Who is better, Goodrich or Holman?
Gail Goodrich leads with a GOAT score of 83.9 against 83.9 for Nat Holman — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Gail Goodrich and Nat Holman level at 83.9. Gail Goodrich leads on Statistics, Longevity, Honours. Nat Holman leads on Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Goodrich wins: Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Holman wins: Dominance
Shareable URL · /compare/gail-goodrich-vs-nat-holman
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Goodrich leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Goodrich | 0 | 0 | 7.8 | 16.7 | 77 | 169.6 |
| 🇺🇸 Holman | 0 | 0 | 60 | 128 | 282 | 740 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GoodrichRetired | HolmanRetired |
|---|---|---|
| NBA titles | 1 | — |
| All-Star selections | 5 | — |
| Career points | 19,181 | — |
| Career points per game | 18.6 | — |
| Best season scoring average | 25.9 | — |
| Professional championships | — | 3 |
| Seasons with the Original Celtics | — | 8 |
| Hall of Fame induction | — | 1,964 |
| Career professional games | — | 700 |
| Years at the top level | — | 17 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 82 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 80 |
Gail Goodrich leads with a GOAT score of 83.9 against 83.9 for Nat Holman — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Holman scores higher on dominance. Goodrich leads on honours, statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Goodrich: 83.9, Holman: 83.9.
Make your case for Goodrich vs Holman. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.