Hyperbollinger
John Hollinger is at it again. Just weeks after posting that Chris Paul is having possibly the greatest season EVER for a point guard, he's now saying that LeBron James is "having one of the greatest seasons in league history."
James doesn't lead the league in a single individual category, and his scoring and rebounding numbers are both down from a year ago. Yet when one looks at his accomplishments in total, and adjusts for both his minutes and his team's pace, he's having one of the greatest seasons in league history.
First off, I do like how you have to ignore some statistics and look at other ones to defend this position but what I really love is how, in Hollingerworld, "ever" doesn't include about half of the NBA's existence.
That 31.89 mark is Michael Jordan's PER from the 1987-88 season, the top mark for any season since the league started tracking individual turnovers in 1973-74. (We don't have enough information for seasons prior to that, unfortunately, so we can't properly evaluate Wilt or the Big O.)
So the first twenty seven years of the NBA just don't count? I think Hollinger should probably drop the "ever" from his pronouncement. (And this is probably something he should have mentioned in his Chris Paul argument as well). Still Hollinger feels like people aren't giving LeBron James, one of the most hyped athletes of our time, his due.
What's very clear, however, is that LeBron's campaign belongs on the short list. Few players in history have had a season approaching this one, and as of today only one player has exceeded it.
And by "few players in history have had a season approaching this one", not only does Hollinger ignore most of the Hall of Fame but he also means Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul, two guys who are both at +30 in the PER and have a chance to be better than the supposed best ever.
Now Hollinger cops a lot of pleas for LeBron, including bemoaning the fact that James doesn't play in a fast-paced era. But PER makes up for that by taking into account pace. So in reality, James might actually be better off playing in a slower era because he doesn't have to put his numbers up, they are projected for him. He gets to live off of what he might have done while players on faster paced teams actually have to put up the numbers.
What's really galling though is when Hollinger throws out the line "there are a variety of subjective criteria one can add to the discussion that goes far beyond the limits of PER." like it's nothing. It's almost an afterthough. In reality, those subjective criteria expose just how limited PER actually is. PER is the core to Hollinger's entire argument and it assumes that all stats are equal, that the NBA was always the NBA, and that the only thing that ever really changed was the pace at which the game was played.
That blind allegiance to PER is what makes these articles so frustratingly myopic. Hollinger wants to compare Michael Jordan's 1987-88 season with LeBron's campaign this year but he only wants to look at the stats he's chosen and not anything else. The number 7 doesn't mean anything to him. That would be the numbers of new teams that have come in since '88 and have watered down the NBA talent pool.
It also ignores the fact that Michael Jordan's season came at a time when defenses were so tough and most players were having such a hard time scoring that the NBA would soon change the rules to help out offenses. Jordan didn't have the friendly circle under the hoop that made it easier for him to drive to the hoop and avoid charging calls. LeBron doesn't have to deal with Dennis Rodman mugging him or Anthony Mason trying to dislocate his hip with hand checks. Yes, Jordan didn't have zones but I think the NBA-style zone which is weakened by the defensive three second rule along with the fact that great centers like Hakeem/Ewing/The Admiral/etc. aren't roaming the paint today would have helped Jordan even more.
In the end, Hollinger's comparison is like taking a player on a slow-paced team from a mid-major conference and then saying that he would have put up even better numbers if he played on a fast-paced Big East team. The stats say it would happen; common sense knows that it probably wouldn't.
LeBron James is having a great season. The stats help show that it might be better than we realize. But John Hollinger needs to stop being an ESPN gimmick and throwing around hyperbole when it's so obviously short-sighted and flawed. PER is a tool, not the definition. If this discussion was IKEA furniture, John Hollinger would be sitting on an Allen wrench, exclaming "Greatest. Couch. Ever!" And at the very least, he needs to spread out his hyperbole so he isn't whining about the lack of MVP love Chrs Paul gets and then coming back with an article about how LeBron is MVP (and Dwyane Wade would seem to be #2).
