Hey DaRizzle, were you the one that was sure Phoenix wouldn't make the playoffs and the Clippers would?
I strongly agree with you here. PER definitely is useful for production comparisons. But it's not a all-encompassing stat. That's exactly why I don't like seeing PER used to rank rookies. It's inherently biased toward production, and leaves out anything that's not captured. Of course, you could argue that ROY awards are often voted to the person with the highest production. But that's a different thread...
The one stat I would like to see is some sort of consistency rating. The rating would look at deviations from averages amongst all major statistical categories and provide a numerical way to to compare these player deviations. So, for example, player X and player Y both average 10ppg and 5rpg, but player X almost always scores and rebounds around those same numbers, whereas player Y has games with 2points and 1 rebound, and other games with 30points and such. This seems like a stat that one could easily write a formula for that would accurately show how consistent a player is. Perhaps make the stat time dependent.
yeah, but that is taken into account equally across all teams. I love Hollinger, because he doesnt use opinions and bias to formulate projections. His stuff isnt the end all be all, but it is another stat to look at.
it doesnt account for great man defenders either such as bowen, who doesnt get alot of blocks or steals.
my issue with ppl who use it as a be all and end all and refuse to listen to what oh way 4 ppl tell them about a player because his PER is outrageously high...
i'm having trouble understanding this post, but if your previous posts in this thread are any indication i would disagree that your issue is with people who use per as if it's the only thing that matters. you appear to just not like hollinger for whatever reason:
fine, I hate both. ppl who get goo stats but disappear when they need to deliver for their team have a good Per, but are not as good IMO, as ppl who have a lower PER but took the tough shots needed in order to try and win games. Reggie Miller doesn't have a great PER, but I'd love to have him on my team because he was cold blooded in crunch time and could carry a team in a 4th Quarter. David Robinson was an athletic freak who did amazing things for a 7 footer, yet played small and seldomly came through for his team in the playoffs, thus his zero finals appearances prior to Tim Duncan appearing. I also find Hollinger's writings to be smug and I don't totally trust his formula as being totally accurate.
First you'd have to prove that David Robinson came up small in general, rather than in just one or two series. A complete ignorance of statistics is equally as dangerous, I try to find a balance.
He never claimed it was...He has an equation, he describes his equation, he puts the numbers into the equation...out comes his ranks IN THOSE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES...that is all. Its people who think he is trying to be ranking players only according to PER (which he isnt, JUST PER) that give him such a hard time.
having a big game vs whomever in the 53rd game of the year.. not a big deal. Being one of the best 2-3 centers in the league with an all-star caliber SF, a solid back court and not making to the Finals at least once where the other centers did... proof enough if you watched David Robinson play in the early 90's... like me and 3 other ppl said I also forgot to mention I find Hollinger's reliance on his own stat and ignoring the normal stats used throughout the history of the game to be extremely egotistical.
and yet I've read articles where he ranks players and voila, it's according to his PER formula. Only place I really haven't seen it is his rookie rankings.
Why? His stats give a different view than just a box score. Sabermetrics (thats what its named right?) seems to be doing big things in baseball and thats new.
Uh maybe you misread his articles....He is ranking them by PER and PER alone...Its a rank by PER...not all encompassing
Did you answer my question in any empirical manner? God forbid anyone try to bring in the opinion of other people outside your circle of 4. You ignore a fair amount of stats yourself, I wouldn't be too harsh on John.
