Thanks! Here's some comparison "Impact Rating" numbers: LeBron = 312.7476 Wade = 296.7894 Bosh = 170.4000 Pierce = 168.8918 Allen = 130.5303 Garnett = 151.2475 Griffin = 237.5835 Gordon = 217.2878 Davis = 97.3830 All this seems to jibe with "observed impact" gut reactions...
Perhaps not among all players, true. But among starters, or the guys who play a lot of minutes, it might be. Quickly running through the Blazers top-five guys, Aldridge, Miller and Batum were within 1.0-1.2. Matthews and Camby were well outside that range (Matthews way over, Camby way under). Once you get to the reserves, you see numbers all over the place. It just seemed interesting to me that Jordan, whom I picked at random, came out pretty identical to Ginobili and Tukoglu, as I'd say all three players were pretty different types and caliber of player. I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of starters in the NBA end up between 1.0 and 1.2. Not interested enough to do the work myself, granted.
The work was already done, at least for a half-season, in the link that I provided earlier in the thread. Also, I've now three times said there should be some sort of multiplier to even out the statistic and reward 'great' players. BlazerCaravan did add in 'Impact', which may help equalize the thought train that I am on regarding PER and usage. I'm not looking to argue here, but the facts show that it is rare to see a Usg/PER ratio of 1.0, let alone being it some sort of mean, even for starting players, which you seemed to suggest earlier in the thread. I'm just trying to make even more sense of a statistic that I think most accurately tries to encapsulate the total value of a player, at least in terms of offense, to a team.
I am sorry - but if you look at the formula - you will see that this is exactly right - the value is efficiency per minute, not per action - that's why uPER is calculated with a (1 / MP) * .... - thus, what I have said is correct - the efficiency formula captures production (per minute) by default - if you have someone that is on the team and is an amazing shooter but only takes 1 shot per 10 minutes - his PER will be low. The usage/PER correlation is implicitly built into the formula - because we are talking about efficiency per minute. If someone is fantastically efficient per action - but his usage% is low - by definition - his PER will be low. This basically tells you that generally speaking - coaches in this league have a pretty good understanding of how to use players - as the PER/USAGE correlation is pretty uniform as Minstrel implied. In other words, doing some kind of a usage multiplication with PER is a rather useless operation imho - the usage is implied within the formula.. - if you look at the formula - it is "all the usage statistics that can be measured specifically in gain or loss directly" divided by minutes played and normalized to the team/league - adding the usage parameter which is basically "percentage of possessions when on the court that the player is involved in" basically adds nothing more than noise into the formula - because it does not distinguish between good and bad touches (assists vs. turn-overs for example) - and it duplicates the more refined data that is already there. Just because the number is there - does not mean that it makes sense to combine it with another number to try to look for meaning. It just does not make too much sense, mathematically.
Your improvement on my initial thoughts on Usg/PER seems completely in line with how I view players. Winning also matter, at least for me. All I can say is thanks again. Just awesome stats, BC.
I really don't think the ratio system is valid, personally, because one is a percentage and the other is a number. Anyway, here's Jordan's 1991, 1992, and 1993 "Impact Ratings: 1991 - 387.1680 (37.0 MPG, 32.0 PER, 32.7% Usage) 1992 - 340.6990 (38.8 MPG, 27.7 PER, 31.7% Usage) 1993 - 405.0219 (39.3 MPG, 29.7 PER, 34.7% Usage)
Actually, that's exactly what I've been saying. Read the thread. No, it isn't uniform at all. Did you actually research it? It's anything but uniform. No, it isn't. You're looking at a formula, yet the actual results prove otherwise. A Usg/PER ratio of 1.0 is rare. If you disagree, please tell me where I'm wrong. "Noise" is still data. Data that is statistically significant, at least on a comparative level. A 5% variance is significant in science and math. We're looking at 30% variances in the limited data set that I posted. You didn't offer any analysis of the actual Usg/PER stats in this post. You're offering opinion. The actual data says you are off base. All you offered as any data was "Minstrel said". The formula is objective. Your interpretation of it flies in the face of reality. A 1/1 Usg/PEr ratio is hardly uniform. It's exceptional.
If vastly different players with vastly different PER all come down to 1.0 +/- 0.2 - that's pretty close to uniform. 1.0 is useless, the +/- 0.2 you see is from the noise... Actually is is not significant. It is just noise. The idea in statistical calculations is to limit the noise to get meaningful results, that's why you have "margins of error". All you are doing here is adding some of the noise back in and pretending it has a meaning in it. That's just not the way statistics work reasonably... Actually, the data shows you that noise is in there, which is exactly what I said...
In terms of statistical significance/variance, the "noise" that you mention most definitely matters in terms of assessing the statistics offered in this thread. 1.0 is very significant, and even rare. Even a 0.1 variance is also significant, at least in terms of raw data. If you have a counterpoint other than what you've offered so far in ths thread, please address the stats, because mathematically, you really haven't shown anything to counter the stats. Not sure why you're arguing an obvious statistical point, but whatever. Being right on this board seems to be more important than actually looking at things through a different prism.
Hey, at least I'm trying though. Stating that a 20% variance isn't significant and is just "noise" is false in terms of any scientific/mathematical model. Again, thanks for your input in this thread. It was the one idea that actually expanded my own thoughts and improved on them, IMO. Feel free to bash away/ignore.
Oh, quit pretending to be so delicate. You know you go after that "I Was Right On The Internet" trophy as much as anyone here (myself included). I'm glad to have brought some substance into the thread, even though my statistics seem to be surrounded by noise. Like most threads, this one will end poorly.
I don't claim to be right on the internet. Your own chart shows me that I've been wrong about Andre Miller, as I admitted in this thread. Whatevs...
No it's not when it is based on a piece of information that is already in the original formula with better constants in front of it being massaged by a proper analyst... Because I actually work with statistics day in and day out for over 20 years now - and while I am not an analyst - I spent enough time with them to get a clear idea of what makes sense and what does not - and what I see from the formula and your discussion does not make sense. But, if it makes you happy - go ahead, enjoy.
You claimed that a Usg/PER ratio of 1.0 is relatively normal. I've provided links that show it is a rare exception, and not even close to the rule. You have yet to address this, and if this basic statistical formula doesn't make sense to you, then it is hardly my fault that it's over your head. You could choose to actually do some research to back whatever your point is; instead, you decided to put forth a demonstrably false idea, and instead of wondering how you missed on it, you instead try to patronize me. LOL This place is hilarious.
I claimed nothing of the sort. I said that what Minstrel showed you with very different players getting something of the same order shows you that usage is already ingrained in PER - only much more refined and with less noise. You are right. It is over my head how replicating less refined data that is already in PER with a lot more detail and a lot of thought put into it is an advantage - but if you feel happy about using it - go ahead.
Dude, just stop lying. This is what you posted. It's not at all close to uniform. You asserted it; back it up.
The Usg/PER ratio is not at all uniform. Will you stop pretending to be John Hollinger now? I've had to correct you before on "your" own stats. Anybody can read a statistical forumula; Looking at ways to interpret that data is how the use of statistics advances over time. It's my thought that a high usg/PER ratio should also be considered when judging players solely on "PER", which I see daily on this board to justify the ability or value of a given player.
