[video=youtube;HqZKW1WEVlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqZKW1WEVlM[/video] Thrilla, I heard you're Ali G today? Good luck with that man.
Shocker. The two reasons, by the way, are: (1) The so-called "precise figures" from 82games.com don't actually exist. (2) You don't understand how PER is calculated, so how could you even attempt to fix the formula? And of course there's also: (3) By specifying a revised formula, you'd be exposing yourself to scrutiny when your top players end up being totally preposterous. To the rest of the board actually following along: PER measures what a player does per possession because teams win games by producing more points per possession than their opponent. End of story. The idea that PER needs to take into account time used per possession makes as much sense as arguing that "true" FT% should adjust for how many seconds it takes to shoot the free throw on each attempt. Seriously, that's how silly this is. And, folks, observe huevonkiller's attempt above to derail the thread. What does that tell us?
Nope, I just like joking with you. I'm not "afraid" of scrutiny. Hmm fascinating, here I thought I was adding interest to this thread? 1- Durvasa didn't even know about this until a few days ago. 2- He can not keep track of the argument, he argues how PER being inflated doesn't matter, when I am arguing that the perception is misconstrued. PER gives an unreliable figure, I allude to reasons but it is difficult to be precise, just like he can not be precise. 3- He didn't even understand the correlation until I brought it up, it had not even occurred to him before 4- He complained about how I used "measure pace". Sorry but you can not calculate PER without measuring pace. Uh I don't have to specify another specific formula. I just need to make the audience aware that PER is hardly perfect, I never said I was. Nope, just post padding. You're a little dull to argue with so I do this other stuff. :] [video=youtube;eMtMAxWbJ2I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMtMAxWbJ2I[/video] You've gone on that ridiculous tangent I predicted, might as well go all out.
http://www.82games.com/0809/08CLE9.HTM You don't understand how PER is calculated, so how could you even attempt to fix the formula? Dude, all I have to do is quote your own writing, I've already established myself. Discussion has been over for a while now. Save yourself some time.
You are saying, PER being inflated in a specific offense doesn't matter. In addition, you created a very specific example to show when time used per possession doesn't count. But you've contradicted yourself already, no one really knows what you're talking about. A refresher for you: For some random reason, it doesn't matter to you that PER is not accurate.
It's not like you get to use all that "extra shot clock" at the end of the game in a bonus round. It doesn't matter how much of it you use per possession. What matters is how much you're able to score per possession. Likewise, it doesn't matter if it takes you 8 seconds to shoot a free throw or 3 seconds. What matters is how many of them you hit on each trip to the line.
Another example. To summarize statistical productivity per possession, pace has to be measured. What you say makes no sense sometimes, you lose track of the argument.
You can't defer in a free throw situation, wake up they are not even comparable situations. It uses NO shot clock, it doesn't affect your teammates abilities on the court. PER is not biased towards any type of free throw shooting that uses up X amount of time.
And I asked you to supply just one counter example where your concept of "true efficiency" indicates the winner more accurately then possession-efficiency. If my example is "specific" and what I'm saying (possession efficiency is what determines the winner, not "true efficiency") is not true in the general case, then you should be able to come up with a counter example. I supplied the rest of my quote, which you left off. I never said that PER was inflated. I said that its true that LeBron's PER could be less if he played in a different system, with different teammates. It's also true that Kobe's PER could be less if he played in a different system with different teammates. How can that possibly be construed as "Therefore, their PER is inflated." ? But PER is not trying to measure what players hypothetically would do in different offensive systems, nor should it. It is summarizing how much the player does for his team each possession. LeBron is asked to do more on each of his team's possessions than Kobe is, and last year he did more. To give Kobe extra credit because he's not asked to do as much is what I'd call inflation. I believe a player rating system should credit players for what they did, not what they may or may not do on a different team.
