Dirk > Bird

[cesare borgia]

In the regular season for PER:
Dirk's is 23.73 #15 while Bird's is 23.50 #19

In the playoffs for PER
Dirk is at 24.75 #7 while Bird is a at 21.41 #27

7. Dirk Nowitzki 24.75
27. Larry Bird* 21.41




In the season for WS/PER 48Luck_The_Fakers_
Dirk is #12 while Bird is #19

12. Dirk Nowitzki 0.2137
19. Larry Bird* 0.2032


In the playoffs Dirk is #5 in WS/PER 48 while Bird is #35Luck_The_Fakers_

5. Dirk Nowitzki 0.2067
35. Larry Bird* 0.1731


Correct advance stats fan? :lmao

[redzero]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/THISGONBGUD.gif

[Killakobe81]

In the regular season for PER:
Dirk's is 23.73 #15 while Bird's is 23.50 #19

In the playoffs for PER
Dirk is at 24.75 #7 while Bird is a at 21.41 #27

7. Dirk Nowitzki 24.75
27. Larry Bird* 21.41




In the season for WS/PER 48Luck_The_Fakers_
Dirk is #12 while Bird is #19

12. Dirk Nowitzki 0.2137
19. Larry Bird* 0.2032


In the playoffs Dirk is #5 in WS/PER 48 while Bird is #35Luck_The_Fakers_

5. Dirk Nowitzki 0.2067
35. Larry Bird* 0.1731


Correct advance stats fan? :lmao

Excellent points. I love Dirk's game but even he knows he aint better than Larry freaking Bird. I think his playoff run for one season, was up there with any of Bird's but bird dominated the NBA from 1981-1986 ...

[lefty]

Obvious troll is obvious

[stretch]

Dirk is great.

But Bird is superior.

[lefty]

Bird absolutely shits on Dirk

[stretch]

thats a stretch

[lefty]

thats a stretch
... I see what you did here ......

[pass1st]

Bird is the superior Aryan

[DAF86]

Manu > Drexler

Reg season:

Manu: PER-21.7 WS/48-215 Drexler: PER-21.1 WS/48-173

Playoffs:

Manu: PER-20.6 WS/48-181 Drexler: PER-19.7 WS/48-134

[DAF86]

Ginobili > Pippen

Reg season:

Manu: PER-21.7 WS/48-215 Pippen: PER-18.6 WS/48-146

Playoffs:

Manu: PER-20.6 WS/48-181 Pippen: PER-18.4 WS/48-140

[lefty]

CQFD :lol

[Black&Silver]

Dirk>Bird is like saying kobe>jordan.

[Jt.ONE]

Dirk>Bird is like saying kobe>jordan.




:(

[#41 Shoot Em Up]

Even Dirk knows Bird is better.

[midnightpulp]

Pay no attention to this thread. Made by a butthurt Kobe fan who's angry his hero has relatively low advanced stats compared to other all-time greats, so he cherry picked this comparison in hopes that it would debunk PER and other advanced stats.

[Killakobe81]

Pay no attention to this thread. Made by a butthurt Kobe fan who's angry his hero has relatively low advanced stats compared to other all-time greats, so he cherry picked this comparison in hopes that it would debunk PER and other advanced stats.

Not sure who the OP is but advanced stats done ned to be debunked. They are stats you should take all stats fdor what they are, a tool to enhance what you see with your eyes, not replace what is clear to see ...

[DAF86]

Pay no attention to this thread. Made by a butthurt Kobe fan who's angry his hero has relatively low advanced stats compared to other all-time greats, so he cherry picked this comparison in hopes that it would debunk PER and other advanced stats.

It backfired, 'cause current players tend to have better advanced stats than their counterparts from older days except for Kobe.

[midnightpulp]

Not sure who the OP is but advanced stats done ned to be debunked. They are stats you should take all stats fdor what they are, a tool to enhance what you see with your eyes, not replace what is clear to see ...

I agree with you. The reason I bring up advanced stats a lot is because I believe them to be more reliable than per game stats when evaluating a player statistically. Per game stats would suggest that Elgin Baylor is a better rebounder than Kevin Garnett. I think rebound rate/percentage is the better stat to go by in this case.

