Printable View
1 Manu Ginobili, SAS 34.29
2 Chris Paul, NOR 30.69
3 Jason Terry, DAL 29.88
4 Kevin Garnett, BOS 29.65
5 Josh Howard, DAL 29.02
Any chance he finishes first at the end of the season? I know is almost imposible to keep playing this good.. but still... :clap
He might. It's unlikely but I wouldn't put it past him. One thing he has going for him is his limited minutes, with the main thing behind he's just playing really, really well right now.
However, lower the playing time requirements just a tad and the top five would be:
1 Ian Mahinmi, SAS 46.45
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 34.29
3 Chris Paul, NOR 30.69
4 Jason Terry, DAL 29.88
5 Kevin Garnett, BOS 29.65
:smokin
Barring injuries, he could. Unlikely, but you never know.
How he is playing now though, he is a definite All-Star.
And what the list of the previous PER champions?
Assuming that you interest is genuine, here is the list of the top 20 players in the last 3 years according to their PER ranking:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
Note a couple of things:Code:2005
1) Kevin Garnett 28.13
2) Tim Duncan 26.96
3) Shaquille O'Neal 26.87
4) Amare Stoudemire 26.56
5) Dirk Nowitzki 25.99
6) LeBron James 25.61
7) Kobe Bryant 23.22
8) Allen Iverson 23.16
9) Yao Ming 23.11
10) Dwyane Wade 23.09
11) Tracy McGrady 22.85
12) Vince Carter 22.81
13) Elton Brand 22.38
14) Manu Ginobili 22.24
15) Steve Nash 21.96
16) Stephon Marbury 21.87
17) Paul Pierce 21.72
18) Shawn Marion 21.59
19) Larry Hughes 21.52
20) Gilbert Arenas 21.20
2006
1) LeBron James 28.4
2) Dirk Nowitzki 28.4
3) Kobe Bryant 28.3
4) Dwyane Wade 28.0
5) Kevin Garnett 27.1
6) Elton Brand 26.9
7) Allen Iverson 26.3
8) Paul Pierce 23.9
9) Shawn Marion 23.9
10) Gilbert Arenas 23.9
11) Steve Nash 23.6
12) Chauncey Billups 23.6
13) Chris Bosh 23.4
14) Tim Duncan 23.4
15) Pau Gasol 22.8
16) Manu Ginobili 22.7
17) Carmelo Anthony 22.3
18) Ray Allen 22.3
19) Chris Paul 22.2
20) Zydrunas Ilgauskas 22.1
2007
1) Dwyane Wade 29.18
2) Dirk Nowitzki 27.85
3) Yao Ming 26.70
4) Tim Duncan 26.35
5) Kobe Bryant 26.29
6) LeBron James 24.73
7) Kevin Garnett 24.37
8) Pau Gasol 24.36
9) Manu Ginobili 24.36
10) Carlos Boozer 24.31
11) Gilbert Arenas 24.21
12) Steve Nash 24.03
13) Tracy McGrady 23.42
14) Amare Stoudemire 23.30
15) Elton Brand 23.28
16) Zach Randolph 22.97
17) Chris Bosh 22.83
18) Michael Redd 22.50
19) Carmelo Anthony 22.28
20) Chris Paul 22.17
2008 (so far, this is likely to change)
1) Manu Ginobili 34.45
2) Chris Paul 30.84
3) Jason Terry 30.03
4) Kevin Garnett 29.79
5) Josh Howard 29.17
6) Kobe Bryant 28.50
7) Steve Nash 28.21
8) Richard Hamilton 27.51
9) Tim Duncan 27.06
10) LeBron James 26.91
11) Yao Ming 26.84
12) Kevin Martin 26.35
13) Cuttino Mobley 26.30
14) Tracy McGrady 25.66
15) Richard Jefferson 25.64
16) Carlos Boozer 25.54
17) Jose Calderon 25.47
18) Sam Cassell 24.73
19) Dwight Howard 24.62
20) Chauncey Billups 24.21
1) While some people may disagree with their subjective view of the rankings and/or some in/exclusions of player X or Y, I think most people will also agree that the PER metric passes the "laughing test" easily.
2) The Spurs have had consistently 2 players (Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili) in the top 20 PER players in the league in the last 3 seasons (and counting). They are the only team to consistently achieve this in consecutive years since the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.
3) Manu has continuously improved his PER metric every year he's been in the league, which is not a small achievement considering he's been ranked in the top 20 for the last 3+ years.
So, RVB, do you think Manu can lead the league in PER this season? I can see him finishing around 26, which would put him in the top five.
RVB is hardcore CoM :toast
Manu is just cutting people up at both ends! Beautiful to watch (I am watching 2nd half of Hornets game as we speak).
