PDA

View Full Version : TOP 25 GOAT playersn currently playing in the NBA and players with TOP 25 potential



canefandynasty
10-22-2013, 11:20 PM
LeBron
Duncan
Kobe
Wade
Dirk
Garnett

Durant and Chris Paul are the only players currently in the NBA with TOP 25 potential IMO. I see guys like RosÚ and Westbrook amounting to someone like Kevin Johnson, who is not a TOP 25 GOAT.

mightybosstone
10-22-2013, 11:34 PM
I'd say you're right about the six guys you've listed, with Lebron, Duncan and Kobe being obviously locks for the top 10-15, while Wade, Dirk and Garnett are likely in that top 20-30 range. Paul at this point is lock, IMO, for top 50, and possibly much higher than that. But I wouldn't put him in the top 25 discussion just yet. Durant will almost certainly crack that group, and Paul is likely, but not a certainty.

Guys like Nash, Pierce, Allen and maybe Parker and Melo are all in that top 50 discussion, but none are top 25 and aren't likely to crack that barring some crazy run at the end of their careers. In terms of young guys with crazy potential, it's too hard to tell at this point, but I do think Dwight, Rose, Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Love, Irving and Davis are all crazy talented and could do it.

Dwight isn't likely, but could do it if he can return to Orlando form, consistently perform at that level for another 5-7 years and win a couple of titles. Harden, Westbrok, Rose, Curry and Love all have the potential, but they need to continue elite levels of production for probably another decade while chipping in a title or two. They also have to stay healthy, which is especially important for Love, Curry and Rose, who have already missed significant time early in their careers.

It's way too early to tell on Irving and Davis, but they both had All-Star written all over them coming out of college and have shown a propensity for stardom early in their careers. Both have dealt with injury concerns, though, which is especially concerning this early in their careers.

In all likelihood, only Paul and Durant crack the top 25 out of these players, but a few of these guys could be in the top 50 discussion a decade from now. And with a few title runs, we could have some guys knocking on the door of the top 25.

bagwell368
10-23-2013, 03:55 PM
I'd say you're right about the six guys you've listed, with Lebron, Duncan and Kobe being obviously locks for the top 10-15, while Wade, Dirk and Garnett are likely in that top 20-30 range.

Can't imagine how KG isn't already top 15.

Basically agree with the rest of your post.

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 04:06 PM
Can't imagine how KG isn't already top 15.

Basically agree with the rest of your post.

In no particular order:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Lebron James
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Julius Erving

Without ordering them from 1-15 (which I vaguely did off the top of my head), those would be my top 15 guys in the NBA. Who is KG passing on that list and why? My next five on my all-time list (in no particular order), would be:

Charles Barkley
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
David Robinson
Dwyane Wade

I love all five of these guys, but I don't know that I can place them about those 15 players on the list.

canefandynasty
10-23-2013, 04:31 PM
In no particular order:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Lebron James
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Julius Erving

Without ordering them from 1-15 (which I vaguely did off the top of my head), those would be my top 15 guys in the NBA. Who is KG passing on that list and why? My next five on my all-time list (in no particular order), would be:

Charles Barkley
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
David Robinson
Dwyane Wade

I love all five of these guys, but I don't know that I can place them about those 15 players on the list.

If Wade wins 2 more rings with a couple 2012-like seasons and decent playoff series he is TOP 15 for sure. Out of Garnett, Dirk, and Wade, Wade has a better opportunity to add to his career accolades, this of course, assuming he stays out of injuries that cause him to miss significant amount of games. A healthy Wade is still a TOP 5 player in the league.

As for Garnett and Dirk, their windows are shorter and don't have opportunities to move up further on the list like Wade. I don't consider either Dirk, Garnett or Wade TOP 15 right now, but I can see Wade eventually moving up to TOP 15 if he stay out of significant injuries at least in this next 3 year stretch where he has opportunity to win 5-- 6 rings in his career. Staying healthy is a tall order for someone like Wade, so where he ranks by the end of his career is very uncertain. Dirk and Garnett careers are pretty much defined 95%+ at this point so their windows of TOP 15 status are rather slim.

mightybosstone
10-23-2013, 05:45 PM
If Wade wins 2 more rings with a couple 2012-like seasons and decent playoff series he is TOP 15 for sure. Out of Garnett, Dirk, and Wade, Wade has a better opportunity to add to his career accolades, this of course, assuming he stays out of injuries that cause him to miss significant amount of games. A healthy Wade is still a TOP 5 player in the league.

As for Garnett and Dirk, their windows are shorter and don't have opportunities to move up further on the list like Wade. I don't consider either Dirk, Garnett or Wade TOP 15 right now, but I can see Wade eventually moving up to TOP 15 if he stay out of significant injuries at least in this next 3 year stretch where he has opportunity to win 5-- 6 rings in his career. Staying healthy is a tall order for someone like Wade, so where he ranks by the end of his career is very uncertain. Dirk and Garnett careers are pretty much defined 95%+ at this point so their windows of TOP 15 status are rather slim.

I agree that Wade is the only one in that group which can likely ascend to the top 15 and dethrone guys like West, Oscar, Moses and Dr. J. However, I also still have him behind Barkley, Robinson, Dirk and Garnett because his lack of longevity. He's got to sustain that excellence for another 5-7 years to jump those guys.

WaDe03
11-18-2013, 03:20 AM
It'll be fun to see what Wade still has left in the tank

WARRIORS@GR
11-18-2013, 04:14 AM
Anthony Davis has top 10 all time potential.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
11-18-2013, 05:31 AM
Kobe Bryant
Lebro James
Dwayne Wade
Dwight Hayward
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Derrick Rows

bagwell368
11-18-2013, 08:57 AM
In no particular order:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Lebron James
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Julius Erving

Without ordering them from 1-15 (which I vaguely did off the top of my head), those would be my top 15 guys in the NBA. Who is KG passing on that list and why? My next five on my all-time list (in no particular order), would be:

Charles Barkley
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
David Robinson
Dwyane Wade

I love all five of these guys, but I don't know that I can place them about those 15 players on the list.

KG is clearly ahead of Dr. J. Do please take a long hard look at those ABA stats shrinking big time in the NBA.

Moses and KG are close, but IMO Moses trails KG. Moses was a dominant low post scorer and big time tough rebounder. KG has him on passing, D, and shooting outside of 10' - all easily.

I have KG and Barkely top 15 (CB after KG). Dirk and DRob in the 15-20 bracket.

Oscars career was short. West, Oscar, and KG are right on top of each other IMO, but KG ahead of Oscar (Oscar like Russell has to lose big points for league weakness, Russell loses even more for having the best GM, Coach, and team in a time (pre 1966-67 when there were no serious challengers to the Celts in a very small weak league))

bagwell368
11-18-2013, 08:58 AM
Wade is fading too fast, I doubt he cracks the top 20.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
11-18-2013, 10:14 AM
wade is washed up now, but he was sick befoe lebron came to south beach

FlashBolt
11-18-2013, 10:17 AM
How has Wade not dethrone West? Lmao, that has to be a joke. West is not the third best SG, nor was he better than Wade.

mightybosstone
11-18-2013, 11:49 AM
KG is clearly ahead of Dr. J. Do please take a long hard look at those ABA stats shrinking big time in the NBA.

Moses and KG are close, but IMO Moses trails KG. Moses was a dominant low post scorer and big time tough rebounder. KG has him on passing, D, and shooting outside of 10' - all easily.

I have KG and Barkely top 15 (CB after KG). Dirk and DRob in the 15-20 bracket.

Oscars career was short. West, Oscar, and KG are right on top of each other IMO, but KG ahead of Oscar (Oscar like Russell has to lose big points for league weakness, Russell loses even more for having the best GM, Coach, and team in a time (pre 1966-67 when there were no serious challengers to the Celts in a very small weak league))

Dude, you are seriously overrating KG. I respect the guy, but you can't just ignore his complete lack of postseason success in Minnesota for the sake of your argument. A lot of that was due to a poor supporting cast, but some of it was due to KG's lackluster performances in the playoffs. KG is definitely in the top 20 discussion, but I wouldn't put him in the top 15 and I certainly wouldn't put him ahead of Moses or Dr. J.

