PDA

View Full Version : My 100 Greatest Athletes of All-time



Lionel20
04-02-2016, 10:02 AM
*Only the three major American sports considered: Football, Baseball, Basketball
*Athlete = define by value to the team
*The math is based on estimates, I took the win scores of individual basketball and football players and multiplied them times a factor that attempts to make up the disparities in career length and regular season games. For example, Ray Lewis has an average Win Contribution = 2.9 per year. My assumption is that the average career for an NFL star is 5 years less than an MLB player, so Lewis' formula 2.9*((162*5)/16) = 146.8. The 146.8 figure is equivalent to baseball WAR, so I added the estimated Replacement level, and Lewis' value score comes out to 162.2 total. The Basketball calculations were similar, except the average career of an NBA star, is assumed to be only 2 years less than the average MLB star.



1 Michael Jordan* 250.6
2 W Chamberlain* 213.5
3 K Abdul-Jabbar* 208.9
4 Barry Bonds 205.5
5 Roger Clemens 202.5
6 Jim Brown 196.2
7 Greg Maddux 191.5
8 LeBron James 190.7
9 Peyton Manning 190.2
10 Hakeem Olajuwon*189.0
11 Willie Mays 187.5
12 Jerry Rice 186.1
13 Babe Ruth 184.5
14 Magic Johnson* 178.7
15 Randy Johnson 178.5
16 Lawrence Taylor 174.5
17 Shaquille O'Neal174.3
18 Oscar Charleston172.5
19 Karl Malone* 170.9
20 Tim Duncan 168.7
21 Barry Sanders 166.9
22 Nolan Ryan 166.5
23 Charles Barkley*166.1
24 Hank Aaron 165.5
25 Walter Payton 165.4
26 Joe Montana 164.4
27 Ray Lewis 162.2
28 Emmitt Smith 160.3
29 Bill Russell* 160.0
30 Marshall Faulk 159.3
31 LaDainian Tomlinson157.2
32 Ted Williams 155.5
33 David Robinson* 155.5
34 Lenny Moore 155.0
35 Turkey Stearns 154.5
36 Lance Alworth 153.9
37 John Stockton* 153.6
38 Kevin Garnett 151.1
39 Reggie White 151.0
40 Randy Moss 149.8
41 Larry Bird* 148.8
42 Anthony Munoz 148.4
43 Alex Rodriguez 147.5
44 Satchel Paige 147.5
45 Tom Brady 147.2
46 Aaron Rodgers 145.4
47 Ri Henderson 144.5
48 John Smoltz 144.5
49 Mike Schmidt 144.5
50 Moses Malone* 144.0
51 Steve Young 143.7
52 Julius Erving* 143.1
53 Paul Warfield 141.9
54 Bert Blyleven 141.5
55 Jim Parker 140.1
56 Alan Page 138.5
57 Pedro Martinez 138.5
58 Dirk Nowitzki 137.6
59 Clyde Drexler* 136.7
60 Curt Schilling 136.5
61 Night Train Lane136.0
62 Gaylord Perry 135.5
63 Tris Speaker 135.5
64 James Lofton 134.6
65 Steve Carlton 134.5
66 Walter Johnson 133.5
67 Kobe Bryant 133.4
68 Drew Brees 132.9
69 Tom Glavine 132.5
70 Stan Musial 132.5
71 Artis Gilmore* 132.5
72 Bob Pettit* 132.4
73 Herb Adderley 131.0
74 Oscar Robertson*130.6
75 Mike Mussina 129.5
76 Kevin Brown 129.5
77 Tom Seaver 128.5
78 Dwyane Wade 128.0
79 Bruce Smith 127.9
80 Albert Pujols 127.5
81 Adrian Peterson 127.1
82 C Yastrzemski 126.5
83 Lou Gehrig 125.5
84 Joe Morgan 125.5
85 Honus Wagner 125.5
86 Warren Spahn 125.5
87 Dan Marino 125.4
88 Mickey Mantle 124.5
89 Art Shell 123.0
90 Don Sutton 122.5
91 Frank Robinson 122.5
92 Mel Ott 122.5
93 Johnny Unitas 121.9
94 Walt Bellamy* 121.6
95 Joe DiMaggio 121.5
96 Fran Tarkenton 120.8
97 Dwight Howard 119.5
98 Andy Pettitte 119.5
99 O.J. Simpson 119.2
100 Dominique Wilkins*119.1

DboneG
04-02-2016, 11:03 AM
You need to go back to the lab, and refine your formula in how you come up with your results. Any time you have a pot belly guy like Babe Ruth ahead of Walter Payton...something is wrong. Where is Bo Jackson?! LOL

Michael Phelps
Muhammad Ali
Usain Bolt
Josh Gibson...Greatest baseball player of all-time!!


