Oden has the same PER as Kobe

[tlongII]

Just sayin...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

:wow

[ChrisRichards]

Just sayin...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

:wow
Wow. Look at Pau with a PER of 22. If Kobe will just get this man 2-3 more touches a game, he would easily be a 25 PER guy. But I guess Kome would rather have the glory, if you know what I mean:toast

[Sportcamper]

Tlong has a valid point....You have to ask yourself if Mitch should trade Kobe for Oden while he still can...

[hater]

good point.

and Oden does it with 11 extra pounds in the crotch area

[Medvedenko]

Hence why Per is a BS stat.

[lil_penny]

Oden also had a sticky thread long before bryant on spurstalk.. its pretty obvious oden>>>>>bryant

[Darthkiller]

nazr mohammad has a higher per than Andrew Bynum

[HarlemHeat37]

PER isn't a BS stat at all, it's actually a very accurate stat..the flaws of PER are that it's affected by minutes(lower minutes for good players will generally give you a higher PER..so Oden only plays 24 MPG, which is part of the reason his PER is so high), it underrates assists, and it doesn't account for defense, since there isn't really a stat that actually accurately shows defensive ability(it accounts for blocks and steals, but that doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme of defense)..

Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, O'Neal, Duncan(#1 in playoff PER twice), Robinson, both Malones, Erving, West, Robertson, Barkley, Garnett, Nowitzki, Wade..these guys all finished in the top 2 in PER, most of them did it for multiple seasons(Magic being the only one out, because of PER admittedly(by Hollinger too) underrating the assist)..

Russell is missing from that list for obvious reasons..

Kobe hasn't done it..advanced stats don't seem to agree with Kobe like they do with all the other greats for some reason..part of the reason his fans hate advanced stats and hate stats in general..

[namlook]

Hence why Per is a BS stat.

It's not completely BS, but people that say PER is what determines the value of a player are full of shit. PER is a statistical tool that gives some information, but it's not all that useful for comparing players. Players that play different positions can't really have PER's compared reliably across positions. And even players who play the same positions on different teams and that have different players around them can have differences in PER for factors that are related to the team rather than the player.

[HarlemHeat37]

Woooooo, they hate PER..it accurately portrays pretty much every top 20 all-time player except Kobe..wooo..

[redzero]

And how many games will Oden play in his first three seasons?

[ChrisRichards]

Hence why Per is a BS stat.
not BS.


The best players in history also happened to have astronomical PER.


Jordan, Shaq,Olajuwon,Lebron for example all had great PER season. KG too when he won the MVP, same with Dirk.

[Killakobe81]

HATE PER because of all the crap ... involved.
I never said kobe was an all time GOAT like many on here ...simply he is the nbest 2 guard and best player RIGHT NOW ...
I dont need stats to tell me that MJ, Magic and bird were better so far BECAUSE i saw that with my OWN eyes not some silly stat by a non ball-playing geek ...

Guys that fall on the stats swords are foolish. PER loves Karl Malone and he was horrible in the clutch and VASTLY overrated I take stockton over him anyday ...kobe too.

[ChrisRichards]

HATE PER because of all the crap ... involved.
I never said kobe was an all time GOAT like many on here ...simply he is the nbest 2 guard and best player RIGHT NOW ...
I dont need stats to tell me that MJ, Magic and bird were better so far BECAUSE i saw that with my OWN eyes not some silly stat by a non ball-playing geek ...

Guys that fall on the stats swords are foolish. PER loves Karl Malone and he was horrible in the clutch and VASTLY overrated I take stockton over him anyday ...kobe too.
Malone never had a great PER in comparison to his peers.

[JamStone]

Kevin Love > Brandon Roy

[ChrisRichards]

Kevin Love > Brandon Roy
Kevin Love brings a lot more tangibles to a team than Brandon Roy.

[JamStone]

Hence the "greater than" sign as opposed to an "equals" or "less than" sign.

[Rogue]

sons the formulas are nothing but bullshit that Hollinger concocts and uses to justify his preferences for certain players.

[ChrisRichards]

Hence the "greater than" sign as opposed to an "equals" or "less than" sign.

Yes, but you were being sarcastic obviously and you were trying to prove to people that PER is a ridiculous measuring stick.

[Killakobe81]

Malone never had a great PER in comparison to his peers.

Harlem said both Malone had top 2 PER's ... Dr.J though great also overrated a bit IMHO as well ...

Look use PER to shit on kobe or whomever else you hate in the NBA only stats that matters to me are rings.

My top 10 (players since 1980)

1. MJ (6)
2. Magic (5)
3. Duncan (4)
4. Kobe (4)
5. shaq (4)
6. Bird (3)
7. Hakeem (2)
8. Isiah (2)
9. KG (1)
10. Wade (1)



All title winners all NBA and/or Finals MVP what is the common factor RINGS!!!

I admit i would take hakeem and Bird over Shaq ...but the RINGS matter most!!!

