Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ray Allen's PER vs Clydes?

Expand Messages
  • nickouli5
    I noticed on Alleyoop.com PER ratings that Ray Allen in 2000-2001 had a PER rating of 23.27 which was greater than all of Clyde Drexler s PER ratings with the
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I noticed on Alleyoop.com PER ratings that Ray Allen in 2000-2001 had
      a PER rating of 23.27 which was greater than all of Clyde Drexler's
      PER ratings with the exception of 1991-92 and 1988-89 (arguably his
      best seasons).

      I also noticed Reggie Miller's PERs are very close to Clydes over a
      few years.

      Would you say that Reggie and Ray in their best years are as good as
      Clyde Drexler's prime years?

      I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and even
      possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
      argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
      better at times. Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
      turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?

      Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
      might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?
    • Stephen Greenwell
      I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and even possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good argument/comparison). I remember Clyde
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and even
        possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
        argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
        better at times.  Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
        turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?

        Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
        might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?

        As with Isiah Thomas, who I believe you also asked about, publicity really frames how we think about certain players.  Drexler played on a very prolific college team, and had a flashier style then Allen and Miller.  Excluding their penchants for acting (Allen) and clutch shots (Miller), both are the quiet players who do less noticable things (outstanding shooters, less turnovers, game based on shooting and not explosiveness to the basket) than more "hyped" players like Drexler, Thomas, Latrell Sprewell, etc.  I'm purposely excluding defense here though; I know Allen and Miller don't have great defensive reps, but I'm unsure about Drexler, since I was around six during his peak.

        I think everyone who posts to this group is a fan, of course.  Part of being a fan is realizing that you *can* be fooled by appearances or hype every once in a while.  To me, that's where the numbers come in.  PER ratings help to equalize two players with vastly different styles and tells us why they're both equally effective.

        Stephen Greenwell
      • Mike G
        ... even ... Every rating system will have some players looking overrated relative to others. Part of it is your perception, and part of it is the system.
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
          wrote:
          >... I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and
          even
          > possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
          > argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
          > better at times. Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
          > turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?
          >
          > Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
          > might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?

          Every rating system will have some players looking overrated
          relative to others. Part of it is your perception, and part of it
          is the system.

          Someday, a stat-head will list Tremaine Fowlkes up there with the
          best. But meanwhile, I'd agree with your assessment that Drexler >
          Allen, and >>> greater than Reggie, in their primes.

          As with the Isiah Thomas thread earlier, I'll list my guard rankings
          for the '90s. I've made my first 'weight' adjustment in a while:
          boosting the relative importance of Steals by 50%, on account of
          DanR's findings.

          My cutoff is 35.0 -- in my system, a hands-down allstar -- and you
          may consider 40.0 to be a bonafide superstar.

          Since 1990, only 7 different guards have hit the 40 mark. This
          includes McGrady, who is usually listed as a SF. Again, I'm not
          distinguishing PG and SG, and include those listed as G-F.

          1990
          50.0 Michael Jordan Chi
          44.1 Magic Johnson LA
          39.7 John Stockton Uta
          37.1 Kevin Johnson Phe
          36.7 Clyde Drexler Por
          35.0 Mark Price Cle

          1991
          50.8 Michael Jordan Chi
          43.1 Magic Johnson LA
          39.8 John Stockton Uta
          38.4 Kevin Johnson Phe
          36.7 Clyde Drexler Por
          35.5 Mark Price Cle
          35.1 Terry Porter Por

          1992
          46.9 Michael Jordan Chi
          40.4 Clyde Drexler Por
          38.3 John Stockton Uta
          35.6 Mark Price Cle

          1993
          48.6 Michael Jordan Chi
          36.1 Mark Price Cle
          35.1 John Stockton Uta

          1994
          37.8 John Stockton Uta
          36.5 Mark Price Cle

          1995
          39.1 (Michael Jordan Chi)
          38.8 John Stockton Uta
          37.2 Clyde Drexler Hou
          36.0 Rod Strickland Por

          1996
          48.5 Michael Jordan Chi
          40.0 Terrell Brandon Cle
          38.8 Anfernee Hardaway Orl
          36.3 John Stockton Uta
          35.7 Kevin Johnson Phe

