between the two is in favour of Bird with offensive portability. Why Bird is tier 4 and Magic is tier 2? That's a pretty big inconsistency right there.

Fwiw, I think a scale of 5 is pretty limiting and also is the major reason for these inconsistencies than your perception of these players being off.

Among other things, Wilt's resiliency score is notable and kind of blowing my mind.

[falcolombardi]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

There quite a few inconsistencies imho.

- LeBron's resiliency? Easily 5. If anything, we learnt that Kareem and LeBron were actually more resilient than Mike against tough postseason defenses. homecourtloss has quite a few posts about this.
- Kareem's resiliency should be 5 too. His defense is also underrated with that 3 rating. He was a far better defender than Jordan and O'Neal.
- If Garnett's resiliency is 3 and O'Neal's is 5, Duncan is a lot closer to O'Neal (actually considering his performances after playoffs 1st rounds during his prime, he was better than O'Neal in this regard) and should've been 5. If this is a career overlook, not just peak or prime, then Duncan should stay at 4 and O'Neal should be downgraded to 4.
- Defensive ratings; Nash 1 / Miller 1 / Bryant 1 / Magic 2 / Nowitzki 2. Putting Bryant on Nash's level and below Magic and Nowitzki, that's just wrong.
- Even if ability ratings are about peaks, Olajuwon did not have enough significant edges over Garnett and Duncan on offense to be on the next level.
- Durant's 5 on offense looks definitely too generous when we compare it to Curry's 5, Paul's, Bryant's and Nowitzki's 4s. You have Olajuwon at 4 which is a grand overrating considering who you have at 4. Durant's defensive portability is nowhere near of 5. You have defensive monster centrepieces as Russell, Olajuwon, Duncan, Garnett, Robinson at 5. Even Jordan is a long shot. Then there's Durant.
- West is definitely not ahead of Robertson by 2 tiers. You underrate Robertson's portability on both ends and resiliency. Also there's this thing with ability and impact. Ability wise West and Robertson were on the same level but Robertson brought considerably more impact. Think of this comparison as Durant and Curry with West being more resilient than Durant.
- O'Neal's and Bryant's offensive portability ratings are hugely underrated.
- Stockton and Pippen are hugely overrated to be considered top 25 or so. They definitely did not have peak and prime to be involved. In the last top 100 project, we've been over how Stockton's resiliency was actually bad. It wasn't talked at the time with a comparison to Garnett but he had more worries than Garnett considered his scoring role on his team. Stockton on the same level as Nowitzki, Paul, Bryant and Nowitzki offensively? That's not just true. Also Stockton is rated at 3 defensively which makes him on the same level as Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, James, West and Leonard who are each of them peaked significantly higher on defense. Kareem, LeBron and the Logo had more than enough duration at that level too to be above Stockton.
- Chamberlain is totally underrated. Why is his defense rated at 4? He definitely had enough duration in his defensive level throughout the seasons to be put next to Olajuwon/Garnett/Duncan/Robinson. He was certainly the king of longevity before Abdul-Jabbar. If you take era into account, which we should, he definitely had top tier longevity.
- Magic and Bird feel off. Bird was definitely the better defensive player with significant enough edge. Both at 2 for defensive ability isn't right. Also looking at ratings, they're pretty much identical. In fact, the only edge between the two is in favour of Bird with offensive portability. Why Bird is tier 4 and Magic is tier 2? That's a pretty big inconsistency right there.

Fwiw, I think a scale of 5 is pretty limiting and also is the major reason for these inconsistencies than your perception of these players being off.

Man, I was half-way into a morning post during a work break when I realized you had covered what I wanted and more. This is at least the 4th or 5th time this happened the past few months.

