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

[Joao Saraiva]

I really do think this overrates Karl Malone somewhat... Bird has a better peak and prime according to your formula and is still behind him.

Yeah but Karl has tremendous longevity value. He's only behind Duncan.

[Joao Saraiva]

Can you please include Tracy McGrady

I will. Not today cause I'm leaving home right now, but I'll do it tomorrow.

[2klegend]

If a player goes to the finals, I divide his production by 1.
If he loses in the conference finals, it divides his production by 1,1.
In the 2nd round, by 1,2.
In the 1st round by 1,3.

It's not the same thing if you put up great performances for an entire playoff or just in one round.

I opted for not dividing for a bigger coefficient because many times the player went as far as he could and it's not his fault.

McGrady 03, Hakeem 88, Kobe 06, LeBron 09, Jordan 90, etc. are good examples of that.

I'm still not getting the right number on CP3 peak.
This is what I enter...
Regular = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+0.284+(0.576/2)+0.9)/(2)
Postseason = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+0.289+(0.565/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

Can you tell me what I did wrong?

I don't use those type of numbers in PER, WS/48 and ts%.

PER 28.3
WS/48 = 28.4
TS% = 57.6

Those numbers would be too small to have an impact.

Plus the gmissed value is a coefficient. If the player missed less than 10 games, the coefficient is 1. It means I won't take any value away from him based on that.

Hope I made it clear. If you didn't understand tell me.

Chris Paul should have a peak value of 262.84 which put him #10 if the number is correct.

REG = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+28.4+(57.6/2)+0.9)/(1)
POS = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+28.9+(56.5/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

By the way, I like where you are going with this. I think we should twist the formula a bit.

Since PER already incorporate the raw box score stat. It should be omitted. I"m okay with keeping WS48 even if it contains some shooting percentage in that formula. You should give better weight for DBPM to normalize its value with WS48/TS% because right now the value for DBPM is so tiny that it doesn't mean much to add in. So the formula should be like...

(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM*6)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value
An DBPM of 5+ should be elite so multiply by 6 should give it a normalize weight to TS% and WS48 value.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'm still not getting the right number on CP3 peak.
This is what I enter...
Regular = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+0.284+(0.576/2)+0.9)/(2)
Postseason = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+0.289+(0.565/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

Can you tell me what I did wrong?

I don't use those type of numbers in PER, WS/48 and ts%.

PER 28.3
WS/48 = 28.4
TS% = 57.6

Those numbers would be too small to have an impact.

Plus the gmissed value is a coefficient. If the player missed less than 10 games, the coefficient is 1. It means I won't take any value away from him based on that.

Hope I made it clear. If you didn't understand tell me.

Chris Paul should have a peak value of 262.84 which put him #10 if the number is correct.

REG = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+28.4+(57.6/2)+0.9)/(1)
POS = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+28.9+(56.5/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

By the way, I like where you are going with this. I think we should twist the formula a bit.

Since PER already incorporate the raw box score stat. It should be omitted. I"m okay with keeping WS48 even if it contains some shooting percentage in that formula. You should give better weight for DBPM to normalize its value with WS48/TS% because right now the value for DBPM is so tiny that it doesn't mean much to add in. So the formula should be like...

(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM*6)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value
An DBPM of 5+ should be elite so multiply by 6 should give it a normalize weight to TS% and WS48 value.

You're right about that number. I forgot to mention here I put rebounds with 1,8*RPG in the formula instead of 2*RPG. I feel it balances more APG and RPG. My bad.

About DBPM... Well, I don't trust it a lot. It's only to give a little more value to defense (it is included in STL, BLK and WS/48). I don't trust A LOT any defensive stat. I think (have to check it again) that Bird is better at it than MJ. And DBPM is simple a calculation on the value that OBPM can't explain in BPM. So I have some problems with it, just couldn't find any better defensive stat.

The raw numbers the formula has give it a good context I think. It's not unusual to see players who play low minutes having high PER or WS/48. It usually means those are quality minutes, but doesn't show a lot about the role on the team.

Of course this is only my perspective. If I include raw stats + PER , WS/48 and ts% it gives me a good knowledge about how good the player was. Maybe how much great he was on offense, and not so much on D.

Anyway this is the way I see it, you can feel diferent about it.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't use those type of numbers in PER, WS/48 and ts%.

PER 28.3
WS/48 = 28.4
TS% = 57.6

Those numbers would be too small to have an impact.

Plus the gmissed value is a coefficient. If the player missed less than 10 games, the coefficient is 1. It means I won't take any value away from him based on that.

