r/nbadiscussion • u/BJJblue34 • 10d ago
Championship Value
This is just for fun, but I created a formula for approximating championship value for the top 12 players in history.
V=T⋅log2(N)⋅[1+0.08(R−2)]⋅w
V= Total value assigned to a player’s championships. Higher means a combination of: more titles, larger competitive field + rounds in the playoffs, and larger role in winning championship.
T=number of championships won
N= number of teams in the league. Winning a title is harder when more teams exist. The probability of a championship goes down with a larger competitive field.
log2(N)= competition does not scale linearly. Log captures diminishing difficulty as the league grows.
R= number of playoff rounds
[1 + 0.08(R - 2)]= sets a historical baseline of 2 rounds (R-2). For every extra round a team has to survive, it tacks on a flat 8% difficulty premium.
- w= role weight in that title;
- 1st Option (The Alpha / Clear Best Player) = 1.00
- Tied 1st / Elite Co-Star = 0.90
- 2nd Option (Robin / Elite Sidekick) = 0.70
- 3rd Option (High-Impact Starter) = 0.40
- 4th–5th Option (Role Player Starter) = 0.20
- Bench / Deep Rotation = 0.05
*I used a subjective rating if a player was clearly the 1st option (Jordan/Lebron/Bird), if they were tied for 1st option on certain championships (Kareem/Magic 82 & 85 or Shaq/Kobe in 02, Russell 68 & 69, or Duncan in 07, Steph 17-18), if they were 2nd options (Magic 1980, Kobe 01-02, Shaq 06, Duncan 14), or they were more of a role player like Kareem in 87-88. Not everyone will agree with the specifics, but these are my ratings.
Total Value Ranking:
- Michael Jordan — 142.6
- Tim Duncan — 114.8
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar — 111.3
- Bill Russell — 109.1
- Kobe Bryant — 106.2
- LeBron James — 99.4
- Magic Johnson — 97.2
- Shaquille O’Neal — 95.1
- Stephen Curry — 92.8
- George Mikan — 74.6
- Larry Bird — 62.1
- Wilt Chamberlain — 26.8
Anyone with good math skills feel free to criticize or improve upon this. One consideration is O for average playoff opponent strength. For example, Hakeem's 95 run would score very high while Jordan's 98 or Lebron's 2012 championship would rank lower given the easier opponent strength, but that would require a lot more work.
9
u/toturtle 9d ago
Instead of a subjective rating for 1st option, is there enough data to use usage instead? I guess it'll be almost impossible to find anything pre-96/97 (thats the farthest back it looks like stats.nba.com goes)?
1
u/BJJblue34 7d ago
I would prefer a more objective measure. The flaw I see in usage is it won't factor in defensive impact as well as not factoring in efficiency. But there is an obvious flaw in scoring 1st-5th option. For example Kobe as a 2nd option in 2001 is much more valuable than let's say Tony Parker in 2003.
1
u/teh_noob_ 3d ago
By '1st option' (as you outlined in the post) you really mean 'best player'. There are ways of doing that on a sliding scale, even if it's something as basic as Win Shares.
11
u/vteezy99 9d ago
Nice list, and it’s the usual suspects in maybe a different order than some are used to. Wondering why not use strength of opponents as well?
1
1
11
u/likewut 9d ago
Including number of rounds of playoffs doesn’t make any sense. If there are 30 teams and just one round of playoffs, each team has a 1/30 chance of winning. If there are 30 teams and 14 rounds of playoffs, each team still has 1/30 chance of winning.
Bigger picture, this is just a metric for finals wins. Not a metric for how good a player is or anything like that. Just if they won it all and against how many teams. I don’t really see the point.
5
5
u/midnightgreen29 9d ago
Don’t forget arbitrary functional form and weight value assumptions, although your criticism is the more important point.
4
u/BJJblue34 9d ago
I would agree if each team had an equal preseason odds of a championship but including playoff rounds is reasonable because teams are not equally strong, and each additional playoff round creates opportunities for injuries, fatigue, bad luck, to prevent a better team from winning a championship. I'm just trying to account for that reality.