Last point is vital—a 1 through 5 scale is so limiting and brings into the equation additional subjectivity, which is something I dislike about elGee’s portability numbers. Also, the difference between a “3” and a “5” is massive, and even between a 3 and a 4.

i have never asked but what do you think about elgee methodology and views ?

usually most people who are high on ball dominant players/lead ball handlers/ non great jumpshooters (lebron, duncan, magic, chris paul) seem to inherently disagree hard with him

i usually find Myself doing the same when it comes to how he talks/values "floor raising vs ceiling raising" or portability in franchise players (where i feel he evaluate superstars by how they adapt to their sidekicks game and not the other way around)

[colts18]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

Code: Select all

   Player   Ability (off.)   Ability (def.)   Portability (off.)   Portability (def.)   Resiliency   Durability   Longevity
Tier 1   Michael Jordan   5   3   3   5   5   4   4
Tier 1   Bill Russell   2   5   4   5   5   4   4
Tier 2   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar   4   3   4   4   4   5   5
Tier 2   LeBron James   5   3   2   4   3   5   5
Tier 2   Magic Johnson   5   2   3   2   4   3   2
Tier 2   Hakeem Olajuwon   4   5   2   5   5   4   4
Tier 3   Stephen Curry   5   2   5   2   4   3   3
Tier 3   Tim Duncan   3   5   4   5   4   4   5
Tier 3   Kevin Garnett   3   5   4   5   3   4   5
Tier 3   Shaquille O’Neal   5   3   2   3   5   3   4
Tier 3   Jerry West   5   3   5   5   5   4   4
Tier 4   Larry Bird   5   2   5   2   4   3   2
Tier 4   Wilt Chamberlain   3   4   2   4   2   4   4
Tier 4   Kevin Durant   5   3   4   5   4   3   3
Tier 4   David Robinson   3   5   4   5   3   4   3
Tier 5   Giannis Antetokounmpo   3   4   3   5   3   5   2
Tier 5   Kobe Bryant   4   1   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   Kawhi Leonard   4   3   4   5   5   3   3
Tier 5   Reggie Miller   5   1   5   1   5   5   5
Tier 5   Steve Nash   5   1   3   1   4   4   4
Tier 5   Dirk Nowitzki   4   2   5   3   4   4   5
Tier 5   Chris Paul   4   3   2   5   3   3   5
Tier 5   Scottie Pippen   3   2   3   5   3   4   4
Tier 5   Oscar Robertson   5   2   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   John Stockton   4   3   3   5   4   5   5

Too high:
Nash
Miller
Durant

Too Low:
Stockton
Shaq
LeBron


Fpliii,

What happened to your PM's? I want to send you something I found.

[LA Bird]

Don't really have a GOAT list presently, but if I attempt to put something together, I think this is where I currently stand. Alphabetical within tiers. Any major inconsistencies? The last tier is pretty long-tail, I could likely add 5-10 more players.

Code: Select all

   Player   Ability (off.)   Ability (def.)   Portability (off.)   Portability (def.)   Resiliency   Durability   Longevity
Tier 1   Michael Jordan   5   3   3   5   5   4   4
Tier 1   Bill Russell   2   5   4   5   5   4   4
Tier 2   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar   4   3   4   4   4   5   5
Tier 2   LeBron James   5   3   2   4   3   5   5
Tier 2   Magic Johnson   5   2   3   2   4   3   2
Tier 2   Hakeem Olajuwon   4   5   2   5   5   4   4
Tier 3   Stephen Curry   5   2   5   2   4   3   3
Tier 3   Tim Duncan   3   5   4   5   4   4   5
Tier 3   Kevin Garnett   3   5   4   5   3   4   5
Tier 3   Shaquille O’Neal   5   3   2   3   5   3   4
Tier 3   Jerry West   5   3   5   5   5   4   4
Tier 4   Larry Bird   5   2   5   2   4   3   2
Tier 4   Wilt Chamberlain   3   4   2   4   2   4   4
Tier 4   Kevin Durant   5   3   4   5   4   3   3
Tier 4   David Robinson   3   5   4   5   3   4   3
Tier 5   Giannis Antetokounmpo   3   4   3   5   3   5   2
Tier 5   Kobe Bryant   4   1   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   Kawhi Leonard   4   3   4   5   5   3   3
Tier 5   Reggie Miller   5   1   5   1   5   5   5
Tier 5   Steve Nash   5   1   3   1   4   4   4
Tier 5   Dirk Nowitzki   4   2   5   3   4   4   5
Tier 5   Chris Paul   4   3   2   5   3   3   5
Tier 5   Scottie Pippen   3   2   3   5   3   4   4
Tier 5   Oscar Robertson   5   2   2   2   3   4   4
Tier 5   John Stockton   4   3   3   5   4   5   5

Can't really comment on the tiers when the weight of each category is unknown but I would say...