It strikes me that in a few years when he loses a step, Manu will probably end his career as a point guard, and may remain quite a useful player even when his explosiveness has diminished - he is just so smart and what a passer!
OMG I love watching Ginobili play the game, maybe more than any other player (and for me to say that is a BIG step!).
No way he keeps the PER above 30 for too long. But if he could get a PER of 25 or 26 I would be extremely pleased. However, I say he returns to his normal level of 21-23.
I hope I am wrong.
I know is almost imposible to keep playing this good.. but still...Quote:
Originally Posted by Deimosfobos
Does this sentence hace solecism?
PS: my English is poor,so please don't laugh at me
No, it wasn't, really. But thanks anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Von Braun
Well, given the generous margin of error allowable by the first part of your statement, one could say the exact same thing about scoring average.Quote:
1) While some people may disagree with their subjective view of the rankings and/or some in/exclusions of player X or Y, I think most people will also agree that the PER metric passes the "laughing test" easily.
Hollinger like to throw around claims about how much better PER is than anything else out there, but seems unable or unwilling to subject it to rigorous systematic testing to validate those claims. He seems to be more interested in making money off of it now.
The fact that whenever Hollinger tries to explains numbers, including non-PER ones, he often completely botches his logic doesn't inspire much confidence in me.
PER now just seems to be one of those things people whip out when it suits their purposes, and don't when it doesn't.
Pretty much like any other stat. Except this one actually includes some context or attempt at encapsulating production and value (at least offensively and for all the stats that are recorded in the NBA).Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
Most people tend to have their own algorithms for rating players, which pretty much always has to do with PPG, basic %'s, and team wins. To me Hollinger trying to push PER doesn't make it useless. It really doesn't matter how much he pumps this stat out, or where he ranks players. The point is that it is a simple stat that includes some context. In other words its an improvement over simple PPG and NBA Efficiency which most people tend to factor anyway. PER is a derivative formula of production per minute standardized to to the league (Pace, Team context included). What exactly is so bogus about it? Just because Hollinger made the stat doesn't mean he can predict any better than the average person as to how successful a player will be. Doesn't mean that because Manu had a Top 15 PER last year that he was a Top 15 NBA player.
Manu is not quite as good as his previous PERs have indicated IMO because he did not play heavy minutes. But I often wonder, if he did play heavier minutes, would his PER remain at such a high level?
Keep trying mate, you'll get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by 288pipi
1. "I know it is almost impossible to keep playing this well... but still..."
You were close!
2. solecism isn't really a word many people know - try "mistake" instead.
3. no-one will laugh at you. We have many posters from all over the world here whose English is imperfect, it adds to ST's flavour! ;)
3q~~Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos
I mean, the entire substance of Hollinger's argument seems to consist of, "well, PER is clearly better than the IBM formula because the IBM formula kept ranking David Robinson above Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal". The inability to go beyond that does make me disparage his motivation as anything more than selling books.
Despite if Efficiency or PER is better, both of them are CLEARLY better than just plain PPG evaluation, wich is the most used by the majority of fans without major basketball knowledge, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
To the hell with all the stats.
Manu is playing out of his mind right now,and He is being the main offensive weapon for the Spurs. And that´s what really matters.
Numbers are just for the books and stats sheets, t on the court during games manu is being Super Manu once again.
Even better tham the 2005 Manu right now.
PER and Win Shares are "real" stats in that the inputs are "real." That is, they reflect both counting stats and pace stats, which everyone agrees are important and relevant. The problem is how to interpret the stats. Hollinger can be aggravating in that he tends to accept PER as infallible and transparent, which it isn't.
In my opinion, PER is not as useful for evaluating performance as Position-Adjusted Win Share (PAWS), precisely becuase PER does not fully account for position. For example, if you look at the PER leaders for the last three years, it is almost entirely big men and point guards. (I'm not sure what to call LeBron, who may be the exception to the general rule.) PAWS also tends to correspond more to my own observations, for whatever that is worth. Also, Dave Berri is at least forthcoming and open to criticism; he is a "real" scientist first. Berri has also admitted that no stat can ever capture the complexity of either individual or team defense, which almost seems like a prerequisite for being taken seriously in these type of debates.
Manu has been playing excellent for the Spurs.
I don't think he will finish 1st though, and it will be tough to stay in the top 5.
(same for Jet & Howard)
Top 10 might be more realistic.
Dwyane Wade and Dirk Nowitzki will finish 1 and 2 in this stat at season's end.
Wade just dominates this stat, he will be #1, and it won't even be close.
Dirk's PER will sky-rocket once Damp and Harris are back in the line-up.
I didn't see the finals MVP in there... are those numbers correct or TP is not as good as we think he is?
