GOAT Ranking Formula

[Ca$H]

I am tired of stans and haters making arbitrary GOAT rankings to fit their agenda so I have come up with a formula to determine a player's range in the GOAT list. Longevity/career accomplishments(includes total points, all star selections, all NBA teams, all NBA defensive teams, NBA titles, finals MVPs, etc.)
+ Peak Play (self explanatory)= sum divided by 2 +/- 1
= Goat range.

Example: Kobe longevity/career(3rd all time) + Peak Play (11th all time)= 14/2= 7+/-1= 6-8 best player of all time.

[toooo]

Is this theoo's alt account?

[imnew09]

Is this theoo's alt account?

Highly doubt it. Theoo rite lik thes

[Fudge]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/say-what.gif

[Magic 32]

MVP+Rings+FMVP

Jordan = 17 pts

Bill Russell = 16 pts

Kareem 14 pts

Magic = 11 pts

Duncan = 9 pts

Shaq = 8 pts / Larry Bird = 8 pts / Kobe = 8 pts

Wilt = 7 pts

Lebron = 6 pts

[Ca$H]

I don't have any alternative accounts. I think my formula is a fair way to rank players.

[BlazerRed]

I'm sorry this isn't going to work, most NBA fans can't do math.

[Kews1]

I'm sorry this isn't going to work, most human-beings can't do math.

fixed

[Ca$H]

MVP+Rings+FMVP

Jordan = 17 pts

Magic = 11 pts

Shaq = 8 pts

Kobe 8 pts

Lebron 6 pts

Too simplistic. Plus regular season MVP depends on the whims of the media. Nash has 2. Shaq and Kobe has 1 each. Also where is Bill Russell in your rankings? Kobe isn't 3rd/4th because his peak play ranking is too low. You have to account for peak play.

[Kews1]

Too simplistic. Plus regular season MVP depends on the whims of the media. Nash has 2. Shaq and Kobe has 1 each. Also where is Bill Russell in your rankings? Kobe isn't 3rd/4th because his peak play ranking is too low. You have to account for peak play.

In his original list Kobe was 9? how daufcc did u bump him up to 4

[Magic 32]

Too simplistic. Plus regular season MVP depends on the whims of the media. Nash has 2. Shaq and Kobe has 1 each. Also where is Bill Russell in your rankings? Kobe isn't 3rd/4th because his peak play ranking is too low. You have to account for peak play.

Slowly plugging players in.

[Dbrog]

Hard to blame him for that. Pop took the ball out of his hands and gave Tony the lead that year. Even still, Duncan went nuts that series. He literally played well every game. His worst was probably his 12/16/4 gm..and then he has a large triple double in the closeout game. Just very difficult to ask for more than that from a past prime Duncan (think Shaq on '06 Miami).

[Ca$H]

LOL. This is a simple formula. Longevity/Career accomplishments ranking + Peak Play ranking = Sum divided by 2 = ranking then add 1 and subtract one for the range.

[Sakkreth]

Someone needs to come up with formula hmoafoi (how much of a ****** op is) quick.

[RedBlackAttack]

http://cdn01.cdn.socialitelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/31/tumblr_mnl9slxjuo1qzi80do1_500.gif

[Ca$H]

example Kareem. Longevity/Career Accomplishments (1st) + Peak (5th)
= 6 divided by 2 = 3 then add one and subtract one for the range... Kareem is ranked in the 2-4 range on the GOAT list.

[Ca$H]

Someone needs to come up with formula hmoafoi (how much of a ****** op is) quick.

I am sorry that you aren't educated enough to do simple math.

[BlazerRed]

I am sorry that you aren't educated enough to do simple math.
Do the top 10 ranking with your formula, that'll show people how "legit" it is.

[Ca$H]

I could get rid of the +/- portion to give an estimated ranking instead of a range.

Kobe: 3 + 11 = 14/2 = 7th

KAJ: 1 + 5 = 6/2 = 3rd

[RedBlackAttack]

Still completely arbitrary.

[pauk]

I am tired of stans and haters making arbitrary GOAT rankings to fit their agenda so I have come up with a formula to determine a player's range in the GOAT list. Longevity/career accomplishments(includes total points, all star selections, all NBA teams, all NBA defensive teams, NBA titles, finals MVPs, etc.)
+ Peak Play (self explanatory)= sum divided by 2 +/- 1
= Goat range.

Example: Kobe longevity/career(3rd all time) + Peak Play (11th all time)= 14/2= 7+/-1= 6-8 best player of all time.

