Here are the Brucie Rankings of the Most Valuable Players at each position.

POINT GUARD
1. Chris Paul - 180.58
2. Oscar - 174.35
3. Stockton - 173.19
4. West - 155.35
5. Magic - 151.85
6. Curry - 135.38
7. Payton - 131.13
8. Nash - 123.61
9. Frazier - 122.86
10. Billups - 121.40
11. Kidd - 119.68
12. Westbrook - 115.21
13. Lillard - 114.12
14. Terry Porter - 107.15
15. Lowry - 103.17
16. Parker - 103.05
17. Kevin Johnson - 103.02
18. Cheeks - 99.50
19. Mike Conley - 96.25
20. Andre Miller - 96.03
21. Lenny Wilkins - 92.77
22. Kyrie Irving - 92.60
23. Cassell - 91.57
24. Cousy - 91.00
25. Tim Hardaway - 90.64
26. Isiah - 89.50
27. Archibald - 89.36
28. Jimmy Jones - 88.51
29. Deron Williams - 87.77
30. Mark Jackson - 87.68
31. Strickland - 87.59
32. Calvin Murphy - 87.51
33. Derek Harper - 85.75
34. Mark Price - 83.86
35. Gus Williams - 82.99
36. Marbury - 82.04
37. Dennis Johnson - 80.81
38. Blaylock - 80.40
39. Penny Hardaway - 78.71
40. Baron Davis - 77.26
41. Luka Doncic - 76.61
42. Mike Bibby - 75.92
43. Doc Rivers - 75.47
44. Archie Clark - 75.53
45. Louis Dampier - 75.01

SHOOTING GUARD
1. Jordan - 203.96
3. Harden - 155.77
3. Kobe - 155.62
4. Miller - 148.40
5. Drexler - 129.80
6. Ray Allen - 126.57
7. Wade - 124.88
8. Gervin - 116.15
9. Vince Carter - 115.65
10. McGrady - 109.74
11. Ginobli - 107.63
12. Hornacek - 106.01
13. Iverson - 104.93
14. Moncrief - 99.26
15. Eddie Jones - 97.99
16. Greer - 97.73
17. Sam Jones - 97.00
18. Jason Terry - 96.32
19. Hersey Hawkins - 93.90
20. DeRozan - 93.49
21. Bill Sharman - 90.30
22. Steve Smith - 89.42
23. Lou Hudson - 88.36
24. Dumars - 86.34
25..Walter Davis - 85.88
26. Earl Monroe - 83.28
27. Goodrich - 82.29
28. Mitch Richmond - 81.20
29. Dick Van Arsdale - 80.01
30. Dan Majerle - 79.96
31. Brent Barry - 79.91
32. Paul Westphal - 79.62
33. Joe Johnson - 79.48
34. Blackman - 79.17
35. Ricky Pierce - 78.10
36. Byron Scott - 76.93
37. Richie Guerin - 75.00

SMALL FORWARD
1. LeBron - 220.29
2. Durant - 161.57
3. Dr. J - 160.96
4. Bird - 145.23
5. Paul Pierce - 132.35
6. Dantley - 129.74
7. Rick Barry - 122.25
8. Pippen - 121.34
9. Havlicek - 121.02
10. Marion - 120.46
11. Arizin - 117.78
12. Jimmy Butler - 116.00
13. Dominique- 115.55
14. Chet Walker - 113.76
15. Baylor - 111.36
16. Kawhi Leonard - 109.73
17. Schrempf - 104.02
18. Carmelo - 102.99
19. English - 101.81
20. Grant Hill - 97.47
21. Cliff Hagan - 96.46
22. Marques Johnson - 94.44
23. Mullin - 94.13
24. Iguodala - 91.63
25. Glen Rice - 91.11
26. Rashard Lewis - 90.90
27. Worthy - 90.68
28. Paul George - 90.09
29. Stojakovic - 89.57
30. Billy Cunningham - 88.98
31. Connie Hawkins - 88.46
32. Bob Dandridge - 87.02
33. Cornbread Maxwell - 86.60
34. Vandeweghe - 86.10
35. Richard Jefferson - 84.87
36. Dale Ellis - 84.20
37. Michael Finley - 82.21
38. Twyman - 81.11
39. Bernard King - 80.13
40. Don Nelson - 80.03
41. Kirilenko - 79.25
42. Yardley - 79.07
43. Luol Deng - 78.47
44. Wilkes - 78.22
45. Mark Aguirre - 77.90
46. Battier - 77.54
47. John Drew - 76.11
48. Jerome Kersey - 75.14

