GOAT methodology for GOAT lists

[An Unbiased Fan]

This is a different kind of thread. Not about who is on your Top 10 list, or Greatest Peaks list, etc. But instead on what everyone feels is the best way to compare and actual pick a GOAT list.

First question I always asked in projects is...what's the criteria used, and how are we comparing. So what methodology does everyone use to derive various lists? And is there better ways we can improve how we choose player A vs player B?

For example, what's the best way to compare Russell vs Lebron? Very different eras, accolades, stats.

[Texas Chuck]

My primary criteria is simply how well each player played in the only context they could impact--in their own era. And its cumulative for me. If you keep stacking up seasons that benefit your team I keep adding value to your ledger. I don't care how you impact games, just that you do. No bonus for offense over defense. No bonus for being well-rounded. If you can dominate like Shaq? great. If you instead do it like David Robinson great. If you can dominate like Steph, great. But if you can do it like Kidd, that's great also.

I try and have as little arbitrary criteria as I can in terms of defined seasons that matter versus ones that don't--so I'm not at all hung up on peak or prime. I don't say perimeter players must be great offensive players nor bigs must be elite defenders. We've seen too many great players who don't fit a template.

Team success matters to me. The goal is not individual stats of any kind, but rather the team winning games, series, and championships. If you are consistently helping your teams win that means more to me than a high TS% or +/-.

So how would I compare Russell to Lebron? I wouldn't really. Russell gets compared to players in his era and Lebron in his and then I figure out which one I think had a better career. For years that was Russ. I've pretty much conceded Lebron has matched or exceeded him at this point.

[ceiling raiser]

(1) Determine per season baselines:
a. Regular season NPI RAPM from 96-97 to the present
b. WOWYR, minutes, SRS to estimate prior to 96-97
(2) Evaluate playoff performance
a. On a series by series basis look at team performance
b. Observe any in-series adjustments by both teams
(3) Identify player portability:
a. See how player performs in different offensive loads
b. Note differences in floor and ceiling raising situations

[DQuinn1575]

My primary criteria is simply how well each player played in the only context they could impact--in their own era. And its cumulative for me. If you keep stacking up seasons that benefit your team I keep adding value to your ledger. I don't care how you impact games, just that you do. No bonus for offense over defense. No bonus for being well-rounded. If you can dominate like Shaq? great. If you instead do it like David Robinson great. If you can dominate like Steph, great. But if you can do it like Kidd, that's great also.

I try and have as little arbitrary criteria as I can in terms of defined seasons that matter versus ones that don't--so I'm not at all hung up on peak or prime. I don't say perimeter players must be great offensive players nor bigs must be elite defenders. We've seen too many great players who don't fit a template.

Team success matters to me. The goal is not individual stats of any kind, but rather the team winning games, series, and championships. If you are consistently helping your teams win that means more to me than a high TS% or +/-.

So how would I compare Russell to Lebron? I wouldn't really. Russell gets compared to players in his era and Lebron in his and then I figure out which one I think had a better career. For years that was Russ. I've pretty much conceded Lebron has matched or exceeded him at this point.

Russell won 11 championships, and you can assign whatever value to that you wish. BUT
he retired with nothing left to prove, so should you count value someone else who continued, be it Karl Malone or LeBron for playing those years 14+ that were completely irrelevant to Bill?

We don't know how many more years Russell could have played, but it wouldnt make any sense to me to tell him, boy if you would have played 5 more years at a decent level you would be considered the greatest of all time? But you are not the greatest, because you only played 13.

But 13 was enough, it was above average for the time, and he won multiple titles, mvps. etc. He was like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer.

Thoughts?

[Texas Chuck]

[

Russell won 11 championships, and you can assign whatever value to that you wish. BUT
he retired with nothing left to prove, so should you count value someone else who continued, be it Karl Malone or LeBron for playing those years 14+ that were completely irrelevant to Bill?

