1 Manu Ginobili, SAS 34.29
2 Chris Paul, NOR 30.69
3 Jason Terry, DAL 29.88
4 Kevin Garnett, BOS 29.65
5 Josh Howard, DAL 29.02
Any chance he finishes first at the end of the season? I know is almost imposible to keep playing this good.. but still...
He might. It's unlikely but I wouldn't put it past him. One thing he has going for him is his limited minutes, with the main thing behind he's just playing really, really well right now.
However, lower the playing time requirements just a tad and the top five would be:
1 Ian Mahinmi, SAS 46.45
2 Manu Ginobili, SAS 34.29
3 Chris Paul, NOR 30.69
4 Jason Terry, DAL 29.88
5 Kevin Garnett, BOS 29.65
Barring injuries, he could. Unlikely, but you never know.
How he is playing now though, he is a definite All-Star.
And what the list of the previous PER champions?
Assuming that you interest is genuine, here is the list of the top 20 players in the last 3 years according to their PER ranking:
Note a couple of things:Code:2005 1) Kevin Garnett 28.13 2) Tim Duncan 26.96 3) Shaquille O'Neal 26.87 4) Amare Stoudemire 26.56 5) Dirk Nowitzki 25.99 6) LeBron James 25.61 7) Kobe Bryant 23.22 8) Allen Iverson 23.16 9) Yao Ming 23.11 10) Dwyane Wade 23.09 11) Tracy McGrady 22.85 12) Vince Carter 22.81 13) Elton Brand 22.38 14) Manu Ginobili 22.24 15) Steve Nash 21.96 16) Stephon Marbury 21.87 17) Paul Pierce 21.72 18) Shawn Marion 21.59 19) Larry Hughes 21.52 20) Gilbert Arenas 21.20 2006 1) LeBron James 28.4 2) Dirk Nowitzki 28.4 3) Kobe Bryant 28.3 4) Dwyane Wade 28.0 5) Kevin Garnett 27.1 6) Elton Brand 26.9 7) Allen Iverson 26.3 8) Paul Pierce 23.9 9) Shawn Marion 23.9 10) Gilbert Arenas 23.9 11) Steve Nash 23.6 12) Chauncey Billups 23.6 13) Chris Bosh 23.4 14) Tim Duncan 23.4 15) Pau Gasol 22.8 16) Manu Ginobili 22.7 17) Carmelo Anthony 22.3 18) Ray Allen 22.3 19) Chris Paul 22.2 20) Zydrunas Ilgauskas 22.1 2007 1) Dwyane Wade 29.18 2) Dirk Nowitzki 27.85 3) Yao Ming 26.70 4) Tim Duncan 26.35 5) Kobe Bryant 26.29 6) LeBron James 24.73 7) Kevin Garnett 24.37 8) Pau Gasol 24.36 9) Manu Ginobili 24.36 10) Carlos Boozer 24.31 11) Gilbert Arenas 24.21 12) Steve Nash 24.03 13) Tracy McGrady 23.42 14) Amare Stoudemire 23.30 15) Elton Brand 23.28 16) Zach Randolph 22.97 17) Chris Bosh 22.83 18) Michael Redd 22.50 19) Carmelo Anthony 22.28 20) Chris Paul 22.17 2008 (so far, this is likely to change) 1) Manu Ginobili 34.45 2) Chris Paul 30.84 3) Jason Terry 30.03 4) Kevin Garnett 29.79 5) Josh Howard 29.17 6) Kobe Bryant 28.50 7) Steve Nash 28.21 8) Richard Hamilton 27.51 9) Tim Duncan 27.06 10) LeBron James 26.91 11) Yao Ming 26.84 12) Kevin Martin 26.35 13) Cuttino Mobley 26.30 14) Tracy McGrady 25.66 15) Richard Jefferson 25.64 16) Carlos Boozer 25.54 17) Jose Calderon 25.47 18) Sam Cassell 24.73 19) Dwight Howard 24.62 20) Chauncey Billups 24.21
1) While some people may disagree with their subjective view of the rankings and/or some in/exclusions of player X or Y, I think most people will also agree that the PER metric passes the "laughing test" easily.
2) The Spurs have had consistently 2 players (Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili) in the top 20 PER players in the league in the last 3 seasons (and counting). They are the only team to consistently achieve this in consecutive years since the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.
3) Manu has continuously improved his PER metric every year he's been in the league, which is not a small achievement considering he's been ranked in the top 20 for the last 3+ years.
So, RVB, do you think Manu can lead the league in PER this season? I can see him finishing around 26, which would put him in the top five.
RVB is hardcore CoM
Manu is just cutting people up at both ends! Beautiful to watch (I am watching 2nd half of Hornets game as we speak).
It strikes me that in a few years when he loses a step, Manu will probably end his career as a point guard, and may remain quite a useful player even when his explosiveness has diminished - he is just so smart and what a passer!
OMG I love watching Ginobili play the game, maybe more than any other player (and for me to say that is a BIG step!).