Another example. Say you're a fanboy of Wilt and you're trying to convince me he was a better rebounder at 35 than a prime Kevin Garnett. You cite Wilt's 1972 season when he averaged 16.3 rebounds per game. The closest KG has ever been to that mark was in '04 when pulled down 14 a game. In the "old days" this would've been the end of the discussion. You would've proven your case. But when we look at the two player's respective rebound percentage for the years in question, we discover they're exactly the same, despite Wilt averaging 2 more boards a game. And in the '05 season, KG had a 20.3 rebound percentage, even though he averaged half a rebound less per game, so this would suggest a prime KG was indeed better on the glass than a 35 year old Wilt.

Of course there's no substitute for the "eye test," but we also have to remember that perception is often clouded by bias and this is where stats, moreso advanced stats, can aid us into refining our opinions so they're more objective.

[stretch]

Manu > Drexler

Reg season:

Manu: PER-21.7 WS/48-215 Drexler: PER-21.1 WS/48-173

Playoffs:

Manu: PER-20.6 WS/48-181 Drexler: PER-19.7 WS/48-134


Ginobili > Pippen

Reg season:

Manu: PER-21.7 WS/48-215 Pippen: PER-18.6 WS/48-146

Playoffs:

Manu: PER-20.6 WS/48-181 Pippen: PER-18.4 WS/48-140


It backfired, 'cause current players tend to have better advanced stats than their counterparts from older days except for Kobe.

This would be a good point you made, except for the fact you actually believe Manu > Drex and Pip.

[MavFan6488]

mvp
dirk: 1
bird: 3

finals mvp
dirk: 1
bird: 2

nba championships
dirk: 1
bird: 3

i love dirk, but he needs more hardware in this comparison. bump this thread when dirk has at least 2 finals mvp awards and 3 'ships like bird. dirk is the best european and maybe international player of all-time though, the michael jordan of europe. but even if one day dirk has 3 championships people in the us will still favor bird because he's american and they still think of germans as nazis. but i agree, right now bird > dirk no question.

[midnightpulp]

This would be a good point you made, except for the fact you actually believe Manu > Drex and Pip.

Manu's PER is boosted because of the limited minutes he usually plays. Even in the playoffs, he would average around 30-33 min a game whereas Clyde and Pippen would go routinely go 40+.

[Calispursfan11]

Bird absolutely shits on Dirk

I'm with Lefty. WTH. Dirk is one of the greats, but Larry Legend is a LEGEND. He had to play against Magic's Showtime Lakers not the dregs of the league that exist today. Larry is King - you can't compare, plus he was a great defender, trash talker and made his teammates better. Larry is one of the top few of all time and he has the resume to prove it.

[Proxy]

Not sure who the OP is but advanced stats done ned to be debunked. They are stats you should take all stats fdor what they are, a tool to enhance what you see with your eyes, not replace what is clear to see ...

Agreed. Someone needs to put Hollinger in his place. Too many intangibles and variables to factor in that are exclusive to a player's era.

[JamStone]

methinks many responses to this thread were made without realizing the OP's point

[redzero]

I don't know why he had to make a thread to just say that he doesn't like PER.

[LkrFan]

Bird absolutely shits on Dirk

QFT. Celtic hater here. Bird >>>>>> Dirk.

[NRHector]

this thread is an insult to Bird, Dirk is oversized SG and Bird was a legit Forward

[mavs>spurs]

sup hector, how'd that shit burrito taste whenever dirk rang last june?

[NRHector]

sup hector, how'd that shit burrito taste whenever dirk rang last june?

I don't like burritos sorry buddy

[DAF86]

Manu's PER is boosted because of the limited minutes he usually plays. Even in the playoffs, he would average around 30-33 min a game whereas Clyde and Pippen would go routinely go 40+.

PER was modified to take minutes played per game into consideration and reward those that play more in a game.

[m>s]

stats speak the truth tbh, swap dirk to bird's team where he had another two HOF'ers around him and dirk would win even more probably. the mavs won da ship last season w/ supporting casts such as Marion, Jet, a 38yr old kidd etc... them all good players atm but none was the same caliber as mchale, parish etc... the ones bird got

[DeadlyDynasty]

I've been telling you guys PER is such a garbage stat for years now. The origins of it make it so.

The whole system was made by a guy who never had the ability to play basketball because he was a runt of a human being, and was subjected to watching basketball players (and athletes in general) fuck every girl he ever had a crush on. In an attempt to crowbar his way into the sports world, he develops a system that nerds can enjoy and act like they know the game.

It's a system borne out of bitterness and unfulfilled perpetual tumescence.

[JamStone]

I've said something along these lines before on these boards, but one individual stat never tells the whole story, even when it's formulaic composition of a bunch of different stats together because no one stat considers everything. Stats are good for referencing and to gain a better evaluation but pretty much no individual stat tells the whole story by itself.

