Who is better, Houbregs or Young?
Bob Houbregs leads with a GOAT score of 76.6 against 76.4 for Trae Young — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Bob Houbregs above Trae Young: 76.6 vs 76.4. Bob Houbregs leads on Honours, Longevity. Trae Young leads on Statistics, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Houbregs wins: Longevity, Honours
Young wins: Dominance, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/bob-houbregs-vs-trae-young
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Houbregs leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 Houbregs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 59.6 | 96 |
| 🇺🇸 Young | 0 | 0 | 19.1 | 48.7 | 128.6 | 178.5 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HoubregsRetired | YoungActive · Washington Wizards |
|---|---|---|
| National Player of the Year awards | 1 | — |
| NCAA Final Four appearances | 1 | — |
| NBA seasons | 5 | — |
| Career NBA points per game | 9.3 | — |
| Hall of Fame inductions | 1 | — |
| All-Star selections | — | 4 |
| Assist titles | — | 2 |
| Points per game peak | — | 29.6 |
| Career assists per game | — | 9.5 |
| All-NBA teams | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 72 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 66 | 64 |
| Honours w20% | 76 | 70 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 90 |
Bob Houbregs leads with a GOAT score of 76.6 against 76.4 for Trae Young — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Young scores higher on dominance, statistics. Houbregs leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Houbregs: 76.6, Young: 76.4.
Make your case for Houbregs vs Young. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.