POWER FORWARD
1. Mailman - 193.64
2. Nowitzki - 180.29
3. Garnett - 168.03
4. Barkley - 163.89
5. Schayes - 139.84
6. Pettit - 138.52
7. Pau Gasol - 131.69
8. McHale - 115.23
9. Hayes - 114.96
10. Greek Freak - 114.40
11. Bailey Howell - 113.24
12. Aldridge - 111.63
13. Nance - 109.67
14. Horace Grant - 109.33
15. Brand - 107.42
16. Buck Williams - 105.30
17. Stoudemire - 103.71
18. Jerry Lucas - 101.26
19. Rasheed Wallace - 99.37
20. Thorpe - 98.90
21. Shawn Kemp - 98.36
22. Kevin Love - 97.13
23. Bobby Jones - 94.45
24. Blake Griffin - 94.29
25. Cummings - 93.38
26. AC Green - 93.38
27. Webber - 92.52
28. Anthony Mason - 92.40
29. Mikkelsen - 92.23
30. Rodman - 89.97
31. Millsap - 89.92
32. Jamison - 88.68
33. David West - 87.76
34. PJ Brown - 87.12
35. Carlos Boozer - 86.85
36. George McGinnis - 86.63
37. Cliff Robinson - 86.02
38. Spencer Haywood - 85.28
39. Oakley - 85.14
40. Harry Gallatin - 85.08
41. Zach Randolph - 84.62
42. Odom - 84.29
43. Paul Silas - 83.07
44. Dale Davis - 82.58
45. Rudy T - 80.23
46. David Lee - 80.18
47. Kevin Willis - 79.40
48. Tom Chambers - 79.29
49. Larry Johnson - 77.73
50. Shareef Abdur-Rahim - 77.30
51. Happy Hairston - 76.96
52. Hot Rod Williams - 75.40
53. Maurice Lucas - 75.00

CENTER
1. Kareem - 228.52
2. Wilt - 222.13
3. Duncan - 177.17
4. Admiral - 170.16
5. Shaq - 167.89
6. Gilmore - 164.84
7. Moses - 157.55
8. Russell - 152.61
9. Olajuwon - 150.08
10. Issel - 138.40
11. Mikan - 137.19
12. Dwight Howard - 132.95
13. Jokic - 132.46
14. Parish - 126.02
15. Bellamy - 125.62
16. Ewing - 123.31
17. Anthony Davis - 118.68
18. Lanier - 117.52
19. Gobert - 113.95
20. Mutombo - 110.53
21. Beaty - 109.12
22. Ed Macauley - 107.51
23. Bosh - 105.77
24. Johnston - 105.65
25. Unseld - 105.60
26. Horford - 104.71
27. Sikma - 104.59
28. McAdoo - 102.88
29. Laimbeer - 101.33
30. DeAndre Jordan - 100.69
31. Tyson Chandler - 97.40
32. Mourning - 96.15
33. Ben Wallace - 96.10
34. Cowens - 94.34
35. Divac - 92.00
36. Willis Reed - 89.79
37. Marc Gasol - 89.68
38. Larry Foust - 88.42
39. Brook Lopez - 85.80
40. Karl-Anthony Towns - 85.20
41. Clyde Lovellette - 84.88
42. Embiid - 84.69
43. Jonas Valanciunas - 84.23
44. Brad Daugherty - 82.38
45. Marcus Camby - 82.27
46. Clint Capela - 80.95
47. Brad Miller - 80.86
48. Drummond - 80.27
49. Thurmond - 80.15
50. Yao Ming - 79.77
51. Bill Cartwright - 78.81
52. Nenê - 77.00
53. Valanciunas - 76.95
54. Michael Cage - 75.84
55. Alvan Adams - 75.74
56. Ilgauskas - 75.26

Do you include playoff statistics in your metric? I think that would be important to add as some players are known to shrink and some are known to rise during the playoffs.
I also think you should add something that balances out quality over quantity. Some of those guys are up so high just because they had really long careers (Issel for example)