You criticize Erving for peaking in the ABA, but the guy still played eight straight seasons in the NBA averaging 21-27 PPG, 6-8 RPG, 4 APG and 2 SPG. He also posted a per over 21 six times in his first seven seasons in the NBA and a WS/48 over .180 six of his first eight seasons in the NBA. Considering that much of his prime early in his career was played in the ABA, there's no telling what he would have done had he played his entire career in the NBA, but I don't think it's fair to assume he would have been a completely inferior player. Bottom line, his numbers are very similar to KG's, he experienced both regular and postseason success in both the ABA and NBA, and he was a precursor to the great wings of the 90s and 2000s, ushering in a totally new era of basketball.

And I don't really see it as a contest between Moses and KG. Moses may not have posted the advanced numbers KG did, but he was one of the 2-3 greatest rebounders in the history of the league, one of the 4-5 greatest low post scorers in the history of the league, reached the finals with multiple teams in a very talented era of baskeball and won three MVPs. The resume pretty much speaks for itself.

wowzah
11-18-2013, 01:09 PM
Wade is getting seriously jobbed for people criticizing his 2nd banjo rings. He's not the first option. Nobody is saying he is right now!!!!! I don't see how him being a 2nd banjo is actually making him worse in people's brain. There have been others who have gotten lots of credit for 2nd option rings. Fact is he's accumulating rings and will likely accumulate more. Lay off of him. People love to bring up rings for others, but not for Wade.

He's got the dominance and peak. Now lots of rings are coming.

wowzah
11-18-2013, 01:11 PM
OP got the 6 players right.

Tim Duncan is the greatest active player. And it's becoming increasingly accepted among people who know basketball.

Although LeBron could give him a real serious run for his money soon, but by then I suspect Duncan will be retired.

sammyvine
11-18-2013, 01:12 PM
I'd say you're right about the six guys you've listed, with Lebron, Duncan and Kobe being obviously locks for the top 10-15, while Wade, Dirk and Garnett are likely in that top 20-30 range. Paul at this point is lock, IMO, for top 50, and possibly much higher than that. But I wouldn't put him in the top 25 discussion just yet. Durant will almost certainly crack that group, and Paul is likely, but not a certainty.

Guys like Nash, Pierce, Allen and maybe Parker and Melo are all in that top 50 discussion, but none are top 25 and aren't likely to crack that barring some crazy run at the end of their careers. In terms of young guys with crazy potential, it's too hard to tell at this point, but I do think Dwight, Rose, Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Love, Irving and Davis are all crazy talented and could do it.

Dwight isn't likely, but could do it if he can return to Orlando form, consistently perform at that level for another 5-7 years and win a couple of titles. Harden, Westbrok, Rose, Curry and Love all have the potential, but they need to continue elite levels of production for probably another decade while chipping in a title or two. They also have to stay healthy, which is especially important for Love, Curry and Rose, who have already missed significant time early in their careers.

It's way too early to tell on Irving and Davis, but they both had All-Star written all over them coming out of college and have shown a propensity for stardom early in their careers. Both have dealt with injury concerns, though, which is especially concerning this early in their careers.

In all likelihood, only Paul and Durant crack the top 25 out of these players, but a few of these guys could be in the top 50 discussion a decade from now. And with a few title runs, we could have some guys knocking on the door of the top 25.

If paul keeps getting bounced out the 1st and 2nd round, he won't be in the top 25.
in order to be a top 25 player OF ALL TIME you have to be very special.
Paul has never won an mvp, never been to a finals or even WCF...
How does that make him in the isiaih tomas and dirk level lol who are around that range?

wowzah
11-18-2013, 01:16 PM
If paul keeps getting bounced out the 1st and 2nd round, he won't be in the top 25.
in order to be a top 25 player OF ALL TIME you have to be very special.
Paul has never won an mvp, never been to a finals or even WCF...
How does that make him in the isiaih tomas and dirk level lol who are around that range?

I agree. Paul needs more work in the playoffs.

WaDe03
11-18-2013, 01:33 PM
I agree. Paul needs more work in the playoffs.

Not sure he will though I thought the Clippers would've been in the finals really the past two years or at least the WCF but they always seem to disappoint come playoff time. Idk what the problem is

Chronz
11-18-2013, 02:47 PM
Dude, you are seriously overrating KG. I respect the guy, but you can't just ignore his complete lack of postseason success in Minnesota for the sake of your argument.
But isn't that what you're doing by ranking Big O ahead of KG?

Chronz
11-18-2013, 02:49 PM
Not sure he will though I thought the Clippers would've been in the finals really the past two years or at least the WCF but they always seem to disappoint come playoff time. Idk what the problem is

lol really? Try watching us, its VERY clear what our problems have been.

FlashBolt
11-18-2013, 02:54 PM
KG is clearly ahead of Dr. J. Do please take a long hard look at those ABA stats shrinking big time in the NBA.

Moses and KG are close, but IMO Moses trails KG. Moses was a dominant low post scorer and big time tough rebounder. KG has him on passing, D, and shooting outside of 10' - all easily.

I have KG and Barkely top 15 (CB after KG). Dirk and DRob in the 15-20 bracket.

Oscars career was short. West, Oscar, and KG are right on top of each other IMO, but KG ahead of Oscar (Oscar like Russell has to lose big points for league weakness, Russell loses even more for having the best GM, Coach, and team in a time (pre 1966-67 when there were no serious challengers to the Celts in a very small weak league))

Dude, you are seriously overrating KG. I respect the guy, but you can't just ignore his complete lack of postseason success in Minnesota for the sake of your argument. A lot of that was due to a poor supporting cast, but some of it was due to KG's lackluster performances in the playoffs. KG is definitely in the top 20 discussion, but I wouldn't put him in the top 15 and I certainly wouldn't put him ahead of Moses or Dr. J.

You criticize Erving for peaking in the ABA, but the guy still played eight straight seasons in the NBA averaging 21-27 PPG, 6-8 RPG, 4 APG and 2 SPG. He also posted a per over 21 six times in his first seven seasons in the NBA and a WS/48 over .180 six of his first eight seasons in the NBA. Considering that much of his prime early in his career was played in the ABA, there's no telling what he would have done had he played his entire career in the NBA, but I don't think it's fair to assume he would have been a completely inferior player. Bottom line, his numbers are very similar to KG's, he experienced both regular and postseason success in both the ABA and NBA, and he was a precursor to the great wings of the 90s and 2000s, ushering in a totally new era of basketball.

And I don't really see it as a contest between Moses and KG. Moses may not have posted the advanced numbers KG did, but he was one of the 2-3 greatest rebounders in the history of the league, one of the 4-5 greatest low post scorers in the history of the league, reached the finals with multiple teams in a very talented era of baskeball and won three MVPs. The resume pretty much speaks for itself.

What about Big O? He wasn't particularly successful in the postseason.

alexander_37
11-18-2013, 06:23 PM
If Wade wins 2 more rings with a couple 2012-like seasons and decent playoff series he is TOP 15 for sure. Out of Garnett, Dirk, and Wade, Wade has a better opportunity to add to his career accolades, this of course, assuming he stays out of injuries that cause him to miss significant amount of games. A healthy Wade is still a TOP 5 player in the league.

As for Garnett and Dirk, their windows are shorter and don't have opportunities to move up further on the list like Wade. I don't consider either Dirk, Garnett or Wade TOP 15 right now, but I can see Wade eventually moving up to TOP 15 if he stay out of significant injuries at least in this next 3 year stretch where he has opportunity to win 5-- 6 rings in his career. Staying healthy is a tall order for someone like Wade, so where he ranks by the end of his career is very uncertain. Dirk and Garnett careers are pretty much defined 95%+ at this point so their windows of TOP 15 status are rather slim.

