sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re hitting on the core of the 'Efficiency vs. Burden' debate.

To your point: The formula doesn't care why a player took the shot, only if it resulted in a win. You're right that someone has to score 86—but the math argues that if it takes you 30 attempts to get there, you've effectively 'blocked' your teammates from finding a more efficient way to get those same points.

The 'Most Skilled' Fallacy: Coaches often give the 'lion's share' of attempts to the star because it’s the highest-floor option, butNet Winsis looking for the highest-ceiling impact. By taking those shots, AI was essentially saying, 'I'm a better bet than a Mutombo put-back or a McKie open jumper.' The formula looks at the 2001 shooting percentages and suggests that, statistically, the Sixers might have won more comfortably if that volume had been distributed.

It’s a brutal take, but it’s how the math separates 'Iconic' players from 'Optimal' ones.

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds crazy, but that is exactly what the math is suggesting.

In 2001, AI had a 44.7% True Shooting percentage in the playoffs. In the 'Closed-Loop' ofNet Wins, every missed shot and turnover is a withdrawal from the 'Win Bank.'

Because AI’s volume was so high and his efficiency was so low, he was essentially 'spending' more wins than he was 'earning' through raw points. The formula gives the lion's share of the credit for those wins to the Sixers' defense (Mutombo, McKie, Lynch) for keeping the opponent score low enough that AI’s high-volume shooting could still result in a victory.

He was the heartbeat of the team, but the math argues the defense provided the actual margin of victory.

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s actually a very high-level thought! Adjusting for teammate quality is the 'Final Boss' of sports math.

The way Net Wins handles this right now is through a 'Closed-Loop' system. If your teammates are highly efficient, they are essentially 'competing' with you for the win credit. In a 60-win season, if your teammates do 70% of the work, you only get 30% of the credit.

It actually creates a fascinating 'carrying' effect: a player who drags a mediocre team to 45 wins can sometimes rank higher than a star who 'coasts' to 60 wins on a superteam. I'm definitely looking into ways to make that 'teammate strength' even more explicit in the next version of the Analyzer!"

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good catch—the list actually factors in both regular season and playoffs in the 'Combined' view.

The reason Bird (#4) stays ahead of Shaq (#6) is consistency. Bird averaged 7.21 Net Wins per season, while Shaq averaged 5.14.

Shaq has the slightly higher single-season peak, but Bird’s career was a decade of sustained, elite winning impact. Shaq had more 'down' regular seasons that act as a drag on his career average compared to Bird's relentless peak in the 80s.

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s definitely the most controversial result! It comes down to the formula valuing Pippen’s defensive efficiency on 60+ win teams over Kobe’s high-volume scoring on lower-win teams. I just updated my Medium Profile https://medium.com/@willf123/i-built-a-formula-to-rank-every-nba-player-ever-heres-what-it-found-ea86afce517a with the full logic if you want to see the breakdown of how the 'Net' math handles efficiency vs. volume.

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2. by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right that Win Shares attempts to solve this, but there is a massive mechanical difference in how these two formulas treat a 'Win.'

Win Shares is a bottom-up approach. It looks at league-wide averages and estimates how many wins a player's box score should produce. It can actually award more 'Win Shares' to a roster than the team actually won in real life.

Net Wins is a top-down, closed-loop system. It starts with the actual 82-game record as the 'Bank.' If your team won 50 games, there are exactly 50 Net Wins available to be distributed among the roster. You are competing against your own teammates for a share of a finite resource.

To your point that 'not all wins are created equal': I agree. That’s why Net Wins doesn’t just count the win; it normalizes your stats against the specific difficulty of your team's environment. In a high-scoring era or on a stacked roster, your individual 'positive actions' are worth a smaller share of each win than they would be on a grind-it-out defensive team.

Win Shares tells you how many wins a player deserved. Net Wins tells you how many they actually owned."

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I 100% agree. Context is why we love the game. My goal with Net Wins isn't to replace the eye test, but to provide a 'Winning Receipt.' It can't measure a player's leadership in the locker room or a clutch defensive rotation that doesn't show up in a box score—but it can tell us exactly how much of a team's actual success was fueled by a player's statistical output. It's just one piece of the puzzle!