Stockton > Magic - nice I always said that if two guys play at the same position during the same era and one is routinely in the MVP conversation and winning titles and the other is routinely getting bounced early in the playoffs you have to go with the second guy

obviously

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 9:30:00 AM (view original):
Stockton > Magic - nice I always said that if two guys play at the same position during the same era and one is routinely in the MVP conversation and winning titles and the other is routinely getting bounced early in the playoffs you have to go with the second guy

obviously

I didn't realize they were playing one on one. So I guess that Horace Grant was much better than Charles Barkley because Grant was always going deep in the playoffs while Barkley was bounced out before the finals every time but once. Thank you for hipping me to your sophisticated system.

Suppose one guy is playing at all star level and the other guy is 32 years old, 33 years old, 34 years old and 35 years old and is sitting home playing with himself because he couldn't keep his **** in his pants? Who do you go with then?

I don't know how many times I will keep having to explain this, but my rankings are NOT Telling you who was the better player when they both are in the game. My rankings are telling you how much value each player created over the course of their career, and at their peak.

WIN SHARES/48
Stockton - .209
Magic ----- .251

CAREER MINUTES PLAYED
Stockton - 47764
Magic ----- 33241

Let me try and put this another way so maybe EVEN YOU will be able to understand it. Which of these 2 choices would yield you more money?

If I gave you $209 for 47,764 times? Or is I give you $251 for 33,241 times?

$209 X 47764 = 9,982,676
$251 X 33241 = 8,343,491

So, quality of play times length of play yields more value for Stockton than for Magic.

when your system says AC Green was a better player than Grant Hill because he was OK for a long time your system might have some gaps that need reviewing

Posted by samuelyork93 on 4/16/2025 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Do you include playoff statistics in your metric? I think that would be important to add as some players are known to shrink and some are known to rise during the playoffs.
I also think you should add something that balances out quality over quantity. Some of those guys are up so high just because they had really long careers (Issel for example)

STEP 1 - CAREER WIN SHARES + BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES DIVIDED BY TWO.

I am going to go through a calculation of a player's rating step by step. Let's go with Chris Paul.

Counting the current season, Chris Paul has 215.13 win shares, which, by the way, is 5th all time after Kareem, LeBron, Wilt and Karl Malone.. His best 7 seasons of win shares are 17.8, 18.3, 16.1, 13.9, 13.9, 12.7 and 12.7. Add those 7 numbers up and you get 105.4.

So 215.13 and 105.4 = 320.53 - Divided by 2 it gives us 160.265

STEP 2 - ADD IN PLAYER'S PLAYER EFFICIENSY RATING IN THE PLAYOFFS

Chris Paul's PER in the playoffs is 23.18, which is the 17th best of all time.

So we add 160.265 and 21.18 and that comes to 181.445 which gets rounded to 181.45. That number will change slightly when the entire season is over as Paul is still accumulating stats.

Before this season started here are the top 10 players in the Brucie Rankings.

01. Kareem - 228.52
02. Wilt - 222.13
03. LeBron - 220.29
04. Jordan - 203.96
05. Mailman - 193.64
06. Chris Paul - 180.58 (181.45 right now)
07. Nowitzki - 180.29
08. Duncan - 177.17
09. Oscar - 174.35
10. Stockton - 173.19

So Chris will go up slightly after this season, but has no chance to catch Malone for 4th place at this point. He's not playing near well enough, and won't play near long enough to make up the 12+ point difference between him and the Mailman. But he ranks as the most valuable PG of all time already. His current season is very good for a 39 year old PG. His WS/48 is .120 and he has played 2292 minutes and so far accumulated 5.7 win shares. He hasn't been a superstar now in the last 3 years and has not been a star in the last 2 years. But he is around league average for a PG and his level of play has gone down over 10% in each of the last 3 seasons. This could be it for him, although he's still good enough to be a backup next year if he wants to play.

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 10:34:00 AM (view original):
when your system says AC Green was a better player than Grant Hill because he was OK for a long time your system might have some gaps that need reviewing

Sigh!

Once again,

MY SYSTEM DOES NOT MEASURE WHO IS BETTER!

MY SYSTEM MEASURES THE VALUE THAT EACH PLAYER CREATED.

DURING ALL OF HIS INJURIES GRANT HILL CREATED ZERO VALUE.