Those imaginary seasons aren't relevant to Bill, but Malone and Lebron's seasons are clearly relevant to them and their teams. Just as Duncan's were. And Stockton's. And Kidd's and so on. Russell isn't being penalized. But those players do deserve credit imo for positive value they added to their teams.

And I have Russell as a GOAT candidate that I have never ranked anywhere lower than #2 all-time. I feel safe that I've not short-changed him in any way in my evaluation.

And this but my criteria. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else it should be theirs.

[falcolombardi]

My primary criteria is simply how well each player played in the only context they could impact--in their own era. And its cumulative for me. If you keep stacking up seasons that benefit your team I keep adding value to your ledger. I don't care how you impact games, just that you do. No bonus for offense over defense. No bonus for being well-rounded. If you can dominate like Shaq? great. If you instead do it like David Robinson great. If you can dominate like Steph, great. But if you can do it like Kidd, that's great also.

I try and have as little arbitrary criteria as I can in terms of defined seasons that matter versus ones that don't--so I'm not at all hung up on peak or prime. I don't say perimeter players must be great offensive players nor bigs must be elite defenders. We've seen too many great players who don't fit a template.

Team success matters to me. The goal is not individual stats of any kind, but rather the team winning games, series, and championships. If you are consistently helping your teams win that means more to me than a high TS% or +/-.

So how would I compare Russell to Lebron? I wouldn't really. Russell gets compared to players in his era and Lebron in his and then I figure out which one I think had a better career. For years that was Russ. I've pretty much conceded Lebron has matched or exceeded him at this point.

Russell won 11 championships, and you can assign whatever value to that you wish. BUT
he retired with nothing left to prove, so should you count value someone else who continued, be it Karl Malone or LeBron for playing those years 14+ that were completely irrelevant to Bill?

We don't know how many more years Russell could have played, but it wouldnt make any sense to me to tell him, boy if you would have played 5 more years at a decent level you would be considered the greatest of all time? But you are not the greatest, because you only played 13.

But 13 was enough, it was above average for the time, and he won multiple titles, mvps. etc. He was like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer.

Thoughts?

that sounds like ring counting with extra steps

not saying that an accolade/achievement goat tier is wromg to do, but is usually not what this board users go for, where the attempt is isolate the impact a player gives to his team as far as winming titles

not how many titles they win per se

[jdzimme3]

Ballpark - 50% prime, 25% peak, 15% team success, 10% longevity

[DQuinn1575]

My primary criteria is simply how well each player played in the only context they could impact--in their own era. And its cumulative for me. If you keep stacking up seasons that benefit your team I keep adding value to your ledger. I don't care how you impact games, just that you do. No bonus for offense over defense. No bonus for being well-rounded. If you can dominate like Shaq? great. If you instead do it like David Robinson great. If you can dominate like Steph, great. But if you can do it like Kidd, that's great also.

I try and have as little arbitrary criteria as I can in terms of defined seasons that matter versus ones that don't--so I'm not at all hung up on peak or prime. I don't say perimeter players must be great offensive players nor bigs must be elite defenders. We've seen too many great players who don't fit a template.

Team success matters to me. The goal is not individual stats of any kind, but rather the team winning games, series, and championships. If you are consistently helping your teams win that means more to me than a high TS% or +/-.

So how would I compare Russell to Lebron? I wouldn't really. Russell gets compared to players in his era and Lebron in his and then I figure out which one I think had a better career. For years that was Russ. I've pretty much conceded Lebron has matched or exceeded him at this point.

Russell won 11 championships, and you can assign whatever value to that you wish. BUT
he retired with nothing left to prove, so should you count value someone else who continued, be it Karl Malone or LeBron for playing those years 14+ that were completely irrelevant to Bill?

We don't know how many more years Russell could have played, but it wouldnt make any sense to me to tell him, boy if you would have played 5 more years at a decent level you would be considered the greatest of all time? But you are not the greatest, because you only played 13.