Hope I made it clear. If you didn't understand tell me.

Chris Paul should have a peak value of 262.84 which put him #10 if the number is correct.

REG = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+28.4+(57.6/2)+0.9)/(1)
POS = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+28.9+(56.5/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

By the way, I like where you are going with this. I think we should twist the formula a bit.

Since PER already incorporate the raw box score stat. It should be omitted. I"m okay with keeping WS48 even if it contains some shooting percentage in that formula. You should give better weight for DBPM to normalize its value with WS48/TS% because right now the value for DBPM is so tiny that it doesn't mean much to add in. So the formula should be like...

(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM*6)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value
An DBPM of 5+ should be elite so multiply by 6 should give it a normalize weight to TS% and WS48 value.

You're right about that number. I forgot to mention here I put rebounds with 1,8*RPG in the formula instead of 2*RPG. I feel it balances more APG and RPG. My bad.

About DBPM... Well, I don't trust it a lot. It's only to give a little more value to defense (it is included in STL, BLK and WS/48). I don't trust A LOT any defensive stat. I think (have to check it again) that Bird is better at it than MJ. And DBPM is simple a calculation on the value that OBPM can't explain in BPM. So I have some problems with it, just couldn't find any better defensive stat.

The raw numbers the formula has give it a good context I think. It's not unusual to see players who play low minutes having high PER or WS/48. It usually means those are quality minutes and vice-versa, but doesn't show a lot about the role on the team. With Allen Iverson it is a good context. The raw numbers credit his large need to produce on his team. However, the quality of his production is not among the best. So it kind of balances things.

Of course this is only my perspective. If I include raw stats + PER , WS/48 and ts% it usually gives me a good knowledge about how good the player was. Maybe how much great he was on offense, and not so much on D.

Anyway this is the way I see it, you can feel diferent about it.

[Joao Saraiva]

Can you please include Tracy McGrady

I will. Not today cause I'm leaving home right now, but I'll do it tomorrow.

I've inserted Tracy McGrady in the rankings.

[Joao Saraiva]

Guys I'd like to ask you something.

I'm currently valuing the regular season and the playoffs 50/50.

The regular season has a bigger sample size, but the playoffs are the most important part of the season.

However, I feel like that makes seasons like 03 Tracy McGrady or 06 Kobe Bryant undervalued.

If the regular season holds 100 weight, how much weight to you feel the playoffs should hold? 100? (like it does now?)
90?
80?

Thanks yet again for helping me in this project.

[Bruh Man]

Guys I'd like to ask you something.

I'm currently valuing the regular season and the playoffs 50/50.

The regular season has a bigger sample size, but the playoffs are the most important part of the season.

However, I feel like that makes seasons like 03 Tracy McGrady or 06 Kobe Bryant undervalued.

If the regular season holds 100 weight, how much weight to you feel the playoffs should hold? 100? (like it does now?)
90?
80?

Thanks yet again for helping me in this project.

I think it's difficult when you have supporting casts as awful as 06/Kobe and 03 TMac had, not sure if there is a good way of doing it.

[Joao Saraiva]

Guys I'd like to ask you something.

I'm currently valuing the regular season and the playoffs 50/50.

The regular season has a bigger sample size, but the playoffs are the most important part of the season.

However, I feel like that makes seasons like 03 Tracy McGrady or 06 Kobe Bryant undervalued.

If the regular season holds 100 weight, how much weight to you feel the playoffs should hold? 100? (like it does now?)
90?
80?

Thanks yet again for helping me in this project.

I think it's difficult when you have supporting casts as awful as 06/Kobe and 03 TMac had, not sure if there is a good way of doing it.

T-Mac has the stats.

The problem is that by the formula I'm developing the playoffs hold as much weight.

T-Mac has 139,3 points coming from his 03 regular season. To put it into perspective:
- AI 01 is at 95 (aprox)
- Stockton 89 126,6
- 09 CP3 - 143,65
- Wade 09 - 136,7

So it's definitely awarding a good value for that season of T-Mac. The problem is that playing only one playoff round, and not as good as Stockton's first round in 89, T-Mac's season becomes, I think, undervalued peak-wise.

I'm thinking about giving a 1 RS coefficient and a 0,8 playoff coefficient to make the year value. RS counts more because of sample size, but playoffs still hold a lot more weight per game played. Sounds fair enough.

[2klegend]

I don't use those type of numbers in PER, WS/48 and ts%.