AND!

My system DOES NOT Have Green ranked above Hill.

101. DeRozan - 98.96
102. Thorpe - 98.90
103. Shawn Kemp - 98.36
104. Eddie Jones - 97.99
105. Hal Greer - 97.73
106. Grant Hill - 97.47
107. Tyson Chandler - 97.40
108. Kevin Love - 97.13
109. Sam Jones - 97.00
110. Cliff Hagan - 96.46
111. Jason Terry - 96.32
112. Mike Conley - 96.25
113. Mourning - 96.15
114. Ben Wallace - 96.10
115. Andre Miller - 96.03
116. Paul George - 95.17
117. Bobby Jones - 94.45
118. Marques Johnson - 94.44
119. Blake Griffin - 94.29
120. Mullin - 94.13
121. Cowens - 94.34
122. Hersey Hawkins - 93.90
123. Cummings - 93.38
124. AC Green - 93.38
125. Lenny Wilkins - 92.77


AC Green had 99.5 win shares. His career WS/48 was .131. He played 36552 minutes.
Grant Hill had almost the exact same number of win shares, 99.9. He played 34776 minutes. His career WS/48 was .138

If Green was just OK at .131 WS/48, Hill was also just OK at .138. Maybe a kunt hair better than OK.

Hill is ranked above Green by around 4 points. They are both where they belong.

Hill has the better peak with 4 seasons of 10+ win shares while Green never got to 10 and had just one season at 9 or better.

Hill had the better peak, but Green played about 1800 more minutes. Neither guy was very good in the playoffs. They both are below the top 250 players in playoff PER.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by samuelyork93 on 4/16/2025 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Do you include playoff statistics in your metric? I think that would be important to add as some players are known to shrink and some are known to rise during the playoffs.
I also think you should add something that balances out quality over quantity. Some of those guys are up so high just because they had really long careers (Issel for example)

Obviously you have been too busy laughing ignorantly to actually read my formula, which has been posted at least 3 times already in this thread. So let me show you how it works step by step slowly so even an imbecile can comprehend it.

STEP 1 - CAREER WIN SHARES + BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES DIVIDED BY TWO.

I am going to go through a calculation of a player's rating step by step. Let's go with Chris Paul.

Counting the current season, Chris Paul has 215.13 win shares, which, by the way, is 5th all time after Kareem, LeBron, Wilt and Karl Malone.. His best 7 seasons of win shares are 17.8, 18.3, 16.1, 13.9, 13.9, 12.7 and 12.7. Add those 7 numbers up and you get 105.4.

So 215.13 and 105.4 = 320.53 - Divided by 2 it gives us 160.265

STEP 2 - ADD IN PLAYER'S PLAYER EFFICIENSY RATING IN THE PLAYOFFS

Chris Paul's PER in the playoffs is 23.18, which is the 17th best of all time.

So we add 160.265 and 21.18 and that comes to 181.445 which gets rounded to 181.45. That number will change slightly when the entire season is over as Paul is still accumulating stats.

Before this season started here are the top 10 players in the Brucie Rankings.

01. Kareem - 228.52
02. Wilt - 222.13
03. LeBron - 220.29
04. Jordan - 203.96
05. Mailman - 193.64
06. Chris Paul - 180.58 (181.45 right now)
07. Nowitzki - 180.29
08. Duncan - 177.17
09. Oscar - 174.35
10. Stockton - 173.19

So Chris will go up slightly after this season, but has no chance to catch Malone for 4th place at this point. He's not playing near well enough, and won't play near long enough to make up the 12+ point difference between him and the Mailman. But he ranks as the most valuable PG of all time already. His current season is very good for a 39 year old PG. His WS/48 is .120 and he has played 2292 minutes and so far accumulated 5.7 win shares. He hasn't been a superstar now in the last 3 years and has not been a star in the last 2 years. But he is around league average for a PG and his level of play has gone down over 10% in each of the last 3 seasons. This could be it for him, although he's still good enough to be a backup next year if he wants to play.

This is what I was talking about savoy. I asked a simple question and missed the full breakdown as this thread is now 7 pages long. But NO you accuse me of "laughing ignorantly" and call me an imbecile.
I asked a simple question to try and understand you reasoning and take your data seriously. But instead you belittle me and hurl insults my way.
Sorry you wasted your time explaining all that because after the insults I stopped reading.
Have a good day.

