Shouldn't We Take Into Consideration Who Players Played When Having the "GOAT Discussions"

[Black_Panther_JS]

LeBron's, Melo, T-Mac, Paul Pierce were going against each other (T-Mac was always hurt tho and played SG somtimes too)

Jordan, Clyde, Reggie, Dumar, Sprewell, Richmond, etc...

Wilt, Bill Russell, and some other nikkas only dead people know

Kobe, AI, Vince, Wade, Ray Allen were all going up against each other

Duncan, KG, Dirk, Gasol, Bosh, Prime Amar'e, Chris Webber, etc..

Shaq, Yao, Dwight, etc...

Nash, Kidd, CP3, etc...

If some nikka was putting up 25, 5, 10 but he was doing it against scrubs then he shouldn't even get talked about

 

[FTBS]

There are 30 teams in the league and two conferences. So Bron for example only played Melo, Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce a combined 10 times out of 82 games (not accounting for games missed) in a given year. Most of those numbers were put up on average to below average players because that's what the majority of the league is.

 

[T.he I.nformant]

There are 30 teams in the league and two conferences. So Bron for example only played Melo, Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce a combined 10 times out of 82 games (not accounting for games missed) in a given year. Most of those numbers were put up on average to below average players because that's what the majority of the league is.

And that's the way it always has been regardless of era.

To answer the thread question, though, sure you should consider competition along with a number of other factors but you should also understand that it's problematic to weigh that too heavily.

For example, right now there's a great group of PGs: Curry, CP3, Westbrook, Kyrie, Dame, Wall, Lowry, Conley, etc. Let's say you're trying to weigh Curry's greatness and where he fits in among great PGs. You can't just do some head-to-head comparison of how he fared against other PGs because he's not always matched up against these other PGs. Because of GSW's personnel, strategy, and scheme, Curry is often matched up against non-PGs. Because Klay is the better defender, GSW puts Klay on these other elite PGs and "hides" Curry on someone else. So, if you're trying to figure out where Curry fits among greats you should weigh how great he is as shooter/scorer/thief/dribbler as well as how poor a defender he is.

 

[threattonature]

I always thought it was more accurate to compare the teams players went up against compared to individual talents. Not trying to knock Jordan but one thing that I always thought benefited him was that the other stars of his era were usually fukked over by their GMs. Olajuwon didn't get another star quality player next to him until Drexler. Ewing didn't until he was washed. Robinson didn't until maybe Sean Elliot but for real probably Duncan when he was tail end of his prime. Even Drexler until paired with Olajuwon. Barkley had nothing until paired with KJ and after that first year was hard to count on him health wise. Shaq and Penny paired for two years going 1-1 against him in the playoffs before Shaq bounced. Him and Pippen, and Stockton and Malone was the only ones paired with another star during the years Jordan was winning their titles. And I guess Payton and Kemp but to me Kemp was always overrated.

 

[triplehate]

No

 

[Noah]

Power forwards in the 2000's

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Power forwards in the 2000's

Centers in the 90's and wings 2000-2010

 

[FTBS]

And that's the way it always has been regardless of era.

To answer the thread question, though, sure you should consider competition along with a number of other factors but you should also understand that it's problematic to weigh that too heavily.

For example, right now there's a great group of PGs: Curry, CP3, Westbrook, Kyrie, Dame, Wall, Lowry, Conley, etc. Let's say you're trying to weigh Curry's greatness and where he fits in among great PGs. You can't just do some head-to-head comparison of how he fared against other PGs because he's not always matched up against these other PGs. Because of GSW's personnel, strategy, and scheme, Curry is often matched up against non-PGs. Because Klay is the better defender, GSW puts Klay on these other elite PGs and "hides" Curry on someone else. So, if you're trying to figure out where Curry fits among greats you should weigh how great he is as shooter/scorer/thief/dribbler as well as how poor a defender he is.

Not true because there hasn't always been 30 teams in the league. You see other elite players less often now than you did 30 years ago and waaaaaaay less often than you did 60 years ago.

 

[T.he I.nformant]

Not true because there hasn't always been 30 teams in the league. You see other elite players less often now than you did 30 years ago and waaaaaaay less often than you did 60 years ago.

23 teams in '86 and 8 in '56. I guess I get the general gist of what you're saying--fewer teams means you'll have elite players facing off more often.

Let's keep it a buck, though, what elite players were in the Association in '56?

And I don't think you realize how many garbage teams were in the NBA in '86. I'd venture to say that there was the same ratio of good to bad teams as there is now. And I'd say there's no greater percentage of elite players on teams than there is now.

I guess some of this boils down to how you define an elite player as well. Give me some examples from the different eras. Draymond elite now? Worthy elite in the 80s? Name me an elite player not named Cousy or Russell from the 50s.