Kobe vs Lebron: Who is the better player?

[Big Moves03]

How does that alone affect their PER? There are regularly people who play less than half the game showing up in like top 20 PER for a season, those minutes just allow a player to accumulate some more stats and those stats are what we were looking at anyways so those minutes weren't overly relevant to what was being pointed out. Almost everything we have provided whether it be the breakdown of the stat itself, the example in articles or other info in those articles, the comparisons of individual players or some groupings of them all keep pointing to what we are saying being true throughout.

You think AI and Magic Johnson is cherry picking? Moving to the assist leader who is within 1% efficiency wise and rebounds more in that same year when asked even? I have been using the best passers of all time to make my point, I can start using Rajon Rondo if you prefer lol. I tried using a player that would be propped up more by PER with his rebounding/efficiency scoring and you had an issue with the year so I then went to an elite passer that year to show there was an even bigger gap with him than with Magic (because I was trying from the start not to just cherry pick a poor example but the GOAT passer in comparison to a scorer not near his level, me changing to what you wanted made the actual gap bigger). The key is we don't want big scorers compared to big scorers who pass in this we want highest volume passing vs highest volume scoring to ***** which helps PER more and most of these looks are putting all time great passers with far lower level scorers.

You simply never admit to being wrong no matter how much evidence goes against what you say over and over. The narrative changes based on the topic but it often is an attempt to downplay relevant information/statistics and push your opinion over it. Here you are pushing the idea of passing helping more than shooting for PER despite the greatest passers ever being compared to lesser ones and us breaking down how PER doesn't give negative for shooting more in the NBA it actually boosts it even with very poor efficiency (and moreso if you get even just close to league average).

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_...&p2yrfrom=1982

If you want same years here is George Gervin compared to Magic Johnson in 1982. Magic has him in rebounds, steals, scoring efficiency, it's the same year and has about 7 more assists per game compared to Gervins 14 more ppg. Gervin still has the better PER. We can do this forever because I have not been cherry picking to decieve I am simply using examples that easily show the point (and have far less issues than the single example you have given).

Playing the same minutes was a criteria that was on one of the sites you sent. It said players who dont play a similar number of minutes shouldn't be compared.

The best passers actually win out when comparing them to AI, even when we don't include Magic. Cool, if you want to use this comparison, let's go ahead and account for the massive difference in usg% and then let's see what happens? You know what will happen, given how close their PERs are.

It also seems a little convenient here. Why not compare the following season between those two? Or the season after that? Maybe the season after that one? Maybe we can compare the season before the one you included? Literally all of these end up with Magic winning out and in some by a somewhat considerable margin. It seems unlikely that you're not cherry picking yet you picked out one out of the two total seasons that the Ice Man had a higher PER out 1980-1986. In that 7 year span, magic won out 5 out of those 7 and you included one of those 2. Seems again convenient like with the AI season in 01.

[mngopher35]

Playing the same minutes was a criteria that was on one of the sites you sent. It said players who dont play a similar number of minutes shouldn't be compared.

The best passers actually win out when comparing them to AI, even when we don't include Magic. Cool, if you want to use this comparison, let's go ahead and account for the massive difference in usg% and then let's see what happens? You know what will happen, given how close their PERs are.

It also seems a little convenient here. Why not compare the following season between those two? Or the season after that? Maybe the season after that one? Maybe we can compare the season before the one you included? Literally all of these end up with Magic winning out and in some by a somewhat considerable margin. It seems unlikely that you're not cherry picking yet you picked out one out of the two total seasons that the Ice Man had a higher PER out 1980-1986. In that 7 year span, magic won out 5 out of those 7 and you included one of those 2. Seems again convenient like with the AI season in 01.

You think this means exactly the same or like within a few minutes of each other? As I noted that is likely due to volume aspects but with these players we are talking high minutes and elite so they all had major volume reflected in leading league in assists etc.

Again you are ignoring context lol. AI was a passer himself in certain years but the years he was a top scorer without said passing like in 01 was his best PER. AI's career actually helps show what we have been saying too and you are using it and avoiding the specific context that also makes his comparisons to others when he was scoring above all time great passers. All the context when not cherry picked around AI so far has shown his best years PER are scoring based and fall off when passing and also those scoring based years beat all time great passers as well. The massive difference in usage is due to volume scoring lololol that will always be the case for the scorers compared to passers with how the NBA actually works in reality as we covered. There is a reason people don't average 20+ assists per game nor have they ever in the history of the NBA, I actually used Magic's highest assists season in my initial comparison to show what PER the greatest passer ever with most assists in his career had.