Posted by samuelyork93 on 4/16/2025 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by samuelyork93 on 4/16/2025 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Do you include playoff statistics in your metric? I think that would be important to add as some players are known to shrink and some are known to rise during the playoffs.
I also think you should add something that balances out quality over quantity. Some of those guys are up so high just because they had really long careers (Issel for example)

Obviously you have been too busy laughing ignorantly to actually read my formula, which has been posted at least 3 times already in this thread. So let me show you how it works step by step slowly so even an imbecile can comprehend it.

STEP 1 - CAREER WIN SHARES + BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES DIVIDED BY TWO.

I am going to go through a calculation of a player's rating step by step. Let's go with Chris Paul.

Counting the current season, Chris Paul has 215.13 win shares, which, by the way, is 5th all time after Kareem, LeBron, Wilt and Karl Malone.. His best 7 seasons of win shares are 17.8, 18.3, 16.1, 13.9, 13.9, 12.7 and 12.7. Add those 7 numbers up and you get 105.4.

So 215.13 and 105.4 = 320.53 - Divided by 2 it gives us 160.265

STEP 2 - ADD IN PLAYER'S PLAYER EFFICIENSY RATING IN THE PLAYOFFS

Chris Paul's PER in the playoffs is 23.18, which is the 17th best of all time.

So we add 160.265 and 21.18 and that comes to 181.445 which gets rounded to 181.45. That number will change slightly when the entire season is over as Paul is still accumulating stats.

Before this season started here are the top 10 players in the Brucie Rankings.

01. Kareem - 228.52
02. Wilt - 222.13
03. LeBron - 220.29
04. Jordan - 203.96
05. Mailman - 193.64
06. Chris Paul - 180.58 (181.45 right now)
07. Nowitzki - 180.29
08. Duncan - 177.17
09. Oscar - 174.35
10. Stockton - 173.19

So Chris will go up slightly after this season, but has no chance to catch Malone for 4th place at this point. He's not playing near well enough, and won't play near long enough to make up the 12+ point difference between him and the Mailman. But he ranks as the most valuable PG of all time already. His current season is very good for a 39 year old PG. His WS/48 is .120 and he has played 2292 minutes and so far accumulated 5.7 win shares. He hasn't been a superstar now in the last 3 years and has not been a star in the last 2 years. But he is around league average for a PG and his level of play has gone down over 10% in each of the last 3 seasons. This could be it for him, although he's still good enough to be a backup next year if he wants to play.

This is what I was talking about savoy. I asked a simple question and missed the full breakdown as this thread is now 7 pages long. But NO you accuse me of "laughing ignorantly" and call me an imbecile.
I asked a simple question to try and understand you reasoning and take your data seriously. But instead you belittle me and hurl insults my way.
Sorry you wasted your time explaining all that because after the insults I stopped reading.
Have a good day.

Sam, I have to apologize. I checked back and you did come into the thread nice at first. Chalk my outburst up to the cumulative effect of the bombardment I am taking from several different fools in this thread. Please go back and read my answer. I will delete the insults I hurled at you.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 9:30:00 AM (view original):
Stockton > Magic - nice I always said that if two guys play at the same position during the same era and one is routinely in the MVP conversation and winning titles and the other is routinely getting bounced early in the playoffs you have to go with the second guy

obviously

I didn't realize they were playing one on one. So I guess that Horace Grant was much better than Charles Barkley because Grant was always going deep in the playoffs while Barkley was bounced out before the finals every time but once. Thank you for hipping me to your sophisticated system.

Suppose one guy is playing at all star level and the other guy is 32 years old, 33 years old, 34 years old and 35 years old and is sitting home playing with himself because he couldn't keep his **** in his pants? Who do you go with then?

I don't know how many times I will keep having to explain this, but my rankings are NOT Telling you who was the better player when they both are in the game. My rankings are telling you how much value each player created over the course of their career, and at their peak.

WIN SHARES/48
Stockton - .209
Magic ----- .251

CAREER MINUTES PLAYED
Stockton - 47764
Magic ----- 33241

Let me try and put this another way so maybe EVEN YOU will be able to understand it. Which of these 2 choices would yield you more money?

