Reply With Quote
PER is a per minute stat. A loss of minutes played per game has no negative effect on it. And right now, Ginobili is playing at about last year level.
Thanks Bruno
PER is a per minute stat. A loss of minutes played per game has no negative effect on it. And right now, Ginobili is playing at about last year level.
Yes, it has. In fact Hollinger changed the formula a couple of years back to consider minutes played 'cause he felt that it was easier to be more efficient while playing less minutes and being less tired. He did it to not penalize the players that had to log big minutes night after night.
Never heard of that so if you have a link, I'm interested.
Now, I'm using PER stats on this website: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ginobma01.html
AFAIK, they don't have some kind of bias to lower the PER of low minutes players.
I'm looking for it, I read it on a Hollinger article on ESPN some years ago. Now I don't remember if it was that Hollinger actually changed the formula or that he ackowledged that PER had that flaw.
Brunovp tbh
It's the latter. PER is completely based off per-minute and percentage of team stats. It literally can't be corrected for sample size, which is its biggest flaw. De Colo was second on the team in PER for a good deal of the season.
I think this is the article but I got it wrong, he didn't change the formula, he used another one. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...PERDiem-090325
Thanks for having looked.
And regarding Manu playing good or great, I don't really think we disagree. Playing good or great means nothing if you don't state what is your standard for it.
To me, Ginobili playing great would mean he is playing at a per-minute level close to the average level he had in his prime.
Now, if you use as definition for playing great, the best realistic level a player of Manu's ag,e with a similar prime level, could have then, yes, Manu is playing great. I easily take him this year over players like Vince Carter or Paul Pierce who are as old as him.
PER is a funny stat though. it will credit a steal or a block as a big bonus, but it doesn't penalize a player for getting scored on. it will credit the guy getting the assist, but not the guy creating the play and getting the hockey assist
Those poor ers fell off a cliff after last year.
to Bruno, keeping ST alive with analysis for the layman.
It's biased toward big fish in small ponds as well. It harder to get a good PER is San Antonio than it is to get one in Milwaukee for example, which is why the Sanders/Splitter debate was silly.
It's obvious that Manu's role has changed, and that's a change I expected and think its good for the team. He's taking a bit of a step back and at this point of his career that's what I want to see, he can't keep having the role he had in previous years.Thanks for having looked.
And regarding Manu playing good or great, I don't really think we disagree. Playing good or great means nothing if you don't state what is your standard for it.
To me, Ginobili playing great would mean he is playing at a per-minute level close to the average level he had in his prime.
Now, if you use as definition for playing great, the best realistic level a player of Manu's ag,e with a similar prime level, could have then, yes, Manu is playing great. I easily take him this year over players like Vince Carter or Paul Pierce who are as old as him.
I was expecting this change so, with this in mind and the way he played pretty much all of last season, this level he is having right now is surpassing my expectations for him this season. He's playing above what I thought he would be playing, that's why I think he is having a great season so far.
good work, Bruno
Here is my contribution, which I was going to make it's own thread but this is a good home for it.
Jeff Ayres poor performances in modern historical Spurs context
20 games in, what can we take from this early stage with regards to Jeff Ayres?
Well, going by the numbers, he is well on his way to challenge for the le of the WORST SPURS ROTATION BIG MAN … EVER in the modern era! (and by modern era, I’m talking about the Robinson era, from 89-90 onwards, about 25 years at season’s end, I’m not researching back further than that).
What do I mean by rotation? Not 6th man or anything like that, but a deep rotation player. Ayres has played 19 out of 20 games, about 95% of contests. 11.8 mpg. To me, that’s a rotation player, not in your 8 man group, but skirting around your 10 man. Ayres has already played 224 minutes (his career high for minutes is 405), and I’d be surprised if he doesn’t top at least 500 minutes even if Pop decides to give Baynes and Thomas ample opportunities (which he might after the Raptors game, but there’s a good chance he won’t). Heck, he could easily finish with 700+ minutes at season’s end.
Sure, he fails the eyeball test. But what about the advanced metric test, using everybody’s favorite flawed stat, the PER?
At 20 games this season, his PER is 5.2
For Spurs big men, Ayres’ start to this season is among the worst. So, the compe ors with PERs under 7.0:
Carl Herrera in 95-96. His PER was a ghastly 4.7 Only played 393 minutes over 44 games at 8.9 mpg. Not exactly rotation, but he was also always hurt as I remember, so maybe he was right there with Ayres. Ayres has though played over half the minutes Herrera did with three quarters of the season left, but let’s just count Carl.
Danny Ferry’s old man game in 02-03, played in 78% of Spurs games, averaging 9.4 minutes a game, 601 total minutes, and a PER of 5.1. Pretty awful. But only playing 64 out of 82 games for under 10 minutes a game, looks like Ferry was even further down the rotation than Ayres.
And that’s it. Some others squeak in over 7. Caldwell Jones in his old man year with the Spurs played 72 games (12.3 mpg), he was in the rotation, notching a 7.2 PER. Cadillac Anderson in 95-96 notched 7.7 PER in 344 total minutes over 46 games. Larry Smith in 92-93 played 66 games at 12.6 mpg and notched 7.1 PER.
Thanks
Yep, Ayres offense is pathetic which translate into a low PER. He barely shot the ball and when he does he missed if it isn't a dunk or tip shot. He is 5/20 on jumpshots and 6/15 on layups this year. His PER isn't save by his rebounding because he is very average in that area.
And since his defense is nothing special, you can't really say his PER is misleading like it was for a player like Bruce.
Bottom line Ayres sucks
They managed to find worse than Blair for twice the money, hilarious... Meanwhile SpursTalk was interested in Baynes when he was still playing overseas.
The starting unit has to change and as constructed it has to be Marco for Danny. It's stupid to have 3 playmakers in one unit and 3 in the other...
Also very interested in the second unit defense with Baynes in 10 games...
The most important thing gleaned from the OP:
We are a jumpshooting team and are most likely totally F*CKED when the playoffs start.
Good stuff Bruno, appreciate the effort. But that was definitely the overall most important insight.
Kawhi has been somewhat disappointing to me by this point, but that could be because I thought he'd be some savior. I still think he can be a great second option. As long as his knees aren't the issue, then I think he'll bring it all together.
He's ing sucked, don't sugarcoat it. And I'm a huge Kawhi fan.
NBA has changed. Big man post up offenses favored by ppl stuck in the past would mostly get crushed by today's NBA offenses. At least by the best ones like the Heat and the Spurs. Analyses show that posting up is an inefficient way of scoring in the current game, why would the Spurs want to go back to that.
Defense is still important of course and still more important in the playoffs but that shouldn't be confused with playing slow trying to score with big men in the post. That's dated.
Supposedly Ayres has some value playing good help D and you also hear talk about him setting good screens. If that really removes him from being horrible I don't know.
I do know I like Baynes more with Diaw on the bench unit, Ayres is just holding things back there, but mostly, and I'm guessing that's when the Spurs will seriously peak offensively and defensively and present themselves as a serious le candidate, is with Splitter playing staying more with the bench unit than currently and one of him and Timmy almost always on the floor.
It's not because Spurs are atrocious at getting at the line it means they are a jumpshooting team.
Spurs are averaging 43.2 shots outside the paint per game (3 pointers + midrange J). The league average is 43.8 shots outside the paint per game.
On the other hand, Spurs are the 4th best team in the league in point in the paint scored with 47.3 points per game.
Saying all that, I agree with you that the inability to go the line is worrisome for the playoffs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