But 13 was enough, it was above average for the time, and he won multiple titles, mvps. etc. He was like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer.

Thoughts?

that sounds like ring counting with extra steps

not saying that an accolade/achievement goat tier is wromg to do, but is usually not what this board users go for, where the attempt is isolate the impact a player gives to his team as far as winming titles

not how many titles they win per se

No, not ring counting. Let's say you dont count rings and think he is a level of Karl Malone. so 13 seasons of Russell is just a little ahead of Malone. But then you rate Malone higher since he played x more years.
It's a result of Russell choosing not to play after 13 very successful seasons. You're giving others a reward for something Russell felt he didn't need to do.

[JordansBulls]

Turning Franchises that never won into a dynasty along with league mvp's, finals mvp's, not switching teams constantly stacking the deck and not having someone in your own era who won league/finals mvp's with as many titles as you. In the 60's, it's Russell, in the 70's it's no one, in the 80's the closest is Magic/Bird, in the 90's it's MJ, in the 2000's its Duncan followed by Kobe/Shaq, In the 2010's the closest is Curry followed by Durant/Lebron.

[Dutchball97]

The most important criteria to me is relative dominance. How good was a player compared to his peers. Then when I know that I look at for how long they were able to play at a high level and the level of their competition. Longevity is important to me but a top 5/top 10 season weighs a lot more to me than a fringe All-Star level season when it comes to top 100 comparisons. Being able to actually have a claim as the best player in the league for a prolonged time is usually the fastest way for players to climb my list. I think I also put above average emphasis on play-off performance. Play-off basketball is a different beast and players who impress there are a lot more convincing than guys who can't consistently make an impact in the post-season.

[NbaAllDay]

Whatever criteria that gives my favourite player the most advantage and/or the criteria that gives my most hated player the least advantage.

[Owly]

Russell won 11 championships, and you can assign whatever value to that you wish. BUT
he retired with nothing left to prove, so should you count value someone else who continued, be it Karl Malone or LeBron for playing those years 14+ that were completely irrelevant to Bill?

We don't know how many more years Russell could have played, but it wouldnt make any sense to me to tell him, boy if you would have played 5 more years at a decent level you would be considered the greatest of all time? But you are not the greatest, because you only played 13.

But 13 was enough, it was above average for the time, and he won multiple titles, mvps. etc. He was like Alexander the Great, with no new worlds to conquer.

Thoughts?

that sounds like ring counting with extra steps

not saying that an accolade/achievement goat tier is wromg to do, but is usually not what this board users go for, where the attempt is isolate the impact a player gives to his team as far as winming titles

not how many titles they win per se

No, not ring counting. Let's say you dont count rings and think he is a level of Karl Malone. so 13 seasons of Russell is just a little ahead of Malone. But then you rate Malone higher since he played x more years.
It's a result of Russell choosing not to play after 13 very successful seasons. You're giving others a reward for something Russell felt he didn't need to do.

I just don't like the argument or the precedent. MJ said he had nothing left to prove after 3 rings. A GOAT tier rookie might feel that way after a single year and a title.

It's fine to say player X felt they had a good reason to retire but yeah most greats retire above replacement level, most will have had valid reasons. And I get the motivation. I don't see where you can go from there: Junk longevity? Grant hypothetical years? It's down to each individual of course, and these things are messy, we don't have a level playing field of training or opportunity or healthcare or competition etc. But I can see an internal rationale, consistent rationale that seems okay [to me] for CORP type models. I'm struggling to see one for "I don't want to tell this player to his face that although I do feel that he left stuff on the table it seems ... impolite? nonsensical?? ... to tell him that players who played at that level for longer deserve more credit." that resolves neatly and seems okay [to me].

fwiw ... do we have a source on "11 (13? is that with USF?) is "enough", Alexander the Great etc type reasoning as motivation for retiring. It makes sense, but I'd prefer to have it from him and I couldn't see a reason in the first Celtic history I skimmed.

