Reply With Quote
no comment
Also ducks,
What are you thoughts on this:
Manu > Tony
?
no comment
To be fair, any list that involves LeBron and Manu on top is bound to piss ducks off something awful!
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 ing use it
I know I actually like you as a poster
you are cool
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.I still think it stupid
most players can not even play 48 minutes so why even ing 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.
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?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.
Could it be the elusive long three!?
All completely opinion, with not a single quan ative argument to back it up.
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.
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...
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).
Last edited by Nikos; 11-25-2007 at 09:18 PM.
I'm only going to say: whatever. Please read my comments again, there was nothing absolute in it.
So you are suggesting that PER isn't more useful than PPG in quantifying the overall performance of a player?
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).
To state that PER is "better" than anything is an absolute by any definition. And you haven't proved it.
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
