if you took NBA players 5 best seasons and summed them up these are the top 100 PER'S

[Hoopz2332]

from reddit

"choosing how many seasons to sum is, in my opinion, a question of taste. in my opinion a players best five seasons should be summed, as i believe a players performance in their prime should dictate their historic appraisal. but, based on that criteria, I have no argument against summing 4 seasons or six seasons."



1 MichaelJordan* 21.256693048876343

2 ShaquilleONeal 19.855250429955525

3 LeBronJames 19.853975766881472

4 KareemAbdul-Jabbar* 19.849221559831573

5 DavidRobinson* 19.418163285034947

6 WiltChamberlain* 17.32942160576947

7 KarlMalone* 16.7160289759015

8 CharlesBarkley* 16.26271604510299

9 DwyaneWade 16.02198973195949

10 LarryBird* 15.483879676134547

11 HakeemOlajuwon* 15.173951583596024

12 ChrisPaul 15.112162591505337

13 KevinGarnett 15.108094774052446

14 TimDuncan 14.806691460027146

15 MagicJohnson* 14.64854136909225

16 OscarRobertson* 14.13639916089917

17 MosesMalone* 14.132907800490681

18 DirkNowitzki 13.653215727672931

19 AdrianDantley* 13.55284788912712

20 TracyMcGrady 13.475448083096879

21 JuliusErving* 13.413001496014068

22 BobLanier* 13.314049965933165

23 BobMcAdoo* 13.06867992727454

24 JerryWest* 12.934142189263092

25 KobeBryant 12.916674250218456

26 BobPettit* 12.78165052298652

27 KevinDurant 12.662642807585595

28 GeorgeGervin* 12.413261132550256

29 DominiqueWilkins* 12.126365118947469

30 DwightHoward 12.030013745100595

31 AmareStoudemire 11.945128565461706

32 ElginBaylor* 11.507519647690502

33 AlonzoMourning 11.440108122920968

34 PatrickEwing* 11.352028530328944

35 NeilJohnston* 11.174990768049096

36 ClydeDrexler* 11.14346528930202

37 JohnStockton* 11.13766281157042

38 JohnDrew 11.08816546520929

39 GrantHill 10.986641871286944

40 YaoMing 10.896996017898516

41 RobertParish* 10.839143562335842

42 ChrisWebber 10.779177432578972

43 RickBarry* 10.72669210828432

44 EltonBrand 10.693396947185791

45 DolphSchayes* 10.566975496934585

46 ArtisGilmore* 10.546267339801421

47 AlexEnglish* 10.498618360471356

48 AllenIverson 10.443718567148602

49 ShawnKemp 10.382622888636769

50 ChrisBosh 10.181036194342036

51 GaryPayton* 10.132237361626212

52 PauGasol 9.994339334971878

53 DanIssel* 9.985804739291716

54 ManuGinobili 9.984448798778121

55 MarquesJohnson 9.927134353156513

56 KevinJohnson 9.903125603541097

57 PaulWestphal 9.768248607363281

58 VinceCarter 9.765034508629933

59 ScottiePippen* 9.63312124023729

60 KevinMcHale* 9.49857756876185

61 MarkPrice 9.496051946295353

62 MarkAguirre 9.439253930054834

63 BernardKing* 9.324635174209902

64 CarmeloAnthony 9.321243452447446

65 SteveNash 9.233079634921232

66 PaulPierce 9.207142763064493

67 GeorgeMikan* 9.025311123200497

68 WaltBellamy* 8.998753610358841

69 ArvydasSabonis* 8.869966823586486

70 TinyArchibald* 8.837348048434869

71 SamCassell 8.737489455618555

72 TonyParker 8.68906863616759

73 HarryGallatin* 8.664858607390526

74 TerrellBrandon 8.654715169885051

75 AlJefferson 8.651188135382686

76 RayAllen 8.577428099386264

77 LarryNance 8.442725770975372

78 LarryFoust 8.410836758507013

79 WaltFrazier* 8.2986875676037

80 TerryCummings 8.274959425754442

81 WalterDavis 8.263855086070869

82 ChaunceyBillups 8.188828359677055

83 ClydeLovellette* 8.177612586827138

84 CarlosBoozer 8.152189735247553

85 AlvanAdams 8.145623897896211

86 StephonMarbury 8.13145478048007

87 ChrisMullin* 8.102358000046468

88 WorldB.Free 8.02025738715031

89 KikiVandeweghe 8.009074708522155

90 ShawnMarion 7.980015804730707

91 GusWilliams 7.906694961120149

92 BillWalton* 7.8650925930542375

93 SidneyMoncrief 7.861749099455144

94 BillyCunningham* 7.763101868007474

95 ZachRandolph 7.757355900793918

96 PaulArizin* 7.751601374996309

97 WillisReed* 7.6808287462705875

98 IsiahThomas* 7.674743999148302

99 JerryLucas* 7.609353955930379

100 CedricCeballos 7.511666264795396

[MP.Trey]

This stat doesn't even make Bill Russell a top 100 player!? Damn

[PAOK]

how the hell isnt Wilt no1... his top 5 seasons are something like 40pts/28 rebs

[Dr. Ice]

Let's see how the kobe addicts get out of this one

[NumberSix]

Let's see how the kobe addicts get out of this one
InB4 "lol. PER doesn't count. Its a made up stat. The only thing that matters is TS%".