          1997
          45.9 Michael Jordan Chi
          37.3 Gary Payton Sea
          37.0 Terrell Brandon Cle
          36.7 Tim Hardaway Mia
          36.7 Scottie Pippen Chi
          36.6 Kevin Johnson Phe
          36.5 John Stockton Uta
          35.3 Mitch Richmond Sac

          1998
          41.8 Michael Jordan Chi
          36.2 Gary Payton Sea
          35.5 Tim Hardaway Mia
          35.2 Scottie Pippen Chi

          1999
          37.2 Jason Kidd Phe
          36.8 Allen Iverson Phl
          36.4 Gary Payton Sea
          35.3 Darrel Armstrong Orl

          2000
          39.0 Gary Payton Sea
          37.8 Vince Carter Tor
          36.7 Kobe Bryant LAL

          2001
          39.7 Allen Iverson Phl
          39.6 Tracy McGrady Orl
          39.5 Vince Carter Tor
          38.8 Kobe Bryant LAL
          36.9 Paul Pierce Bos
          35.9 Jerry Stackhouse Det
          35.9 Ray Allen Mil
          35.7 Stephon Marbury NJ
          35.6 Gary Payton Sea
          35.0 Jason Kidd Phe

          2002
          40.7 Allen Iverson Phl
          40.0 Tracy McGrady Orl
          38.1 Kobe Bryant LAL
          37.8 Gary Payton Sea
          37.6 Paul Pierce Bos
          37.1 Michael Jordan Was
          35.6 Jason Kidd NJ
          35.5 Vince Carter Tor
          35.3 Andre Miller Cle

          2003
          45.8 Tracy Mcgrady Orl
          42.4 Kobe Bryant LAL
          39.0 Jason Kidd NJ
          38.6 Paul Pierce Bos
          36.6 Allen Iverson Phl

          Kidd's 2003 is much better than his much-hyped 2002.

          McGrady's 2003 is the most Jordanesque year anyone's put up, ever.

          What looks like a glut of top guards in 2001-2002 is partly just a
          lot of guys who land in the 35-36 range. Other years, several guys
          just miss.

          Stockton never hits 40.0; just missing a couple of times.

          Terrell Brandon's 1996 is by far the best performance that did not
          earn an all-NBA spot.

          Guys who haven't hit the 35 mark, and their closest approach:

          34.8 Steve Francis Hou 2001
          34.3 Dana Barros Phl 1995
          34.2 Mookie Blaylock Atl 1997
          34.2 Michael Adams Den 1991
          34.1 Ron Harper SD 1990
          33.8 Sam Cassell Mil 2002
          33.5 Reggie Miller Ind 1997
          33.5 Rickey Pierce Mil 1990
          33.3 Steve Nash Dal 2003
          33.1 Baron Davis Cha 2002
          33.0 Eddie Jones Cha 2000
        • carlos12155
          ... Well, part of the problem is that we are comparing players in different eras. Maybe John is measuring how effective are players relative to average
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@g...>
            > wrote:
            > >... I always thought of Clyde as the second best SG in the 90s and
            > even
            > > possibly into today (with Kobe and Tmac being a good
            > > argument/comparison). I remember Clyde had seasons of 25-7-6 or
            > > better at times. Are Ray and Reggie close in ratings because they
            > > turned the ball over less and shot a greater percentage in general?
            > >
            > > Does the PER slightly favor good shooters over overall players who
            > > might be slightly less efficient when it comes to shooting/scoring?
            >
            > Every rating system will have some players looking overrated
            > relative to others. Part of it is your perception, and part of it
            > is the system.
            >
            > Someday, a stat-head will list Tremaine Fowlkes up there with the
            > best. But meanwhile, I'd agree with your assessment that Drexler >
            > Allen, and >>> greater than Reggie, in their primes.
            >


            Well, part of the problem is that we are comparing players in
            different eras. Maybe John is measuring how effective are players
            relative to average efficiency. In that case the ratings are not
            really saying that Allen was the equal of Drexler, but that at his
            time Allen's production was as much above average production as
            Drexler's was in his.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.