Too high:
Russell's offense
Magic's defense
Hakeem's offense
Curry's defense
Durant's offense and defense
Robinson's offense
Dirk's defense
Stockton's offense

Too low:
Russell's defense
Wilt's defense
Kobe's offense
Pippen's defense

I don't really see the point of resiliency or defensive portability as separate categories since they should already be part of offensive and defensive ability respectively. Some of the longevity ratings are pretty questionable. Magic and Bird with only a 2 in longevity while Kawhi with around half of their career minutes is at 3? Chris Paul a 5 in longevity vs Kobe at 4?

[Odinn21]

Man, I was half-way into a morning post during a work break when I realized you had covered what I wanted and more. This is at least the 4th or 5th time this happened the past few months.

This exact thing is happening to me pretty often lately, too. I show up to a thread, I'm ready to go into it, and then there's one of your posts covering my points and then some.

Last point is vital—a 1 through 5 scale is so limiting and brings into the equation additional subjectivity, which is something I dislike about elGee’s portability numbers. Also, the difference between a “3” and a “5” is massive, and even between a 3 and a 4.

Scale of 5 feels risky because when I was looking over Frank's ratings, I felt like he had 3 as the standard or the expected value in some cases and 4 for some others and I'm sure if I used ratings from 1 to 5, that'd be present in my ratings too. Just too narrow to differentiate standards and fine details.

[ceiling raiser]

Thanks for the responses everybody - I'm going to take into account feedback (especially Odinn's comprehensive responses) and try and adjust. Just a few notes:

• I didn't use a formula/weight categories, I just used these as a rough guide.
• The scale is 1-5, but it depends on the category. A "5" for me for longevity basically denotes KAJ/LeBron/Stockton/Malone/Duncan/Garnett type longevity, bordering on two decades of positive play. For defensive ability, I capped perimeter players at 3. It's very likely that the 1-5 scale probably bunches certain players together and creates artificial separation for others.
• I stopped at around 25, but like I said I could expand tier 5 out significantly. The way I figure, there isn't much of a point in ranking players who can't win a title as the best player on a very good (but not broken) team. There are also some other players who *did* win championships as the best player on their teams who I have omitted (but probably should add to be exhaustive) because I don't know how well they'd translate to today's game (yes, it is a bit unfair, but I only believe in translating forward, not backward).

Regarding the third point, are there any players I listed who you guys think can't win a title as the best player on their teams? The point guards (Nash, Paul, Stockton) probably all have question marks for different reasons (maybe Nash has the fewest). Maybe Reggie Miller, though I think you can build a title team around him. Scottie I'm not sure about.

What about players who I left out but you can build a title around in today's league?

Guys who actually won titles aren't too difficult. Wade definitely needs to be added. 04 Pistons are tough, not sure who from that group I would say put them over the top. Same with 89, 90 Pistons. I need to figure out what I think regarding Erving and Malone too, I have punted the ball on both of them, however I think I need to select at least one. Prior to that, gets a bit dicey. I think we're far enough removed from some of those teams that I'm not sure if we can consider the Sonics/Bullets/Celtics in the 70s as having players who could win as the best player in today's league. Walton I think certainly translates, as does Frazier (though maybe I need to add Reed to this list as well?). Havlicek and Cowens, not sure, I'm not sure how either would translate. Barry, maybe? If I look at the late ABA champions Gilmore might qualify. I am fairly high on Cousy. Pettit I am a bit mixed on.

