RealGM

If you only had One Stat to look at in order to tell if a player was a great player, what stat would you choose?


NOTE: You can only look at One Stat to Determine this

EDIT: Included Rings, and MVP's as well to make it more interesting.

All-star games/shoe size.

Batronuj wrote:All-star games/shoe size.

Uhh I'd go with MVP's, I think that shows that they're a great player and without them their team would suck, as well as the fact that they've led their team to one of the top seeds of their respective conference.

kobe bryant

Kobay wrote:kobe bryant

How can PER count when its a combination of stats?

No single stat will tell you how great a player is

MVP might help you pick out the best players, but you will overlook a lot of snubs. I actually have to go PER. It would produce a gradient of great players to average players. I bet the players with the greatest career PER of all time have the most rings and MVPs. And PER won't tell you that Steve Nash is better than Shaq.

if I'm listening to the media, then it would have to be PPG..according to most of these "experts", Kobe has been the best player in the NBA for a minute now..PPG is pretty much the only stat that supports him over anybody else..

Well, Points and TS% is all that really matters on the offensive side of the game.

PER is a really good measure. It's going to underrate some PG's, and exceptional defensive players, but if you list the top 100 PER guys over the course of 5 years, you are going to see the elite players at the top every year, and the most successful teams will ahve really high PER guys.

JordansBulls wrote:EDIT: Included Rings, and MVP's as well to make it more interesting.

I don't see how that makes it more interesting. They're completely different "statistics."

PER and it's not even close.

Should we go by Rings per game or MVPs per 48 minutes?

it would be between PER and MVP's, since we are judging if this player is a GREAT or not i'll go with MVP's

chrice wrote::rofl:

Should we go by Rings per game or MVPs per 48 minutes?

Be sure to adjust for pace.

MVPs has too many guys that have 0 for it to matter. At least someone who's played a minute of NBA basketball or more has a PER of some sort. You can play in a thousand NBA games, with multiple All-Star appearances, lead your team to the playoffs, lead the league in whatever, etc and have the exact same- EXACT SAME- MVP count as like Michael Ruffin. So if I'm picking one number and one number only it's PER and there's nothing even marginally close.

People hate it, but it's the truth. Look at the top twenty or so PER all-time and then look at a list of like 50 different 'experts' list of top ten players of all-time. Most of the players in the the experts top ten will be somewhere in that PER top 20 list. There's no other number of any kind that can get you that type of results. Maybe MVPs come close. Maybe ASGs. But, again, way too many people have zeroes in those categories for it to be useful in comparing everybody.

I seriously can't see how PER doesn't have 100%. Cause their favorite player doesn't have a good PER?

celticspierce34 wrote:it would be between PER and MVP's, since we are judging if this player is a GREAT or not i'll go with MVP's

So Steve Nash is "greater" than Shaq, David Robinson, LeBron, Barkley, KG...

If you only care about ranking like 40 people then MVP is ok I guess, but what's the point in that? And most of those people have great PERs anyway.

Age

you look at the top 20 lifetime PERs, all you see is great players. MVP is a close second. The others are too affected by pace and contingent on team success.