PER 28.3
WS/48 = 28.4
TS% = 57.6

Those numbers would be too small to have an impact.

Plus the gmissed value is a coefficient. If the player missed less than 10 games, the coefficient is 1. It means I won't take any value away from him based on that.

Hope I made it clear. If you didn't understand tell me.

Chris Paul should have a peak value of 262.84 which put him #10 if the number is correct.

REG = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+28.4+(57.6/2)+0.9)/(1)
POS = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+28.9+(56.5/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

By the way, I like where you are going with this. I think we should twist the formula a bit.

Since PER already incorporate the raw box score stat. It should be omitted. I"m okay with keeping WS48 even if it contains some shooting percentage in that formula. You should give better weight for DBPM to normalize its value with WS48/TS% because right now the value for DBPM is so tiny that it doesn't mean much to add in. So the formula should be like...

(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM*6)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value
An DBPM of 5+ should be elite so multiply by 6 should give it a normalize weight to TS% and WS48 value.

You're right about that number. I forgot to mention here I put rebounds with 1,8*RPG in the formula instead of 2*RPG. I feel it balances more APG and RPG. My bad.

About DBPM... Well, I don't trust it a lot. It's only to give a little more value to defense (it is included in STL, BLK and WS/48). I don't trust A LOT any defensive stat. I think (have to check it again) that Bird is better at it than MJ. And DBPM is simple a calculation on the value that OBPM can't explain in BPM. So I have some problems with it, just couldn't find any better defensive stat.

The raw numbers the formula has give it a good context I think. It's not unusual to see players who play low minutes having high PER or WS/48. It usually means those are quality minutes, but doesn't show a lot about the role on the team.

Of course this is only my perspective. If I include raw stats + PER , WS/48 and ts% it gives me a good knowledge about how good the player was. Maybe how much great he was on offense, and not so much on D.

Anyway this is the way I see it, you can feel diferent about it.

With 1.8 on RPG, Chris Paul should be at 261.23.

Another issue is the value for BLK and STL is relatively small compare to PPG/TRB/APG. For example a 5BPG is more impressive than 10APG but 10APG will recieve a 20pts value compare to 10pts value for BLK. Also these raw stat is not adjust to team pace. This is why we need to twist it so it's fair across pace. Let use Rate instead. I'm fine with having PER.

RS Value = (PPG+TRB%*1.5+APG%*0.75+STL%*10+BLK%*6-TOV%*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM)/(Missed gamescoefficient)

TRB% = 20% above is elite so multiply by 1.5
APG% = 40% above is elite so multiply by 0.75
STL% = 3% above is elite so multiply by 10
BLK% = 5% above is elite so multiply by 6
TOV% = Multiply by 2 is fine.

What do you think?

[BasketballFan7]

Guys I'd like to ask you something.

I'm currently valuing the regular season and the playoffs 50/50.

The regular season has a bigger sample size, but the playoffs are the most important part of the season.

However, I feel like that makes seasons like 03 Tracy McGrady or 06 Kobe Bryant undervalued.

If the regular season holds 100 weight, how much weight to you feel the playoffs should hold? 100? (like it does now?)
90?
80?

Thanks yet again for helping me in this project.

I think it's difficult when you have supporting casts as awful as 06/Kobe and 03 TMac had, not sure if there is a good way of doing it.

T-Mac has the stats.

The problem is that by the formula I'm developing the playoffs hold as much weight.

T-Mac has 139,3 points coming from his 03 regular season. To put it into perspective:
- AI 01 is at 95 (aprox)
- Stockton 89 126,6
- 09 CP3 - 143,65
- Wade 09 - 136,7

So it's definitely awarding a good value for that season of T-Mac. The problem is that playing only one playoff round, and not as good as Stockton's first round in 89, T-Mac's season becomes, I think, undervalued peak-wise.

I'm thinking about giving a 1 RS coefficient and a 0,8 playoff coefficient to make the year value. RS counts more because of sample size, but playoffs still hold a lot more weight per game played. Sounds fair enough.

The ps weight should correlate with the number of games or rounds played.

How you would do that is up to you, but it needs to be done. 09 Wade, 03 McGrady, etc should not have the same weight on the ps as a guy who goes to the finals, where the PS IMO should be at least 50% .

[Quotatious]

The ps weight should correlate with the number of games or rounds played.

How you would do that is up to you, but it needs to be done. 09 Wade, 03 McGrady, etc should not have the same weight on the ps as a guy who goes to the finals, where the PS IMO should be at least 50% .

