RealGM

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:17 am**

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:29 am**

yea, allen iverson at 13,, its great..

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:31 am**

yes because damon stoudamire and stephon marbury are on that list.... that makes it absolutely amazing.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:32 am**

I like it ...

iverson was 16th btw

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:32 am**

AI is 16. . .

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:35 am**

AI and KG ahead of Kobe? I guess championships officially mean nothing.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:42 am**

Iverson's 16th, Cousy's 8th...

But bear in mind it's actually a list of probability for entry into the HoF.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:21 am**

This a list of probability for entry into the Hall of Fame but I would agree that the top 6 players of all time are also the top 6 players on that list, albiet I'd have them in a different order.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell

Thats my top 6.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:07 am**

Terrible.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Bill Russell
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Larry Bird
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Oscar Robertson

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:53 pm**

AI 16th, Kidd 71st?

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:33 pm**

actually, if you look, the top 20 on that list all have 100% so they are tied . . . it's based more on career numbers and particularly scoring than actual peak value to winning. Try the win shares list or something.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:01 pm**

paul wrote:AI 16th, Kidd 71st?

what does exactly kidd acomplished to be ahead of iveron?

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:34 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:actually, if you look, the top 20 on that list all have 100% so they are tied . . . it's based more on career numbers and particularly scoring than actual peak value to winning. Try the win shares list or something.

Yeah, the methodology explains what is taken into account.

As far as AI v. Kidd. For one it is a legit question as to why you think Kidd should be ahead of AI, but the methodology also states that it takes MVP awards into account. Since AI has one and Kidd doesn't, that's a big jump (this also explains why AI and KG are ahead of Kobe, MVPs are rated more highly than chips' won)

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:55 pm**

conleyorbust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yeah, the methodology explains what is taken into account.

As far as AI v. Kidd. For one it is a legit question as to why you think Kidd should be ahead of AI, but the methodology also states that it takes MVP awards into account. Since AI has one and Kidd doesn't, that's a big jump (this also explains why AI and KG are ahead of Kobe, MVPs are rated more highly than chips' won)

Yeah, there is a formula used for HoF probability here.

It considers:

1. height (in inches)
2. last season indicator (1 if 1959-60 or before, 0 otherwise)
3. NBA points per game
4. NBA rebounds per game
5. NBA assists per game
6. NBA All-Star game selections
7. log(NBA MVP awards won + 0.5)
8. NBA championships won

Which is godawful and ridiculous as a rating system because it relies on per game averages and ignores efficiency.

BUT, it's not actually a rating system, it's a model predicting entry to the HoF and the idiots who run the basketball HoF and determine entry are swayed by these things, so it's generally a pretty good model.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:57 pm**

Not good for a GOAT list. Though I do find it appealing the way they just group players into tiers as opposed to coming up with a precise order.

RealGM

What do you think of this GOAT list?

What do you think of this GOAT list?