[Kaas]

So for all these PER fans, would you say Leon Powe has been more valuable than Antawn Jamison or David West this season? Vince Carter more valuable than Tracy McGrady? Corey Maggette over Hedo Turkoglu? I am a huge Bynum fan and he had an outstanding year this season. That said, no way would I claim he's more valuable than Yao Ming over the course of the year. The Powe vs. Jamison one is far and away the most baffling. A very, very good bench player more valuable than the most stable piece for an injury-riddled 5 seed that overcame in-season expectations?

[Basel57]

Originally Posted by aznzen

dude did i say something funny?

No, just something stupid.

[23AJ]

Originally Posted by Kaas

So for all these PER fans, would you say Leon Powe has been more valuable than Antawn Jamison or David West this season? Vince Carter more valuable than Tracy McGrady? Corey Maggette over Hedo Turkoglu? I am a huge Bynum fan and he had an outstanding year this season. That said, no way would I say he's more valuable than Yao Ming over the course of the year. The Powe vs. Jamison one is the far and away the most baffling. A very, very good bench player more valuable than the most stable piece for a injury-riddle 5 seed that overcame in-season expectations?

Thank you.

[Brandname]

Originally Posted by Kaas

So for all these PER fans, would you say Leon Powe has been more valuable than Antawn Jamison or David West this season? Vince Carter more valuable than Tracy McGrady? Corey Maggette over Hedo Turkoglu? I am a huge Bynum fan and he had an outstanding year this season. That said, no way would I say he's more valuable than Yao Ming over the course of the year. The Powe vs. Jamison one is the far and away the most baffling. A very, very good bench player more valuable than the most stable piece for a injury-riddle 5 seed that overcame in-season expectations?

Of course not. PER doesn't say they're more valuable.

[Kaas]

Originally Posted by Brandname

Of course not. PER doesn't say they're more valuable.

As it shouldn't. My point is if it doesn't explain value, then why is it always brought up in MVP debates as if it does? It seems to be a stat people use when convenient, yet these same people turn a blind eye to its inconsistencies.

EDIT: Let me rephrase. They fail to notice the inconsistency in their own argument.

[Brandname]

It's just another piece of information, such as team record. If anyone is saying their player should be MVP because he has the highest PER, they they're wrong. My favorite player has the highest PER, and I don't think he should be MVP, nor do I see many people making the argument for him to be MVP because of it.

What is relevant to the discussion IMO is that by this PER measure, Chris Paul is having an all-time historic season for a point guard. It's one more point to add to his case for MVP, rather than the crux of the argument in favor of him.

[aznzen]

Originally Posted by Basel57

No, just something stupid.

oic

[Blue Magic]

Originally Posted by Brandname

It's just another piece of information, such as team record. If anyone is saying their player should be MVP because he has the highest PER, they they're wrong. My favorite player has the highest PER, and I don't think he should be MVP, nor do I see many people making the argument for him to be MVP because of it.

What is relevant to the discussion IMO is that by this PER measure, Chris Paul is having an all-time historic season for a point guard. It's one more point to add to his case for MVP, rather than the crux of the argument in favor of him.

Um, that wasnt the case a month or two ago tho.

[Brandname]

Originally Posted by Blue Magic

Um, that wasnt the case a month or two ago tho.

Well no, I stipulated that the Cavs had to win 50 for Lebron to get my consideration for MVP. They didn't do that, so he's not the MVP.

[Kaas]

Originally Posted by Brandname

It's just another piece of information, such as team record. If anyone is saying their player should be MVP because he has the highest PER, they they're wrong. My favorite player has the highest PER, and I don't think he should be MVP, nor do I see many people making the argument for him to be MVP because of it.

Fair enough, although I think Lebron has a strong argument to be the MVP. That said, it's not PER that makes his case. I just see too many people use PER as some type of end-all stat. Maybe not in terms of value, but in terms of greatness.

What is relevant to the discussion IMO is that by this PER measure, Chris Paul is having an all-time historic season for a point guard. It's one more point to add to his case for MVP, rather than the crux of the argument in favor of him.

There is no doubt Paul's season has been amazing, and he's a valid candidate. One of many worthy ones. I just feel there are more viable arguments than PER to his candidacy as well. Why don't people use the argument that the entire offense is built around him getting his teammates easy baskets in the open court, or through penetration and dish, or pick and rolls? Or his knack for passing lanes? They might be mentioned, but they never seem to be arguments that stick. It always falls to PER, a weaker supporting cast (which isn't true when injuries are taken into account), or his team being 1st in the west at the time-- which as croco mentioned is significant for a team, but not necessarily an MVP candidate. I guess my issue is why build around weak arguments when there are better ones out there?

Hollinger may have rated Kobe's season more "efficient" last year, and considers this a down year statistically. But for my two pence, Kobe's currently playing a better, smarter brand of basketball than he did last year. The life-time achievement argument is bogus. In my mind, there are four viable candidates and all of them are worthy of the award. It just seems like the media changes its stipulations to fit its favorite candidate and misplace its least favorites (often Kobe). The qualifications Kobe must meet seem to change too often, and saying giving it to him this year is a lifetime achievement award is quite possibly the stupidest one yet. As I said in another thread before, KG's stats aren't close to what they were five years ago. He's also got talent around him. But he doesn't hear this lifetime achievement award bull****. Neither deserves it. The easy counter to my point is that he switched teams and "changed culture of losing in Boston", but intuition tells me there is more to it than this. If the Lakers wrap up 1st place, it looks like the Kobe haters in the media won't have enough time to give him a new stipulation they think he can't meet to justify not voting for him.

And fortunately, as much as PER is discussed on message boards, I've never heard an "expert" use it in an argument when talking about MVP candidates. So in the end, it's really a moot point.