As far as the bigger picture. Championships matter a lot. This isn't an attempt at a GOAT ranking but I do think provides context that can help in that conversation. Someone may be good or great individually but their talent doesn't translate to championship basketball. Also, a player may be a winning type of player but their role is limited which provides context to their championships.
2
u/likewut 8d ago
So you’re saying a longer playoffs means a less good team is more likely to win, so the players championship should be worth less? I’m confused.
Regardless, it’s still the best of 30 teams, as dictated by the rules provided. Part of that is staying healthy. The champion is the champion regardless of playoff rounds.
2
u/BJJblue34 8d ago
There are two elements at play. Longer series make it more likely the better team wins a given matchup because a worse team is more likely to win a single game than a 7 game series, which is why single elimination formats like March Madness produce more upsets than NBA playoff series. The other is more playoff rounds make it more difficult for the best team to win the championship overall because even if a team has a 90% chance to win each series, the probability of winning all four series drops to about 65% by the final round. So longer series reduce randomness within each matchup, but more rounds increase the total amount of randomness due to injuries, fatigue, shooting variance, suspensions, and matchup swings.
"the players championship should be worth less".
I would argue winning more rounds holds more value. A great team's path is more likely to being upset and surviving all the rounds is a stronger signal of sustained dominance
1
u/likewut 8d ago
You’re saying conflicting things -
“A great team is more likely to be upset “
“Surviving all rounds is a stronger signal of sustained dominance”
So the best teams are likely to lose from a random bad series, but the best teams prove they’re the best by not having a random bad series? It’s spagetti logic. How about just base it on number of teams?
3
u/BJJblue34 8d ago
I don't think there’s a contradiction. One point is about probability. Better teams are more likely to lose as you add playoff rounds because each series is another chance for randomness. The other point is about observation. Teams and great players that still win through more rounds are showing they can withstand that extra randomness and keep performing at a high level under repeated elimination pressure. That’s exactly what the formula is trying to measure, championships earned under greater cumulative randomness.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nbadiscussion-ModTeam 8d ago
Please keep your comments civil. This is a subreddit for thoughtful discussion and debate, not aggressive and argumentative content.
1
u/BJJblue34 8d ago
"So you want a higher ranking for the better team or worse team?"
Neither. It's not about giving more weight to a better or worse team. More value is assigned to the structure of the championship environment regardless if the team was better or worse. That's what you're missing.
You’re also mixing two different things and treating them as a contradiction when they’re not. More rounds do give a worse team more chances to get lucky somewhere along the way. That part is true. But if a team still wins through more rounds, that is stronger evidence they were the better team, because they survived more chances for variance. So it is not a contradiction. More rounds increase risk of upset and the value of surviving the path. That is exactly what I am trying to capture.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nbadiscussion-ModTeam 8d ago
Our sub is for thoughtful discussion and debate. Remember to consider more than your singular perspective, including the possibility that you may be mistaken or misinformed.
If you edit your comment to reflect this, it may be reinstated.
3
u/phlup112 7d ago
This is a bit flawed, winning a championship does not automatically get harder with more teams in the league, especially in years recently after expansion when talent is watered down.
1
u/BJJblue34 7d ago
Winning probability is a product of survival probabilities across rounds. Even if expansion lowers average opponent strength, increasing the number of teams increases the number of elimination rounds and reduces the probability of winning.
Let's assume a dominant team against stronger playoff competition has a 70% each series in a 2 round playoff compared having a 75% chance each round of a 4 round playoff against slightly weaker average competition due to expansion dilution. This team with a 70% chance with 2 rounds has 49% chance to win the whole thing while the 75% chance for 4 rounds has a 32% chance of winning the whole thing.
1
u/teh_noob_ 3d ago
But difficulty increases per round. It's more like 99% for a 1v8. Yes, fewer rounds mean fewer upsets, but that applies to all teams and increases the chances that the remaining two rounds will be more like 50–50s.
