I think I may have finally become a “You can’t compare these two” guy.

[Kblaze8855]

Having spent my life comparing “these two” while people didn’t care for it I think I’m coming around. It wasn’t put in the words we would use now but I was having arguments like we have on here with my stepfather in the 80s. He and his friends saw people like Elgin Baylor play on tv and in person and as young people do I still had to get my opinion off like I knew what I was talking about. So I have done a good 35-40 years of probably stupid comparisons so I’m not here to judge any of you for doing them.

Im just saying…I think I might be out.

How do I really compare someone like Bill Russell or to make it less of a time issue…Shaq…to Steph Curry?

What am I deciding that with? Impact? They all did everything you can realistically ask anyone to do. One won with defense, will power, playing all over the floor, coaching the team himself and so on….one won with physical dominance…one with grace and finely honed skill and a smart approach.

They all did as well as or better than it’s fair to expect anyone to do winning wise. Everyone could win more but…you can’t call someone with 4-11 rings out for not being a winner(though people try).


The comparisons come down to a list of achievements achieved against different people and with different teammates which almost makes it pointless to compare….and competing approaches to a problem they all solved correctly.

So what really makes the difference? What we think is skill? Not like Stephs perceived skill advantage is gonna make the 60s Celtics win 13 instead of 11 without Russell making them the goat defense to that point. What good is 40 foot range for 2 points? He’d be great but it’s hard to be more effective than someone who only lost 1 healthy eliminating game after age 15.

We obviously can’t assume Russell does what Steph does. Be stupid to even try to inset him 60 years later into a game with totally different rules and judge his performance if you could.

What am I really getting out of a comparison of Bird, Oscar, Steph, Kareem, Hakeem, and so on other than a way to kill time?

Which is a good enough reason to discuss it for the record.

I just don’t know that any of it can ever be made fair….

We just neeeeeeed to make top 5 and 10 lists I guess but it feels more and more like just throwing names at a wall or letting our personal bias decide.

I don’t see any reasonable path to fair all time rankings. They are meaning less and less to me as time goes on.

[warriorfan]

When you get down to it rankings are pretty dumb. It’s something sports fans do when they are bored it seems. most of the time the top guys in the league are separated by such a small margin that it is a 50/50 push more often then not.

Then when you get to comparing players over vast periods of time and era changes it gets really asinine. “The time machine” scenarios and all that. It was just a whole different game and a whole different world in the 60’s. There are way too many different variables to account for properly when trying to compare them to modern day players or even players from let’s say the 80’s.


I think a tier list is better than sequentially ranking

Also that we don’t even compare players from across eras in a ranking fashion


That being said there will always be crazy top 10/15/50 lists and plenty of bickering following them. It’s sports talk equivalent of Jerry Springer. It’s total garbage but you can’t help yourself from engaging.

[warriorfan]

Btw I think it’s a bit of wishful thinking, we are always going to get baited into this.

Younger generation sports fans will talk lists and make posts fading certain past players for a number of reasons such as agendas or most often pure ignorance. When you see people doing this and they don’t really know what they are talking about or ever seen them play really, it makes it very difficult to not hop in there and set it straight.

[Carbine]

Rank by eras. Any other way is illogical.

Russell and Wilt were obviously top dogs in their era.

Kareem for his era

Magic/Bird

The Jordan era.

Shaq/Kobe/Duncan era

Lebron/Steph era

Looks like the Jokic/Giannis era has followed.

I'm not too sure who the next era is. Luka and Ant I guess? That's a weak ass era for top dogs IMO

[warriorfan]

Rank by eras. Any other way is illogical.

Russell and Wilt were obviously top dogs in their era.

Kareem for his era

Magic/Bird

The Jordan era.

Shaq/Kobe/Duncan era

Lebron/Steph era

Looks like the Jokic/Giannis era has followed.

