Jason Kidd averaged 13 points, 9 assists, 8 rebounds, and 1.6 steals per game. He averaged a triple double in the playoffs, with 15 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists. (I rounded up.) He played solid defense, set up his teammates and made them better, scored when needed, and led this team, all throught the season and the playoffs. At times, he actually carried his team throughout games when they needed him.</p> Therefore, he is a better player than Paul Millsap, and many other players "ranked" ahead of him.</p> How's that for a proper analysis, from a dumb 19 year old kid?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Jason Kidd averaged 13 points, 9 assists, 8 rebounds, and 1.6 steals per game. He averaged a triple double in the playoffs, with 15 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists. (I rounded up.) He played solid defense, set up his teammates and made them better, scored when needed, and led this team, all throught the season and the playoffs. At times, he actually carried his team throughout games when they needed him.</p> Therefore, he is a better player than Paul Millsap, and many other players "ranked" ahead of him.</p> How's that for a proper analysis, from a dumb 19 year old kid?</p> </div></p> </p> Yeah, but this is what you saw. It's a subjective ranking.</p> Hollinger is pumping stats into a formula. And he admits that PER doesn't cover things that stats don't really hit, like leadership and position and help defense. It also doesn't take the playoffs into account (which is kind of dumb, when you think about it).</p> He's just taking last year's statistical output, and using it to predict this year's statistical output.</p> Also, consider the fact that this is a per-minute stat. Millsap was very, very good for the Jazz in limited minutes last year. Doesn't mean he can carry a team, just means that per minute, he's one of the top players in the league. PER will always overrate "energy" players who take advantage of playing fewer minutes a game, because it's a measure of how effective they are when they're in the game.</p> I agree, Jason Kidd >> Paul Millsap. But if you just look at the statistics, per minute, they're probably a lot closer in that regard than you'd think.</p> That's what makes PER useful. Not for pushing down the Jason Kidds of the world, but for highlighting players like Millsap who are candidates for "breakout years."</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Jason Kidd averaged 13 points, 9 assists, 8 rebounds, and 1.6 steals per game. He averaged a triple double in the playoffs, with 15 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists. (I rounded up.) He played solid defense, set up his teammates and made them better, scored when needed, and led this team, all throught the season and the playoffs. At times, he actually carried his team throughout games when they needed him.</p> Therefore, he is a better player than Paul Millsap, and many other players "ranked" ahead of him.</p> How's that for a proper analysis, from a dumb 19 year old kid?</p> </div></p> </p> Yeah, but this is what you saw. It's a subjective ranking.</p> Hollinger is pumping stats into a formula. And he admits that PER doesn't cover things that stats don't really hit, like leadership and position and help defense. It also doesn't take the playoffs into account (which is kind of dumb, when you think about it).</p> He's just taking last year's statistical output, and using it to predict this year's statistical output.</p> Also, consider the fact that this is a per-minute stat. Millsap was very, very good for the Jazz in limited minutes last year. Doesn't mean he can carry a team, just means that per minute, he's one of the top players in the league. PER will always overrate "energy" players who take advantage of playing fewer minutes a game, because it's a measure of how effective they are when they're in the game.</p> I agree, Jason Kidd >> Paul Millsap. But if you just look at the statistics, per minute, they're probably a lot closer in that regard than you'd think.</p> That's what makes PER useful. Not for pushing down the Jason Kidds of the world, but for highlighting players like Millsap who are candidates for "breakout years."</p> </div></p> </p> I guess you've got a point. But PER doesn't really cover everything. Then again...what does..?</p> I just don't like the fact that some people, like Hollinger, rely on PER more than they should .</p> I respect people's opinions most of the time, but when you base your opinion on basketball players on something as objective and seemingly ridiculous as PER, I just don't agree with it at all, and it completely takes away any respect I have of the person as a basketball analyst.</p> John Hollinger is a dushbag.</p>
PER is a stat. It's a useful thing if you want to support a theory or are interested in an objective jumping off point for something you are researching.</p> The problem with Hollinger is that he relates everything to this one formula (since it's his legacy) and makes it seem like some sort of pertinent evaluation tool, which is just silly and frequently makes him look foolish.</p> </p>
