Who is better, McCracken or Bellamy?
Walt Bellamy leads with a GOAT score of 83.8 against 83.7 for Jack McCracken — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Walt Bellamy above Jack McCracken: 83.8 vs 83.7. Walt Bellamy leads on Statistics, Peak. Jack McCracken leads on Dominance, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Bellamy wins: Peak, Statistics
McCracken wins: Dominance, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/jack-mccracken-vs-walt-bellamy
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Bellamy 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 McCracken | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 90 |
| 🇺🇸 Bellamy | 0 | 0 | 70 | 167 | 429 | 712 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | McCrackenRetired | BellamyRetired |
|---|---|---|
| AAU All-America selections | 8 | — |
| AAU national titles | 2 | — |
| Seasons played | 16 | — |
| Hall of Fame inductions | 1 | — |
| Career points per game | 12 | — |
| Rookie of the Year awards | — | 1 |
| All-Star selections | — | 4 |
| Career points | — | 20,941 |
| Career rebounds | — | 14,241 |
| Olympic gold medals | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 90 |
Walt Bellamy leads with a GOAT score of 83.8 against 83.7 for Jack McCracken — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
McCracken scores higher on dominance, honours. Bellamy leads on peak, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. McCracken: 83.7, Bellamy: 83.8.
Make your case for McCracken vs Bellamy. 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.