Not to knock anyone but .... I mean who do you take out of the top 15.....

KnicksorBust
11-18-2013, 07:16 PM
KG is clearly ahead of Dr. J. Do please take a long hard look at those ABA stats shrinking big time in the NBA.

Moses and KG are close, but IMO Moses trails KG. Moses was a dominant low post scorer and big time tough rebounder. KG has him on passing, D, and shooting outside of 10' - all easily.

I have KG and Barkely top 15 (CB after KG). Dirk and DRob in the 15-20 bracket.

Oscars career was short. West, Oscar, and KG are right on top of each other IMO, but KG ahead of Oscar (Oscar like Russell has to lose big points for league weakness, Russell loses even more for having the best GM, Coach, and team in a time (pre 1966-67 when there were no serious challengers to the Celts in a very small weak league))

Moses clearly had a superior career to KG. This comparison of skills stuff is BS. By that logic LeBron should be ahead of Magic.


But isn't that what you're doing by ranking Big O ahead of KG?

Why can't Big O be ahead of KG?

KnicksorBust
11-18-2013, 07:24 PM
Kobe is 4
Duncan is 6
LeBron is 8
Garnett and Dirk are mid/late teens
Wade is 20-25
Pierce is 40
Durant will pass Garnett/Dirk.
Parker could hit top 50 but I doubt it. Melo could hit top 75 but it's tough.
Dwight Howard already has a lot of DPOY. Rings could bring him into top 50 discussion.

Future studs:
Anthony Davis looks like top 50. Higher is a joke now.
Kevin Love is severely underrated in all-time discussions. I could see him cracking top 20 if he stays healthy.
James Harden has a ways to go but he feels like a top 75 type guy. Houston's post-season will make or break their legacies.
Amir Johnson top 3 potential.

mightybosstone
11-18-2013, 09:02 PM
But isn't that what you're doing by ranking Big O ahead of KG?

What about Big O? He wasn't particularly successful in the postseason.

But Oscar's numbers are clearly better than KG's, his postseason numbers are still superior and he won an MVP in his era. Between the numbers and the overall resume, I'd give Oscar the substantial edge. Also, at least Oscar's Cincinatti teams played in two conference finals compared to one for KG's Wolves. I don't think you can blame either guy for not winning a title in their respective conferences and respective eras, because they both had to play against historically great teams (60s Celtics and 2000s Lakers). But in the end, I don't see how KG gets an edge over Big O.

FlashBolt
11-19-2013, 11:42 AM
But Oscar's numbers are clearly better than KG's, his postseason numbers are still superior and he won an MVP in his era. Between the numbers and the overall resume, I'd give Oscar the substantial edge. Also, at least Oscar's Cincinatti teams played in two conference finals compared to one for KG's Wolves. I don't think you can blame either guy for not winning a title in their respective conferences and respective eras, because they both had to play against historically great teams (60s Celtics and 2000s Lakers). But in the end, I don't see how KG gets an edge over Big O.

So you don't take into account that Big O was playing against himself? Who did he really play against? He didn't win anything until he took his butt to team up with KAJ. Sorry, KG would dominate that era if he had the opportunity. Oscar Robertson would never average close to a triple double. If LJ can't do it, is Big O better than LJ? Inflated numbers. Also, KG in his prime was on the level of Tim Duncan. Don't tell me Big O's prime was the equivalent of Duncan. Would Wilt average 50/25 in the modern era? No, so Big O wouldn't average a triple double.

mightybosstone
11-19-2013, 12:05 PM
So you don't take into account that Big O was playing against himself? Who did he really play against? He didn't win anything until he took his butt to team up with KAJ. Sorry, KG would dominate that era if he had the opportunity. Oscar Robertson would never average close to a triple double. If LJ can't do it, is Big O better than LJ? Inflated numbers. Also, KG in his prime was on the level of Tim Duncan. Don't tell me Big O's prime was the equivalent of Duncan. Would Wilt average 50/25 in the modern era? No, so Big O wouldn't average a triple double.

Your argument here is a poor one. For one, you act as if there were no good guards in the 60s, which couldn't be further from the truth. You give no credit to Jerry West, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe, Dave Bing or Hal Greer, many of which are top 50 or top 100 all-time guys.

Also, you use the terrible "if player X played in Y era, they would dominate" argument. Don't do that. It's too hard to compare players across eras as it is, and it puts players from the 60s at a massive disadvantage. If we're talking any all-time conversation, compare players to how they performed within their own eras. You can certainly use context, such as the fact that Oscar was a freak athlete in his day and didn't perform particularly well in the postseason, but saying that KG would dominate in the 60s is an impossible point go prove and totally unfair.

Bottom line, Oscar's resume trumps KG's in pretty much every way. They had similar postseason success while Oscar won an MVP and was an All-NBA 1st team guy for nine consecutive seasons.

Stinkyoutsider
11-19-2013, 01:05 PM
It's really tough to do rankings like these for all time greats because we all favor players who we saw play (from our generation). I'm sure fans from a previous generation or 2 would have more players during that generation in their top.

I almost always never use championships as a part of the discussion unless the player led their team to the title. I can't credit Wade for at least his last title because I think James was more vital to the win.

With that being said, I think James, Duncan, Garnett, Nowitski need to be somewhere in that top 25 list or at least have strong considerations for being there (Duncan is guaranteed a spot).

Longhornfan1234
11-19-2013, 01:31 PM
Wade is not a top 25 player. How is he? Maybe I'm missing something.

mightybosstone
11-19-2013, 01:32 PM
I almost always never use championships as a part of the discussion unless the player led their team to the title. I can't credit Wade for at least his last title because I think James was more vital to the win.

I don't think you can approach it that way, though. Does a championship as a No. 2 or a No. 3 mean less than a championship as a No. 1? Sure it does. But you're telling me that Pippen's 6 rings don't matter at all and that Parrish, McHale, Worthy and other all-time great No. 2s and No. 3s don't deserve consideration as all-time greats. Without those guys, Jordan, Bird, Magic and Kareem don't win nearly as many titles, as is the case with almost every No. 1 on a championship team in NBA history.

You just have to use context and weight the differences between each ring. Obviously Kobe's first three rings don't hold the same wight as his last two rings, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted at all. If you replace Kobe with just an average starting SG on those 2000s Lakers teams, it's unlikely the Lakers win any of those three championships.

mightybosstone
11-19-2013, 01:39 PM
Wade is not a top 25 player. How is he? Maybe I'm missing something.

The guy is 7th in career PER, 22nd in career WS/48 and 16th in career scoring per game. He was a top 5 guy for the better part of an extremely talented decade and an All-NBA player eight times. He won one ring as an alpha dog with one of the greatest postseason performances in NBA history and two rings as the No. 2 guy. It's also worth noting that he was the No. 1 player which led Miami to its first championship in franchise history.

Is that a resume worthy of a spot in the all-time top 25? It's debatable, but if I'm making an all-time list, I'd have a hard time finding 25 guys better at the top.

Chronz
11-19-2013, 05:03 PM
But Oscar's numbers are clearly better than KG's
I dont know about that one, what numbers you looking at and how are you splitting them up? I think the numbers are very close, only KG is a better defender.


his postseason numbers are still superior and he won an MVP in his era.
Both won an MVP and you might be right about playoff numbers.



Also, at least Oscar's Cincinatti teams played in two conference finals compared to one for KG's Wolves.
You say that as if its an apples to apples competition, thats just a nicer way of saying he made it past the first round because you made the conference Finals the minute you got out of your opening matchup. I think its best if we focus on the teams they played more than how far they got. Did Big O advance past a team you wouldn't have fingered if you focused on the stats?


