My GOAT formula and results (Peak, Prime, Longevity and all time) - 22 players updated (last - Isiah Thomas)

[mischievous]

Doesn't longevity favor Lebron because he didn't play in college? Also if you look at Jordan he could have been the top player in the league for 3-4 more years if he didn't play baseball and retire in 98.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

[LA Bird]

The proportion varies between players but in general, it's around: 84% Prime+Longevity, 16% Peak

It doesn't makes sense to separate prime and longevity when the difference between prime and non-prime seasons are often indiscernible and highly subjective with the x-year prime definitions often leaving out extremely valuable seasons for guys like Kareem and Duncan. The value of the extra season also depends on how good the player was in the first place and the longevity of somebody like Nazr Mohammed (18 seasons and counting) on itself shouldn't be a huge difference maker. It's the number of high quality seasons which matters. Peak is only one season and I don't think it should count a lot more than the second or third best season of a career unless it's somebody like Walton, in which case I have his 1977 peak at 43% of his total career value.

[Joao Saraiva]

Doesn't longevity favor Lebron because he didn't play in college? Also if you look at Jordan he could have been the top player in the league for 3-4 more years if he didn't play baseball and retire in 98.

Well, eventually longevity will probably favor LeBron.

He entered earlier in the league, so did Garnett or Kobe. But LeBron starting producing superstar seasons earlier. It also favors Duncan, KAJ and other guys.

About MJ... well, that was his decision. I can't give him credit for things he didn't do. If he didn't play, I won't give him credit for the "if he played" seasons.

[Joao Saraiva]

I've been developing a formula to determine how good was a player in each in the NBA. And ultimately, his career value, peak value and prime value (his best 5 years, don't have to be consecutive).

The Formula is:

Spoiler:

Regular season
(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+PER+WS/48/2+TS%/2)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value

Post season
(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+PER+WS/48/2+TS%/2)/(Rounds played coefficient) = PS Value

Peak Value - Biggest sum in the same year: RS Value + PS Value
Prime Value - Sum of the top 5 years from the player
Longevity Value - Sum of All RS Value + PS Value
All Time Value = Longevity Value/10*0,3 + Prime Value/5 *0,6 + Peak Value * 0,1

Explaining why did I choose this formula and why it's only for players after 1980

Spoiler:

1. I chose per game values because PER 100 doesn't indicate the burden per game. If a guy plays 20 minutes per game and averages the same as a guy who is playing 38, then the guy who is playing 38 should be rewarded for it.

2. I chose per game stats instead of per 36 for the same reason of the above.

3. I chose per game stats over totals because it's easier for me to see the correlation between and achieve top values that make me weight the categories more or less the same, or with the importance I feel they have.

4. PER and WS/48 are stats I agree with the formula. They create some absurd results, but together I feel they're not bad. They hold some weight in the formula because I believe they give context to the raw stats. Usually PER and WS/48 benefit the best players, the way I see it. Didn't use BPM because I disagree with the formula, and VORP for the same reason.

5. TS% felt important. Efficiency matter with your scoring.

6. The coefficients were used because it's not the same playing 82 games or 20 games. It's not the same having one great playoff round of four great playoff rounds. I understand this brings some winning bias in the post season, and so does WS/48 on the formula. However, I feel like it doesn't weight that much.

7. Peak Value seems to hold less weight in the formula but it doesn't. It's the most repeated year, since it's value is included in Longevity Value and Prime Value. Prime holds a lot of weight, and I'd like to thank the guys who participated in a thread I created not a long time ago who said prime was the most important thing for them.

I could have gone with a 7 year prime, or 10 year prime. I opted for 5 because there are players who have 13 seasons, or 10 seasons I want to evaluate.

8. These are just numbers and they exclude any type of context. So, like any formula, it will give you results or weight things more or less than you agree, or that I agree. I don't think it's possible to evaluate a player with just a number. So take it as just an approach to what I believe rankings should be, not a defining value. Feel free to disagree also.

9. Using per game values ignores pace, so it's not good before 1980. It's also a bad idea before that because some stats are missing and the playoffs did not have the same amount of rounds.

I've only completed 8 players so far. I'll try to update as I add more players.

