Has anybody ever been more productive per. 100 poss. than Lebron?

[pauk]

Per possession/minute etc. i think is the most accurate way to see what a guy produces, because it is under the same exact circumstances (timeframe, pace & possessions) when on the floor.

The biggest downside is that bballref. has that data since only 1973-74, so there wont be any stuff for Wilt Chamberlain and so on, but there is a way to calculate what their numbers would be per ANY possessions, which i showed in my thread here: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294854

Anyways... according to www.basketball-reference.com new stat "Per 100 possessions":


LeBron James 2009 - 40.8 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 10.4 apg, 2.4 spg, 1.6 bpg

LeBron James 2010 - 40.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 11.5 apg, 2.2 spg, 1.4 bpg

LeBron James 2008 - 39.6 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 9.5 apg, 2.4 spg, 1.4 bpg

and so on.........



Lets see if somebody can find a more productive overall season by a player... go! :)

[moe94]

This will end well.

[BoutPractice]

Per 100 possessions 50 point Wilt is still doing something like 36 points, 18 rebounds, and most likely over 10 blocks per game.

[pauk]

This will end well.

What? I guess? Maybe....? Eh...

My point here is, since basketball-reference doesnt have a ranking using per 100 poss. we have to manually search/compare players.... and since 1973 its tough to find a more productive season per 100 poss. than especially Lebron in 2009... so its pretty hard...

I checked Michael Jordans best for example:

1988 - 40.0 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 9.9 apg, 3.6 spg, 1.6 bpg.

Pretty damn close.

[pauk]

Per 100 possessions 50 point Wilt is still doing something like 36 points, 18 rebounds, and most likely over 10 blocks per game.

Here you go: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294854

[Heavincent]

2/5

[BoutPractice]

But here you adjusted for minutes. I'm thinking of what Wilt would do playing the same number of minutes.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Ian Mahimi (2006) 49.4 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 9.4 bpg.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Ian Mahimi (2006) 49.4 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 9.4 bpg.

Move over Lebron.

[fpliii]

Pauk, why the **** are you linking to a thread claiming they played 150 possessions a game in the 60s?

It's clear you're trying to troll by including that link, and have an agenda in mind. It's not clever, it's not funny, and it's not fooling anybody. Get that intellectually dishonest, deceptive bullshit off the ****ing board.

It's not like this is the first time you've been corrected either.

[BoutPractice]

I don't have a particular agenda here, but I do think that per 100 stats show that multiple current and former players could have averaged a triple double per season playing in the 60s.

That includes Jason Kidd, Magic Johnson, and LeBron (who even if you don't believe in the 40 points, definitely would've made the 30 point triple double list). Even someone like Fat Lever might have done it.

The triple double seasons are impressive, but they're not the sole reason why Oscar Robertson was so good.

[Milbuck]

Per 100, Jorge Gutierrez would've put up 37/19 in the playoffs, Dennis Schroeder 38/15, Dejaun Blair 26/24, and Victor Claver 36 rebounds per game :oldlol:

[Derka]

Still waiting to see your newest meltdown, bruh. You need to deliver on this.

[BlackVVaves]

Hey pauk, can you explain to us obviously lesser minds how injury-ridden and out of shape Shaq was the best player in 2003 over peak Duncan?

We'll wait :cheers:

[navy]

The problem with per possession and pace adjustments is that you are exponentially increasing or decreasing statistics without factoring in things like stamina or qualityof minutes played. .

Plus you get really bad results when you put in low minute highly efficient scrubs or high minute low efficient stars.

Its better to just keep stats as they are and then put a sidebar acknowledging the amount of possessions or pace.

[ArbitraryWater]

Per 100, Jorge Gutierrez would've put up 37/19 in the playoffs, Dennis Schroeder 38/15, Dejaun Blair 26/24, and Victor Claver 36 rebounds per game :oldlol:

Why are you using Per 100 on bench players? Try guys that play at least 36 minutes

[BlackVVaves]

Pauk, why the **** are you linking to a thread claiming they played 150 possessions a game in the 60s?

It's clear you're trying to troll by including that link, and have an agenda in mind. It's not clever, it's not funny, and it's not fooling anybody. Get that intellectually dishonest, deceptive bullshit off the ****ing board.

It's not like this is the first time you've been corrected either.

http://giant.gfycat.com/WellmadeThunderousFlatfish.gif

:eek:

[OldSchoolBBall]

No non-PG superstar has ever had the ball in their hands for more clock time than Lebron, either, save perhaps for young Iverson. So there you go.

