Reply With Quote
whichever criteria most satisfies your preconceived notions, tbh. for example, if you already thought bill russell was GOAT, you'd say "rings and nothing else"
I asked this question because everyone seems to have their 1-10 ranking based on different criteria.
# of NBA Championships/NCAA/Euro/Olympic Championships - Team awards
# of MVP's- Media awards
# of Finals MVP- Best player for 1 series award
# of DPOY- Based on league
# of PPG,APG, RPG- This is determined by position, role on team, and other players on team
# of Allstar games- Fan/Coach voted
# of NBA Records/Accomlishments ( FEATS)
# Skill level
After you've evaluated it, please list your top ten, and then explained which 3 criteria over took the others. For example:
If you have
Russell- 11 rings, 5 MVP's, Finals MVP didn't exist, but assume 9, 2 NCAA Champion, NUPE ()
Kareem- 6 Rings, 6 MVP's, 2 Finals MVP, 3 NCAA Championships,
MJ- 6 Rings, 5 MVP's, 6 Finals MVP's, 1 NCAA Championships, 1 Gold Medal
Then its safe to say, that you value Rings, MVP's and Finals MVP's the most. All 3 of these players have more accomplishments but I want you to Rank them based on your top 3 criteria and lets see how your top ten looks. There is no right or wrong answer, I just want to gauge peoples perspectives.
whichever criteria most satisfies your preconceived notions, tbh. for example, if you already thought bill russell was GOAT, you'd say "rings and nothing else"
Thats my point. Russel did have a lot of championships but only averaged 15 PPG for his career. But I want to see how everybody perceives GOAT.
pretty sure the smell test has to count for something too, tbh. not EVERYTHING can be quantified (yet). there's no stat for leadership, understanding of roles, situations, and the main defensive metrics we use for guys before the 2000's is steals and blocks, which as we know are NOT the end all be all defensive indicators. bruce never racked up steals, for example, but was an elite perimeter defender.
Was bruce an elite defender?
And of course we all remember the GOAT KICK on Sczerbiak
I don't consider Bill Russell as the greatest player of all time because he played in a weak era. Nobody is winning 11 championships as the elite player in todays compe ive sports. He played during the late 50's, was prolly one of few big men at the time.
As for the top 10, I think it's simply the elite players with the most rings. Jordan had 6, Kobe-Magic had 5, Ducan with 4, etc.
Russell played against
Wilt,
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
?Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond
All of them would be the BEST CENTER TODAY....LOL @ WEAK ERA.....
He played during the 50's man....for gods sakes. His last championship was during Woodstock 1969.
I get that. But 30 years from now, Kids will be saying "....Jordan played in a weak era, he played in the 90's... that's Last century Man!!!!!"
personally, other criteria I consider includes:
- snitching on a teammate drops you about 5 places on the list
- missing the playoffs in your prime when you played over 80%+ of the season drops you another 5-10 spots
Russell never played against Kareem, Lanier, and Artis Gilmore.
It is pretty much consensus that Bill Russell is the hardest player to rank in NBA history.
I think longevity is a difference maker when players have similar accolades, as opposed to peak.
A great example is Timmy vs Shaq. Both have 4 les, 3 FMVPs, 1 MVP vs 2, so accolades are similar. No doubt Shaq had a better peak, possibly one of the best peaks of all time, but if I was starting a team I'd take Timmy for his work ethic, his will to win and lack of ego.
If Shaq had Timmys work ethic and personality, he'd probably rival Russell for rings.
You cant piock the GOAT on just 1 criteria
It's a mix of of all criterias
Maybe assign coefficients to each criteria, and the best score wins
i honestly believe that each successive ring almost becomes less and less important to a point where it becomes overkill. for years we knew LeBron was a great player, and his ring just validated it. it didn't make him better. i don't think lebron suddenly became a more skilled player one day after holding the trophy. i think hakeem > shaq but shaq has 4 rings to dream's 2. even if jordan never won his 6th ring, the fact that he was able to dominate the league, retire, come back, and dominate the league again, sold it to me. all sorts of factors.
i already know how great Tim Duncan is. whether or not he wins a 5th ring this year wouldn't downgrade him tbh. one of the main reasons i want him to get a 5th ring (asides from the obvious, you always want for favorite team/player to win, ever year) is so i can stop hearing that ing 5>4 bs argument my laker fan friends always spit at me when push comes to shove.
Ok, but Duncan has 3 MVP's, but they are media awards. Not saying he didn't deserve them, but seriously man. They isn't any STATISTICAL way to why the Media votes for the MVP award.
not once did i mention MVP in my post, but FYI duncan has 2 mvp's. 3 finals mvp's though. its ok, i've heard kobefans argue that his all-star mvp's mean jack
All of the above, plus "gut" and "homeriffic".
Top 3:
Jordan
Bird
Magic
(Lebron will probably finish 2 by the time he's done. Shaq is up there too for me, as is Kobe, Kareem, Duncan, Russell etc etc other usual suspects)
Yeah there is. Media usually awards the Finals MVP to the player who posted the highest PPG. In actuality, Duncan should have 4 Finals MVPs, Magic should have 4 (Worthy got the award based on his Game 7 performance in the '88 Finals, which was indeed amazing, but Magic was the better player for the series), etc.
I'm the complete opposite, when players tend to have similar resumes I go with peaks to determine who's better. That's why:
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
In my all-time list.
I rank players based on a combination of championships, individual stats/awards, longevity and a basic eye test on how talented they were. Take the Shaq/Duncan debate others are using in this thread. As others have said, they have similar career and team achievements. I give Duncan the edge because I think he was more skilled, and he was a far superior defender. Everyone says Shaq was more dominant, but that is just another way of saying he bulldozed over people and dunked a lot. He got away with a lot of offensive fouls in his career.
As for Bill Russell, I rank him very highly, but I do deduct some points for playing in a weaker era on a team loaded with Hall of Famers. It is still ridiculously impressive that his teams won 8 championships in a row. To stay motivated each year like that is impressive.
the problem i have with bill russel, what he did against them weak white guys and undersized guys and his role on his team, who to say none of the elite bigs in the modern game couldnt do what he did that era?
The thing with Russell is that no matter how weak you think his era was or how stacked his team was, he still was considered the best player of a team that won 11 championships, that has to count for something.
preset criteria is a terrible way to rank players, tbh..
Logic is the best way to rank them, obviously
Both longevity and peak play should be factored, but I agree with Daf that peak performance is more important, tbh..
this is the best way IMO. This is for NBA GOAT only IMO. Bringing up the international game just causes problems:
1) Rings
2) MVPs + Finals MVPs
3) Career PER
Formula: Rings + MVPs + PER
MJ - 6, 11, 27.91 = 44.91
Russell - 11, 14, 18.87 = 43.87
Kareem - 6, 8, 24.58 = 38.58
Duncan - 4, 5, 24.73 = 33.73
Lebron - 1, 5, 27.65 = 33.65
Kobe - 5, 3, 23.41 = 31.41
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