:roll:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Can't compare PER across eras, just dumb and it can't be done, some people don't even know how PER works. Compare a certain player's PER in a certain season against his peers in that certain season, at least.
Steals and blocks were only recorded since 1974, and PER assumes that players who played at a higher pace would get much worse at a lower one, even, and especially, when not considerable, which is wrong. Like Kareem couldn't grab 13 or more rebounds at his best nowadays, like he couldn't take 18 shots per game for his career, like Oscar or Bird couldn't shoot 21 times per game nowadays, also like he Larry couldn't grab 10 rebounds when Marion with the same TRB% grabs 9.1 playing less minutes alongside worse rebounders...... and so on.

Top 10 players in PER all-time, 7 of them were active in the past 10 seasons or so. CP3's highest PER is above Kareem's, Kobe's and Durant's above Magic's and Bird's, Dirk's over Hakeem's......
It's like looking at the top 10 players in RPG, all-time and claiming they are all the best rebounders, dismissing the fact that 9 of them played in the 60s at a much higher pace enabling them more opportunities for rebounds.

[Doranku]

It's very interesting how PER rewards career chokers/losers such as LeBron, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Chris Paul, etc.

[fpliii]

PER can only be calculated from 77-78 to the present. Prior to that season, not all of turnovers, offensive rebounds, blocked shots, steals were recorded. PERs prior to that season are estimates, which do a disservice to players who were outliers in one or more of those stats (or a service to players who only recorded high turnovers, and none of the other three).

[Hoopz2332]

Let's see how the kobe addicts get out of this one


:oldlol:

[NumberSix]

It's very interesting how PER rewards career chokers/losers such as LeBron, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Chris Paul, etc.
And its interesting how team awards reward career chokers/coattail-riders like Kobe.

[Psileas]

Can't compare PER across eras, just dumb and it can't be done, some people don't even know how PER works. Compare a certain player's PER in a certain season against his peers in that certain season, at least.
Steals and blocks were only recorded since 1974, and PER assumes that players who played at a higher pace would get much worse at a lower one, even, and especially, when not considerable, which is wrong. Like Kareem couldn't grab 13 or more rebounds at his best nowadays, like he couldn't take 18 shots per game for his career, like Oscar or Bird couldn't shoot 21 times per game nowadays, also like he Larry couldn't grab 10 rebounds when Marion with the same TRB% grabs 9.1 playing less minutes alongside worse rebounders...... and so on.

Top 10 players in PER all-time, 7 of them were active in the past 10 seasons or so. CP3's highest PER is above Kareem's, Kobe's and Durant's above Magic's and Bird's, Dirk's over Hakeem's......
It's like looking at the top 10 players in RPG, all-time and claiming they are all the best rebounders, dismissing the fact that 9 of them played in the 60s at a much higher pace enabling them more opportunities for rebounds.

+1

ΒΤW, what the heck are these figures in the o.p supposed to represent? Definitely not PER.

[Doranku]

And its interesting how team awards reward career chokers/coattail-riders like Kobe.


Yes, chokers are rewarded with championships. Flawless logic. :roll:

[NumberSix]

Yes, chokers are rewarded with championships. Flawless logic. :roll:
Well, you did just say LeBron and Robinson are chokers. Do they not have championships? :confusedshrug:

[Doranku]

Well, you did just say LeBron and Robinson are chokers. Do they not have championships? :confusedshrug:

Yes. Robinson won while playing in Duncan's shadow. LeBron wins while playing on the most stacked team in NBA history relative to competition. It ain't often when every other playoff team has a significant injury and you play only 1 50 win team en route to a title.

But hey, earned not given. :bowdown:

[Odinn]

Yes. Robinson won while playing in Duncan's shadow. LeBron wins while playing on the most stacked team in NBA history relative to competition. It ain't often when every other playoff team has a significant injury and you play only 1 50 win team en route to a title.

But hey, earned not given. :bowdown:
So you are saying the competition that the Lakers had in 2009 NBA Playoffs was tougher than LeBron's competition in title seasons? And 2001? And 2002?

