|1991||1||1||6|| 15 (10 for 1500m, 5 for AOY)|
|1993||1||1||1||2|| 24 (10 for 1500m, 10 for AOY, 4 for POY)|
|1994||1||1||1||1||1|| 25 (10 for 1500m, 10 for AOY, 5 for POY)|
|1995||1||2||4||5|| 18 (10 for 1500m, 7 for AOY, 1 for POY)|
|1996||1||10|| 11 (10 for 1500m, 1 for AOY)|
Even in a year where he ranked in multiple events, Morceli can't score more than 10 points from them. If this practice were not in force, athletes who specialized in one event couldn't possibly compare.
The only way Morceli gets more than 10 in a year is if he made the top ten in the Athlete of the Year rankings (scored 10 for #1 on down to 1 for #10) or the top five in the Performance of the Year rankings (5 points for #1 on down to 1 for #5).
For his career totals, we take his best 4-year span, total it, and double. That's '93 to '96.
(24+25+18+11)*2 = 156
We take the rest of his best eight-year span ('90 to '97) and add that in.
156 + (10+15+10+6) = 197
And then the rest of his career is taken at half value.
197 + (7+6)/2 = 203.5
Why do I do it this way? There's a wide variance in career length between athletes, especially when comparing those from different generations. The Olympic cycle meant that most athletes would stick it out for a quadrennium. So that's considered the most important.
Being able to keep up greatness for a longer period of time does help, though, so I took a longer view at a lower level. Beyond eight years is pure longevity, which should just pad an athlete's numbers.
Next up: my current top 50...