I totally agree with almost everything you said. Almost, because I disagree with one thing - in my opinion, PS should be at most 50% with a full playoff run, not at least, because there are just way too many RS games to weigh that as less important than any amount of playoff games (I believe the most games played in the playoffs in one season belong to the 2008 Celtics, at 26, which is less than 32% of a full 82-game regular season). Also, I tend to believe that RS is a more reliable sample because the more games you play, the less likely it is to produce outlier results. Obviously PS games are more important, but like I said in another thread:

I would go 50% RS/50% PS if we are talking about full seasons (by "full season", I mean a season where a guy plays the entire RS and makes the finals in the playoffs, so roughly 80 RS games and 20 PS games - that would mean 4 RS games = 1 PS game, which is about right, IMO).

When a guy plays only one playoff round, I would put much more emphasis on RS than on playoffs, because with 4-7 games, the playoff sample is just extremely small and there's a good chance it may be out-of-character (both in a good and bad way).

So, how about this?

RS + 4 playoff rounds (makes finals) - 50% RS/50% PS
RS + 3 playoff rounds (loses in conference finals) - 60% RS/40% PS
RS + 2 playoff rounds (loses in conference semifinals) - 70% RS/30% PS
RS + 1 playoff round (loses in the first round) - 80% RS/20% PS

At any rate, I don't think we should ever weigh playoffs more heavily than regular season, because there's just way too many games in the RS. Don't fool yourself thinking that all players care about, is the postseason. You can never be sure if you will even play in the postseason, almost a half of the league doesn't play in the postseason (14 of 30 teams miss it every year, and it's not like we can hold stars of the non-playoff teams accountable for the fact that their teams didn't make the playoffs, if they simply didn't have enough talent around them - for example - why should I penalize Kevin Garnett for his team's struggles in 2005-07, when it was obvious that KG was playing as well as usual in his prime, but his teams just sucked?), and sometimes even the stars of teams that qualified, can't participate in the postseason due to injuries (like West in 1971, Duncan in 2000, Bryant in 2013).

[BasketballFan7]

The ps weight should correlate with the number of games or rounds played.

How you would do that is up to you, but it needs to be done. 09 Wade, 03 McGrady, etc should not have the same weight on the ps as a guy who goes to the finals, where the PS IMO should be at least 50% .

I totally agree with almost everything you said. Almost, because I disagree with one thing - in my opinion, PS should be at most 50% with a full playoff run, not at least, because there are just way too many RS games to weigh that as less important than any amount of playoff games (I believe the most games played in the playoffs in one season belong to the 2008 Celtics, at 26, which is less than 32% of a full 82-game regular season). Also, I tend to believe that RS is a more reliable sample because the more games you play, the less likely it is to produce outlier results. Obviously PS games are more important, but like I said in another thread:

I would go 50% RS/50% PS if we are talking about full seasons (by "full season", I mean a season where a guy plays the entire RS and makes the finals in the playoffs, so roughly 80 RS games and 20 PS games - that would mean 4 RS games = 1 PS game, which is about right, IMO).

When a guy plays only one playoff round, I would put much more emphasis on RS than on playoffs, because with 4-7 games, the playoff sample is just extremely small and there's a good chance it may be out-of-character (both in a good and bad way).

So, how about this?

RS + 4 playoff rounds (makes finals) - 50% RS/50% PS
RS + 3 playoff rounds (loses in conference finals) - 60% RS/40% PS
RS + 2 playoff rounds (loses in conference semifinals) - 70% RS/30% PS
RS + 1 playoff round (loses in the first round) - 80% RS/20% PS

At any rate, I don't think we should ever weigh playoffs more heavily than regular season, because there's just way too many games in the RS. Don't fool yourself thinking that all players care about, is the postseason. You can never be sure if you will even play in the postseason, almost a half of the league doesn't play in the postseason (14 of 30 teams miss it every year, and it's not like we can hold stars of the non-playoff teams accountable for the fact that their teams didn't make the playoffs, if they simply didn't have enough talent around them - for example - why should I penalize Kevin Garnett for his team's struggles in 2005-07, when it was obvious that KG was playing as well as usual in his prime, but his teams just sucked?), and sometimes even the stars of teams that qualified, can't participate in the postseason due to injuries (like West in 1971, Duncan in 2000, Bryant in 2013).

That's fine. I simply value the postseason more than you, especially for a contender. Players coast in the regular season, are late to practices, club and drink on nights before games, etcetera etcetera.

I'll take a 20+ game sample of the postseason without question as worth more than the regular season.

