The Greatest Of All-Time (GOAT): How Do You Decide?

The Greatest Of All-Time (GOAT): How Do You Decide?

January 23, 2022 | ALL

Is there a more hotly contested debate than the greatest of all-time (GOAT) athlete in a particular sport? Not only is this debate fiercely articulated between fans, loved ones and strangers, it is often criticised for being pointless, the absence of universally accepted comparison criteria and that it’s just a matter of opinion.

 

Now, anyone who engages in such debate, willingly or not, will likely pledge their allegiance to an athlete – citing what they consider to be stand out justification. But how does one come to that conclusion? With all the shortcomings inherent in metrics along with human bias, how does one verify it to be drawn from reason-based objectivity? Despite these difficulties, they are still worthwhile debates to have. Let’s go!

 

The Greatest of All-Time (GOAT): How do you decide?

 

When any high-profile athlete performs exceptionally well, social media is inevitably swamped by a GOAT frenzy. Equally, when an iconic athlete performs badly, a rival’s GOAT credentials are elevated as more deserving. Whilst the GOAT debate happens for all sports and genders, the debate is fundamentally driven in favour of athletes who command greater publicity (something this article is a little guilty of too).

 

 

Well, that’s the initial problem, there isn’t one, or at least not one people can work from. Most measure athletes against different criteria, and this can – obviously – significantly influence the debate. It is important to take a step back from focusing on individual athletes and select/define the necessary criteria to unearth the GOAT. Focusing on an individual athlete first leads to criteria bias in favour of their GOAT’s specific set of records/achievements.

 

This short (~2500 word) article will explore some of the essential characteristics of athletes to help make an informed decision. These criteria are put forward as five dichotomies: Prime VS Longevity; Eye-Test VS Metrics; Individual Impact VS Team Accolades All-Rounder VS Specialist and Whole Career VS Pro Career. Several other dichotomies are briefly covered before a short conclusion.

 

 

GOAT Criterion 1: Prime VS Longevity

 

Most points scored in the NBA = Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (38 387); most matches won in tennis by a female = Martina Navratilova (1442); most runs in cricket = SR Tendulkar (34 357); and most goals scored in international football by a female = Christine Sinclair (188*). Whilst all four of these players arguably enter the frame for their chosen sport’s retrospective GOAT, what they all have in common is a long – very long – career. The point here is to be wary of whole number metrics such as these.

 

Any metric used in the GOAT debate has its limitations and these must be understood, i.e., what the metric measures and what it does not. These whole number metrics are mostly longevity stats. While longevity is an important factor, does playing at the top level from 12 years differ greatly from playing at the top for 15 years for example? With any metric, but in particularly whole number metrics, you must ask what they are suggesting. Another big flaw of whole number metrics is that they don’t factor in the number of minutes or shots taken, so, if possible, stay well away from whole number metrics and use ratios, e.g., goals per minute or goals per shot.

 

Using data from the NBA website, a quick correlation check of the top 50 on Total Points Scored correlate highly (0.70) with Minutes Played. Hardly surprising! (It’s mostly a longevity metric). If you’re using the metric of Total Points to evaluate shooting ability, then True Shooting Percentage is a more accurate judgement of a player’s shooting ability. For the top 50, the correlation between Points Scored and True Shooting Percentage is 0.11. In other words, some of the highest point scorers in NBA history were not the best shooters. It’s just that they played a humongous number of games – hardly a criterion for a GOAT.

 

 

Cumulative career achievement does need to be used sparingly when considering greatness and perhaps  “peak value” – how great the greatest were at the top of their game, provided the athlete is not a one-season wonder (or two or three) – should be valued more. A critical distinction drawn decades earlier by Bill James when compiling GOAT rankings for baseball players. In the Tiger Woods vs Jack Nicklaus GOAT debate, prime comparisons would certainly swing (pun intended) it in favour of Tiger. The tweet below is just one of many mind-blowing stats for Tiger, but if you’re unconvinced or just curious then see 10 mind-blowing Tiger Woods stats and/or the Golf Channel’s Tiger’s most 40 incredible numerical records.

 

*Still playing.

 

GOAT Criterion 2: Eye-Test VS Metrics

 

Typically, the Eye-Test VS Metrics dichotomy posits that the eye-test and metrics give differing opinions on the same event and that one is more superior than the other. Again, an understanding of the metric is fundamental in terms of what it measures and what it does not measure when applying it to personal observations. If you have chosen your GOAT, it is likely you will watch them more than other GOAT contenders. So, the question becomes: how do you evaluate whether an athlete is wrapping up opportunities to a greater or lesser extent than the average player when it is not possible to recall every single shot the player has taken, let alone all other shots taken from that position from thousands of matches?

 

 

In his book, The Tyranny of Metrics, Muller says, ‘There is a natural human tendency to try to simplify problems by focusing on the most easily measurable elements. But what is most easily measured is rarely what is most important, indeed sometimes not important at all.’ Sporting skills are multidimensional and reducing these skills to just one dimension often leads to deceptive results. (Read Can Sporting Artistry be Measured). The amount of weight given to specific events and characteristics, whether player or event driven as well as the measurability of matters like leadership and team influence, will continue to rage. Yes, metrics do have their shortcomings, but they can also call your bulls****. So, can they really be ignored? For some, the Eye-Test VS Metrics dichotomy is seen as false and dead, arguing that is boils down to an acceptance of metrics or not.