[DQuinn1575]

that sounds like ring counting with extra steps

not saying that an accolade/achievement goat tier is wromg to do, but is usually not what this board users go for, where the attempt is isolate the impact a player gives to his team as far as winming titles

not how many titles they win per se

No, not ring counting. Let's say you dont count rings and think he is a level of Karl Malone. so 13 seasons of Russell is just a little ahead of Malone. But then you rate Malone higher since he played x more years.
It's a result of Russell choosing not to play after 13 very successful seasons. You're giving others a reward for something Russell felt he didn't need to do.

I just don't like the argument or the precedent. MJ said he had nothing left to prove after 3 rings. A GOAT tier rookie might feel that way after a single year and a title.

It's fine to say player X felt they had a good reason to retire but yeah most greats retire above replacement level, most will have had valid reasons. And I get the motivation. I don't see where you can go from there: Junk longevity? Grant hypothetical years? It's down to each individual of course, and these things are messy, we don't have a level playing field of training or opportunity or healthcare or competition etc. But I can see an internal rationale, consistent rationale that seems okay [to me] for CORP type models. I'm struggling to see one for "I don't want to tell this player to his face that although I do feel that he left stuff on the table it seems ... impolite? nonsensical?? ... to tell him that players who played at that level for longer deserve more credit." that resolves neatly and seems okay [to me].

fwiw ... do we have a source on "11 (13? is that with USF?) is "enough", Alexander the Great etc type reasoning as motivation for retiring. It makes sense, but I'd prefer to have it from him and I couldn't see a reason in the first Celtic history I skimmed.

He announced it in Sports Illustrated, and he said "l, I've played approximately 3,000 games, organized and otherwise. I think that's enough."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1969/08/04/im-not-involved-anymore

The 13 successful seasons is my words not his; I think an mvp year and a 4th place mvp finish as the best player for one of the best teams in the league is successful to most.

And he's levels above replacement player; he was the Retro Player of the Year for this board his last year; the list of players who voluntarily retired as a top 10 player in the league is real small, and I'm not sure it's been done since Russell.

[falcolombardi]

No, not ring counting. Let's say you dont count rings and think he is a level of Karl Malone. so 13 seasons of Russell is just a little ahead of Malone. But then you rate Malone higher since he played x more years.
It's a result of Russell choosing not to play after 13 very successful seasons. You're giving others a reward for something Russell felt he didn't need to do.

I just don't like the argument or the precedent. MJ said he had nothing left to prove after 3 rings. A GOAT tier rookie might feel that way after a single year and a title.

It's fine to say player X felt they had a good reason to retire but yeah most greats retire above replacement level, most will have had valid reasons. And I get the motivation. I don't see where you can go from there: Junk longevity? Grant hypothetical years? It's down to each individual of course, and these things are messy, we don't have a level playing field of training or opportunity or healthcare or competition etc. But I can see an internal rationale, consistent rationale that seems okay [to me] for CORP type models. I'm struggling to see one for "I don't want to tell this player to his face that although I do feel that he left stuff on the table it seems ... impolite? nonsensical?? ... to tell him that players who played at that level for longer deserve more credit." that resolves neatly and seems okay [to me].

fwiw ... do we have a source on "11 (13? is that with USF?) is "enough", Alexander the Great etc type reasoning as motivation for retiring. It makes sense, but I'd prefer to have it from him and I couldn't see a reason in the first Celtic history I skimmed.

He announced it in Sports Illustrated, and he said "l, I've played approximately 3,000 games, organized and otherwise. I think that's enough."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1969/08/04/im-not-involved-anymore

The 13 successful seasons is my words not his; I think an mvp year and a 4th place mvp finish as the best player for one of the best teams in the league is successful to most.

