Reply With Quote
Deuce! Deuce! Deuce!
Got you there. Kobe's playoff PER is better than Larry Bird's easily and on par with Magic Johnson's.
I don't think anyone cares or even knows hat he's 19th (NBA son) on the career "PER" list lol
Deuce! Deuce! Deuce!
Still 5 rings
Still better than Duncan
Still you mad
Was he the focus of the opposing team's defense? Or was Kobe?
And tell me how citing Gasol's 2010 run invalidates anything? That was one of the better second option performances in a long while, probably since Kobe's '01 campaign. 20, 11, 3.5 apg 2.1 blk on .539 shooting and playing great defense is top tier. But the reason we don't give it the credit it deserves is because Pau was still the second option.
Give it up pulpy. Your argument is PER and you use that to justify ranking Duncan over Kobe. Yet Duncan has a higher PER than Magic, Kareem, Bird. But you don't rank Duncan over them now do you?
And when we compare Kobe to Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Lebron, Dirk, etc what happens?
The reason Bird and Magic have lower PERs than other greats is because PER undervalues assists, which is by design, since the assist has been called the most overrated stat in basketball. We know from the "eye test" that Magic and Bird were playmakers who often got their teammates open looks, unlike a player like Stockton who d the pick-n-roll. FWIW, Bird was also a bit inconsistent in the playoffs and has benefited greatly from the whole Magic/Bird mythology. Still an all-time great player.
So yeah, like any other stat, PER has its kinks and should be always used with observation. Still better than your per game bull , though.
Per game: Allen Iverson is the 2nd greatest playoff scorer of all-time
Your method is highly, highly more flawed than mine.
Quit living in the 90's.
^ Knew you would have an excuse.
Kareem played 75 years and was on a stacked team with a variety of scoring options in his later years, so it stands to reason he'd have a drop off in production during that period, lowering his PER average. But during Kareem's prime (from 1970-80), his playoff PER was higher than Duncan's during his prime (99-08).
Magic I have higher than Duncan because I know how valuable of a playmaker he was, and PER does undervalue assists.
Bird is arguable. Slam magazine ranked Duncan higher than Bird.
So basically the only "evidence" you have against PER is repeatedly citing Magic's comparatively lower PER to other greats (and please don't be an idiot and name players like McGrady and Amare who have very small sample sizes). On the other hand, I can defeat your per game argument by naming a ton of different players with impressive per game stats who aren't considered top ten all-time greats, many of whom have superior per game stats than your beloved Kobe, like Allen Iverson
You simply don't like PER because your hero is 21st (we'll bump him up to 17 by eliminating Howard, Amare, Durant, and T-Mac, players with small sample sizes) on the all-time list.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 04-05-2013 at 02:58 AM.
Where's Larry Bird?This why they hate it, and it burns their ass:
Less than 1 PER from Kareem, Magic, Wilt, and West. Yeah that really burns our ass that he's less than 1 PER point behind those legends.
What excuse?
I'm totally on board with PER undervaluing assists. It's an overrated stat. This is why PER should be used with observation. Magic's assists were more "valuable" than Stockton's.
The only eye test Kobe passes is his ability to make difficult shots over 2 defenders, usually after going 1-7 previously.
It does because he's 3 points behind Duncan and nearly 5 points behind Lebron.
again, PER numbers can't be compared to numbers in different seasons for an individual..the overall results for the PER of an individual season is partly based on the compe ion and "average" of the particular season in question..
One player's PER in 2011 is not comparable to a different player's PER in 1986..
Pau Gasol in the 2010 playoffs did not finish with a top 5 PER, while Bird finished in the top 5 several times IIRC..
Kobe has 4 top 5 playoff PER finishes(2010, 2009, 2008, 2001) with #3 as his peak
Magic has 6 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with several #2 finishes
Bird has 3 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with #2 as his peak
Magic's numbers are especially impressive, since PER undervalues PGs..