Yeah your example was pretty bad, can't believe you wasted so much time on it! A specific example you say? Why no, PER is perfect the way it is! No changes needed, just ignore the fact that my PER rises if I can not play off the ball! If Bron uses even a couple more seconds per possession, that already negates the pace difference of various quicker teams. You have to surround certain players around Bron to attain that PER, he wouldn't be as effective on another roster with Championship talent. Follow the argument already you're all over the place. What good is PER if it doesn't account for different offensive systems? That is it's purpose, to account for different situations, league rule changes, and such. The fact that it doesn't measure time used per possession is the same reason it inflates the PER of Centers who don't create for themselves as much as guards. It assumes a lot of things, it is an imprecise figure, and has been tweaked all the time. Kobe's PER in 02-03 is 27.11 according to Hollinger, and 26.2 in basketball-reference.
I'm familiar with the page. It does not "precisely" show how much of the shot clock each player had the ball in his hands. ....... The objective in the game is to maximize points scored each possession. The goal is not to give your teammates more chances with the ball. Unless you can establish that LeBron having the ball in his hands for more shot clock is hindering his team's ability to score each possession, I believe it is unfair to penalize him. And, did you not argue earlier that Shaquille O'Neal's PER was inflated for the opposite reason? He didn't create as much for his team so he was mostly just a finisher benefiting from the shot creation of his teammates. It's like you want to have it both ways. Is PER inflated when the player does more shot creation for teammates, or is it inflated when the player does less shot creation for teammates? You know, you have players like Shawn Marion -- they can score a lot of points mainly with off the ball movement and relying on other teammates to get them the ball. They don't use up much shot clock at all (far less than even Kobe). Should they have a super high PER as a result? I'm going to stop at that point, because we're not going to understand each other and you're getting increasingly annoyed with the conversation. Feel free to take the last word, though. And again, if someone else can explain to me what huevonkiller means or can explain why I am wrong to question him, please do.
Apparently not enough, you barely realized Kobe's correlation when I alluded to it. That's not Per's objective. I want someone who can create for himself (Shaq fails to a degree), in as little time as possible (Bron fails) per possession, how is this having it both ways? Kobe succeeds in both aspects. Again you fail to realize the various components that go into output. This isn't just about time used per possession, or some other narrow minded example where time used per possession is overcome by other factors. I said it is merely a component, a factor not accounted for in PER.
Watching Durvasa and HK argue statistics is like watching two nerds argue over Vector Calculus. My mind hurts. Brian, all of a sudden, isn't the biggest nerd on the site! Now is his chance to get laid!
Lol yeah a little embarrassing, not going to lie. XD Better go get wasted now, then play some hoops to recover cred. :[
Its not clear to me if that particular component correlates positively, negatively, or not at all to winning, which is what I think matters ultimately. That's all. But if its clear to you, that's cool.
He was definitely a ring hog. On the other hand, check out how his teams did with him shooting as much as he did: 61 wins and 67 during the 1st 3peat. 72, 69, and 62 during the second. Three of the top 7 records in history. "But look at Kobe's teammates!" Shaq scored 1000 more points than Kobe, and Kobe as 3rd year player, 65 wins, 8th best record in history. Last season, with a stacked roster, 65 wins and 16th best record. That 72 win team featured Kukoc (about the same as Odom), Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, Jud Buechler, and Dickey Simpson (all got significant minutes). Could it be that Jordan actually made his teammates way better? I think so. "But the Lakers had to play in the tough Western Conference." Back then, the Eastern Conference was as tough as the Western is now. "Pace" As if the pace matters as much as some seem to think (it's all about winning, e.g. scoring more than the opponent), Jordan's FGA would be inflated by pace. "Remarkable" Jordan was 15th best player in the NBA at the age of 40. And certainly a shadow of his former self. Let's see if Kobe even makes it that far. "PER" Not the ideal measure by any means. Jordan's career PER, including seasons at ages in upper 30s and 40s was 27.9. Kobe's at about the peak of his prime, 24.9.
