Your Favorite Actors May Not Be as Good as You Think

Some might be better. We ran the numbers.

“Hackman was just another working actor, alternating between theater gigs and TV series one-offs when he was cast in a small part opposite Warren Beatty in Lilith (1964); Beatty was so blown away by their scene together that he reportedly told director Robert Rossen, “I gotta not lose this guy.” Years later, when director Arthur Penn was looking to cast Clyde’s older brother, Buck, Beatty remembered Hackman — and the 37-year-old actor suddenly found himself co-starring in one of the defining films of the 1960s. From the second he shows up, affectionately mock fighting with his younger sibling, you get an incredible sense of the way that Hackman fills up the space onscreen. (He long credited Penn as teaching him to act to the camera.) His Buck virtually leaps over the teller’s window during their first robbery. And when it came time to film his death scene, Hackman rehearsed the moment by running around his motel room “on all fours, trying to emulate the movements of a bull that had been wounded in the back of the neck and is dying.” The result earned him his first of five Oscar nominations. A movie star was born. —David Fear, Rolling Stone

When Gene Hackman died, I did what I usually do when an artist of note passes: I scanned the homages on Twitter/X, read the NYT obit, found one or two definitive write-ups, and watched/rewatched a representative selection of his movies. It took me two weeks to feel I did justice to his broad, deep, and varied output.

For a basis of comparison, I spent a weekend paying respects to Donald Sutherland and Alain Delon when they died and a week for David Lynch. I tend to spend more time with notable musicians who’ve died, chiefly because I can listen to music while doing other things. I recently spent about a week with Kris Kristofferson, and two-three with Garth Hudson, which took longer as it was a good excuse to elevate the Band from regular rotation to heavy rotation. I’m about to dip into David Johansen’s eclectic catalog, which should take me at least a week, depending on how deep I want to get into his Dexter Poindexter and acting work. Novelists, naturally, take longer if I’m going to read/re-read a representative selection; when John LeCarre died, I spent months reading everything he wrote. FYI, I recently read the masterfully done Karla’s Choice, a Smiley book written by his son, Nick Harkaway, a brilliant novelist in his own right - he did his dad and his recurring “Circus” characters full justice.

The other thing I automatically do when someone notable dies is to locate a sports parallel. It’s an involuntary reflex, like reaching for a bannister on a capsizing ship (yes, the Poseidon Adventure was among the Hackman flicks I re-watched - it was fun, though more as a time capsule). FYI, Hackman’s sports counterpart is Boston Celtics HOF sixth man John Havlicek (look it up). The next step is deciding where the figure is in the pantheon, which in Hackman’s case involves determining actor equivalents and comparisons. Before ChatGPT, Claude, GROK, etc., this was a conversation, an argument, maybe involving some back of the envelope math, but now you can make the comparisons with statistical rigor thanks to these platforms.

The following describes the two evaluation models they helped me develop (combining elements from each). I then asked them to apply these models to the careers of Gene Hackman (RIP) and his closest counterpart, Michael Caine (still “going” at 92). The last section lists other comparable acting pairs and shows how they stack up using these methods.

Weighted Category Scoring

This method assigns scores (1-10) across six categories, weighted by importance, to produce a final weighted average. It’s structured and flexible, emphasizing key aspects of an actor’s career:

• Quality (25%): Average critical rating of films, weighted by significance (e.g., box office or audience reception). Formula: (Critical Rating × Film Significance Weight) ÷ Total Films.

• Quantity (15%): Normalized film output. Formula: (Total Films ÷ Career Years) × Normalizing Factor (e.g., 10 as a cap).

• Leading Roles (15%): Percentage of leads, adjusted for notable supporting roles. Formula: (Leading Roles Score + Notable Supporting Contributions Score).

• Range (20%): Genre and character diversity. Formula: (Number of Genres × Diversity Score per Genre) ÷ Total Genres Attempted.

• Recognition (15%): Awards weighted by prestige. Formula: Sum of Weighted Awards + Weighted Nominations.

• Cultural Impact (10%): Iconic roles’ influence, scored subjectively (1-10).

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) for Actors (A-WAR).

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) measures a baseball player’s value over a "replacement-level" player (an average major leaguer), estimating extra wins contributed. It combines metrics into a single "wins" figure. "Runs" are WAR’s units, reflecting production (e.g., offense, defense) above/below average, adjusted for context, and divided by ~10 (Runs Per Win) to convert to wins. Example: 20 runs = 2.0 WAR. For actors, runs adapt to performance, output, and versatility.

Adapted from baseball’s WAR, this measures an actor’s value above a “replacement-level” actor (e.g., an average journeyman).