That's exactly the problem: people spend all this times developing quantitative measures, and then at the end say, well "clearly" this is better. That's nonsense. You should be able to also quantitate the way in which one measure is better than another. Doing so doesn't necessary settle the argument, but not even trying, as Hollinger doesn't, is just snake oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dartherus
Look, nobody thinks that PPG is anywhere close to a perfect measure of anything. Yet nobody can argue with the following painfully simplistic reasoning:
I assume we can all agree that the point of the game is to win. In EVERY NBA GAME THAT WAS EVERY PLAYED, I can tell you which team won with perfect fidelity just by summing up the PPG (for that game) for one team and comparing that with the total PPG for the other team.
Sounds stupid, huh? Yet, can you do that with PER? If I find JUST ONE GAME where the summed PER for the losing team is higher than the summed PER for the winning team, then I have established that the fidelity for PER in determining the outcome of a game is less than that for PPG. (I haven't done this yet, but I'm guessing there are games out there where this is the case.)
Of course, the counterargument is that you have to use a PER weighted by each players minute per game. Maybe that would determine outcome equally as well as PPG. But that's no longer "pure PER", it's a convolution of PER with MPG.
Again, am I saying that PPG is better than PER? Absolutely not. But I can create one ironclad NONSUBJECTIVE argument in favor of PPG, and the PER -ponents have (to date) come up with zero, just a lot of hand-waving.
I don't remember Hollinger even saying his formula is the 'be all, end all". He even knows its limitations and has stated them in previous books and on statistical message forums. He might try and push his stat at times or appear that way on ESPN, but it doesn't discredit the stat or deem it useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
To me, PER is basically NBA Efficiency per minute relative to team and league context. Sounds pretty good to me. Not perfect, but much better than simply 'watching a few games' and looking at team wins along with basic percentages which many die hard fans (even knowledgeable ones do). There is always the concept of defense, intangibles, and team contexts, but those will always be there.
At least PER is a standardized quantitative measure of basic stats tracked by the NBA. It helps see how efficient and productive many players are relative to the league and maybe even to their teams depending how one looks at it. Rating players is very objective, but I see nothing wrong with Hollinger stats, it all depends how one uses it.
You know, for a moment I thought you were being serious, then I remembered some writings of some of your fellow native English speaking posters whose writing skills are ... well lacking :P :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
My two main problems with PER are two things:
1) It's a per minute stat. Per minute stats are pretty useless in real life analysis. If a player isn't playing more minutes, there is usually a reason for that. Either the player gets in too much foul trouble, doesn't have the stamina or isn't good enough defensively to play big minutes. PER looks at what players do per 40 minutes on the court ... even if during that time a player averages like 8 fouls.
For example, during the playoffs last year, PER told us that Alonzo Mourning was one of the best centers in the league. That not only ignores that Mourning would foul out if he played extended minutes, it also ignores that he doesn't have the stamina to play big minutes. It doesn't really matter if Zo averages 30 points, 15 rebounds and eight blocks per 40 minutes, because he can't play that many minutes.
If you put too much stock into PER, that means you value other per minutes stats like points per 48 minutes or rebounds per 48 minutes. Both "advanced" statisticians laugh at such numbers but fail to realize that PER uses the same math in its equation.
2) PER ignores defense completely. While it's difficult to count for defense, you rarely see Hollinger admit that PER is a completely offensive stat. Since it's a completely offensive stat, you have people who point at PER to show that Bowen is one of the worst players in the league. IIRC, Jason Collins has been last in the league in PER a couple times and while he's not a great player, he's a very solid post defender.
Bottomline, I think PER is a pretty decent stat. It's better than nothing and I like it better than that plain "efficiency" stat NBA.com uses, but I think Hollinger over utilizes it. In everything he writes, he always has to talk up PER.
To me, PER's best use is to use it to find undervalued players who could produce with more minutes played. For example, Michael Redd had a good PER back when he was a bench player behind Ray Allen. Then again, you have false PER "finds" such as Jackie Butler and Beno Udrih.
For the most part, I like Hollinger because he is attempting to bring some brains to the basketball reporting crowd. Basketball is so far behind baseball in that area that it's embarrassing. Although, with the way ESPN uses Hollinger, he's basically being used as a poorly done clone of Bill James.
I can watch the games and figure out that Manu is playing awesome right now.
I can also watch the games and figure out that some other player's inflated PER numbers are just garbage.
It's the same with a player's plus/minus. Sometimes it's a big reflection of what's going on in the game. And sometimes, it's just that a guy might be lucky enough to be on the floor when one of his teammates is going off.
I wish that more basketball "analysts" would be able to watch the games (both ends of the court) AND pay attention to the stats. It seems like many writers just watch the highlight reels, while others just watch the stat sheet.
All the different stat categories are useful. But when a writer doesn't watch enough basketball to see what's actually happening on the court, then that's obvious not a good thing.