One thing about PER that I think is a fair criticism is that it can never be equalized fairly among players. You can adjust it for minutes played and pace and era, but there are some variables you simply cannot adjust to equalize the stat. For instance, wouldn't PER reward a selfish stat padder on a team with very little talent where he is asked to do everything, scoring, rebounding, playmaking? Wouldn't PER reward say a Kobe Bryant on a 2004-05 and 2005-06 team where he chucks all the time and handles the ball all the time? Now in that same vein, wouldn't PER punish an unselfish player who sacrifices individual stats for the betterment of the team? Now look at a guy like Dwyane Wade whose PER was between 28-30 the two seasons prior to LeBron and Bosh joining the team and now dips down to around 25-26 to accommodate LeBron and Bosh? Bosh probably suffers more so. But it's not because they're incapable of putting up bigger numbers that would likely bolster their PER. The intention is to sacrifice individual stats in the hope for team success. How does PER take into account a player's sacrifice like that? How does it take into consideration leadership? Competition? Does it have a clutch factor in the formula?

When Larry Bird's PER isn't as high as one would imagine, wouldn't you consider that he had HOF talent around him for many of his seasons and also consider the high rate of success his teams had? Surely you would. And when you look at guys like Jordan or Hakeem or Duncan in the early 2000s, where you know each had to shoulder a greater amount of responsibility in order for their teams to be successful, wouldn't that also be a consideration whereas looking simply at PER fail to truly demonstrate how good or bad those players were compared to others?

I don't dislike PER. But like any other stat, used by itself without other factors considered isn't really all that telling to me. And even if it's the most definitive because it's the best collection of stats added up together, to me it's still not enough to be used by itself to make any kind of definitive evaluation when comparing players.

[midnightpulp]

I've been telling you guys PER is such a garbage stat for years now. The origins of it make it so.

The whole system was made by a guy who never had the ability to play basketball because he was a runt of a human being, and was subjected to watching basketball players (and athletes in general) fuck every girl he ever had a crush on. In an attempt to crowbar his way into the sports world, he develops a system that nerds can enjoy and act like they know the game.

It's a system borne out of bitterness and unfulfilled perpetual tumescence.

I like it because it simplifies the whole tedious process of "well, player A averaged more points" "But player B averaged more rebounds" "Yeah, but player A shoots 5% better" etc, etc. And it adjusts for pace, which is important. 30 points a game in one system/era might not be attainable in another, but yet arguments and comparisons based on per game stats lead us into making comparisons without considering other variables. It's distilled down to: "Well he averaged more points per game so he's a better scorer. The end."

In all my time on sports message boards, I haven't seen one good counterargument against the metric. Sure, it doesn't factor in defense (those areas of defense that can't be quantified) and undervalues assists, but as far as employing it when comparing individual players statistically, there currently doesn't exist a better catchall stat.

[m>s]

duncan is a team player and he's helped his team more then anyone else would but his abilities as an individual ain't nowhere near the true greatest. w/ duncan going one-on-one i never beat the defense in ANY video game, i think it pretty much illustrates how overrated as an individual player duncan is.

[Killakobe81]

I've said something along these lines before on these boards, but one individual stat never tells the whole story, even when it's formulaic composition of a bunch of different stats together because no one stat considers everything. Stats are good for referencing and to gain a better evaluation but pretty much no individual stat tells the whole story by itself.

One thing about PER that I think is a fair criticism is that it can never be equalized fairly among players. You can adjust it for minutes played and pace and era, but there are some variables you simply cannot adjust to equalize the stat. For instance, wouldn't PER reward a selfish stat padder on a team with very little talent where he is asked to do everything, scoring, rebounding, playmaking? Wouldn't PER reward say a Kobe Bryant on a 2004-05 and 2005-06 team where he chucks all the time and handles the ball all the time? Now in that same vein, wouldn't PER punish an unselfish player who sacrifices individual stats for the betterment of the team? Now look at a guy like Dwyane Wade whose PER was between 28-30 the two seasons prior to LeBron and Bosh joining the team and now dips down to around 25-26 to accommodate LeBron and Bosh? Bosh probably suffers more so. But it's not because they're incapable of putting up bigger numbers that would likely bolster their PER. The intention is to sacrifice individual stats in the hope for team success. How does PER take into account a player's sacrifice like that? How does it take into consideration leadership? Competition? Does it have a clutch factor in the formula?

