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

[Point forward]

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

I got this idea from the notion how hard it is to threepeat, and how much "greatness" (="defining an era") is derived from this. There was so much ruckus about the 1988 Lakers back-to-back win, let alone the Bulls threepeats. IMHO, that is REALLY being great. The Shaq Lakers are always rated slightly higher than the Duncan Spurs, because one threepeated, the other not. Also, is fiendishly difficult to get 3 MVPs in a row - for the same reason, I rate Bird's MVPs threepeat slightly higher than Moses Malone's "scattered" ones.

Again, just a proposal. Also, you gotta avoid the "overrated role player" effect, so that Horry and KC Jones do not rank higher than West and Wilt

[Wile E. Coyote]

[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.

MVP shares? I don't give guys awards for second place. If a guy won stuff for second place, Jerry West might be in the top five. He's not a top five player.

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.

Allen Iverson went up 2 points using my metric. He jumped over George Gervin with those two points. Was he a worse player than George Gervin?

Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce became better players in 2008. Allen and Pierce on the defensive end, especially. Garnett became a better leader too. Some of these things cannot be measured by stats. The only way I can give them anything is awarding points for being on a championship team. It's not perfect, but it is better than awarding them zero points for that season.

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.

Winning a ring might not make a player better, but it will make a player greater. There's an ever so subtle difference. That's what this formula attempts to do: measure greatness.

[Gongxi]

Greater and better mean the same thing to me, unless we're gonna put Grant Hill in the top 10 for repping Sprite so fantastically for all those years, and put Reagan in the top 5 presidents ever for being such a good actor.

I rate players' 'greatness' by how good they were on the basketball court, not how much the media may have favored them, the fans may have favored them, or they were lucky enough to score a good GM or a good coach to be on a winning team. That's just complete luck, really. Or at least representative of a skill that is not related to basketball acumen or ability. It seems as if you're just saying "This is apparently how basketball fans like to rank them, so this is how I'll do it." So it results in Iverson getting better last year, or Kobe being better because Ron Artest brought the fire a couple days ago- and in danger of being worse if Artest laid another egg. It's dependent upon factors that have nothing to do with the player. Sorry.

Nice model for judging players based upon on already severely flawed method, though.

[Wile E. Coyote]

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

I got this idea from the notion how hard it is to threepeat, and how much "greatness" (="defining an era") is derived from this. There was so much ruckus about the 1988 Lakers back-to-back win, let alone the Bulls threepeats. IMHO, that is REALLY being great. The Shaq Lakers are always rated slightly higher than the Duncan Spurs, because one threepeated, the other not. Also, is fiendishly difficult to get 3 MVPs in a row - for the same reason, I rate Bird's MVPs threepeat slightly higher than Moses Malone's "scattered" ones.

Again, just a proposal. Also, you gotta avoid the "overrated role player" effect, so that Horry and KC Jones do not rank higher than West and Wilt

I agree with this.

So I should award an extra point or two for a back-to-back and so on. Perhaps a one point bonus for every championship after the first. That would make the top ten look like this:

1. Jordan 401
2. Jabbar 386
3. Russell 382
4. Wilt 334
5. O'Neal 236*
6. Duncan 230*
7. Bryant 215*
7. Johnson 215
9. Bird 202
10. Havlicek 200
10. Cousy 200

This would put Kobe in a tie with Magic.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Greater and better mean the same thing to me, unless we're gonna put Grant Hill in the top 10 for repping Sprite so fantastically for all those years, and put Reagan in the top 5 presidents ever for being such a good actor.

If you went by stats alone, Brett Favre would be the greatest quarterback in NFL history. Is he? It's fine to use stats to rate players to a certain degree, but some players have things that you cannot measure with numbers, but with your eyes.

I rate players' 'greatness' by how good they were on the basketball court, not how much the media may have favored them, the fans may have favored them, or they were lucky enough to score a good GM or a good coach to be on a winning team. That's just complete luck, really. Or at least representative of a skill that is not related to basketball acumen or ability. It seems as if you're just saying "This is apparently how basketball fans like to rank them, so this is how I'll do it." So it results in Iverson getting better last year, or Kobe being better because Ron Artest brought the fire a couple days ago- and in danger of being worse if Artest laid another egg. It's dependent upon factors that have nothing to do with the player. Sorry.

No, I see it the same way as most other people. It's the same reason I would take Tom Brady over Brett Favre any day of the week. Worse stats, better quarterback.

Nice model for judging players based upon on already severely flawed method, though.

