Top 25 players of all time based on MVP shares

[dhsilv2]

Guys, Wade is #52 by this metric. It's not like he's right there at #26 or anything.

Stockton is #103. Pippen #56. Rick Barry #61. Drexler #53. Pierce #143.

It's not a good way to rank players.

It's a stat that ranks peaks and ranks top tier players. None of those guys outside of Wade have ANY case for being peak players. The top 25 with the NBA's age is a reasonable range for where this stat should work well.

I'd actually say Drexler and Pippen's MVP shares justify their 25-40 range pretty well.

[dhsilv2]

If you had to pick a metric that ranked the top 25 players in NBA history without using any further subjectivity, MVP shares will probably deliver some of the "better" results. At the very least, you won't have quite as many guys that manage to loophole certain weaknesses that appear abnormally high (e.g. WS has Reggie Miller at 14th and John Stockton at 5th, VORP has Kidd ahead of Magic and Drexler ahead of Shaq...) and there's a degree as to which MVP voting might capture what doesn't appear in the box score. So, the players in the top 25 (save for the ABA-intensive guys) all had a peak/prime that actually has a case to be in the top 25, 30 or so. There isn't really anybody that's stupidly overrated from NBA play in that top 25.

However, I'd also state that it underrates guys that peaked on lousy teams (Wade) had great, unnoticed seasons (Dirk), were clearly great but played as a "second fiddle" (Stockton), or guys that spent a lot of time just outside of MVP level, but were clearly great players for a long time (Paul Pierce, who shouldn't be top 25, but is much, much better than 143... Stockton again).

If you look further down than the top 25, there are some very questionably high results too. I'm a Rockets fan and all, but Harden has no business being as high as 29th!

I think that MVP shares have very little use when we've got such a breadth of statistical knowledge in the modern era. They have zero weighting on how I view anybody post-2000. I do not care. I've watched the game enough, looked at enough statistics and made an informed judgement to know that the arbitrary voting patterns of the masses won't sway this. And honestly, prior to 2000, they don't carry much weight for me either, outside of, "how was ___ perceived at the time?"

Harden is a top 40 peak, do you have a case he isn't? The guy has been amazing.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think the op is using the list that includes aba shares. This is one of those metrics I don't really mind people using but I don't put that much into it being used as the metric to judge players by.

[dhsilv2]

I think the op is using the list that includes aba shares. This is one of those metrics I don't really mind people using but I don't put that much into it being used as the metric to judge players by.

basketball reference doesn't seem to have one without ABA influence anymore.

[Bad Gatorade]

Harden is a top 40 peak, do you have a case he isn't? The guy has been amazing.

I don't really rank "peaks" all that much, so I can't answer the first part.

Harden's awesome, and I love having him on the Rockets, but I can't take the argument that he's already accumulated the 29th most MVP value of all time very seriously (FWIW, I think the same about Westbrook just a couple spots down). Ranking 29th all time is almost entirely due to 2014-15 and 2016-17, and there are plenty of holes that you can poke in these seasons. The guy is an elite offensive player. But his defensive value drops him lower than his incredible box score would imply, and it's why he ranks lower in the impact data than one might immediately think.

Dirk and CP3 are 26th and 27th in MVP shares, and these are guys who have spent a lot of time in the top 5 realm. Harden having 2 realistic top 5 seasons (and it's honestly rather debatable WRT both of these; in fact, I'm not sure he deserved either of those #2 finishes) shouldn't place him anywhere near Dirk/CP3 in the accumulated value ballpark.

Heck, Wade has 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011 that are clear MVP-ish level years (at the very least, I'd struggle to state that Harden was clearly better), which is more than Harden, but he's languishing back at #52. Does this not seem somewhat bizarre?

[Jboogz23]

What are the chances Lebron passes Mike in MVP shares?

[clyde21]

What are the chances Lebron passes Mike in MVP shares?

I'd say it's likely at this point. He should be a top-5 vote getter for the foreseeable future.

[Pg81]

Guys, Wade is #52 by this metric. It's not like he's right there at #26 or anything.

Stockton is #103. Pippen #56. Rick Barry #61. Drexler #53. Pierce #143.

It's not a good way to rank players.

That is not surprising to see for me. Though I am not high on Wade I do think that at least for peak I see Wade as the second best SG in NBA history, only behind MJ.

[LA Bird]

The focus should be on the method itself not the resulting list. Problems with MVP shares for career evaluation:
1. Incorrectly assumes equality of competition: 2017 Curry is better than many of the past MVP winners even if he didn't even finish top 5 in MVP votings last season.
2. Ignores non-MVP contending seasons and longevity in general: Stockton is obviously not outside top 100 all time
3. Voter inaccuracy and vote shares in any one season being heavily driven by narratives: 2011 Rose is not more dominant than 1967 Wilt even if he has the higher MVP share as a winner
4. Offensive bias: Dominant defensive players with average/poor offense rarely get any MVP votes and will be unrepresented in career MVP shares.

[Rapcity_11]

Guys, Wade is #52 by this metric. It's not like he's right there at #26 or anything.

Stockton is #103. Pippen #56. Rick Barry #61. Drexler #53. Pierce #143.

It's not a good way to rank players.

