Ridiculous. The only way Wade's performance would be #1 is if the list was 'greatest finals performances in 2006'.
I looked into this a while ago, his regular season PER's, while very high, doesn't come out super-epic high for whatever reason - Robinson's for the same time frame were substantially higher. WHich goes to show that PER is important but sometiems doesn't work out when you go head to head.
Nice that they gave props to the Dream. Although Ewing did NOT guard Dream most of that series. Riley used multiple defenders on him(Ewing, Smith, Mason, Oakley) to try to wear Olajuwon down. It didn't work obviously.
Not just a PER thing, though. Didn't he routinely win some IBM award for best stats back then? It's hard to argue that Hakeem put up better numbers in the early to mid 90s during the regular season. At least that show up in the box score.
Hakeem is #13 in efficiency according to the NBA's statistical ranking. PER is not an official NBA efficiency rating. The NBA's efficiency stat does not extrapolate for minutes played...which is the proper way to do it, imso. For Example, look at this: <table border=1><tr><td valign=top>PER Rankings for Centers<hr><ol><li>Shaq<li>Robinson<li>Wilt<li>Jabbar<li>Hakeem</ol>Russell is ranked 87th</td><td valign=top>NBA's Efficiency Rating for Centers<hr><ol><li>Wilt<li>Russell<li>Jabbar<li>Shaq<li>Hakeem<li>Robinson</ol></td></tr></table> <a href="http://www.basketballreference.com/about/aboutstats.htm">The NBA Efficiency Rating</a> <a href="http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=eff&lg=n">Here's the career list.</a> here's the formula: ((pts + reb + stls + asts + blk) - ((fga - fgm) + (fta - ftm) + to))/g
also note that Shaq will likely drop below Hakeem before he retires, making Hakeem #12 overall and #4 center.
According to the NBA Efficiency Rating, Jerry Lucas also ranks ahead of Hakeem (because he played 39 mpg for his career and in an extremely high-paced era with inflated stats). That seems like a more egregious error than slotting Shaquille O'neal and David Robinson ahead of him.
Your treating all stats equal, do you really doubt Hakeem wouldnt average 20 rebounds in that era? You have to adjust for pace and minutes, and then take into account their context. I dont know what you find so shocking about it, D-Rob was Hakeems equal in the regular season, it wasnt until the pressure of winning it all do Hakeems numbers dwarf those of Robinson.
Durvasa and Chronz...rank the all-time NBA centers for me, please. Are you really going to put Robinson so high, and Russell so low? The NBA's official Efficiency rating ranks the NBA centers much better than PER does. It pretty much ranks them as everyone ranks them. How can anyone argue with that?
Russell ranks highly because of all the championships he won. If Russell played on a lesser team and won, say, 2 championships ...he would not be considered even a top 5 center by most people. It so happens that NBA EFF rating favors players who play heavy minutes and put up high raw per game stats (disregards pace). Fine, but that's not the reason we rate him so highly. A statistical ranking based on box score stats should not put Bill Russell ahead of Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, or David Robinson. I would question the methodology of any rating system that does so. My personal ranking, btw, is: 1. Wilt 2. Shaq 3. Kareem 4. Hakeem 5. Russell It's variable though, particularly between Shaq and Kareem.
Durvasa, stats don't work with some players, especially players, like Russell, that understood completely that basketball is a team sport and knew that their own egotistical scoring doesn't have to be a huge contributing factor in winning. That's an extremely disingenuous question, first because you attribute his rankings to winning and then because you contribute his winning to his teammates. I'll never understand why anyone would use Russell's championships against him, that has become sad and habitual in conversations involving him, as if he wasn't always the best player - usually by far - and always the most valuable - always by far - on every championship team. I also don't understand why people always ignore his 5 MVPs - equal to Jordan, and one less than Kareem -, doesn't that clearly demonstrate how respected and great he was? Unfortunately, players like Russell and Nash will always be degraded because they weren't dominant statistically, and unfortunately, it's going to keep on getting worse and worse as more and more advanced stats permeate the NBA to the detriment of past players because they are so incompatible with that era.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I think you misunderstood me. I'm not denying that Bill Russell is a great player. But his greatness easily superceded his individual stats. So the fact that NBA EFF happens to rate him relatively high based on his stats does not afford it any more credibility, in my view.
Because its ranking them for the wrong reasons, the point of stats are to reflect no bias and are meant to be an objective approach to assessing a players value, you dont just accept the ones that agree with your opinion. To my understanding, NBA Eff treats a missed FT the same as it does a missed shot and/or a turnover. The logic in the formula isnt sound, because the weightings are simplified. Besides alot of players rank higher than Hakeem statistically, none of them compete with his defense so even if their remotely similar Hakeem would still be held in higher regard because of his intangible worth. Bill Russel was great but his numbers werent, he was a brilliant passer and rebounder but his scoring was pretty bad for an era with so many possessions. I see no reason why Russel should rank at the top of any statistical formula just because he averaged an insane amount of rebounds. A number so high that it would rank in the 0 percentile on the probability scale, there is no way anyone will ever average 20 rebounds a game and its not because they arent good enough.
Exactly why a statistical rating shouldnt rank Russel among the best, his impact transcended his statistical worth. But also its not so much the lack of scoring that turns me off about Bill Russell, its the lack of efficient scoring. He was blessed with the perfect team to mask his flaws and compliment his strengths, and yes he won but when compared to Wilt its hard to favor him as the greater player. When Wilt was put in a similar role he was the best defender/rebounder in the league, a brilliant passer, on a championship squad, does any of that sound familiar? Difference being that Wilt in that role shot 65% compared to Russells career best mark of 46.
Your problem is you feel like you can claim your stat is better than another. Fact is, the best stats do not rely solely on box scores. The best stats will rank Russell near the top of NBA Centers. The best stats require much video work. Forget Russell, though. The PER stat ranks Wilt 3rd best center, behind Robinson. You say the complexity makes PER better. Well, it sucks at ranking Wilt Chamberlain. The simpler stat ranks Wilt correctly. How can anyone justify a stat that puts Robinson ahead of Wilt Chamberlain and Jabbar? 'splain that to me.
It has always been a pet peeve of mine that the national media tries to lump the Dream and Ewing in the same category because they were from the same era and played the same position. Olajuwon didn't just outplay him in this series, he ALWAYS outplayed Ewing because he was MILES better than Ewing ever Dreamed (no pun intended) of being. A true center for the ages vs. a very good center. Just not in the same stratosphere.
