ElJorge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 1:30 pm
This is one of those hills Grizz always chooses to die on. I’ll give him points for consistency at least.
But Russell as the GOAT is just one of those arguments that doesn’t work. I joke about shitty eras but yea… his era was completely watered down. You had Wilt going apeshit for 50ppg, Oscar Robertson averaging trip dubs, Elgin Baylor with a 38ppg 18rpg season lol… the game was way unrefined and I have a hard time taking it serious pre-merger.
Because you don't agree doesn't mean it doesn't work. Of course the era was hugely weaker than it is today. The game has steadily improved every decade and will continue to do so, albeit in smaller increments.
I am consistent when evaluating GOATs in all sports, that a key part of the criteria is dominance relative to era, not absolute skill. It is the only way to allow prior generations to have an opportunity to compete in the discussion. If you don't accept that, well then, the argument is moot, and the GOATs will always be in the current generation or very close to.
In baseball, excluding Bonds on steroids, I have Ruth as GOAT. He hit more home runs that a bunch of teams did back in his day. He was also a dominant pitcher when he did pitch. On advanced metrics, his level of domination over the competition is higher than pretty much anyone in history, at least for the length of time he did it.
In hockey, I have Bobby Orr. Despite his relatively short career because of the knee injuries, he dominated from the back end like no one has remotely come close to. He led some marginal teams to Stanley Cups when the Montreal Canadiens were an absolute powerhouse with big structural advantages in the league (there were territorial rights to players, not a draft) at the time.
In football, I don't really have a GOAT. I often troll, using Tom Brady as my GOAT, but I think cases can be made for so many different guys in football that I can't put a stake in the ground. It is often just seen as a quarterback competition, and while is by far the most important position now, that wasn't always the case. Football is complicated.
In basketball, my reasoning is "relatively" similar to my position on Ruth. While the level of competition pales in comparison to what it is today, his level of domination was extreme. They had the best defense 12 of his 13 seasons and 2nd the other. His teams literally won in 13 of his last 15 seasons. That is unheard of in any sport. Guys like Satch Sanders, KC Jones, Don Nelson, Arnie Risen are in the HOF because of titles that Russell led them to. If you look at their HOF probability numbers on basketball reference, most of these guys are at 20% or below. Hell, Jim Lostcutoff had his number retired, and he has 0.4% probability HOF rating. The common denominator was Russell.
You don't agree. That's fine. But I believe what I believe and I am consistent in how I get there. I think I am right, and I am very well aware that few will ever agree with me. I'm fine with that.