When Larry Bird's PER isn't as high as one would imagine, wouldn't you consider that he had HOF talent around him for many of his seasons and also consider the high rate of success his teams had? Surely you would. And when you look at guys like Jordan or Hakeem or Duncan in the early 2000s, where you know each had to shoulder a greater amount of responsibility in order for their teams to be successful, wouldn't that also be a consideration whereas looking simply at PER fail to truly demonstrate how good or bad those players were compared to others?

I don't dislike PER. But like any other stat, used by itself without other factors considered isn't really all that telling to me. And even if it's the most definitive because it's the best collection of stats added up together, to me it's still not enough to be used by itself to make any kind of definitive evaluation when comparing players.

what he said ...

[DAF86]

No stat is perfect and tells the hole story. But PER is the best stat, imho.

[midnightpulp]

I've said something along these lines before on these boards, but one individual stat never tells the whole story, even when it's formulaic composition of a bunch of different stats together because no one stat considers everything. Stats are good for referencing and to gain a better evaluation but pretty much no individual stat tells the whole story by itself.

One thing about PER that I think is a fair criticism is that it can never be equalized fairly among players. You can adjust it for minutes played and pace and era, but there are some variables you simply cannot adjust to equalize the stat. For instance, wouldn't PER reward a selfish stat padder on a team with very little talent where he is asked to do everything, scoring, rebounding, playmaking? Wouldn't PER reward say a Kobe Bryant on a 2004-05 and 2005-06 team where he chucks all the time and handles the ball all the time? Now in that same vein, wouldn't PER punish an unselfish player who sacrifices individual stats for the betterment of the team? Now look at a guy like Dwyane Wade whose PER was between 28-30 the two seasons prior to LeBron and Bosh joining the team and now dips down to around 25-26 to accommodate LeBron and Bosh? Bosh probably suffers more so. But it's not because they're incapable of putting up bigger numbers that would likely bolster their PER. The intention is to sacrifice individual stats in the hope for team success. How does PER take into account a player's sacrifice like that? How does it take into consideration leadership? Competition? Does it have a clutch factor in the formula?

When Larry Bird's PER isn't as high as one would imagine, wouldn't you consider that he had HOF talent around him for many of his seasons and also consider the high rate of success his teams had? Surely you would. And when you look at guys like Jordan or Hakeem or Duncan in the early 2000s, where you know each had to shoulder a greater amount of responsibility in order for their teams to be successful, wouldn't that also be a consideration whereas looking simply at PER fail to truly demonstrate how good or bad those players were compared to others?

I don't dislike PER. But like any other stat, used by itself without other factors considered isn't really all that telling to me. And even if it's the most definitive because it's the best collection of stats added up together, to me it's still not enough to be used by itself to make any kind of definitive evaluation when comparing players.

Kobe's two highest playoff PERs came when he was on arguably the two best teams of his career: The '01 and '09 Lakers. Likewise with Michael Jordan ('91 and '93 Bulls. I believe Jordan's first 3 peat teams were stronger than the second 3 peat teams, but that's another argument). Kevin Garnett posted a 23 playoff mark with the Celtics, only 2 points down from his career high of 25. Sure, PER often rewards players on bad teams, but it's usually only during the regular season, when they can fill up the stat sheet against weaker competition. In the playoffs, it seems the superstar players who have a high PER (considering a meaningful sample size), are also on great teams.

Shouldn't that be expected, though? A big man having solid wings on his team would cut down on the amount of double teams he receives, which would result in him getting better looks, thereby increasing his scoring efficiency/field goal percentage and, in all likelihood, increasing his PER. Likewise with a great guard (like Jordan) having a teammate like Pippen. Pippen would be able to shoulder half (or more) of the defensive load on the perimeter enabling Jordan to have more energy for offense. It's no surprise Jordan's regular season PER jumped up 2 points from the year previous (which was a career best) in Pippen's first year on the team.

[JamStone]

No stat is perfect and tells the hole story. But PER is the best stat, imho.

Shouldn't you hate the PER stat since it basically proves Dirk > Manu, career-wise, regular season and playoffs? And not just better, considerably better.

[DeadlyDynasty]

All PER-wankfest aside, 2001 Kobe in the playoffs is some of the funnest basketball you will ever watch in your lifetime...specifically the Kings and Spurs series. Just scary good.

