hmm interesting
2003 and 2007 were championship years
Blair compliments weaker squads
PER doesn't factor in plus/minus at all.
Stats PER uses include minutes, field goals, free throws, three-pointers, assists, rebounds, steals and blocks ... in addition to advanced stats such as the team's pace and the league's pace.
PER is far from perfect on its own but it does a decent job of pointing to productive players. It's biggest flaw is it doesn't have any way to account for individual defensive play. That's why Blair scores so high in it and why Bowen never had a PER higher than 9.5.
Yeah, I think with Blair the issue is most people have gotten so used to seeing Blair's glaring deficiencies on defense that they've forgotten or ignored his positive offensive traits (he does have pretty good touch around the rim).I completely agree with you.
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.
Another poster mentioned Blair taking dumb shots - yeah, he'll sometimes pop that mid-range jumper (much to our chagrin), but it's still just one boneheaded shot per game. I think the sheer stupidity of that shot selection sometimes obfuscates Blair's otherwise good offensive touch around the rim
Fortunately I don't think I've ever seen Blair take more than one mid-range jumper per game, but even after he takes just one, it leaves us with perhaps a worse impression of Blair's overall offensive game than it should.
Defensively, most advanced stats will tell you that Blair got absolutely torched during that Memphis playoff series last season. There's no excuse for him on defense. Taking into account the fact that PER doesn't factor that in, I'd say his PER is just about right where I'd expect it to be.
The 2005 Suns and the 2007 Suns are arguably the best offensive teams of the last decade and both of those teams only had four players with PERs better than 15. This year's Wizards suck and nobody passes on that team and they have six players with PERs better than 15.
For those who don't want to take the time to look up the numbers by themselves:
Manu Ginobili 23.8
Tony Parker 22.2
Tim Duncan 21.5
Tiago Splitter 19.5
Kawhi Leonard 17.0
DeJuan Blair 17.0
Danny Green 14.1
Matt Bonner 13.8
Gary Neal 13.2
Richard Jefferson 11.0
Totally wrong? I don't know...
So if you shoot at 35% and jack up many shots (and your coach do nothing about it) you can have a good PER.
the Suns were also a chucking team under D'antoni.
R.J. @ $844,745/PER point
You know, annual salary/PER might not be such a bad metric for assessing (offensive) value to the team.
I can think of only a handful of players in the league that probably have slightly inflated PERs due to chucking.
Edit: And implied in my definition of "chucking" is shooting at a "low" FG%.
I actually don't think there's anybody even close to the break-even FG% point (30.4%) that consistently inflates his PER by chucking.
I agree with that... as I said there are coaches in the NBA.
I can think of only a handful of players in the league that probably have slightly inflated PERs due to chucking.
Edit: And implied in my definition of "chucking" is shooting at a "low" FG%.
I actually don't think there's anybody even close to the break-even FG% point (30.4%) that consistently inflates his ER by chucking.
So there is generally a correlation between production and performance (Kobe is allowed to jack up shots because he is Kobe).
But you can still find a number of volume shooters with suspect FG% but solid PER.
I like PER but I am not sure you can use it alone to assess a player value.
Even with Kobe though, I think the fact that the break even point is sufficiently (edit: high, not low. Sorry
There's no question that Kobe's FG% this season has been strikingly medicore, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that despite this fact his overall PER is still "just" ranked 18th.
I'd be far more disappointed if he had a PER in the top 5 or top 10.
The "chuck" factor as long as you're past that "break even" point is a flaw with PER, but practically speaking it's rarely an issue. PER's inability to track defensive prowess (apart from blocks, steals, rebounds) is still its most glaring deficiency, but it's only a deficiency in so much as trying to satiate our needs to find the "ultimate" comprehensive advanced stat.
As long as you look at PER knowing that it's an offensive-centric stat, it can be an invaluable metric.
Last edited by jestersmash; 04-04-2012 at 05:26 PM.
Personally, I think my current order to evaluate players is:
Subjective observation > Traditional stats > PER > Raw plus/minus > Adjusted plus/minus > WP48
Traditional stats usually give you a good picture but PER is a quick way to get an overview. Plus/minus stats are useful to see how a player actually impacts the game. You can fake your way to a good PER but you can't fake a good PER and good plus/minus. WP48 really is great about judging how efficient a player is so if a player scores well in PER and WP48, you know it's not just a chucker who ballhogs his way to good stats.
Good riddance.Richard Jefferson 11.0
LOL thread.
Not surprising at all, but it seems quite a few folks here don't understand how PER works, its strengths and its weaknesses, despite L.J. patient efforts to explain it.
I think it's a pretty useful stat, but yeah, you have to use it as a part of your evaluation, not the whole thing. Win shares and adjusted +/- and offensive/defensive production per 100 possessions are all important too.
Personally, in addition to not having a metric for evaluating guys like Bowen, I think PER over-evaluates PF/Cs. As long as you shoot over 55% and rebound fairly well, as long as you're not a turnover machine you're gonna have a pretty decent PER. It doesn't matter that you can't create your own shot and that all your FG attempts come from 5 feet away on put-backs and pick-and-rolls.
To me, it doesn't really say that a player is special, it's just rewarding a guy for doing what his job calls for. You're supposed to rebound and shoot a high percentage as an interior player. It's like being impressed that your offensive lineman can block better than your wide receiver. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be in the league.