Here's my ratings right now:
Manu :tu
Tony :tu
Bruce :tu
Spurs Depth :tu
Chance of Repeating :tu
Well said, Kori - I think it's called the "fantasy-fication" of sports, where stats mean more than the actual game! :depressed
That was not a shot at fantasy, I love fantasy ball, but it has it's place, and so does watching the game for the GAME'S SAKE, which is why basketball reporters should be watching the game.
And it makes me wonder WHY they don't watch more basketball!? I can watch it in Australia, yet they can't make time?
Bill Simmons is a guy who obviously watches a lot of the game and you can tell by the things he says about the players. Some other writers, I wonder WTF they are doing with their time.
True indeed. Bloody Americans... :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Manudona
Another game and Manu still strong in first place... go Manu!
89 games to go :D
89?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deimosfobos
73 season game + at least 16 (wins) on the playoffsQuote:
Originally Posted by kolko
:spin
Can I see a link to for Manu's PER?
Try here:Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...r%2fstatistics
It will let you see the top five in all positions.
You might need "insider" to go furthur, but it's a start.
1 Manu Ginobili, SAS 33.27Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
2 Chris Paul, NOR 29.93
3 LeBron James, CLE 29.18
4 Jason Terry, DAL 28.69
5 Tracy McGrady, HOU 27.82
Last game was not bad, but his 6to and lower FG% costed him about 1 point, still has a nice lead and 33.27 is still amazing.
As much as i would love for him to end up first, i would be happy with "just" 24/25 at the end of the season. :greedy
After 11 games, Manu's PER is 32.95. Still the best PER in NBA history :smokin
And Parker has a career-high PER of 22.46 ... good for 23rd in the NBA. Duncan is 25th at 22.34.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Wow, Timmy's rarely (if ever) been that low on the PER rankings. I wonder what he was at this time in the PF season (2006)?Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
:tu to Manu and TP. I was thinking the other night about whether there's a better tandem of guards playing together in the NBA (even though Manu is 6th man, he and Tony play a lot together), and I don't think there is. I love the way they can both slash, both hit the J, both play hard D, and Manu's incredible passing means that he can often take over the point and let Tony loose to play more of a shooting guard scoring role. The compliment each other perfectly. Synchronicity. That's our Spurs! :D
The bad news is the Manu is no longer first. The good news is that the Spurs now have three players in the top 16.
League Leaders in PER
1 LeBron James, CLE 31.10
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 30.49
3 Chris Paul, NOR 27.71
4 Dwight Howard, ORL 27.71
5 Carlos Boozer, UTH 25.97
6 Kevin Garnett, BOS 25.95
7 Chauncey Billups, DET 25.91
8 Kobe Bryant, LAL 25.08
9 Amare Stoudemire, PHO 24.97
10 Tim Duncan, SAS 24.96
11 Yao Ming, HOU 24.84
12 Steve Nash, PHO 24.81
13 Michael Redd, MIL 24.59
14 Jason Terry, DAL 24.34
15 Tracy McGrady, HOU 24.02
16 Tony Parker, SAS 23.94
What's the PER trophy look like? ;)
Like the Dallas Mavericks' championship trophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Manu's been playing amazing lately but now it seems like he is coming back down to earth. Hopefully he can continue playing well.
I don't think he slowed down but rather TP getting rid of the rust and TD starting to feel himself. The scoring responsibilities are quietly shifting back again. Manu did have a poor shooting game last night but that's no indication he has slowed down, let's see next games.Quote:
Originally Posted by TMTTRIO
There's 82 games in a season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deimosfobos
i dont think people really expected him to keep a PER north of 30 for the entire season. that just wouldnt mesh with the style of his play... he'll have pockets in the season where he'll play like a superstar.. then come back down to earth for a period... then start tearing it up again... that's how he is... and that's kinda how we need him to be... especially if he plays like a superstar when other players are struggling.
it just so happened that this superstar pocket happened at the start of the season.
Hollinger, having developed PER, can be expected to oversell his system. Not that analysts automatically do it with their rating systems, but it shouldn't surprise that an analyst would.
PER, like anything else, is useful to the extent of what it measures. It measures a players offensive efficiency, which shouldn't be confused with measuring which player is the best. Rating the best player, by its very nature, involves subjective factors - but that doesn't mean we can't look at PPG, RPG, APG, NBAE, PER, TENDEX, or anything else.
I favor looking at as many metrics as possible while considering those intangibles and those things that can only be observed as well. Why reject this statistic or that because it has a flaw? Your eye and mine has a flaw, too.
per is a stupid stat
Very persuasive.Quote:
per is a stupid stat
:lol gee, I wonder why you think its stupid...Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
I have always thought it was stupid
even before manu played in the nba
hmm... I was actually alluding to your hate for LeBron James, and the fact that he is first on the list... but its good to know what you're thinking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
I think the PER stat is quite recent in it's usage and hasn't recieved this much usage when it was introduced in the late 90's. I think most people were introduced to PER in 2002-2003.