If I gave you $209 for 47,764 times? Or is I give you $251 for 33,241 times?

$209 X 47764 = 9,982,676
$251 X 33241 = 8,343,491

So, quality of play times length of play yields more value for Stockton than for Magic.

I think everyone here understands that your formula is looking at career value. I think we all also agree that it’s not a good way to look at it.

You’d really rather draft rookie Thaddeus Young over rookie Bill Walton if you’re a GM? You’d rather have the guy giving you $0.25 a million times than the guy giving you $100,000 a few times before retiring? Considering that you are paying that first player for longer and he’s taking up a roster spot

Let me run the ratings for Thaddeus Young and Walton.

Bill Walton had exactly 2 great seasons in his career, and even in those 2 seasons he played a total of just 123 games.

Walton - Career win shares - 39.3. Career WS/48 - .142. So he was nowhere near a career superstar, and was only even a good player in 2 other seasons aside from his 2 great seasons he played about 2700 minutes total combined.

So Walton is 39.3 + his best 7 seasons which come to 36.6. Add those together and divide by 2 and you get 37.95. Then we add in his PER in the playoffs, which is 20.0, and we get 57.95. He did not play enough career playoff minutes to make the leaderboards, but 20.0 would tie him for 60th all time with of all players, Dan Issel.

So Walton's overall rating is 57.95.

Now Thaddeus Young.

He has 71.94 career win shares. His best 7 seasons win shares come to 42.0. Add those 2 numbers together and divide by 2 and you get 56.97. We now add in his career PER in the playoffs which is 14.54. So his final rating is 71.51.

RATING
Young -- 71.51
Walton - 57.95

So yes, I would be more inclined to take Young's 33012 minutes than to take Walton's 13250 minutes if I had to take one of the other and play him for his entire career. . Although it's close enough and the level of play difference is wide enough where I'd have to consider Walton depending upon my team's situation. If I had to take one or the other in this league I might take a chance on getting one of Walton's 4 good seasons if I needed like 20 minutes a game at PF/C.

Young had about 8 seasons where he was a well above average player, and in those seasons he's be an excellent 18 minutes a game guy at PF. Walton had just 4 seasons where he would be good or better out of 13 seasons that would be picked from in this sim. So you'd have a 31% chance of getting a seasons where he would help you. With Young you'd be pulling from 17 seasons and have 8 seasons that would help you, at least as a backup. So you'd have a 47% chance of getting a useful season from him. Other than the 4 good Walton seasons, the other 9 seasons he either was well below league average, or he hardly played, or did not play at all with season long injuries.

So Walton was like 40% better than Young per minute, but played so few minutes in his career that I think you'd be better off taking Young. Don't forget that if you have Walton in a season where he did not play at all due to injuries, or hardly played, that you'd be paying him a lot of money and getting nothing at all.

I'd take Young, and especially if this was real life where the average team is much worse than the average team in this league.

This is ridiculous, no offense.

You're not factoring in that by rostering a player, you have to pay them part of your salary cap. You also are taking away a roster spot and minutes from another guy. Think VORP. You’re looking at this as if it’s additive. Minutes are a resource. You can only play 240 minutes per regulation game. When you play an average guy for 30 minutes, that only leaves 210 minutes for you to try to get an advantage on your opponent.

You want (or *should* want) the highest quality minutes. Drafting an MVP caliber player who only plays a few years and then is off your books should be seen as WAY WAY WAY more valuable than a guy who will be “meh” for 20 seasons, while also collecting a paycheck for 20 seasons, taking up a roster spot for 20 seasons, etc.

You should rethink what you want to measure, imo.

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 1:34:00 PM (view original):
This is ridiculous, no offense.

You're not factoring in that by rostering a player, you have to pay them part of your salary cap. You also are taking away a roster spot and minutes from another guy. Think VORP. You’re looking at this as if it’s additive. Minutes are a resource. You can only play 240 minutes per regulation game. When you play an average guy for 30 minutes, that only leaves 210 minutes for you to try to get an advantage on your opponent.

You want (or *should* want) the highest quality minutes. Drafting an MVP caliber player who only plays a few years and then is off your books should be seen as WAY WAY WAY more valuable than a guy who will be “meh” for 20 seasons, while also collecting a paycheck for 20 seasons, taking up a roster spot for 20 seasons, etc.