[Quotatious]

That's fine. I simply value the postseason more than you, especially for a contender. Players coast in the regular season, are late to practices, club and drink on nights before games, etcetera etcetera.

I'll take a 20+ game sample of the postseason without question as worth more than the regular season.

Counter argument to what you said - players are often hurt by the time playoffs begin, abnormally hot/cold shooting streaks have a huge impact, and competition is much more uneven compared to regular season - in RS, basically every team plays against all other teams at least once, competition is much more varied.

Anyway, obviously you can weigh that as you want, I'm just just mentioning things that you might have overlooked/trying to look at it from another perspective.

[Joao Saraiva]

The PS coeffficient already makes longer post seasons more valuable. But I'm not gonna give a higher % of value to those regular seasons. I intend to have a MVP list when I have a ton of players, so all production in the RS will count the same for every player.

About the steals and blocks I'm not gonna weight them a lot. Having a lot of them doesn't correlate that well with great defensive impact. It's a smaller part of the game. Basically getting one steal ends one play of the other team. Same as a defensive rebound. So I'm not gonna give a lot more value to steals than rebs.

[BasketballFan7]

The PS coeffficient already makes longer post seasons more valuable. But I'm not gonna give a higher % of value to those regular seasons. I intend to have a MVP list when I have a ton of players, so all production in the RS will count the same for every player.

About the steals and blocks I'm not gonna weight them a lot. Having a lot of them doesn't correlate that well with great defensive impact. It's a smaller part of the game. Basically getting one steal ends one play of the other team. Same as a defensive rebound. So I'm not gonna give a lot more value to steals than rebs.

Steals are very valuable. A defensive rebound still means a shot was attempted. Furthermore, it generally doesn't lead to an easy transition bucket. Lastly, rebounds must be accumulated by somebody. They are an intrinsic part of the game and therefore less notable: almost by virtue of the game whatsoever, you are bound to get a rebound(s). A steal is different altogether because, unlike rebounds, it isn't a necessary part of the game. Players don't generally walk into steals, it is a skill. What percentage of defensive rebounds are uncontested? What percentage of steals are unforced?

The value of a block is debatable, steals not so much in my opinion.

[Joao Saraiva]

The PS coeffficient already makes longer post seasons more valuable. But I'm not gonna give a higher % of value to those regular seasons. I intend to have a MVP list when I have a ton of players, so all production in the RS will count the same for every player.

About the steals and blocks I'm not gonna weight them a lot. Having a lot of them doesn't correlate that well with great defensive impact. It's a smaller part of the game. Basically getting one steal ends one play of the other team. Same as a defensive rebound. So I'm not gonna give a lot more value to steals than rebs.

Steals are very valuable. A defensive rebound still means a shot was attempted. Furthermore, it generally doesn't lead to an easy transition bucket. Lastly, rebounds must be accumulated by somebody. They are an intrinsic part of the game and therefore less notable: almost by virtue of the game whatsoever, you are bound to get a rebound(s). A steal is different altogether because, unlike rebounds, it isn't a necessary part of the game. Players don't generally walk into steals, it is a skill. What percentage of defensive rebounds are uncontested? What percentage of steals are unforced?

The value of a block is debatable, steals not so much in my opinion.

If you multiply steals by 10, you're saying a guy who gets 3 steals is as valuable as a guy who is putting 30 PPG. I don't think so. Also a lot of gambling gives you more steals, but it can mean bad D. Take Allen Iverson as an example, he wasn't a great defender but he got a ton of steals.

Rebounding is a part of the game, sure. However, controling the boards can be a big diference maker in basketball.

I multiply them by 1.8 because of that, and not by 2. I also make that so assists are as valuable as rebounds (the ast/reb ratio tells us it's much harder to get 15 assists than 15 rebounds).

But of course these are my reasons, feel free to feel diferent about it.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'll multiply every post season by 0.8. It will require some time now, as prime numbers, year numbers, longevity numbers and peak numbers will change a lot.

A playoff run will be worth 80% of the regular season (I feel it's a fair amount). If they play less rounds, obviously players get less points because of the rounds played coefficient.

[Joao Saraiva]

Chris Paul should have a peak value of 262.84 which put him #10 if the number is correct.

REG = (21.1+4*2+11.6*2+2.7*2+0.1*2-2.5*2+28.3+28.4+(57.6/2)+0.9)/(1)
POS = (24.1+4.9*2+11.3*2+2.3*2+0.2*2-1.8*2+30.7+28.9+(56.5/2)+2.5)/(1.2)

By the way, I like where you are going with this. I think we should twist the formula a bit.