Long story short....you CAN'T use numbers to determine who's the 100 greatest of all-time. So, hard to do.

Lionel20
04-02-2016, 11:23 AM
You need to go back to the lab, and refine your formula in how you come up with your results. Any time you have a pot belly guy like Babe Ruth ahead of Walter Payton...something is wrong. Where is Bo Jackson?! LOL

Michael Phelps
Muhammad Ali
Usain Bolt
Josh Gibson...Greatest baseball player of all-time!!


Long story short....you CAN'T use numbers to determine who's the 100 greatest of all-time. So, hard to do.


Dude, read the statements next to the asterisk in the OP. It's not even fine print, it's in larger font.

Vee-Rex
04-02-2016, 12:00 PM
Really cool list, man.

JAZZNC
04-02-2016, 12:45 PM
Kevin VanDam needs to be in any top list of athletes. Yeah he is a pro fisherman(I know that you said 3 major sports), but most definitely a top 100 athlete of all time. If golf is considered a sport, bass fishing is 1,000x more of a sport than golf.

mngopher35
04-02-2016, 01:45 PM
Even just the bball players; Malone over Duncan, Stockton Barkley kg over bird, Drexel over Kobe, Dwight on the list etc just have too many issues IMO. On top of that you can't just use a single number alone to rank players within a single sport as seen, trying to make a single one to encompass 3 sports obviously will have more problems.

Cool that you made the list (and have moss top 40, love him) but there are many spots that don't make much sense to me if this is your true personal list because of the data.

IKnowHoops
04-02-2016, 02:39 PM
Kevin VanDam needs to be in any top list of athletes. Yeah he is a pro fisherman(I know that you said 3 major sports), but most definitely a top 100 athlete of all time. If golf is considered a sport, bass fishing is 1,000x more of a sport than golf.

I feel like Golf is harder to be good at than Bass fishing. I also think Golf also takes more practice.

warfelg
04-02-2016, 02:54 PM
I feel like Golf is harder to be good at than Bass fishing. I also think Golf also takes more practice.

Non-golfers never understand the physical skill it takes to play golf and how much practice we put in to golf compared to other athletes of other sports.

DboneG
04-02-2016, 03:23 PM
It's still flawed! Bo Jackson didn't make your list?!

Any time you have a pot belly guy like Babe Ruth ahead of Walter Payton...something is wrong. Where is Bo Jackson?!

Deion Sanders...do you realize the body that guy had?! Could stop on a dime at full speed, and take off at 4.2/40 speed?! Not on the list. Back to the drawing board sir.

JAZZNC
04-02-2016, 03:36 PM
Non-golfers never understand the physical skill it takes to play golf and how much practice we put in to golf compared to other athletes of other sports.

Non fishermen never understand the physical skill it takes to be a great fisherman or how much practice you have to put in compared to other sports. You guys obviously know absolutely nothing about the sport, but that's ok. I didn't expect anyone to understand, which is why I rarely bring up fishing on this site because people are so clueless about the sport as a whole. People seem to think it's just luck. Also take into account there is no coach or caddy giving you constant suggestions on how to get the ball to a pin that you CAN SEE! It is the only sport where you literally do everything by yourself. But please continue to explain to me how a sport where if you're terrible (by professional standards) you swing a club 85 times and walk is more physical than making 100's and 100's of casts a day while standing on one leg half the time for 9hrs (competition time, practice time on the water for events is typically 12-16hrs a day). I promise you it takes a LOT to be a top angler. Not trying to sound like an ***, it just frustrates me how people dismiss bass fishing as a sport when they know very little if any about the sport.

McAllen Tx
04-02-2016, 03:57 PM
No Deion Sanders nor Bo Jackson?