[JamStone]

Kobe's two highest playoff PERs came when he was on arguably the two best teams of his career: The '01 and '09 Lakers. Likewise with Michael Jordan ('91 and '93 Bulls. I believe Jordan's first 3 peat teams were stronger than the second 3 peat teams, but that's another argument). Kevin Garnett posted a 23 playoff mark with the Celtics, only 2 points down from his career high of 25. Sure, PER often rewards players on bad teams, but it's usually only during the regular season, when they can fill up the stat sheet against weaker competition. In the playoffs, it seems the superstar players who have a high PER (considering a meaningful sample size), are also on great teams.

Shouldn't that be expected, though? A big man having solid wings on his team would cut down on the amount of double teams he receives, which would result in him getting better looks, thereby increasing his scoring efficiency/field goal percentage and, in all likelihood, increasing his PER. Likewise with a great guard (like Jordan) having a teammate like Pippen. Pippen would be able to shoulder half (or more) of the defensive load on the perimeter enabling Jordan to have more energy for offense. It's no surprise Jordan's regular season PER jumped up 2 points in Pippen's first year on the team.

I really don't know what should be expected as I don't know the exact formula. And tbh, I don't care to know the exact formula and how it is made up and calculated. I guess my point, in that entire needlessly verbose (I admit it) post is that PER is still not enough. Again, it doesn't take into account player sacrifice, leadership, as you said, defense, clutch play (I don't think it does). You still have to look at other things.

To me, if we get into a debate about two players, someone using the PER stat to end the debate doesn't work for me. It's not definitive. Doesn't it say something that Tracy McGrady is top 10 in playoff PER but he's never played beyond the first round of the playoffs?

[endrity]

Well PER has some flaws. For one, it takes no account of defense whatsoever.
But it, just like win share, were developed with a target audience of the NBA fans, not basketball decision analytics.

From what I have seen at the MIT Sloan Conference, people in the FOs that rely heavily on statistics (Dallas, Houston etc) have a completely different way to evaluate players. What I think Dallas uses quite a lot is 5 man unit statistics, in order to correct exactly what JamStone was talking about, i.e rewarding good teams not good players.

The other thing I remember about PER, is that it uses classic box score statistics. Cuban has said numerous times that to them that box score is useless and they keep track of a completely other set of statistics.

[DAF86]

Shouldn't you hate the PER stat since it basically proves Dirk > Manu, career-wise, regular season and playoffs? And not just better, considerably better.

Since I have never said Manu > Dirk. I have no problem with that.

P/S: 2 PER pts isn't considerably better, imho.

[JamStone]

Since I have never said Manu > Dirk. I have no problem with that.

P/S: 2 PER pts isn't considerably better, imho.

There's less of a difference in PER between Duncan and Yao Ming.

[DAF86]

There's less of a difference in PER between Duncan and Yao Ming.

So?

[lefty]

this thread is an insult to Bird, Dirk is oversized SG and Bird was a legit Forward

This.

[DeadlyDynasty]

There's less of a difference in PER between Duncan and Yao Ming.

:rollin

[JamStone]

So?

So if you are such a believer that PER is the best stat and the difference between Dirk and Manu using PER isn't considerable, are you of the opinion that Duncan isn't that much better than Yao Ming?

[DAF86]

I said PER is the best stat not that it is all we should look at. Which in your opinion is the best stat?

And Yao is as special case, when he was healthy (which was probably like half of his career) he was a pretty dominant player on the offensive end but since he could not stay healthy that's irrelevant.

There's also the fact that Duncan is much much better on the defensive end.

[endrity]

Bird's passing more than anything puts him ahead of Dirk.

Plus Bird came into the league as good a competitor as ever, it took Dirk quite a lot of time to really toughen up mentally. Physically he could always take a hit, but mentally he had to adapt to the fact that he was the best player on the floor and act like it. Needles to say, Bird never had much confidence issues. "So, who's playing for second" comes to mind.

[JamStone]

I said PER is the best stat not that it is all we should look at. Which in your opinion is the best stat?

And Yao is as special case, when he was healthy (which was probably like half of his career) he was a pretty dominant player on the offensive end but since he could not stay healthy that's irrelevant.

There's also the fact that Duncan is much much better on the defensive end.


As I suggested already, I don't find value in any single, individual stat. One stat is never enough. Need other stats, facts, factors, context. Even with PER, you still need more context. That's exactly the point I've been making. Even now, you had to clarify and qualify the PER stat with respect to Yao compared to Duncan with more context like Yao's injuries and defense. Just like you would if I told you that based on PER, the difference between Dirk and Manu is a similar difference between Manu and Zach Randolph. You'd offer other variables to give better context as to why you think that's true or not true.