Note I have excluded Regular Season MVP because the criteria fluctuates. Shaq and Kobe has one each but Nash has two means the award has no credibility.

Why not exclude Championships & FMVPs aswell... it has even less credibility considering the even lesser players than Nash obtain them and at far greater magnitude....

[Ca$H]

Do the top 10 ranking with your formula, that'll show people how "legit" it is.

Basically I just want to give equal weight to longevity/career accomplishments and peak play. If you just want a single ranking for each player then don't
do the +/- 1 part so it will be a single ranking instead of a range.

[Ca$H]

Still completely arbitrary.


Just look at the data for each category. Create a list based on longevity/career accomplishments. Create another list based on peak play. Add them up and divide it by 2 (so both categories are equally weighted) then you have an individual ranking. Kobe was a great example because haters emphasize his peak play which is around 11th. While stans emphasize his longevity/career accomplishments which is around 3rd. There needs to be equal weight given to both. Kobe should be the 7th best player if equal weight is given to both.

[pauk]

To follow up what i said it seems like you have created an even more arbitrary ranking.... and considering the complete disregard for CONTEXT and for an accomplishment which does the best job of measuring a players individual impact as it is recieved by the most impactful players whos games translated to most team success makes me question your agenda....

[Ca$H]

To follow up what i said it seems like you have created an even more arbitrary ranking.... and considering the complete disregard for CONTEXT and for an accomplishment which does the best job of measuring a players individual impact as it is recieved by the most impactful players whos games translated to most team success makes me question your agenda....

My agenda is to give equal weight to longevity/career accomplishments and peak play. Some people rank by peak play only while other people rank by longevity/career accomplishments only so the formula gives an estimate of where players should be ranked. The longevity/career accomplishments rankings is based on data only. However, the peak play ranking does take into account the
CONTEXT for every player(which is why I have peak MJ at #1, peak Shaq at #2,
and peak Wilt at #3).

[bmulls]

LOL. This is a simple formula. Longevity/Career accomplishments ranking + Peak Play ranking = Sum divided by 2 = ranking then add 1 and subtract one for the range.

LOL you are such a f@ggot. Just because you make up some arbitrary formula doesn't make it any less biased. Holy shit some people's kids.

[SpurrDurr]

OP is on his way to figure out all the unsolved problems in mathematics just for ranking Kobe ahead of Duncan in the top 10 list.

It shows how much strong Kobe's case is in that matter.

[Ca$H]

LOL you are such a f@ggot. Just because you make up some arbitrary formula doesn't make it any less biased. Holy shit some people's kids.

No need for petulance. It is biased but it reduces the degree of bias. The longevity/career accomplishments is based on data so it is less biased than peak play. Create two separate lists for each category. Then I will give an estimate of where a player should be ranked based on your biased
peak play ranking and the less biased longevity/career accomplishments ranking.

[Ca$H]

OP is on his way to figure out all the unsolved problems in mathematics just for ranking Kobe ahead of Duncan in the top 10 list.

It shows how much strong Kobe's case is in that matter.

I ranked peak Kobe at #11. I think that is reasonable even for people who despise Kobe. I have peak Duncan ranked at #7.

[ripthekik]

Seems pretty legit. Dont worry OP, the ones that dislike this ranking are usually fans of a certain player..

[HurricaneKid]

What a joke. How you feel about a players peak and how you feel about a players longevity is NOT scientific.

[kennethgriffin]

kobes peak play lasted from 2001 - 2013

hes been a near 30ppg, 5reb, 5ast 1st team all nba'r forever

compare that with a guy like duncan whos peak only lasted 5 years

some idiots on here will say that 5 year peak is worth more than a 13 year peak

:lol

[Ca$H]

Seems pretty legit. Dont worry OP, the ones that dislike this ranking are usually fans of a certain player..

Thanks. I have no agenda. In fact I have peak LeBron ranked #4 so those fans
shouldn't have any problem with my formula. If LeBron stays healthy then he will shoot up the longevity/career accomplishments rankings as well(it is way to early to rank him based on this category. So I will give him an incomplete here.)

[dh144498]

kobes peak play lasted from 2001 - 2013

hes been a near 30ppg, 5reb, 5ast 1st team all nba'r forever

compare that with a guy like duncan whos peak only lasted 5 years

some idiots on here will say that 5 year peak is worth more than a 13 year peak

:lol

Gawdbe.
:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Ca$H]

What a joke. How you feel about a players peak and how you feel about a players longevity is NOT scientific.