IndyRealist
04-02-2016, 04:27 PM
Comparing production across leagues in one sport is virtually impossible, let alone comparing across different sports. Take Jimmer Fredette, for instance. The guy was tearing it up in the D-League, yet can't get off the bench of the lottery bound Knicks.

I'm not convinced you're even necessarily comparing along the same values or scales. Just because something is called "wins" doesn't mean it correlates to actual wins.

bgdreton
04-02-2016, 05:03 PM
Non fishermen never understand the physical skill it takes to be a great fisherman or how much practice you have to put in compared to other sports. You guys obviously know absolutely nothing about the sport, but that's ok. I didn't expect anyone to understand, which is why I rarely bring up fishing on this site because people are so clueless about the sport as a whole. People seem to think it's just luck. Also take into account there is no coach or caddy giving you constant suggestions on how to get the ball to a pin that you CAN SEE! It is the only sport where you literally do everything by yourself. But please continue to explain to me how a sport where if you're terrible (by professional standards) you swing a club 85 times and walk is more physical than making 100's and 100's of casts a day while standing on one leg half the time for 9hrs (competition time, practice time on the water for events is typically 12-16hrs a day). I promise you it takes a LOT to be a top angler. Not trying to sound like an ***, it just frustrates me how people dismiss bass fishing as a sport when they know very little if any about the sport.

Fishing is not a sport but golf isnt either and baseball is on the fence. :D

JAZZNC
04-02-2016, 05:49 PM
Fishing is not a sport but golf isnt either and baseball is on the fence. :D

Definitely more intelligent that what those other guys said!

Lionel20
04-02-2016, 07:00 PM
Even just the bball players; Malone over Duncan, Stockton Barkley kg over bird, Drexel over Kobe, Dwight on the list etc just have too many issues IMO. On top of that you can't just use a single number alone to rank players within a single sport as seen, trying to make a single one to encompass 3 sports obviously will have more problems.

Cool that you made the list (and have moss top 40, love him) but there are many spots that don't make much sense to me if this is your true personal list because of the data.

I really think Malone or Duncan can go either way. What Malone and Jabbar were able to do late in their careers is almost unparalleled.

As for, Stockton, KG, they had far more lengthier careers than Bird, and longevity is factored into my list. Injuries really got to Bird late in his relativity short career, I just think (and the numbers show) that over the course of their careers, even with Bird having the higher peak, Barkley was the better individual player.

I luv Kobe, and unapologetic about being a huge fan. But even when adjusted for era, Drexler was the more efficient scorer, and a better all-around player. I think Drexler's greatness gets somewhat overshadowed because he played in the Jordan era.

Lionel20
04-02-2016, 07:22 PM
Comparing production across leagues in one sport is virtually impossible, let alone comparing across different sports. Take Jimmer Fredette, for instance. The guy was tearing it up in the D-League, yet can't get off the bench of the lottery bound Knicks.

I'm not convinced you're even necessarily comparing along the same values or scales. Just because something is called "wins" doesn't mean it correlates to actual wins.

Of course, multi-sport comparisons are more arbitrary than scientific. I attempted to quantify all the factors that I could when merging my all-time NFL, NBA, MLB list. For instance, making adjustments for the fact that most NFL players only play one side of the ball their entire career, or that starting pitchers pitch in 5-man rotations, and Hitters don't bat every inning. I can't claim that this is a matter-of-fact, but honestly, after I compiled the results and reviewed them, and being as objective as I could be - just going off the numbers, I strongly agree with about 95% of it, and the other 5% really could go either way.

mngopher35
04-02-2016, 08:03 PM
I really think Malone or Duncan can go either way. What Malone and Jabbar were able to do late in their careers is almost unparalleled.

Duncan absolutely tops Malone when it comes to the playoffs and that gap is much bigger than the longevity difference (also very important considering the minutes difference has more to do with maintenance, will get into it more). Statistically Malone may come out slightly ahead via regular season but that is about it and stats don't always do a good job for accounting for defensive impact which Duncan clearly was better at as well. Malone is close to Barkley, KG, Dirk but none of them match up with Duncan. Add in accolades as well if you want it will favor Duncan too.