I posted the manu part because that is what I thought you trying to get at
Also ducks,
What are you thoughts on this:
Manu > Tony
? :lol
no comment :smokin
To be fair, any list that involves LeBron and Manu on top is bound to piss ducks off something awful! :lol
Relax ducks, I'm just jerking your chain bro
the list has 2 other spur players on it
I still think it stupid
most players can not even play 48 minutes so why even fucking use it
I know I actually like you as a posterQuote:
Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc
you are cool :smokin
Every stat has a shortcoming. Does 24 PPG playing for Phoenix mean the same thing playing for the Spurs? No, but it doesn't invalidate PPG - neither should the limitations of PER invalidate the things it does tell us.Quote:
I still think it stupid
most players can not even play 48 minutes so why even fucking use it
PER is the closest thing we have to quantify and qualify the overall performance of a player (even with its flaws, etc). At least it's much better than just PPG, RPG, and APG.
The guy who scores 10 pts 5 boards in 10 min won't score 40 points and 20 boards in 40 minutes...
Beside, if a coach uses a player 10 minutes per game, there's a reason for it... It's quite easier to be on fire during 10 or 15 minutes per game than being on fire for the whole game..
If none of our Big 3 plays more than 35 minutes per games, it's not because Pop feels like he should give opponents a chance to win against the Spurs
PER doesn't mean a lot
It could be said that PER is a pretty good stat to describe the value of someone like Ginobili. You might try to limit his minutes to keep him from getting beat up, but you see what he contributes to the team when he's there, and why he's on the floor in the fourth quarter.
Lot of absolutes being thrown around in here with zero data to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurOutofTownFan
LMAO I like the Per 48 Min stat.
Ex:
A person who averages 1 MPG 1 PPG, 1 RPG and 1 APG averages 48,48,48 per 48 min. Imagine if he were aveage 2 PPG, 2 RPG, 2 APG and 1 MPG!!
PER is a nice stat that quantifies offense pretty well for the most part. Its not perfect, but its much superior than not using it at all and just looking at PPG, FG%, and Team Wins which most people inherently do anyway. No one gets to watch enough of every player to get a good gauge of their offensive contributions as a function of the team and league statistically. PER is a pretty good stat. Not perfect, but better than NBA Efficiency, or simple PPG and FG% of a player.
Far from perfect, but easily a meaningful stat when trying to compare player contributions offensively IMO. Of course context always matters. If someone has a PER of 30 and they play 15mpg, it doesn't mean they can be NBA superstars, just that they probably deserve more time or are simply underrated.
What's absolute about saying that PER isn't perfect, that it has its merits and deficiencies? What's wrong with looking at many different metrics as possible?Quote:
Lot of absolutes being thrown around in here with zero data to back it up.
Then the Spurs need to sign him and play him 48 minutes per until his legs fall off.Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
Could it be the elusive long three!? :dizzy
All completely opinion, with not a single quantitative argument to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos
It seems to me if your're going to argue one mathematical measure is better than another, you should at least be able to use mathematics to back it up. I have yet to see Hollinger do that. Even more damning, I have yet to see him write anything that would indicate he is even capable of doing that. The only thing he seems to seems to be doing is pushing snake oil. I'm almost positive I could do a better job of arguing the hard statistical viability of PER (or any of the other statistical measures) than he can, which doesn't give me a lot of confidence in his ability to derive statistics.
John Hollinger is the L. Ron Hubbard of statisticians, and PER is his Dianetics.
The PER stat is useful for players who average a lot of minutes. I'd say if the player is averaging around 30-35 minutes minimum, then the PER stat is a reasonable indicator of how they would perform with more minutes, but does not take in factors such as fatigue or durability. Basically the closer the MPG is to 40 or 48 minutes the more reliable the PER stat is.
I don't see a lot of interest in the PER stat.
Looking at the whole stat line give a better idea of what a player do than just looking at the PER and it's not more complicate.
PER has the drawback of being a per minute stat. A player like Ginobili has a Lebron like PER but he can't play 40 mpg like him : it's something shown by the stat line and not by the PER.
Please make these arguments on this NBA Stat board.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics...dc42376caa702d
Honestly. They can respond more eloquently then I can. Not that your opinion is right or wrong -- but I want to see a nice discussion based on your critical remarks of pretty much any type of derivative statistic.
If you could create a thread saying what good is a PER or derivative type of stat when one team could actually be lower than the other in a game then win, thus making the stat useless (you mentioned this earlier in the thread I beleive).
