When deciding GOAT player, how you you rank these factors?

Stats
Intangibles (will to win, leadership, confidence)
Individual awards/records
performance under pressure
Physical abilities











































































# of Championships

quote:

---

In order of importance.

-# of Championships
-Stats
-Individual awards/records
-Physical abilities
-Intangibles (will to win, leadership, confidence)
-supporting cast
-performance under pressure

---

Half the time unknown. It's so subjective unless they were a superstar on their own before teaming up with said superstar...ala LeBron and Wade.

But, who the frick knows how good Worthy would have been without a career getting free layups.

Or McHale and the Chief being able to never be double-teamed because everybody was watching Bird...who would pass them the easy under the basket dunk or layup.

So supporting cast is just an exercise is make believe speculation. Stars make great players...I love when people say...well Magic played with All-Stars!...Apart from Kareem, Magic MADE THEM ALL-STARS!

Stats don't mean jack squat. Don't mean anything. Total misnomer in evaluating basketball players for posterity.

As Kevin McHale said in that great documentary...

"Larry and Magic could take 12 shots...be something like 18 points, 10 rebounds and 12 assists and control the game...and be the best players on the court BY FAR!"

And as Bird said...when comparing himself to Magic...I go by success so I give him the nod.

1. Success
2. Awards (I think it's important, it shows what the peers thought at the time of you...no retro-active bullshite from people who never saw the person play...like how people bitch about Bird...dude only won rookie of the year and MVPS over Magic...that shows you what the people who actually watched players play thought of them.)
3. Intangibles - killer on the court and alpha male attitude cannot be understated. Magic would smile at you but want to cut your heart out. Bird would dog everyone in the league and trash talk them into submission.

If you want to separate some...then you can add stats. But like I said, some played to win, some played to pad stats like some selfish a-holes in the 70's and early 80's.


Physical abilities? What does this even mean? You can be a great basketball or baseball player and not be that great physically.

quote:

---

-# of Championships

---

This is the thing that matters the least to me, at least in team sports.

quote:

---

quote:
-# of Championships

This is the thing that matters the least to me, at least in team sports.

---

Easily baseball...

Large degree in football except for QB - except for QB...he who controls so much of a teams' destiny by having the ball in his hands all the time.

But basketball? 5 guys on a court. You never played high school basketball or even a rec league game?

One guy can TOTALLY control a game and dominate and determine the outcome. Don't be obtuse.

Titles mean EVERYTHING to a large degree in basketball. If you are supremely talented you can carry Tom, Dick and Harry to the title.

quote:

---

I mean you have to win 1 or 2 right?

---

No.

I don't think you can ever compare players across multiple generations by #championships, stats, etc. Stats can be affected by generational factors, game changes, etc. Championships can be affected by things such as league expansion, salary caps, etc.

You have to look at a player and see how he performed against his generational peers.

In other words, I think individual awards, while very flawed, is the best way to determine a GOAT athlete.

If you are talking individual sports like golf and tennis, then I think Championships and Individual Awards go hand-in-hand.

There's a reason Kareem went something like 154-4 in High School and College...and it wasn't because he was playing with Jordan and Magic.

Great players dominate the opposition and control their teams destiny.

Jordan never had a great supporting cast but he made average players champions.

quote:

---

Jordan never had a great supporting cast but he made average players champions.

---

Literally anybody else posts this and it's a troll.

But you're serious

For the 100th time, you have, BY FAR, the worst takes on the MSB.

On a longer and longer timeline, all that is left of a player is his statistical record. The stories become legends and get discarded, and when we evaluate older players, we use stats. It's honestly the only way. None of us saw, say, Three Finger Brown throw a baseball.

But context is super important. Numbers don't always mean the same thing, and without context, they are virtually meaningless. You need to know a player relative to his league and the style of play or even his home arena (like the narrow boards at the Garden or the huge Polo Grounds).

But I tend to favor black/grey ink stats. How many times did you lead the league in something. How many times were you top 10. How did you, relative to your peers? That cuts down a lot a noise regarding fluctuating scoring averages.

Championships are like extra credit.