As for longevity Duncan has 18 RS of 20 PER or higher with 15 playoff runs at that level. Malone has 16 and 10 respectively. Duncan has 19 seasons (if we include this one) of .150 WS/48 in the RS and 14 playoff runs at that mark. Malone has 17 and 6 respectively. Similar results when looking at BPM where Duncan easily has more better playoff runs and is right there in RS as well. My point being that while Malone racked up some more minutes in the regular season it doesn't necessarily add a ton to his legacy considering that he can't match up with elite level seasons/playoff runs. Having a better player each season is more important than having a lesser player who gets more minutes.


As for, Stockton, KG, they had far more lengthier careers than Bird, and longevity is factored into my list. Injuries really got to Bird late in his relativity short career, I just think (and the numbers show) that over the course of their careers, even with Bird having the higher peak, Barkley was the better individual player.

If Stockton is higher than Bird on your all time list then I would argue you are likely overvaluing longevity. Bird has one of the best peaks in the history of the game which is a huge factor when it comes to winning titles (having best player on the court). I love Stockton and many times have him higher than others (around top 20 for NBA) but he is definitely not above Bird all time.


I luv Kobe, and unapologetic about being a huge fan. But even when adjusted for era, Drexler was the more efficient scorer, and a better all-around player. I think Drexler's greatness gets somewhat overshadowed because he played in the Jordan era.

Actually for their careers Kobe scored more points on better TS% than Drexler for both regular season and playoffs (that's ignoring the extra years which drag him down too). You seemed to call longevity a major factor allowing Stockton over Bird so why does that not also apply for Kobe? He had better longevity and despite your claim was actually the better/more efficient scorer.

TheMightyHumph
04-02-2016, 11:43 PM
Non-golfers never understand the physical skill it takes to play golf and how much practice we put in to golf compared to other athletes of other sports.

How about Darts?

Lionel20
04-03-2016, 12:32 AM
Duncan absolutely tops Malone when it comes to the playoffs and that gap is much bigger than the longevity difference (also very important considering the minutes difference has more to do with maintenance, will get into it more). Statistically Malone may come out slightly ahead via regular season but that is about it and stats don't always do a good job for accounting for defensive impact which Duncan clearly was better at as well. Malone is close to Barkley, KG, Dirk but none of them match up with Duncan. Add in accolades as well if you want it will favor Duncan too.

As for longevity Duncan has 18 RS of 20 PER or higher with 15 playoff runs at that level. Malone has 16 and 10 respectively. Duncan has 19 seasons (if we include this one) of .150 WS/48 in the RS and 14 playoff runs at that mark. Malone has 17 and 6 respectively. Similar results when looking at BPM where Duncan easily has more better playoff runs and is right there in RS as well. My point being that while Malone racked up some more minutes in the regular season it doesn't necessarily add a ton to his legacy considering that he can't match up with elite level seasons/playoff runs. Having a better player each season is more important than having a lesser player who gets more minutes.



If Stockton is higher than Bird on your all time list then I would argue you are likely overvaluing longevity. Bird has one of the best peaks in the history of the game which is a huge factor when it comes to winning titles (having best player on the court). I love Stockton and many times have him higher than others (around top 20 for NBA) but he is definitely not above Bird all time.



Actually for their careers Kobe scored more points on better TS% than Drexler for both regular season and playoffs (that's ignoring the extra years which drag him down too). You seemed to call longevity a major factor allowing Stockton over Bird so why does that not also apply for Kobe? He had better longevity and despite your claim was actually the better/more efficient scorer.

I wanted to breakdown Malone v Duncan first...
*PostSeason Numbers Averaged into each category
*In the column before the Name row, the "*" indicates which player had the superior year.
*E=Even
*WPG = Wins per Game
*Usage Rates recalculated to include other aspects of the game
*Malone from '86, Duncan from '98