Please discuss on that forum, I would love to read that discussion.
Part of the benefit of PER is it can identify guys who are productive who do not play big minutes or play on slower paced teams etc... It equalizes things such as MPG (given a player plays similiar type of minutes). Again its all context. You can't compare Manu to Lebron, but you can compare a guy like Wade and Lebron cause they basically play the same role. Leader of their respective team, play heavy minutes etc... You can compare Manu to other second/third bananas of the past or present. Guys like Toni Kukoc, Sarunas Marciulonis -- or maybe even guys like McHale, Drexler as a 1995 Rocket etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Of course common sense says that Manu is not a superstar, but the PER shows he probably is a legit all star this season despite his low minutes. Don't forget the fact that no one on the Spurs plays much more than 35mpg, and yet they are still winning, and Manu is still the most productive offensive player this season (whether this is luck and/or playing with a good supporting cast is another issue which has some merit). If Duncan, Bowen, and Parker were playing 38mpg and Manu were getting 28mpg -- then I think the PER would simply indicate Manu might be deserving of more minutes and/or is a better contributor then his total statline indicates (like most people seem to think anyway without looking at any stat).
I'm only going to say: whatever. Please read my comments again, there was nothing absolute in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
So you are suggesting that PER isn't more useful than PPG in quantifying the overall performance of a player?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
Shoogar, can you make some of these posts on PER and statistical analysis on the APBR Board (link I gave above)? Could make for an interesting discussion on how to valuate (or not valuate) players?
(Seriously).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurOutofTownFan
To state that PER is "better" than anything is an absolute by any definition. And you haven't proved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpurOutofTownFan
Kind of hard to PROVE much of anything. Can anyone really prove much of anything? Its just a possible indicator of quality of play per minute. Its not a holy grail statistic -- it just seems to make more sense to use it over pure PPG, APG, RPG totals and Wins a player is a part of. I personally like the fact that it accounts for things like Pace, Team PPG etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoogarBear
Just because one losing team might have a higher PER than a winning team, doesn't mean its meaningless. Did Jordans 63 vs the Celtics prove to be worthless vs the Celtics because his team lost? Most people still would consider Jordan the inferior player to Bird even in those days, but he put up the same stats had a better PER than Bird, played better D. But the only difference was he had a weaker supporting cast, less experience with a good supporting cast.
PER shows that Jordan in the late 80s was probably just as good as the NBA finals MVP Michael. And likely better than a prime Bird when he scored 63 in 1986. But many fans and personnel around the league probably discredited Jordans points and called him a ball hog. Even though he was scoring more efficiently then Bird on MORE possesions.
True this is an example of one player vs another, but I am just trying point out that sometimes the best players playing extremely well don't always get the win -- doesn't mean they aren't playing at a high level simply because they lost.
Ultimately it does all come down to opinion. But why is PER such a bad thing, when all most people use to judge player quality is pure output? PER just helps equalize for things such as Pace, Team PPG, and efficiency etc.....
Why is it such a bad thing?
I've been to the APBR board several times (one of the gurus there is a Sonics fan and statistician I've known for almost 20 years), although I don't post there because a lot of the discussion tends to revolve around various tweaks to various formulas, and because I wanted to finish Dean Oliver's book before I waded in there. I got an email from him back in Sept asking me to post some stuff there, so maybe I will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos
One of the problems with PER (and all individual evaluations) is that it is based on the idea that you can reduce multi-dimensional assesments (points, rebounds, assists, block) into a single all-encompassing parameter. That makes sense in baseball, because you can reasonably boil everything down into one of two completely separate jobs (either advancing baserunners or preventing that), and where the dependencies on your teammates are relatively minimal. In hoops I think the entire concept is flawed from the start because scoring and defending are interrelated and have an extreme number of teammate dependencies.
Comparison of individual basketall players doesn't make sense unless you want to do a specific one-on-one comparison of players at the same position, and even then you can't have an intelligent discussion unless you've actually seen them play. You can argue forever whether Shaq is or isn't better than Duncan and no statistic will ever be able to prove anything. With the possible exception of plus/minus (which is the only derived individual statistic which I believe has any hope of actually being meaningful), no statistic is ever going to tell you Bruce Bowen's worth.
IMO, what we should be doing is comparison of the TEAM factors that determine who wins. Number of wins and # of championships is an absolute (everyone agrees on who has the most wins and who won the championship) to which you can apply rigorous statistics, and, for example, prove whether or not defensive FG% is really more important than PPG allowed like Pop is always saying. This is what I was trying to do in this post: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61146&
The other reason I haven't posted in ABPR yet is I wanted to finish my update of this analysis and run it by my Sonic statistician friend.
