Reply With Quote
Any stat that requires a higher level of math than basic multiplication/division isn't a real stat?
You can't compare stats from completely different eras, were talking ~40 year differences. Fail on your part, but you fail at understanding basketball anyways.Per game stats tells us Elgin Baylor is a better rebounder than Ben Wallace.
Per game stats.
Any metric than doesn't factor in pace is worthless in my book.
Any stat that requires a higher level of math than basic multiplication/division isn't a real stat?
Pretty simple metric actually. Nothing "advanced" about it.
"PER strives to measure a player's per-minute performance, while adjusting for pace."
PER's most important feature is bolded, something your dumbass fails to comprehend. Higher pace means more possessions, which means more opportunities for points, rebounds, assists, etc. Steve Nash averaged 8.8 apg in his last year with the Mavericks to averaging 11.5 apg the very next year with the Suns, who we all know played at much higher pace. Your sacred "Per game stats" would lead us to believe he magically became a 30% better passer in a one year span, but the increase in his production had more to do with the system he was in and the pace at which he played than him suddenly becoming an MVP candidate overnight because he's just that good.
Again, quit living in the 90's and join us in the modern era.
Tell me what PER is.
PER is not a real stat. It's a formula invented by John Hollinger. Do you see a player's PER on a box score? Do you go, hey what's this guy's PER in this game right now?
Win-shares? What is that? It is not literally a stat that measures the amount of wins a player produces.
Yes you can. And PER does it quite well.
There's a reason stats from the 60's were highly inflated as compared to now. Can you tell me why?
Yeah I know, right! ing MATHS! Putting numbers together in a sensible way in order to properly assess a situation with as little bias as possible. your FORMULAS
It's not just the pace when you're talking about the 60's. The level of compe ion is another factor.
Except you, pulp, ect don't know what that formula is.
Yeah, and PER doesn't totally reflect real world perceptions at all. Jordan is widely considered the greatest player in history and has the highest all-time PER in both the regular season and the playoffs. Lebron James is clearly the best player in the league and is running away with the "PER le."
But "real" per game stats tell us that Allen Iverson was a better scorer in 2002 than Kevin Durant is today.
How so? A lot of those "unathletic midget honkies" filled up the stat sheet, as well. The 6' 7" Dolph Schayes was still pulling down double-digit boards at age 32, which back then was like being 50 years old since sports medicine wasn't too advanced back then.
Any metric worth its salt should factor in pace, and since per game stats don't do that, they're pretty much antiquated.
Chris PaulYeah, and PER doesn't totally reflect real world perceptions at all. Jordan is widely considered the greatest player in history and has the highest all-time PER in both the regular season and the playoffs. Lebron James is clearly the best player in the league and is running away with the "PER le."
But "real" per game stats tell us that Allen Iverson was a better scorer in 2002 than Kevin Durant is today.
25.5 career PER
30.0 peak PER
Magic Johnson
24.1 career PER
27.0 peak PER
I could give so much more examples...
Let's review how PER doesn't reflect "actual production," measured so accurately by per game stats, and is simply an arbitrary invention by Hollinger without any basis in reality:Yeah, and PER doesn't totally reflect real world perceptions at all. Jordan is widely considered the greatest player in history and has the highest all-time PER in both the regular season and the playoffs. Lebron James is clearly the best player in the league and is running away with the "PER le."
But "real" per game stats tell us that Allen Iverson was a better scorer in 2002 than Kevin Durant is today.
Wilt (regarded as the best player of his era, even over Russell): Highest PER of his generation.
Kareem (best player of the 70's): Highest PER of that decade.
Magic (best from about 1980 to 1988): Highest PER during that time.
Bird (2nd best player from 80 to 88): 2nd highest PER during that time.
Jordan (best player from 88-94): Highest PER during that time.
Hakeem (best player in 94-95): 3rd highest PER behind Shaq and David Robinson, who were the other top two players in the league alongside him. Posted the highest playoff PER.
Jordan (best player from 96-98): 2nd highest regular season PER, highest playoff PER.
So yeah, PER isn't a fairly accurate gauge of player production at all. It's also worth mentioning that the players with the highest PERs this gen (Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Lebron, Wade, and KG) have also won the most les combined.