Year

Name
FG%
USG%
Wins
WPG

Name
FG%
USG%
Wins
WPG





1
*
Duncan
0.546

23.53

14.71

0.148


Malone
0.496

23.67

6.46

0.094






2
E

0.499

24.40

10.44

0.139

E

0.512

25.76

10.64

0.134






3


0.490

27.65

13.12

0.164

*

0.515

28.00

15.48

0.151






4
E

0.497

27.47

16.02

0.156

E

0.519

28.03

15.63

0.180






5
E

0.502

28.20

18.62

0.181

E

0.562

31.68

17.43

0.201






6
*

0.517

26.93

20.78

0.178



0.520

29.17

18.29

0.179






7


0.504

28.24

13.86

0.170

*

0.525

29.21

19.02

0.183






8


0.487

28.11

14.62

0.171

*

0.552

28.54

16.90

0.196






9


0.497

26.24

14.27

0.157

*

0.492

27.29

18.12

0.162






10
*

0.541

26.77

16.69

0.174



0.536

28.70

15.71

0.181






11


0.487

26.24

14.91

0.162

*

0.510

28.84

18.36

0.172






12


0.504

26.54

11.40

0.163

*

0.525

30.38

19.41

0.183






13


0.518

25.48

13.00

0.167

*

0.518

29.66

18.14

0.171






14
*

0.500

22.53

9.22

0.154



0.478

27.67

8.94

0.141






15


0.493

25.33

8.62

0.148

*

0.510

30.72

15.63

0.169






16
*

0.494

26.29

12.73

0.163



0.498

29.52

12.33

0.153






17
*

0.499

24.11

12.15

0.150



0.454

28.82

11.52

0.136






18
E

0.512

22.25

9.99

0.161

E

0.462

27.54

11.36

0.139






19


0.496

16.49

5.08

0.118



0.471

19.17

5.85

0.097








My criteria for ranking players is a mix of longevity and peak, in this case Wins and Wins Per Game. Of the 19 seasons:

Malone tops Duncan: 8 times
Duncan tops Malone: 6 times
They draw Even: 4 times

*The 19th year isn't finished for Duncan, so I didn't mark it for either player, but my projections show that Duncan will fall short of Malone.

I think a lot of players like Drexler, Malone get somewhat overshadowed playing in the Jordan era, because Jordan was so dominant. But Malone played a big stretch of his career in what my research shows as one of the most high quality era in Basketball history.

I think in comparison to Duncan, Malone was the slightly better player. Duncan performed better in the postseason, with about 14 more wins than Malone for his career. Duncan also post the better WPG in the playoffs, .147 to Malone's .127, but Malone overall is the better player.

mngopher35
04-03-2016, 01:12 AM
I wanted to breakdown Malone v Duncan first...
*PostSeason Numbers Averaged into each category
*In the column before the Name row, the "*" indicates which player had the superior year.
*E=Even
*WPG = Wins per Game
*Usage Rates recalculated to include other aspects of the game
*Malone from '86, Duncan from '98



Year

Name
FG%
USG%
Wins
WPG

Name
FG%
USG%
Wins
WPG





1
*
Duncan
0.546

23.53

14.71

0.148


Malone
0.496

23.67

6.46

0.094






2
E

0.499

24.40

10.44

0.139

E

0.512

25.76

10.64

0.134






3


0.490

27.65

13.12

0.164

*

0.515

28.00

15.48

0.151






4
E

0.497

27.47

16.02

0.156

E

0.519

28.03

15.63

0.180






5
E

0.502

28.20

18.62

0.181

E

0.562

31.68

17.43

0.201






6
*

0.517

26.93

20.78

0.178



0.520

29.17

18.29

0.179






7


0.504

28.24

13.86

0.170

*

0.525

29.21

19.02

0.183






8


0.487

28.11

14.62

0.171

*

0.552

28.54

16.90

0.196






9


0.497

26.24

14.27

0.157

*

0.492

27.29

18.12

0.162






10
*

0.541

26.77

16.69

0.174



0.536

28.70

15.71

0.181






11


0.487

26.24

14.91

0.162

*

0.510

28.84

18.36

0.172






12


0.504

26.54

11.40

0.163

*

0.525

30.38

19.41

0.183






13


0.518

25.48

13.00

0.167

*

0.518

29.66

18.14

0.171






14
*

0.500

22.53

9.22

0.154



0.478

27.67

8.94

0.141






15


0.493

25.33

8.62

0.148

*

0.510

30.72

15.63

0.169






16
*

0.494

26.29

12.73

0.163



0.498

29.52

12.33

0.153






17
*

0.499

24.11

12.15

0.150



0.454

28.82

11.52

0.136






18
E

0.512

22.25

9.99

0.161

E

0.462

27.54

11.36

0.139






19


0.496

16.49

5.08

0.118



0.471

19.17

5.85

0.097








My criteria for ranking players is a mix of longevity and peak, in this case Wins and Wins Per Game. Of the 19 seasons:

Malone tops Duncan: 8 times
Duncan tops Malone: 6 times
They draw Even: 4 times

*The 19th year isn't finished for Duncan, so I didn't mark it for either player, but my projections show that Duncan will fall short of Malone.

