All-time winning percentages for selected players (Bill Simmons)

[Roundball_Rock]

Q: The NBA should start keeping track of players' winning percentages. Wouldn't this give us at least a decent idea for who are the biggest "winners" in not just basketball but in all sports?
-- Stephen, Baltimore

SG: Very cool idea. I brought out the heavy hitters for this one (Steve Hirdt and the Elias Sports Bureau) and asked them to check the following 14 guys. Here's what they found.

I found this interesting. I wish more players, such as Kobe, Isiah, and Hakeem were included. Was there really a need to include four Spurs players???? That said, the list includes 5 GOAT candidates, two or three other top 10 of all-time players, and a further three or four current or future HOFers (depending on whether you think Parker will get in). If you are going to choose a small sample such as this, aside from the Spurs fixation, this is a solid group.

The thing that stuck out the most is that among this group only two players had a better winning percentage in the playoffs than in the regular season: Jordan and Magic. Magic is particularly impressive. His teams did 10% better in the playoffs than the regular season.

I was also surprised at the sharp decline in the fortunes of Bird's teams. While he had the best regular season percentage, his teams slipped 13% in the playoffs. Duncan falling 8% and Shaq 7% was surprising as well, but not as much as Bird.

Simmon's chart ranks them by regular season record. Here is how they would rank based on playoff winning percentage:

1) Magic Johnson 74%
2) Michael Jordan 66.5%
3) Scottie Pippen 65.4%
3) Manu Ginboli 65.4%
5) Kareem Abdul Jabbar 65%

6) Sam Jones 64.9%
7) Bill Russell 64.8%
8) Cheap Shot Rob 63.5%
9) Tim Duncan 63.1%
10) Tony Parker 61.5%

11) Larry Bird 60.4%
12) Shaquille O'Neal 60.1%
13) Jerry West 57.8%
14) Bob Cousy 56.9%

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...2&sportCat=nba

[KeylessEntry]

I am not sure what to think about Ginobli being the second highest winning percentage all time.

[Roundball_Rock]

He isn't second all-time. He is just second among the 14 winners Simmons selected for this sample.

[TheGrassIsGreen]

Such a meaningless stat. There are way too many variables to consider when attributing winning percentage to an individual.

[Toizumi]

Such a meaningless stat. There are way too many variables to consider to attribute winning percentage to an individual.

true. JJ Hickson has a better winning % than any of these guys.

It isnt completely meaningless though. BBall is a team sport, but individual succes counts too. Tim Duncan has always been the nr 1 option (Tony has been on some occasions) and his teams have always had a lot of succes.. The winning % shows that. Although it doesnt apply for everybody. Robert Horry had the advantage of playing on great teams (yes he contributed, but mostly in the playoffs) so although he has a great %, he wasnt what made those teams great. With MJ, Duncan, Bird, Magic the wininng % does mean something because they were the nr 1 option and they carried their respective teams (they all had great help, but come on you know what I mean). Winning % is a very subjective stat, but not completely meaningless.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree that we cannot read too much into it but it is interesting. I do think that we should give some value to it, though. After all, winning is the name of the game. Moreover, look at the NFL where people do look at this stat for QB's. A QB probably has less of an affect on the outcome of the game than a NBA superstar. Sure, a QB can single-handedly lose a game but a QB cannot carry a team that is not performing to victory. In the NBA a player can score 50 points, or go out there and have a great 25/11/10/6 game and offset subpar performances by his teammates.

[TheGrassIsGreen]

true. JJ Hickson has a better winning % than any of these guys.

It isnt completely meaningless though. BBall is a team sport, but individual succes counts too. Tim Duncan has always been the nr 1 option (Tony has been on some occasions) and his teams have always had a lot of succes.. The winning % shows that. Although it doesnt apply for everybody. Robert Horry had the advantage of playing on great teams (yes he contributed, but mostly in the playoffs) so although he has a great %, he wasnt what made those teams great. With MJ, Duncan, Bird, Magic the wininng % does mean something because they were the nr 1 option and they carried their respective teams (they all had great help, but come on you know what I mean). Winning % is a very subjective stat, but not completely meaningless.

By meaningless I meant: too subjective for any merit to be given.

[Toizumi]

By meaningless I meant: too subjective for any merit to be given.

Ok on that I can agree with you

[Disaprine]

Tony parker and manu ginobli is right there with bill russell and tim duncan. Thats where they belong.

[Brunch@Five]

Birds and Shaq's percentage drops in the playoffs because they played in the stronger of the two conferences. Magic was facing way weaker teams in the first 2 rounds than Bird.

[hwliuLAP]

This playoff

Lebron 10-4 71.5%
Kobe 14-6 70%


If the Lakers lose another game period, Lebron will have a better winning percentage than Kobe this playoff.

But what does that really tell you?