I'll be glad to give some imput in your formula, if you should devise one.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The reason I like watching basketball and other sports: they are a metaphor for life in many respects. You must overcome obstacles to reach a desired result. In real life, this success cannot always be measured by tangible numbers or other methods and the same is true in sports. Call it "the will to succeed" or the "will to win". It can't be measured by statistics, but it can be measured by accolades, and this is the reason why I use accolades in my formula. You cannot be a stat geek and not use your eyes. A player could have the greatest stats through 46 minutes in a basketball game and self destruct the final two. Because he has better stats than everyone else, does that make him greater? What about the guy who plays average through most of the game, but shows up big time in the big moments, like Derek Fisher or Robert Horry? Are they worthless because they average 5 ppg? I try to get my formula to work somewhere in the middle.

[Gongxi]

Greater and better mean the same thing to me, unless we're gonna put Grant Hill in the top 10 for repping Sprite so fantastically for all those years, and put Reagan in the top 5 presidents ever for being such a good actor.

If you went by stats alone, Brett Favre would be the greatest quarterback in NFL history. Is he? It's fine to use stats to rate players to a certain degree, but some players have things that you cannot measure with numbers, but with your eyes.

I...don't think stats say that at all. I mean, what are you going by? Your same logic can say that he's the worst QB ever because he leads the league in interceptions thrown. The fact of the matter is stats don't indicate he's the best.

I rate players' 'greatness' by how good they were on the basketball court, not how much the media may have favored them, the fans may have favored them, or they were lucky enough to score a good GM or a good coach to be on a winning team. That's just complete luck, really. Or at least representative of a skill that is not related to basketball acumen or ability. It seems as if you're just saying "This is apparently how basketball fans like to rank them, so this is how I'll do it." So it results in Iverson getting better last year, or Kobe being better because Ron Artest brought the fire a couple days ago- and in danger of being worse if Artest laid another egg. It's dependent upon factors that have nothing to do with the player. Sorry.

No, I see it the same way as most other people. It's the same reason I would take Tom Brady over Brett Favre any day of the week. Worse stats, better quarterback.

But...not worse stats at all.

Nice model for judging players based upon on already severely flawed method, though.

I'll be glad to give some imput in your formula, if you should devise one.

I don't think I'll try. If I did, team success would be out the window, though, and basketball fans would cry about it. Oh, and no ASG MVP, and I don't think anyone would even notice. Throw out All Star games altogether.

The reason I like watching basketball and other sports: they are a metaphor for life in many respects. You must overcome obstacles to reach a desired result. In real life, this success cannot always be measured by tangible numbers or other methods and the same is true in sports. Call it "the will to succeed" or the "will to win". It can't be measured by statistics, but it can be measured by accolades, and this is the reason why I use accolades in my formula. You cannot be a stat geek and not use your eyes. A player could have the greatest stats through 46 minutes in a basketball game and self destruct the final two. Because he has better stats than everyone else, does that make him greater? What about the guy who plays average through most of the game, but shows up big time in the big moments, like Derek Fisher or Robert Horry? Are they worthless because they average 5 ppg? I try to get my formula to work somewhere in the middle.

The "will to win" is something fans create to add something to the game. I mean, players have it, but you either get the rebound or you don't. You make the shot or you don't. Jordan's 'will to win' didn't make Paxson hit that three in '93, Duncan's didn't make Horry hit those shots against the Pistons, and Magic's didn't make Worthy get that triple-double. It is what it is. The 'winning mentality' is just something observers apply later to the situation to help them explain what is understandably confusing to them. It's a crutch.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The fact of the matter is stats don't indicate he's the best.

So what does indicate the best player? You came in here arguing that my formula was based too much on accolades and now you admit that stats don't indicate a player is the best. What does indicate a player is the best? What I really think you are looking for is a reason to knock Kobe off the list and replace him with LeBron. It's not going to happen!

The only people who seem to have a problem with my list are Kobe haters. Kobe is right where he should be. Slightly below Magic Johnson and slightly above Larry Bird. I loved both of those guys as players. I'm old enough to have watched them myself without looking up their stats. It surprised me when I did this formula that Magic finished behind Shaq and Duncan. Do I agree? Not necessarily, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

But...not worse stats at all.

On the whole, Brady's stats are not as good as Favre, or even Manning's for that matter.

I don't think I'll try. If I did, team success would be out the window, though, and basketball fans would cry about it. Oh, and no ASG MVP, and I don't think anyone would even notice. Throw out All Star games altogether.