RESULTS

PEAK LIST
1. LeBron James 2009 - 307,38
2. Michael Jordan 1991 - 306,97
3. Shaquille O'Neal 2000 - 297,5
4. Tim Duncan 2003 - 284,79
5. Magic Johnson 1987 - 281,55
6. Larry Bird 1986 - 275,03
7. Hakeem Olajuwon 1994 - 272,67
8. Kobe Bryant 2009 - 247,35

PRIME LIST
1. Michael Jordan 89, 90, 91, 92, 96 - 1447,61
2. LeBron James 09, 12, 13, 14, 16 - 1435,60
3. Shaquille O'Neal 95, 99, 00, 01, 02 - 1335,01
4. Magic Johnson 82, 85, 87, 88, 91 - 1325,28
5. Larry Bird 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 - 1307,91
6. Tim Duncan 99, 02, 03, 05, 07 - 1264,30
7. Hakeem Olajuwon - 86, 88, 93, 94, 95 - 1263,5
8. Kobe Bryant - 01, 02, 08, 09, 10 - 1171,89

LONGEVITY LIST
1. Tim Duncan - 3875,96
2. Shaquille O'Neal - 3556,97
3. Michael Jordan - 3322,92
4. Hakeem Olajuwon - 3277,50
5. Kobe Bryant - 3230,3
6. LeBron James - 3108,48
7. Magic Johnson - 2967,57
8. Larry Bird - 2668,83

ALL TIME LIST
1. Michael Jordan - 304,09
2. Shaquille O'Neal - 296,67
3. Tim Duncan - 296,47
4. LeBron James - 296,26
5. Hakeem Olajuwon - 277,21
6. Magic Johnson - 276,22
7. Larry Bird - 264,52
8. Kobe Bryant - 262,27

What I'd like you to address

Spoiler:

1. Problems with the formula?

2. What do you think about the results? Overrated/Underrated players? Gaps between them?

3. What players would you like to see rated with this system?

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?

[Joao Saraiva]

Shaq had one thing wrong and it messes his longevity value. So now Tim Duncan is #2 all time since their gap was non existent.

Updated in OP.

Just made the results for Kevin Garnett. Will update the list once Karl Malone, Dirk Nowtizki and Charles Barkley are also done.

[2klegend]

1. Problems with the formula?
PER already incorporate a lot of the raw coefficient basic data. There is no reason to use basic raw stat like PPG, APG, RPG, TPG, etc... It is also important to use the rate rather than raw data.

2. What do you think about the results? Overrated/Underrated players? Gaps between them?
I like it although I see some flaw. For instance, the season you choose for each player don't represent their top 5. Like Kobe, for example. You didn't include his 2 best statistical season, 2006 and 2007. That's why top 5 season should align with their top 5 Player Efficiency Rating. Of course, taking injury into account.

3. What players would you like to see rated with this system?
KG and Dirk.

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?
Wade and Chris Paul will likely be better than Hakeem and Kobe. That's why you need to incorporate accolades to avoid that issue in the GOAT rank.

[Quotatious]

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?
Wade and Chris Paul will likely be better than Hakeem and Kobe. That's why you need to incorporate accolades to avoid that issue in the GOAT rank.

Wade and CP3 being better than Kobe is nothing outrageous...Especially Wade. I would take Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-11) over Kobe's 4 best seasons, personally. Kobe is better in the long run, he has clearly superior longevity, but he wasn't better than Wade or even CP3 when they were at their best.

Hakeem, it's a different story. It's almost impossible to measure his huge defensive impact with boxscore stats (even though his steals and blocks at least scratch the surface). The fact that Hakeem is close to those guys based on heavily offense-oriented metrics, is a good indication of how great he was.

[2klegend]

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?
Wade and Chris Paul will likely be better than Hakeem and Kobe. That's why you need to incorporate accolades to avoid that issue in the GOAT rank.

Wade and CP3 being better than Kobe is nothing outrageous...Especially Wade. I would take Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-11) over Kobe's 4 best seasons, personally. Kobe is better in the long run, he has clearly superior longevity, but he wasn't better than Wade or even CP3 when they were at their best.

Hakeem, it's a different story. It's almost impossible to measure his huge defensive impact with boxscore stats (even though his steals and blocks at least scratch the surface). The fact that Hakeem is close to those guys based on heavily offense-oriented metrics, is a good indication of how great he was.