And he's levels above replacement player; he was the Retro Player of the Year for this board his last year; the list of players who voluntarily retired as a top 10 player in the league is real small, and I'm not sure it's been done since Russell.

somethingh to consider with russel longevity is that 13 superstar seasons is -great- longevity, SPECIALLY for his era, he had more prime seasons than jordan in a tougher era to get so many prime seasons

he entered the league older than modern players and retired at a age where even with modern medicine and traning most current players primes end

he essentially had as long of a prime as anyone not named kareem, karl or lebron and did it in a harder era to get that longevity

based on that i dont thinl russel (or wilt)are players you can criticize for longevity when they had great longevity relative to era

[Owly]

No, not ring counting. Let's say you dont count rings and think he is a level of Karl Malone. so 13 seasons of Russell is just a little ahead of Malone. But then you rate Malone higher since he played x more years.
It's a result of Russell choosing not to play after 13 very successful seasons. You're giving others a reward for something Russell felt he didn't need to do.

I just don't like the argument or the precedent. MJ said he had nothing left to prove after 3 rings. A GOAT tier rookie might feel that way after a single year and a title.

It's fine to say player X felt they had a good reason to retire but yeah most greats retire above replacement level, most will have had valid reasons. And I get the motivation. I don't see where you can go from there: Junk longevity? Grant hypothetical years? It's down to each individual of course, and these things are messy, we don't have a level playing field of training or opportunity or healthcare or competition etc. But I can see an internal rationale, consistent rationale that seems okay [to me] for CORP type models. I'm struggling to see one for "I don't want to tell this player to his face that although I do feel that he left stuff on the table it seems ... impolite? nonsensical?? ... to tell him that players who played at that level for longer deserve more credit." that resolves neatly and seems okay [to me].

fwiw ... do we have a source on "11 (13? is that with USF?) is "enough", Alexander the Great etc type reasoning as motivation for retiring. It makes sense, but I'd prefer to have it from him and I couldn't see a reason in the first Celtic history I skimmed.

He announced it in Sports Illustrated, and he said "l, I've played approximately 3,000 games, organized and otherwise. I think that's enough."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1969/08/04/im-not-involved-anymore

The 13 successful seasons is my words not his; I think an mvp year and a 4th place mvp finish as the best player for one of the best teams in the league is successful to most.

And he's levels above replacement player; he was the Retro Player of the Year for this board his last year; the list of players who voluntarily retired as a top 10 player in the league is real small, and I'm not sure it's been done since Russell.

Thanks for the link ...

Re: "Enough" ... doesn't it say games is enough rather than success is enough. Isn't it a given that if they're choosing not to play that ... somehing's enough. But that seems closer to physical or mental fatigue than enough success. It also says "You might think that it's very nice for me to be leaving a winner. Truthfully, that had nothing to do with my decision." That seems at odds with the idea that he left because he'd achieved everything. It sounds like he stopped enjoying it and stopped feeling the passion for it ...

I played because I enjoyed it—but there's more to it than that. I played because I was dedicated to being the best. I was part of a team, and I dedicated myself to making that team the best. To me, one of the most beautiful things to see is a group of men coordinating their efforts toward a common goal—alternately subordinating and asserting themselves to achieve real teamwork in action. I tried to do that—we all tried to do that—on the Celtics. I think we succeeded. Often, in my mind's eye, I stood off and watched that effort. I found it beautiful to watch. It's just as beautiful to watch in things other than sports.

Being part of that effort on the Celtics was very important to me. It helped me develop and grow, and I think it has helped prepare me for something other than playing basketball. But so far as the game is concerned, I've lost my competitive urges. If I went out to play now, the other guys would know I didn't really care. That's no way to play—it's no way to do anything.

All during this past season I had the eerie feeling that I'd been through this before. Every play, every situation. Setting a screen, missing a shot—I'd seen or done it all before. Everything had become repetition. This is not the attitude to bring to still another season.

One could argue that that's because they kept winning. But it seems here (and I think perhaps I've heard elsewhere) that for himself the decision seemed to be made or likely during the season.

fwiw, On 13 years: no doubt the non-title years were great years of play. That is not up for debate (at least not here). The earlier conversation seemed to be alluding to titles (at very least stated by others and I think implicitly part of the "no need to do more"-type argument ... if not John Stockton was on at least a 16th straight season of success at retirement).