It's a stat that ranks peaks and ranks top tier players. None of those guys outside of Wade have ANY case for being peak players. The top 25 with the NBA's age is a reasonable range for where this stat should work well.

I'd actually say Drexler and Pippen's MVP shares justify their 25-40 range pretty well.

By ranking them outside the top 50…? What?

[Ron Swanson]

I don't think that ranking Pippen outside the Top-50 is that outrageous, MVP shares or not. I'd probably sneak him in the 45-50 range, but he has a pretty similar statistical case as Paul Pierce, who I don't have in my Top-50.

[Rapcity_11]

I don't think that ranking Pippen outside the Top-50 is that outrageous, MVP shares or not. I'd probably sneak him in the 45-50 range, but he has a pretty similar statistical case as Paul Pierce, who I don't have in my Top-50.

Nah, it's definitely outrageous.

[Ron Swanson]

I don't think that ranking Pippen outside the Top-50 is that outrageous, MVP shares or not. I'd probably sneak him in the 45-50 range, but he has a pretty similar statistical case as Paul Pierce, who I don't have in my Top-50.

Nah, it's definitely outrageous.

Nah, there's very little separating any of the guys in that 30-50 range. I've seen lists (CBS Sports) that have Iverson ahead of Rick Barry, Reggie Miller, and Kevin McHale. And I've seen lists that leave out Ray Allen and Paul Pierce entirely. It's all subjective in that area. There's about 40 guys you could consider for those 20 spots and I wouldn't have an issue with any of them.

[Rapcity_11]

I don't think that ranking Pippen outside the Top-50 is that outrageous, MVP shares or not. I'd probably sneak him in the 45-50 range, but he has a pretty similar statistical case as Paul Pierce, who I don't have in my Top-50.

Nah, it's definitely outrageous.

Nah, there's very little separating any of the guys in that 30-50 range. I've seen lists (CBS Sports) that have Iverson ahead of Rick Barry, Reggie Miller, and Kevin McHale. And I've seen lists that leave out Ray Allen and Paul Pierce entirely. It's all subjective in that area. There's about 40 guys you could consider for those 20 spots and I wouldn't have an issue with any of them.

Quoting a bunch of bad lists doesn't really mean anything to me.

[Ron Swanson]

Nah, it's definitely outrageous.

Nah, there's very little separating any of the guys in that 30-50 range. I've seen lists (CBS Sports) that have Iverson ahead of Rick Barry, Reggie Miller, and Kevin McHale. And I've seen lists that leave out Ray Allen and Paul Pierce entirely. It's all subjective in that area. There's about 40 guys you could consider for those 20 spots and I wouldn't have an issue with any of them.

Quoting a bunch of bad lists doesn't really mean anything to me.

Stating subjective opinions doesn't mean anything to me, so ok.

[mischievous]

I don't think that ranking Pippen outside the Top-50 is that outrageous, MVP shares or not. I'd probably sneak him in the 45-50 range, but he has a pretty similar statistical case as Paul Pierce, who I don't have in my Top-50.

Pippen is miles better than Pierce defensively though. I don't see them as the same tier. I put Pippen in a similar tier with guys like Drexler, Ewing, Nash, maybe Elgin Baylor.

[dhsilv2]

Guys, Wade is #52 by this metric. It's not like he's right there at #26 or anything.

Stockton is #103. Pippen #56. Rick Barry #61. Drexler #53. Pierce #143.

It's not a good way to rank players.

It's a stat that ranks peaks and ranks top tier players. None of those guys outside of Wade have ANY case for being peak players. The top 25 with the NBA's age is a reasonable range for where this stat should work well.

I'd actually say Drexler and Pippen's MVP shares justify their 25-40 range pretty well.

By ranking them outside the top 50…? What?

The stat doesn't care about people who aren't top 25 players. Like they just don't matter AT ALL to it. The fact that these guys have meaningful scores in the metric at all gives us a reason to justify them anywhere after about 25. 25 is a bit arbitrary but in a league that's about 75 years old, with 1 mvp per season you'd expect 20-30 people to gotten most of the awards and those should be your top top top guys. This metric is pretty useless after you rank that group.

[penbeast0]

Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

[clyde21]

It'd be a neat project to rank top 25 players of all time based on only 1 single metric and comparing them...seeing which metric would bring back the best, most logical list.

[Rapcity_11]

It's a stat that ranks peaks and ranks top tier players. None of those guys outside of Wade have ANY case for being peak players. The top 25 with the NBA's age is a reasonable range for where this stat should work well.

I'd actually say Drexler and Pippen's MVP shares justify their 25-40 range pretty well.

By ranking them outside the top 50…? What?

The stat doesn't care about people who aren't top 25 players. Like they just don't matter AT ALL to it. The fact that these guys have meaningful scores in the metric at all gives us a reason to justify them anywhere after about 25. 25 is a bit arbitrary but in a league that's about 75 years old, with 1 mvp per season you'd expect 20-30 people to gotten most of the awards and those should be your top top top guys. This metric is pretty useless after you rank that group.

The problem is MVP voting is for top 5 players. So it's not just about 20-30 players.

A metric that becomes useless after 25 and rates MVP caliber players crazy low just isn't a very good metric.