What about Adrian Dantley?

O okay, but why do you think ppg is overrated

weird tmac is rated higher than kg

 

It aint HIGHLY overrated, but I see your point - depending on the player in question. But with Dantley's percentage about 56%<font color=""DarkOrchid"">, </font> his efficiency with puting up high numbers with low fga<font color=""DarkOrchid"">,</font> together his ability to reliably get to the freethrow line<font color=""DarkOrchid"">,</font> ( he had an average of 10.5 fta/g thru those years above at about 83%) Id say PPG was a very appropriate and effective stat with Dantley . He seemed at least scoring wise, a very good candidate to try to go out and get you 30 for your team on a nightly basis.



And my fault on those 3's --- he attempted 27 in those 7 years and connected on 5

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">O okay, but why do you think ppg is overrated

weird tmac is rated higher than kg</div>

Points per game doesn't take into account minutes played or the pace at which a team plays (i.e., possessions per minute they get). It doesn't account for the efficiency of the scorer either.

There are other factors to consider of course, than would be difficult to incorporate in any metric. Like how good the player is at creating shots for himself. How often he turns the ball over when he does so. If he sees mostly single or double coverage. Is he positively or negatively impacting his team's offense (which, ultimately, is the most important consideration).

PER summarizes all the available "box score" stats for a player, while also using certain team characteristics, to give a measure of per-possession effectiveness. The average PER, in any given season, is always set to 15.

Regarding KG vs McGrady in PER, Garnett has been significantly higher the last 3 seasons:

<div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/><font color=""Navy"">GarnettMcGrady</font><br/>199615.8-<br/>199718.2-<br/>199820.417.4<br/>199922.420.6<br/>200023.620.0<br/>200123.924.9<br/>200223.825.1<br/>200326.430.3<br/>200429.425.3<br/>200528.222.9<br/>200626.822.0<br/></div>

As for Dantley, yes he was a highly efficient scorer. In fact, he's fourth in NBA history in career scoring efficiency, which is quite amazing considering how often he scored.

But one should also consider the pace of his teams during that time. For example, in 1984 Dantley scored 32.4 points/40min with efficiency (TS%) of 65.2%. But his team on average got nearly 104.9 possessions per 48 minutes. Also, the league efficiency at that time was 54.3%.

Compare that to Kobe Bryant in, say, 2003. He scored 28.9 points/40min with efficiency of 55%. Doesn't look very good compard to Dantley's numbers. But, his team only got 92.5 possessions per 48 minutes. Also, the league-wide efficiency in 2003 was only 51.9%.

So, if you really want to compare them as scorers, you should first adjust for pace, and also take into account that efficiency league wide was significantly less.

Let's first equalize the pace by setting it to 100 possessions per 48 minutes.

Then, Dantley actually scores 31.4 points per 40 minutes. Kobe scores 31.2 points per 40 minutes. Much closer, and that's assuming Dantley's efficiency would the stay the same. If you drop his scoring output by 4.6% (since that's the percent difference, league wide, in efficiency), his scoring would drop down to 30.0 points per 40 minutes.

Anyways, the point of this is to show that the difference isn't quite as big as the stats may initially suggest. Still, even if we project that Dantley scores 30 points per 40 minutes at 62.3% efficiency, versus Kobe scoring 31.2 points per 40 minutes at 55% efficiency, you'd have to give Dantley the edge. He was a better scorer, per possession, in 1984 than Kobe was in 2003. Though you could easily argue Kobe was a better overall offensive player, since he was also his team's primary ball handler and he created more shots for his teammates. And if you want to compare per-game value, Kobe also played nearly 4 more minutes a game.

 

stil weird to me how tmac is higher, he is only ahead of him in 3 seasons. the other kg dominates. anyway good to know about per. i've seen it before but never knew what it is.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">stil weird to me how tmac is higher, he is only ahead of him in 3 seasons. the other kg dominates. anyway good to know about per. i've seen it before but never knew what it is.</div>

The reason has to do with minutes played in each season. When calculating Career PER you weight each season-PER with minutes played that season.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The reason has to do with minutes played in each season. PER each season is weighted by minutes played.
</div>
That should also affect the Kobe -Dantley comparison too tho right

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"><u>30 points per 40 minutes at 62.3% efficiency, </u></div>
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">adjust for pace, and also take into account that <u>efficiency league wide was significantly less</u>. </div>

Explain more about the scoring % efficiency you mentioned. <font color=""Sienna"">What do you mean by "62.3% efficiency" </font> ---On the last line, basically i'm getting that you're saying the average scorer in the leauge in 84' was more efficient than in 03'. But you'd think most people would also argue there we're at the top, guys who were just better scorers back then than now. How is that factored in? Also how are fga/g factored in with the Team Per possession stats for scoring. Including with that the ft/g

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AIRTIGHT:</div><div class="quote_post">That should also affect the Kobe -Dantley comparison too tho right</div>

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Career PER is a weighted average of player's PER each season -- weighted by minutes played.


<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Explain more about the scoring % efficiency you mentioned. On the last line, basically i'm getting that you're saying the average scorer in the leauge in 84' was more efficient than in 03'. But you'd think most people would also argue there we're at the top guys who were better scorers back then than now. How is that factored in?</div>

Can you reword that?