Coyote's Twenty Greatest Players in NBA History (Formula)

Wile E. Coyote · Post #41 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:13 am

Updated to include Kobe Bryant's ring and Finals MVP award.

Post #42 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:49 pm

Just out of curiousity, Erving got 112 points for his NBA career and 12 for his ABA career (which seems awfully low since he was more spectacular in his ABA career) or 236 putting him 5th all-time (which seems a bit high but given his importance to the ABA, is at least more reasonable).

Shot Clock · Post #43 » by **Shot Clock** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:13 pm

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Updated to include Kobe Bryant's ring and Finals MVP award.

Funny thing is, the formula moves him up and after watching the game last night I moved him down. He really isn't a Final's performer.

An Unbiased Fan · Post #44 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:41 pm

Great work Coyote. Very interesting read.

CousinOfDeath · Post #45 » by **CousinOfDeath** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:12 pm

Last edited by Wile E. Coyote on Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:12 pm, edited 84 times in total.

wow

Wile E. Coyote · Post #46 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:48 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Just out of curiousity, Erving got 112 points for his NBA career and 12 for his ABA career (which seems awfully low since he was more spectacular in his ABA career) or 236 putting him 5th all-time (which seems a bit high but given his importance to the ABA, is at least more reasonable).

I don't know if it's confusing, but Erving has 112 points for his NBA career and 124 for his ABA career. That's pretty impressive that he got 100+ points in two leagues. You could add them together and get 236 for his career, which would put him ahead of O'Neal, but I don't mix league numbers.

Wile E. Coyote · Post #47 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:51 pm

Shot Clock wrote:
Wile E. Coyote wrote:Updated to include Kobe Bryant's ring and Finals MVP award.

Funny thing is, the formula moves him up and after watching the game last night I moved him down. He really isn't a Final's performer.

Well, if they awarded the Finals award for one game, I would agree. But since he averaged 28/8/3 against one of the stingiest defenses ever, he deserved the award. Boston's whole defense was predicated on stopping Bryant from working his magic, and he did a fairly good job. We have to remember that Kobe is not in his physical prime any longer. If he were still 25-26, he probably wouldn't have had a game seven performance like that. In reality, all of the older guys on both teams were on E in game seven.

Wile E. Coyote · Post #48 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:51 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Great work Coyote. Very interesting read.

Thanks, man. Your thread definitely inspired mine. 8-)

Wile E. Coyote · Post #49 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:52 pm

CousinOfDeath wrote:Last edited by Wile E. Coyote on Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:12 pm, edited 84 times in total.

wow

Make that 86 times. I just put a couple more players. Heh.

Wile E. Coyote · Post #50 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:58 pm

Based on Kobe's career trajectory, and how my formula works out, I think his career points total will fall somewhere in the 250-270 point range, which would make him fifth all-time. It would not however put him in that elusive GOAT category (the Fab Four, if you will). He'll wind up as the best player on the 2nd tier of players, with Shaq, Duncan, Magic and Bird.

I project that Kobe will have at least 2 more All-NBA team selections, 2 All-Defensive selections, 4 All-Star selections, 1 more championship, and 1 more Finals MVP. I do predict that the Lakers will three-peat. Anything on top of this, and Kobe will be in excess of 256 points.

Point forward · Post #51 » by **Point forward** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:21 pm

Honestly, I think this is a great formula-based GOAT arithmetic. The few flaws it may have are easily eradicated by the good balance between stats and accolades.

Wile E. Coyote · Post #52 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:37 pm

Point forward wrote:Honestly, I think this is a great formula-based GOAT arithmetic. The few flaws it may have are easily eradicated by the good balance between stats and accolades.

I really appreciate the kind words, Point.

I have fiddled with the formula, but I don't want it to get too complicated. Besides, adjusting numbers usually doesn't change the top ten/twenty much and that was my goal: to rank them.

Gongxi · Post #53 » by **Gongxi** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:42 pm

It seems to be just a list of the most accolade-d players in NBA history who were also on winning teams. Very different from the 'greatest' as I would define the word. Someone could've been 2nd in scoring, 2nd in rebounding, 2nd in PER, 2nd in assists, on the Finals runner-up, every year for a decade and only get points for being an All-Star and All-NBAer?

Also, not sure why All-Star and All-NBA are both on there, especially with the joke that ASG voting has been since the fans started in on it. Or why the ASG MVP gets anything at all.