Pace is also pretty meaningless for star players, since they will get their touches whether the pace is 90 or 100-105. Hence, a slower pace actually HELPS modern stars put up the gaudy "pace adjusted" numbers cited in the OP - because they will get their ~20 shots and the same number of touches whether the pace is low or high. You can't scale a superstar's production linearly for pace. It doesn't work that way.

[SexSymbol]

Pauk is a fakkit

[Carbine]

No non-PG superstar has ever had the ball in their hands for more clock time than Lebron, either, save perhaps for young Iverson. So there you go.

Pace is also pretty meaningless for star players, since they will get their touches whether the pace is 90 or 100-105. Hence, a slower pace actually HELPS modern stars put up the gaudy "pace adjusted" numbers cited in the OP - because they will get their ~20 shots and the same number of touches whether the pace is low or high. You can't scale a superstar's production linearly for pace. It doesn't work that way.

:facepalm

More shots = more rebounds

More shots = more assist chances

[SHAQisGOAT]

Pauk, why the **** are you linking to a thread claiming they played 150 possessions a game in the 60s?

It's clear you're trying to troll by including that link, and have an agenda in mind. It's not clever, it's not funny, and it's not fooling anybody. Get that intellectually dishonest, deceptive bullshit off the ****ing board.

It's not like this is the first time you've been corrected either.

:lol :applause:


No non-PG superstar has ever had the ball in their hands for more clock time than Lebron, either, save perhaps for young Iverson. So there you go.

Pace is also pretty meaningless for star players, since they will get their touches whether the pace is 90 or 100-105. Hence, a slower pace actually HELPS modern stars put up the gaudy "pace adjusted" numbers cited in the OP - because they will get their ~20 shots and the same number of touches whether the pace is low or high. You can't scale a superstar's production linearly for pace. It doesn't work that way.

True

[DFish24]

No, Bran's so productive that he ended up 2/5.

[BoutPractice]

I agree that you can't linearly adjust, but you can't not adjust at all either.
There is an element of "volume" and an element of "percentage". The "volume" requirement exists ("I need at least X shots"), but you have to factor in the "percentage" too...

Chamberlain can live with less than 40 shots... he wouldn't feel the need to shoot 40 times in a 100 possession game. Part of his 40 shots was a volume effect, part of it was a percentage effect.

[r0drig0lac]

Pauk, why the **** are you linking to a thread claiming they played 150 possessions a game in the 60s?

It's clear you're trying to troll by including that link, and have an agenda in mind. It's not clever, it's not funny, and it's not fooling anybody. Get that intellectually dishonest, deceptive bullshit off the ****ing board.

It's not like this is the first time you've been corrected either.
:lol

[AnaheimLakers24]

brans productivity per finals

2/5

[OldSchoolBBall]

:facepalm

More shots = more rebounds

More shots = more assist chances

And yet - AND YET - you can post literally DOZENS of examples of superstar players whose rebound, assist, and ppg numbers did not increase or decrease along with their team's pace. Go figure. :facepalm It's almost like superstars do what they do regardless of pace. Shocking, I know.

Yes, if the pace gets TOO extreme (like the 60's, where the pace was likely in the 120-130 range) you can see some effects, notably in rebounds, but not when you're talking the difference between a low-90's and 100 pace.

[La Frescobaldi]

Your threads are consistently stupid, Pauk.

That other thread was completely & utterly destroyed yet you keep referring to it as if it is something other than what it is - a total joke.

[SexSymbol]

Pauk is the one who wrote shrek is love shrek is life

[pauk]

Ian Mahimi (2006) 49.4 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 9.4 bpg.

6 games, 3.8 mpg....

[pauk]

Your threads are consistently stupid, Pauk.

That other thread was completely & utterly destroyed yet you keep referring to it as if it is something other than what it is - a total joke.

Explain how.... go ahead, lets see how stupid it is... there is wanting something to be stupid due to being butthurt/due to agenda and there is PROVING something is stupid....

Just one attempt, go ahead... waiting... until then you are just another delusional hater, one of very many here....

[pauk]

:facepalm guys... I was just checking that bball-reference new stat and was just wondering if you think/know somebody was more productive than Lebron per 100 poss (just so happens to be Lebron being that productive, thats the bad part apparently, not my fault).... considering there is no ranking in that department we have to seek manually, so, just a bit of help..