I still think you should do one to see what kind of imput you would get. How can a player play in a team sport and not be rewarded with a team accomplishment? It makes no sense. I could see you doing that for baseball, which is an individual sport disguised as a team sport. But not basketball.

The "will to win" is something fans create to add something to the game. I mean, players have it, but you either get the rebound or you don't. You make the shot or you don't. Jordan's 'will to win' didn't make Paxson hit that three in '93, Duncan's didn't make Horry hit those shots against the Pistons, and Magic's didn't make Worthy get that triple-double. It is what it is. The 'winning mentality' is just something observers apply later to the situation to help them explain what is understandably confusing to them. It's a crutch.

Willpower and laziness are a reality in professional sports. Some guys are so athletically gifted they could nearly sleepwalk through games and still perform at an all-star level. I'm sure in NBA history, many players were doped/drugged up and still performed quite well. Jordan's willpower enabled him to go through battles in the late 80s that would make a player like Vince Carter curl up in the fetal position. Similar physical talents. Totally different mentality.

[Gongxi]

The fact of the matter is stats don't indicate he's the best.

So what does indicate the best player?

99% of the time, statistics. I'm telling you that Brett Favre doesn't have "better" statistics.

You came in here arguing that my formula was based too much on accolades and now you admit that stats don't indicate a player is the best.

No, I didn't.

What does indicate a player is the best? What I really think you are looking for is a reason to knock Kobe off the list and replace him with LeBron. It's not going to happen!

The only people who seem to have a problem with my list are Kobe haters. Kobe is right where he should be. Slightly below Magic Johnson and slightly above Larry Bird. I loved both of those guys as players. I'm old enough to have watched them myself without looking up their stats. It surprised me when I did this formula that Magic finished behind Shaq and Duncan. Do I agree? Not necessarily, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

Oh god, it's always about Kobe isn't it? Everyone who's not a superfan is a hater to them, I know.

But...not worse stats at all.

On the whole, Brady's stats are not as good as Favre, or even Manning's for that matter.

Not better than Manning's no, and I think Manning is the better quarterback. But better than Favre's.

I don't think I'll try. If I did, team success would be out the window, though, and basketball fans would cry about it. Oh, and no ASG MVP, and I don't think anyone would even notice. Throw out All Star games altogether.

I still think you should do one to see what kind of imput you would get. How can a player play in a team sport and not be rewarded with a team accomplishment? It makes no sense. I could see you doing that for baseball, which is an individual sport disguised as a team sport. But not basketball.

Because we've all seen great players on bad teams and bad players on great teams? Seriously, ASG MVP? Why? Why not add Slam Dunk Champ in there? Skills competitions champ? McDonald's MVP?

The "will to win" is something fans create to add something to the game. I mean, players have it, but you either get the rebound or you don't. You make the shot or you don't. Jordan's 'will to win' didn't make Paxson hit that three in '93, Duncan's didn't make Horry hit those shots against the Pistons, and Magic's didn't make Worthy get that triple-double. It is what it is. The 'winning mentality' is just something observers apply later to the situation to help them explain what is understandably confusing to them. It's a crutch.

Willpower and laziness are a reality in professional sports. Some guys are so athletically gifted they could nearly sleepwalk through games and still perform at an all-star level. I'm sure in NBA history, many players were doped/drugged up and still performed quite well. Jordan's willpower enabled him to go through battles in the late 80s that would make a player like Vince Carter curl up in the fetal position. Similar physical talents. Totally different mentality.

Yes, they are real. And it's reflected in their production on the court, the way they play. You don't need to guess about it. And it doesn't matter if Derrick Coleman is super lazy where Dennis Hopson is the hardest working guy in the game- Coleman was still much better than Hopson.

[TheOGJabroni]

I like this list. Obviously, this is not your opinion since it is based on formulas, but I am surprised to see Magic and Bird as low as they are. On top of that, Cousy being only spot behind Larry is a shocker as well. But overall, as I already stated, a real solid list that actually has statistical base behind it.

[NO-KG-AI]

Would winning gold medals count as points too? I mean, normally I wouldn't care, but it has to be more important than ASG MVP.

Nice list, but some of the stuff is still too arbitrary, like leading the league in rebounds or assists being less valuable then PPG.

[Wile E. Coyote]

99% of the time, statistics. I'm telling you that Brett Favre doesn't have "better" statistics.

And I'm telling you he does.

No, I didn't.

I just quoted you saying that.