• Performance Runs: Quality of performances (critical ratings × film significance), replacing Batting Runs.

• Role Volume Runs: Normalized output (films per year), replacing Base Running Runs.

• Versatility Runs: Genre/character range score, replacing Fielding Runs.

• Positional Adjustment: Bonus for leading roles (higher value than supporting), adjusted for career context.

• League Adjustment: Era-specific difficulty (e.g., competition level in their prime).

• Replacement Runs: Baseline output of a replacement actor (e.g., 1 film/year, average rating of 5/10).

• Runs Per Win: Conversion factor (e.g., 10 “runs” = 1 “win” above replacement).

Formula: (Performance Runs + Role Volume Runs + Versatility Runs + Positional Adjustment + League Adjustment + Replacement Runs) ÷ Runs Per Win.

Gene Hackman vs. Michael Caine

Weighted Category Scoring Analysis

Gene Hackman (Career: 1964-2004, ~40 years, ~100 films):

• Quality (25%): Critically acclaimed (e.g., The French Connection, 96% Rotten Tomatoes, high significance). Avg. score: 8.5 × 25% = 2.13.

• Quantity (15%): ~2.5 films/year (100 ÷ 40). Normalized: 8 × 15% = 1.2.

• Leading Roles (15%): ~60% leads + iconic supports (e.g., Unforgiven). Score: 8 × 15% = 1.2.

• Range (20%): Action, drama, comedy, westerns (e.g., Lex Luthor to Popeye Doyle). Score: 9 × 20% = 1.8.

  • Crime/Thriller (The French Connection, Mississippi Burning)

  • Drama (The Conversation, Hoosiers)

  • Western (Unforgiven, The Quick and the Dead)

  • Comedy (The Birdcage, The Royal Tenenbaums)

  • Action/Adventure (Superman, Crimson Tide)

• Recognition (15%): 2 Oscars, 5 noms, multiple Globes. Score: 9 × 15% = 1.35.

• Cultural Impact (10%): French Connection, Superman. Score: 8 × 10% = 0.8.

• Total: 2.13 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.8 + 1.35 + 0.8 = 8.48/10.

Michael Caine (Career: 1956-present, ~69 years, ~130 films):

• Quality (25%): Strong catalog (e.g., The Dark Knight, 94%, high significance). Avg. score: 8 × 25% = 2.0.

• Quantity (15%): ~1.9 films/year (130 ÷ 69). Normalized: 7 × 15% = 1.05.

• Leading Roles (15%): ~50% leads + memorable supports (e.g., Batman). Score: 7.5 × 15% = 1.13.

• Range (20%): Drama, comedy, thriller, sci-fi (e.g., Alfie to Inception). Score: 9.5 × 20% = 1.9.

  • Spy Thriller (The Ipcress File, The Dark Knight)

  • Action (The Italian Job, Get Carter)

  • Comedy (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Austin Powers)

  • Romance (Alfie, Educating Rita)

  • Horror/Sci-Fi (Children of Men, The Prestige)

• Recognition (15%): 2 Oscars, 6 noms, BAFTAs. Score: 8.5 × 15% = 1.28.

• Cultural Impact (10%): Zulu, Get Carter, “My name is Michael Caine” meme. Score: 9 × 10% = 0.9.

• Total: 2.0 + 1.05 + 1.13 + 1.9 + 1.28 + 0.9 = 8.26/10.

WAR Analysis

Replacement Actor: 1 film/year, 5/10 avg. rating, 10 runs/win.

• Gene Hackman:

  • Performance Runs: 8.5 avg. × 100 films × 0.8 (significance avg.) = 680.

  • Role Volume Runs: 2.5 films/year vs. 1 = 60.

  • Versatility Runs: 8 genres × 9 diversity = 72.

  • Positional Adjustment: 60% leads × 10 = 6.

  • League Adjustment: 1970s peak competition = 5.

  • Replacement Runs: 40 films × 5 rating = 200.

  • Total Runs: 680 + 60 + 72 + 6 + 5 + 200 = 1,023. WAR: 1,023 ÷ 10 = 102.3.

• Michael Caine:

  • Performance Runs: 8 avg. × 130 films × 0.7 (significance avg.) = 728.

  • Role Volume Runs: 1.9 films/year vs. 1 = 62.

  • Versatility Runs: 9 genres × 9.5 diversity = 85.5.

  • Positional Adjustment: 50% leads × 10 = 5.

  • League Adjustment: 1960s-2000s span = 4.

  • Replacement Runs: 69 films × 5 rating = 345.

  • Total Runs: 728 + 62 + 85.5 + 5 + 4 + 345 = 1,229.5. WAR: 1,229.5 ÷ 10 = 122.95.