I compared those specific seasons due to the stats showing exactly the types of things you wanted but Magic still having a lower PER lol. Every standard you were pointing to previously that year fits and the PER is still better for Gervin the lesser player but volume scoring more. The following years the PER did change but for Gervin to be within 3 PER while Magic still easily has him in rebounding/steals/efficiency while having a 10 point difference in assists compared to a like 8 pts difference doesn't hurt the point I am making either. I just know you need it to be clear as day or else you will nitpick and not use common sense (him having a higher PER those years doesn't help your case necessarily it just means the gaps became insane where it was a larger difference in assists than it was points by that time). You seem to not understand applying context to stats at all, our point isn't that every single year a player scores more than someone assists they have a higher PER lol. It is that passing in general isn't as beneficial as volume scoring to PER and lesser players scoring more can have a higher PER than the GOAT passer.

[valade16]

You're including guys who are HOF caliber players versus guys who are not. The players on both groups list should at least be of a similar caliber.

The only person from that group who is in the Hall of Fame is George Gervin. I can replace him with Mark Aguirre (19.0 PER) and the result is the same.

You are wrong. Seriously, take your L and move along.

[Saddletramp]

Exactly and this happens every time you break something down in this thread. Notice how I have asked about 5 times now for him to statistically back his claims along with examples (that he would accept from us not some double standard) yet it hasn't been done? It's almost like we are capable of going in depth on our stances including statistics, explaining how they work, articles and comparisons with context considered while he has... "Well this isn't exactly perfect"

This is what keeps this thread going forever he just nit picks the smallest issues in others posts while ignoring massive issues in his claims despite all evidence provided. Rings though baby (so long as he chooses to count them of course which is arbitrary in how he does even that).

I’m pretty sure the reason this keeps going on forever is because he thinks the longer it lasts, the longer the outcome is in question when we all know the question has been answered from the get-go.

He’s trying to keep the argument alive as long as possible so he’s not disrespecting his crush. Pack it in boys, he’ll never give up even when he realizes he’s toast (which has got to be months ago).

[valade16]

Playing the same minutes was a criteria that was on one of the sites you sent. It said players who dont play a similar number of minutes shouldn't be compared.

The best passers actually win out when comparing them to AI, even when we don't include Magic. Cool, if you want to use this comparison, let's go ahead and account for the massive difference in usg% and then let's see what happens? You know what will happen, given how close their PERs are.

It also seems a little convenient here. Why not compare the following season between those two? Or the season after that? Maybe the season after that one? Maybe we can compare the season before the one you included? Literally all of these end up with Magic winning out and in some by a somewhat considerable margin. It seems unlikely that you're not cherry picking yet you picked out one out of the two total seasons that the Ice Man had a higher PER out 1980-1986. In that 7 year span, magic won out 5 out of those 7 and you included one of those 2. Seems again convenient like with the AI season in 01.

Earlier in this thread you correctly noted that Usage% is not a good indication of who actually has the ball the most because it only tracks your usage if you score, shoot, or turn the ball over. Here is the actual Usage% formula on bball-reference.com:

Usg% - Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

It literally doesn't even account for assists. It's why a guy like Rondo can put up a 20% USG% despite controlling the ball and dishing out 11 APG.

So one would expect a person who passes more and scores less to have a lower Usage because it only tracks when they score or turn the ball over. So trying to equal out their Usage% is just terrible in this context.

Didn't you ever wonder why Amare had such a higher Usage than Steve Nash on the same team despite Nash handling the ball far more and Amare being the finisher? That is why.


Dude, you are clearly ignorant of any of the stats. You should quit.

[valade16]

I’m pretty sure the reason this keeps going on forever is because he thinks the longer it lasts, the longer the outcome is in question when we all know the question has been answered from the get-go.

He’s trying to keep the argument alive as long as possible so he’s not disrespecting his crush. Pack it in boys, he’ll never give up even when he realizes he’s toast (which has got to be months ago).

It is amusing seeing how far he will sink debasing himself genuinely believing he's right.

[Big Moves03]

The only person from that group who is in the Hall of Fame is George Gervin. I can replace him with Mark Aguirre (19.0 PER) and the result is the same.

You are wrong. Seriously, take your L and move along.

A short list like this that you specifically selected is very from showing that I'm wrong. These players are not equated: One could just as easily swap out Mark Price, and Kevin Johnson for mark jackson and Rajon Rondo. Your list conveniently had better players. This sort of thing isn't going to resolve the issue, but it does show at the very least an implicit bias

[Big Moves03]

Earlier in this thread you correctly noted that Usage% is not a good indication of who actually has the ball the most because it only tracks your usage if you score, shoot, or turn the ball over. Here is the actual Usage% formula on bball-reference.com:

Usg% - Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

It literally doesn't even account for assists. It's why a guy like Rondo can put up a 20% USG% despite controlling the ball and dishing out 11 APG.