Oh god, it's always about Kobe isn't it? Everyone who's not a superfan is a hater to them, I know.

It sure seems to be. Only Kobe elicits this kind of uproar in these types of threads. Since I've seen your previous work on the forum, I know that's what this is about.

Not better than Manning's no, and I think Manning is the better quarterback. But better than Favre's.

Manning better than Brady? Why didn't he win the Superbowl last year? His team had just as much talent as New Orleans.

Because we've all seen great players on bad teams and bad players on great teams? Seriously, ASG MVP? Why? Why not add Slam Dunk Champ in there? Skills competitions champ? McDonald's MVP?

An All-Star game MVP revolves around participating in a basketball game with other all-star players. What does the Slam Dunk championship or skills challenge have anything to do with an actually game of five on five? My list doesn't include non-NBA games, or the McDonald's MVP might be included.

Yes, they are real. And it's reflected in their production on the court, the way they play. You don't need to guess about it. And it doesn't matter if Derrick Coleman is super lazy where Dennis Hopson is the hardest working guy in the game- Coleman was still much better than Hopson.

Some guys don't have enough natural talent to overcome the difference in mentality.

But all of this being said, what's your top ten list? Is there such a huge difference than mine? Yeah, I know, you wouldn't have Kobe on the list. That's a given.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Would winning gold medals count as points too? I mean, normally I wouldn't care, but it has to be more important than ASG MVP.

Non-NBA activity. That's why I don't include ABA stats or accomplishments.

Nice list, but some of the stuff is still too arbitrary, like leading the league in rebounds or assists being less valuable then PPG.

Importance:

1 Points: The reason they play games. To score.
2 Rebounds: Never so evident as this last Finals. The team that rebounded better each game won that game. Rebounding leads to scoring opportunities.
3 Assists: Not as important as rebounds, and is more prone to inflation from era to era.
4 Blocks: Not recorded until the early 70s, but important.
5 Steals: Not recorded until the 70s, and less important than blocks.

[Gongxi]

99% of the time, statistics. I'm telling you that Brett Favre doesn't have "better" statistics.

And I'm telling you he does.

And you are wrong. He holds several all-time records, but that doesn't mean he's the best any more than the all-time interceptions thrown record means he's the worst. I thought you would've gotten that the first I had to tell you.

No, I didn't.

I just quoted you saying that.

No, you quoted me correcting you regarding Favre. You just didn't understand it.

Oh god, it's always about Kobe isn't it? Everyone who's not a superfan is a hater to them, I know.

It sure seems to be. Only Kobe elicits this kind of uproar in these types of threads. Since I've seen your previous work on the forum, I know that's what this is about.

My 'previous work' is that of holding up empirical and objective evidence over non-falsifiable, subjective hunches. Since at least 15% of the posts on this forum have something to do with Kobe, and because his most voracious fans also tend to ignore empirical, objective evidence, I'm going to come into a lot of friction with them. I've also experienced that friction in the RPOY project regarding players like Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon. Maybe in the world of the Kobe superfan, a person's entire stance on a sport revolves around how to best make a player look good or bad (why are we including ASG MVPs again?), but in my world it does not.

Seriously, get over yourself and your hero.

Not better than Manning's no, and I think Manning is the better quarterback. But better than Favre's.

Manning better than Brady? Why didn't he win the Superbowl last year? His team had just as much talent as New Orleans.

Maybe because it was a game against two TEAMS and not a one-on-one passing competition between Manning and...oh wait, between Manning and Drew Brees, who was also an exceptional QB last year.

Because we've all seen great players on bad teams and bad players on great teams? Seriously, ASG MVP? Why? Why not add Slam Dunk Champ in there? Skills competitions champ? McDonald's MVP?

An All-Star game MVP revolves around participating in a basketball game with other all-star players. What does the Slam Dunk championship or skills challenge have anything to do with an actually game of five on five? My list doesn't include non-NBA games, or the McDonald's MVP might be included.

Yes, they are real. And it's reflected in their production on the court, the way they play. You don't need to guess about it. And it doesn't matter if Derrick Coleman is super lazy where Dennis Hopson is the hardest working guy in the game- Coleman was still much better than Hopson.

Some guys don't have enough natural talent to overcome the difference in mentality.

That doesn't matter. What matters is how good they are the basketball court. That can be measured independently of the causes that drive it.

But all of this being said, what's your top ten list? Is there such a huge difference than mine? Yeah, I know, you wouldn't have Kobe on the list. That's a given.

