What could be more subjective in a basketball discussion than debating who is the greatest of all time (GOAT)? Nothing! And it always boils down to the question – “Is it MJ or LBJ?” Kobe, Kareem, and even Steph were sometimes inserted in GOAT discussions.

But who should really be the basketball’s GOAT? What criteria should be used to determine the greatest among the basketeers?

Should it be the number of championship rings won? Bill Russel should be it, then. He holds the record for most NBA championships with 11 titles during his 13-year playing career with the Boston Celtics. Jordan and Kareem each have 6, Kobe 5,  and Lebron 4. However, Bill was rarely mentioned in the GOAT discussion because there were fewer teams and a lower level of competition during his era. When Jordan, Kareem, and Kobe won their championship rings, there were also fewer teams than when Lebron won his.

Declaring MJ as the GOAT, and not LeBron or anyone else, because he won six finals without losing any is illogical. Is it proper to say that Michael Jordan won all those trips to the NBA finals, or the Chicago Bulls did? That’s the problem with adding “winning six NBA titles and losing none” in the GOAT debate. It is as if only MJ should be credited for the feat. Lest it be forgotten that basketball is a team sport. Not only one player should get the credit.

Objective criteria should be set to determine who the GOAT is. Deciding who the best cager is cannot be done through debates in “barber shops” and agreeing to what biased and prejudiced sportscasters say.

The most objective criteria that can be created should be based solely on numbers, not on the opinion of self-proclaimed experts and diehard fans. A statistical model or formula should be created to quantify all the known and measurable aspects of a basketball player’s performance. Determining the GOAT must be based on the players’ performance-related statistics, not on the narratives created by talking heads. There’s no better method but through analytics… not what the Stephen Smiths and Shannon Sharpes of the world say.

Including the number of championship rings won in the formula is not statistically valid. Firstly, those vying for the GOAT status played in different periods. The rules of the game during their respective times are different. They don’t have the same set of teammates as well. In comparative statistical analyses, the population must possess the same characteristics and qualifications for the analysis to be considered statistically valid.

As to what are the measurable areas are well-known. They are the categories listed in the box score of a basketball game  – points, assists, rebounds, steals, blocks, and turnovers. These are the bases upon which the National Basketball Association measures the player efficiency rating (PER). The NBA  has also come up with a better way of analyzing the performance of its players through Player Impact Estimate (PIE).

Will the PIE model be enough to determine the GOAT?

The problem is that all metrics used by the NBA to gauge players’ all-around contribution to the game were implemented only recently. Putting the numbers of the GOAT candidates in a comparative matrix is obviously easier said and done.

Assuming that the comparative matrix can be created, is the PIE model enough to determine the GOAT? It seems incomplete and not inclusive, with missing “slices” in the PIE.

The statistical computation should also include the number of teams competing during the seasons that the GOAT candidates hoisted the championship trophy with their teams. The mathematicians in the NBA can figure out how to insert that component into the statistical model.

And there exists a gray area that must also be addressed if and when the GOAT dispute gets settled via analytics – the changes in the rules as the game of basketball evolved into what it is now. There were subtle changes to the regulations that perhaps went unnoticed, and there were obvious ones. Noticeable or not, those changes in rules affected the way the games were played before and now. Such changes in the rules should be factored in when creating the statistical model or formula to determine who the GOAT should be. If not, any statistical comparative analysis will be considered invalid. An inclusive “analytics model” is needed to comprehensively and objectively measure players’ performance to determine the greatest among them.

The changes in the rules implemented year by year make it challenging to create an inclusive “analytics model” that could comprehensively and objectively measure players’ performance to determine who is the GOAT. For example, some categories were only added in specific years – blocks in 1974, steals in 1974, offensive rebounds in 1974, turnovers in 1978, and three-point shots in 1980. There was a period when hand-checking was allowed. Now, it is considered a foul.  Decisions on fouls can be challenged and consequently reversed starting in 2019. Changes in the rules affected the way basketball is played, and disregarding them in the creation of the statistical model or formula for evaluating the performance of the GOAT candidates is not correct.

This leads to the question – Is it possible to create an inclusive “analytics model” to settle the GOAT debate?

Are the categories “number of teams playing when a championship was won” and “effect of the changes in rules during the playing years of the players” the only missing slices in NBA’s PIE? What about “availability to play”? In the number of years the GOAT candidates played, how many of the games were supposed to be played by their respective teams in a particular season they played?

What about factoring their age in the analytics? As they become older, are they still productive? As they age, do they still positively affect the results of the games they play, or have they become more of a liability to their teams? Can the answers to the preceding questions be measured and included in the NBA’s PIE?

We need to realize that with all those other categories that should be added to the GOAT formula, the statistical model becomes more and more complicated.

Suppose all those categories cannot be added to the “analytics model.” In that case, there is no way we can determine with utmost objectivity who among basketball players (past and present) is the greatest.

Why don’t we just slay the GOAT (debate) and bury it? Instead, let’s search for the GOTE – Greatest Of This Era. A GOTE “analytics model” is less complicated and is easier to formulate than that for the GOAT.

But there’s another path we can go the AI way… not ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE but APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY. For the uninitiated on Appreciative Inquiry, you can simply look at the meanings of the two words in context – APPRECIATION and INQUIRY. An online dictionary defines appreciation as recognizing and valuing the contributions or attributes of things and people around us, Inquiry, exploring and discovering in the spirit of understanding, and being open to new possibilities. Appreciative Inquiry is a method of problem-solving that was popularized by David Cooperrider in the 1980s.

I bet that when AI is applied to determine greatness in the hardwood, we will refrain from seeking out who the GOAT or the GOTE is. Instead, we will come out declaring the OOTG – One Of The Greatest.

There is no need to put one basketball player on the pedestal of greatness and put other basketball players down. We can learn to appreciate the greatness of the players we idolize without making any comparisons with other players.