I think a lot of players like Drexler, Malone get somewhat overshadowed playing in the Jordan era, because Jordan was so dominant. But Malone played a big stretch of his career in what my research shows as one of the most high quality era in Basketball history.

I think in comparison to Duncan, Malone was the slightly better player. Duncan performed better in the postseason, with about 14 more wins than Malone for his career. Duncan also post the better WPG in the playoffs, .147 to Malone's .127, but Malone overall is the better player.

Well I understand that your stat has it that way obviously. I am saying that looking at it from a stats/subjective/context standpoint it is off. Duncan was the better Rebounder/Defender/more efficient player (both shooting and overall) while only trailing Malone by a 1.6 pts per 36 in the playoffs. You can sit there and tell me what your stat says but I am pointing out that one of them clearly had a greater impact come the post season (which is more important than RS numbers).

Do you disagree that Duncan was clearly the better defender? How is this factored into your stat? Do you disagree that post season play is more valuable? How does that factor into your stat? Does the fact that some of the longevity for Malone is kinda useless (in comparison) because he was no longer playing at a high level early or late? How does that factor into your stat? What about the accolades received by both players?

My point is that your stat seems off based off of other advanced stats (which I can and have seen how they are derived), raw stats, context and the eye test. I understand that you seem tied to it but can you give me an explanation for why? I can gladly explain how Malone never had an individual run like Duncan in 03 leading to a title and how overall he dropped off from his normal play. High level play in the playoffs is more important for that reason as well, the better you are in a given post season the more likely your team will win the championship if you have great pieces. Duncan was quite easily the better defender and I will gladly discuss that as well. I want to hear why you believe this to be true outside of just this number you are using and give insight into how you came up with it as this single usable stat to judge players (since I am always skeptical a single stat ever will be capable).

Heediot
04-03-2016, 07:33 AM
Tom Brady is arguably the the GOAT QB (the most important position sports), top 3 QB for sure, and you don't have him on the list?

I don't know what metrics or requirements you are using.

JAZZNC
04-03-2016, 10:07 AM
No Brady but Dwight makes it.....Yeah have fun explaining that one.

IndyRealist
04-03-2016, 11:45 AM
Well I understand that your stat has it that way obviously. I am saying that looking at it from a stats/subjective/context standpoint it is off. Duncan was the better Rebounder/Defender/more efficient player (both shooting and overall) while only trailing Malone by a 1.6 pts per 36 in the playoffs. You can sit there and tell me what your stat says but I am pointing out that one of them clearly had a greater impact come the post season (which is more important than RS numbers).

Do you disagree that Duncan was clearly the better defender? How is this factored into your stat? Do you disagree that post season play is more valuable? How does that factor into your stat? Does the fact that some of the longevity for Malone is kinda useless (in comparison) because he was no longer playing at a high level early or late? How does that factor into your stat? What about the accolades received by both players?

My point is that your stat seems off based off of other advanced stats (which I can and have seen how they are derived), raw stats, context and the eye test. I understand that you seem tied to it but can you give me an explanation for why? I can gladly explain how Malone never had an individual run like Duncan in 03 leading to a title and how overall he dropped off from his normal play. High level play in the playoffs is more important for that reason as well, the better you are in a given post season the more likely your team will win the championship if you have great pieces. Duncan was quite easily the better defender and I will gladly discuss that as well. I want to hear why you believe this to be true outside of just this number you are using and give insight into how you came up with it as this single usable stat to judge players (since I am always skeptical a single stat ever will be capable).