I don't think you can blame either guy for not winning a title in their respective conferences and respective eras, because they both had to play against historically great teams (60s Celtics and 2000s Lakers). But in the end, I don't see how KG gets an edge over Big O.
what about the fact that KG was his championship teams best player, unquestionably its regular season+playoff MVP? How about the insane longevity hes shown? Superior defensive impact. The statistical dominance is still being questioned, who had the better peak run/prime run? How you break those peak and prime runs down for these 2 players will tell me more than anything.

Good debate tho. Very similar career arcs.

Chronz
11-19-2013, 05:11 PM
Why can't Big O be ahead of KG?
playing devils advocate, I dont know who I would go with. These things dont always get clearer to me with time.

Chronz
11-19-2013, 05:18 PM
So you don't take into account that Big O was playing against himself? Who did he really play against? He didn't win anything until he took his butt to team up with KAJ. Sorry, KG would dominate that era if he had the opportunity. Oscar Robertson would never average close to a triple double. If LJ can't do it, is Big O better than LJ? Inflated numbers. Also, KG in his prime was on the level of Tim Duncan. Don't tell me Big O's prime was the equivalent of Duncan. Would Wilt average 50/25 in the modern era? No, so Big O wouldn't average a triple double.

Its not inflation, you're just using the wrong numbers.

mightybosstone
11-19-2013, 05:35 PM
I dont know about that one, what numbers you looking at and how are you splitting them up? I think the numbers are very close, only KG is a better defender.
If you look at a mix of basic statistical production and advanced stats, I think Oscar has a pretty clear edge. I do think advanced numbers generally tend to hurt players in the 60s, but it's not as if Oscar's advanced stats are that far removed from Garnett's. Also, he has a pretty substantial edge in postseason production.


Both won an MVP and you might be right about playoff numbers.
Wow... I can't believe I forgot that KG won an MVP. That's on me. I think I just get all the early 2000s MVPs confused, because there wasn't really a single dominant player of that era between Duncan, Shaq, KG, Dirk, etc., so all the MVPs just run together in my head.


You say that as if its an apples to apples competition, thats just a nicer way of saying he made it past the first round because you made the conference Finals the minute you got out of your opening matchup. I think its best if we focus on the teams they played more than how far they got. Did Big O advance past a team you wouldn't have fingered if you focused on the stats?
This is true. I probably wasn't being fair in that regard, but Oscar did get past a couple of really solid Hal Greer teams in 63 and 64 which were pretty talented. They were actually the underdogs against Syracuse in 63, although I'm not sure you could argue they were less talented.


what about the fact that KG was his championship teams best player, unquestionably its regular season+playoff MVP?
This is actually a pretty damn good argument and one I'm having a hard time refuting. But I would argue that Oscar was at the tail end of his prime when he joined Milwaukee at age 32 and he never had a team talented enough to usurp Boston or challenge New York when he was in Cincinatti. You could make the case that Pierce was the more valuable player in the playoffs because of his dominant Finals performance against LA, but I'm not sure I'd be inclined to do so.


How about the insane longevity hes shown? Superior defensive impact. The statistical dominance is still being questioned, who had the better peak run/prime run? How you break those peak and prime runs down for these 2 players will tell me more than anything.
Longevity is kind of a tough thing to judge. KG obviously obviously has an edge, but he also came straight out of high school and plays in an era where it's practically the norm for superstars to play 15-20 years nowadays. The peak/prime discussion is definitely interesting, as well. Oscar started his career off with eight consecutive years of a 24+PER and a .200+ WS/48, while KG had a stretch of five out of six seasons where he accomplished the same feat.

If we're talking solely advanced statistics, Oscar's peak was certainly longer, but his prime was shorter than KG's and maybe not quite as dominant. But then you have to look at basic statistical data, and Oscar had eight straight years of at least 28/9/6, which is just ridiculous. His playing in an era without the 3-point line or steals also hurts him.

Defensively it's obviously not a contest, but it's worth noting that O is always mentioned as being one of the better defensive guards of his era. He was clearly the best rebounding wing of his time, probably would have posted a ton of steals and likely gave smaller guards fits defensively.


Good debate tho. Very similar career arcs.
Agreed. This one is especially tough to argue since we're comparing two players across 40 years who play completely different positions. You could land on either side of the argument and still make a strong case.

jstone0716
11-19-2013, 06:57 PM
Top 5: Lebron
Top 10: Duncan
Top 15: Kobe/Dirk
Top 25: Garnett & Wade ( anyone dogging on Wade is a moron the guy can't put up 30/6/6 playing next to LeBron and Bosh, he still has 3 rings and puts up elite numbers even as injury ridden as he is )

I think Durant if he keeps going at the rate he's going will be top 20 easy. Top 15 if he wins a ring or two along the way.

Anthony Davis, Paul George, Steph Curry look to have top 15-25 potential but obviously it's way to soon to say for sure especially considering longevity plays a factor.

CP3, Nash, Love, Irving, Westbrook, Rose, Harden are all guys with top 50-60 potential but I think Westy, Rose, Harden & Irving have a lot more to prove if they want to be considered that highly.

KnicksorBust
11-19-2013, 09:18 PM
The percentage of things MBT has posted in this thread that I agree with is at an all-time high. I keep looking for an opportunity to quote him and get in an argument but I find myself in agreement far too frequently. I might just make something up in a minute.

Chronz
11-19-2013, 09:33 PM
Agreed. This one is especially tough to argue since we're comparing two players across 40 years who play completely different positions. You could land on either side of the argument and still make a strong case.
Not only that but I recall KG getting the same kind of criticism I remember reading about Oscar, never really exploded or took over a game/series, just consistent 30-10-10. Similarly, you could pencil in KG for 22-14-5 just about every night. Its not much of a complaint to me just an odd similarity.

Ill get to the rest of your post later, feeling like updating my Top-20 list right now.

Chronz
11-19-2013, 09:34 PM
The percentage of things MBT has posted in this thread that I agree with is at an all-time high. I keep looking for an opportunity to quote him and get in an argument but I find myself in agreement far too frequently. I might just make something up in a minute.

Argue with me then.


D-Rob
Moses
KG
Big O
Jerry West

Rankem

Miltstar
11-19-2013, 10:11 PM
ummm... Karl Malone belongs on this list

KnicksorBust
11-19-2013, 10:12 PM
Argue with me then.


D-Rob
Moses
KG
Big O
Jerry West

Rankem

Moses
Oscar
West
KG
Robinson

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 03:08 AM
Best discussion I've ever seen on PSD on this subject - lots of very valid points, lots of disagreement that HAS BEEN principled and NOT degenerated into flaming. Nice job to one and all.

More specifics from me coming soon to a post near you.

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 03:10 AM
I'd say you're right about the six guys you've listed, with Lebron, Duncan and Kobe being obviously locks for the top 10-15, while Wade, Dirk and Garnett are likely in that top 20-30 range. Paul at this point is lock, IMO, for top 50, and possibly much higher than that. But I wouldn't put him in the top 25 discussion just yet. Durant will almost certainly crack that group, and Paul is likely, but not a certainty.

Guys like Nash, Pierce, Allen and maybe Parker and Melo are all in that top 50 discussion, but none are top 25 and aren't likely to crack that barring some crazy run at the end of their careers. In terms of young guys with crazy potential, it's too hard to tell at this point, but I do think Dwight, Rose, Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Love, Irving and Davis are all crazy talented and could do it.

Dwight isn't likely, but could do it if he can return to Orlando form, consistently perform at that level for another 5-7 years and win a couple of titles. Harden, Westbrok, Rose, Curry and Love all have the potential, but they need to continue elite levels of production for probably another decade while chipping in a title or two. They also have to stay healthy, which is especially important for Love, Curry and Rose, who have already missed significant time early in their careers.

It's way too early to tell on Irving and Davis, but they both had All-Star written all over them coming out of college and have shown a propensity for stardom early in their careers. Both have dealt with injury concerns, though, which is especially concerning this early in their careers.