No way he keeps the PER above 30 for too long. But if he could get a PER of 25 or 26 I would be extremely pleased. However, I say he returns to his normal level of 21-23.
I hope I am wrong.
I know is almost imposible to keep playing this good.. but still...1 Manu Ginobili, SAS 34.29
2 Chris Paul, NOR 30.69
3 Jason Terry, DAL 29.88
4 Kevin Garnett, BOS 29.65
5 Josh Howard, DAL 29.02
Any chance he finishes first at the end of the season? I know is almost imposible to keep playing this good.. but still...
Does this sentence hace solecism?
PS: my English is poor,so please don't laugh at me
No, it wasn't, really. But thanks anyway.
Well, given the generous margin of error allowable by the first part of your statement, one could say the exact same thing about scoring average.1) While some people may disagree with their subjective view of the rankings and/or some in/exclusions of player X or Y, I think most people will also agree that the PER metric passes the "laughing test" easily.
Hollinger like to throw around claims about how much better PER is than anything else out there, but seems unable or unwilling to subject it to rigorous systematic testing to validate those claims. He seems to be more interested in making money off of it now.
The fact that whenever Hollinger tries to explains numbers, including non-PER ones, he often completely botches his logic doesn't inspire much confidence in me.
PER now just seems to be one of those things people whip out when it suits their purposes, and don't when it doesn't.
Pretty much like any other stat. Except this one actually includes some context or attempt at encapsulating production and value (at least offensively and for all the stats that are recorded in the NBA).
Most people tend to have their own algorithms for rating players, which pretty much always has to do with PPG, basic %'s, and team wins. To me Hollinger trying to push PER doesn't make it useless. It really doesn't matter how much he pumps this stat out, or where he ranks players. The point is that it is a simple stat that includes some context. In other words its an improvement over simple PPG and NBA Efficiency which most people tend to factor anyway. PER is a derivative formula of production per minute standardized to to the league (Pace, Team context included). What exactly is so bogus about it? Just because Hollinger made the stat doesn't mean he can predict any better than the average person as to how successful a player will be. Doesn't mean that because Manu had a Top 15 PER last year that he was a Top 15 NBA player.
Manu is not quite as good as his previous PERs have indicated IMO because he did not play heavy minutes. But I often wonder, if he did play heavier minutes, would his PER remain at such a high level?
Keep trying mate, you'll get better.
1. "I know it is almost impossible to keep playing this well... but still..."
You were close!
2. solecism isn't really a word many people know - try "mistake" instead.
3. no-one will laugh at you. We have many posters from all over the world here whose English is imperfect, it adds to ST's flavour!
3q~~Keep trying mate, you'll get better.
1. "I know it is almost impossible to keep playing this well... but still..."
You were close!
2. solecism isn't really a word many people know - try "mistake" instead.
3. no-one will laugh at you. We have many posters from all over the world here whose English is imperfect, it adds to ST's flavour!
Prove it.
I mean, the entire substance of Hollinger's argument seems to consist of, "well, PER is clearly better than the IBM formula because the IBM formula kept ranking David Robinson above Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal". The inability to go beyond that does make me disparage his motivation as anything more than selling books.
Last edited by ShoogarBear; 11-13-2007 at 08:45 AM.
Despite if Efficiency or PER is better, both of them are CLEARLY better than just plain PPG evaluation, wich is the most used by the majority of fans without major basketball knowledge, isn't it?
To the with all the stats.
Manu is playing out of his mind right now,and He is being the main offensive weapon for the Spurs. And that´s what really matters.
Numbers are just for the books and stats sheets, t on the court during games manu is being Super Manu once again.
Even better tham the 2005 Manu right now.
PER and Win Shares are "real" stats in that the inputs are "real." That is, they reflect both counting stats and pace stats, which everyone agrees are important and relevant. The problem is how to interpret the stats. Hollinger can be aggravating in that he tends to accept PER as infallible and transparent, which it isn't.
In my opinion, PER is not as useful for evaluating performance as Position-Adjusted Win Share (PAWS), precisely becuase PER does not fully account for position. For example, if you look at the PER leaders for the last three years, it is almost entirely big men and point guards. (I'm not sure what to call LeBron, who may be the exception to the general rule.) PAWS also tends to correspond more to my own observations, for whatever that is worth. Also, Dave Berri is at least forthcoming and open to criticism; he is a "real" scientist first. Berri has also admitted that no stat can ever capture the complexity of either individual or team defense, which almost seems like a prerequisite for being taken seriously in these type of debates.
Manu has been playing excellent for the Spurs.
I don't think he will finish 1st though, and it will be tough to stay in the top 5.
(same for Jet & Howard)
Top 10 might be more realistic.
Dwyane Wade and Dirk Nowitzki will finish 1 and 2 in this stat at season's end.
Wade just dominates this stat, he will be #1, and it won't even be close.
Dirk's PER will sky-rocket once Damp and Harris are back in the line-up.
I didn't see the finals MVP in there... are those numbers correct or TP is not as good as we think he is?