I'd have to give it much more thought than just plugging in MVPs x Championship teams + scoring titles or something. Off the top of my head, I'd have Kobe in the 10-13 range with Moses Malone, Karl Malone, and Oscar Robertson. Behind guys like (in no particular order) KAJ, Wilt, Jordan, BIrd, Shaq, Duncan, Olajuwon, Duncan, and Russell. Ask me again when the RPOY thread is over, considering I will have looked at every season in NBA history for a couple of days and given my top 5 players for every year there.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with Kobe. Apparently he's the reason why you made this, so you assume if anyone disagrees with it it's also because of him? I'm sorry, I like dealing with real facts not just "hey, this is what I think and there's no way to prove me right or wrong OMG KILLER INSTINCT WILL TO WIN IF YOU'VE WON SOMETHING YOU MUST HAVE THAT WILL TO WIN THAT PEOPLE WHO'VE LOST DON'T HAVE!" That's piss poor critical thinking.

[Wile E. Coyote]

And you are wrong. He holds several all-time records, but that doesn't mean he's the best any more than the all-time interceptions thrown record means he's the worst. I thought you would've gotten that the first I had to tell you.

So what stats is Brady better in besides less interceptions and a slightly higher completion percentage? Favre has better stats per year and by career totals. Period.

No, you quoted me correcting you regarding Favre. You just didn't understand it.

Sure I didn't.

My 'previous work' is that of holding up empirical and objective evidence over non-falsifiable, subjective hunches. Since at least 15% of the posts on this forum have something to do with Kobe, and because his most voracious fans also tend to ignore empirical, objective evidence, I'm going to come into a lot of friction with them. I've also experienced that friction in the RPOY project regarding players like Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon. Maybe in the world of the Kobe superfan, a person's entire stance on a sport revolves around how to best make a player look good or bad (why are we including ASG MVPs again?), but in my world it does not.

Seriously, get over yourself and your hero.

I included ASG MVPs because I wanted to. When you devise a formula that doesn't include them, I'd like to see it.

And Kobe is not my hero. LOL. No professional athlete is my hero.

Maybe because it was a game against two TEAMS and not a one-on-one passing competition between Manning and...oh wait, between Manning and Drew Brees, who was also an exceptional QB last year.

So why should somebody not be rewarded with a team accomplishment when playing in a team game? Basketball players can be made better players or worse players by the quality of their teammates. You cannot separate the two.

That doesn't matter. What matters is how good they are the basketball court. That can be measured independently of the causes that drive it.

And how good somebody is on a basketball court cannot be determined without looking at their teammates.

I'd have to give it much more thought than just plugging in MVPs x Championship teams + scoring titles or something. Off the top of my head, I'd have Kobe in the 10-13 range with Moses Malone, Karl Malone, and Oscar Robertson. Behind guys like (in no particular order) KAJ, Wilt, Jordan, BIrd, Shaq, Duncan, Olajuwon, Duncan, and Russell. Ask me again when the RPOY thread is over, considering I will have looked at every season in NBA history for a couple of days and given my top 5 players for every year there.

I can't wait.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with Kobe. Apparently he's the reason why you made this, so you assume if anyone disagrees with it it's also because of him? I'm sorry, I like dealing with real facts not just "hey, this is what I think and there's no way to prove me right or wrong OMG KILLER INSTINCT WILL TO WIN IF YOU'VE WON SOMETHING YOU MUST HAVE THAT WILL TO WIN THAT PEOPLE WHO'VE LOST DON'T HAVE!" That's piss poor critical thinking.

No, Kobe is not the reason I made this. My attempt at doing this has been objective, not subjective. There is no bonus for Kobe being Kobe on this list. As I've said before, I've been surprised by some of the results. I personally believe that your thinking is flawed by the fact of looking at players in a vacuum instead of taking into account their team and perception of how a player is viewed in history.

Thank you for your imput (criticism), and I'll continue to make improvements.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

If you went by stats alone, Brett Favre would be the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

That's not true, you'd probably wind up at Dan Marino. He set many of the same records Favre did, but in a shorter amount of time, and if you look at his numbers in comparison to the years he played and adjust accordingly for numbers inflation, he is easily out in front.

And there are a lot of people who actually feel Marino is the best quarterback of all time.

Seriously Favre is like the Allen Iverson of quarterbacks, puts up a lot of yards and touchdowns (or in Iverson's case points and assists) but his efficiency is flat out mediocre, and he gets overrated to all hell by his fanboys.