Then there are players who didn't win titles but could have if circumstances were different. Better luck, different role, different supporting cast. That's a lot trickier.

[Odinn21]

Thanks for the responses everybody - I'm going to take into account feedback (especially Odinn's comprehensive responses) and try and adjust. Just a few notes:

• I didn't use a formula/weight categories, I just used these as a rough guide.
• The scale is 1-5, but it depends on the category. A "5" for me for longevity basically denotes KAJ/LeBron/Stockton/Malone/Duncan/Garnett type longevity, bordering on two decades of positive play. For defensive ability, I capped perimeter players at 3. It's very likely that the 1-5 scale probably bunches certain players together and creates artificial separation for others.

Wilt definitely deserves to be among the names you mentioned though. All the players you named did not have the old environment Wilt played in. That's huge. For instance you have Duncan and Garnett (quite solidly I'd assume) as 5 in longevity department. They had around 16-17 season window as you mentioned. Wilt otoh had 14 seasons 40 years before those 2.
I agree with perimeter defensive impact being capped, especially when there's players like Russell, Duncan, Olajuwon, Chamberlain, Robinson, Garnett, Mutombo.

• I stopped at around 25, but like I said I could expand tier 5 out significantly. The way I figure, there isn't much of a point in ranking players who can't win a title as the best player on a very good (but not broken) team. There are also some other players who *did* win championships as the best player on their teams who I have omitted (but probably should add to be exhaustive) because I don't know how well they'd translate to today's game (yes, it is a bit unfair, but I only believe in translating forward, not backward).

To me, I think there's too much emphasis on "how well they'd translate to today's game". Jerry West would translate better than Oscar Robertson but they were in the league at the same time, their primes pretty much overlapped and Oscar Robertson was (arguably) the better player. This thought of time machine for modern game shouldn't have an impact that big.
Another thing is, game is not translating forward always. I'm not saying this as an "old man yelling at a cloud". Rules and their implementations have huge impact. What you said can be taken as rules always help the game move forward. And I don't think that'd be a fair thing to say.
There was a time, impact of primary ball handlers was capped because there was only so much they can do and it was mostly big's game. Now, it's ball handler's game. And this landscape change is entirely dictated by rules.

Regarding the third point, are there any players I listed who you guys think can't win a title as the best player on their teams? The point guards (Nash, Paul, Stockton) probably all have question marks for different reasons (maybe Nash has the fewest). Maybe Reggie Miller, though I think you can build a title team around him. Scottie I'm not sure about.

Stockton could never be the best player on a title winning team. He simply wasn't that good. He did not have that kind of peak or prime.
I've always been lower than Nash than most and I actually have Kidd ahead of him for career, I have Nash's peak slightly higher though. (A good comparison from drza for Kidd vs. Nash) The thing about Nash is that he was only proven in one type of scenario. By the way, I'm saying this as my thoughts on Nash. Not as Nash wouldn't be able to be the best player on a title winning team.
I'll just say this, if Zeke did that, so could Nash, Kidd and Paul. Most certainly. That's the thing about reality though. Situations are always unique.
As for Miller and Pippen; We already know how close Miller got in 1998 and 2000. I don't think Pippen could be though. Even though the Bulls forced the Knicks to a game 7 in 1994 when Pippen was their best player and the Knicks were on the verge of winning the title. In that season, Horace Grant stepped up big time in that season and it was Grant's performance that forced the Knicks.

What about players who I left out but you can build a title around in today's league?

Guys who actually won titles aren't too difficult. Wade definitely needs to be added. 04 Pistons are tough, not sure who from that group I would say put them over the top. Same with 89, 90 Pistons. I need to figure out what I think regarding Erving and Malone too, I have punted the ball on both of them, however I think I need to select at least one. Prior to that, gets a bit dicey. I think we're far enough removed from some of those teams that I'm not sure if we can consider the Sonics/Bullets/Celtics in the 70s as having players who could win as the best player in today's league. Walton I think certainly translates, as does Frazier (though maybe I need to add Reed to this list as well?). Havlicek and Cowens, not sure, I'm not sure how either would translate. Barry, maybe? If I look at the late ABA champions Gilmore might qualify. I am fairly high on Cousy. Pettit I am a bit mixed on.