That's exactly the problem: people spend all this times developing quan ative measures, and then at the end say, well "clearly" this is better. That's nonsense. You should be able to also quan ate the way in which one measure is better than another. Doing so doesn't necessary settle the argument, but not even trying, as Hollinger doesn't, is just snake oil.
Look, nobody thinks that PPG is anywhere close to a perfect measure of anything. Yet nobody can argue with the following painfully simplistic reasoning:
I assume we can all agree that the point of the game is to win. In EVERY NBA GAME THAT WAS EVERY PLAYED, I can tell you which team won with perfect fidelity just by summing up the PPG (for that game) for one team and comparing that with the total PPG for the other team.
Sounds stupid, huh? Yet, can you do that with PER? If I find JUST ONE GAME where the summed PER for the losing team is higher than the summed PER for the winning team, then I have established that the fidelity for PER in determining the outcome of a game is less than that for PPG. (I haven't done this yet, but I'm guessing there are games out there where this is the case.)
Of course, the counterargument is that you have to use a PER weighted by each players minute per game. Maybe that would determine outcome equally as well as PPG. But that's no longer "pure PER", it's a convolution of PER with MPG.
Again, am I saying that PPG is better than PER? Absolutely not. But I can create one ironclad NONSUBJECTIVE argument in favor of PPG, and the PER -ponents have (to date) come up with zero, just a lot of hand-waving.
I don't remember Hollinger even saying his formula is the 'be all, end all". He even knows its limitations and has stated them in previous books and on statistical message forums. He might try and push his stat at times or appear that way on ESPN, but it doesn't discredit the stat or deem it useless.
To me, PER is basically NBA Efficiency per minute relative to team and league context. Sounds pretty good to me. Not perfect, but much better than simply 'watching a few games' and looking at team wins along with basic percentages which many die hard fans (even knowledgeable ones do). There is always the concept of defense, intangibles, and team contexts, but those will always be there.
At least PER is a standardized quan ative measure of basic stats tracked by the NBA. It helps see how efficient and productive many players are relative to the league and maybe even to their teams depending how one looks at it. Rating players is very objective, but I see nothing wrong with Hollinger stats, it all depends how one uses it.
You know, for a moment I thought you were being serious, then I remembered some writings of some of your fellow native English speaking posters whose writing skills are ... well lacking :P3. no-one will laugh at you. We have many posters from all over the world here whose English is imperfect, it adds to ST's flavour!
My two main problems with PER are two things:
1) It's a per minute stat. Per minute stats are pretty useless in real life analysis. If a player isn't playing more minutes, there is usually a reason for that. Either the player gets in too much foul trouble, doesn't have the stamina or isn't good enough defensively to play big minutes. PER looks at what players do per 40 minutes on the court ... even if during that time a player averages like 8 fouls.
For example, during the playoffs last year, PER told us that Alonzo Mourning was one of the best centers in the league. That not only ignores that Mourning would foul out if he played extended minutes, it also ignores that he doesn't have the stamina to play big minutes. It doesn't really matter if Zo averages 30 points, 15 rebounds and eight blocks per 40 minutes, because he can't play that many minutes.
If you put too much stock into PER, that means you value other per minutes stats like points per 48 minutes or rebounds per 48 minutes. Both "advanced" statisticians laugh at such numbers but fail to realize that PER uses the same math in its equation.
2) PER ignores defense completely. While it's difficult to count for defense, you rarely see Hollinger admit that PER is a completely offensive stat. Since it's a completely offensive stat, you have people who point at PER to show that Bowen is one of the worst players in the league. IIRC, Jason Collins has been last in the league in PER a couple times and while he's not a great player, he's a very solid post defender.
Bottomline, I think PER is a pretty decent stat. It's better than nothing and I like it better than that plain "efficiency" stat NBA.com uses, but I think Hollinger over utilizes it. In everything he writes, he always has to talk up PER.
To me, PER's best use is to use it to find undervalued players who could produce with more minutes played. For example, Michael Redd had a good PER back when he was a bench player behind Ray Allen. Then again, you have false PER "finds" such as Jackie Butler and Beno Udrih.
For the most part, I like Hollinger because he is attempting to bring some brains to the basketball reporting crowd. Basketball is so far behind baseball in that area that it's embarrassing. Although, with the way ESPN uses Hollinger, he's basically being used as a poorly done clone of Bill James.
I can watch the games and figure out that Manu is playing awesome right now.
I can also watch the games and figure out that some other player's inflated PER numbers are just garbage.
It's the same with a player's plus/minus. Sometimes it's a big reflection of what's going on in the game. And sometimes, it's just that a guy might be lucky enough to be on the floor when one of his teammates is going off.
I wish that more basketball "analysts" would be able to watch the games (both ends of the court) AND pay attention to the stats. It seems like many writers just watch the highlight reels, while others just watch the stat sheet.
All the different stat categories are useful. But when a writer doesn't watch enough basketball to see what's actually happening on the court, then that's obvious not a good thing.
Here's my ratings right now:
Manu
Tony
Bruce
Spurs Depth
Chance of Repeating
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
