All-time top 200 one thousand scenarios

[Marchesk]

You get to pick the three players most likely to be GOAT given the following:

1. Top 200 all-time NBA players are randomly drafted (by position) as rookies onto 20 teams.

2. Top 20 coaches all-time coach those teams from the age they became head coaches.

3. Play with modern rules, training, etc.

4. League plays out for 10 years.

5. The scenario is repeated 1000 times with random distribution of players and coaches.

[SouBeachTalents]

Jordan
Kareem
Hakeem

[kshutts1]

Based on the large amount of available, quality big men, it's not likely that a big would be the unanimous, or even widely-considered-, GOAT. Rather, it would most likely be a wing that stood out among the rest, that was also paired with a big.

Edit: By that I mean that most big men would cancel out one another, or at least come close to it. But there are a few wings that are/were significantly better than the available crop of wings. Most notably... Jordan, Lebron, Oscar, Magic.

Though since we're only talking 10 years, Wade should get a mention in that group, too.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Jordan
Magic
Armstrong

[Marchesk]

It would be funny if it was someone that nobody considers a GOAT candidate in the real world, maybe because of injuries, or the team they were on, or whatever.

[ShawkFactory]

Dr. J would probably be up there.

[Marchesk]

Rather, it would most likely be a wing that stood out among the rest, that was also paired with a big.

Given a thousand different scenarios and only 200 players, everyone will be a teammate with everyone else at some point, probably several times.

But there are a few wings that are/were significantly better than the available crop of wings. Most notably... Jordan, Lebron, Oscar, Magic.

But every position is going to be deep in this setup. Even a guy like a healthy Moncrief is going to make Jordan work. And then the next game is against Kobe. And the game after that is against Wade and so on.

[Marchesk]

Dr. J would probably be up there.

Dr J would be a sleeper. That's one of the players I had in mind as someone we don't consider a GOAT candidate, but given tons of scenarios with all kinds of teammates, who knows?

Also consider that all of these players would be able to learn from each other. Elgin Baylor would be watching or playing with Mike, Lebron, etc.

[kennethgriffin]

the answer is whatever position is most rare

its most rare to have a great center

so the top 3 centers would stand out most


Kareem
Shaq
Wilt


russell wouldnt have the same extensive advantages so he's voided




each team would be full of great players. with more than half the leagues teams being exposed for having a big that doesnt compare with the top 5 teams

[3ball]

If we're only contemplating #1 options, then the best player would be the guy that can score at an elite level in the MOST number of ways, so he can fit best with any supporting cast.

The player who is an elite scorer in the most number of ways, will not only be able to fit in best with the widest range of supporting casts, but they can get their lofty stats while not diminishing the capacity of his teammates, regardless of the TYPE of teammates he has.

When the star player can develop great chemistry and not diminish the stats of teammates, the team's capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.
.

[kshutts1]

Given a thousand different scenarios and only 200 players, everyone will be a teammate with everyone else at some point, probably several times.



But every position is going to be deep in this setup. Even a guy like a healthy Moncrief is going to make Jordan work. And then the next game is against Kobe. And the game after that is against Wade and so on.

I understand the premise. But, using your example of Jordan v Moncrief then Kobe... while those may be difficult matchups, it's pretty apparent that Jordan is just flat-out better than both of them.

While not a valid GOAT argument, it's pretty clear that Jordan v Kobe is the largest gap between numbers 1 and 2 on a positional GOAT ranking, assuming Magic and Oscar are both considered PGs. What that shows is that, with a similar supporting cast (which your exercise is essentially setting up), Jordan will come out on top more often than Kobe.

To get more in depth, cuz I'm all about the length posts....
Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, Dream are generally considered the top 5 Cs ever. It is my belief that Dream is the worst of them all, but a lot of people may argue otherwise, and a lot of people will change up the order. Which shows that all 5 are, at least to a point, largely interchangeable.
PF? Duncan, Malone, Barkley all have arguments. KG and Dirk are nipping at their heels.
SF? Bird, Lebron, Doc are clearly the top 3. Baylor and Barry are the underappreciated stars. Pretty large drop-off after them, but there is discussion at the top.
PG? Magic is universally acknowledged as #1. I'm biased towards Oscar, and think he's hated on more than most legends, and I have him tied with Magic. But PG is, similar to C, so varied in what you may want. Stockton, Isiah, Magic, Oscar all offer something unique to themselves in which they excel, which makes their talent separation less meaningful.

That same can not be said about SG. Jordan is clearly first. Kobe is clearly second. Then Wade, West, Drexler all enter the conversation, though order is argued.

[kshutts1]

the answer is whatever position is most rare
its most rare to have a great center
so the top 3 centers would stand out most

Kareem
Shaq
Wilt


russell wouldnt have the same extensive advantages so he's voided

each team would be full of great players. with more than half the leagues teams being exposed for having a big that doesnt compare with the top 5 teams

I actually agree with his argument, just disagree with his conclusion.
Whatever position is "most rare" (talent gap in my novel of a response) will win out, in a sense, because all other positions are more even.

And I think SG is where that differential really shows through.

[Marchesk]

When the star player fits in and doesn't diminish the stats of teammates, the team's capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.

So who would be the other two on your list?

[kshutts1]

If we're only contemplating #1 options, then the best player would be the guy that can score at an elite level in the MOST number of ways, so he can fit best with any supporting cast.

The player who is an elite scorer in the most number of ways, will not only be able to fit in best with the widest range of supporting casts, but they can get their lofty stats while not diminishing the capacity of his teammates, regardless of the TYPE of teammates he has.

By fitting in the best and not diminishing the stats of teammates, the team's capacity is maximized, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - that's all you can ask for - that the team always plays to capacity, whatever that capacity is.
.

Using that criteria, Larry Bird and Charles Barkley come to mind. Jordan, as I mentioned.
Since we're only going by the first 10 years, TMac is a sleeper candidate, under that critera, as well.

[Marchesk]

And I think SG is where that differential really shows through.

That's an interesting argument. So Jordan is still GOAT to most in this setup. Who be your second and third?