<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></p> If you haven’t been following this, there has become a heated debate in the hoops blogging world about the value of PER, John Hollinger’s all-encompassing hoops stat. Carter at Plissken at the Buzzer fired the first salvo, questioning the usefulness of PER, Tom Ziller (of Sactown Royalty and writing for Ballhype) puts up a passionate defense, the smart folks at Free Darko weighted in, and if you look around you’ll be able to find updates on this discussion in the last 24 hours as well.</p> I like PER as a quick snapshot. Yes, it has limitations, but it provides a concise place to start. (I’d say the same thing about the Wages of Wins “wins produced” number, although I’m less confident in that methodology right now.) We all know there is no way to boil down all of basketball to one number and have it be perfect, but there are advantages to having a quality way to provide a brief snapshot of a player’s performance, and I think PER does that well.</p> Here’s how I use PER: Let’s say the Lakers are going to play the Hawks, I like to write game previews and I’ve seen roughly 10 minutes of Hawks basketball so far in said season. When I look at the team stats on Knickerblogger or wherever, if I see Zaza Pachulia with an All-Star level PER of 22 I think to myself “that is odd” and use PER as a jumping off point to see what is really going on with his game (did he figure out how to shoot?). Then I try to pass along that slightly more detailed knowledge to you guys (my readers), so you know why Zaza is schooling Kwame.</p> For that snapshot to get me looking at things, I think PER is a great tool. But nobody is suggesting that it is the Alpha and Omega of stats. It is simply a starting point.</div></p> Source: Forumblueandgold.com</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></p> If you haven’t been following this, there has become a heated debate in the hoops blogging world about the value of PER, John Hollinger’s all-encompassing hoops stat. Carter at Plissken at the Buzzer fired the first salvo, questioning the usefulness of PER, Tom Ziller (of Sactown Royalty and writing for Ballhype) puts up a passionate defense, the smart folks at Free Darko weighted in, and if you look around you’ll be able to find updates on this discussion in the last 24 hours as well.</p> I like PER as a quick snapshot. Yes, it has limitations, but it provides a concise place to start. (I’d say the same thing about the Wages of Wins “wins produced” number, although I’m less confident in that methodology right now.) We all know there is no way to boil down all of basketball to one number and have it be perfect, but there are advantages to having a quality way to provide a brief snapshot of a player’s performance, and I think PER does that well.</p> Here’s how I use PER: Let’s say the Lakers are going to play the Hawks, I like to write game previews and I’ve seen roughly 10 minutes of Hawks basketball so far in said season. When I look at the team stats on Knickerblogger or wherever, if I see Zaza Pachulia with an All-Star level PER of 22 I think to myself “that is odd” and use PER as a jumping off point to see what is really going on with his game (did he figure out how to shoot?). Then I try to pass along that slightly more detailed knowledge to you guys (my readers), so you know why Zaza is schooling Kwame.</p> For that snapshot to get me looking at things, I think PER is a great tool. But nobody is suggesting that it is the Alpha and Omega of stats. It is simply a starting point.</div></p> Source: Forumblueandgold.com </p> </p></div> I agree completely, PER gives one a great indication of value.</p>
PER is a nice tool. The problem is normally in how much weight someone wants to give and the conclusions they draw from it.
PER is an extremely useful statistic, though it should never replace actually on-court observations, only reinforce them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>PER is a nice tool. The problem is normally in how much weight someone wants to give and the conclusions they draw from it.</div> </p> I couldnt have said it better myself... </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller)</div><div class='quotemain'>Few stats take into account ball possessions, so I think Per is important in that sense as well.</div> Agreed, I think it's one of the better stats available to use as a starting point like the article mentioned. </p> I'm not such a big fan of +/- stats, they can be skewed depending on the juncture of the game a person checks in at. Players who log a lot of garbage minutes in the league have some deceiving +/- stats. </p> </p>
Not a huge fan of PER. It doesn't deal at all with a player's defensive ability, and it's basically a per-48 minute stat. Is Tyrus Thomas really a near 15 PER player in his limited minutes? Seems unrealistic considering his 5.2 points/game and 3.7 rebounds/game.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'> Not a huge fan of PER. It doesn't deal at all with a player's defensive ability, and it's basically a per-48 minute stat. Is Tyrus Thomas really a near 15 PER player in his limited minutes? Seems unrealistic considering his 5.2 points/game and 3.7 rebounds/game.</p> </p></div> True it doesn't take into account defensive ability aside from rebounds, but for comparing offensive production I think it's one of the better stats currently available. Tyrus Thomas has a PER of 15 because of the production in limited minutes. 5.2 points and 3.7 rebounds in just 13.4MPG is a high rate of production, albeit in mostly garbage time. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'> True it doesn't take into account defensive ability aside from rebounds, but for comparing offensive production I think it's one of the better stats currently available. Tyrus Thomas has a PER of 15 because of the production in limited minutes. 5.2 points and 3.7 rebounds in just 13.4MPG is a high rate of production, albeit in mostly garbage time. </p> </div></p> True, but like the per-48-minute (or per 40) stats, there's no guarantee or even likelihood the player can maintain that level of performance given 2x or 3x the minutes. </p> My view is that PER is an OK stat, but like all stats it isn't any good out of context of the rest of the stats. You have to look at the 13.4 MPG, his 5.2 PPG/3.7 RPG to get a complete picture (no one of those stats is good out of context either). I think the latter numbers tell you he played garbage time and didn't contribute a whole lot overall.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'> True it doesn't take into account defensive ability aside from rebounds, but for comparing offensive production I think it's one of the better stats currently available. Tyrus Thomas has a PER of 15 because of the production in limited minutes. 5.2 points and 3.7 rebounds in just 13.4MPG is a high rate of production, albeit in mostly garbage time. </p> </div></p> Are there any great all-encompassing stats for defense? Defense has always been harder to judge. I don't see PER ignoring that fact as an issue at all, one just needs a little context when they look at stats.</p>
My problem with PER is that people evaluate the PER ranking for a given player and assume that player can score, rebound, or dish out that many assists if they played 48 minutes. In 75% of the cases, those PER numbers are useless and far from attainable.