Yes but it reduces extremes in bias. Peak Larry Bird is better than peak Kobe which is based on opinion. However, Kobe's longevity/career accomplishments is greater than Bird's which is based mainly on data.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Whatever the formula is, Kobe should not be on top 10.

[K Xerxes]

I am tired of stans and haters making arbitrary GOAT rankings to fit their agenda so I have come up with a formula to determine a player's range in the GOAT list. Longevity/career accomplishments(includes total points, all star selections, all NBA teams, all NBA defensive teams, NBA titles, finals MVPs, etc.)


What mathematical functions are you using to incorporate total points (in the tens of thousands most likely) with all-star selections, all NBA teams, titles, FMVPs etc? And is this formula of yours taking into account total rebounds, assists and perhaps adjusted for the era pace as well?

Furthermore, I don't understand why you would refuse to use MVPs if you're using all-NBA teams, all-star teams and all-NBA teams. Steve Nash may have two, but Kareem has six, Michael and Russell have five, Wilt and LeBron have four, Magic and Bird have three... it doesn't seem too bad of an indicator.

Just because you have a formula doesn't make this any more objective. It's just as subjective because you're pulling shit out of your ass. Indeed, rankings are virtually all subjective because basketball is not an individual sport - it is based so much on team strength and league strength. There is no context in this and context only comes with your eyes.

[InfiniteBaskets]

MVP+Rings+FMVP



Wilt = 7 = Horry

[Ca$H]

Whatever the formula is, Kobe should not be on top 10.

Only if you account for peak play. His longevity/career accomplishments is top
3 IMO. Kobe has five titles, #1 in total all NBA teams, #1 in total all NBA defensive teams, #4 in total points. There is no argument where Kobe is ranked outside the top five strictly based on longevity/career accomplishments. The data won't support it.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Only if you account for peak play. His longevity/career accomplishments is top
3 IMO. Kobe has five titles, #1 in total all NBA teams, #1 in total all NBA defensive teams, #4 in total points. There is no argument where Kobe is ranked outside the top five strictly based on longevity/career accomplishments. The data won't support it.

5 titles, 3 were Shaqs gifts. Horry had 7 titles btw.

[Ca$H]

5 titles, 3 were Shaqs gifts. Horry had 7 titles btw.

Where Magic's titles gifts from Kareem or vice versa? If you win a title as an all star player(the 1st title) and as a top ten player(the other two titles) then it counts. Plus Kobe's numbers in the playoffs for the 2nd and 3rd titles were #1 option caliber numbers. He was the main option in the fourth quarter since Shaq couldn't close games due to his free throw shooting. It is clear you are a Kobe hater, but the data shows that Kobe has had at least a top five career. As a hater you should be happy that I have peak Kobe ranked at #11 only.

[dh144498]

great formula, OP. Of course it's the lebron stans having problems with this thread, as usual. :oldlol:

[Ca$H]

great formula, OP. Of course it's the lebron stans having problems with this thread, as usual. :oldlol:

I know. Kobe haters are acting up too. Haters are arguing with the data. I thought haters would appreciate the fact that I have peak Kobe ranked only at #11. Also a Kobe stan complained too. These haters and stans are incapable of compromise. Kobe is such a polarizing figure that they will hold on to their extremely biased opinions.

[fpliii]

OP - Who ranks higher in your system, Bill Walton or Reggie Miller?

Can you also do Bird vs Kareem, and Karl Malone vs Hakeem?

[Ca$H]

OP - Who ranks higher in your system, Bill Walton or Reggie Miller?

Can you also do Bird vs Kareem, and Karl Malone vs Hakeem?

Where do you rank each based on longevity/career accomplishments and peak play? Please provide a ranking for each player in each category then I will give an estimate of where they should be ranked. Example KAJ: career/longevity (#1)
Peak(#5). So he is approximately the 3rd best player ever. Range: 2-4.

[LLK21]

This seems pretty legit. The only people complaining are Lebron stans and Kobe haters as someone said. :lol:

[fpliii]

Where do you rank each based on longevity/career accomplishments and peak play? Please provide a ranking for each player in each category then I will give an estimate of where they should be ranked. Example KAJ: career/longevity (#1)
Peak(#5). So he is approximately the 3rd best player ever. Range: 2-4.

I don't really rank peaks/longevities (or players' careers at all, really). What are your rankings for each of them?