Since PER already incorporate the raw box score stat. It should be omitted. I"m okay with keeping WS48 even if it contains some shooting percentage in that formula. You should give better weight for DBPM to normalize its value with WS48/TS% because right now the value for DBPM is so tiny that it doesn't mean much to add in. So the formula should be like...

(PPG+TRB*2+APG*2+STL*2+BLK*2-TOV*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM*6)/(Missed games coefficient) = RS Value
An DBPM of 5+ should be elite so multiply by 6 should give it a normalize weight to TS% and WS48 value.

You're right about that number. I forgot to mention here I put rebounds with 1,8*RPG in the formula instead of 2*RPG. I feel it balances more APG and RPG. My bad.

About DBPM... Well, I don't trust it a lot. It's only to give a little more value to defense (it is included in STL, BLK and WS/48). I don't trust A LOT any defensive stat. I think (have to check it again) that Bird is better at it than MJ. And DBPM is simple a calculation on the value that OBPM can't explain in BPM. So I have some problems with it, just couldn't find any better defensive stat.

The raw numbers the formula has give it a good context I think. It's not unusual to see players who play low minutes having high PER or WS/48. It usually means those are quality minutes, but doesn't show a lot about the role on the team.

Of course this is only my perspective. If I include raw stats + PER , WS/48 and ts% it gives me a good knowledge about how good the player was. Maybe how much great he was on offense, and not so much on D.

Anyway this is the way I see it, you can feel diferent about it.

With 1.8 on RPG, Chris Paul should be at 261.23.

Another issue is the value for BLK and STL is relatively small compare to PPG/TRB/APG. For example a 5BPG is more impressive than 10APG but 10APG will recieve a 20pts value compare to 10pts value for BLK. Also these raw stat is not adjust to team pace. This is why we need to twist it so it's fair across pace. Let use Rate instead. I'm fine with having PER.

RS Value = (PPG+TRB%*1.5+APG%*0.75+STL%*10+BLK%*6-TOV%*2+WS/48+TS%/2+DBPM)/(Missed gamescoefficient)

TRB% = 20% above is elite so multiply by 1.5
APG% = 40% above is elite so multiply by 0.75
STL% = 3% above is elite so multiply by 10
BLK% = 5% above is elite so multiply by 6
TOV% = Multiply by 2 is fine.

What do you think?

About the %s... yes they're fine. I understand they're really useful, but I already have tons of Excel lines with raw stats Don't really feel like updating them a ton.

Surely it's an interesting formula, and it might bring even better results. But it has to include USG% or MPG, since with %s only it doesn't include the amount of burden a player has, only if he's bringing quality minutes. PPG or RPG include the burden.

I think you're on to something there. Try it, it might bring good results.

[BasketballFan7]

The PS coeffficient already makes longer post seasons more valuable. But I'm not gonna give a higher % of value to those regular seasons. I intend to have a MVP list when I have a ton of players, so all production in the RS will count the same for every player.

About the steals and blocks I'm not gonna weight them a lot. Having a lot of them doesn't correlate that well with great defensive impact. It's a smaller part of the game. Basically getting one steal ends one play of the other team. Same as a defensive rebound. So I'm not gonna give a lot more value to steals than rebs.

Steals are very valuable. A defensive rebound still means a shot was attempted. Furthermore, it generally doesn't lead to an easy transition bucket. Lastly, rebounds must be accumulated by somebody. They are an intrinsic part of the game and therefore less notable: almost by virtue of the game whatsoever, you are bound to get a rebound(s). A steal is different altogether because, unlike rebounds, it isn't a necessary part of the game. Players don't generally walk into steals, it is a skill. What percentage of defensive rebounds are uncontested? What percentage of steals are unforced?

The value of a block is debatable, steals not so much in my opinion.

If you multiply steals by 10, you're saying a guy who gets 3 steals is as valuable as a guy who is putting 30 PPG. I don't think so. Also a lot of gambling gives you more steals, but it can mean bad D. Take Allen Iverson as an example, he wasn't a great defender but he got a ton of steals.

Rebounding is a part of the game, sure. However, controling the boards can be a big diference maker in basketball.

I multiply them by 1.8 because of that, and not by 2. I also make that so assists are as valuable as rebounds (the ast/reb ratio tells us it's much harder to get 15 assists than 15 rebounds).

But of course these are my reasons, feel free to feel diferent about it.

I didn't say anything about multiplying steals by 10.