Until then, Lebron has been i guess the most productive player per 100 poss. since 1973.... no need to hate guys, not my fault... :confusedshrug:

[TheMarkMadsen]

OP is the most delusional poster on ISH

[SexSymbol]

I saw a gay couple kissing and groping each other in a public park. And that was the gayest thing I've ever seen until I saw Pauk's posts.

[Anaximandro1]

Michael Jordan, OP.


Ian Mahimi (2006) 49.4 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 9.4 bpg.
Not this garbage again :facepalm


Minutes Played -> 3.8


Per 100 Team poss. is the most reasonable tool we have available. That said, LeBron stats are inflated (NBA's ban in hand-checking, weak Eastern conference)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LZEHv1uY_bQ/U6dGj6Z80KI/AAAAAAAADCw/ZOIUXduIFyE/s1600/1.jpg

[Poetry]

Lets see if somebody can find a more productive overall season by a player... go! :)

Barkley's numbers are crazy per 100 poss. He has several 16, 17, 18+ rebound seasons. I remember he was trying to be the oldest player to win the rebounding title, and it shows in those last few years.

I'm not a big fan of TS%, but I know a lot of the young people on here are, so I've included it down here.

LeBron's career Per 100 Poss stats:
36.7/9.3/9.7/2.3/1.2 (.581%)

Barkley's career Per 100 Poss stats:
30.2/15.9/5.4/2.1/1.1/(.612 TS %)

Jordan's career Per 100 Poss stats:
40.4/8.3/7.0/3.1/1.1/(.569 TS%)

Magic's career Per 100 Poss stats:
25.4/9.4/14.5/2.5/.5 (.610 TS%)

Karl Malone's career Per 100 Poss stats:
34.4/13.9/4.9/1.9/1.1 (.577 TS%)

The usual suspects are as productive as you'd imagine.

[Black and White]

Its a very flawed stat in that it doesnt factor in fatigue etc, I don't imagine LeBron or anyone else would be averaging that type of production every 100 possesions.

Pauk are you back to trolling again?

[knicksman]

at the end of the day, productivity means nothing if you cant fit. Thats why reggie miller impacts the game more than robertson. Thats why bran is 2/5 w/ superior teammates while jordan is 6/6

[ILLsmak]

Bill Walton...

-Smak

[BoutPractice]

Its a very flawed stat in that it doesnt factor in fatigue etc, I don't imagine LeBron or anyone else would be averaging that type of production every 100 possesions.

Anyone else such as, say, Wilt Chamberlain? Or Elgin Baylor? They played many more possessions, and did average absolutely insane numbers.

[Black and White]

Anyone else such as, say, Wilt Chamberlain? Or Elgin Baylor? They played many more possessions, and did average absolutely insane numbers.

Do you see LeBron doing it? The way he paces himself, I dont see him averaging insane numbers.

There are a few exceptions to the rule of course, but they are special cases.

[BoutPractice]

He could hold himself back in the points column, but he'd still handle the ball a lot so his assists if anything might go up compared to per 100 expectations.

Say 35-36 points, 12-13 assists and 11 rebounds.

[Black and White]

He could hold himself back in the points column, but he'd still handle the ball a lot so his assists if anything might go up compared to per 100 expectations.

Say 35-36 points, 12-13 assists and 11 rebounds.

The points column is where I see it being way too inflated yes, I agree with you on the assists and rebounds. :cheers:

But as I said, this stat is way too flawed.

[riseagainst]

Ian Mahimi (2006) 49.4 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 2.4 apg, 9.4 bpg.

35 PER 66%TS.

:bowdown: :bowdown:

GOAT

[BlackVVaves]

:facepalm guys... I was just checking that bball-reference new stat and was just wondering if you think/know somebody was more productive than Lebron per 100 poss (just so happens to be Lebron being that productive, thats the bad part apparently, not my fault).... considering there is no ranking in that department we have to seek manually, so, just a bit of help..

Until then, Lebron has been i guess the most productive player per 100 poss. since 1973.... no need to hate guys, not my fault... :confusedshrug:

Hey pauk, can you explain to us obviously lesser minds how injury-ridden and out of shape Shaq was the best player in 2003 over peak Duncan?

