As a big basketball follower I have pondered this thread for a while.
First off, while I agree with a lot of sentiments there are also some I don't agree with.
I do agree that trying to state there is a definitive greatest ever in any sport is more a fun bar room discussion than any conclusive statistical fact. I would not agree it is ignorant; I would say it is a nuanced conversation for people who are not ignorant.
Making comments like player X could not succeed against player Y, or if you didn't see player Z play so you are wrong, or they did this solely because of player A therefore they are the only answer is being ignorant. You do see a lot of this from former players who believe only their era is the best and anything prior or after is inferior.
I see every player who can make the NBA as a superior athlete who would, presumably, have the athletic ability and nous to adapt to how the game is played in different eras.
Would Wilt come to the current era and dominate? Probably not 50/28, but could he be a dominant post player? Absolutely. Would he develop a jump shot? Most likely if he emphasised it. Would he learn to guard the pick and roll, work in space and challenge three-point shooters? I would imagine so.
Same for Russell. Same for Abdul-Jabbar.
Would Jordan magically struggle if Wilt or Russell showed up? I doubt it. He handled facing Abdul-Jabbar (old version at least), Olajuwon, Ewing, O'Neal, Robinson etc with no problems. Would he struggle today because he didn't shoot a lot of threes? I doubt it. He was a lethal mid-range shooter, who surely would have expanded this if the requirements of the game dictated it.
Would LeBron James struggle in the '90s where there was more contact, hand-checking and hard fouls. I doubt it. He's build like a Karl Malone and runs the floor like Russell Westbrook. He would adapt.
Because of this I can see arguments for several players as the "GOAT".
You like sheer statistical dominance. Pick Wilt.
You like masses of titles. Pick Russell.
You like career longevity. Pick Abdul-Jabbar, pick James.
You like a blend of statistical dominance and titles, pick Jordan, or James, or Abdul-Jabbar, or Bird, or Johnson or Duncan, or Curry and so on.
It's a fun debate over a couple of beers, where people state their case, argue definitions and eras and have something wrong with them if they get too worked up about it!
(For what it's worth I voted Jordan. However, if you wanted to say "who had the best career" I think it's Abdul-Jabbar or James. If you want to say "who was most statistically dominant" I would say Chamberlain or Mikan.)