In effect, he's saying "Malone is #2 all time scoring leader in total points" and you're saying "No, Michael Jordan is 2nd all time because he averaged 37.1ppg one season". Both statements are true. You're both arguing different measures and saying one is more true than the other. No metric is absolute, that'd be like saying "Malone is #2 all time scoring leader in total points, so he's the 2nd best player all time." No one is saying that.

Lionel20
04-03-2016, 12:18 PM
Tom Brady is arguably the the GOAT QB (the most important position sports), top 3 QB for sure, and you don't have him on the list?

I don't know what metrics or requirements you are using.

Brady is #45

Howard is #97. I think people forget how great Howard was w the Magic.

mngopher35
04-03-2016, 01:50 PM
Well I understand that your stat has it that way obviously. I am saying that looking at it from a stats/subjective/context standpoint it is off. Duncan was the better Rebounder/Defender/more efficient player (both shooting and overall) while only trailing Malone by a 1.6 pts per 36 in the playoffs. You can sit there and tell me what your stat says but I am pointing out that one of them clearly had a greater impact come the post season (which is more important than RS numbers).

Do you disagree that Duncan was clearly the better defender? How is this factored into your stat? Do you disagree that post season play is more valuable? How does that factor into your stat? Does the fact that some of the longevity for Malone is kinda useless (in comparison) because he was no longer playing at a high level early or late? How does that factor into your stat? What about the accolades received by both players?

My point is that your stat seems off based off of other advanced stats (which I can and have seen how they are derived), raw stats, context and the eye test. I understand that you seem tied to it but can you give me an explanation for why? I can gladly explain how Malone never had an individual run like Duncan in 03 leading to a title and how overall he dropped off from his normal play. High level play in the playoffs is more important for that reason as well, the better you are in a given post season the more likely your team will win the championship if you have great pieces. Duncan was quite easily the better defender and I will gladly discuss that as well. I want to hear why you believe this to be true outside of just this number you are using and give insight into how you came up with it as this single usable stat to judge players (since I am always skeptical a single stat ever will be capable).

In effect, he's saying "Malone is #2 all time scoring leader in total points" and you're saying "No, Michael Jordan is 2nd all time because he averaged 37.1ppg one season". Both statements are true. You're both arguing different measures and saying one is more true than the other. No metric is absolute, that'd be like saying "Malone is #2 all time scoring leader in total points, so he's the 2nd best player all time." No one is saying that.

No single metric is absolute is my point. I'm using a mix of metrics/stats, eye test, context, accolades etc. when I judge players. I am trying to figure out what his stat uses and the influence it has to find that difference of opinion and discuss. I think he might have issues in his approach that are giving poor results but don't know the methods nor what exactly it is he is ignoring yet. In this case it seems obvious context/accolades are somewhat ignored based on just creating a single stat and being somewhat tied to it. There might be more as well.

Like I said I understand his stat disagreed with what I said but I want to discuss why the stat says that and maybe discuss what I believe is causing the difference. Sometimes there are differences in rankings and it definitely makes sense but this one does not to me (and I bet if a poll was put up Malone over Duncan gets under 10%). We may end up still disagreeing in the end but the questions I asked should help to see what is and is not being taken into account (plus how and the influence it has).

IndyRealist
04-03-2016, 02:40 PM
No single metric is absolute is my point. I'm using a mix of metrics/stats, eye test, context, accolades etc. when I judge players. I am trying to figure out what his stat uses and the influence it has to find that difference of opinion and discuss.

It's like when you tried to argue Jose Calderon was the best player on the Knicks based on "stats". I tried to figure out what exactly made you say that and explain why the broader picture of statistical analysis disagreed. I think he might have issues in his approach that are giving poor results but don't know the methods nor what exactly it is he is ignoring yet. In this case it seems obvious context/accolades are somewhat ignored based on just creating a single stat and being somewhat tied to it. There might be more as well.

Like I said I understand his stat disagreed with what I said but I want to discuss why the stat says that and maybe discuss what I believe is causing the difference. Sometimes there are differences in rankings and it definitely makes sense but this one does not to me (and I bet if a poll was put up Malone over Duncan gets under 10%). We may end up still disagreeing in the end but the questions I asked should help to see what is and is not being taken into account (plus how and the influence it has).
Polls are, by definition, a stupid argument. They invite those unknowledgeable in the subject to have as much say as those who devote significant time and resources to understanding the issue. How else do you explain Donald Trump?