In all likelihood, only Paul and Durant crack the top 25 out of these players, but a few of these guys could be in the top 50 discussion a decade from now. And with a few title runs, we could have some guys knocking on the door of the top 25.

MBT,
Awesome post.

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 03:18 AM
In no particular order:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Lebron James
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Julius Erving

Without ordering them from 1-15 (which I vaguely did off the top of my head), those would be my top 15 guys in the NBA. Who is KG passing on that list and why? My next five on my all-time list (in no particular order), would be:

Charles Barkley
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
David Robinson
Dwyane Wade

I love all five of these guys, but I don't know that I can place them about those 15 players on the list.

MBT,
Equally awesome "addendum" to your previous post.
Of your top 15, the one I'd most likely move downwards would be Russell (on the basis that his game was entirely too one-sided, too-weak offensively WHEN compared with the others in the top 15 and those you list just below him.) Put his career on any other team during his epoch and he doesn't win multiple-rings; he had, far and away the greatest-within-his-decade coach of all-time, AND the most All-Star teammates; AND he wasn't even the best player of his own epoch - Wilt was, in fact Wilt dominated basically the entirety of their 140 some head-to-head individual match-ups - it wasn't close between the two of them. I'd argue that Wilt was at least his equal defensively too. West and O were better individual players (and at least as b-ball-savy and at least as good teammates). Good arguments can be made for Baylor and Pettit each being better individual (and much more complete) players. I'd put him 16-20.

Somebody mentioned Karl Malone. I can't see him being out of serious consideration for the Top 25.
In case he wasn't included I'd include Stockton too (all-time (and forever?) leader in both assists (teamwork!; and offense) AND steals (defense!).

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 03:22 AM
My biggest general concern with ranking current players within the All-Time GOAT ranks is that, almost inevitably, every current generation tends to rank too many of its own generations' stars that high.

The league has been around a long time now; and it really takes a monster career to muscle your way into the top 25, much less the top 10. And the great "old-timers", if you were lucky, as I (and a few others around here have) was to have experienced their extended-greatness; have gotten listed so high in earlier-than-now lists for very good reasons.

Still, a lot of, if not most, of the here-proposed current-day players are definitely worthy of serious consideration.

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 04:00 AM
My All-Time GOAT Top 5:
1: KAJ (6 Chips, 4 other Finals!; most unique and unstoppable weapon=SkyHook; at least 16 Great Years....; best player at the greatest position=Center, ...
2. Magic (5 Chips, 3 other Finals!; greatest teammate ever) (several less great years than KAJ)
3. MJ (6 Chips (but what other major playoff success???); greatest killer) (several less great years than KAJ!)
4. Wilt (greatest athlete, greatest within-his-own-decade player ever; All-Star Celtics kept him from #1 GOAT)
5. LeBron (potential: equal to Magic as greatest team-mate; most MVPs ... i.e. could move all the way up).

a bigger gap than any gaps between the above 5

6-9: (in no order here): Shaq, Kobe, Timmy, Hakeem

another gap:

10-14: (in no order here): West, Bird, Oscar, Moses, Dr. J (N.B. I count his great ABA years; they were against slightly inferior opponents; but they were all pros and he was a great, NBA all-star level quality player during those years)

15-20: (in possible order here): Baylor, DRob, Russell, Karl Malone, Stockton, Barkley
21-24: (in possible order here): Garnett, Wade, Nowitski, Pettit,
25: (almost for sure, I've forgotten someone I usually have in the top 25).

Highest future-ranked current players not yet listed: (best candidates for future Top 25: Durant, Chris Paul
N.B. Other potential high-rankers have not, imo, played enough years yet, for me to have an informed opinion about their ultimate career-worth.

A couple of special-note players:
A. Bill Walton (IF he had been healthy for a normal super-star career, he had the chance to be Top 5 even #1). His Portland Chip year, he had one of the All-Time 5 Greatest "one-man wrecking-crew Finals"; and, years later, he had one great year with the C's.
I rank his College career as #2 (after Alcindor-KAJ) All-Time, and there was every reason to expect him, barring injury, to continue his great play.

B. George Mikan (most difficult to rank: no black players, but was THE dominant player in all of pro-ball FROM prior to coming over from the NBL to the BAA/NBA THRU the end of his NBA career.) I don't think he can be in the top 25; but I don't think he can be left out of the top 50. He WAS more dominant in his era than even Wilt was in his, or anybody else since; but that has to be taken with a huge grain of salt due to no-integration and very small number of pros.

P.S. I saw virtually the entire careers of all of these guys except Mikan (none; but my dad was an "expert" on him and taught me lots) and Pettit (a little). And I was (still am) a pretty-well-informed NBA-fanatical-fan for at the last 50 years; and, though, pretty young, watched (on NY City tv, every broadcast game there was, for the 6 years before that).

jerellh528
11-20-2013, 08:07 AM
My All-Time GOAT Top 5:
1: KAJ (6 Chips, 4 other Finals!; most unique and unstoppable weapon=SkyHook; at least 16 Great Years....; best player at the greatest position=Center, ...
2. Magic (5 Chips, 3 other Finals!; greatest teammate ever) (several less great years than KAJ)
3. MJ (6 Chips (but what other major playoff success???); greatest killer) (several less great years than KAJ!)
4. Wilt (greatest athlete, greatest within-his-own-decade player ever; All-Star Celtics kept him from #1 GOAT)
5. LeBron (potential: equal to Magic as greatest team-mate; most MVPs ... i.e. could move all the way up).

a bigger gap than any gaps between the above 5

6-9: (in no order here): Shaq, Kobe, Timmy, Hakeem

another gap:

10-14: (in no order here): West, Bird, Oscar, Moses, Dr. J (N.B. I count his great ABA years; they were against slightly inferior opponents; but they were all pros and he was a great, NBA all-star level quality player during those years)

15-20: (in possible order here): Baylor, DRob, Russell, Karl Malone, Stockton, Barkley
21-24: (in possible order here): Garnett, Wade, Nowitski, Pettit,
25: (almost for sure, I've forgotten someone I usually have in the top 25).

Highest future-ranked current players not yet listed: (best candidates for future Top 25: Durant, Chris Paul
N.B. Other potential high-rankers have not, imo, played enough years yet, for me to have an informed opinion about their ultimate career-worth.

A couple of special-note players:
A. Bill Walton (IF he had been healthy for a normal super-star career, he had the chance to be Top 5 even #1). His Portland Chip year, he had one of the All-Time 5 Greatest "one-man wrecking-crew Finals"; and, years later, he had one great year with the C's.
I rank his College career as #2 (after Alcindor-KAJ) All-Time, and there was every reason to expect him, barring injury, to continue his great play.

B. George Mikan (most difficult to rank: no black players, but was THE dominant player in all of pro-ball FROM prior to coming over from the NBL to the BAA/NBA THRU the end of his NBA career.) I don't think he can be in the top 25; but I don't think he can be left out of the top 50. He WAS more dominant in his era than even Wilt was in his, or anybody else since; but that has to be taken with a huge grain of salt due to no-integration and very small number of pros.

P.S. I saw virtually the entire careers of all of these guys except Mikan (none; but my dad was an "expert" on him and taught me lots) and Pettit (a little). And I was (still am) a pretty-well-informed NBA-fanatical-fan for at the last 50 years; and, though, pretty young, watched (on NY City tv, every broadcast game there was, for the 6 years before that).

You have Lebron ranked 5 based on potential? Just wondering but if he got injured today and never played another game, where do you rank him?

The_Jamal
11-20-2013, 08:21 AM
MBT going ham in this thread. Makes me miss the redraft bros chatzy's

Anyway, I think Wade has a decent argument to crack top 25 if he retired tomorrow. He's kind of a modelcase study of the "longevity vs peak" debate. His peak is comparable to just about anyone in you can think of. It just did not last very long. In the end, I think Wade needs another 3-4 years of strong play to really cement his case in top 25.