I have no problem with that. It's making casual statements like "X is obviously better than Y" when there is no objective data to support it that drives me nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos
I never said the concept of PER (per se) was meaningless (although I think there is a good deal of crock in Hollinger, who I don't think really understands numbers as well as he wants people to believe). In fact, I never said PER wasn't a better measure than PPG. I was just making the point that people need to have a better respect for what constitutes statistical proof.Quote:
Just because one losing team might have a higher PER than a winning team, doesn't mean its meaningless. Did Jordans 63 vs the Celtics prove to be worthless vs the Celtics because his team lost? Most people still would consider Jordan the inferior player to Bird even in those days, but he put up the same stats had a better PER than Bird, played better D. But the only difference was he had a weaker supporting cast, less experience with a good supporting cast.
(No offense, but parenthetically this whole conversation brings me back to the early days of the Church of Manu, when if you didn't say he was the greatest of all time, you were accused on not being a true Spurs fan. )
PER is a bad thing only when people start tossing about absolutes like "it's clearly better than . . . " when they don't have a shred of evidence to support it.Quote:
Ultimately it does all come down to opinion. But why is PER such a bad thing, when all most people use to judge player quality is pure output? PER just helps equalize for things such as Pace, Team PPG, and efficiency etc.....
Why is it such a bad thing?
Thanks Nikos for making it clear to him. PER is just better than counting how many points a player scored and saying he's the best guy around. That is all. No need to write a wall of text on this subject.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by SpurOutofTownFan
Are you clear on what constitutes an absolute yet?
So back to the thread, what is Manu's PER after the Wiz game?
Updated PER Standings
1 LeBron James, CLE 32.25
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 28.94
3 Carlos Boozer, UTH 28.21
4 Dwight Howard, ORL 27.17
5 Chris Paul, NOR 27.15
6 Kevin Garnett, BOS 25.94
7 Kobe Bryant, LAL 25.87
8 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 25.13
9 Tim Duncan, SAS 25.04
10 Tracy McGrady, HOU 24.57
11 Michael Redd, MIL 24.42
12 Steve Nash, PHO 24.39
13 Tony Parker, SAS 24.20
If you adjust PER for minutes played, the Big Three are amazingly close:
Adjusted PER
Tony Parker - 17.393
Manu Ginobili - 17.364
Tim Duncan - 17.319
To get the adjusted PER number, you multiply percentage of game played times PER.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Somwhere in America John Hollinger is having to change his shorts after seeing that info...
i thought per already took into account minutes? wasnt that the main criticism of it?
anyways i started thinking, if 35 was such an exceptional avg for manu to have, what do single game PER's look like? for ex: does kobe's per in his 81pt game surpass duncan's almost quad double (or drob's real one for that matter)? that will tell me more about this stat than anything else. because if i look at those two stat lines, i will always be more impressed by the quad double type game.
I don't think PER is meant to be used or calculated that way. It's already a per minute stat. The production doesn't change based on time played in a game. If player A has a PER of 25 for 25 minutes, he isn't less of a player than Player B who has a PER of 24 in 30 minutes. His role is different perhaps, or the way the coach uses him, but not his overall quality.
I think the failure of TimVP's method can be proven by looking at LeBron's numbers. If he plays 90% of his team's minutes, then according to TimVP's adjusted PER, he'll widen the gap between himself and our big three. But all this does is punish our guys for being on such a good team that they can afford to have more blowouts and rest more. It doesn't mean that they're much lesser players individually, than James.
The beauty of Hollinger's formula is that it strips down everything else and just tells you how much a guy helps or hurts you per every minute he's on the floor. Messing with it any further devalues the formula.
PER is a per minute stat. Minutes per game isn't used in the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by diego
That'd be an interesting comparison. As far as I know, Hollinger hasn't made the PER equation publicly known.Quote:
Originally Posted by diego
In that scenario, I think it'd be pretty safe to say that Player B is the superior player. A drop of one in PER for five extra MPG is more than a fair trade off.Quote:
Originally Posted by roycrikside
Of course it depends on the specifics of why Player A doesn't average more MPG. Is it because of foul trouble, fatigue, poor defense or something similar that simply doesn't allow the player to average more minutes ... or is it simply due to other players at the same position also needing minutes on the same team?
For example, right now Jose Calderon and Stromile Swift both have a PER of around 21. While they both play far from starters minutes, it's for vastly different reasons. Calderon doesn't play more minutes due to TJ Ford also being on the same team, therefore limiting the available minutes at point guard. Swift doesn't play more minutes because he's a horrible defender, gets tired easy and is a foul prone player. In this scenario, you'd have to look at the context of the playing time to determine who is the better player. PER itself doesn't tell you that.