I agree that PER is a useful box score stat and more accurate than raw, simple box score numbers, but the overall PER number and career ranking list is largely irrelevant..
PER is useful in assessing an individual's player's dominance in a particular season against his compe ion..
Agreed. PER sets a baseline for 15 every season, which is why I broke it down by era in an earlier post of mine. However, I couldn't help but indulge Deuce when he was naming his "outliers" that he stupidly believes debunks the stat.
One player's PER in 2011 is not comparable to a different player's PER in 1986..
Pau Gasol in the 2010 playoffs did not finish with a top 5 PER, while Bird finished in the top 5 several times IIRC..
Kobe has 4 top 5 playoff PER finishes(2010, 2009, 2008, 2001) with #3 as his peak
Magic has 6 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with several #2 finishes
Bird has 3 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with #2 as his peak
Magic's numbers are especially impressive, since PER undervalues PGs..
I know I sometimes talk like it's the be-all, end-all stat, but I don't believe that it all. I just believe it's more valuable than the per game measurement. Averaging 25 points per game on the Grizzlies would be much more difficult than averaging the same on the Rockets. Deuce and his ilk don't seem to in' understand pace, and try to distill player evaluation down to per game stats, which is a futile exercise. If you spent any time watching basketball, you'd know players can pad per game stats much easier in a high-tempo system, a concept that is obviously beyond Deuce's tiny brain (which is no doubt encrusted with Kobe's semen).
Of course pace should be considered, but I dont think the per game numbers should be discounted either. Not speaking of PER which all kidding aside is probably better than winshares but still a bit iffy tbh ...
Nash, MArion etc. played in a crazy offense that boosted their traditional per game numbers ...but again ... if you played or coached at a high level do you know how hard it is to play uptempo for 40 or 48 minutes ESPECIALLY if you try and play defense at a high level as well? Not saying the Suns did that ...but to run heavy for extended minutes is tiring. And though I think it makes sense to keep in mind their tempo, they should not be penalized for scoring more than most teams. Gstate for example under Mark Jack is attempting to do this but also play defense and Ill be very ineterested to see how they hold up in the playoffs over a long series or if they get past round one. Point being I dont get why folks knock
So I get pace is to try and level playing fields and I get scoring for Memphis is diffrent than Houston, scoring is fun and playing defense at a high level is even more tiring than playing offense tbh ... But points no matter the pace are still at a premium no matter the tempo. IF you get sucked in to a shoot-out you need to score more and if you get in a dog fight ever basket is precious. Like my man Russell said these young bloods dont understand "the game always was and always will be about BUCKETS" ... (and of course stopping them).
But all in all most stats still tell us MJ, Magic, Bird Duncan etc are great ...Kobe for some reason is lower than expected but hey happens in the end. He will still be one of the greats no matter how many diatribes AMb spits on here. Is he overrated by Kobe fanbois? Absolutely is he underrated by Duncan fans sho nuff.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 04-05-2013 at 08:54 AM.
See my stance on regular stats, PER, and Win Shares
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6461167
To summarize, at the end of the day, I don't care about a player's stats as long as he helps the team wins. In an extreme case, I would take a player who averaged 0 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, but did all the unmeasured stuff like setting picks, hustling, getting loose balls, etc .. than a guy who averages 20/5/5 if those stats came at the expense of the team (ie, ball hog)
Also, calculating PER is extremely straightforward, anybody with an excel sheet and the stats lined up can do it in about 3 minutes.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
Kobe Bryant is the only supposed top 10 player of all time who is an exception to everything. It's not that he failed one of two of them, he failed every single one of them.
His best PER season was ranked #49 of all time for players who played more than 42 games in a season. And it came during the 05-06 season when his team was horrible.
His best WS season was ranked #95 of all time, and #55 of all time since the 77-78 season.
He was the only player to miss the playoffs in his prime. Kareem's case was unique due to injuries and wonky divisional rankings, and the mid 70s was wonky in general.