[LikeABosh]

What am I looking at? I don't understand this:confusedshrug:

[pauk]

how the hell isnt Wilt no1... his top 5 seasons are something like 40pts/28 rebs

Unfortunately/Thankfully PER considers possessions per minute.... per 100 possessions Wilt/Oscar's productions actually dont look more impressive compared to like Jordan/Lebron/Shaq per 100 poss... which also means that if Jordan/Lebron/Shaq played in the 60s their numbers would look even greater than Wilt/Oscar... 60s NBA averaged like up to around 140 poss. per game, their pace was the highest in NBA history thats for sure, today its only 90 poss. per game.... averaging 40 pts/28 reb today means averaging like 70 pts/40 reb in the 60s....

The higher/slower pace is because of better/worse competition/talent/evolution, it is something.... i will let you be the judge....


PS: Nice name! :cheers:

[TheMarkMadsen]

Thanks but I didn't need to see a list to confirm that David Robinson & Dwayne Wade were better than Wilt, Duncan, Bird and Magic.

:lol

Where's Neil Johnston? Aka top 10 per of all time Neil Johnston?

[DMAVS41]

Pretty sure that isn't PER...

[pauk]

Pretty sure that isn't PER...

This looks fishy, wouldnt mind seeing the source to these conclusions....

[Mass Debator]

Yeah, pretty sure this isn't PER or else it looks way off in calculations.

[aj1987]

Unfortunately/Thankfully PER considers possessions per minute.... per 100 possessions Wilt/Oscar's productions actually dont look more impressive compared to like Jordan/Lebron/Shaq per 100 poss... which also means that if Jordan/Lebron/Shaq played in the 60s their numbers would look even greater than Wilt/Oscar... 60s NBA averaged like up to around 140 poss. per game, their pace was the highest in NBA history thats for sure, today its only 90 poss. per game.... averaging 40 pts/28 reb today means averaging like 70 pts/40 reb in the 60s....

The higher/slower pace is because of better/worse competition/talent/evolution, it is something.... i will let you be the judge....


PS: Nice name! :cheers:
Where the heck did you get the 140 possessions from? I thought that it was ~120-125.

[Hoopz2332]

This looks fishy, wouldnt mind seeing the source to these conclusions....


http://dd.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1ob56u/new_way_to_interpret_per/

[HomieWeMajor]

Can't compare PER across eras, just dumb and it can't be done, some people don't even know how PER works. Compare a certain player's PER in a certain season against his peers in that certain season, at least.
Steals and blocks were only recorded since 1974, and PER assumes that players who played at a higher pace would get much worse at a lower one, even, and especially, when not considerable, which is wrong. Like Kareem couldn't grab 13 or more rebounds at his best nowadays, like he couldn't take 18 shots per game for his career, like Oscar or Bird couldn't shoot 21 times per game nowadays, also like he Larry couldn't grab 10 rebounds when Marion with the same TRB% grabs 9.1 playing less minutes alongside worse rebounders...... and so on.

Top 10 players in PER all-time, 7 of them were active in the past 10 seasons or so. CP3's highest PER is above Kareem's, Kobe's and Durant's above Magic's and Bird's, Dirk's over Hakeem's......
It's like looking at the top 10 players in RPG, all-time and claiming they are all the best rebounders, dismissing the fact that 9 of them played in the 60s at a much higher pace enabling them more opportunities for rebounds.
The thread ended here

[LikeABosh]

Where are these numbers coming from?

[fpliii]

Unfortunately/Thankfully PER considers possessions per minute.... per 100 possessions Wilt/Oscar's productions actually dont look more impressive compared to like Jordan/Lebron/Shaq per 100 poss... which also means that if Jordan/Lebron/Shaq played in the 60s their numbers would look even greater than Wilt/Oscar... 60s NBA averaged like up to around 140 poss. per game, their pace was the highest in NBA history thats for sure, today its only 90 poss. per game.... averaging 40 pts/28 reb today means averaging like 70 pts/40 reb in the 60s....

The higher/slower pace is because of better/worse competition/talent/evolution, it is something.... i will let you be the judge....


PS: Nice name! :cheers:


Serious question pauk: From where did you get the 140 possessions a game estimate? I've seen you cite it numerous times, but you've never provided calculations or a source. There have been three attempts at estimating pace in the basketball statistics community:

ElGee (6 >= 130, highest 135.9): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25

basketball-reference.com (5 >= 130, highest 133.3): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=1&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25

Dean Oliver (3>= 130, highest 132.9): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=2&f=true&sortcolid=18&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25

Now I don't care about Wilt, but I've seen you casually throw this 140 number around enough that I had to intervene. If you have calculations/a valid source then please provide it, otherwise stop spreading misinformation, and edit that post to say 130 from now on (I say from now on because I've seen that exact post from you more than a half dozen times). Not everybody will put the work in to investigate, and might take that post as fact.