You should rethink what you want to measure, imo.

My rankings are not made for playing this sim. And certainly not for this league, where there is no salary cap. If this league was real life trading would be a lot different. First off in real life you don't get to know ahead of time that the player's season will be bad, or heavily injury prone.

As I said, the teams in this league and in this sim in general are far better than an average real life team. None of us is gonna play someone with an eFG in the low 40s or worse, but lots of those guys play in real life. And in real life you can't just cut Walton from your roster if he's gonna miss the season. You have to put him on the injury list and pay him his full salary for the season. He played 13 seasons. If you take him for his entire career in real life it would be 14 seasons. And you'd have to keep him and keep paying his salary. He only played 4 fewer seasons than Young, and surely was higher paid for his era and than Young was paid in his era.

I wouldn't want either of these guys in this league. I think I would be able to do better than Young would be in most of his seasons, and I don't like the odds of pulling a real useful Walton season. Even in his 2 great seasons he only played 2264 and 1929 minutes. That works out to 25.6 minutes per game across 164 games.

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 1:34:00 PM (view original):
This is ridiculous, no offense.

You're not factoring in that by rostering a player, you have to pay them part of your salary cap. You also are taking away a roster spot and minutes from another guy. Think VORP. You’re looking at this as if it’s additive. Minutes are a resource. You can only play 240 minutes per regulation game. When you play an average guy for 30 minutes, that only leaves 210 minutes for you to try to get an advantage on your opponent.

You want (or *should* want) the highest quality minutes. Drafting an MVP caliber player who only plays a few years and then is off your books should be seen as WAY WAY WAY more valuable than a guy who will be “meh” for 20 seasons, while also collecting a paycheck for 20 seasons, taking up a roster spot for 20 seasons, etc.

You should rethink what you want to measure, imo.

The system is really designed for ranking that all time greatest players rather than for ranking mediocre players.

In baseball WAR works very well for average players, but I prefer to rank great players based on WAA instead. With WAR you get positive credit for being a below league average player. In WAA you get a negative for being below a league average player. League average players have value. Lots of teams lost pennant because they could not find a league average player at a certain position. But when ranking all time great we need not be concerned with guys who accrued value by being around league average for many years.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 1:34:00 PM (view original):
This is ridiculous, no offense.

You're not factoring in that by rostering a player, you have to pay them part of your salary cap. You also are taking away a roster spot and minutes from another guy. Think VORP. You’re looking at this as if it’s additive. Minutes are a resource. You can only play 240 minutes per regulation game. When you play an average guy for 30 minutes, that only leaves 210 minutes for you to try to get an advantage on your opponent.

You want (or *should* want) the highest quality minutes. Drafting an MVP caliber player who only plays a few years and then is off your books should be seen as WAY WAY WAY more valuable than a guy who will be “meh” for 20 seasons, while also collecting a paycheck for 20 seasons, taking up a roster spot for 20 seasons, etc.

You should rethink what you want to measure, imo.

My rankings are not made for playing this sim. And certainly not for this league, where there is no salary cap. If this league was real life trading would be a lot different. First off in real life you don't get to know ahead of time that the player's season will be bad, or heavily injury prone.

As I said, the teams in this league and in this sim in general are far better than an average real life team. None of us is gonna play someone with an eFG in the low 40s or worse, but lots of those guys play in real life. And in real life you can't just cut Walton from your roster if he's gonna miss the season. You have to put him on the injury list and pay him his full salary for the season. He played 13 seasons. If you take him for his entire career in real life it would be 14 seasons. And you'd have to keep him and keep paying his salary. He only played 4 fewer seasons than Young, and surely was higher paid for his era and than Young was paid in his era.

I wouldn't want either of these guys in this league. I think I would be able to do better than Young would be in most of his seasons, and I don't like the odds of pulling a real useful Walton season. Even in his 2 great seasons he only played 2264 and 1929 minutes. That works out to 25.6 minutes per game across 164 games.

I wasn’t walking about WIS, I was talking about the NBA. You are aware there’s a salary cap in the NBA, no?

Forget your rankings. Just think about if you were at the podium and your choices were a 21-year old Bill Walton, and a 21-year old Thaddeus Young. Even knowing that Walton will only give you ~4 good years, you are really going with Thad?! Does that sound right to you?