It's not outrageous but it is outrageous when you put them in the GOAT rank. After all, putting stat within the concept of winning is what give GOAT rank credential. I can agree with you that peak Wade and CP3 is better than peak Kobe at producing better stat. Though, remember producing stat within the concept of winning.

There is ways to measure defensive metric but if the result is different, you will not accept it. I think defensive RAPM and even defensive BPM are good enough to gauge his effectiveness on the defensive end. Of course, we need to change our way or perception if it doesn't match our initial hypothesis of certain player. Hakeem is a classic example of that. He has all the tool and look on "paper" to be GOAT defensive center but once we dial deeper into his defensive stat relative to his peer, he doesn't appear to be that GOAT everyone has in mind. With that, it is important to be open mind to all results.

[JeepCSC]

Prime should be the bulk of the body. Where was he in that 8/10-year chunk where he can affect the most. The peak is in there as well, simply because that is a player at his absolute best and you can't not look at that. Longevity does little for me unless we are talking prime. Duncan in 2016 was good and unique, but it absolutely does not tell me where he stacks up with Hakeem. That's because my GOAT rankings aren't best career, but best players. Kobe could have played at 2013-level for another 5 years and he wouldn't have been any closer to passing Jordan. Simply because at no point did I think he was better than Jordan. Longevity is a fascinating ending to a compelling narrative. It doesn't make a player better however. Not to me.

Prime- 60%
Peak- 30%
Longevity outside prime- 10% (at best for special cases)

[Quotatious]

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?
Wade and Chris Paul will likely be better than Hakeem and Kobe. That's why you need to incorporate accolades to avoid that issue in the GOAT rank.

Wade and CP3 being better than Kobe is nothing outrageous...Especially Wade. I would take Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-11) over Kobe's 4 best seasons, personally. Kobe is better in the long run, he has clearly superior longevity, but he wasn't better than Wade or even CP3 when they were at their best.

Hakeem, it's a different story. It's almost impossible to measure his huge defensive impact with boxscore stats (even though his steals and blocks at least scratch the surface). The fact that Hakeem is close to those guys based on heavily offense-oriented metrics, is a good indication of how great he was.

It's not outrageous but it is outrageous when you put them in the GOAT rank. After all, putting stat within the concept of winning is what give GOAT rank credential. I can agree with you that peak Wade and CP3 is better than peak Kobe at producing better stat. Though, remember producing stat within the concept of winning.

There is ways to measure defensive metric but if the result is different, you will not accept it. I think defensive RAPM and even defensive BPM are good enough to gauge his effectiveness on the defensive end. Of course, we need to change our way or perception if it doesn't match our initial hypothesis of certain player. Hakeem is a classic example of that. He has all the tool and look on "paper" to be GOAT defensive center but once we dial deeper into his defensive stat relative to his peer, he doesn't appear to be that GOAT everyone has in mind. With that, it is important to be open mind to all results.

If you want to talk about "stats within the concept of winning" - Wade, when healthy, had just as much team success in his best seasons as Kobe had, to go along with his stats. I mean, look at that:

Wade 2006 = Kobe 2009 (both won championships as clear #1 options)
Wade 2009 = Kobe 2006 (most impressive boxscore production, their teams won a similar amount of games and lost first round of the playoffs in 7 games)
Wade 2010 = Kobe 2007 (second most impressive statistical season, again won a similar amount of games, lost first round in 5 games)
Wade 2011 = Kobe 2008 (both made a finals appearance, playing 21 games in the postseason each)

I totally agree that Kobe should be ranked higher career-wise, because of much better longevity and durability, but when they were both at their best, Wade slightly more impressive statistically, and also a winner.

[2klegend]

Wade and CP3 being better than Kobe is nothing outrageous...Especially Wade. I would take Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-11) over Kobe's 4 best seasons, personally. Kobe is better in the long run, he has clearly superior longevity, but he wasn't better than Wade or even CP3 when they were at their best.

Hakeem, it's a different story. It's almost impossible to measure his huge defensive impact with boxscore stats (even though his steals and blocks at least scratch the surface). The fact that Hakeem is close to those guys based on heavily offense-oriented metrics, is a good indication of how great he was.