Heediot
11-20-2013, 08:30 AM
Rules should be considered in judging a players performance. The 80's and 90's were more big man friendly ad gritty. Nowadays it's more perimeter friendly.

That's why MJ is GOAT, he played in an era where the best players were 6'8 or bigger, and most of them Dominant 5's.

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 10:32 AM
You have Lebron ranked 5 based on potential? Just wondering but if he got injured today and never played another game, where do you rank him?

Hey jerellh528,
No, I've got him #5 for what he's already done (4 Finals, 2 Chips, (1 Finals taking one of the all-time worst supporting-casts there); 4 MVP's; completeness offensively and defensively; teamwork; intelligence ...

I tried (perhaps not well enough) to indicate that he has definite potential to move up, perhaps one spot a year IF he stays at last year's level, much less if this year is even better (perhaps we have NOT seen his true peak yet!) and continues to rack up Chips (at least 3 more - no easy task) and at least one more MVP (or, at least a number of MVP #2s).

P.S. btw, probably sometime this year, LeBron's career PER will actually surpass MJ's - he's just a wee bit behind him now 27.91 to 27.66 and LeBron should average, at least, close to 30 this year (I'm betting he'll hit the highest mark ever, which currently belongs to: Wilt at 31.82. LeBron has previously hit: 31.67, 31.66, 31.11 and 30.74 (all four marks in the All-Time Top 11, MJ also has 4 there and Wilt the other 3 including the two highest (so far, look out from LeBron this year and next!).

mike_noodles
11-20-2013, 10:46 AM
Wade is fading too fast, I doubt he cracks the top 20.

I agree with this. Even more rings don't move him up because he's really the third option at this point. If we're counting rings to ge us in the top 15, then where is Pippen or Parish?

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 11:01 AM
MBT going ham in this thread. Makes me miss the redraft bros chatzy's

Anyway, I think Wade has a decent argument to crack top 25 if he retired tomorrow. He's kind of a modelcase study of the "longevity vs peak" debate. His peak is comparable to just about anyone in you can think of. It just did not last very long. In the end, I think Wade needs another 3-4 years of strong play to really cement his case in top 25.

Hey The Jamal,
Pretty well stated. Consider too, his long-time hold on a top 25 All-Time Ranking will necessitate him pushing up higher than 20; because, just among current players, their are a good 5 legitimate Top 25 candidates that could push him back out of this super-elite group soon.

ewing
11-20-2013, 03:32 PM
So you don't take into account that Big O was playing against himself? Who did he really play against? He didn't win anything until he took his butt to team up with KAJ. Sorry, KG would dominate that era if he had the opportunity. Oscar Robertson would never average close to a triple double. If LJ can't do it, is Big O better than LJ? Inflated numbers. Also, KG in his prime was on the level of Tim Duncan. Don't tell me Big O's prime was the equivalent of Duncan. Would Wilt average 50/25 in the modern era? No, so Big O wouldn't average a triple double.

Player in the 60s were significantly more athletic. Your generation is fat and slow

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/kids-today-take-90-seconds-longer-to-run-a-mile-than-kids-in-the-1980s/281686/

Chronz
11-20-2013, 05:50 PM
Moses
Oscar
West
KG
Robinson

There are usually 5 basic criteria people consider when ranking careers, moreso if your the type who puts huge stock into accolades like MVP's and such. Awards aren't meaningless, just lower on the list of priorities IMO.

That said, my 5 criteria are team success, team influence, peak, prime production and longevity. Some are relateable and thats in no particular order, that I leave up to you and from your list this is what I gather:


By naming Moses you stress the importance of winning a championship in one of the most dominant forms imaginable, the way Moses did in his first year with Doc. Thats a clear distinction he has on everyone else listed here, who won their titles on the backswing of their primes. From the start of the 80's to that very title, you could argue, as many have, that he was the best player in the game, not sure how often, if ever at all, you could say that about the others.

That said, thats pretty much all you're stressing(peak play+team success) because he was a flash in the pan, sounds paradoxical to label a guy who remained an All-Star for many more years to come but he was a drastically different player after that championship. Its a giant mystery what happened to him but some questioned whether he lost that drive/fire in him that earned him the reputation as the leagues hardest working superstar. His owner openly criticized his work ethic after the lone run and traded him within a few years and he was never heard from again at the superstars club. Moses is one of the reasons why I distinguish between peak and prime runs from longevity. Moses had insane longevity so I suppose you could say you stress that as well, but its not the kind where he maintained his prime throughout, more of a quality teen or vet depending on which end you reward.


And those reasons are exactly why I have Moses ahead of all of them as well, but its not a decision thats set in stone. Who knows, maybe as I age and the game shows me things that alter my priorities, it might change, but for now, its Moses for me too. The rest of your list is where I can see more inconsistencies. But first, you tell me if what I said above is a fair evaluation of why you chose Moses.

Pablonovi
11-20-2013, 07:24 PM
Rules should be considered in judging a players performance. The 80's and 90's were more big man friendly ad gritty. Nowadays it's more perimeter friendly.

That's why MJ is GOAT, he played in an era where the best players were 6'8 or bigger, and most of them Dominant 5's.

Hey Heediot,
Perhaps you'd care to expand on your point further; I for one don't get it. Are you saying something like: if you're (one of) the best player(s) in your era AND you are a distinctly different height than most of the other best players of that era, then you are the GOAT?

Heediot
11-22-2013, 02:22 PM
Hey Heediot,
Perhaps you'd care to expand on your point further; I for one don't get it. Are you saying something like: if you're (one of) the best player(s) in your era AND you are a distinctly different height than most of the other best players of that era, then you are the GOAT?

There have been rule changes where big men can't live down on the block. Hand-check rules, and superstar calls are getting out of control. What I'm saying is if you are dominating as MJ did when most of the other guys dominating were big men, that's pretty unique and should be respected.

ChicagoJ
11-22-2013, 04:43 PM
I think with all time lists there should be seperate ones for each position. Hard to compare a point guard and a center from different eras.

Pablonovi
11-22-2013, 04:52 PM
There have been rule changes where big men can't live down on the block. Hand-check rules, and superstar calls are getting out of control. What I'm saying is if you are dominating as MJ did when most of the other guys dominating were big men, that's pretty unique and should be respected.

Hey Heediot,
"There have been rule changes where big men can't live down on the block. Hand-check rules, ..." True. But this isn't ALL of why big men no longer dominate, is it? And, if we could imagine such as peak: KAJ, Dream & Shaq being dropped onto the court in our era; wouldn't they still be as dominant? In other words, isn't part of what underlies the shift away from big-man dominance the fact that, regardless of the rules, today's big guys just don't have the skills (KAJ's SkyHook, Dream's Shake, Shaq's mass+power) and/or inclination to work and work well close to the basket?

"... superstar calls are getting out of control." Sometimes it seems this way to me too. But I wonder if it's more image than real fact. Is there a (at least relatively objective) way to measure past eras vs the present one in terms of: superstar calls?

Pablonovi
11-22-2013, 05:04 PM
There have been rule changes where big men can't live down on the block. Hand-check rules, and superstar calls are getting out of control. What I'm saying is if you are dominating as MJ did when most of the other guys dominating were big men, that's pretty unique and should be respected.

"What I'm saying is if you are dominating as MJ did when most of the other guys dominating were big men, that's pretty unique and should be respected."

It seems to me that the NBA has ALWAYS been a center-dominated (or big-man dominated) league (with the notable exception of this new recent pg-driven era. Virtually everyone's GOAT All-Time lists are heavily populated by big-men, especially centers. So, excepting the current era (which is too new anyway to be summed up from an historical perspective); all the smaller players near the tops of those lists were "dominating ... when most of the other guys dominating were big men", no? If so, that would make MJ's case not nearly as unique; though, of course it should be respected.

