How do you rank players all-time?

[LAZERUSS]

Why this passive-aggressive post?

Just for the benefit of those that somehow believe that basketball is played at far greater levels than by those of previous eras.

[feyki]

Individual impact .

[hateraid]

Impact to team success
Eye test

[La Frescobaldi]

For the top level players?

1 I have to have seen them live (at least live on tv).
I can't really talk about Bill Russell too much even though I saw him a lot, because he was old by the time I saw him, just his last couple three seasons. His will to win... I can tell you about that - un f@cking matched. Jordanesque. Duncanesque. But as far as his time on the court, he was slow, clearly his legs were bad.... see? All my older friends who did see him, late 50s early 60s are unanimous that he was one of the finest physical specimens ever seen on a court.
Baylor the same way but more so. The man split his kneecap who would ever be the same after that? Had to live in fear. Had to. At least for awhile. We all saw what happened to D Rose here few years back. I wish all those guys had titanium knees or whatever.

2 The guy has to dominate the entire court - not just offense, not just defense, not just transition or just pure scoring or anything else. The whole court.
Russell Westbrook - who I detest because he's so incredibly stupid - can do this at times. I've literally never seen Kevin Durant do it, not even once. He's Dr. J like.
Bob McAdoo in his early days, he could do it; Elvin Hayes never did that I ever saw. Bird, Magic, who are bashed a lot for their 'bad defense' they could absolutely do it not just for quarters or games but for series. Jordan of course. Walt Frazier of course. As far as you can go with this one, John Havlicek is a player who took it clear out there to the outer limits.

3. The guy has to loom over the entire game - other players tend to fade into the background but more than that they will just pretty much vanish. Here is where centers can shine, the last one was Celtics Garnett although Dwight Howard before he jacked his back could really keep up with the forwards and even some guards. Shaq of course reached the heights in his days. Jabbar, Chamberlain, Shaq, they just got bigger and bigger as the game went along until they totally dominated every aspect. Guards literally afraid to shoot.

So it's very subjective of course, for me. Stats can mean a lot but then what do you do with Bill Walton or Tim Duncan or 70s Chamberlain? You can't tell me those guys couldn't have put up enormous numbers if they had a Kobe Bryant mentality. Because they absolutely could. When his legs were good, Bill Walton could score literally at will at all times. NOBODY who's ever played could stop him. The best guys, all they could do would be slow him down. But yet he played within the team at all times, stayed balanced and played like Wooden knew best.

[winwin]

Mentality


eye test
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity

[La Frescobaldi]

Mentality


eye test
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity

team achievement is a problem for me.
Maybe the best team I ever saw was the 1968 Sixers. Incredible team in every way, great great teamwork, confidence building on their title from the year before, excellent coaching...... fell apart due to injuries.

That Celtics squad here a few years back...... Rondo, Ray and all those guys..... right there in the Finals and Perkins broke his knee when bynum jumped on his back. Does Paul Pierce get ranked lower now because his team didn't win that Finals ?

Team achievement is a big deal but there has to be context. Injuries are too big a factor. Did Jordan ever lose a main teammate to injury for playoffs? What if Horace Grant had gone down with a separated shoulder like Havlicek did in '73? I don't see Bulls winning without Horace. Or if Rodman & Kerr had missed playoffs like West & Baylor did in '71. Now Jordan...... isn't the greatest anymore because he only won three or 4?

[Muskarat]

A mix of four factors for me

Eye test
Skill
Personality/Attitude
Circumstances/Story/Legend

[knicksman]

rings. It means you achieve your stats while winning. Coz there are players who achieve their stats by sacrificing wins. MVPs measure that coz its the best player on the best team but it is for the RS and playoffs is a different animal. It exposes the wilt/bran. So the only way is rings.

[bizil]

For GOAT status, I factor:

Solo Accolades
Team Accolades
Career Numbers
Peak Value
Longevity being great
Impact on the game (redefining a position, rule changes, etc.)

Looking at this criteria I laid out, I think MJ and Kareem are the most balanced across the board. That's why I consider them the top two GOAT wise.

Another criteria is one based off peak value. For example, I have T Mac as a top 5 SG of all time in this sort of criteria. GOAT wise, T Mac is nowhere near that kind of status. On the flip side, I think Bill Russell is a top 5 player GOAT wise. But peak value wise, I don't consider ANYWHERE near that kind of status.

[Marchesk]

Looking at this criteria I laid out, I think MJ and Kareem are the most balanced across the board. That's why I consider them the top two GOAT wise.

Wouldn't that apply to Mikan as well? He get's penalized for the era he played in, and because almost nobody alive saw him play. But didn't he dominate his competition the same way?

[JebronLames]

LeBron > Kobe

[bizil]

Wouldn't that apply to Mikan as well? He get's penalized for the era he played in, and because almost nobody alive saw him play. But didn't he dominate his competition the same way?

As the years went on, Mikan's resume doesn't stand up to guys like MJ and Kareem. Let alone other legends in the top 10 GOAT. But given what Big George accomplished, I think he's still a top 10 GOAT center though.

[Odinn]

Well, to be honest, the only certain criteria is "feeling comfortable with the ranking" thing. When you rank 'em and you feel comfortable the look, other people explaining how criterias should work won't change your opinion without causing a hard time.
Consistency on these matters hard to find. A person can say "I value peak level of play more than anything else". It can be true for his top 10 ever list. But when he stretches to 20-25, he will see he wants to rank a successful player over a better player, or vice versa.

What I'm trying to say is this;
Criterias are shaped by rankings. Not rankings are shaped by criterias.

[strike]

i don't. I have a life

[sdot_thadon]

Man its so subjective over time my criteria changed alot but the way I see it now:

Peak (who was best, at their respective bests)
Prime (way to quantify sustained excellece)
Impact (it's somewhat subjective and harder to gauge for older players but very important)
Eye test (can't really get a good grip on impact without this one)

Pretty much everything below here is tiebreaker type importance if 2 guys are close

Mvps (need at least one for top 10 consideration, illustrates value as an individual)
FMVP (need one for top 10 rank, usually says player is main reason they won title)
Rings (minimum of 1 for consideration, validation of greatness. Obviously being the leader of the team is most valuable)
Career numbers (record of what actually happened in players career, and a decent measuring stick)
Other accolades (dpoy, Roy all nba, allstar appearances, etc)
Era
Competition at position(not really big on this unless it's an amazing amount of comp)
Longevity (how long player was serviceable )
Team success ( important but not really attributed to one guy)

And there's so many other small details to nit pick. Goat debates have been and will always be subjective because people have too many different types of criteria.