Also, how do you personally define peak/longevity?

[Ca$H]

Example KAJ: career/longevity (#1) Peak(#5). So he is approximately the 3rd best player ever. Range: 2-4.

Example Bird: career/longevity (#10) Peak(#6). So he is approximately the 8th best player ever. Range 7-9.

Everyone can come up with two separate lists and just average the rankings out.

[stanlove1111]

MVP+Rings+FMVP

s


Don't know if I could think of a dumber way to rank players..The FMVP thing is so ridiculous its unreal..

So in your world if you put the best player on an awful team and they lose to the eventual champs by one point in the 7th game then he deserves no credit at all.. That's laughable..

[fpliii]

Example KAJ: career/longevity (#1) Peak(#5). So he is approximately the 3rd best player ever. Range: 2-4.

Example Bird: career/longevity (#10) Peak(#6). So he is approximately the 8th best player ever. Range 7-9.

Everyone can come up with two separate lists and just average the rankings out.

How do you personally define longevity though?

# of MVP-caliber years?
# of All-Star-caliber years?
# of years in the league?

What about peaks?

Best single year?
Best 2 years?
Best 3 years?
Best 5 years?

Also, why did you decide to weight longevity and peak equally? Not that I agree/disagree, just interested in your reasoning.

(BTW I'm not trying to give you a hard time per se, just trying to figure out the thought process here, to put your system in context).

[HurricaneKid]

Yes but it reduces extremes in bias. Peak Larry Bird is better than peak Kobe which is based on opinion. However, Kobe's longevity/career accomplishments is greater than Bird's which is based mainly on data.

Kobe has never been in the top 3 in PER or top 2 in WS. There are probably 75 players who have been. Please show your work for your peak rankings on how Kobe's best season wasn't among the best in the league that season but it ranks #11 all time.

Of course there is no work. Its just your inklings. Which are as meaningless as anyone else's rankings.

[Ca$H]

I don't really rank peaks/longevities (or players' careers at all, really). What are your rankings for each of them?

Also, how do you personally define peak/longevity?

It is very tedious to do it for every player. If some posters with unbiased
reputations(no stans and haters) come up with two separate lists(ranking from 1-15) for each category then I could just provide the estimated rankings/ranges or they could do the basic math themselves.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Where Magic's titles gifts from Kareem or vice versa? If you win a title as an all star player(the 1st title) and as a top ten player(the other two titles) then it counts. Plus Kobe's numbers in the playoffs for the 2nd and 3rd titles were #1 option caliber numbers. He was the main option in the fourth quarter since Shaq couldn't close games due to his free throw shooting. It is clear you are a Kobe hater, but the data shows that Kobe has had at least a top five career. As a hater you should be happy that I have peak Kobe ranked at #11 only.

Not really, Magic and Kareem were comparable factors in Lakers 5 titles run back in 80s, but it was not even close between Shaq and Kobe. It was clearly Shaqs team, Kobe's role was not much more important than Robert Horry. If you consider Magic's impact to 80s Lakers to Kobe's role in 00s Lakers, you'd be truly delusional.
:facepalm

[fpliii]

Not really, Magic and Kareem were comparable factors in Lakers 5 titles run back in 80s, but it was not even close between Shaq and Kobe. It was clearly Shaqs team, Kobe's role was not much more important than Robert Horry. If you consider Magic's impact to 80s Lakers to Kobe's role in 00s Lakers, you'd be truly delusional.
:facepalm

I'm not a Kobe guy necessarily, but 01 was close due to the WCF. The Spurs gameplanned for Shaq (with Duncan and an old Robinson down low) and dared Kobe to beat them, but he did. I think you have to give him some credit for that year's run, at the very least. Certainly more than Kareem in 87, 88.

[Ca$H]

Kobe has never been in the top 3 in PER or top 2 in WS. There are probably 75 players who have been. Please show your work for your peak rankings on how Kobe's best season wasn't among the best in the league that season but it ranks #11 all time.

Of course there is no work. Its just your inklings. Which are as meaningless as anyone else's rankings.

You are correct which is why I am encouraging unbiased posters to create two separate lists and average out the rankings themselves. Peak Kobe is ranked #11 based on my opinion. Not based on PER or WS which I don't put too much stock into. Can you honesty say peak Kobe should be ranked outside of the top 75? Even Kobe haters don't rank him lower than 15th.

[noob cake]

Guys,

This ranking is not subjective at all. It is designed, mathematically, to rank Kobe within the top 10.

