NBA Career PER Leaders - T-Mac #11, Higher Than Dream

Dude, I know we're all Rockets fans and love Dream, but his misplacement on this list is nothing compared to the idocy that has Bill Russell at 92nd.

 

92 Bill Russell* 18.90

As you can see, this list is almost useless.

 

well bill russell wasn't a big scorer and his fg% was 43%, which is very low for a big man. his biggest statlines were rebounds and block shots, but blocks weren't recorded for most of his career.

tmac's all around game allows his PER to be very high. lebron will prollie be ridiculously high when he's done.

 

What's idiotic about that? Bill Russell isn't considered a great player because of his individual numbers. And PER is only meant to summarize the individual numbers; it's not meant to be a be-all, end-all measure of a player's value.

 

Andre Kirilenko looks like **** compares to everyone on this list

39 Andrei Kirilenko 21.33

 

I'll take Stockton over at least half that list. Nice of you to sneak Francis in there.

 

Neil Johnston... I dont get that stats if tmac is higher than Hakeem. You'd think FG% would play a bigger role. I am not a stats fan. Lenavo or whatever is idiotic too.

I cant wait til Morey takes over

 

T-Mac and Dream play different positions, so it's hard to compare.

The fact that T-Mac has a greater PER than Kobe kind of surprises me. At least recently, Kobe has been a more efficient shooter than T-Mac. T-Mac must've been a lot more efficient back in the day, and vice versa for Kobe.

 

I think the list is pretty much way too biased to active players.

Putting Dirk above Oscar Robertson and just below Larry Bird should be considered a cardinal sin.

 

Code:

          [B]TMac          Kobe[/B]
97          -           14.4
98        17.4          18.5
99        20.6          18.9
00        20.0          21.7
01        24.9          24.5
02        25.1          23.2
03        30.3          26.2
04        25.3          23.7
05        22.9          23.3
06        21.9          28.0
07        23.0          25.5

And it makes no sense to charge that the list is "biased", because it's purely based on the numbers. The same formula is applied for every player.

 

Fair enough, but I can't really see it in the numbers either, I mean Oscar was a beast in points, assists and rebounds and Dirk is over him?

Either way, I don't like how the list was compiled. But still, its pretty much saying something we all know, Mac is something special. Hopefully he provies it this playoffs.

 

Oscar was a great player, but you also need to recognize that those stats were inflated because the game was played differently back then. Very high pace compared to today's game, so there were more shot attempts. Plus, FG% was far lower, so there were far more available rebounds. What PER does is it measures a player's production relative to the league average, so it effectively adjusts for such differences.

Yes, Roberston put up great stats back in the 60s. Nowitzki's numbers would have looked damn impressive too if he played in that era. Probably 35+ ppg and 15+ rpg.

 

That is his point. It is a useless list. Bill Russell is the number 1 impact player in league history and to place him 92 is blasphemy. The only player who is even close to him is Jordan. Stupid list and stupid point.

 

You don't get it. What's stupid is thinking such a list is meant to be a ranking of the best players. That's like ranking all players by career PPG and thinking that it should be interpreted as the best to worst players. PER only tells part of the story; the guy who invented the stat (John Hollinger) says the same thing.

 

A perfect example of why I look very askance at ratings like this. "Inflated?" How about the numbers of more recent players being inflated because of the style of basketball being played today?

 

Pshaw. In O's day guys would commit defensive criminal assault on the perimeter. It made it too easy to throw up bad shots, or drive and get pummeled as you either score or dish. Kobe could've averaged 51 points a season back then.

 

That's why it's adjusted to league average.

Though I suppose you could argue it's more of a "star" league, making it more likely that a "star" today will have a PER higher than a "star" of yesteryear.

 

How about Wilt and Russell's numbers being inflated because teams didnt play any team defense back in the day. It is very hard to compare players from differant generations because the game changes so much.

 

all lists like this in all sports are biased to active players, because active players (by definition) have not completed their careers. You really think TMac, Duncan and Nitwizt are going to not have drop offs later in their career like Bird, Barkley and Hakeem did? Active player stats are not showing twilight yrs yet, which will drag them down.