"douche"</p> But you raise a fair complaint, and one that I agree with. I think the only means by which players should be evaluated are the ordinal counting scales and their closest derivations (FG, and then FG%, etc). It my belief that more complicated measures such as PER, +/-, or what have you, try to measure the "intangibles" in an attempt to offer more complete and conclusive analysis. However they fail in doing so; the complaints mentioned in this thread are just ones. I say lets err on the side of caution, and leave these "intangibles" out of quantitative measure. By definition, let us not try to measure the unmeasurable.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> "douche"</p> But you raise a fair complaint, and one that I agree with. I think the only means by which players should be evaluated are the ordinal counting scales and their closest derivations (FG, and then FG%, etc). It my belief that more complicated measures such as PER, +/-, or what have you, try to measure the "intangibles" in an attempt to offer more complete and conclusive analysis. However they fail in doing so; the complaints mentioned in this thread are just ones. I say lets err on the side of caution, and leave these "intangibles" out of quantitative measure. By definition, let us not try to measure the unmeasurable.</p> </div></p> The best evaluation tool is a trained eye.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> PER is a stat. It's a useful thing if you want to support a theory or are interested in an objective jumping off point for something you are researching.</p> The problem with Hollinger is that he relates everything to this one formula (since it's his legacy) and makes it seem like some sort of pertinent evaluation tool, which is just silly and frequently makes him look foolish.</p> </div></p> </p> That's basically what my problem with him and PER is. It's not a completely reliable stat, and the way he uses it makes him look like an idiot.</p> Btw, I spell dush wrong on purpose...I guess it's cause my cousin (who's a hick and not a smart kid at all, def. not going to college) spells it wrong all the time, and I find the way he spells "dush" funny and amusing, so I can't help but to spell it that way. 'Cause I'm weird like that.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I object to the very concept of the PER; its a subjective statistic.</p> </div></p> With you on that thought. Actually any statistic is objective but the interpretation of the statistic is almost always</p> subjective. (Maybe the final score is the only one that isn't)</p> And many stats are downright crap. They all have to pass a "smell test" to at least some degree...do they at all match what you</p> are seeing in front of your eyes and common sense among others?</p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> "douche"</p> But you raise a fair complaint, and one that I agree with. I think the only means by which players should be evaluated are the ordinal counting scales and their closest derivations (FG, and then FG%, etc). It my belief that more complicated measures such as PER, +/-, or what have you, try to measure the "intangibles" in an attempt to offer more complete and conclusive analysis. However they fail in doing so; the complaints mentioned in this thread are just ones. I say lets err on the side of caution, and leave these "intangibles" out of quantitative measure. By definition, let us not try to measure the unmeasurable.</p> </div></p> Actually, I LOVE the plus-minus stat . . . when used to compare three, four, and five-man units, because it can indirectly measure the effectiveness of how teammates interact with each other. If, for instance, a combination of Kidd, Carter, RJ, Krstic and Collins has a higher plus-minus than a combination of Kidd, Carter, RJ, Krstic and Cliff Robinson, we can probably conclude that Collins intereacts better with those four teammates than Cliffy and should be utilized in that setting. It DOES not necessarily mean that Collins is better than Cliff, just that in some way his skills are being better utilized with that combination. Then we can recommend how Collins should be used in the future.</p> Boki is a solid player, but I'm convinced that a combination of Krstic + Boki in the front court would NOT work very well, and using plus-minus in this way could show evidence of this. Then, we could start to develop ideas on how player rotations should be set up.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class="ucomment"> He refuses to set forth the formulae he is using, stating only that we can find them in a book of his–so, it’s hard to take an objectively critical view of his methods.