Is using PER the best way to evaluate a players worth? I like it (although am still a little confused on how it works). It sure does seem to rank the players properly. Are there flaws n the system? What does it miss? Wish there was a person on here that knew the ends and outs!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240 From the mouth of the creator: I like PER for what it is, a normalized stat for measuring mostly offensive efficiency. Like Hollinger says, it is not an end all be all evaluation of talent.
It's still just a stat. It doesn't take into account setting screens, picks, keeping the ball moving, team defense, hustle, making players around you better... So it has value, but it has a lot of holes in it. I'd never use it much in evaluating a player, except in a minor way.
It includes defensive statistics, but a player can get a lot of steals and/or blocks but be terrible as a defender in other ways... PER only looks at those things, so someone like Bruce Bowen's true value is never going to be accurately reflected in PER. Another weakness of PER is that it tends to overvalue high volume, low-percentage shooters. Someone like Iverson was always overrated in terms of PER because he scored so many points and his inefficiencies were understated. It's still the best single stat for measuring individual player contributions, though. Ed O.
Well it doesn't hurt Nic that he shot the hell out of the ball last year, but it dings players who are not high usage guys (ie. guys who don't take a lot of shots or actively participate in a lot of play-making) in Nic's particular case it ranked him at 17+ which puts him at 'above average' for a starter.
Or to put it more technically, the formula is: uPER = (1 / MP) * [ 3P + (2/3) * AST + (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG + (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG))) - VOP * TOV - VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG) - VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT) + VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB) + VOP * DRB% * ORB + VOP * STL + VOP * DRB% * BLK - PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ] Glossary for above: factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT)) VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA) DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB Let me know if you have questions. Oh, and to answer your question, the value is really to provide a single number that for a range of stats (pts, reb, asst, steals, blks) and then adjust them to pace. It doesn't blend 15 stats, or take into account multitudes of factors such as where guys shoot from, how much they get double-teamed, and of course guys playing against second units vs. starters. But it does take the very basic stats that every boxscore junkie like to read and adjust them to make a guy who plays 35 minutes on a team that walks the ball up the court adjusted from the guy who is playing 38 minutes on a team that pushes every time (thus padding extra stats on everyone's resume who happens to play under that system). Not perfect, but a great general indicator for starters at the same positions who play 24+ minutes against other starters as you can really compare the blended stats of two "apples". IE - great for really getting a starting point for who would be the top candidates for all-star voting for starting centers, etc.
I would counter that Iverson has always been under-appreciated by the stats geeks who focus on his efficiency (or lack thereof) more than his status as one of the most difficult guys in the league to stop. In which case, I think PER gets it right by not overstating his inefficiencies.
PER catches the fact that Iverson got to the line a lot to make up for his inefficiency. The problem is, that the really truly elite players keep their field goal percentage up and get the free throws too. Iverson was a good player. But that doesn't mean he isn't a volume shooter.
Most non-volume shooters would love to have inefficiently lead their team to the Finals... You're confusing productivity with your own values of a good/great player.
I dunno about that. Iverson's career average in PER is 20.9, and during his 2000-01 MVP season, it was only 24, which is the lowest of any MVP winner that I can find. If anything, PER seems to accurately rate Iverson's value, while the media and fans tended to completely overrate Iverson. Even Kobe Bryant, who had a PER of 25 when he finally won an MVP award, is usually in the 24-25 range. By comparison, Brandon Roy had the same PER of 24 for the 2008-09 season, and was never considered seriously as an MVP candidate.
What does PERs look like for players like Brian Grant, Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman, who simply make the team SO much better, but aren't stat sluts?
I'd argue that Rodman, at least to some degree, was a "stat slut". Horace Grant, in his prime, had a PER in the 18ish range, which is well above average. Brian Grant, who is obviously one of my favorite players, never had the impact of the other two you mentioned, yet he still was a 17 PER player in his prime. Rodman does seem to get hosed by PER, based on his defensive abilities, but he was a completely inefficient player on the offensive end, so that has to be taken into consideration. Plus, Rodman was a fluke, a rebounding/defensive monster who was allowed to be that player regardless of his terrible offense. The other two and their values are adequately reflected by PER, IMO.
Is there a list on ESPN of last years or past years PER rankings? Would love to know who had high PER's last year but were not stars.