This thread is a classic Kobestan's reaction to the Duncan vs LeBron matchup. No matter which team wins, Kobe loses.

[Ca$H]

Not really, Magic and Kareem were comparable factors in Lakers 5 titles run back in 80s, but it was not even close between Shaq and Kobe. It was clearly Shaqs team, Kobe's role was not much more important than Robert Horry. If you consider Magic's impact to 80s Lakers to Kobe's role in 00s Lakers, you'd be truly delusional.
:facepalm

LOL. I am delusional? I didn't realize Horry was 2nd team all NBA for the second title and 1st team all NBA for the third one. Kobe had historically great series against top Western Conference teams such as the Kings and the Spurs. Kobe was a beast in the western conference playoffs especially in the 2nd and 3rd runs. Anyways your bolded statement indicates that you are a troll so it is an exercise in futility to discuss anything with you.

[Ca$H]

Guys,

This ranking is not subjective at all. It is designed, mathematically, to rank Kobe within the top 10.

This thread is a classic Kobestan's reaction to the Duncan vs LeBron matchup. No matter which team wins, Kobe loses.

I have peak Kobe ranked at #11. Kobestan's would rank him top five. Did you not notice kennegriffin taking offense to my formula? Where do you rank Kobe's career accomplishments/longevity and where do you rank his peak?

[RossTalksSports]

I am tired of stans and haters making arbitrary GOAT rankings to fit their agenda so I have come up with a formula to determine a player's range in the GOAT list. Longevity/career accomplishments(includes total points, all star selections, all NBA teams, all NBA defensive teams, NBA titles, finals MVPs, etc.)
+ Peak Play (self explanatory)= sum divided by 2 +/- 1
= Goat range.

Example: Kobe longevity/career(3rd all time) + Peak Play (11th all time)= 14/2= 7+/-1= 6-8 best player of all time.

Note I have excluded Regular Season MVP because the criteria fluctuates. Shaq and Kobe has one each but Nash has two means the award has no credibility.

You include all star selections, but not MVPs? Finals MVPs didn't exist when Russell was playing so including those doesn't give a fair ranking either.

[HurricaneKid]

Can you honesty say peak Kobe should be ranked outside of the top 75? Even Kobe haters don't rank him lower than 15th.

I never said that. I merely asked you what scientific method you chose to achieve your results.

On an all time list I would never have Kobe outside of a top 15. But if you are talking peak play I would argue he is WAY down that list. Much farther than 15th


You are correct which is why I am encouraging unbiased posters...

And you came here for that?? Hah!

[K Xerxes]

I don't know how you account for longevity and what exact criteria it is based on, but peak play for me on the consensus top 10:

Jordan
Wilt
Shaq
Bird
Kareem
Hakeem
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Kobe

Just my opinion of course.

[Deuce Bigalow]

How about Rings+FMVPs+MVPs+All-NBA First Teams+All-Star Teams+Leading the league in a statistical category

MJ-51
Kareem-50
Wilt-46 (2 FMVPs)
Russell-44 (8 FMVPs)
Magic-38
Kobe- 5+2+1+11+15+2 = 36
Shaq- 4+3+1+8+15+2 = 33
Duncan- 4+3+2+10+14+0 = 33
Hakeem-30 ( added DPOYs)
Bird-29

[Ca$H]

I don't know how you account for longevity and what exact criteria it is based on, but peak play for me on the consensus top 10:

Jordan
Wilt
Shaq
Bird
Kareem
Hakeem
Magic
Russell
Duncan
Kobe

Just my opinion of course.

Kobe has the most all NBA 1st teams(11) and the most all NBA teams (15)
in NBA history. He is also the 4th leading scorer of all time. A sustained level
of excellence is what I am looking for. He has one title as top 15 player(3rd team), one as a top ten player(2nd team), and three as a top five player(1st team). These are all facts. P.S. You forgot LeBron on your list. Peak LeBron is better than peak Kobe.

[TerranOP]

This formula still isn't all that great since there's a good amount of subjectivity in your "peak play" ranking. Career/longevity can be more objective because we can use data to justify it, but it's really tough to support peak play rankings. This wouldn't be a huge deal if the peak play ranking didn't have such a huge influence on the final ranking. I think it's a nice try, but it's just too difficult to come up with something objective enough to be used consistently. There will always be haters and you can't satisfy everyone, but the subjectivity of peak play is a concrete flaw in your formula. That said, I don't think I could come up with anything better.