It's not outrageous but it is outrageous when you put them in the GOAT rank. After all, putting stat within the concept of winning is what give GOAT rank credential. I can agree with you that peak Wade and CP3 is better than peak Kobe at producing better stat. Though, remember producing stat within the concept of winning.

There is ways to measure defensive metric but if the result is different, you will not accept it. I think defensive RAPM and even defensive BPM are good enough to gauge his effectiveness on the defensive end. Of course, we need to change our way or perception if it doesn't match our initial hypothesis of certain player. Hakeem is a classic example of that. He has all the tool and look on "paper" to be GOAT defensive center but once we dial deeper into his defensive stat relative to his peer, he doesn't appear to be that GOAT everyone has in mind. With that, it is important to be open mind to all results.

If you want to talk about "stats within the concept of winning" - Wade, when healthy, had just as much team success in his best seasons as Kobe had, to go along with his stats. I mean, look at that:

Wade 2006 = Kobe 2009 (both won championships as clear #1 options)
Wade 2009 = Kobe 2006 (most impressive boxscore production, their teams won a similar amount of games and lost first round of the playoffs in 7 games)
Wade 2010 = Kobe 2007 (second most impressive statistical season, again won a similar amount of games, lost first round in 5 games)
Wade 2011 = Kobe 2008 (both made a finals appearance, playing 21 games in the postseason each)

I totally agree that Kobe should be ranked higher career-wise, because of much better longevity and durability, but when they were both at their best, Wade slightly more impressive statistically, and also a winner.

That's fair. Although I do believe the condition was more favorable to Wade playing in the East.

Now I like to point out my method of measuring longevity and it is quite simple. Just count the number of 19-21+ PER season with 50+ game as the break point and distribute to a percentage weigh. This will eliminate all type of questions like which season is he consider effective or not effective. Duncan is a classic example. He has 18 seasons that qualify for 19-21+ PER with 1 season below that standard coefficient and that was in 2016. With that, you can calculate 18 x longevity percentage rate.

[NO-KG-AI]

I kind of stop caring about longevity once a player leaves the level of being the best player on championship worthy teams... And not really super stacked, odd teams like taking the 03 pistons and adding someone like Carmelo Anthony or something.

It's nice to have if I'm deciding who I'm choosing if I'm building a franchise, but if one guy plays 12 years, and one plays 18, I'll take the 12 year guy even if he's only a little better in those 12, because I would be going in assuming that every gm is equally as good or better than me at building a team, so if we end up with equal squads, my guy is the deciding factor.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[nzd07]

I kind of stop caring about longevity once a player leaves the level of being the best player on championship worthy teams... And not really super stacked, odd teams like taking the 03 pistons and adding someone like Carmelo Anthony or something.

It's nice to have if I'm deciding who I'm choosing if I'm building a franchise, but if one guy plays 12 years, and one plays 18, I'll take the 12 year guy even if he's only a little better in those 12, because I would be going in assuming that every gm is equally as good or better than me at building a team, so if we end up with equal squads, my guy is the deciding factor.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Depends on how well the second player plays for his 6 more years. I mean, if the other guy can get Kobe from '08-'13 or Duncan from '09-'14, that gives him a better shot at more rings than 12 years of Shaq IMO.

But if the second guy's play falls off a cliff after those 12 years and he just stays around as a vet bench player than yeah it doesn't really matter.

[jaypo]

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?
Wade and Chris Paul will likely be better than Hakeem and Kobe. That's why you need to incorporate accolades to avoid that issue in the GOAT rank.

Wade and CP3 being better than Kobe is nothing outrageous...Especially Wade. I would take Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-11) over Kobe's 4 best seasons, personally. Kobe is better in the long run, he has clearly superior longevity, but he wasn't better than Wade or even CP3 when they were at their best.

Hakeem, it's a different story. It's almost impossible to measure his huge defensive impact with boxscore stats (even though his steals and blocks at least scratch the surface). The fact that Hakeem is close to those guys based on heavily offense-oriented metrics, is a good indication of how great he was.