You don't seem to be trying to understand what he's saying at all, by rather trying to disprove it by pointing at multiple non-statistical measures to say Duncan is better than Malone. You've devoted relatively little to understanding why his stat chose Malone over Duncan, and instead focused on why it's wrong. Now I have my own issues with his statistical approach, but since it's essentially a black box there's not much headway you can make on that point. He's not submitting to an academic journal, he's posting on PSD.

Furthermore, you're making the assumption that because it boils down to a single statistic, that it's somehow meant to be all-inclusive. A) He's never said that, and he made it. B) No reputable sports economist says that any stat is all-inclusive. So much is simply not tracked (like hockey assists, screens leading to scores), and others are tracked but not publicly available. In effect, you're arguing a strawman, pointing out how his stat leaves out so many factors, so it can't be all-inclusive, when it never claimed to be.

mngopher35
04-03-2016, 03:51 PM
Polls are, by definition, a stupid argument. They invite those unknowledgeable in the subject to have as much say as those who devote significant time and resources to understanding the issue. How else do you explain Donald Trump?

While true I have yet to see Trump getting 90% of the general voting public anyways as well and he never will. We can try to limit the group allowed too, under any circumstances outside of just looking at Jazz fans or 90's homers I believe the huge consensus (among many different types, statistics, eye testers etc) will have Duncan higher. This is not to say 100% that is correct but it gives an idea of where many will see this outcome for comparison. That was a very minor point anyways though.

Do you think that analysts or others well educated would have Malone over Duncan? I personally have yet to see/hear any good argument which is why I brought that up in the first place, he would be the first one to really make it that I have seen across multiple boards.


You don't seem to be trying to understand what he's saying at all, by rather trying to disprove it by pointing at multiple non-statistical measures to say Duncan is better than Malone. You've devoted relatively little to understanding why his stat chose Malone over Duncan, and instead focused on why it's wrong. Now I have my own issues with his statistical approach, but since it's essentially a black box there's not much headway you can make on that point. He's not submitting to an academic journal, he's posting on PSD.

He never posted the criteria which is why I asked some of those questions. I can't understand why it has Malone over Duncan unless he answers some of those questions and/or explains how the stat is coming to these results. I explained why just taking totals of numbers for longevity isn't as important as level of play within a season for example but he would need to expand on if that is adjusted for. I will gladly get into more statistical measures as well (already did a little bit) but that is dependent on what methods he used in the first place.

Of course this isn't an academic journal wtf is your point? We are here for discussion and I am trying to have some about the criteria used and his opinion on the topic he chose to expand on. Why post this if you don't want to talk about it in depth? Should we all just agree with his stat/opinions because it was posted on PSD instead? I want to have a discussion about the stat and the Malone/Duncan dynamic seems to be the comparison he wanted to focus on (I called out multiple different ones but he continued more in depth on that point). Not sure why discussing this further would make you get so defensive of his stat but I am actually trying to understand how this stat is coming to the conclusion, hence the questioning. If he responds with how it is calculated and what factors/weight are used I can then delve deeper in the statistical analysis.


Furthermore, you're making the assumption that because it boils down to a single statistic, that it's somehow meant to be all-inclusive. A) He's never said that, and he made it. B) No reputable sports economist says that any stat is all-inclusive. So much is simply not tracked (like hockey assists, screens leading to scores), and others are tracked but not publicly available. In effect, you're arguing a strawman, pointing out how his stat leaves out so many factors, so it can't be all-inclusive, when it never claimed to be.


I really think Malone or Duncan can go either way.


I can't claim that this is a matter-of-fact, but honestly, after I compiled the results and reviewed them, and being as objective as I could be - just going off the numbers, I strongly agree with about 95% of it, and the other 5% really could go either way.

He has already stated his personal opinion on this outcome and how his views line up very well with the stat (either completely agree or either or situations). This is why I added some of the subjective points outside of just asking questions about how the stat was derived because I disagreed with his opinion as well as the stats outcome. I agree no stat is all inclusive but he has also given his opinion which he stated lines up and I was pointing out things a stat can ignore (for his opinion) while also asking questions about how it was derived (to further discuss the actual stat).