Is Jax our best player ever?

[Paydro70]

I don't get why everyone's so concerned about the games getting less fun to watch because we're in an argument about PER. SJax and Crash are at this point secondary.

[dmutombo321]

Man what a ridiculously long post, I think that breaks my own record. Anyone who reads that entire thing makes the HOF.

You outdid yourself on that one Paydro. I had to stop for a water break 1/3 of the way through. I cant respond to all of your points because I’m at the office today and even if I did have the time, I don’t think Realgm’s server could tolerate me re-posting that beast.

I’ll just say this. Reviewing this thread, half the time we’ve both misunderstood each other and been arguing two completely different points.

I think you summed it up best in your last post in saying that “PER is reliable in measuring what it measures”

We all agree that “PER isn't a measure of "talent," it's a measure of production...”

When the OP asked, “talent wise, clutch wise, and overall leadership wise is Jax the best player we've ever had?” TTF brought PER into the discussion on page 2, this is why I expressed my opinion that “means very little -- so little in fact, that its usually hardly even worth mentioning.” I wasn’t assailing PER for being a poor measure of production, but rather claiming that “ it means very little -- so little in fact, that its usually hardly even worth mentioning” with respect to measuring talent.

My position of course has been that while PER generally has a strong correlation to a player’s talent, it doesn’t necessarily prove anything with respect to talent. That’s why I don’t think it should have much of a role in discussion concerning a players talent, which was what this thread was originally about. This is also why my unintentionally ambiguous conciliatory statement conceded that PER is a very effective shorthand (which I meant insofar as consolidating statistical contributions, not judging talent).

So what role should PER play, if any, when discussing talent?

Philosophically, it all comes down to what degree one believes that PER, a statistical metric, accurately correlates to a player’s talent, a subjective matter. Both schools have differing views. We’ll never convince each other otherwise and, thus, this is an area where reasonable minds will have to agree to differ.

--We agree that PER doesn’t measure defense, nor does it purport to, which is part of the reason why, as Battary noted, David Lee was snubbed by coaches for the All Star game in favor of Horford.

--We agree that it cant account for a player who has returned from injury and may not be playing up to their potential. A point you brought up concerning Granger that I never even mentioned.

--We agree that players who play fewer minutes have less reliable PERs due to variety of factors (smaller sample size of minutes, playing lesser competition if they’re subs, their likely inability to be able to sustain the high pace with more minutes, their possible inability to stay out of foul trouble to get more minutes).

--We agree that some players’ (i.e. those forced to accept role playing duties on talented rosters) situations may impact their PERs

…Since we agree that these are things PER cannot account for and is not designed to account for, IMO, I don’t think PER should play a big role in discussions evaluating talent. This is why I said earlier that I felt it should only be a footnote. This is all a matter of opinion or course.


……

On a separate note, I do want to address Maggette vs. Odom and Ridenour vs. Baron:

I’m well aware of the numbers Maggette is putting up but IMO, talent-wise, he’s the same player he’s always been. He’s been putting up empty stats for years; he had several seasons in LA were he posted similar PPG, REB and AST #s. His PER is so high this year since he’s taking a lower volume of ill advised threes and instead stuck to his bread and butter ( barreling his way to the basket to muscle in a shot or draw a foul, both of which he’s always been very good at. )

Golden State learned a hard lesson after they made the foolish decision to sign him to that exorbitant deal based strictly on his stats with LAC, which were not indicative of his true ability to help teams win ballgames. Now, even with his statistically strong play, after giving him a contract based on his impressive raw statistical production, not his talent, they cant find another team in the NBA to touch his contract with a 10 foot pole.

So which is "more talented?" That depends on what you want.

This is true. But as a practical matter, if you made both Odom and Maggette free agents today, I’d venture to guess that the every team in the NBA would opt for Odom as their first choice.

That's not what I said... in fact it's the opposite, I said Ridnour probably IS playing better than Davis. Again, you have seen him as a Clipper, right? He's really pretty bad now, he's a long way from dominating the Mavs in that playoff series. Over a dozen guards are better than Baron? Is that supposed to be a crazy statement? He's shooting less than .400!

This is where it really dawned on me that we’re arguing two different points (production vs. talent). In terms of statistical output and efficiency, I recognize Ridenour is better than Davis right now, hence his higher PER. I was arguing my opinion that in spite of this, I view Davis as the more talented player.

I don’t think Baron’s skills have diminished that much from 2 years ago, I think his PER has just suffered due to his having to play on an injury depleted Clippers team. In fact, he really trimmed down over the offseason and appears to be in the best shape he’s been in since college.

I would contend that if you could get in a time machine bring the 07-08 Davis, who put up impressive numbers while flanked by Jackson, JRich, Ellis, Beidrins in GS and put him on this poor 09-10 Clippers squad that his shooting % and PER as a whole would be equally mediocre.

[Paydro70]

Must keep word count down.... generally agree with your post's summary of the discussion.

So the real point I suppose comes to the distinction between talent and production. This reminds me of the Kobe/LeBron debate from hell that always rages on the Player Comp and General Boards, except people like to use the word "skill" to talk about Kobe being "better" than LeBron, even if they acknowledge that LeBron is more productive.

