MJ or LeBron? Magnus or Gary? Meryl Streep or ….? We spend a lot of time thing about the "Greatest of All Time.” The GOAT is fun to talk about but really, how do we decide? I’ll give you my approach and then apply it to a few examples.
When thinking about the GOAT, I work with the following assumptions:
It is not about peak performance; it is about elite performance over a long period of time. For example, for many years, the chess player Sofia Polgar had the best “peak performance.” At one tournament, called “The Sack of Rome,” Sofia performed at a level better (performance rating 2900) than the current world champ and GOAT candidate Magnus Carlsen (peak rating of 2874). Still, no one considers her a GOAT candidate because of an outlier tournament. You need consistency.
You probably want to adjust for time period. Without doing that, you get the weird result that whoever is on top now is the GOAT. Earlier players did not have current technology or training.
You want a balance of success at both elite championship levels and “regular season” performance. There are some folks who, for whatever reason, lucked into a championship while other better performers may never had the chance, like legendary football player Barry Sanders. We should favor people who did well in both areas.
Longevity: GOATS need to dominate for a long period. Think of this as a generalization of point #1. So one perfect season does not a GOAT make. You need to dominate for years, even decades.
Measurable excellence in all aspects of your performance. So quality defense and offense. Or, for specialized sports, like baseball and football, you do very well in most areas of your position (e.g., quarterbacks should win games, pass for yards, and have high ratings).
If a GOAT candidate lacks a little in one area, they can make up for through innovation - pushing their game in a new direction.
Applying this scheme helps clarify things. For example, in chess, there are really only two possible GOAT candidates: Magnus Carlsen and Garry Kasparov. Five and six world championships, consistent domination at all levels, measurable eliteness in things like move accuracy. Carlsen needs another 10 years to catch up to Kasparov on the longevity and has a somewhat lower win rate (69% v. 63%). This scheme also makes a pretty clear prediction for basketball. Kareem Abdul Jabbar has 6 championships, insane longevity at the elite level, and held records, or near records, on offense and defense. Insane - there are only one or two other players even in the same league (probably Jordan and Bill Russell). If Steph Curry gets to six rings, he can be a GOAT candidate through his innovation.
Use the comments - apply this GOAT scheme to other fields.
++
My books: Grad Skool Rulz - cheap advice manual for grad students / The history of Black Studies / Obama and the antiwar movement / A Social Theory book you will enjoy reading / Intro Sociology for $1 per chapter
"It is not about peak performance; it is about elite performance over a long period of time. For example, for many years, the chess player Sofia Polgar had the best “peak performance.” At one tournament, called “The Sack of Rome,” Sofia performed at a level better (performance rating 2900) than the current world champ and GOAT candidate Magnus Carlsen (peak rating of 2874). Still, no one considers her a GOAT candidate because of an outlier tournament. You need consistency."
Pedro Martinez probably had the two best seasons in the history of baseball pitching in 1999 and 2000. That said, his career WAR (83.9) is substantially lower than Greg Maddux's (106.6). Part of me thinks that Pedro is the best pitcher of all time, simply because he had the best two seasons. And though I haven't looked this up, I wouldn't be surprised if his seven-season stretch from 1997-2003 was the best seven-season stretch for a pitcher ever. If he had the best seven-year period, would you be willing to rank him as GOAT even though his career WAR was only good (not great) for a first-ballot HoFer?