Loading...
As new players take the stage, the GOAT debate is continually being exposed for what it is: a flawed concept that cannot be true no matter how well it is defended. The concept of a GOAT, a term first used by Mohamed Ali, implies that for each sport, there is one individual player who surpasses all others in terms of ability and impact on the game. Those who know the game of basketball and the changes it has gone through, however, agree that there is nothing like a GOAT. No single player can thrive in all eras; it’s practically impossible. Here’s a breakdown of the most common reason why the GOAT debate is pretty much a lie.
Rule changes make direct comparisons difficult.
Let's just say the NBA of today is not that of yesteryear. The NBA has made so many changes to its rulebook that it is practically impossible to accurately predict how players would perform in a past or future era. The more aggressive defensive plays that were allowed in the 90s, such as hand checking, are no longer legal. Each era therefore suited certain types of players depending on how aggressive it was. Past players who played in a highly aggressive league where a lot of contact was allowed on defense cannot succeed in the current NBA, while current players who are used to minimal contact may not be able to achieve the same success in the past. Eras matter, and each player is most likely to only achieve success in the era meant for them.
No Universal GOAT Criteria
Everyone seems to have their own criteria of what a great player should be. It even gets more complicated when it comes to the greatest player of all time. While some people only focus on championships, others consider longevity, while still others consider one’s ability to be a two-way player. No single metric of measuring GOAT status is universally accepted, which effectively means that it's possible to have multiple GOATs. Everyone can have their own GOAT depending on what they consider to be the criteria that best measures greatness.
The Team vs. the Player
Team strength often surpasses individual talent—if you have played any team sport, you already know for sure that a good player on a bad team will ALWAYS lose. There are no two ways about it. A great team brings out the best in a great player, and an outstandingly great player can never rise above a bad team. This is why some of the greatest players to ever play only won when they had the right team around them. Jordan needed Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson, and LeBron needed Dwayne Wade and Kyrie Irving to win. When these two players had weak supporting casts, they lost. A GOAT should be able to win irrespective of the players around them. Since this has never happened and is clearly not possible, it's hard to make the case that there is a GOAT.
A player's legacy is influenced by more than their game.
Some of the greatest players to have played the game are known for just more than championships or great highlights. Michael Jordan, for example, is more popular for globalizing the league and making it a pop culture sensation. LeBron is better known for his activism, vocal criticism of social issues, and longevity. Steph Curry is known for his shooting, while Kobe is best known for his strong work ethic. Every fan therefore has a unique reason why they think a certain player is the GOAT based on the traits of that player that most appealed to them, not just their ability to play.
Unending Debate
The GOAT debate will go on forever—every decade or so, a new player will show up that can match or even surpass what the past great players could do. A new GOAT debate will start, or they may be inserted into the existing GOAT debate if they have not clearly surpassed a past player who was considered to be GOAT-worthy. The GOAT debate is therefore perpetual, with no clear winner due to the absence of a universal criteria for making assessments.
The GOAT debate, which has become a favorite topic among media pundits, is therefore largely flawed and cannot be reliably used as a basis for determining which players were the most impactful. Each player should be appreciated in their own era based on their performance against peers that they actually play against, instead of former players that they will never get to go up against.