Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER

[dubeta]

You could conceivably be 7/7 in the finals without having played a minute in any series. This is why it's a stupid argument (well one of the reasons anyway). PER, however, is a statistic based on actual play. By arbitrarily selecting and omitting players in which to compare you are effectively saying that PER is a flawed statistic, and if so what is the point of using it?

Ok but the finals argument is still flawed when comparing similar players

Wilt is above kobe in most people's eyes and wilt is 2/6 to kobe's 5/7

So should we scrap that argument as well?

[BlkMambaGOAT]

So lets rank them by PER and see if the rankings make sense

1. Michael Jordan 27.91
2. LeBron James 27.79
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson 26.18[/B]
5. Wilt Chamberlain 26.13
6. Chris Paul 25.59
7. Bob Petit 25.53
8. Dwayne Wade 25.29
9. Neil Johnston 24.69
10. Charles Barkley 24.63
[/QUOTE]
Fixed oh and lol no matter way the Bran stans try to spin it he still looks like a shit player whose rings are asterisks. Same team with a top-10 all-time player(Wade) but only going 2*/4, I am not impressed

[COLOR="White"]
Rankings based purely on PER are 4 phaggits.
Bonus: Durant would rank at #13[/COLOR]

[GODbe]

Neil Johnson 6.9ppg career :
Top 9 all time on PER

GOAT gonna GOAT

[dubeta]

So lets rank them by PER and see if the rankings make sense

1. Michael Jordan 27.91
2. LeBron James 27.79
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson 26.18[/B]
5. Wilt Chamberlain 26.13
6. Chris Paul 25.59
7. Bob Petit 25.53
8. Dwayne Wade 25.29
9. Neil Johnston 24.69
10. Charles Barkley 24.63

Wow so Wade, Durant, Barkley, CP3 are all better than Kobe?

numbers never lie your boy isnt a GOAT

[BlkMambaGOAT]

Neil Johnson 6.9ppg career :
Top 9 all time on PER

GOAT gonna GOAT

MDE, Shaq is secretly jealous of him.

[dubeta]

I try and prop up Kobe objectively, by removing the Non-GOATS, but the stans are bringing in other players

LOL you kobetards are throwing your own idol under the bus

Keep it going

[GrapeApe]

Ok but the finals argument is still flawed when comparing similar players

Wilt is above kobe in most people's eyes and wilt is 2/6 to kobe's 5/7

So should we scrap that argument as well?

You're missing my point. I'm saying that dismissing 7/7 is not comparable to dismissing PER. You praised PER in the OP as an accurate measure of a player's greatness. Why arbitrarily omit high ranking PER's if it is indeed such a great statistic?

[BlkMambaGOAT]

Fixed oh and lol no matter way the Bran stans try to spin it he still looks like a shit player whose rings are asterisks. Same team with a top-10 all-time player(Wade) but only going 2*/4, I am not impressed

[COLOR="White"]
Rankings based purely on PER are 4 phaggits.
Bonus: Durant would rank at #13[/COLOR]

^^^^^^^^^

You're right, Neil Johnston is the true GOAT, I have been convinced. Forgive me prophet for my blindless.

[COLOR="White"]I think Lebron's **** is disrupting your cerebrum's connection to your spinal cord.[/COLOR]

[dubeta]

You're missing my point. I'm saying that dismissing 7/7 is not comparable to dismissing PER. You praised PER in the OP as an accurate measure of a player's greatness. Why arbitrarily omit high ranking PER's if it is indeed such a great statistic?

Same reason people omit Horrys 7/7 and Parker and Ginobli's 4/5 Norris Cole's 2/3

Using it to compare players similar in ability

[G.O.A.T]

But this seems to be a good indicator to judge players from 1970's- to now

I like PER. I think it's a useful stat, but as a measure of great players it has no place. If you look at each players PER by season, you will see that their highest PER is typically in seasons where they had the least team success. Usually this means that player had to carry too much burden, thus the higher PER. This is the same problem that persists with per game or per 36 averages. They do not account for plays that do not show up in the stat sheet. And when teams have success, there is a multitude of those type of plays.

Neil Johnston - 24.69 PER, 9th best all time

Bill Russell - 18.87 PER, 101st all time

And there is a famous story that the arrival of the later ended the former's career.

[Pointguard]

Point guards are punished by PER. They usually lead the team in turnovers and if they are doing their job right they aren't the lead scorer on the team. There are always more rebounds per game than assist per game, and more blocks than steals per game if you go by leaders. They don't get as many free throws and because they bail the team out their FG% suffers. Nash wasn't in the top ten in either of his MVP runs and was verygood with FT% and FG%.

Chris Paul, especially when he has played too conservative. Both Curry and Westbrook are equal players but don't have his PER. Westbrook definitely outplayed him but I bet Paul had the better PER. Its a tricky thing for a PG. Basically, I'm saying it was harder for Magic than anybody on that list.

[GrapeApe]

Same reason people omit Horrys 7/7 and Parker and Ginobli's 4/5 Norris Cole's 2/3

Using it to compare players similar in ability

You cannot be that dense. You said YOURSELF in the OP that PER is the most accurate measure of a player's greatness (or something to that effect). This has nothing to do with team accomplishments or accolades. This about an individual's playing ability based on a statistic in which YOU cited as accurate. By that logic the top 10 PER's should reflect the 10 best players. Once again you are contradicting yourself.

BTW, I don't think the top 10 PER's are indeed the 10 GOAT. I'm just pointing out OP's usual inconsistencies.

[dubeta]

You cannot be that dense. You said YOURSELF in the OP that PER is the most accurate measure of a player's greatness (or something to that effect). This has nothing to do with team accomplishments or accolades. This about an individual's playing ability based on a statistic in which YOU cited as accurate. By that logic the top 10 PER's should reflect the 10 best players. Once again you are contradicting yourself.

Ok fine

The top 10 PER ratings show the 10 best players in terms of impacting team success throughout their careers (since it is CAREER PER)

Other subjective factors like rings impact other peoples GOAT lists

there, I stand behind the PER principle

Whats the problem?

[GrapeApe]

Ok fine

The top 10 PER ratings show the 10 best players in terms of impacting team success throughout their careers (since it is CAREER PER)

Other subjective factors like rings impact other peoples GOAT lists

there, I stand behind the PER principle

Whats the problem?

No problem here. You just admitted Dwyane Wade is one of the 10 best players in terms of impacting his team's success throughout his career.

[knickswoman]

LOL at these nerds