Also, why do you choose to use all-star selections but not MVPs? I feel like MVPs should have more weight in the end, but your justification for not using them should also apply to all-star selections since they are fan voted. All-defensive selections are also pretty suspect. Players like Lebron and Kobe should not be getting the number of all-defensive selections that they are. They can both be excellent defenders when they're motivated, but most of the time they just use their energy on offense.

[Ca$H]

This formula still isn't all that great since there's a good amount of subjectivity in your "peak play" ranking. Career/longevity can be more objective because we can use data to justify it, but it's really tough to support peak play rankings. This wouldn't be a huge deal if the peak play ranking didn't have such a huge influence on the final ranking. I think it's a nice try, but it's just too difficult to come up with something objective enough to be used consistently. There will always be haters and you can't satisfy everyone, but the subjectivity of peak play is a concrete flaw in your formula. That said, I don't think I could come up with anything better.

Also, why do you choose to use all-star selections but not MVPs? I feel like MVPs should have more weight in the end, but your justification for not using them should also apply to all-star selections since they are fan voted. All-defensive selections are also pretty suspect. Players like Lebron and Kobe should not be getting the number of all-defensive selections that they are. They can both be excellent defenders when they're motivated, but most of the time they just use their energy on offense.

I agree peak play ranking is very subjective. However, many people for some reason give the most weight to peak play and very little weight to career/longevity even though it is more objective. There is no perfect formula for ranking players, but I think it is fair for everyone to rank players
by giving equal weight to both categories.

[K Xerxes]

Kobe has the most all NBA 1st teams(11) and the most all NBA teams (15)
in NBA history. He is also the 4th leading scorer of all time. A sustained level
of excellence is what I am looking for. He has one title as top 15 player(3rd team), one as a top ten player(2nd team), and three as a top five player(1st team). These are all facts. P.S. You forgot LeBron on your list. Peak LeBron is better than peak Kobe.

Just because you are in the first team does not mean you are a top 5 player. It doesn't take depth of position into account.

Besides, there are different types of longevity. You could measure how long a player could sustain: : peak, prime, productive years etc. Kobe has been productive in his 17th year, Kareem was going until he was late 30s/40.

Or you could measure how long a player could sustain the status of 'best in the league'. Kareem was arguably the best in the entire 70s and early 80s (Moses overtook him by '81 IMO). Jordan would have been the best player from at least 90-98 had he not retired. Bird was the best player from 84-86, Magic from about 87-89, BUT 88 and 89 are very debatable with Jordan and I'd actually give Jordan the edge in 88 and 89.

Kobe's longevity comes from the fact that he is putting up ridiculous numbers at 35, but he never exerted a period of domination over the NBA, which is why it's arguable, depending on your criteria, that Jordan had top 2 longevity of all time and Kobe's longevity status takes a hit because his peak was never that high.

But, of course, this ALL depends on strength of the era.

I did not put LeBron on the list because he's still pending and not in the consensus top 10. I don't know where I'd put him as of his 12-13 form, but I'd put him above Russell perhaps?

[Rolando]

MVP+Rings+FMVP

Jordan = 17 pts

Bill Russell = 16 pts

Kareem 14 pts

Magic = 11 pts

Duncan = 9 pts

Shaq = 8 pts / Larry Bird = 8 pts / Kobe = 8 pts

Wilt = 7 pts

Lebron = 6 pts


:applause: Actually, not bad. Not bad at all.

[TerranOP]

:applause: Actually, not bad. Not bad at all.

I agree. It's simple enough to generally work for the top ten. And the only big exception to the rule is Horry (and the rest of the OP Celtics dynasty team).

[Magic 32]

I agree. It's simple enough to generally work for the top ten. And the only big exception to the rule is Horry (and the rest of the OP Celtics dynasty team).

And you can just eliminate him by requiring that one must have at least one of each.

[Ca$H]

I don't know why LeBron stans are mad about the formula since I have him
ranked #4 in peak rankings. His longevity/career accomplishments ranking is incomplete because it is way too early to give him an appropriate ranking.

[tgan3]

Win NBA Finals +8 points
Reach but lose NBA Finals +5 points
Failed to reach Playoffs -1 points

Finals MVP +15 points
Season MVP +15 points
Each NBA All-team appearance + 2 points

Do your math.

[Ca$H]

decided to bump this. Due to the controversy surrounding ESPN's ranking.

[Ca$H]

bump.