Reply With Quote
Liking those numbers. How do these PER compare to some of the key players on the other contenders?
Tony Parker 25.2 PER since Feb. 4
Tim Duncan 24.1 PER since Feb. 1
Manu Ginobili 23.6 PER on the season
Tiago Splitter 22.4 PER since Jan. 17
Kawhi Leonard 21.8 PER since Feb. 21
DeJuan Blair 19.8 PER since Feb. 23
Danny Green 16.8 PER outside of Jan. 18 to Feb. 21
Gary Neal 16.4 PER since Feb. 8
Matt Bonner 14.5 PER since Jan. 21
Patty Mills 31.8 PER since signing
Stephen Jackson 14.4 PER since trade
Boris Diaw 13.0 PER since signing
Key
MVP Candidate: 25.0 PER
All-Star: 22.5 PER
Borderline All-Star: 20.0 PER
Second option on a good team: 18.0 PER
Third option on a good team: 16.5 PER
Legitimate Starter: 15.0 PER
Legitimate Rotation Player: 13.0 PER
Liking those numbers. How do these PER compare to some of the key players on the other contenders?
Obligatory "WE STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKED"
will we ever see that awesomeness as the starting line up? ..sigh
People who look just at stats would think Dejuan is a pretty good player, but when you watch him play you know that he's not that good. Yes he can catch the ball and finish around the basket, but he also makes a lot of idiotic mistakes when he wants to play 1-1 or shot a jumper, and his defense is probably one of the worst I ever saw on Spurs.
People are being too hard on Blair. Yes most of the players he guards can just shoot over him due to the height disadvantage, but he's found several ways to get by that, and when he plays smart he can defend well. There have been flashes of it all season long.
PER is a contagious deceiving stat. Even a rat would have a decent PER in the Spurs
So what you're saying is that Patty Mills should be starting and Parker should be on the bench.
Wow, impressive stats. The next big accoplishment is to see these stats in the playoffs.
As the resident PER-homer, this is my kind of thread
Really encouraging numbers to see. Patty Mills' gaudy PER doesn't surprise me at all, but obviously he won't be able to maintain that level of offensive production.
Best PERs in the Big 3 ERA outside of the Big 3
2003 David Robinson: 17.8
2010 DeJuan Blair: 17.7
2011 DeJuan Blair: 17.1
2007 Brent Barry: 16.6
2003 Malik Rose: 16.1
Someone is confusing PER with plus/minus. There's nothing contagious about PER, tbh.
Isn't it affected by bhis starting and getting big minutes with Tony and Tim? Does +/- have any effect on PER? I would assume he benefits a bit from that, unless its a completely individual statistic.
PER is an offensive-centric stat.
The fact that DeJuan gets burned in the paint on defense or can't close out properly on mid-range jumpers is not reflected in PER (While +/- is entirely a correlation statistic, it does a better job at trying to assess defensive potency)
PER shines (and where +/- fails, at least when trying to assess offensive prowess) in its ability to individualize and isolate offensive production to each player by way of its usage metric.
I think looking at combination of PER, +/- (per 100 possessions), WS/48, and Offensive rating (ORtg) - Defensive rating (DRtg) (Basketball-reference) can give you a quick and dirty "overall picture" as far as comprehensive advanced stats go.
I don't think anyone's being all that hard on Blair. I (and I would assume the others) just want to replace him with a better and more disciplined player.
Look at those numbers.So what you're saying is that Patty Mills should be starting and Parker should be on the bench.
Parker might be having an MVP season but Patty is making history. I say we give him the max.
I take it the numbers are worse if you use the whole season. I think any team that goes 25-5 in a 30-game stretch is going to look like a team of mostly stars.
One more very important detail -- it measures PRODUCTION, not performance.
Your PER is rewarded if you jack up 80 shots a game.
Hey, if Patty Mills could consistently provide 20 points in 20 minutes on 8-11 shooting, a 2.0 assist to turnover ratio, and a couple of rebounds, he'd be worth a max contractLook at those numbers.
Parker might be having an MVP season but Patty is making history. I say we give him the max.
Even in Sacramento on a per minute basis, Mills got busy pretty quickly scoring 7 points in 6 minutes.
The other fatal flaw of PER is that it's per <time unit> statistic. That's precisely why on ESPN there's a minimum minutes played requirement to be listed. Patty Mills probably isn't on the ESPN's official PER list yet because he's played such limited minutes.
If you had Joe scrub come in and score 2 points on a dunk in the last 30 seconds of "garbage time" consistently for every game, he'd probably have a gaudy PER (he's scoring 2 points per minute on 100% shooting).
You have to be cautious with PER in that sense. It's an offensive-centric stat, and it's a per <time unit> stat.
I think that lineup would be starting for most coaches.
You're totally wrong.
If you jack up 80 shots per game but only make 25% of them, your PER is going to suffer. It's an efficiency stat. eFG%/TS% are extremely important variables for calculating PER.
If you jack up 80 shots per game and make 60 of them, you should be rewarded with a high PER. That's...the entire point.
Jacking up 80 shots per game and only making 10 of them (20 PPG) will do you no good.
PER does depend on the type of team and efficiency of the team. Spurs run and gun a lot more and that helps it's player's PER. Also Spurs are very efficient offensively this season, pass the ball very well and have great spacing, which also helps the players PER. this is why I said it is contagious and a bit deceiving.
I completely agree with you.Hey, if Patty Mills could consistently provide 20 points in 20 minutes on 8-11 shooting, a 2.0 assist to turnover ratio, and a couple of rebounds, he'd be worth a max contract
Even in Sacramento on a per minute basis, Mills got buys pretty quickly scoring 7 points in 6 minutes.
The other fatal flaw of PER is that it's per <time unit> statistic. That's precisely why on ESPN there's a minimum minutes played requirement to be listed. Patty Mills probably isn't on the ESPN's official PER list yet because he's played such limited minutes.
If you had Joe scrub come in and score 2 points on a dunk in the last 30 seconds of "garbage time" consistently for every game, he'd probably have a gaudy PER (he's scoring 2 points per minute on 100% shooting).
You have to be cautious with PER in that sense. It's an offensive-centric stat, and it's a per <time unit> stat.
I'd say though that other than Dejuan Blair, these numbers do bear out what most of us are seeing. Although I guess they kind of make sense in Blair's case.
I feel like (other than maybe Pop) most people can see that Manu, Parker, Duncan, Tiago, and Kawhi are probably the most productive players on the team.
Even the order looks about right so that has to count for something.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