Wile E. Coyote · Post #54 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:49 pm

Gongxi wrote:It seems to be just a list of the most accolade-d players in NBA history who were also on winning teams. Very different from the 'greatest' as I would define the word. Someone could've been 2nd in scoring, 2nd in rebounding, 2nd in PER, 2nd in assists, on the Finals runner-up, every year for a decade and only get points for being an All-Star and All-NBAer?

How else is someone going to be on an all-time list without accolades or being on a winning team? LeBron James will never be the GOAT if he doesn't win a ring, even if he averages a 30 PER over the next ten years. Just won't happen. Your point about the guy who finishes 2nd in everything on a losing Finals team? That would be a cross between Karl Malone and John Stockton going 0-10 in the Finals. Why would they ever be a top ten player of all-time with so many other people who performed well and actually won a ring or two?

Also, not sure why All-Star and All-NBA are both on there, especially with the joke that ASG voting has been since the fans started in on it. Or why the ASG MVP gets anything at all.

Have you ever heard the saying "perception is everything"?

Gongxi · Post #55 » by **Gongxi** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:54 pm

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Gongxi wrote:It seems to be just a list of the most accolade-d players in NBA history who were also on winning teams. Very different from the 'greatest' as I would define the word. Someone could've been 2nd in scoring, 2nd in rebounding, 2nd in PER, 2nd in assists, on the Finals runner-up, every year for a decade and only get points for being an All-Star and All-NBAer?

How else is someone going to be on an all-time list without accolades or being on a winning team? LeBron James will never be the GOAT if he doesn't win a ring, even if he averages a 30 PER over the next ten years. Just won't happen. Your point about the guy who finishes 2nd in everything on a losing Finals team? That would be a cross between Karl Malone and John Stockton going 0-10 in the Finals. Why would they ever be a top ten player of all-time with so many other people who performed well and actually won a ring or two?

Also, not sure why All-Star and All-NBA are both on there, especially with the joke that ASG voting has been since the fans started in on it. Or why the ASG MVP gets anything at all.

Have you ever heard the saying "perception is everything"?

Oh, so this is just a list about what popularly makes a player great and not a player actually being great? Alright, my bad.

Point forward · Post #56 » by **Point forward** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:58 pm

Gongxi wrote:Oh, so this is just a list about what popularly makes a player great and not a player actually being great? Alright, my bad.

Make your own list then and prove that yours is better :wink:

Wile E. Coyote · Post #57 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:03 pm

Gongxi wrote:Oh, so this is just a list about what popularly makes a player great and not a player actually being great? Alright, my bad.

If my list were just accolades, you may have a point.

But my list takes into account PER, PPG, ASG, RPG, SPG, BPG, basically the bread and butter of basketball stats.

Accolades actually help players who never led in certain categories but were still exceptional players.

Point forward · Post #58 » by **Point forward** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:09 pm

I would attempt to incorporate something like "sustained dominance", i. e. if you got a great accolade (MVP, championship, Finals MVP...) consecutive times, you get extra points. It would make the formula more complicated, but then, I feel that getting something 3 times in a row is greater than getting in 3 times in 12 years.

EDIT: Proposal #2 - if someone gets multiple accolades within a year (MVP, ring, Finals MVP, DPOY, a "Hakeem") you also get extra points.

All just friendly proposals, the formula looks solid.

Wile E. Coyote · Post #59 » by **Wile E. Coyote** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:17 pm

Like a multiplier award? That might work because it's not subjective.

Gongxi · Post #60 » by **Gongxi** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:22 pm

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Gongxi wrote:Oh, so this is just a list about what popularly makes a player great and not a player actually being great? Alright, my bad.

If my list were just accolades, you may have a point.

But my list takes into account PER, PPG, ASG, RPG, SPG, BPG, basically the bread and butter of basketball stats.

Accolades actually help players who never led in certain categories but were still exceptional players.

Some of the accolades are very arbitrarily chosen, though. Like MVP shares would be much better than MVP awards. And the ASG thing is still a joke.

I have a very hard time supporting a metric that says Allen Iverson's career as a player somehow looks better in March 2010 than it did in March 2009, but that's what this does. Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen didn't become a better basketball players in June 2008 than they were in June 2007, but when so much depends on such a small sample size of outcomes, things like that will happen.

It isn't just a problem with your list in particular, but the way basketball fans judge events altogether that's the problem. The same group of people that think every game is rigged think winning rings makes a player better than he was before. Go figure.