 

Despite more and more robust GOAT analyses increasingly available (see a progressive basketball GOAT ranking here by nbamath), nearly all GOAT debates (that I’ve heard or read) will come back to simple maths. This tends to be the most sought-after trophy within the sport. For example, the number of Rings won in NFL, the number of Championships in NBA, the number of majors won in golf, tennis and the number of World Titles / Championships won etc. Regardless of whether it is an individual sport or team sport, attempting to bring the complex debate (that has many, many factors, and many more that are not even measured) to one simple counting exercise a 5-year-old could do is an oversimplification.

 

 

GOAT Criterion 3: Individual Influence VS Team Accolades

 

First, let’s do some basic maths: 10 basketball players on a court, 22 players on a football/soccer pitch and 44 players for an American Football match (22 at one time). To start us off, hypothetically, if everybody had the same influence on the match performance/outcome, that would be mean one player would influence a basketball game by 10%, a football/soccer match by 4.5% and American Football match by 2.3%. The inclusion of substitutions further lessens their overall impact. Of course, some positions are naturally more influential, e.g., a quarterback, a striker. But seriously, how much control / influence does the best player on the pitch actually have on a match? The dichotomy Individual Influence VS Team Accolades applies specifically to team sports and winning a trophy does not automatically confer greatness on all in the team.

 

An oft used metric is that Cristiano Ronaldo, Dennis Bergkamp and Eric Cantona did not lift the World Cup, arguably the biggest trophy in football whereas players like Stephane Guivarc’h, Miguel Oviedo and Luizao did. Does this indicate the latter are better? While this might seem obvious (check individual stats), such metrics are continually aired despite the fact that it is individual players that are being considered. For the uninitiated, the phrase Is the debate now over? commonly lights up all over social media/internet when a particular athlete has won a trophy which ‘completes’ a particular ‘checklist’ of awards that a player must win in order to achieve GOAT status. The checklist is someone’s criteria.

 

 

No more has a team’s accolade been a talking/clashing point with an individual athlete than Lionel Messi. The above tweet was referring to Messi having won his first senior international trophy with Argentina in 2021. For those who are unaware, Messi won the U20 World Cup and 2008 Olympic Gold with Argentina and had previously lost in 4 international finals (2 on penalty shootouts and 1 in extra time). As mentioned above, team achievements should only be used if the measurable evidence supports a significant role by a specific player in securing the outcome. In Messi’s case, he contributed 9 goals (4 goals and 5 assists**), the joint highest goal contribution in an international tournament (tied with himself from 2016 Copa and N.Ronaldo in the World Cup 2002).

 

Now, if you are using team accolades to measure an individual, perhaps a better measurement would be to assign (weight) a score to the team/individual depending on how far they got in a tournament. Surely, reaching 4 finals is worth something? As with any measurement, more analysis is needed to determine which are to be prioritised/weighted over others and that such comparison or weighting is relevant.

 

**expected assists would be a better measure, but unavailable.

 

GOAT Criterion 4: All-Rounder VS Specialist

 

All sports have different skills, for example, football (passing, shooting, dribbling etc), tennis (serving, volleying, forehand, backhand etc) and even some sports have skills that are almost their own discipline in themselves such as golf (driving, putting, bunker shots etc). In terms of individual sports, an athlete will always have strengths and weaknesses (or in some cases only in relation to their superior strengths). Generally, in individual sports, an athlete will be tested, i.e., measured against all the skills the game requires. Naturally, if an athlete has a strength, they will look to exploit that, equally though where individuals compete directly against each other, athletes will have their weaknesses targeted. In contrast, team sports allow the specialist to show off their strengths while allowing them to hide their weaknesses.

 

 

The ‘most complete player’ argument is often reserved for the all-rounder athletes. And again, as often the case, if it is used to support one’s GOAT selection, it will also be used against another why they are not fit to be labelled the GOAT. Recently, the tennis GOAT debate has garnered a lot of attention as Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic all had the same (most) major wins in the Open Era (until recently!). Remember, simple maths is often used in debates and for some it will entirely matter who has the most majors (this shouldn’t be the case).

 

Tennis Goat Majors Graphic

 

As soon as Nadal won a record-breaking 21st major, shouts of the GOAT came to fruition from his fans. From the other side of the net (pun intended again), his opponent’s fans point out that he’s won a significant proportion of his majors (13) at one event, the French Open (61.9%). It is generally accepted that Djokovic leads Federer in the most important cumulative achievements, but doubt will remain as long as Federer leads in peak value. It’s not only Nadal who gets the completeness card used against him, Federer does too. It’s pointed out that he is the only one of the three who has completed the Grand Slam once, whereas the other two have completed the Grand Slam twice. This highlights that the completeness debate is always there when comparing two players as one is likely to have excelled in one area more than the other. One further point to highlight is that the tennis GOAT debate is a lot more granular than most debates I hear or read, which is a good thing – the devil is in the detail (or the detail that hasn’t been measured yet..).

