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

cpower · Post #81 » by **cpower** » Mon Jul 4, 2016 8:52 pm

your formula seems to favor raw output to efficiency.

parapooper · Post #82 » by **parapooper** » Mon Jul 4, 2016 10:08 pm

Joao Saraiva wrote: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.

If a team gets every possible defensive rebound their opponent will have an ORtg of roughly 80 on average
If a team gets every possible steal their opponent will have 0 FGA/game and an ORtg of roughly 0 (aside from weird free throw situations)

Joao Saraiva · Post #83 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Mon Jul 4, 2016 10:26 pm

Well I've tried the 0,8 coefficient and it changes things a little bit but not too much. I think I'll stick with it and take Stockton as an anomally over T-Mac's peak

Joao Saraiva · Post #84 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Mon Jul 4, 2016 10:27 pm

cpower wrote:your formula seems to favor raw output to efficiency.

Care to explain? Iverson was a king in raw output.

Kobe is a better "raw" producer than an efficient one.

I don't know how you're coming up with such conclusions.

Joao Saraiva · Post #85 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Mon Jul 4, 2016 10:58 pm

Gonna add David Robinson soon!

Joao Saraiva · Post #86 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Jul 5, 2016 10:46 pm

Finished Steph Curry and Steve Nash. Will add them to the results columns tomorrow!

Steph's peak (2016) will be right after D. Wade 06. Do you guys agree with his place on that list?

magicmerl · Post #87 » by **magicmerl** » Wed Jul 6, 2016 3:00 am

Is the player prime just their 5 best years? Why not make it something like all seasons where they scored over 200? Because it makes sense to me that some players had far better primes than others.

Edit: Also, it would be interesting to see how Dennis Rodman fares in this analysis.

Joao Saraiva · Post #88 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Wed Jul 6, 2016 6:54 am

magicmerl wrote:Is the player prime just their 5 best years? Why not make it something like all seasons where they scored over 200? Because it makes sense to me that some players had far better primes than others.

Edit: Also, it would be interesting to see how Dennis Rodman fares in this analysis.

Over 200 seems like an arbitrary cut.

Those are really good seasons and maybe I'll bring some players into the list that didn't even peak at 200. Then what? No prime?

I have top 10 MVP share votes in the formula so it gives some extra weight to players with longer primes.

They'll also benefit largely with their longevity for the all time formula.

I understand what you're saying but prime is a hard thing to define.

Joao Saraiva · Post #89 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Wed Jul 6, 2016 11:45 pm

Bump - Steve Nash and Steph Curry added!

Post #90 » by **Quotatious** » Thu Jul 7, 2016 12:00 am

Joao Saraiva wrote:Bump - Steve Nash and Steph Curry added!

Interesting where Curry's peak ranks, and honestly I'm surprised he still measures as worse than 2008 CP3 considering how amazing Paul's playoff numbers were (and he was also a monster in the regular season in terms of advanced stats, even if not as incredible as Curry). I'm not saying it's wrong (honestly I have a hard time ranking 2016 Curry because of how big the difference between his RS and PS performance is), I'm just surprised Paul didn't measure as better than him from a statistical standpoint, taking both RS and PS into account.

Joao Saraiva · Post #91 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Thu Jul 7, 2016 12:03 am

Quotatious wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:Bump - Steve Nash and Steph Curry added!

Interesting where Curry's peak ranks, and honestly I'm surprised he still measures as worse than 2008 CP3 considering how amazing Paul's playoff numbers were (and he was also a monster in the regular season in terms of advanced stats, even if not as incredible as Curry). I'm not saying it's wrong (honestly I have a hard time ranking 2016 Curry because of how big the difference between his RS and PS performance is), I'm just surprised Paul didn't measure as better than him from a statistical standpoint, taking both RS and PS into account.

CP3 still is above him.

However, I believe the formula tells us that these guys are a wash peak-wise:

10. Kevin Garnett 2004 - 261,87
11. Dwyane Wade 2006 - 259,18
12. Steph Curry 2016 - 258,36
13. Chris Paul 2008 - 258,24
14. Karl Malone 1998 - 255,41
15. David Robinson 1991 - 253,98

Joao Saraiva · Post #92 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Thu Jul 7, 2016 10:38 am

Thinking about adding Dwight Howard and Isiah Thomas soon.

Joao Saraiva · Post #93 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Thu Jul 7, 2016 8:47 pm

Bump - Dwight Howard added. Interesting numbers peak and prime wise.

The High Cyde · Post #94 » by **The High Cyde** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 10:56 am

Is Lebron already the second best player of all time?

Jurassic_Park · Post #95 » by **Jurassic_Park** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 1:29 pm

The High Cyde wrote:Is Lebron already the second best player of all time?

I wouldn't say so yet, but it isn't the craziest thing ever to say that. But 2nd is the highest you could put him right now. MJ has a better peak, prime, and more accolades. That isn't to say LBJ can't catch him though, but i'm not going to over-react to the championship he just won.

and i know this particular formula has lebron 1st,but we can all create formulas and adjust them accordingly. MJ still has the best peak/prime according to the vast majority.

Jurassic_Park · Post #96 » by **Jurassic_Park** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 1:34 pm

NBADFS wrote: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.

yeah i agree with this, players like Duncan as well played a lot of college. I'd put a lot less emphasis on longevity, and look more and prime. I'd also weight playoffs a lot more.

Joao Saraiva · Post #97 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 7:01 pm

The High Cyde wrote:Is Lebron already the second best player of all time?

It depends, that's highly subjective.

According to the formula, he's the 2nd best player from these 21. All of them played after 1980.

Joao Saraiva · Post #98 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 7:03 pm

Jurassic_Park wrote:
NBADFS wrote: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.

yeah i agree with this, players like Duncan as well played a lot of college. I'd put a lot less emphasis on longevity, and look more and prime. I'd also weight playoffs a lot more.

2010 is not even in LeBron's prime according to the formula.

2006 is not on Kobe's prime.

If anything, the playoffs already hold a tremendous amount of weight. Should they hold about what? 90%?

The High Cyde · Post #99 » by **The High Cyde** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 7:05 pm

Joao Saraiva wrote:
The High Cyde wrote:Is Lebron already the second best player of all time?

It depends, that's highly subjective.

According to the formula, he's the 2nd best player from these 21. All of them played after 1980.

Of course, and I imagine Kareem will bump him down when you get the chance, initial thoughts on Kareem's placement?

Joao Saraiva · Post #100 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Fri Jul 8, 2016 7:19 pm

The High Cyde wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:
The High Cyde wrote:Is Lebron already the second best player of all time?

It depends, that's highly subjective.

According to the formula, he's the 2nd best player from these 21. All of them played after 1980.

Of course, and I imagine Kareem will bump him down when you get the chance, initial thoughts on Kareem's placement?

About the formula he won't, since I explain in the OP it only goes for players after 1980.

In my personal opinion, KAJ has a great case for being GOAT. I think he doesn't have the myth aura of MJ, he wasn't as consistent in the playoffs when failing as MJ. But he certainly has a close peak, prime and crushes MJ longevity-wise.

The lack of aura is because he spent his best days with not so good casts, so he ended up winning a lot more when the Lakers had Magic.