I hope you are not implying that in the regular season Robinson was a better player ? What about other players that are ahead of Olajuwon like Barkley, Garnett, Duncan, Dwayne Wade. LOL cmon man Even if you were to look at it strictly from a statistical point of view how can Duncan be better than Olajuwon.
Olajuwon had more PPG, BPG, APG, SPG, not to mention he was just overall a much better player than Duncan and PER gives the edge to Duncan ? How can anyone justify this nonsense ?
I would rather he urinate on all the stat whores that have never played the game, can't go left, can't make a left handed layup, don't know a pin down from a pin up, and have no clue about playing the game other than a spread sheet. It is like watching or reading the Big Bang Nerds trying to explain basketball.... Sports talk has certainly changed.....and not for the better... DD
Olajuwon had much better stats than Duncan in the regular season yet they claim Duncan is better PER ?
Anyone that knows basketball in the slightest would take Hakeem over Duncan, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. That is not to say Duncan was bad, but Dream may be top 5 all time....Duncan is not in his class. Dream was great on offense and defense.....and if PER doesn't show that, then it is about as useless a stat as most made up advanced metric stats are. DD
Actually, Olajuwon and Duncan had similar PERs in the prime years of their career. If Duncan has a career PER edge right now, it has something to do with the fact that Olajuwon had lower PERs during the last few years of his career, which drags down the average. If Duncan is to play 3 or 4 more years, his career PER will likely go down as well. The two of them are actually pretty similar, when it comes to the most important production categories on a per-minute or per-possession basis (scoring, rebouding). Olajuwon had more blks and stls, but Duncan was still an All-NBA defender most seasons. Duncan also tended to turn the ball over a little less during their respective primes. The one thing that makes Olajuwon's per-game numbers look better than Duncan's in most seasons during their respective primes was the fact that Olajuwon played big minutes (close to 40 mpg) well into his 30s and the Spurs have kept Duncan's minutes down to below 35 mpg ever season since he hit age 28. In any case, PER is not intended to strictly order player's worth, especially when it comes to players whose PER are quite similar (Olajuwon's career avg was 23.6, with a high of 27.7, Duncan's avg was 24.8, with a high of 27.0), any more than a 22.2 PPG average vs. a 21.4 PPG average tells you which player is a better scorer. It is simply an approximate measure and intended as a short-hand for overall player production (particularly on the offensive end-- defensive specialists like Battier and Bruce Bowen have low PERs, but if you ask any coach, these guys are valuable).
Let's see. During Hakeem's top 8 year stretch (88-89 through 95-96), his average PER (weighted by season minutes) was 25.2. Duncan's top 8 year stretch (99-00 through 06-07), his average PER was 25.7. That's pretty close, statistically. So, why do Hakeem's raw stats look better? The primary reason is very simple -- it has to do with the number of possessions each player played. Hakeem had slightly more minutes per game, but more importantly he played in a significantly faster paced era. Putting it together, I can estimate that during that 8 year stretch Hakeem averaged about 78 possessions played in each contest. Duncan, by comparison, averaged about 69 possessions per game. Because PER is a per-possession statistical summary, it does not award Olajuwon for playing more possessions each game. If you really want to see how their numbers would compare if PER did not adjust for possessions played (though I think it makes sense for it to do so), then multiply Hakeem's PER by 1.13 (=78/69). Now, for Hakeem it is 28.5 and for Duncan it is 25.7. Better? A secondary reason is PER is also adjusted based on league-average performance. During Duncan's prime years, offensive efficiency (points scored per possession) was less than in Hakeem's prime years. So, a player that produces, say, 25 points per 100 possessions in 2002 may be helping his team more than a player who was producing 25 points per 100 possessions in 1992, because the marginal value of a point has increased.
Well I do give you credit for "attempting" to justify why Duncan is better than Olajuwon in terms of PER but in my opinion it has too many flaws. This is supposed to be the one metric that encompasses all the statistics yet I don't think it does a very good job that. To each his own.......
You asked why Hakeem's stats look so much better but his PER was slightly less than Duncan's. I think my post sufficiently answered your question. It encompasses all the relevant statistics from the box score. It just makes some adjustments -- which I think are perfectly reasonable -- which you don't like.
The fact that Dalembert is anywhere near Bynum is a great argument against it. 12 games should be plenty of time to see the two aren't in the same universe. 2 games is enough, really.
it's not a predictive stat, it's an analytical stat. if the lakers and rockets play and dalembert goes 6-9 with 12 points and 12 boards and bynum goes 5-10 with 10 points and 6 boards, both in 30 minutes, would you say bynum played better than dalembert? i wouldn't. that doesn't make dalembert better than bynum going forward. it just says he was better that night. so far through 12 or so games, bynum has not outproduced dalembert. if people want bynum to be considered better than dalembert, then i suggest he start outproducing him. history says he almost certainly will, and by a fairly wide margin. if he doesn't, why is bynum still better? just because?
16 pts and 14 boards on 53% from the field is not "outproducing" Dalembert? Is that what it's come to now? Jeezus.