Key Takeaways from Both Approaches:

1. Hackman scores higher in acting quality and leading roles but loses points for fewer films and a shorter career.

2. Caine benefits from sheer longevity, versatility, and cultural impact, giving him the edge in both models.

3. Hackman is the “more selective, high-quality” actor, while Caine is the “consistent, durable” one.

---

Comparable Pairs in Cinema History

(Note: the language contextualizing each pairing and their respective scores is taken verbatim from the LLM platforms I used.)

1. Robert Redford & Paul Newman. Career Score: Redford (~8.2) / Newman (~8.3) Actor WAR: Redford (~24.0) / Newman (~25.0) Key Similarities: Both combined leading-man charisma with serious acting chops, successfully transitioned to directing, maintained extraordinary longevity, and balanced commercial appeal with artistic ambition. Their collaboration in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Sting" cemented their parallel status.

2. Meryl Streep & Judi Dench. Career Score: Streep (~9.1) / Dench (~8.9) Actor WAR: Streep (~29.0) / Dench (~27.5) Key Similarities: Both represent the pinnacle of acting technique and versatility, established themselves in theater before film, earned remarkable numbers of award nominations (Streep's 21 Oscar nominations, Dench's 7 from a later-starting film career), and maintained A-list status well into their senior years.

3. Jack Nicholson & Al Pacino. Career Score: Nicholson (~8.7) / Pacino (~8.6) Actor WAR: Nicholson (~27.0) / Pacino (~26.5) Key Similarities: Both exploded during the 1970s New Hollywood era, are known for intense, sometimes volcanic performances, have created numerous iconic characters, and successfully balanced artistic credibility with commercial viability.

4. Tom Hanks & Denzel Washington. Career Score: Hanks (~8.5) / Washington (~8.4) Actor WAR: Hanks (~26.0) / Washington (~25.5) Key Similarities: Both consistently deliver critically-acclaimed performances across multiple genres, transitioned from lighter early roles to dramatic heavyweights, maintain extraordinary box office reliability, and are known for their professionalism and consistency.

5. Dustin Hoffman & Robert De Niro. Career Score: Hoffman (~8.6) / De Niro (~8.7) Actor WAR: Hoffman (~25.0) / De Niro (~26.5) Key Similarities: Both emerged as method-influenced actors who transformed American screen acting, are known for immersive character work and surprising versatility, experienced career peaks in the 1970s-80s followed by more commercial choices, and established iconic performances that defined their eras.

6. Maggie Smith & Helen Mirren. Career Score: Smith (~8.4) / Mirren (~8.3) Actor WAR: Smith (~24.5) / Mirren (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both built distinguished stage careers before transitioning to film, experienced later-career renaissances ("Downton Abbey" for Smith, "The Queen" for Mirren), demonstrate extraordinary range from classical to contemporary material, and balance sharp-tongued wit with dramatic depth.

7. Sidney Poitier & Laurence Olivier. Career Score: Poitier (~8.4) / Olivier (~8.6) Actor WAR: Poitier (~24.0) / Olivier (~26.0) Key Similarities: Both were trailblazers who redefined what was possible in their respective domains (Poitier breaking racial barriers, Olivier bringing a new intensity to classical roles), balanced popular appeal with artistic integrity, and served as cultural ambassadors for their art form.

8. Anthony Hopkins & Ian McKellen. Career Score: Hopkins (~8.5) / McKellen (~8.3) Actor WAR: Hopkins (~25.0) / McKellen (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both transitioned from esteemed classical theater backgrounds to wide-ranging film careers, found their biggest commercial successes later in life (Hopkins with Hannibal Lecter, McKellen with Gandalf/Magneto), and maintain extraordinary technical skill alongside genuine audience connection.

9. Jane Fonda & Shirley MacLaine. Career Score: Fonda (~8.2) / MacLaine (~8.1) Actor WAR: Fonda (~23.5) / MacLaine (~23.0) Key Similarities: Both balanced serious dramatic work with lighter commercial fare, successfully reinvented themselves across multiple decades, expanded beyond acting into other ventures (Fonda's activism and fitness empire, MacLaine's writing), and maintained relevant careers spanning 60+ years.

10. Morgan Freeman & James Earl Jones. Career Score: Freeman (~8.3) / Jones (~8.2) Actor WAR: Freeman (~24.5) / Jones (~23.5) Key Similarities: Both possess instantly recognizable, authoritative voices that became cultural institutions, found their greatest film success relatively late in life after distinguished theater careers, project gravitas and wisdom in their performances, and successfully navigated both supporting and leading roles.