Again, quit living in the 90's.
PER is not useful as a comparative stat, outside of comparing player's to their own compe ion in each respective season, tbh..
So comparing Magic and Paul's number is a faulty argument, tbh..
I'm not a huge PER fan, just saying though..
Prime Paul before the injury was well on his way to becoming one of the all-time great players. Pair prime Paul up with players the caliber of Worthy and Kareem, and he probably wins a couple of les. So I don't see how that's a good example, especially considering you're comparing a player who played 7 seasons with a player who played 13 seasons.
Per game stats: Stockton was a better passer than Magic in 1990 when he averaged 13.8 assists to Magic's. Dirk is also a better scorer than Kobe in the playoffs because he averages more points per game, as are Durant, Iverson, George Gervin, Lebron James, and Rick Barry.
I can give you so much more examples.
My essential argument is that PER is a much more useful metric for measuring production (given a large enough sample size) than per game stats. Kobe fans hate it because his PER (both regular season and playoff) is relatively unimpressive compared to other all-time greats. And it always seems the players we consider the best of their generation have uncannily no lower than the 2nd or 3rd best PER of their respective eras. So I don't really understand the arguments against it for not being a useful stat. Of course it doesn't consider defense and "intangibles," which is why it should be used in conjunction with observation, like any other stat.
2010 Pau Gasol had a higher Playoff PER than Every single playoff year of Larry Bird's career except 1984.
This why they hate it, and it burns their ass:
The difference between Kobe and the all-time greats he's compared to, like Jordan (and now Lebron), is that their hype has always held up under the microscope of every statistical analysis there is, from advanced measurements to the per game. When someone examines the Kobe myth deeper, they find the perception doesn't quite measure up to the reality. Stats, simple basic "per game" stats, have shown Kobe is not the best clutch player in the league, now or even of his generation. Kobe's vaunted defensive reputation crumbles when you go through it with the fine tooth comb of advanced stats (http://asubs uteforwar.wordpress.c...er-imaginable/). All other players we consider top ten all-time greats pass these "tests" with flying colors, while Kobe passes them with about an A-minus, and for a player who the media and his fans alike claim to be a top 5 great, A-minus shouldn't be good enough.
But like usual, Kobe is the exception because he has 5 rings, 3 of which were won when he was clearly the 2nd best player on his team.
Actually Kobe's PER is on par with Magic and Bird. Kobe has a higher peak than both and their prime years and career are nearly identical.
Kobe
peak: 28.0
next best 3 years: 26.2, 26.1, 24.5
career: 23.4
Magic
peak: 27.0
next best 3 years: 26.9, 26.6, 25.7
career: 24.1
Bird
peak: 27.8
next best 3 years: 26.5, 26.4, 25.6
career: 23.5
Pulpy wrong again. I just proved that Kobe's PER is on par with Magic and Bird.This why they hate it, and it burns their ass:
The difference between Kobe and the all-time greats he's compared to, like Jordan (and now Lebron), is that their hype has always held up under the microscope of every statistical analysis there is, from advanced measurements to the per game. When someone examines the Kobe myth deeper, they find the perception doesn't quite measure up to the reality. Stats, simple basic "per game" stats, have shown Kobe is not the best clutch player in the league, now or even of his generation. Kobe's vaunted defensive reputation crumbles when you go through it with the fine tooth comb of advanced stats (http://asubs uteforwar.wordpress.c...er-imaginable/). All other players we consider top ten all-time greats pass these "tests" with flying colors, while Kobe passes them with about an A-minus, and for a player who the media and his fans alike claim to be a top 5 great, A-minus shouldn't be good enough.
But like usual, Kobe is the exception because he has 5 rings, 3 of which were won when he was clearly the 2nd best player on his team.
So stats aren't allowed to have outliers?
FWIW, you're also comparing a first option player to a second option player.
PER - Playoffs
Playoff years with a PER of at least 24
Kobe: 26.8, 25.0, 25.0, 24.7, 24.4, 24.1 [3 le years]
Magic: 26.2, 25.6, 25.0 [1 le year]
Bird: 26.3 [1 le year]
Still 21st all-time.
Classic Deuce cherry pick.
Still 21st all-time.
Pau averaged 40 mpg.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