Looking at an adjust version of PER is decently fair if you looking at it intra-team. Inter-team it doesn't make as much sense ... then again, PER itself isn't perfect to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by roycrikside
PER, like any other stat, needs to be looked at in context. You can't just blindly look at the PER number and then use that to come to all conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by roycrikside
I still contend that the best use of PER is to find undervalued, young players who could produce well with increased playing time. Three examples of such players right now are Louis Williams, Andrew Bynum and Sean Williams. By watching each of those three players, you can see their talent. And PER backs that up as each of those three players are in the top 50 in the league in PER.
Here's a primer on the PER calculation:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
TiMVP is a great basketball mind. :smokin
But Jackie Butler was a PER phenom, wasn't he ? :D
Updated PER Standings
1 LeBron James, CLE 32.61
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 29.96
3 Carlos Boozer, UTH 28.33
4 Chris Paul, NOR 27.06
5 Dwight Howard, ORL 26.80
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL 26.14
7 Kevin Garnett, BOS 25.41
8 Tim Duncan, SAS 25.21
9 Michael Redd, MIL 24.43
10 Steve Nash, PHO 24.35
11 Tony Parker, SAS 24.25
I want the Spurs to get three in the top ten just to see Hollinger's chode explode. Actually, I'm surprised that Hollinger hasn't written an article about the exploits for Ginobili, Duncan and Parker this year. Knowing Hollinger, now would be a good time to point to his magic PER stat as the reason why the Spurs have the best record in the West.
We are now more than 20% into the NBA season and Ginobili is still hovering around 30. If Ginobili can finish the year at his current PER number, it'd be the 12th best PER season all-time. And the fifth best for someone not named Chamberlain or Jordan.
Parker's number is also pretty impressive. Ginobili has been known as the PER master over the years but right now, Parker's PER is higher than Ginobili's PER ever was in the past. Duncan is also not half bad considering he's not even play up to his normal standards.
Yep. :depressedQuote:
Originally Posted by SpursIndonesia
Butler is the poster boy for why relying on PER too much is dangerous.
What the heck is JButt up to these days, anyway? Where did he drift to after the Rox cut him loose?Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
He got a job @ McDonals, and now He can actually work and be a fat ass at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Something that the NBA didn't like from him I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
What Holinger refuses to acknowledge is that PER becomes more accruate as a predictor of impact/talent the more consistent minutes the player plays.
The problem w/ Butler was Holinger used the PER from his last season in NY, which he played limited minutes but was mildly effective when in. To turn around and apply that to project performance as a starter or major rotation player is so asinine I still can't believe he gets paid to come up with this crap.
You know, that's not a bad idea. No need to put up with any Beno Udrihs, settle for Jacque Vaughns, or groom Darius Washingtons.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
Just move Manu to back-up PG, officially. I know he fills this role sometimes. But in a few years, he could be there permanently.
Updated PER Standings:
1 LeBron James, CLE 32.52
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 29.88
3 Carlos Boozer, UTH 28.26
4 Chris Paul, NOR 27.46
5 Dwight Howard, ORL 26.74
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL 26.07
7 Kevin Garnett, BOS 25.35
8 Tim Duncan, SAS 17 25.14
9 Steve Nash, PHO 24.28
10 Tony Parker, SAS 24.18
Our big 3 on the top ten
:toast
1 LeBron James, CLE 32.64
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 29.43
3 Carlos Boozer, UTH 28.28
4 Chris Paul, NOR 16 27.48
5 Dwight Howard, ORL 26.20
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL 25.52
7 Tony Parker, SAS 25.22
8 Tim Duncan, SAS 24.73
......
39 Brent Barry, SAS 20.05
:flag:
Even better !!!
Hollinger Stats: Player Efficiency Rating - International
1 Manu Ginobili, SAS 29.43
2 Tony Parker, SAS 25.22
3 Tim Duncan, SAS 24.73
4 Nash
5 Dirk
6 Yao
:danceclub
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...seasonType%3d2
Good moment for a bump :D
1 LeBron James, CLE 32.65
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 30.65 :clap
3 Carlos Boozer, UTH 27.37
4 Chris Paul, NOR 27.37
5 Amare Stoudemire, PHO 26.64
6 Dwight Howard, ORL 25.82
7 Kevin Garnett, BOS 25.64
8 Kobe Bryant, LAL 25.64
9 Tim Duncan, SAS 24.54
10 Michael Redd, MIL 24.04
How can Duncan's PER change without playing? PER is a per minute measurement. If he plays no minutes, then his per minute stats shouldn't change.
PER can never be a complete measurement of a player. It only uses kept statistics. Hollinger has no means to measure individual defensive play, or altered shots, or defensive rotations that prevent a field goal attempt, or screens that lead to baskets, or charges drawn, etc.
i was wondering the same thing. anyone know?? :wtfQuote:
Originally Posted by PlaneFast