He was the only player to run a dominant teammate off the team during both of their primes. (Magic only did it to his coach)
He was never the clear cut #1 player in the league at any point in his career. In fact, he was the only player replaceable by multiple other players at any point in his career with another player in the league, and his team would have had the same success.
Gotta agree with this, and I know Simmons is a homer but in some of his old stuff he calls out MAgic for his tragic Johnson stuff in 1984 but none of Bird's playoff failings. Which points to the issue with ALL of this everyone here picks and chooses the stats or data that supports their argument, that is human nature. AMb can argue winshares and Mid PER but reality is they are just looking to back what they already believe and when it doesnt the use Outliers or competion as an excuse. Any one method will be inherently flawed but the funniest part of all this Harlem when he is not trolling is one of the more reasonable fans on here. Good to have you back HArlem HO (ha)... whose troll was that anyways? Good timesAnd when we compare Kobe to Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Lebron, Dirk, etc what happens?
The reason Bird and Magic have lower PERs than other greats is because PER undervalues assists, which is by design, since the assist has been called the most overrated stat in basketball. We know from the "eye test" that Magic and Bird were playmakers who often got their teammates open looks, unlike a player like Stockton who d the pick-n-roll. FWIW, Bird was also a bit inconsistent in the playoffs and has benefited greatly from the whole Magic/Bird mythology. Still an all-time great player. So yeah, like any other stat, PER has its kinks and should be always used with observation. Still better than your per game bull , though.
Per game: Allen Iverson is the 2nd greatest playoff scorer of all-time
Your method is highly, highly more flawed than mine.
Quit living in the 90's.
This is where you start to lose me AMB should of just stuck with the facts. Let me help you out when you are trying to make a logical reason based argument and claim you dont "hate" a player it helps when you leave the off court drama and opinions out of it. It pretty much eats at the credibility of all the numbers you said right before it.
I like your postings Amb, you are fun to debate with. But you go out of your way to make a great argument but undermine it by letting your didsdain for Kobe shine through in the end ...
Like I said just admit you dont like the guy. Ego. Seems like a rough team-mate if not a bad one at times. Petulant, compe ive sociopath, adulterer. Selfish scorer.
We get it ...no need to hide behind the numbers.
Again why I enjoy Harlem he will give Kobe props as a great player he just does not like him. Nothing wrong with that ...he even slammed his kids and got his hands spanked by Kori.
Kobe failed the teammate test, which is a huge thing in my book. In almost 2 decades, he still hasn't learned how to play within the team confines and settle in his role, and I am suspect about his motivations. People claimed he just wanted to win, but I don't really see it. Not shooting to make a point in Game 7 of a playoffs? Shooting your team out of the Finals when you have 2 other HoF on your team playing with you, including one who was still in his prime and was absolutely dismantling the opposition?
These are traits that causes a team to underachieve, and that is not a role of a leader.
On the other hand, I am willing to say that he is one of the greatest offensive force in the league's history. In a game of one on one, I will take him as one of the top 10 of all time, no question. Too bad the NBA is a game of 5 on 5.
This post gets to the crux of the matter. Kobe is arguably the most skilled scorer in the history of the game. Maybe even better than Jordan on this front. A bad shot by Kobe has a better chance of going in than a bad shot by anyone else in the history of the game, making him the ultimate 'bail-out' scorer. However, I think that versatile scorers in the Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Carmelo, etc. mold are more susceptible to bias when evaluating them using the 'eye-test' than are, say, big men. Guys like Shaq, Duncan, etc. are judged almost exclusively on efficiency. The number of ways they can score is limited, but still extremely effective because of their inherent physical advantages around the basket. Elite perimeter scorers can score in so many ways that people using the 'eye-test' sometimes get so caught up in the different ways that they score, and lose sight of how much that scoring directly contributes to winning. This is probably why bigs who usually pass the 'eye-test' are also great according to advanced metrics, while there's a bigger variation among versatile scorers as to how the 'eye-test' stacks up against advanced metrics. For this reason, advanced metrics hold even more weight among perimeter players, mostly because they cut through a lot of the biases present in the 'eye-test' that are stronger with guys with really 'pretty' games.