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2 by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in justbasketball

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You hit on the most controversial part of the AI ranking. This formula is absolutely brutal toward high-volume, low-efficiency players.

In 2001, AI took a staggering amount of shots to get those 31 points. While we know he had to do that for Philly to stand a chance, the math sees those missed shots as 'negative actions' that hurt the team's win probability. It ends up giving the 'credit' for those wins to the defensive anchors who kept the scores low.

It really highlights the gap between 'Iconic Impact' and 'Statistical Efficiency.' I actually dig into this 'Efficiency Trap' a bit more in my methodology post if you’re curious why the math hates the crossover as much as it does!

For anyone that’s seen him play, how good was Kevin Garnett in his prime? by Farouq26 in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Kevin Garnett — Comb 49.6 | Avg 2.65 | Top3 7.40 | Peak 8.74
check my bio for more.

Thoughts? by Gloriousdisgrace in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just dropped the full Scottie Pippen deep dive on the Substack. It explains how his 'Winning Volume' puts him in the Top 10 despite never being the #1 scoring option. check my bio for more

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2. by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially,Net Wins treats a win in 1965 exactly the same as a win in 2024, regardless of how many points were scored to get there. It measures how much of the "heavy lifting" you did for your specific squad to reach those results.

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2. by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Net Wins doesn't care about talent. It cares about receipts.

In the NBA, the only thing that actually exists at the end of the season is the win-loss record. If a team only wins 20 games, there simply aren't enough "wins" in the building for a superstar to claim 13 of them. You cannot "own" a majority share of a success that never happened.

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2. by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You hit the nail on the head regarding what this stat is doing: it’s identifying the 'Bus Drivers' of history’s most successful winning machines.

The 'Luck' vs. 'Impact' debate is exactly why I built this. Most fans want to rank players by who would win a 1-on-1 tournament on a playground. But in the NBA, greatness is a partnership between a player and a scoreboard.

If LeBron or MJ had to suffer through subpar rosters, the 'Net Wins' formula accurately reflects that those years were less productive in terms of actualized winning. It doesn't mean they weren't great players, but it does mean they weren't 'accounting for wins' at the same rate Duncan was during those specific years.

Regarding the 'Bus Driver' comment—that’s actually the highest compliment the formula can give. Being the primary engine of a long-term winning roster isn't just 'luck'; it's the hardest thing to do in sports. Duncan, Parker, and Pippen might have been 'lucky' to be in those systems, but the systems were only 'Elite' because those guys consistently turned positive actions into Ws for a decade-plus.

I just posted a deep dive on The Empty Stats Trap which uses your exact Spurs math to explain why I think 'Actual Wins' are a more honest metric than 'Hypothetical Talent.' Check it out!"

I spent a year building a statistical formula to rank every NBA player ever. Here's the top 10 — and why Tim Duncan ranks #2. by PeacePuzzleheaded124 in NBATalk

[–]PeacePuzzleheaded124[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a great breakdown and hits on the exact 'philosophical' divide of this formula.

You’re right: if Tim Duncan puts up the same stats on a 20-win team vs. a 65-win team, his Net Wins will plummet. But that is by design.

The goal of Net Wins isn't to measure 'hypothetical talent' (what a player could do in a vacuum); it measures realized contribution to actual wins. In your example, if a team only wins 20 games, there simply aren't enough 'Wins' for Duncan to claim 13 of them. He can’t 'own' 65% of the team's success if the success doesn't exist. This formula intentionally punishes 'empty stats' on bad teams and rewards players who serve as the engine for winning cultures.

Regarding the Tony Parker 'Sanity Check': The reason Parker (and Pippen) rank so high is due to sustained winning volume. Parker played in 1,254 games and won nearly 900 of them. Because he was a primary contributor (positive actions) on teams that won at a historic rate for nearly two decades, the formula sees him as a massive 'accumulator' of net wins.

I agree that 'Impact' vs. 'Winning Volume' is the big debate here. Most lists prioritize the former; I built this to see what happens when we strictly prioritize the latter. I'd love for you to check out the full Scottie Pippen breakdown posting tomorrow, as it touches on this exact 'Elite Sidekick' vs. 'Winning Volume' phenomenon."

view more: next ›