I'm not too sure who the next era is. Luka and Ant I guess? That's a weak ass era for top dogs IMO

There’s lots of good young players right now. Off the top of my head Luka, Ant, SGA, Haliburton, Fox, you have Scoot and Wemby around the corner. You don’t know who’s gonna make that next step until they do.

[Carbine]

We aren't talking about good. We are talking about era defining players.

It's a weak crop as it stands. I'm not on the Ant hype train at all. Wemby could change that if he's a Giannis level player.

[Kblaze8855]

You really do probably have to keep it era to era, but just calling someone the goat means you aren’t doing that. And it’s only gonna get worse. Just look at baseball. If you try to rank the goat short stops, you will have people arguing a guy born in 1874 against Alex Rodriguez, and his contemporaries. People are posting numbers from a guy born during the Ulysses S Grant administration vs those of someone from the social media age.

How?

Hooooooow do you convince yourself that can be rationally compared?

it just feels like the thing to do as a sports fan. And as I said, I’m certainly not criticizing any of you after I’ve spent decades asking you who was better between this guy and that guy, and in the same argument that I am now talking shit about. feel free to continue. I just feel like a lot of these comparisons are downright stupid. But does that mean I’m not allowed to think anybody is the greatest of all time? It’s a thinker.

[warriorfan]

We aren't talking about good. We are talking about era defining players.

It's a weak crop as it stands. I'm not on the Ant hype train at all. Wemby could change that if he's a Giannis level player.

I know. I’m just saying give them time and wait and see. It’s way too early to say we will have an era with no defining superstars.

[Carbine]

You really do probably have to keep it era to era, but just calling someone the goat means you aren’t doing that. And it’s only gonna get worse. Just look at baseball. If you try to rank the goat short stops, you will have people arguing a guy born in 1874 against Alex Rodriguez, and his contemporaries. People are posting numbers from a guy born during the Ulysses S Grant administration vs those of someone from the social media age.

How?

Hooooooow do you convince yourself that can be rationally compared?

it just feels like the thing to do as a sports fan. And as I said, I’m certainly not criticizing any of you after I’ve spent decades asking you who was better between this guy and that guy, and in the same argument that I am now talking shit about. feel free to continue. I just feel like a lot of these comparisons are downright stupid. But does that mean I’m not allowed to think anybody is the greatest of all time? It’s a thinker.

Your GOAT is almost certainly tied to who you grew up with. If you're 90 years+ right now you're likely to say Bill it Wilt is the goat. People your age will say Jordan. The 25 and under range will say Lebron.

In other words, it's not a worthy conversation because of the bias involved. Removing bias from your opinion is a extremely rare trait to have.

[eliteballer]

I need a 10,000 word post from you about McGrady, how talented he was and how good he would have been if he stayed healthy.

[ShawkFactory]

I need a 10,000 word post from you about McGrady, how talented he was and how good he would have been if he stayed healthy.

Did you not watch him? I feel like doing that would alleviate any doubts.

[SATAN]

Your GOAT is almost certainly tied to who you grew up with. If you're 90 years+ right now you're likely to say Bill it Wilt is the goat. People your age will say Jordan. The 25 and under range will say Lebron.

In other words, it's not a worthy conversation because of the bias involved. Removing bias from your opinion is a extremely rare trait to have.

I have LeBron over MJ (grew up in MJ era) but OP's main point always comes to mind. They are nothing alike. It's mostly preference in play style. I can see why casuals who never played a game in their life would be amazed at MJ's athleticism back in the day though.

[Baller234]

I need a 10,000 word post from you about McGrady, how talented he was and how good he would have been if he stayed healthy.

In terms of pure isolation scoring ability from the 2-3 position, Jordan is the all time goat but right under him I have Kobe and T-Mac on the same tier. He was that freakishly skilled. What separated Kobe from T-Mac were the intangibles. Talent wise they were neck and neck.

His 13 point points in 33 seconds is arguably the single most impressive feat anyone has ever performed. It was an all time "this guy isn't human" moment.