I would say the same thing about Shaq's defensive impact. People weren't as afraid to attack the paint with Akeem there as they were with Shaq. Now, the results were usually Akeem swatting their shot into the stands, which is measurable. But with Shaq, teams would rarely challenge him at the rim. And if they did, a lot of times, they would drive back out and settle for jumpers. That kind of thing can't be measured. They had to change the rules to keep him from patrolling the paint.

I'm not saying Shaq was better than Akeem defensively at all. Not even close. But I believe Shaq's "unmeasurable" defensive impact is greater than Akeem's. Whereas Akeem's measurable defensive impact is moreso than Shaq's.

[Quotatious]

I would say the same thing about Shaq's defensive impact. People weren't as afraid to attack the paint with Akeem there as they were with Shaq. Now, the results were usually Akeem swatting their shot into the stands, which is measurable. But with Shaq, teams would rarely challenge him at the rim. And if they did, a lot of times, they would drive back out and settle for jumpers. That kind of thing can't be measured. They had to change the rules to keep him from patrolling the paint.

I'm not saying Shaq was better than Akeem defensively at all. Not even close. But I believe Shaq's "unmeasurable" defensive impact is greater than Akeem's. Whereas Akeem's measurable defensive impact is moreso than Shaq's.

Right, that's probably true, but Hakeem had the ability to switch on smaller players and guard somebody 15-20 feet away from the basket, if necessary, plus his mobility was insane for a near 7-footer. In his athletic prime, It seemed like he could be everywhere on the court at the same time, cover so much ground.

David Robinson is very similar to Hakeem in those areas. Also supremely athletic and versatile defensively.

[jaypo]

I would say the same thing about Shaq's defensive impact. People weren't as afraid to attack the paint with Akeem there as they were with Shaq. Now, the results were usually Akeem swatting their shot into the stands, which is measurable. But with Shaq, teams would rarely challenge him at the rim. And if they did, a lot of times, they would drive back out and settle for jumpers. That kind of thing can't be measured. They had to change the rules to keep him from patrolling the paint.

I'm not saying Shaq was better than Akeem defensively at all. Not even close. But I believe Shaq's "unmeasurable" defensive impact is greater than Akeem's. Whereas Akeem's measurable defensive impact is moreso than Shaq's.

Right, that's probably true, but Hakeem had the ability to switch on smaller players and guard somebody 15-20 feet away from the basket, if necessary, plus his mobility was insane for a near 7-footer. In his athletic prime, It seemed like he could be everywhere on the court at the same time, cover so much ground.

David Robinson is very similar to Hakeem in those areas. Also supremely athletic and versatile defensively.

I remember. I actually have Akeem as 1b to Russ's 1a in defensive centers. And the fact that he was unstoppable offensively at times was amazing. Just a great all around player.

[trex_8063]

I've been developing a formula to determine how good was a player in each in the NBA. And ultimately, his career value, peak value and prime value (his best 5 years, don't have to be consecutive).

The Formula is:
Regular season
(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+PER+WS/48/2+TS%/2)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value

Post season
(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+PER+WS/48/2+TS%/2)/(Rounds played coefficient) = PS Value

Peak Value - Biggest sum in the same year: RS Value + PS Value
Prime Value - Sum of the top 5 years from the player
Longevity Value - Sum of All RS Value + PS Value
All Time Value = Longevity Value/10*0,3 + Prime Value/5 *0,6 + Peak Value * 0,1

I have a few questions/comments/critiques regarding the formula....
1) How are you using WS/48 and TS%? What I mean is: WS/48 is a decimal (and you're dividing it by 2). Example: '09 Lebron rs WS/48 was .318 (divided by 2 = .159). When you're adding up other variables that are often in the 20's or 30's, adding another 0.159 doesn't exactly shift the needle much (it's virtually insignificant).
So did you shift the decimal point three spots to the right to input WS/48 to the formula (e.g. .318 is put in the formula as 318)? If so, that gives WS/48 approximately 5x the weight of PER.
otoh, if you only move the decimal two spots to the right, WS/48 is only given about half the weight of PER (because you're dividing it by 2).
So I'm curious as to why you're giving WS/48 either so much more or so much less weight.

1b) Same basic question for TS% (input as 56.0 as opposed to .560, for example, yes?). If so, I feel the formula's giving too much weight to shooting efficiency (which is already a BIG factor in WS/48, btw).


