It’s factual stuff based on the metric this person used so it’s like no point in really arguing it
For me atleast
The Best Big 4 Athletes By Decade
- Thread starter 5th Letter
- Start date
For me atleast
I get it, but idm fam. 6 finals, all defensive every year.
The Kwame brown 06 lakers were tough to watch tho.
Just an fyi, Duncan had more win shares than Kobe and Dirk, average higher win shares for his career, a higher bpm. Won more mvps (regular and finals) than both. Holds the record for being on the most all defensive teams and has the same amount of championships as Kobe and has never had a losing season as a player. There’s no flash to his game and he didn’t have the charm of Kobe, but as most bigs they often get overlooked.
Word but it’s factoring PER as well and Kobe was not an efficient shooter
Duncan makes more sense than Dirk
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
I see where you're coming from. I think the contention, though no one has outright said it, is that highest WS+PER alone is not enough to declare someone the best in the NBA.
That's something that can be debated.
But if the graph says these are the best athletes by WS+PER then it’s not debatable because the criteria is already chosen
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
Agreed, that's why I said that I think people are actually arguing that WS+PER shouldn't be the only criteria even though no one is actually saying that.
Playmaker88
G Money is Cash
Nobody gives a fuck about per or wins shares
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
People overvalue those stats, but PER and WS are pretty good metrics. Only problem with PER is that it doesn't really factor in defense, which is why Jokic looks like the GOAT when only considering PER.
