Reply With Quote
Interesting. That's a clear flaw with PER and I'd imagine it'll be fixed 5 years down the road, at which point PER still won't be perfect (it never will) but it will at least bring some semblance of objectivity to the matter of player value.
It is a good statistic. It has it's flaws and should only be used to gain some perspective.
Interesting. That's a clear flaw with PER and I'd imagine it'll be fixed 5 years down the road, at which point PER still won't be perfect (it never will) but it will at least bring some semblance of objectivity to the matter of player value.
Of course you would think that.
I get what you are saying but of course Dave Berri (and Wayne winston) is going to say his system (that is why I compared to BCS) is better and poke holes at Holly's ...
Most useful stat I have seen is adjusted plus/minus FOR lineup combinations. I think i saw Wayne use it first. Not syaing he invented, but saw an article and thought as a coach that would be the most useful.
Because in reality simple plus/minus ina va doesnt tell you . Neal/Brown could come in when Duncan or Pau are rolling vs. second string big men and have better plus/minus than manu or Kobe yet they did the heavy work against defensive stoppers.
Looking at lineup combinations can tell you which "group" of lineups have the most impact on winning. who cares who did the heavy lifting as long as the group functioned well?
Most of this other stuff I would only use if i was a front-office guy arguing salary ... "well yes you averaged 20 butyour PER ranked (blank)" out of PG's "
Last edited by Killakobe81; 02-03-2011 at 05:35 PM.
Now this I would agree with. YEs, I spoke in broad strokes but my issue more is ina PG debate knockiing down Derek rose because in PER he is behind not only Paul and williams but Westbrook (IIRC) ...
I just think as a final criteria it is foolish. I wont say it's completely useless ..like i said If i was GM I would use it more than as coach which I pointed to in my last post. When I coach i use my "eyes" first stats second.
And Like I said adjusted plus/minus for position players is teh the advanced statistic I find most useful.
History2b may be a bit misguided ...but in a barbershop or on the playground or gym do you guys reallly use PER as a foundation for your who is better arguments?
Not saying it is wrong it does show a higher level of digging in to a question ...but I think that would be hilarious. I know some great barbershops and some great pickup games in Downtown L.A. the Valley, or even downtown San Antonio where I would LOVe to hear that debate ...
my bosh 4 mvp.
Rose is 4th, Westbrook is 2nd. If anything, it's amazing that a single formula managed to place those two players within 2 ranks.
It's not as though some no-name scrub who shoots 2-3, 3-5, 2-2, 0-1 from the field in 7 minutes of play and averages 10 minutes per game is ranked comparably to point guards we "eyeball" as elite.
Well that is where you get into the "average fan" vs here. Most of us, at least in "real life", don't talk to other people or argue like this. Even with other fans.
For example, if I met you at a bar Killa, during a game for LA/SA, I wouldn't start yelling at you and going into crazy long debates like I do here. I would just say the basic stuff and watch the game.
Good post.
im sorry 2 say it son but a pg without a J is fools gold. Dem triggas b droppin 20-5-5s but dem triggas is fragile when da shyt plays. And lmao @roses defense, dat overrated as .
I like PER 'cause it usually matches my "eye" perception, often I see a player that is hyped by everyone and think "meh, he isn't that good", I go to see the PER ranking and realize that his PER number isn't that good, or the other way around: I think very highly of a player that nobody talks about and when I go look his PER numbers they are really good.
Top 5 PGs by PER:
CP3
Westbrook
Nash
Rose
Dwill
How bad is that, really? The only glaring omission is perhaps Rondo (#8). Would I rank Rondo as the 8th best point guard in the league? No. I think that's underrating him, but at the same time I appreciate the fact that PER at least validated his place in the discussion of top 5 point guards.
If Rondo was ranked 50th in the league among PGs in PER, then that should cause us to reconsider whether he's as good as we think he is.
That's how I use PER. I don't consider it to be an exact ranking. I use it as a compass.
Rose is really hyped up among Chicago fans. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say he's overrated, but he certainly gets quite a bit of praise among the Chicago crowd.
From today's Hollinger chat -
Blake (Chicago)
Are you ready to call Rose the best PG in the game yet?
John Hollinger
Did Chris Paul retire?
Phil (Chicago )
No, Chris Paul didn't retire but his numbers are down across the board compared to 2 years ago. Live in the present, John.
John Hollinger
Which numbers? Turnovers? Missed shots? Paul is second in the NBA in PER ... he's become the master of efficiency.
Mike (Chicago)
I know you love PER, but it's YOUR made up stat. Why should fans trust it when clearly our eyes can tell us that D Rose is playing way better than Paul and when PER doesn't account for how a player has to play when teammates are hurt?
John Hollinger
I trust you reached this eye test after watching all the Hornets' games too?
"Trollinger" at his finest. Loved the last exchange, particularly.
You like it I get that Jeter. I don't that is my perogative as well. Using my eyeballs (look at my ranking PG thread)
Overall:
1. Dwill
2. Paul I'm leaning towards flipping him back to #1
3. Rose
4. Rondo
5. close between Parker, Westbrook, Nash etc.
I think Rose is the best star or "player" but looking at the criteria it is hard for me to NOT choose Dwill and Cp3 as my top 2 PG's
Your right my "eyeball" subjective analysis is not far off of hollinger's so why do I need another man, telling me who is better? It his opinions based on criteria HE HOLDS sacred. Wayne has his, so does Berri. I trust mine. Do ignore them? No. I read True Hoop daily and MOST of the guys on abbot's network are advanced saber-metrics disciples.