When I saw the players you had in your list, my mind went to Moses even before Wade for the player that could be added.

I think the following players definitely deserve to be in there;
Moses Malone
Dwyane Wade
Julius Erving
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Bob Pettit
Walt Frazier
Rick Barry
Patrick Ewing
James Harden
Elgin Baylor
John Havlicek
Jason Kidd
George Gervin
Isiah Thomas
Russell Westbrook

If the point is having the highest possible championship odds, even for 2 or 3 seasons of peak play, then we have to include Bill Walton and Willis Reed for sure.
(I must say that I'd take all of these players over Stockton and Pippen if I'm picking them as the centrepiece of my team. They are easily better options.)

I've always been high on Cowens and Gilmore but I don't think they had the peak to be involved.

Then there are players who didn't win titles but could have if circumstances were different. Better luck, different role, different supporting cast. That's a lot trickier.

Definitely. That's why I had many ringless players in my addition list.

[ceiling raiser]

Wilt definitely deserves to be among the names you mentioned though. All the players you named did not have the old environment Wilt played in. That's huge. For instance you have Duncan and Garnett (quite solidly I'd assume) as 5 in longevity department. They had around 16-17 season window as you mentioned. Wilt otoh had 14 seasons 40 years before those 2.
I agree with perimeter defensive impact being capped, especially when there's players like Russell, Duncan, Olajuwon, Chamberlain, Robinson, Garnett, Mutombo.

I've been thinking about this a lot. I actually think this is a very strong point because if I'm going to judge players on how they'd translate to the modern era based on playstyle, physical profile and athleticism, I should give them the benefit of the doubt on nutrition, medicine, training, etc that would contribute to superior longevity.

[ceiling raiser]

This is kind of arbitrary, but starting with Russell's teams for the NBA, and including the last 4 years of the ABA, came up with this list of guys who were definitely the best player on at least one title team, and guys who have a credible argument for being the best player on at least one title team. :

Code: Select all

Definitely Best Player
Russell
Pettit
Wilt
Frazier
Kareem
Barry
Walton
Bird
Moses
Magic
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Wade
Kobe
Dirk
LeBron
Kawhi
Giannis

Argument For Best Player
Cousy
Havlicek
Reed
Oscar
West
McGinnis
Gilmore
Hayes
Unseld
Dandridge
Williams
Johnson
Sikma
Cowens
Thomas
Dumars
Laimbeer
Pippen
Robinson
Billups
Wallace
Hamilton
Parker
Garnett
Pierce
Curry
Durant
Davis

I tried to be as restrictive as possible. I need to strongly think about Pettit, Frazier and Moses. Walton (who I have as arguably the GOAT peak) is probably exceptional in that his longevity likely precludes him from a top 25 spot.

Anybody I missed? Would you guys put anybody from the second list on the first list, or remove anybody from the first list?

[falcolombardi]

This is kind of arbitrary, but starting with Russell's teams for the NBA, and including the last 4 years of the ABA, came up with this list of guys who were definitely the best player on at least one title team, and guys who have a credible argument for being the best player on at least one title team. :

Definitely Best Player
Russell
Pettit
Wilt
Frazier
Kareem
Barry
Walton
Bird
Moses
Magic
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Wade
Kobe
Dirk
LeBron
Kawhi
Giannis

Argument For Best Player
Cousy
Havlicek
Reed
Oscar
West
McGinnis
Gilmore
Hayes
Unseld
Dandridge
Williams
Johnson
Sikma
Cowens
Thomas
Dumars
Laimbeer
Pippen
Robinson
Billups
Wallace
Hamilton
Parker
Garnett
Pierce
Curry
Durant
Davis

I tried to be as restrictive as possible. I need to strongly think about Pettit, Frazier and Moses. Walton (who I have as arguably the GOAT peak) is probably exceptional in that his longevity likely precludes him from a top 25 spot.