You literally keep ignoring my posts, why is that? Am I on your ignore list, or does acknowledging me just not suit your agenda?

STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION

:facepalm

EDIT: The vast majority of teams were in the 110s or 120s in the 60s. End of discussion. You're not convincing anybody. I know you're a smart guy pauk, so stop the charade.

[aj1987]

You literally keep ignoring my posts, why is that? Am I on your ignore list, or does acknowledging me just not suit your agenda?

STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION

:facepalm
I thought that they played at ~120-125?

Anyways, it doesn't matter. I don't get why players get penalized for playing at a higher pace or playing more minutes. Doesn't make sense at all. If anything, they are more durable for playing 45+ minutes, which makes them better.

[fpliii]

I thought that they played at ~120-125?

Anyways, it doesn't matter. I don't get my players get penalized for playing at a higher pace or playing more minutes. Doesn't make sense at all. If anything, they more durable for playing 45+ minutes, which makes them better.

I don't care if he wants to penalize them. He can do so as much as he wants. I have a problem with lying/spreading misinformation when he know for fact that he's incorrect.

He's been corrected countless times, yet returns with the same bullshit number (140, 150, 160 even sometimes) a couple of weeks later. It's incredibly lame, but I won't let him get away with spreading lies. Again, he can penalize all he wants, but he isn't allowed to pull this garbage without being called out on it.

[Hoopz2332]

Where are these numbers coming from?


The link is above

[kshutts1]

Someone else mentioned Bill Russell not being included. Wow.

The numbers, towards the bottom of the list, look way too low to be PER numbers.

And Larry Foust? Who? If a top 100 is "created" and there's someone I don't know on the list, then it's probably a bad list. Not that I know every player ever, but I've done my bit of historical research/reading, and I'm quite confident that I'd at least recognize names of the greats... unless they played in the very infancy of the NBA. .... Which Foust apparently did. At least those were his best years.

[Owl]

Can't compare PER across eras, just dumb and it can't be done, some people don't even know how PER works. Compare a certain player's PER in a certain season against his peers in that certain season, at least.
Steals and blocks were only recorded since 1974, and PER assumes that players who played at a higher pace would get much worse at a lower one, even, and especially, when not considerable, which is wrong. Like Kareem couldn't grab 13 or more rebounds at his best nowadays, like he couldn't take 18 shots per game for his career, like Oscar or Bird couldn't shoot 21 times per game nowadays, also like he Larry couldn't grab 10 rebounds when Marion with the same TRB% grabs 9.1 playing less minutes alongside worse rebounders...... and so on.

Top 10 players in PER all-time, 7 of them were active in the past 10 seasons or so. CP3's highest PER is above Kareem's, Kobe's and Durant's above Magic's and Bird's, Dirk's over Hakeem's......
It's like looking at the top 10 players in RPG, all-time and claiming they are all the best rebounders, dismissing the fact that 9 of them played in the 60s at a much higher pace enabling them more opportunities for rebounds.
A perfectly reasonable point.

But the link makes clear it isn't comparing PER it's comparing z-scores (that is standard deviations above, or below, the mean). So whilst modern players may have the widest range of players by PER (many of the 30+ PER seasons are post 2000, Shaq in 99-00 and 7 more since, out of 17 in total, and also 40 of the 100 worst PER campaigns) z-scores neutralises this.

Now it may be that people choose to believe that a certain era is stronger or weaker but the use of z-scores (which is why the numbers look unfamiliar) should neutralise era issues and show the degree of dominance of a player.

[kshutts1]

A perfectly reasonable point.

But the link makes clear it isn't comparing PER it's comparing z-scores (that is standard deviations above, or below, the mean). So whilst modern players may have the widest range of players by PER (many of the 30+ PER seasons are post 2000, Shaq in 99-00 and 7 more since, out of 17 in total, and also 40 of the 100 worst PER campaigns) z-scores neutralises this.

Now it may be that people choose to believe that a certain era is stronger or weaker but the use of z-scores (which is why the numbers look unfamiliar) should neutralise era issues and show the degree of dominance of a player.
This just in. I should fully read/understand things before I post.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Hoopz2332]

A perfectly reasonable point.

But the link makes clear it isn't comparing PER it's comparing z-scores (that is standard deviations above, or below, the mean). So whilst modern players may have the widest range of players by PER (many of the 30+ PER seasons are post 2000, Shaq in 99-00 and 7 more since, out of 17 in total, and also 40 of the 100 worst PER campaigns) z-scores neutralises this.

Now it may be that people choose to believe that a certain era is stronger or weaker but the use of z-scores (which is why the numbers look unfamiliar) should neutralise era issues and show the degree of dominance of a player.


great post

[Hoopz2332]

^^Up

[Hoopz2332]

^^Up


:D

[Doranku]

great post
Shut up idiot, you don't even know what he just said.