To me, I think PER needs to be evaluated on a sliding scale. 13 is supposed to be a rotation player, 15 is average, 18-20 is good starter and anything above 20 is all-star level, but I think that's for guys who are point guards or wings.
For big men, I think 14 should be the minimum, 16 average, 19-21 good starter, 22 all-star level and 25+ best guy on a contender.
He definitely has his strong suits. I just lean toward taking him out of the rotation because of how badly he reacted to coming off the bench last time.Yeah, I think with Blair the issue is most people have gotten so used to seeing Blair's glaring deficiencies on defense that they've forgotten or ignored his positive offensive traits (he does have pretty good touch around the rim).
Another poster mentioned Blair taking dumb shots - yeah, he'll sometimes pop that mid-range jumper (much to our chagrin), but it's still just one boneheaded shot per game. I think the sheer stupidity of that shot selection sometimes obfuscates Blair's otherwise good offensive touch around the rim
Fortunately I don't think I've ever seen Blair take more than one mid-range jumper per game, but even after he takes just one, it leaves us with perhaps a worse impression of Blair's overall offensive game than it should.
Defensively, most advanced stats will tell you that Blair got absolutely torched during that Memphis playoff series last season. There's no excuse for him on defense. Taking into account the fact that PER doesn't factor that in, I'd say his PER is just about right where I'd expect it to be.
If he could embrace his role as a bench player in this league, he'd be a pretty good asset imo.
For the season, I was expecting something like this. (The order's still the same)
Although I would think that Kawhi would be doing better than Blair on the whole? Matt Bonner too since it seems like he's always measuring well statistically...
Timvp, with all the metrics you can look at, Pop has to be in the same boat with you with regards to what he values (subjective observation>stats of any sort). Bad news is his subjective observation with regards to Tiago is that he isn't very good or skilled. Do you think this is why he won't play him more?
With all due respect, that's essentially how PER numbers are evaluated as is give or take about 2 points.
I agree.
My only (minor) caveat with "traditional" stats (i.e. the stats you'll see in a box score on ESPN.com or NBA.com) is that I wish they included eFG% and TS%. In the interest of brevity, they at least should include eFG% for every box score.
I can kind of get a sense for eFG% by seeing how many points a player has scored on X shot attempts (add FTM-FTA into the mix if we want to go down the TS% route), but eFG% is such a fundamental advanced metric that I feel like it deserves its own column in a box score.
Last edited by jestersmash; 04-04-2012 at 05:45 PM.
gnsf
nasf
now plsf...rummpd has to be the president of that club
Speaking of Kobe, he's a good example of why checking PER and WP48 is useful.
If someone is mad that Kobe's PER has stayed relatively steady this year,
Kobe Bryant - PER
2001 24.5
2002 23.2
2003 26.2
2004 23.7
2005 23.3
2006 28.0
2007 26.1
2008 24.2
2009 24.4
2010 21.9
2011 23.9
2012 22.1
that person would be happy to know that WP48 disagrees.
Kobe Bryant - WP48
2001 .151
2002 .178
2003 .199
2004 .207
2005 .152
2006 .146
2007 .185
2008 .206
2009 .184
2010 .137
2011 .132
2012 .049
There's only one thing I have to say about this:
Free Tiago
gnsf - Grey named spur fan
plsf - PER-loving spur fan
nasf - ?
New age Spurs fan
gnsf - Grey named spur fan
plsf - PER-loving spur fan
nasf - ?
LJ, I agree PER underrated Bowen, but I don't think it did to the degree you're hinting at. Personally, I think Bowen was tremendously overrated by Spurs fans.
I don't say that to disparage him, but only to point out that a guy like Bowen is similar to Horry in that he's only useful if he's got several stars around him.
Spurs fans like to think offense and defense are equally important, but they're just not. It's not as extreme as baseball, where being a good fielder is like 10% of the game (a lineup of 9 Barry Bonds' would crush a lineup of 9 Omar Vizquels), but there is a much bigger gap between being a Hall-of-Fame level scorer and a Bowen than there is between Bowen and the worst defender in the NBA.
The Spurs could hide Bowen on offense and effectively play 4-on-5, because they had three HOF-level offensive players in Tim, Manu and Tony. Even without Bruce, the Spurs have been contenders based almost entirely on their offensive efficiency.
However, a team of five Bruce Bowens in the NBA would get slaughtered. They'd lose every game 80-50 as no one would be able to create a good shot. No one would rebound, pass or dribble sufficiently enough to produce a passable offense. It would look like some ty mid-major college team, frankly.
Even the object of Bowen's defense itself is overrated, because while limiting the damage of a wing player is important, Tim has always been the Spurs most important defender and it's not even close. Not only does he protect the rim, which is the most vital part of any defense, but he gets the rebounds as well, and no defensive possession is truly successful until you get the ball. It's like comparing a goalie to a defenseman in hockey. You can have the best HOF defensemen you want, but if you play with a terrible goalie, it won't matter.
Bowen could do two things very well, defend and shoot corner threes, but a truly important player needs to have a lot more tools in his belt.
T Park came out of hiding and started dealing out NASF labels like he was being paid.
I guess quitting on the team is an old spurs fan thing...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