2) What exactly are your "Missed games coefficient" and "Rounds played coefficient"?


3) I know you mentioned why you used per game stats rather than per 100 possession numbers, but surely you see how this is going to skew things slightly in favor of players in faster paced eras (essentially skewing against the circa-2000 crowd). You can use per 100 possession numbers and still easily circumvent the concerns you mentioned by simply including mpg in your formula.


4) I gather you want to give a lot of credit to longevity. However, I don't feel your formula construct actually does so. For instance, you're using a set number of seasons to define prime: 5 years. For some players, that just about covers their entire prime. But then there are guys like Kareem, Karl Malone, or Robert Parish, who all had primes that lasted something like 12-15 years. But they're not receiving any extra credit over someone like Sidney Moncrief (short prime) for doing so, because you're still just picking out a 5-year stretch of time for each of them.

You might say that they'll get the credit for that longevity in the "Longevity Value", but unless I'm misinterpreting something, I don't see that that's the case. Because you're still using per game numbers and rate statistics (PER and WS/48) only........nothing that recognizes the length of time they were productive for.
And in fact, it would seem to penalize players for playing addition years in a role-player capacity, as those role-player years are going to depress their career ppg/rpg/PER/WS/48/etc numbers.

Example: Suppose we compare Robert Parish to some hypothetical Player X who played just 6 seasons (5 in his prime, and just one additional role-player year). Player X's career numbers are not going to be depressed that much, because 83+% of his career was prime. Parish, otoh, only played ~60-70% of his career in his prime; so his additional role-player years are having a bigger impact on his career ppg/rpg/PER/etc that you will be using in your formula. And again: no extra credit for his prime which lasted like 12+ years, because you're singling out only a 5-year period.

[Joao Saraiva]

I've been developing a formula to determine how good was a player in each in the NBA. And ultimately, his career value, peak value and prime value (his best 5 years, don't have to be consecutive).

The Formula is:
Regular season
(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+PER+WS/48/2+TS%/2)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value

Post season
(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+PER+WS/48/2+TS%/2)/(Rounds played coefficient) = PS Value

Peak Value - Biggest sum in the same year: RS Value + PS Value
Prime Value - Sum of the top 5 years from the player
Longevity Value - Sum of All RS Value + PS Value
All Time Value = Longevity Value/10*0,3 + Prime Value/5 *0,6 + Peak Value * 0,1

I have a few questions/comments/critiques regarding the formula....
1) How are you using WS/48 and TS%? What I mean is: WS/48 is a decimal (and you're dividing it by 2). Example: '09 Lebron rs WS/48 was .318 (divided by 2 = .159). When you're adding up other variables that are often in the 20's or 30's, adding another 0.159 doesn't exactly shift the needle much (it's virtually insignificant).
So did you shift the decimal point three spots to the right to input WS/48 to the formula (e.g. .318 is put in the formula as 318)? If so, that gives WS/48 approximately 5x the weight of PER.
otoh, if you only move the decimal two spots to the right, WS/48 is only given about half the weight of PER (because you're dividing it by 2).
So I'm curious as to why you're giving WS/48 either so much more or so much less weight.

1b) Same basic question for TS% (input as 56.0 as opposed to .560, for example, yes?). If so, I feel the formula's giving too much weight to shooting efficiency (which is already a BIG factor in WS/48, btw).


2) What exactly are your "Missed games coefficient" and "Rounds played coefficient"?


3) I know you mentioned why you used per game stats rather than per 100 possession numbers, but surely you see how this is going to skew things slightly in favor of players in faster paced eras (essentially skewing against the circa-2000 crowd). You can use per 100 possession numbers and still easily circumvent the concerns you mentioned by simply including mpg in your formula.


4) I gather you want to give a lot of credit to longevity. However, I don't feel your formula construct actually does so. For instance, you're using a set number of seasons to define prime: 5 years. For some players, that just about covers their entire prime. But then there are guys like Kareem, Karl Malone, or Robert Parish, who all had primes that lasted something like 12-15 years. But they're not receiving any extra credit over someone like Sidney Moncrief (short prime) for doing so, because you're still just picking out a 5-year stretch of time for each of them.