So one would expect a person who passes more and scores less to have a lower Usage because it only tracks when they score or turn the ball over. So trying to equal out their Usage% is just terrible in this context.

Didn't you ever wonder why Amare had such a higher Usage than Steve Nash on the same team despite Nash handling the ball far more and Amare being the finisher? That is why.


Dude, you are clearly ignorant of any of the stats. You should quit.

One, who said anything about usg accounting for assists? Two, why focus on that part of the post when the rest of the post was FAR more critical? Is it because the rest of the post basically invalidates the example, whereas what you highlighted is not relevant? It's all part of the strategy here of smokescreen and mirrors. Something doesn't quite fit so you focus on something irrelevant and move onto that and then attack that point (even if it's completely unrelated). That's not an option, then resort to name calling and mockery. This only flies in here because you're basically part of the in-group on this forum.

[Big Moves03]

I’m pretty sure the reason this keeps going on forever is because he thinks the longer it lasts, the longer the outcome is in question when we all know the question has been answered from the get-go.

He’s trying to keep the argument alive as long as possible so he’s not disrespecting his crush. Pack it in boys, he’ll never give up even when he realizes he’s toast (which has got to be months ago).

It's funny because none of this in any way shape or form is related to kobe. As a matter of fact, based on the articles that have been posted here, they indicate that PER heavily favors ball dominant players who shoot a lot and pass a lot. Since LBJ fits that bill more than kobe, it would suggest he has a more inflated PER. None of this is relevant though, because this entire topic is in no way related to kobe or lbj just like it the topic of shooting more improving per was in no way shape or form related to the point I was making. These are basically all smokescreen and mirrors to distract from whatever main point is being discussed.

[Big Moves03]

It is amusing seeing how far he will sink debasing himself genuinely believing he's right.

What's amusing is how you guys focus on completely irrelevant points and ignore the actual points of discussion.

[valade16]

A short list like this that you specifically selected is very from showing that I'm wrong. These players are not equated: One could just as easily swap out Mark Price, and Kevin Johnson for mark jackson and Rajon Rondo. Your list conveniently had better players. This sort of thing isn't going to resolve the issue, but it does show at the very least an implicit bias

Except doing so would violate your own criteria:

The best examples if we want to continue down this route is to look up guys who get a ton of assists but dont really shoot too much versus guys who shoot a bunch, but really dont get too many assists.


Both Kevin Johnson and Mark Price are 20 PPG scorers. It is telling that in order to prove your example of how passing is worth more than scoring, you keep trying to use guys who score a lot (Johnson, Price, CP3) as well as pass. Almost as if you realize the scoring is what is boosting their PER...

You are welcome to find players who pass a lot but don't score much to compare. My guess is the results will be the exact same.

[valade16]

One, who said anything about usg accounting for assists? Two, why focus on that part of the post when the rest of the post was FAR more critical? Is it because the rest of the post basically invalidates the example, whereas what you highlighted is not relevant? It's all part of the strategy here of smokescreen and mirrors. Something doesn't quite fit so you focus on something irrelevant and move onto that and then attack that point (even if it's completely unrelated). That's not an option, then resort to name calling and mockery. This only flies in here because you're basically part of the in-group on this forum.

It's not that it doesn't quite fit, it's that it's completely wrong and shows a fundamental ignorance of the stats you're talking about.

If you realize that Usage doesn't even incorporate assists in it's calculation explain to me when it makes any sense to ensure the scorers and the passers have the same Usage in order to make a comparison?

[valade16]

What's amusing is how you guys focus on completely irrelevant points and ignore the actual points of discussion.

You being completely ignorant of the stats while dismissing them is definitely not irrelevant.

[Big Moves03]

It's not that it doesn't quite fit, it's that it's completely wrong and shows a fundamental ignorance of the stats you're talking about.

If you realize that Usage doesn't even incorporate assists in it's calculation explain to me when it makes any sense to ensure the scorers and the passers have the same Usage in order to make a comparison?

Because it's still related to fta attempts. In that comparison, Gervin had a decent amount more fta per game than magic. Also, you know that the rest of my post was pretty on point there but you completely ignored that to focus on the far less relevant aspect of the post

[valade16]

Because it's still related to fta attempts. In that comparison, Gervin had a decent amount more fta per game than magic

Because he shot more. Even if you thought it was important to ensure the FTs were equal, why not use FTA, or Free Throw Rate? Why Usage? It still makes no sense.