I just think using PER as the final decidor is just like me using the ring argument ...it's a criteria or system for judging players basedon what YOU value most ...neither is wrong. I just dont care for PER much
Well, I just realized that as soon as this SA/LA game tips off, all of this nice conversation is over.
Speaking of which, just out of curiosity, how important is tonight's game for LA fans? Are you all 100% indifferent about the outcome? Will you give the outcome slightly more weight than usual given that it's February?
Fair enough same, here. But in pickup-ball (between games) or at Barbershops those are the old school havens for ball debate and I just was curious if anyone ever dropped the PER card ...
"Well according to Hollinger's metric that calculates True shooting% Rebound percentage, assist rate, etc. Not only is rose not an MVP, but he is only the 4th best PG in the NBA" ... looks great on Hollinper's PER DIEM ...just saying in a debate how would THAT work?
Also not sure if any of you guys have done spoken word, or were involved in compe ive debates, or mock trials (yes, I was involved i played ball and was a "nerd" too) We did use stats to make points ... but the way to sway an audience/jury is always through emotions ...relating them to your case. stats and facts are just used to support the argument. And I can always fins some stat to support "pro/con".
That is why in debates in sports people point to playoff performances and Finals, Super bowls etc. Because those all resonate ...
Kobe lost what little chance he had at approaching MJ's legacy with the 6-24 in Game 7, even in a win. Doesnt matter what his PER was BEFORE that. 6-24 stains that performance eternally.
If someone clowns him do I show his PER for games 1-6? I could, but what good does it do? Hollinger (on his chat today) argued Kobe's PER alone was enough for Kobe to win Finals MVP (over Pau) and i agree he deserved the win.
But even so his legacy took a hit and it was the eyeball test and the "standard stats" that bore that out. PER was not necessary ... good for me i dont care about his legacy!!! We got 16 that is ALL that matters!!! But find it funny people still care about that ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 02-03-2011 at 05:33 PM.
For me it means something. If you lose the 3 biggest games of your season at home that is a red flag. If they lose doesnt mean that the season is over and if they win it does not solve all of the problems. In fact, if we win I wouldnt be surprised if we dont lose our next game in Indy or Philly or some other mediocre team.
But I have advocated a minor trade (or pickup) for the Lakers win or lose ...
Need some speed and defense
He's a much better defender than Parker and is averaging more assists than Parker ever has (even counting his fluke 09 season).
lol Parkaluvas calling other PGs overrated
I can understand why people don't embrace PER as the ultimate objective rating.
I don't understand why people haven't moved on to using true shooting percentage over field goal percentage when assessing shooting efficiency among players. That makes no sense to me.
Player A shoots only 2 point field goals, takes 20 shots per game, and makes 50% of his shots. He'll go 10-20 in a game and score 20 points on 20 possessions.
Player B shoots only 3 point field goals, takes 20 shots per game, and makes 40% of his shots. He'll go 8-20 in a game and score 24 points on 20 possessions.
This is an extreme hypothetical, of course, merely to demonstrate a point. Citing field goal percentage totally ignores these important nuances. Player B is far and away more efficient shooting-wise than Player A, but in casual conversation the casual fan would almost certainly look at "40%" versus "50%" and deem player A to be more efficient.
You have to control for volume differences between 2 point shots and 3 point shots attempted (and made), and for free throw shooting.
All of this is nicely encompassed into true shooting percentage. I don't understand why it hasn't caught on yet. TS% is nothing like PER.
PER is an arbitrary formula. TS% is a mathematical fact. 24 points on 20 possessions versus 20 points on 20 possessions.
I watched the both last night...They both played on NBA TV. Paul was very good I think NO had only 3 TO's in the first half ...and were in a close game with OKC (With Westbrook the #4 PG) and Paul was was efficient.Rose is really hyped up among Chicago fans. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say he's overrated, but he certainly gets quite a bit of praise among the Chicago crowd.
From today's Hollinger chat -
Blake (Chicago)
Are you ready to call Rose the best PG in the game yet?
John Hollinger
Did Chris Paul retire?
Phil (Chicago )
No, Chris Paul didn't retire but his numbers are down across the board compared to 2 years ago. Live in the present, John.
John Hollinger
Which numbers? Turnovers? Missed shots? Paul is second in the NBA in PER ... he's become the master of efficiency.
Mike (Chicago)
I know you love PER, but it's YOUR made up stat. Why should fans trust it when clearly our eyes can tell us that D Rose is playing way better than Paul and when PER doesn't account for how a player has to play when teammates are hurt?
John Hollinger
I trust you reached this eye test after watching all the Hornets' games too?
But Rose was dominant. He was teh best player on teh floor even though he was putscored by Blake in the first half ...Tough to watch that doubleheader and not feel Rose was teh better player. However Paul faced Westbrook and Rose had davis so that should be factored in ...
No, he is not a much better defender than Parker. For a PG that is really touted as a good defender, Westbrook disappoints on that end.
Also, for reasons unknown to me, TP has this stigma of being a bad defender when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Im not saying Rondo isnt a better (defender) but I also think he is overrated defensively ...like westbrook. they both give you great hustle, rebounds and can stay in front of their men ok ...but both gamble too much for my taste.
Most of the top PG's suck on defense if you ask me. Only reason I like Rose, Wesbrook Kidd and Dwill (defensively) if they switch on a SG they cant be bullied in the post. But I think Dwill and kidd do that best of the top PG's ...
DWill, especially, is so well built in this regard. He also will not hesitate to overpower smaller point guards in the post when he's on offense, creating yet another situation where he often demands a double team.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
