Three points.
Milford essentially favors a maximin criteria, that Moore's worst is better than anyone else's worst. I agree with that, and agree that it's a legitimate criteria to use. Moore came in as a freshman with the most college ready physique and conditioning of any player, not just the GOAT candidates, so right there her worst was going to be better than any of them. Because she works so hard her worst is going to be better than anyone else's as well. But the maximin is not the only criteria that's legitimate.
The single greatest season any of them had was Stewart's senior season and with that I think Stewart demonstrated the greatest potential ability of any of them. However, that's not the only criteria either.
Taurasi did the most with the least in terms of her teammates. Yes, yes, Strother, Turner, Moore (Jessica), et al are much better players than the straw man arguments I've seen used that we are inferring they are chopped liver, but they really don't hold a candle to a high functioning Charles, who became at times the best player in her sport, or even a moderate functioning Charles. There are only five players on a court, if one of them is your leading competition for greatest player in the game that makes a helluva difference over good players. The reason Charles finally reached her potential was because of Moore, of course, and I don't think Taurasi would have had the same impact. Maybe they don't go back to back perfect if Taurasi was the teammate of Charles, but I think they still would have won the NCs.
But I've seen no evidence to show that Moore could transform younger teammates the way Taurasi did. In other words, she could very well have also had some bad losses, plus fail to win the NC, if she was working with the same inexperienced players in 2003.
This is the problem with individual stats, including wins and losses, because such stats are void of the context facing the player. For example, I've seen the A/T ratio brought up a few times in comparing Bird and Jefferson. I think Jefferson is the better all around player because of her defense, but not because of the A/T ratio. Is the senior Chong also a better facilitator by virtue of the A/T ratio? Nurse at times? Faris?
Bird played teams where she had the primary responsibility for feeding the post. At 5'11" she had a natural advantage for doing that over a 5'7" Jefferson, but at a disadvantage in comparison with a 6'5" passing center out of the high post like Dolson. In the context of the teams they played with of course Bird's A/T ratio is not going to fare as well as players like Jefferson or Chong (who also relied on others feeding the post), they had the luxury of making safer passes. I know this is very unsatisfactory/unreliable evidence for many, but according to my "eyeballs," Bird could make just about any type of pass, and knew when to do so, even as a freshman; Jefferson could not really feed the post well until her senior year, perhaps into her junior, but fortunately she didn't really have to, she could safely feed the high percentage KML on the perimeter and let Dolson feed the post. I still say Jefferson was the better all around guard though.
Which is why I have so much trouble deciding on the GOAT. It really does matter who your teammates are, not just in ability but in make-up and responsibilities. I go with Stewart now only because it was not proven that there was a set of teammates where she could not deliver in a tournament, whereas for the other two there is such proof, but I realize I am on as shaky ground as anyone else championing any other GOAT.
And with those arms and her height, she was able to do things that Maya couldn't. Stewie anchored the team's defense in a way that Maya couldn't, although Maya had a LOT of blocked shots for her height. Both played great positional defense but Stewie also allowed for her teammates to play more aggressively on defense because she was also able to guard the rim.