BTW, I thought you had posted "Manu > Dirk," so I'd like for you to post to set the record straight. What do you believe is true, no joking, no trolling?

Dirk > Manu or Manu > Dirk?

[DAF86]

I belive Dirk to be a better basketball player (by not by as much as most people think)

What I said is that Manu's basketball career > Dirk's basketball career

And that Manu > Dirk at complementing Duncan's game

Mavkrew got butthurt and started the whole Manu > Dirk thing.

[JamStone]

I belive Dirk to be a better basketball player (by not by as much as most people think)

What I said is that Manu's basketball career > Dirk's basketball career

And that Manu > Dirk at complementing Duncan's game

Mavkrew got butthurt and started the whole Manu > Dirk thing.

Okay, so we established that even you believe as far as who the better player is, Dirk > Manu.

I'm curious as to whether you still believe the second sentence right now. After a League MVP, a championship, and a Finals MVP now added to Dirk's NBA resume. Even taking into consideration international careers, do you still believe Manu's basketball career > Dirk's basketball career?

You still believe that as of today?

[endrity]

No Jam, he's clearly stated Manu > Dirk, only to backtrack later.

But even his spin, Manu's career > Dirk's career can't stand now can it, when Dirk has achieve the two highest honors possible, MVP and Finals MVP as the lead player of his team.

If Argentina's success is what he wants to rely on, that's fine. Dirk took a bunch of amateurs, no really they play in the second division in Spain, to the Olympics, a 3rd place in the 2002 World Championship and silver in the 2005 Euro Championship, taking MVPs in both those tournaments. Something that players from non winning teams rarely do, so incredible were his performances.

[DAF86]

Yes, I still believe that 6thMoY, all-NBA selections, two all-stars (should have more but never mind), 3 NBA champions (should have won a finals MVP), an Euroleague (MVP) and a Gold medal (MVP) is better than more all-NBA selections, more all-stars, a regular season MVP a finals MVP and a championship.

[DAF86]

No Jam, he's clearly stated Manu > Dirk, only to backtrack later.

There's a bunch of threads to look, find a post where I seriously said Manu > Dirk and link it.

[Sportstudi]

Yes, I still believe that 6thMoY, all-NBA selections, two all-stars (should have more but never mind), 3 NBA champions (should have won a finals MVP), an Euroleague (MVP) and a Gold medal (MVP) is better than more all-NBA selections, more all-stars, a regular season MVP a finals MVP and a championship.

No matter how you spin it, there is NO official MVP for the Olympic tournament. Yes, some media called him the MVP (he was the best player of his team and granted, he played very well), but again, this title does officially NOT exist. Show me the trophy for it. You won't find it as there is none.

And concerning of being a 3-time NBA champion: It's funny how you Spurs fans like to point out that Manu was a green rookie back then in 2003 when you want to point out Duncan's performance. But when this title is needed to boost Manu, you use it in his favor.

All-NBA selections: twice third team.

[DAF86]

No matter how you spin it, there is NO official MVP for the Olympic tournament. Yes, some media called him the MVP (he was the best player of his team and granted, he played very well), but again, this title does officially NOT exist. Show me the trophy for it. You won't find it as there is none.

And concerning of being a 3-time NBA champion: It's funny how you Spurs fans like to point out that Manu was a green rookie back then in 2003 when you want to point out Duncan's performance. But when this title is needed to boost Manu, you use it in his favor.

I don't know if there's a trophy for that, but he got the recognition. It's in every Manu resume you find. And I know there wasn't Olympics MVP in others years but that year the media picked one and luckily for Manu he got it.

[DAF86]

But either way, take that MVP label away if you want I would still take Manu's career over Dirks.

And you're not getting the point, we're not arguing who the better player is, we're arguing who had the better career, who had more happy moments, who celebrated more.

[endrity]

Yes, I still believe that 6thMoY, all-NBA selections, two all-stars (should have more but never mind), 3 NBA champions (should have won a finals MVP), an Euroleague (MVP) and a Gold medal (MVP) is better than more all-NBA selections, more all-stars, a regular season MVP a finals MVP and a championship.

Maybe. But then again, probably not.

11 NBA All-Stars, soon to be 12 All-NBA teams, 4 top 5 MVP finishes with an MVP in there, NBA Finals MVP is clearly a much better career than the one you write about.