[Chieflion]

Harlem said both Malone had top 2 PER's ... Dr.J though great also overrated a bit IMHO as well ...

Look use PER to shit on kobe or whomever else you hate in the NBA only stats that matters to me are rings.

My top 10 (players since 1980)
1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Duncan
4. Kobe
5. shaq
6. Bird
7. Hakeem
8. Isiah
9. KG
10. Wade

All title winners all NBA and/or Finals MVP what is the common factor RINGS!!!

I admit i would take hakeem and Bird over Shaq ...but the RINGS matter most!!!
I think you are underrating Bird here. He should be above Duncan, Kobe and Shaq. I think Hakeem is above Shaq and arguably above Kobe and Duncan. You are overrating Isiah a bit too much though. He is not top 10 since 1980.

[Rogue]

Harlem said both Malone had top 2 PER's ... Dr.J though great also overrated a bit IMHO as well ...

Look use PER to shit on kobe or whomever else you hate in the NBA only stats that matters to me are rings.

My top 10 (players since 1980)
0. ROBERT HORRY (7)
1. MJ (6)
2. Magic (5)
3. Duncan (4)
4. Kobe (4)
5. shaq (4)
6. Bird (3)
7. Hakeem (2)
8. Isiah (2)
9. KG (1)
10. Wade (1)



All title winners all NBA and/or Finals MVP what is the common factor RINGS!!!

I admit i would take hakeem and Bird over Shaq ...but the RINGS matter most!!!

[ChrisRichards]

Harlem said both Malone had top 2 PER's ... Dr.J though great also overrated a bit IMHO as well ...

Look use PER to shit on kobe or whomever else you hate in the NBA only stats that matters to me are rings.

My top 10 (players since 1980)

1. MJ (6)
2. Magic (5)
3. Duncan (4)
4. Kobe (4)
5. shaq (4)
6. Bird (3)
7. Hakeem (2)
8. Isiah (2)
9. KG (1)
10. Wade (1)



All title winners all NBA and/or Finals MVP what is the common factor RINGS!!!

I admit i would take hakeem and Bird over Shaq ...but the RINGS matter most!!!

Malone had one league leading PER (96 season) where he coincidentally won an MVP, but Malone did not even ranked in the Top 25 PER of all time (in terms of single season performance), he was a consistent performer Ill give him that. Lebron, Jordan, Wade, David Robinson, Wilt Chamberlain and Shaq were some of the very few players that elapsed the 30 + PER mark.


Shaq did it 4 times (6 if we're going to round his 2 seasons were he had a 29.7 and 29.5 year)

Jordan also had 4 30+ PER (add another 2 if we're going to add 2 years where he had a 29.7 and 29.8 year)

Wade and D Robinson once, Lebron twice and Wilt thrice.



Not surprising is the fact that those players also have 16 NBA titles.

[cobbler]

Neither PER or per-game statistics take into account intangible elements like competitive drive, leadership, durability, conditioning, or hustle, largely because there is no real way to quantitatively measure these things.


Killakobe said it best when he stated he doesn't need some statistical formula to tell you who the better player is. Just his eyes. If you know the game and all the intangibles you know damn well stats only tell a small % of the story. Maybe you stat hounds should actually play some ball or at least watch objectively and base your opinions from a basketball sense as opposed to number crunching.

case in point.... bill russell 90th on the PER career charts at 18.88 and 11 titles

barkley, Malone, Nowitzki, Garnett, Yoa all above 23.00 and one title between them.

What wins titles guys? Defense. PER does not take defense into account accurately and Hollinger has even admitted so.

I'll take the titles..... and you guys can have your effecient losses!

[HarlemHeat37]

LOL gotta love the PER haters, they're usually fans of the same players..

BTW, you can't compare players by their career PER number or compare PER numbers from different seasons, because the average PER of the NBA is different in every season..you can only accurately compare them in regards to their ranking in specific seasons..

Obviously PER isn't the only ranking you should use, but it IS a very good stat..

[ChrisRichards]

Neither PER or per-game statistics take into account intangible elements like competitive drive, leadership, durability, conditioning, or hustle, largely because there is no real way to quantitatively measure these things.


Killakobe said it best when he stated he doesn't need some statistical formula to tell you who the better player is. Just his eyes. If you know the game and all the intangibles you know damn well stats only tell a small % of the story. Maybe you stat hounds should actually play some ball or at least watch objectively and base your opinions from a basketball sense as opposed to number crunching.

case in point.... bill russell 90th on the PER career charts at 18.88 and 11 titles

barkley, Malone, Nowitzki, Garnett, Yoa all above 23.00 and one title between them.

What wins titles guys? Defense. PER does not take defense into account accurately and Hollinger has even admitted so.

I'll take the titles..... and you guys can have your effecient losses!

except the biggest winners in this generation or modern era all are GREAT PER subjects. how can you disregard that?


duncan, shaq, mj, wilt chamberlain and to a lower degree d. wade ranked in the Top 10.

how are you going to dispute that?

[cobbler]

This article written in 2007 pretty much sums up my opinion on PER...