My first "objection" was to the way in which you posed things: that a dominant non-big in a big-dominated era is therefore GOAT ... this is not the main argument for MJ being GOAT. Similarly, all the other top-ranked non-bigs (Magic, Kobe, West, etc.) can't be claimed to be GOAT on the same basis.

PurpleJesus
11-22-2013, 05:11 PM
My biggest general concern with ranking current players within the All-Time GOAT ranks is that, almost inevitably, every current generation tends to rank too many of its own generations' stars that high.

The league has been around a long time now; and it really takes a monster career to muscle your way into the top 25, much less the top 10. And the great "old-timers", if you were lucky, as I (and a few others around here have) was to have experienced their extended-greatness; have gotten listed so high in earlier-than-now lists for very good reasons.

Still, a lot of, if not most, of the here-proposed current-day players are definitely worthy of serious consideration.
I disagree. I think people rank previous generations higher. You can see it all over PSD. I do think PSD is made up of some older people (like 20+), but a lot of those people are too young to remember players like Barkley, Jordan, Stockton, Malone, etc...yet, they make claims about how some of todays stars would not be able to make it in that era, whil the truth is, many of the stars from that era wouldnt make it in todays game.

Wait about 20 years down the road, after LBJ and Kobe are long retired, and watch how the younger generation will talk about those guys.

We hold and compare the stars of the current era to the standards of the stars from previous eras.

Pablonovi
11-22-2013, 06:14 PM
I disagree. I think people rank previous generations higher. You can see it all over PSD. I do think PSD is made up of some older people (like 20+), but a lot of those people are too young to remember players like Barkley, Jordan, Stockton, Malone, etc...yet, they make claims about how some of todays stars would not be able to make it in that era, whil the truth is, many of the stars from that era wouldnt make it in todays game.

Wait about 20 years down the road, after LBJ and Kobe are long retired, and watch how the younger generation will talk about those guys.

We hold and compare the stars of the current era to the standards of the stars from previous eras.

Hey Purple Jesus,
Interesting perspective. I'm not saying that there's no way you're right; but I definitely think you're wrong. While it's true that the "old-timers" might tend to overvalue to past stars; PSD (and most other discussion forums I've seen) is dominated by young people 15-35 years old). We've got a "in-the-moment" culture, more so than ever before. Instant gratification, instant glorification type of thing.

The result of this "youth-dominance" is that (each generation's) current big: movies, public figures (except thoroughly disgraced ones, and even some of them), sports stars, music stars ... the current ones tend to be significantly over-ranked vs previous generations. They ARE: constantly in view (especially their highlights as opposed to their low-lights/bloopers/deficiencies), getting the most intense publicity (discussion, compliments, hype, sports-related products-sales).

Some examples. MJ: when he retired the first time, after his first 3 Chips, it was already being claimed about him that he was the GOAT; and his publicity then, and later, was easily 1,000 times "louder" and "friendlier-to-his reputation" than had been those of such as: Wilt, KAJ, Dr. J., Magic & Bird (before Magic and Bird the NBA had had a tiny tiny fraction of the coverage/publicity it has had since then; and a good deal of that publicity was negative ... this is why it was said that the two of them "saved the NBA").

AI: was heavily hyped (as the current superstar usually is). 20-30+ years from now, I bet his All-Time Rank takes a bigger hit than almost anybody else currently considered to be in the All-Time Top 50.

George Mikan: I'd bet that his overall All-Time ranking has slid downwards with each and every generation. In my particular case, though I didn't get to see him; my dad saw ALL of his few televised games, read everything about him he could get his hands on; and told me all about him as we, together, watched the set of players and stars that followed him. I had him in my GOAT Top 10 back I the '60s, Top 20 in the '70s, etc. Now I wouldn't argue for him being in the Top 25, but yes in the Top 50. His is a special case because it was pre-integration (AND he had a great year or two or three that the NBA authorities refuse to even acknowledge; because they were not IN the BAA/NBA; this is similar to their treatment of the ABA stuff, that that is, imo, far more important and more unfair).

Meanwhile, the memories of past stars fade more and more (for both those who did experience them; and, of course much more so, for the ever-growing majority who were too young to have done so).

So, the younger the fan, the more he/she TENDS to be pro-current "idols" *. The older the fan, the opposite the TENDENCY. (Notice I use and emphasize the word: tend; I'm not arguing for a universal "rule"; there's tons of exceptions - I myself might be one of them - I'm pretty thrilled by the current crop of superstars.) These various factors, taken together, and especially the most important, the young far outnumber the not-young, you get an over-emphasis on current as opposed to past stars. imho.

* Popular music would certainly be another very strong example of this: with older fans "favoring" the oldies vis-Ó-vis the newer stuff; and younger fans just the opposite. You can't really expect, in our society, for it to be otherwise.

Heediot
11-22-2013, 07:27 PM
Hey Heediot,
"There have been rule changes where big men can't live down on the block. Hand-check rules, ..." True. But this isn't ALL of why big men no longer dominate, is it? And, if we could imagine such as peak: KAJ, Dream & Shaq being dropped onto the court in our era; wouldn't they still be as dominant? In other words, isn't part of what underlies the shift away from big-man dominance the fact that, regardless of the rules, today's big guys just don't have the skills (KAJ's SkyHook, Dream's Shake, Shaq's mass+power) and/or inclination to work and work well close to the basket?

"... superstar calls are getting out of control." Sometimes it seems this way to me too. But I wonder if it's more image than real fact. Is there a (at least relatively objective) way to measure past eras vs the present one in terms of: superstar calls?


I do agree that the bigs today are not developing or working on their post game as much as those greats of the past. Guys are coming into the league both raw skill wise and physically. The lure of money hinders some from staying in college and working on their post game.

Let's say a guy like Howard hypothetically dominates offensively to go along with his D, and most other guys dominating are wings, does that make it more impressive? To me it kind of does, even though its subjective and a little contradictory since I agreed with you in the last paragraph.

I don't know how if we can measure superstar calls.

Heediot
11-22-2013, 07:30 PM
"What I'm saying is if you are dominating as MJ did when most of the other guys dominating were big men, that's pretty unique and should be respected."

It seems to me that the NBA has ALWAYS been a center-dominated (or big-man dominated) league (with the notable exception of this new recent pg-driven era. Virtually everyone's GOAT All-Time lists are heavily populated by big-men, especially centers. So, excepting the current era (which is too new anyway to be summed up from an historical perspective); all the smaller players near the tops of those lists were "dominating ... when most of the other guys dominating were big men", no? If so, that would make MJ's case not nearly as unique; though, of course it should be respected.

My first "objection" was to the way in which you posed things: that a dominant non-big in a big-dominated era is therefore GOAT ... this is not the main argument for MJ being GOAT. Similarly, all the other top-ranked non-bigs (Magic, Kobe, West, etc.) can't be claimed to be GOAT on the same basis.

The way I phrased my statement in my first post in this thread was confusing and misleading. What I meant to say was Jordan was already GOAT, but because he's dominating in a sport or an era of Big Man dominance it makes the luster even greater.

FlashBolt
11-23-2013, 01:24 AM
Let's be perfectly honest right now. Jordan/James are a lock for ANY five man team you assemble. To pick anyone else in place of these two players is a misdemeanor.

Pablonovi
11-24-2013, 05:42 AM
The way I phrased my statement in my first post in this thread was confusing and misleading. What I meant to say was Jordan was already GOAT, but because he's dominating in a sport or an era of Big Man dominance it makes the luster even greater.

Hey Heediot,
Thanx for this clarification (I had thought that's what you really meant; but wasn't sure).

Pablonovi
11-24-2013, 05:46 AM
Let's be perfectly honest right now. Jordan/James are a lock for ANY five man team you assemble. To pick anyone else in place of these two players is a misdemeanor.

Hey FlashBolt,
Yes.