Anybody I missed? Would you guys put anybody from the second list on the first list, or remove anybody from the first list?

i dont think there is much argument for pierce over garnett in 2008, garnett should be in the definitely best player on a title team camp

[ceiling raiser]

i dont think there is much argument for pierce over garnett in 2008, garnett should be in the definitely best player on a title team camp

Garnett and Curry are players I would put on the definitely list. For ensemble casts it's kind of tough.

Maybe these teams had no clear best player and were ensemble casts:

1968 Celtics
1969 Celtics
1970 Knicks
1973 Knicks
1973A Pacers
1974 Celtics
1974A Colonels
1976 Celtics
1978 Bullets
1979 Sonics
1989 Pistons
1990 Pistons
2004 Pistons
2008 Celtics
2014 Spurs
2015 Warriors

Again, I think on the 2008 Celtics and 2015 Warriors there was a clear best player personally, but I'm trying to correct for my personal bias.

[ceiling raiser]

As for players who were the best on multiple title teams (again in the span I mentioned, 57+ for NBA, 73+ for ABA), the list is much shorter:

Definitely: Jordan, Russell, LeBron, Kareem, Magic, Hakeem, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq
Strong Arguments: Wilt (vs West in 72?), Curry or Durant (these two are mutually exclusive), Dr. J (if we count ABA)
Weaker Arguments: Frazier (kind of an ensemble cast), Havlicek (was he the best at least twice in 68/69/74/76?), Thomas (ensemble and Dumars might've been better), Kawhi (depends on how you view 2014)

[Odinn21]

I tried to be as restrictive as possible. I need to strongly think about Pettit, Frazier and Moses. Walton (who I have as arguably the GOAT peak) is probably exceptional in that his longevity likely precludes him from a top 25 spot.

Anybody I missed? Would you guys put anybody from the second list on the first list, or remove anybody from the first list?

Frazier was definitely the guy on the Knicks in '73.
Moses was definitely the guy on the 76ers in '83.
I don't know what is there to think about if your focus is on the result.

Havlicek was definitely the guy on the Celtics in '74.
Garnett was definitely the guy on the Celtics in '08.
They need to be in the upper list.

By the way, you might want to consider strength of a title in these things. For instance 1981 Celtics were a rather weak title winning team while the 1986 version was probably the goat team. There should be consideration for title strength with a regard to amount of help and also competition.

---

Speaking for your next post after this with ensembles;
Russell was still clearly the best player on those last 2 title winning teams. He was like 1997-1998 Jordan but on the other end of the game. There's no question about it.
1973 Knicks had Frazier as their clear cut best player. I mean the gap between Frazier and DeBusschere was bigger than the gap between Bryant and Gasol in LA. I already talked about it though.
As I said, Havlicek was definitely the best player on 1974 Celtics.
Isiah Thomas was the best player on the Bad Boys Pistons. It'd be pretty bold to assume otherwise.
Again, Garnett and '08 Celtics.
Stephen Curry was the guy on the Warriors in 2015.

---

Personally, I'm not happy with this much focus on winning results because it makes overlook one of the top 15 ever in Oscar Robertson. Also this highlights there's a bit too much focus on winning since he, in 1971 - next to Kareem, was a better and more impactful player than 1989/1990 Isiah Thomas even though he won the title but he did not win it as a best player.

[ceiling raiser]

Personally, I'm not happy with this much focus on winning results because it makes overlook one of the top 15 ever in Oscar Robertson.

Just a quick note (will respond to the rest later) - This is just for an initial pass. I just want to do two things (both are hard):

(1) Make sure I include everybody who could win a title as best player
(2) Make sure I exclude everybody who could not win a title as best player

I don't think there is any point in ranking players who can't win titles. Once I've settled on a list, it's a lot easier to rank within the list (it'll probably be <50 players long).

Maybe not the most efficient way to go about this tbh.