Fwiw, on replacement level: yes of course he's miles above replacement level. Again that isn't under contention. The point it that most great players could still provide value to someone ... how does one satisfactorily account for the hypothetical additional years that each player might have (or however else one might try to square this)? That's why personally I can't get my head around such a model. You mileage may differ.

[Matt15]

Whatever criteria that gives my favourite player the most advantage and/or the criteria that gives my most hated player the least advantage.

Pretty much this. I try to be consistent with my criteria (prime/peak, longevity, success...ect) when ranking a player I don't particularly care for. However if its even a bit close between a player I like one I don't im going with the player I like every time.

[Purch]

Peak
Prime
Playoff performances
Championships (Not every ring is created equal)
Longevity

Those are generally the things I consider in that order

[Lou Fan]

(1) Determine per season baselines:
a. Regular season NPI RAPM from 96-97 to the present
b. WOWYR, minutes, SRS to estimate prior to 96-97
(2) Evaluate playoff performance
a. On a series by series basis look at team performance
b. Observe any in-series adjustments by both teams
(3) Identify player portability:
a. See how player performs in different offensive loads
b. Note differences in floor and ceiling raising situations

I like this process but I would add some adjustment for intangibles/leadership. Seems clear to me to be easier to win with guys like Russ/Magic/Hakeem/Curry/Robinson/Duncan/Dirk/Wade than toxic personalities with similar talent like MJ/LBJ/Shaq/Wilt/Kobe/KD/Barkley/Barry/Harden etc.

[Lou Fan]

No, not ring counting. Let's say you dont count rings and think he is a level of Karl Malone. so 13 seasons of Russell is just a little ahead of Malone. But then you rate Malone higher since he played x more years.
It's a result of Russell choosing not to play after 13 very successful seasons. You're giving others a reward for something Russell felt he didn't need to do.

I just don't like the argument or the precedent. MJ said he had nothing left to prove after 3 rings. A GOAT tier rookie might feel that way after a single year and a title.

It's fine to say player X felt they had a good reason to retire but yeah most greats retire above replacement level, most will have had valid reasons. And I get the motivation. I don't see where you can go from there: Junk longevity? Grant hypothetical years? It's down to each individual of course, and these things are messy, we don't have a level playing field of training or opportunity or healthcare or competition etc. But I can see an internal rationale, consistent rationale that seems okay [to me] for CORP type models. I'm struggling to see one for "I don't want to tell this player to his face that although I do feel that he left stuff on the table it seems ... impolite? nonsensical?? ... to tell him that players who played at that level for longer deserve more credit." that resolves neatly and seems okay [to me].

fwiw ... do we have a source on "11 (13? is that with USF?) is "enough", Alexander the Great etc type reasoning as motivation for retiring. It makes sense, but I'd prefer to have it from him and I couldn't see a reason in the first Celtic history I skimmed.

He announced it in Sports Illustrated, and he said "l, I've played approximately 3,000 games, organized and otherwise. I think that's enough."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1969/08/04/im-not-involved-anymore

The 13 successful seasons is my words not his; I think an mvp year and a 4th place mvp finish as the best player for one of the best teams in the league is successful to most.

And he's levels above replacement player; he was the Retro Player of the Year for this board his last year; the list of players who voluntarily retired as a top 10 player in the league is real small, and I'm not sure it's been done since Russell.

MJ twice lol and Magic too.

[Purch]

Peak
Prime
Playoff performances
Championships (Not every ring is created equal)
Longevity

Those are generally the things I consider in that order

I also like to add that I rarely look at hypothetical situations like "If Jordan was in the 10's or if Curry was in the 90' . I tend to judge players strictly by what they accomplished within their era, and a general assessment of how strong their era's were.