We'll wait :cheers:

[Anaximandro1]

We need to distinguish between players whose stats are inflated because their teams play at a high pace (Larry Bird)

and players whose stats are the result of a combination of exceptionally high usage rate with extraordinary efficiency (Michael Jordan)

Per 100 Team poss. is the best tool available.


PF/C

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-psdnzmIAolg/U6doJ86CPZI/AAAAAAAADDA/xYSwh8P9SYY/s1600/1.jpg

[russwest0]

2 for 5 :applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

Explain how.... go ahead, lets see how stupid it is... there is wanting something to be stupid due to being butthurt/due to agenda and there is PROVING something is stupid....

Just one attempt, go ahead... waiting... until then you are just another delusional hater, one of very many here....

"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Wow, did Wilt and them have close to 200 possessions in a game??? His numbers were reduced nearly in half.
Then:


1. Not buying the 150 possessions thing about the 60's, sorry. Especially 1966. Generally, look at the differences in the numbers of shots taken, FT's taken, etc. Compare 1966 to 1972. How the heck did you get to a difference of 30 possessions?

2. If it was anywhere near accurate to take a league with supposedly 150 possessions and project stats in a league of 100 or vice-versa without accounting for severe changes in efficiency (and therefore, other stats linked with it, like rebounds and assists), modern teams would be foolish NOT to try and get 150 possessions themselves nowadays.

3. Linked with #2. Why don't you also post the adjusted numbers for their whole teams, so that we really see who's more impactful statistically for his team? Also, how about posting their FGAs?

4. Linked with #3. Since you are a PER fan, if Wilt's stats are "mortal", how come he still has the most impressive individual season PERs of all time, which comes AFTER accounting for possessions? Why does Wilt's PER blow Magic's out of the water if Magic supposedly almost matches Wilt's scoring (LOL!), probably exceeds his efficiency (due to FT's) and Magic's assists advantage is wider than Wilt's rebounding advantage? Something doesn't add up here...

Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150

If you're not sure how to come up with a reasonable estimate, then the logical thing to do would be to not venture any figure on the subject whatsoever.

You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.

[COnDEMnED]

"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Then:



Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150


You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.
Somebody resuscitate Pauk, this shit was brutal.

[fpliii]

"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Then:



Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150


You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.
:lol Damn lol.

[Thorn]

"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Then:



Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150


You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.
Should just quote this post whenever this topic gets brought up again.

[Black and White]

"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Then:



Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150


You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.


R.I.P Pauk

[TheWINdyCity]

you might as well just stay off ish pauk no one on isih takes you seriously anymore..

[DatAsh]

Pace adjusted numbers will almost always favor those who play at a slower pace. That kinda makes this thread a bit meaningless imo.

[DonDadda59]

LeWilt Jamesberlain :applause:

[CavaliersFTW]

Pauk getting shredded in this thread :oldlol:

[fpliii]

Pauk getting shredded in this thread :oldlol:
He wants Wilt, Russell, and Oscar, to go away so badly. :oldlol:

[navy]

Why dont mods ever close threads were the OP gets ethered. :roll:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Hi Pauk



"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Then:



Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150


You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.

Bye Pauk

[coin24]

Damn pauk ethered as usual:lol :lol

Back to posting under "Nash" for a while again :cheers:

[r0drig0lac]

"f you are curious, here is the factual estimations of league history possessions per game:

2000s & current poss. per game = 90-100
1990s poss. per game = 90-100
1980s poss. per game = 100-110
1970s poss. per game = 110-130
1960s poss. per game = 140-160"

Based on no fact nor is there any way to make an estimate.
Then:

Then:



Then:
Originally Posted by pauk
For 1960s i have been reading/finding different results, anything from specific teams averaging 126 to 145 (a book i have here at home, saying it was 145 poss. p/g in 1967) 130 to 156 and to a whooping 165 poss. per game and the best teams (Russell/Wilt/Oscar teams) averaged the most.... not being sure what to go with i went with something in the in the middle, 150


You were never able to rebut a single one of those and never even tried. Because you can't.
And now you're sourcing it like it's some kind of a valid reference, which it never was.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1043857/bynum_medium.gif

[SHAQisGOAT]

We need to distinguish between players whose stats are inflated because their teams play at a high pace (Larry Bird)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA

:rolleyes:

[The Iron Fist]

The only answer is that bronze is 2-3 in the finals with 11 wins and 16 losses. Nothing is taking the pain away. Kobe>>>>> bran.

[L8kersfan222]

Pauk murdered...