There is no argument to be made for using per-game stats over advanced metrics. None.
Honesty. And Amb, you are not wrong to feel this way. And Im glad you stated as suspect, because you don't know. All I am saying is those su ions of yours cloud your judgment I dont see why you find that hard to understand. YOu use the numbers as a way to say you are unbiased but you seek out the numbers to "back your play" which is also "human" and normal. Many on here do it. Just dont act like you don't.
For example I despise PGs that cant hit FT's, wont pass ahead on a fast break to " " the assist and who overly gamble on steals. SO Rondo though a great player fails my eye test especially when you add the shaky jumper. Is he a great player I say yes, underrated by some overrarted by others. But that is my bias. I grew up watching Magic and he was so good at all of those things especially as he improved his range. But My Magic bias doesnt make me despise Shootfirst PG's because I saw guys like Isiah, KJ and GP and others that were successful doing it THAT way as well.
I get that Kobe has holes in his resume more than Duncan tbh. But that does not end the debate. Kobe does not lead his team the way you prefer they be led, but he still leads and has success nonetheless. I am a certified Situational Leadership facilitator. There are diffrent leadership styles you just prefer Duncans ...I think most people would agree myself included. But none of that matters to me, I have worked for leaders like both and though Duncan's style is more enjoyable Leaders like Kobe also get results. Kobe also has been a great player LONGER than Duncan imho with Tim just showing this season anything close to his 2008 form (duncan's last really high level season). I just feel they are relatively close but the past few seasons gives Kobe the edge. But agin we will debate this in a few years ... if Duncan leads the spurs to the Finals this year or next as a #1 or #2 he definitely has another strong argument for him over Kobe ... we shall see.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 04-05-2013 at 10:01 AM.
Sensible post, but again I just think using stats at the crux of any argument is flawed becau se of the intent of the creator or the seeker of said stats. The few timesI have used them in a debate (not just hoops but college ones) they are to prove a belief I already held. I just doubt the ability of most "fans" to look at any data or metric and remove bias from the equation.
I agree with most of the post, but I disagree on the skilled side. He surely was skilled, but our perspectives were skewed by highlights (ie biased reporting). I find that Kobe makes more of these difficult shots because he shot more of them than anyone else. Not sure if you remember a guy called Rex Chapman, but the guy makes some insanely difficult shot, but I wouldn’t call him the most skilled offensive player.
To me part of a skilled scorer is know when NOT to shoot. Kobe never learned that in 2 decades.
Oh and as far as leadrship goes I dontknow if either Kobe or Duncan win without Pop or Phil. We may never know what Tim looks like with a lessor coach but Tim has never really ever had to lead a team. Avery was the early leader of the Spurs and Pop is pretty much been the leader since. Phil was the real leader of the Lakers along with fisher ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 04-05-2013 at 10:09 AM.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have biases for sure, but the funny thing is, the stats backed those biases. And when they don’t, there are legitimate reasons behind it.
I hope there will be better stats in the future for us to really gauge the effectiveness of a player. As for Rondo, the guy is like stat-padder extraordinaire. I am no fan of him at all because of the reasons you listed, but guess what? WS backed that up. I didn’t even attempt to discredit Rondo, but he was actually #4 in WS with the 08 Celtics. Since they he was #3, #1 (because Pierce and Garnett missed quite a few games, as Rondo actually was third in WS/48), #4 and #3 (Rondo missed a lot of games, but was still behind Pierece and Garnett in WS/48).
Even this year, Rondo was #4 in WS (because he missed a lot of games, he is actually #3 in WS/48 for all the regulars), which really speaks to the fact that the numbers backed up what we saw, Rondo put up great stats, but he does it to the detriment of the team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