You might say that they'll get the credit for that longevity in the "Longevity Value", but unless I'm misinterpreting something, I don't see that that's the case. Because you're still using per game numbers and rate statistics (PER and WS/48) only........nothing that recognizes the length of time they were productive for.
And in fact, it would seem to penalize players for playing addition years in a role-player capacity, as those role-player years are going to depress their career ppg/rpg/PER/WS/48/etc numbers.

Example: Suppose we compare Robert Parish to some hypothetical Player X who played just 6 seasons (5 in his prime, and just one additional role-player year). Player X's career numbers are not going to be depressed that much, because 83+% of his career was prime. Parish, otoh, only played ~60-70% of his career in his prime; so his additional role-player years are having a bigger impact on his career ppg/rpg/PER/etc that you will be using in your formula. And again: no extra credit for his prime which lasted like 12+ years, because you're singling out only a 5-year period.

1) I understand what you mean with the WS/48 thing. The formula is wrong in the OP (I will correct it), I don't divide it by 2. Only ts% is being divided.
In your example - LeBron's WS/48 being 0.318 I'm using the value 31.8. 30 WS/48 is pretty much elite, so it's valued as much as PPG, RPG, TS% and PER.

With ts% I'm using values like 55.1. I'm dividing it by two because 60ts% is elite. So I'm cutting it in half so it doesn't weight more than PER.

2) Missed Games coefficient is a number I divide the regular season stats. Since I'm operating on per game numbers, I must have a coefficient since I can't give the same amount of value to a guy who plays 40 games in the RS and 82 games in the RS. The coefficient is made in gaps (I think it's irrelevant if a player had 82 games or 79, since some of them might be in the end of the season. However, more than 10 games missed and it starts showing.

The rounds played coefficient acts the same way. I can't value a guy's production when he played 1 post season round as much as a guy who played 4 rounds. One round is a very small sample size, so it kind of eliminates 1 round absurd production. Or two rounds.

Hakeem 88, or Wade 2010 should be good examples on the cut of such value.

3) That's definitely a smart observation.

4) The PPG is calculated by season. Even the "crap seasons" add value. They're not taking away, since I calculate in the end the year value and the sum of that goes into longevity. I don't know if I explained myself right, please tell me if you didn't understand.

I can send you my Excel file if you wish, so you can understand better how it works.

[Joao Saraiva]

4. What players do you think will produce absurd results with this formula?
Wade and Chris Paul will likely be better than Hakeem and Kobe. That's why you need to incorporate accolades to avoid that issue in the GOAT rank.

Wade and CP3 being better than Kobe is nothing outrageous...Especially Wade. I would take Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-11) over Kobe's 4 best seasons, personally. Kobe is better in the long run, he has clearly superior longevity, but he wasn't better than Wade or even CP3 when they were at their best.

Hakeem, it's a different story. It's almost impossible to measure his huge defensive impact with boxscore stats (even though his steals and blocks at least scratch the surface). The fact that Hakeem is close to those guys based on heavily offense-oriented metrics, is a good indication of how great he was.

It's not outrageous but it is outrageous when you put them in the GOAT rank. After all, putting stat within the concept of winning is what give GOAT rank credential. I can agree with you that peak Wade and CP3 is better than peak Kobe at producing better stat. Though, remember producing stat within the concept of winning.

There is ways to measure defensive metric but if the result is different, you will not accept it. I think defensive RAPM and even defensive BPM are good enough to gauge his effectiveness on the defensive end. Of course, we need to change our way or perception if it doesn't match our initial hypothesis of certain player. Hakeem is a classic example of that. He has all the tool and look on "paper" to be GOAT defensive center but once we dial deeper into his defensive stat relative to his peer, he doesn't appear to be that GOAT everyone has in mind. With that, it is important to be open mind to all results.

Longe playoff runs are credited in the formula with the rounds played coefficient. So since Kobe went far in the playoffs a ton of times, he's getting an edge there over CP3 who never left the 2nd round.

I'm not going to include stuff like MVP awards, since not every MVP is equal or even deserved. Same with all-star selections, 1st team NBA or 1st defensive team. That would be including votes from others, or opinions from others.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm feeling a certain absence of defense in the formula. Maybe I should add DBPM in there. What do you guys think?