Quote:
Originally Posted by CadBane
Lets pick the median years, so 85-86.
Bird's raw numbers vs. Dirk's raw numbers, you've stated. But lets look deeper.
1. Dirk had a 59% TS% vs. Bird's 58%. Thus, Dirk was the more efficient scorer. This plays a role in the higher PER. Larry's FG% & 3PT% were slightly higher, BUT, Dirk shot more threes, and he went to the line more (where he shot a higher FT%). That's why he has the higher TS%.
2. Both players had the exact same TRB% (14.2) Raw numbers show Bird as averaging 1 more RPG...BUT that doesn't take pace and rebounding opportunities into account.
3. While Bird had more assists, he also turned it over much more. Dirk had a minute TOV% of 7.9%. Bird's was 12.7%.
4. Dirk had the greater impact on offense. Dirk's ORtg was 123 vs. Bird's 117.
Thus, while the raw numbers show Bird as shooting better, Dirk was actually more efficient. While the raw numbers show Bird as the better rebounder, they were in fact, dead even. While the raw numbers show Bird as having a greater offensive impact, in fact, Dirk did.
That's why Dirk had a higher PER, and that's why you can't look solely at Raw numbers. I'd also wager Dirk had a substantially higher +/-.
|
Let me ask you one question before I rebut any of that. How do you explain PER results, such as Magic and Bird not being in the top 10, LeBron being #2, and the ultimate stat machines like Oscar and Wilt (who finished behind Robinson) not being in the top 3? Since you are using this metric to compare players, if I used it I would conclude that:
- David Robinson (#4) was more productive Wilt (#5), Kareem (#12) and Hakeem (#16).
- LeBron James (#2) and Wade (#6) were more productive than Larry Bird (#18).
- Chris Paul (#8) was more productive than Magic (#13), Oscar (#23) and Stockton (#31).
That doesn't make any sense. I have very little reliance in a metric that produces results like that. How do you explain those type of results? Since you are arguing that Dirk had better numbers than Malone based on his PER, are you also arguing that Paul had better numbers than Magic and Oscar since he had a higher PER? Paul's highest PERs are 30 (23, 6, 11, 3, 3 tos on 51%, 36% and 87% in 08/09) and 28.3 (21, 4, 12, 3, 3 tos on 49%, 37% and 86% in 07/08). Magic has never gotten higher than 27, not even when he dropped 23, 8, 13, 2, 4 tos on 51%, 31% and 91% in 88/89. Oscar's high is 27.6, even though he dropped 31, 13, 11 on 48% and 80% (no stats for 3's) in 61/62 (PER of 26 that year). That was the only triple double in league history. It doesn't get more productive than that. Using your method you would conclude that Paul was more productive. That doesn't make any sense.
I think you will find far fewer discrepencies that make no sense using raw numbers than you will using PER or win shares. Just read the names on the list and honestly tell me that order looks right to you, or any other basketball fan. Again, the win shares per 48 list looks legit but still has some wild stuff like Moses Malone and Isiah not in the top 40. I mention them because I believe you agreed with me that they are both ahead of Dirk at this moment.