</p> </div> </div></p> http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html</p> </p> <pre>uPER = (1/MP)* [ 3P + (2/3)*AST + (2 - factor*(tmAST/tmFG))*FG + (FT*0.5*(1 + (1 - (tmAST/tmFG)) + (2/3)*(tmAST/tmFG))) - VOP*TO - VOP*DRBP*(FGA - FG) - VOP*0.44*(0.44 + (0.56*DRBP))*(FTA - FT) + VOP*(1 - DRBP)*(TRB - ORB) + VOP*DRBP*ORB + VOP*STL + VOP*DRBP*BLK - PF*((lgFT/lgPF) - 0.44*(lgFTA/lgPF)*VOP) ]</pre> <pre>factor = (2/3) - (0.5*(lgAST / lgFG)) / (2*(lgFG / lgFT)) VOP = lgPTS / (lgFGA - lgORB + lgTO + 0.44*lgFTA) DRBP = (lgTRB - lgORB) / lgTRB</pre> <pre>pace adjustment = lgPace / tmPace</pre> <pre>aPER = (pace adjustment)*uPER</pre> <pre>PER = aPER*(15/aPERlg)</pre> <pre></pre> I definitely agree with your post, though. I'm happy with Hollinger in comparison to most other basketball "experts" out there, but I definitely think he could do better work.</p> </div></p> </p> yoiks. This just stinks of regression analysis. What is "P?" [the first term in brackets] Anyway, it looks as though defensive rebounds are worth very little, and turnovers are worth about 50% more than assists.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class="ucomment"> He refuses to set forth the formulae he is using, stating only that we can find them in a book of his–so, it’s hard to take an objectively critical view of his methods.</p> </div> </div></p> http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html</p> </p> <pre>uPER = (1/MP)* [ 3P + (2/3)*AST + (2 - factor*(tmAST/tmFG))*FG + (FT*0.5*(1 + (1 - (tmAST/tmFG)) + (2/3)*(tmAST/tmFG))) - VOP*TO - VOP*DRBP*(FGA - FG) - VOP*0.44*(0.44 + (0.56*DRBP))*(FTA - FT) + VOP*(1 - DRBP)*(TRB - ORB) + VOP*DRBP*ORB + VOP*STL + VOP*DRBP*BLK - PF*((lgFT/lgPF) - 0.44*(lgFTA/lgPF)*VOP) ]</pre> <pre>factor = (2/3) - (0.5*(lgAST / lgFG)) / (2*(lgFG / lgFT)) VOP = lgPTS / (lgFGA - lgORB + lgTO + 0.44*lgFTA) DRBP = (lgTRB - lgORB) / lgTRB</pre> <pre>pace adjustment = lgPace / tmPace</pre> <pre>aPER = (pace adjustment)*uPER</pre> <pre>PER = aPER*(15/aPERlg)</pre> <pre></pre> I definitely agree with your post, though. I'm happy with Hollinger in comparison to most other basketball "experts" out there, but I definitely think he could do better work.</p> </div></p> </p> </p> yoiks. This just stinks of regression analysis. What is "P?" [the first term in brackets] Anyway, it looks as though defensive rebounds are worth very little, and turnovers are worth about 50% more than assists.</p> </div></p> wouldn't it be points?</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> "douche"</p> But you raise a fair complaint, and one that I agree with. I think the only means by which players should be evaluated are the ordinal counting scales and their closest derivations (FG, and then FG%, etc). It my belief that more complicated measures such as PER, +/-, or what have you, try to measure the "intangibles" in an attempt to offer more complete and conclusive analysis. However they fail in doing so; the complaints mentioned in this thread are just ones. I say lets err on the side of caution, and leave these "intangibles" out of quantitative measure. By definition, let us not try to measure the unmeasurable.</p> </div></p> Actually, I LOVE the plus-minus stat . . . when used to compare three, four, and five-man units, because it can indirectly measure the effectiveness of how teammates interact with each other. If, for instance, a combination of Kidd, Carter, RJ, Krstic and Collins has a higher plus-minus than a combination of Kidd, Carter, RJ, Krstic and Cliff Robinson, we can probably conclude that Collins intereacts better with those four teammates than Cliffy and should be utilized in that setting. It DOES not necessarily mean that Collins is better than Cliff, just that in some way his skills are being better utilized with that combination. Then we can recommend how Collins should be used in the future.</p> Boki is a solid player, but I'm convinced that a combination of Krstic + Boki in the front court would NOT work very well, and using plus-minus in this way could show evidence of this. Then, we could start to develop ideas on how player rotations should be set up.</p> </div></p> Agreed with plus/minus. I love seeing the +/- on NBA.com (the Lenovo +/-) because it tells you what combos worked the best. I wouldn't be surprised if some coaches already used this in the NBA, it seems like a very useful stat.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rory)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but are wins and losses anywhere in that formula?</p> </div></p> </p> I don't believe so. PER is more of an individual stat, and wins/losses are a team stat, so I would guess that's why it wouldn't be included.</p> While PER is flawed as is, adding wins/losses would probably make it worse, as it would probably make an average player like Gooden look as good as Elton Brand.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peg182)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rory)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but are wins and losses anywhere in that formula?</p> </div></p> </p> I don't believe so. PER is more of an individual stat, and wins/losses are a team stat, so I would guess that's why it wouldn't be included.</p> While PER is flawed as is, adding wins/losses would probably make it worse, as it would probably make an average player like Gooden look as good as Elton Brand.</p> </div></p> Hmm...OK, maybe it'd be better if they incorporated +/- stats into the PER. There's no way Zach Randolph can be a top 10 PF.</p> </p>
