There are a few different things going on. One is that Wilt’s PER is not a PER in the same sense that Shaq’s is; we really don’t know how many steals, blocks and turnovers he had in his career because those didn’t exist as statistics. PER before about 25 years ago is kludgy as a result. So one possibility is that Wilt’s “true” PER is better than his PER, and in fact we’re just undervaluing him.
Not the only possibility, though. The E part of PER is important. Wilt averaged 30 points a game over his career. Shaq averaged 23.7. On that basis alone, you have to call Wilt a substantially better scorer. But there’s more going on. First, Shaq shot an appreciably higher percentage in his career - about 58% to 54%. Shaq also had a slight edge in free throw shooting, which you don’t get to say a lot. Plus – more on efficiency – per 36 minutes of playing time over their careers, Wilt averaged 23.6 and Shaq averaged 24.6, which is an elegant way to point out that one element underlying the scoring numbers is that Wilt just played a friggin’ lot and shot the ball a ton. Per 100 touches over his career, Shaq averaged 35 points. We don’t know how many Wilt averaged because they didn’t think to track touches, but presumably he got the ball a bloody lot. There are arguments to be made that players who get more touches and play more minutes are probably better, but being on the court or having the ball are not prima facie evidence of being better unless they result in more of the same level of production.
Also – still on efficiency – pace matters. During Wilt’s career, the league was routinely averaging 110-120 points per game per team. When Shaq won the scoring title in 99, the average was 97.5. Another little bump for Shaq, context-wise.
There’s more, but in terms of a simple explanation - the thing you’re looking for for a better player in PER terms is higher production per “unit” of basketball. PER isn’t intended to hold up a body of work against a body of work. It’s intended to demonstrate who, relative to his era, was more useful to his team compared to having somebody else out there for the time he was out there. Shaq’s PER is better, in very loose terms, because his team got more points out of him per time he had the ball. (I actually think a microcosm of this showed up in the Hakeem/Shaq matchups early in Shaq’s career. Shaq would take 18 shots but be dominant on both ends, and Hakeem would take 33 shots, and the storyline would be Hakeem kicked his ass even though in reality they were both kicking everyone’s asses, just in different roles).
Finally, though: I do think you’re underrating Shaq by calling him one-dimensional. He was a pretty good passer, a great shot blocker, and of course rebounded and scored like a demon. He was a really awesome player.
Yeah, I could never stand Shaq, so it’s likely I am downgrading him in my memory.
Is there a way to translate PER, as can be done with WAR, into a number of wins that would be expected by a team of league-average players plus this guy? I’m wondering how much of a difference in PER it takes before one player is clearly significantly better than another.
I am skeptical of the use of career PER as a comparative measure, since it seems to depend a lot on how long a player chooses to keep playing past his prime; Kareem would seem to be a good example of a player downgraded by this feature. I note that, if Chris Paul retired tomorrow, he would be the sixth-best player in history by career PER! I like it better as a year-by-year comparison. If we just rank players by the number of times they led the league in PER, we get
9: Kareem
8: Wilt
7: MJ
6: LBJ
5: Shaq
4: Pettit
3: Mikan, The Admiral
2: West, Garnett, Moses Malone, Bird
1: many others
which seems more reasonable than the career average list. I note that all the multiple league leaders except Kareem and Wilt led in an unbroken run of consecutive years, so with LBJ’s last title two years behind him, this makes it appear that he has probably peaked.
I am surprised to note that no member of the Celtic dynasty ever ranked above eighth in PER in a season.
I also found a couple other advanced metrics that seem much less plausible than PER to me (frombasketballreference.com: “VORP” has Karl Malone as the all-time #2 and Jason Kidd at 10, just ahead of Magic at 11 and Clyde Drexler at 13. I love Clyde Drexler more than life itself, but really? “Win shares per 48 minutes” puts Neal Johnston into the top 5. Well, I can’t argue. It also has Chris Paul at #3, ahead of LBJ at #6. I don’t think so.
Oh my god . . . . . Im a Philly sports fan through and through but Im so SICK of this AI ass-kissing in our town, i.e. he had great skills and talent but he did things his own way, and gee doesn’t AI deserve to be in the executive office of the Sixers, he introduced hip hop culture to the NBA blah blah blah.
He brought mad skills to the NBA, and yes, was a tough player, but he refused to train, didn’t practice, didn’t work out and was a drunk. He pissed his talent and money down the ocean, and I bet if he dried out and sobered up, lifted weights once in a while, and showed up for practice, hell he might have not only gotten 3-4 more years out of the league, but would have stacks of cash to see him through retirement.
You have God-given ability. You get chance after chance after chance (and if you know anything about AI BEFORE his NBA days, you know what Im alluding to) after fucking up over and over again.
At some point as a man, you look in the mirror, and apply yourself. THAT is respect not only for the game, but for life. Im sick of people feeling sorry for and making excuses for this guy. He’s a clown.