RealGM

shobe_81 wrote:Could Someone point to me what's Larry Bird's best PER?

1. Kobe will never be great at PER!
2. Lebroniez are afraid of Championships, most of them would have you believe that Lebron had the Greatest Playoffs performance EVER Because the PER says so. Oh What's that "Lebron didn't win the championship?
3. Using Horry to say Championships are pointless is falling into retardation when you're actually saying that a TOP 10 Players championships don't matter like as if they weren't a HUGE reason for the rings.

AGIAN What's Larry Bird's best PER?

Larry Birds best PER is 26.5

D-WestFan wrote:Larry Birds best PER is 26.5

?
According to basketball-reference it's 27.8 in 87-88. Regardless, I have no idea what shobe_81 is trying to show... that's a superstar number.

Also, Kobe's not great at PER? He's been top 8 for the last decade, and his career PER is 15th all time.

As for the arguments regarding Berri and PER, I think the Dean Oliver quote from earlier in the thread has this pretty much on lock:

"Implying that all these high percentage, low usage shooters can ramp up their usage without penalty implies that the people running the NBA are not just a little wrong. It implies also that the fundamental nature of basketball is poorly understood. It implies that any sort of linear weights rating is wrong. . . . "

That really is what Berri is saying by not valuing usage in his calculations: that a player like Dampier could in theory be shooting more, and that a team like Nowitzki helps his team less because he does not shoot as high a percentage as Dampier does. It's so totally obvious and logical that you could not give Dampier the ball 20 times a game that it kind of boggles the mind to see Berri continue to insist otherwise.

Paydro70 wrote:

D-WestFan wrote:Larry Birds best PER is 26.5

?
According to basketball-reference it's 27.8 in 87-88. Regardless, I have no idea what shobe_81 is trying to show... that's a superstar number.

Also, Kobe's not great at PER? He's been top 8 for the last decade, and his career PER is 15th all time.

As for the arguments regarding Berri and PER, I think the Dean Oliver quote from earlier in the thread has this pretty much on lock:

"Implying that all these high percentage, low usage shooters can ramp up their usage without penalty implies that the people running the NBA are not just a little wrong. It implies also that the fundamental nature of basketball is poorly understood. It implies that any sort of linear weights rating is wrong. . . . "

That really is what Berri is saying by not valuing usage in his calculations: that a player like Dampier could in theory be shooting more, and that a team like Nowitzki helps his team less because he does not shoot as high a percentage as Dampier does. It's so totally obvious and logical that you could not give Dampier the ball 20 times a game that it kind of boggles the mind to see Berri continue to insist otherwise.

He was trying to show that not all the all time greats have great PER's, but he failed miserably.

LebronsCavs wrote:

nastneemz81 wrote:All it takes is one idiot to turn this into a Kobe/Lebron debate.

Just STFU they're both good. Better than everyone else who plays the game today.

I'm sorry but Wade is definitely a better player than Kobe nowadays. He is a more effective scorer, better play maker, better attacker of the basket, better defender. better teammate. He even shot at a similar clip from mid range this year (Kobe's bread and butter). Lastly, Wade shot a higher % from 3 pt range post ASG. So basically there really isnt any reason why anyone should think Kobe is a better individual player.
The top 2 players in the league are Lebron and Wade. Sorry kobe fans.