Dirk > Bird

[redzero]

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

[LkrFan]

Bird absolutely s 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 burrito taste whenever dirk rang last june?

[NRHector]

sup hector, how'd that 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) 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? Compe ion? 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) 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? Compe ion? 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? Compe ion? 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 compe ion. 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 compe ion. 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.

[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.