You know what's the sad thing. I love, I LOVE, Manu. He's arguably the most physically talented white guard I have seen, an inspiration to everyone who thinks you need to be an uber althetic black kid to succeed as a guard in the NBA. Somehow you are making me belittle his career, which is not at all what I want to do.

[Sportstudi]

I don't know if there's a trophy for that, but he got the recognition. It's in every Manu resume you find. And I know there wasn't Olympics MVP in others years but that year the media picked one and luckily for Manu he got it.

How come I can't find it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Gin%C3%B3bili)? Sorry for ya, but there is NOT such an official award. Some people might have called him the MVP (and as I wrote earlier, he played very well back in 2004), but without being it an official one, I don't think you can add it to the official awards he received (like Euroleague Final Four Most Valuable Player in 2001).

And please don't get me wrong, I have no hate against Manu. I highly respect his accomplishments and hard play. He always plays his guts out and I like and respect that.

[DAF86]

But either way, take that MVP label away if you want I would still take Manu's career over Dirks.

[DAF86]

Maybe. But then again, probably not.

11 NBA All-Stars, soon to be 12 All-NBA teams, 4 top 5 MVP finishes with an MVP in there, NBA Finals MVP is clearly a much better career than the one you write about.

You know what's the sad thing. I love, I LOVE, Manu. He's arguably the most physically talented white guard I have seen, an inspiration to everyone who thinks you need to be an uber althetic black kid to succeed as a guard in the NBA. Somehow you are making me belittle his career, which is not at all what I want to do.

If you want to belittle his career over a guy's opinion on internet be my guess, I don't think Manu would care, tbh.

[endrity]

If you want to belittle his career over a guy's opinion on internet be my guess, I don't think Manu would care, tbh.

yeah ok, cause you know what Dirk was saying when he was singing the rendition of We are the Champions?

"How the fuck do I make Daffie like me, can someone please help me out on this????"






..... or not!

[DAF86]

:lol When have I said Dirk cares about what I think?

It seems to me that the only one here that really cares about what I think is you, sorry if my opinions made you mad it wasn't my intention.

[HarlemHeat37]

As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of PER, but the majority of the posters here constantly misuse it, tbh..

The problem with PER is the same problem as any other argumentative tool: over-reliance and misinterpretation..

PER is a box score stat..it summarizes the box scores, and systematically compares players across the board..of all box score stats, it's arguably the most effective tool IMO, along with Wins Produced/Win Shares per 48..

PER has it's flaws, but it does a good job of factoring in the performances of teammates, competition, etc..it's a vastly superior statistic than any basic box score stat..Jamstone's argument about players having higher PERs in years with inferior teammates is false..

However, I do agree with Jamstone's argument that any one factor should not determine the status of a player, nor should any one factor act as the entire body of a person's argument..

Generally, NBA fans are divided into a couple of groups:

- Advanced stats are all that matters
- Rings and winning is all that matters
- Coaches and players opinions are all that matters

All 3 groups have an abundance if fanatics and extremists..

IMO, the only way to properly conduct an argument is to consider all the factors related to the NBA..

- Accolades
- Level of teammates and competition
- Stats
- Watching games

Fortunately, for today's fans, we have a number of tools to form our arguments and learn more about the NBA..Synergy Sports has changed the game IMO, their tools have brought a different, in-depth look at the NBA..


Using "Career PER" is flawed, as I have reiterated many times..PER is set with '15' as the average, but to my knowledge, the performance of the players around you is factored into the number..therefore, while the "average" standard is the same number, every year, the value of each number is actually weighed differently, for every particular season..

The seasonal ranking for each individual player is a more accurate method to use PER as a comparative tool IMO..obviously PER can be used in combination with other advanced stats, as well, to further illustrate the point..

Another advanced stat flaw is using adjusted +/- without combining the individual player's number with the "5-man unit" numbers for his team..it's a more effective usage of the stat..

[endrity]

:lol When have I said Dirk cares about what I think?

It seems to me that the only one here that really cares about what I think is you, sorry if my opinions made you mad it wasn't my intention.

yeah yeah, you really like to backtrack on your own examples don't you?

[endrity]

As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of PER, but the majority of the posters here constantly misuse it, tbh..

The problem with PER is the same problem as any other argumentative tool: over-reliance and misinterpretation..

PER is a box score stat..it summarizes the box scores, and systematically compares players across the board..of all box score stats, it's arguably the most effective tool IMO, along with Wins Produced/Win Shares per 48..

PER has it's flaws, but it does a good job of factoring in the performances of teammates, competition, etc..it's a vastly superior statistic than any basic box score stat..Jamstone's argument about players having higher PERs in years with inferior teammates is false..