Obviously, there is a difference between Luke Ridnour and Baron Davis. It's quite possible that he could in fact return to the level of play he once had, and I think we know with absolute certainty that Ridnour will never reach that height. It's also possible that an athleticism-dependent PG hit 30 and fell apart. Allen Iverson comes to mind... I thought that perhaps he could come back after that awful Pistons year and play like he did in Denver. I'm pretty sure that's been proven wrong by his time in Philly.

This highlights, to my mind, the danger of talking about "talent" in a way that is separate from production. If you never produce, maybe you're not secretly talented, but just not as good as everyone thought.

Would anyone want Maggette over Odom? I doubt it, because Maggs has a pretty bad reputation at this point for being a black hole and a no-defense player. That said, Maggette is a special talent at scoring the ball, and I'm not so sure Odom is that special at anything. Like everybody else, I thought he looked like a potential star at Miami, but he's shown precious little of that since arriving in LA. I think the players are a bit closer than most do.

Regardless, what is the best evidence of talent? I think the answer is obviously "production." If you're talented, at some point, you ought to produce, and if he hasn't produced better than Wallace, while generally in a better situation to succeed than Crash has been, I think advocates of Jackson>Crash have a lot of explaining to do. Production should, in my opinion, always be the starting point for a player comparison.

[dmutombo321]

Production should, in my opinion, always be the starting point for a player comparison.

This is a valid, logically sound point. While I agree, I for one tend to follow it as a guideline though rather than a hard and fast rule. This is mainly due to the various factors, delineated earlier, which we agree statistics like PER can’t account for. In my mind, it’s difficult and often times impossible to establish a control that neutralizes these variables. Again, it philosophically boils down to what degree one believes statistical production accurately correlates to a player’s talent. And this is purely a matter of opinion.

Michael Jordan had his best season in terms of sheer statistical productivity during 87-88, and as a result, posted a PER of 31.89, which was not only a personal high but the highest in history.

Now productivity wise, this was unarguably his best season. But do you feel this was the season that represented the pinnacle of his talent?

There’s no right or wrong answer of course, just some food for thought.

Talent wise, I would argue he was at his prime when his PER was over two and a half points lower in 95-96. Returning from retirement, he was 32 years old and his athleticism had diminished but he’d become even craftier than before, became a markedly more accurate three point shooter and drastically enhanced his mid-range game by introducing that unstoppable fade away jumper. He was no longer scoring 37 ppg but he was much more cerebral and in spite of his slightly ebbed athleticism, his other improvements, IMO, made him an even more complete player.

We both approach talent evaluation differently and both recognize that there is a largely subjective aspect (hence the omnipresent Kobe vs. Lebron threads on the General board that subsist in perpetuity). You favor production as exhibit 1A, while for me, while I value raw, statistical production highly, it ranks below empirical evidence of a player’s skill set, taking into account their team role, the talent surrounding them, etc.

………..

On Iverson / Bdiddy, etc:

I think you’re right on point with your assessment of Iverson. His game was largely predicated on his speed and athletic prowess and as he’s slowed with age, he’s become progressively less effective.

Time will tell if this is the case with Baron, as you alluded to. He’s not slow but he’s never exactly been a speed demon either and, at 6’3 215-220, I’ve always viewed him as more of the Billups type who relies primarily on his strength and bulk as his bread and butter. These kind of players in general tend to have longer shelf lives.

Next year, if Kaman and everyone else stays healthy and Blake Griffin fully recovers and is the 20/10 talent we think he will be, Baron won’t have any excuses.

[Paydro70]

I just feel like I've seen enough players that have big skill sets who for whatever reason never actually produce at the level they're supposed to. Kobe/LeBron again springs to mind... it doesn't do Kobe much good to have so many "skills" when he still just doesn't produce at LeBron's level (and never has, really). I'm trying to think of a real example of what I'm talking about... maybe Tayshaun Prince? Honestly... he's tall, ludicrously long, good shooter from anywhere on the floor, lockdown on D... but he never produced on the boards or really offensively either, and so he'll never be a star. On paper, I'm not sure why he isn't prime T-Mac.

Typically I think that system differences are usually overblown as well, because most players remain fairly consistent in what they do when they change teams (because they play the same position, if nothing else). Only the most drastic changes can really transform a players' production, like when Devin Harris went from role player on a stacked Dallas team to "the man" on a horrible New Jersey squad. It hurt his defense because he was the only guy to score on offense, but it showed that he really did have that offensive talent after all, he wasn't just a stopper like he was for the Mavs.

I'll be honest, I was 6 when MJ won his first title, so I can't really speak from experience as to which was the "best" MJ. But I am very skeptical to believe it was old MJ... his greatest ability as a player was always taking it to the hole, and that is something that peaked in his mid 20s. Looking at the stats, it's hard not to pick 87-88... DPOY, league leader in minutes, AND the all-time PER record? How can it be better than that? Even if he's less well-rounded than he would become, does it matter HOW he gets it done, so long as he does?