I think NBA analyst John Hollinger is a brilliant guy.

Hollinger is arguably the flat-out smartest writer working for ESPN. He understands statistics in a way that normal people don't, and if he starred in the show Numb3rs, episodes wouldn't last past the second commercial break.

Bottom line: I respect Hollinger's intelligence, and I respect that he's doing something he loves.

However, to be a Hollingerian, you need to love his Player Efficiency Rating (PER).

And I don't.

I don't like it quite a bit, in fact.

If I were into hating things, I might even hate it.

The PER—explained here ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240) by the Honge himself—is meant to measure an NBA player's per-minute statistical production, the idea being that such a system allows you to compare players who don't play the same numbers of minutes, or play in systems that limit their statistical productivity.

An example: Shawn Marion might score more points than Rip Hamilton because his team gets more offensive possessions—but PER analysis should, in theory, allow for an objective comparison between them.

Hollinger will tell you that the PER isn't meant to be the final word on an NBA player's production, and he's always quick to point out the fact that the PER doesn't really measure defensive ability.

Those flaws aside, though, there are a few other problems I have with the system.

Hollinger has said that the strength of the PER is that it creates a unified number by which to compare players, since you can't just go to scoring or rebounding to tell the difference between Randy Foye and Chris Mihm.

However, that only makes sense if the PER is meant for people who know nothing about basketball.

Fans of the game understand the value (or lack thereof) of any type of statistic—and no matter how ardently supports defend Hollinger's system, the PER is just that: a statistic.

Strictly speaking, the PER doesn't really "unify" stats. The PER take a lot of stats into account...but then tosses in intangibles like "pace," filters the numbers through a formula, and ends up with a final result.

That result, of course, is still merely a number—and it doesn't clarify anything any more than any other compilation of stats.

What's more, Hollinger has said that the PER is used to make "comparisons between players who play differing minutes, or in different systems or whatnot—comparisons which, using conventional stats, are almost impossible."

Again, those comparisons are only impossible if you're not a basketball fan.

It's actually quite possible to compare players who differ in style or position or number of minutes played—by watching them play, taking into account their statistics, and using your brain and basketball knowledge to reach a conclusion.

You'll note that that system sounds remarkably similar to the PER, and indeed it is. The problem with the PER is that it takes the "use your brain" part out of it.

Perhaps that's the unintended point, sadly—perhaps people love the PER because it tells them what to think. And perhaps that's why I (almost) hate it.

As I've said, if stats are your only concern, the PER is as decent a number as any. But if you want the PER to tell you just how good an individual basketball player is, you're probably asking too much.

Here are some projections from the upcoming season's projected PER:

- Yao Ming will be the most productive player in the NBA.

As with all PER projections, this is largely based on Yao's stats compared to "similar players at a similar age," and where their statistics went the following year.

The problem is that Yao—along with LeBron, Shaq, Steve Nash, and Kevin Garnett, among others—is so vastly different from any player who's come before him that all comparisons are essentially moot.

- 12 players will be more productive than Tim Duncan.

I won't argue that Duncan's numbers will blow away the field this year...but again, this is why a stat like the PER doesn't work to measure how good a basketball player actually is.

- Steve Nash is ranked 19th, while Vince Carter, Shawn Marion, Allen Iverson, Luol Deng, Josh Howard, Jermaine O'Neal, Jason Kidd, and Rip Hamilton are all ranked below Atlanta's Josh Smith.

Enough said.

I know that some will argue that I just don't get the PER. On the contrary, I do indeed get it—I just don't see the need for it.

Perhaps it's because I'm not a numbers guy, or because I don't like being told what to think, or because I don't see the point of a list that ranks basketball players with phantom stats and places the best player at No. 4 (Kobe, as if it needed to be said), and one of the most accomplished at No. 13 (Duncan), and a two-time MVP at No. 19 (Nash).

While I'm not closed on the issue, I don't see myself coming around on this one.

Again, Hollinger's a good man. He's often the first to point out when his formulas lead to wacky conclusions, or totally miss intangibles like Nash's ability to not age after turning 30.

Hollinger's also a very smart basketball analyst, as in evident every time he strays from mere numbers in his writings.

So no, I don't want to ditch John Hollinger. I just don't want his stat.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2811-nba-by-the-numbers-i-dont-want-my-p-e-r

[sribb43]

Eddie Najera coming into tonight had a PER of 60 as a Mav...so take that Kobe and Oden

[cobbler]

except the biggest winners in this generation or modern era all are GREAT PER subjects. how can you disregard that?


duncan, shaq, mj, wilt chamberlain and to a lower degree d. wade ranked in the Top 10.

how are you going to dispute that?

I dont need to.

There are also those in the top ten than havent won shit. There are many more "winners" and some of them pretty darn big winners that dont sniff the top 20. Are you going to dispute that?

Again, its just a stat. Let me know when we start handing out titles for stats other than win/loss. You can have your stats and PER... i'll take the LOB's.