11. Leonardo DiCaprio & Christian Bale. Career Score: DiCaprio (~8.4) / Bale (~8.3) Actor WAR: DiCaprio (~25.0) / Bale (~24.5) Key Similarities: Both began as child/teen actors who successfully transitioned to adult roles, are known for physical transformation and intense preparation, work repeatedly with prestigious directors, and balance commercial appeal with artistic risk-taking.

12. Clint Eastwood & Sean Connery. Career Score: Eastwood (~8.5) / Connery (~8.2) Actor WAR: Eastwood (~26.0) / Connery (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both created iconic roles that defined genres (Eastwood's Man with No Name/Dirty Harry, Connery's James Bond), projected masculine authority with minimal dialogue, successfully expanded beyond their action personas, and maintained leading-man status into their senior years.

13. Spencer Tracy & Henry Fonda. Career Score: Tracy (~8.6) / Fonda (~8.4) Actor WAR: Tracy (~25.5) / Fonda (~24.5) Key Similarities: Both pioneered naturalistic screen acting styles, projected everyday American decency and moral authority, maintained long-term contracts with major studios during Hollywood's golden age, and collaborated with leading directors of their era.

16. Frances McDormand & Holly Hunter. Career Score: McDormand (~8.3) / Hunter (~8.1) Actor WAR: McDormand (~24.0) / Hunter (~23.0) Key Similarities: Both are known for portraying strong-willed, independent women, emerged through collaborations with important American auteurs (McDormand with the Coens, Hunter with Campion/the Coens), balance character actor versatility with leading role charisma, and bring authenticity and lack of vanity to their performances.

17. Warren Beatty & Robert Redford. Career Score: Beatty (~8.2) / Redford (~8.2) Actor WAR: Beatty (~24.0) / Redford (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both leveraged matinee idol looks into substantive careers, took control as producer/directors, used their influence to advance political/social causes, maintained creative independence within the Hollywood system, and demonstrated remarkable career longevity.

18. Julie Andrews & Audrey Hepburn. Career Score: Andrews (~8.3) / Hepburn (~8.3) Actor WAR: Andrews (~24.0) / Hepburn (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both projected elegant, refined screen personas while maintaining warmth and accessibility, created iconic roles in beloved classics, seamlessly balanced musical and dramatic performances, and maintained carefully curated public images that reflected their on-screen personae.

19. Burt Lancaster & Kirk Douglas. Career Score: Lancaster (~8.3) / Douglas (~8.2) Actor WAR: Lancaster (~24.5) / Douglas (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both possessed extraordinary physical presence and athleticism, successfully transitioned from action films to more complex dramatic roles, took control of their careers by forming independent production companies, and maintained leading-man status across multiple decades.

20. Glenn Close & Jessica Lange. Career Score: Close (~8.4) / Lange (~8.3) Actor WAR: Close (~24.5) / Lange (~24.0) Key Similarities: Both began with strong theater backgrounds, successfully navigated between commercial and artistic projects, experienced career revivals through television in later years, demonstrate extraordinary emotional range, and balance vulnerability and strength in complex female roles.

21. Harrison Ford & Tom Cruise. Career Score: Ford (~8.2) / Cruise (~8.1) Actor WAR: Ford (~26.0) / Cruise (~25.5) Key Similarities: Both dominated action/adventure genres while occasionally pursuing more dramatic roles, built careers around franchise properties, maintain extraordinary box office consistency across decades, perform many of their own stunts, and project reliable heroic personae.

22. Jimmy Stewart & Gary Cooper. Career Score: Stewart (~8.6) / Cooper (~8.4) Actor WAR: Stewart (~26.0) / Cooper (~25.0) Key Similarities: Both embodied American everyman qualities while demonstrating surprising range, maintained long-term collaboration with major directors (Stewart/Hitchcock, Cooper/Capra), balanced likability with moral complexity, and successfully adapted their personas across changing cultural landscapes.

24. Willem Dafoe & John Malkovich. Career Score: Dafoe (~8.1) / Malkovich (~8.0) Actor WAR: Dafoe (~23.5) / Malkovich (~23.0) Key Similarities: Both built careers through distinctive character work, move seamlessly between mainstream and experimental cinema, bring intellectual intensity to performances, possess instantly recognizable vocal and physical attributes, and maintain artistic credibility while working prolifically.

25. Emma Thompson & Kate Winslet. Career Score: Thompson (~8.3) / Winslet (~8.2) Actor WAR: Thompson (~24.0) / Winslet (~23.5) Key Similarities: Both established themselves in British period films before broader international success, bring intelligence and emotional depth to their performances, successfully balance commercial and artistic projects, demonstrate extraordinary technical skill, and actively advocate for women in the industry.