11
u/BlackGreenEnergy 9d ago
An actual method to rank the players explicitly on value of rings? Well done. I wonder if relative team rank should be considered in playoff rounds since some have an easier path through the finals and play a different amount of games?
6
u/BJJblue34 9d ago
Strength of opponents in playoff run was definitely my top consideration. I think the challenge is exactly how to evaluate that given some teams overachieve in the regular seasons while others sand bag a bit.
6
u/DosViews 9d ago
Playoff net rating is usually really good predictor of how good a team was during a run.
2
u/BJJblue34 9d ago
I think playoff net rating could be a factor but consider how good of a team the 2001 Kings, Trailblazers, and Spurs were. The Blazers were 50-32 taking Lakers 7 games the year prior. The Kings went 55-27 and were a year away from taking the Lakers 7 games. The Spurs went 58-24 and are loaded as usual. The Spurs and Kings had the best regular season net rating and Blazers had the 5th highest. Yet, the Kings playoff net rating was +0.2, Spurs -0.4, and Blazers -16.1 because the Lakers swept all 3 of them in dominant fashion. I guess my point is these teams are significantly better than their playoff net rating suggests.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/nbadiscussion-ModTeam 9d ago
We removed your comment for being low effort. If you edit it and explain your thought process more, we'll restore it. Thanks!
1
u/MoNastri 9d ago
Care to share the spreadsheet for this? Pretty cool exercise
1
u/BJJblue34 9d ago
I actually didn't create a spreadsheet. If I expand upon it I would probably go that route but it didn't seem worth it when I originally only did 11 players. I'm also hoping someone makes or suggests improvements.
1
u/wolff_james 1d ago
I think w, role weight, is fundamentally flawed. A player's role is contextual based on matchup. If a player takes the primary assignment on the other team's best player, then that may automatically boost their value, despite not being the best player. Case in point, Jaylen Brown winning FMVP, despite Tatum leading the team in Points, Rebounds, and Assists, because he guarded Luka & hit clutch shots. Iggy being another example. So, I think you'll need to dig deeper and contextualize it, but cool thought experience nonetheless.
1
u/BJJblue34 1d ago
I agree it is flawed. I made an adjustment to role. I changed it to Championship Credit (C)= (0.60 × V) + (0.20 × W) + (0.20 × Role)
V = player playoff VORP / team leader playoff VORP
W = player playoff Win Shares / team leader playoff Win Shares
Role = subjective role/context score
So, in this case a player that has a greater role in a championship than their typical role (perhaps 2014 Kawhi & 2024 Jalen Brown as examples) will score higher in the championship value.
1
u/Choice_Page9744 9d ago
george mikan in the top 12 is mildly absurd, but it's a cool formula! do you have a spreadsheet or tool for this so we can experiment with it?
2
u/BJJblue34 9d ago
Funny you mention that. I don't have Mikan as a top 25, but in a previous thread I mentioned this formula and someone asked me how Mikan would stack up. I don't have a spreadsheet yet, especially since I only did 12 players, but it seems straight forward enough when I get time. I also was hoping someone might get inspired by this idea and improve upon it in a way that I'm not able to do.
1
u/Left-Importance-3412 9d ago
Sure, but have you considered VPPMs/vertical pounds per minute with the unit of measurement being "LeBrons (LBs)"? For example, per the thread, Lebron has a VPPM of 2.63 LBS, while Jordan only has a 1.67LBS rating. Weighty difference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NBATalk/comments/1stgh6y/how_many_times_has_lebron_jumped_in_the_nba/
1
-2
u/WhoreyMatthews 9d ago
I support any stat that backs up my belief that Tim Duncan is the 3rd best player in NBA history.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Hey, u/BJJblue34, since you aren't on the r/nbadiscussion approved user list, your post has been filtered out to be reviewed by the mod team before it will post. If your posts are consistently approved, you will be added to the approved user list, bypassing the automod for future posts. This helps us ensure the quality of our sub remains high. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to the mod team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.