 

Finally, with respect to sports with multiple disciplines such as gymnastics, cycling and swimming, a great all-rounder is likely to be considered the GOAT.

 

GOAT Criterion 5: Whole Career VS Pro Career

 

Tom Brady. This name is synonymous with the word GOAT, yet how can someone with supposedly one of the best professional careers (in terms of longevity, team success etc) be non-existent beforehand. We all know the story, Brady was the 199th overall pick in the 2000 NFL Draft. Now, of course, athletes develop at different rates and stats and coverage are certainly more limited in the amateur game. This Whole Career VS Pro Career dichotomy might not be even a consideration for some in the GOAT debate, yet if you are claiming your GOAT is indisputable, it might be worth bringing this to the debate, in particular for sports with strong amateur competition such as golf.

 

Jack Nicklaus’ 18-15 advantage over Tiger Woods in the majors is put up as a staunch reason why Nicklaus should be the GOAT. Golf has strong amateur competitions and it worth looking back. No one has come close to matching Tiger’s three consecutive U.S. Junior Amateur victories from 1991 to ‘93. This was followed by three consecutive U.S. Amateur Victories. To argue against Tiger comfortably holding the greatest amateur golf record of all time is like arguing that the sky is not blue.

 

Other GOAT Criterion

 

Records play an important part of an athlete’s career and rightfully so. But when a record plays a massive part of an athlete’s career choices, then that’s when you need to question [their] record. They are in effect taking short cuts, manipulating their record, knowing how much influence they have, also known as stat padding. I have called this Perfect Records VS Unique Records and is summed up quite nicely in the Tweet below by Eddie Alvarez (a former UFC World Champion).

 

 

Comparing eras. Well, that is tricky and something that was not tackled in this article. However, referring to the dichotomy of Now VS Then, two points need to be made. Nowadays, in general, it has been shown to be harder to stand out (see here for golf research). Though, it must be noted that this is not a given, i.e., time does not guarantee tougher competition. Second, humans are likely to rank more recent athletes as better. This has been evidenced in gymnastics, and other sports, in that if an athlete goes first in the competition, they are likely to be scored lower than their performance warranted.

 

Another instantiable that would be hard to measure would be adversity, posited as All Rosy vs Facing Adversity. How do you measure a comeback?

 

 

Finally, for some in the GOAT debate, the impact an athlete has off the field is usually one of the most, if not the most, important criterion. The dichotomy of Off field VS On field is was not discussed in this article. Personally, I like to keep off-field impact out of the debate and focus purely on sporting prowess. Of course, a measure of an athlete is how they cope/deal with life off the pitch, but the world does not present the same opportunities to everyone, i.e., winning the country’s first world cup etc., whereas the sports pitch has generally remained with the same white lines.

 

GOAT Criterion Conclusion

 

A pointless debate? No. Absolutely not.

 

Despite nearly 8 billion people on the planet, there is a consensus that no two individuals are equal. Thus, when comparing athletes on whom is better, surely the answer exists – it just may not be within our grasp at the moment due to the shortcomings of the current metrics. All it takes is someone willing, or paid, to collect data to measure something that has not been previously measured and/or measure something more accurately.

 

Goat rankings from Sport Squabble

The Stat Squabbler says:

  1. You need to enter the debate with an open mind and be willing to accept good arguments / points. If not, you are certain to fall to our mind’s biases.
  2. If someone doesn’t state their criteria when announcing their GOAT, just ask WHY a couple of times and you’ll find out their criteria.
  3. Metrics are vital in the debate. Know what they are measuring and what they are not. They will become better.
  4. Continue with the debate. Share your views with us by creating your own personalised image of the GOAT.

 

Do you agree with the Stat Squabble? Can you objectively choose the GOAT? Can we agree on common criterion? Comment below.

 

Related posts:


1 thought on “The Greatest Of All-Time (GOAT): How Do You Decide?”

  • Mark says:
    April 10, 2024 at 12:50 am

    “To argue against Tiger comfortably holding the greatest amateur golf record of all time is like arguing that the sky is not blue.”

    Obviously Bobby Jones would be who most would say is the greatest Amateur of all time given that he never turned pro and was the best golfer in the world. Tiger was a more dominant player at his professional peak than Jack and has a good argument for GOAT. But if you are going to use the standard of peak play Jack was clearly better as a amateur. Tiger won three US Juniors vs Jack’s zero. But Jack won an Ohio Open which is a mucb more difficult task than winning a US Junior. Jack won two US Ams vs Tiger’s three but Jack has three top 10s in majors, including a second at the US Open, as an amateur. Beating Ben Hogan head to head (which Jack did in 1960) is much greater feat the beating an insurance salesman, an investment banker, and a guy who never got past the Canadian Tour who were the three guys Tiger beat in the US Am finals.

    Reply

Join the Squabble:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related products