-
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by GrapeApe
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?
-
LeBron James fan
-
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Neil Johnson 6.9ppg career :
Top 9 all time on PER
GOAT gonna GOAT
-
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by 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
Wow so Wade, Durant, Barkley, CP3 are all better than Kobe?
numbers never lie your boy isnt a GOAT
-
LeBron James fan
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by GODbe
Neil Johnson 6.9ppg career :
Top 9 all time on PER
GOAT gonna GOAT
MDE, Shaq is secretly jealous of him.
-
-
Great college starter
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by dubeta
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?
-
LeBron James fan
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by dubeta
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]
Last edited by BlkMambaGOAT; 08-10-2014 at 11:04 PM.
-
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by GrapeApe
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
-
Scott Hastings Fan
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by dubeta
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.
Originally Posted by Sarcastic
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.
Last edited by G.O.A.T; 08-10-2014 at 11:11 PM.
-
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
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.
-
Great college starter
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by dubeta
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.
Last edited by GrapeApe; 08-10-2014 at 11:21 PM.
-
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by GrapeApe
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?
-
Great college starter
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Originally Posted by dubeta
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.
-
Not airballing my layups anymore
Re: Let's rank the Top 11 GOATs by PER
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|