On the other hand, Isn't Magic clearly #1 amongst all pg's?; just as MJ was and James is for their respective positions (if we can ever really assign a position to LeBron).

I'd say KAJ is clearly #1 center All-Time; BUT, one might not always pick him; for some opposing teams / opposing centers, there might be a better match up.

That would leave the Power Forward spot. I'd bet this would be far and away where the most debate would be. Timmy's been great; but is he really a PG, or a Center??? Beside him, there's a bunch of pretty-equally qualified guys.

Lion
11-24-2013, 06:20 AM
I disagree. I think people rank previous generations higher. You can see it all over PSD. I do think PSD is made up of some older people (like 20+), but a lot of those people are too young to remember players like Barkley, Jordan, Stockton, Malone, etc...yet, they make claims about how some of todays stars would not be able to make it in that era, whil the truth is, many of the stars from that era wouldnt make it in todays game.

Wait about 20 years down the road, after LBJ and Kobe are long retired, and watch how the younger generation will talk about those guys.

We hold and compare the stars of the current era to the standards of the stars from previous eras.
I agree with these, people tend to be bias towards the previous generations, as is the case here on PSD. "like stars of today won't be stars on previous generations". :crazy:

KnicksorBust
11-24-2013, 01:14 PM
There are usually 5 basic criteria people consider when ranking careers, moreso if your the type who puts huge stock into accolades like MVP's and such. Awards aren't meaningless, just lower on the list of priorities IMO.

That said, my 5 criteria are team success, team influence, peak, prime production and longevity. Some are relateable and thats in no particular order, that I leave up to you and from your list this is what I gather:


By naming Moses you stress the importance of winning a championship in one of the most dominant forms imaginable, the way Moses did in his first year with Doc. Thats a clear distinction he has on everyone else listed here, who won their titles on the backswing of their primes. From the start of the 80's to that very title, you could argue, as many have, that he was the best player in the game, not sure how often, if ever at all, you could say that about the others.

That said, thats pretty much all you're stressing(peak play+team success) because he was a flash in the pan, sounds paradoxical to label a guy who remained an All-Star for many more years to come but he was a drastically different player after that championship. Its a giant mystery what happened to him but some questioned whether he lost that drive/fire in him that earned him the reputation as the leagues hardest working superstar. His owner openly criticized his work ethic after the lone run and traded him within a few years and he was never heard from again at the superstars club. Moses is one of the reasons why I distinguish between peak and prime runs from longevity. Moses had insane longevity so I suppose you could say you stress that as well, but its not the kind where he maintained his prime throughout, more of a quality teen or vet depending on which end you reward.


And those reasons are exactly why I have Moses ahead of all of them as well, but its not a decision thats set in stone. Who knows, maybe as I age and the game shows me things that alter my priorities, it might change, but for now, its Moses for me too. The rest of your list is where I can see more inconsistencies. But first, you tell me if what I said above is a fair evaluation of why you chose Moses.

I had to read all of that just so you could say that you agree?

KnicksorBust
11-24-2013, 01:17 PM
Let's be perfectly honest right now. Jordan/James are a lock for ANY five man team you assemble. To pick anyone else in place of these two players is a misdemeanor.

If I have MJ, I'd rather have Bird than LeBron.

FlashBolt
11-24-2013, 01:29 PM
Let's be perfectly honest right now. Jordan/James are a lock for ANY five man team you assemble. To pick anyone else in place of these two players is a misdemeanor.

Hey FlashBolt,
Yes.

On the other hand, Isn't Magic clearly #1 amongst all pg's?; just as MJ was and James is for their respective positions (if we can ever really assign a position to LeBron).

I'd say KAJ is clearly #1 center All-Time; BUT, one might not always pick him; for some opposing teams / opposing centers, there might be a better match up.

That would leave the Power Forward spot. I'd bet this would be far and away where the most debate would be. Timmy's been great; but is he really a PG, or a Center??? Beside him, there's a bunch of pretty-equally qualified guys.

You can't go wrong with Kareem just like you can't go wrong without Hakeem. Tim Duncan should be in the selection, but I think you can pit Hakeem in the PF spot if you wanted as well. Magic over LJ? I always wondered, what does Magic do better than LJ? He's not as great defensively and offensively. He's not even close to being a dominating player like LJ. Magic is very overrated imo. Bird in his prime would be a better pick than Magic because he has more to offer.

mightybosstone
11-24-2013, 01:37 PM
MBT going ham in this thread. Makes me miss the redraft bros chatzy's

Anyway, I think Wade has a decent argument to crack top 25 if he retired tomorrow. He's kind of a modelcase study of the "longevity vs peak" debate. His peak is comparable to just about anyone in you can think of. It just did not last very long. In the end, I think Wade needs another 3-4 years of strong play to really cement his case in top 25.


The percentage of things MBT has posted in this thread that I agree with is at an all-time high. I keep looking for an opportunity to quote him and get in an argument but I find myself in agreement far too frequently. I might just make something up in a minute.

My brilliance is a gift, gentlemen. I try to spread the wealth around when I can. :D

FlashBolt
11-24-2013, 01:47 PM
Wade is already top 25. He is in the 15-20's, stop this already. Three rings, finals mvp, third best SG of all time. I bet many of you put Garnett over Wade but in that case, let's put James over Magic since ring are no longer part of the equation.

Chronz
11-24-2013, 02:55 PM
I had to read all of that just so you could say that you agree?

Yes, because the inconsistencies come up once you acknowledge that fact.

lol, please
11-24-2013, 03:13 PM
LeBron
Duncan
Kobe
Wade
Dirk
Garnett

Durant and Chris Paul are the only players currently in the NBA with TOP 25 potential IMO. I see guys like RosÚ and Westbrook amounting to someone like Kevin Johnson, who is not a TOP 25 GOAT.

I love ignorance. What exactly is a top 25 GOATS list? You do know what GOAT stands for right? And that there can only be one? Maybe the acronym you were looking for was ATG? :confused:

KnicksorBust
11-24-2013, 04:05 PM
I had to read all of that just so you could say that you agree?

Yes, because the inconsistencies come up once you acknowledge that fact.

I dispute your premise that I assign concrete weighted values. Come at me one at a time bro.

mightybosstone
11-25-2013, 01:48 AM
I love ignorance. What exactly is a top 25 GOATS list? You do know what GOAT stands for right? And that there can only be one? Maybe the acronym you were looking for was ATG? :confused:

I feel like you're arguing semantics to put the guy down rather than addressing the point itself. Since when did GOAT have to be singular? I've seen GOAT used when discussing top player lists several times, and not necessarily just in Internet forums. Instead of showing the guy up and calling him ignorant, maybe you could actually add to the discussion. Because, if anything, you're the one who's coming off as ignorant with a post like this.

Pablonovi
11-25-2013, 04:13 PM
I feel like you're arguing semantics to put the guy down rather than addressing the point itself. Since when did GOAT have to be singular? I've seen GOAT used when discussing top player lists several times, and not necessarily just in Internet forums. Instead of showing the guy up and calling him ignorant, maybe you could actually add to the discussion. Because, if anything, you're the one who's coming off as ignorant with a post like this.

Hey MBT,
I'm glad you've made this point. If we're going to discuss the "rules of language"; it turns out that just like just about everything else, living languages EVOLVE. So even when the meaning of a word or acronym is (temporarily) agreed upon; that neither makes it a "sin" to use it / define it in some other fashion (particulary a useful one); nor does it guarantee it won't come to mean something else later on.

IF GOAT ever meant only discussion of THE Greatest Of All-Time; it certainly morphed to a discussion of the several candidates for GOAT #1. More and more, one can see that it has clearly morphed (or is at least un-clearly morphing) to titles of discussions like, "The Top 25 GOAT Players".

I wouldn't guess that many of those who know what GOAT means would be confused by such titles.

We should much rather emphasize content than quibble over words (especially ones whose usage is morph-ifying).

No harm no foul.