However, I do agree with Jamstone's argument that any one factor should not determine the status of a player, nor should any one factor act as the entire body of a person's argument..

Generally, NBA fans are divided into a couple of groups:

- Advanced stats are all that matters
- Rings and winning is all that matters
- Coaches and players opinions are all that matters

All 3 groups have an abundance if fanatics and extremists..

IMO, the only way to properly conduct an argument is to consider all the factors related to the NBA..

- Accolades
- Level of teammates and competition
- Stats
- Watching games

Fortunately, for today's fans, we have a number of tools to form our arguments and learn more about the NBA..Synergy Sports has changed the game IMO, their tools have brought a different, in-depth look at the NBA..


Using "Career PER" is flawed, as I have reiterated many times..PER is set with '15' as the average, but to my knowledge, the performance of the players around you is factored into the number..therefore, while the "average" standard is the same number, every year, the value of each number is actually weighed differently, for every particular season..

The seasonal ranking for each individual player is a more accurate method to use PER as a comparative tool IMO..obviously PER can be used in combination with other advanced stats, as well, to further illustrate the point..

Another advanced stat flaw is using adjusted +/- without combining the individual player's number with the "5-man unit" numbers for his team..it's a more effective usage of the stat..

+1! Especially on the box score thing.

As I said earlier, from those bits and pieces we know NBA teams barely use the traditional box score, so you can understand how truly useful a stat that summarizes it really is.

[DAF86]

Whatever man, I'm not getting to you. Have a good night.

[HarlemHeat37]

For example, Dirk Nowitzki's career PER is superior to Larry Bird's, which is the point of this thread..

However, if you look at their respective finishes:

Dirk has 2 top 3 finishes

Bird has 6 top 3 finishes

PER demonstrates that Larry Bird's peak, in comparison to his peers, was vastly superior to Nowitzki's..however, Dirk's longevity has been superior, which is inarguable..

In the playoffs, the discrepancy is even wider..


Dirk finished #1 in the regular season PER in 2006 and 2007..was he the best regular season player in the NBA in those respective years? I don't think he was, but it's certainly arguable..

[JamStone]

As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of PER, but the majority of the posters here constantly misuse it, tbh..

The problem with PER is the same problem as any other argumentative tool: over-reliance and misinterpretation..

PER is a box score stat..it summarizes the box scores, and systematically compares players across the board..of all box score stats, it's arguably the most effective tool IMO, along with Wins Produced/Win Shares per 48..

PER has it's flaws, but it does a good job of factoring in the performances of teammates, competition, etc..it's a vastly superior statistic than any basic box score stat..Jamstone's argument about players having higher PERs in years with inferior teammates is false..

However, I do agree with Jamstone's argument that any one factor should not determine the status of a player, nor should any one factor act as the entire body of a person's argument..

Generally, NBA fans are divided into a couple of groups:

- Advanced stats are all that matters
- Rings and winning is all that matters
- Coaches and players opinions are all that matters

All 3 groups have an abundance if fanatics and extremists..

IMO, the only way to properly conduct an argument is to consider all the factors related to the NBA..

- Accolades
- Level of teammates and competition
- Stats
- Watching games

Fortunately, for today's fans, we have a number of tools to form our arguments and learn more about the NBA..Synergy Sports has changed the game IMO, their tools have brought a different, in-depth look at the NBA..


Using "Career PER" is flawed, as I have reiterated many times..PER is set with '15' as the average, but to my knowledge, the performance of the players around you is factored into the number..therefore, while the "average" standard is the same number, every year, the value of each number is actually weighed differently, for every particular season..

The seasonal ranking for each individual player is a more accurate method to use PER as a comparative tool IMO..obviously PER can be used in combination with other advanced stats, as well, to further illustrate the point..

Another advanced stat flaw is using adjusted +/- without combining the individual player's number with the "5-man unit" numbers for his team..it's a more effective usage of the stat..

:tu good post

And my suggestion about having a better PER with inferior teammates was more of a question than anything, since I really did not and still do not know the exact formula and calculations for PER. I was just pointing out that there are certain variables and perhaps other intangible factors it doesn't take into account that could skew what the PER stat by itself might indicate.

[Samuel Eto'o]

:lmao the argentinian homers on this site

[DAF86]

Mavsfans on this site are the quickest/easiest to get butthurt, tbh.

[Samuel Eto'o]

:lol is that how it looks over there in argentina