The PER Journey - 1989, 1999, 2009

NOTE: This is very long, and I was really bored and curious when I wrote this.

Overview: I'm going to compare the two 3-year windows (1989-92, 1998-01) with last year's performance. All stats are regular season. I use PER as a shorthand for "good" versus "bad" versus "average" players, not as gospel. It's just a good red flag for underachievers and deceptively bad players (like Rider) or deceptively good players (like Sabas at 35!)

So, anyway...


1989-90 Rotation: Coop's 33, Buck's 29, Clyde, Jerome, Danny Young are 27, Terry's 26, Duck and Drazen are 25, Mark Bryan'ts 24, Cliffy's 23.

Jerome - 15.7
Buck - 14.3
Terry - 20.0
Clyde - 22.2
Duck - 13.3
Cliff - 9.3
Danny Young - 11.5
Wayne Cooper - 10.6
Drazen - 15.5
Mark Bryant - 9.1

The story - entering their championship window, the Blazers make a run with two 20+ PER players and a bevy of average to below-average role players. A lack of maturity prevents them from winning the finals against Detroit, a team with no regular season player over 17.3 PER, but with better players at positions where Portland was weak: the front line (Aguirre, Laimbeer were 15.8 each, and Rodman was 15.4). The tougher, rougher team won this round.

1990-91 Rotation: Walter Davis is 36, Danny Ainge is 31, Buck's 30, Clyde, Jerome, Danny Young are 28, Terry's 27, Duck and Drazen are 26, Mark Bryan'ts 25, Cliffy's 24.

Clyde - 22.1
Terry - 21.7
Buck - 14.3
Duck - 12.7
Jerome - 15.6
Cliff - 14.1
Ainge - 17.0
Young - 11.7
Bryant - 11.2
Walter Davis - 11.7

The story: Ainge and Davis brought experience, and (hopefully) more stable performance for the emotional team. The Lakers got lucky, ending a very good team's hopes early. Of note, Cliff got a lot better, Duck got a little worse, Ainge was a good move, but Davis wasn't.

1991-92 Rotation: Danny Ainge is 32, Buck's 31, Clyde, Jerome, Danny Young are 29, Terry's 28, Duck is 27, Mark Bryan'ts 26, Cliffy's 25, Alaa's 23, Robert Pack's 22

Terry - 18.1
Clyde - 23.6
Kersey - 14.7
Buck - 15.0
Duck - 10.5
Cliff - 14.2
Ainge - 15.4
Alaa - 13.5
Pack - 10.5
Bryant - 11.3

The story: Terry dips below 20, but Clyde takes the team on his back with his best season since 1988-89, the third of three season's he'd get above 23. Buck improved a little too, presumably to make up for Duck's continued slide. Ainge got older and slower, and the young guys weren't turning out to be terribly special. Against the Bulls, who had three players about 20 PER (Ho Grant at 20.6, Pippen at 21.5, and Jordan at 27.7), they were no match.

1998-99 Rotation: Sabas is 34, Anthony is 31, Augmon is 30, Walt and Jim Jackson are 28, Rider's 27, Grant's 26, Damon is 25, Sheed is 24.

Damon - 14.7
Brian Grant - 17.0
Sheed - 16.7
Rider - 13.7
Sabas - 20.4
Jim Jackson - 13.1
Walt Williams - 16.3
Augmon - 13.0
Greg Anthony - 16.6
Kelvin Cato - 14.5

The Story - a young core of Damon, Rider, Grant, and Sheed is joined by vets Sabonis, Anthony, and Augmon. This team had quite a bit of potential, and if Rider's knee had held out a few games longer, might have made it to the finals. More than the previous run, these three lineups shift and change each year ans the core of Damon, Grant, and Sheed are surrounded by more and more mercenaries.

1999-00 Rotation: Schrempf is 37, Sabas is 35, Pippen is 34, Anthony is 32, Augmon is 31, Steve Smith is 30, Grant's 27, Damon is 26, Sheed is 25, Bonzi is 23, O'Neal is 21

Sheed - 18.1
Pippen - 16.4
Steve Smith - 17.3
Sabas - 20.3
Detlef - 14.5
Greg Anthony - 13.0
Brian Grant - 14.0
Bonzi - 17.3
Jermaine - 13.3

The Story: A good number of old mercenaries surround a core of Grant, Damon, and Sheed. Sabas is still something special at 35 years old, and Sheed seems to be ascending nicely. But a horrible string of bad luck derails this team forever.

2000-01 Rotation: Sabas is 36, Pippen is 35, Rod is 34, Greg is 33, Augmon is 32, Kemp, Smith, and Dale Davis are 31, Damon is 27, Sheed is 26, Bonzi is 24.

Sheed - 20.9
Damon - 16.3
Steve Smith - 15.9
Dale Davis - 15.1
Pippen - 15.1
Bonzi - 18.8
Sabas - 18.4
Augmon - 12.3
Kemp - 11.4
Anthony - 12.0

The Story: With a 20+ PER and two 18+ PER's, this team looked to be pretty good, but chemistry issues and a horrible bench (weak and old) kept this team from advancing past the first round. Bonzi turned out to be a wonderful surprise, and the notion of a Damon/Sheed/Bonzi core doesn't seem too bad, if they could just get over the off-the-court issues.

2008-09 Rotation: Joel is 29, Blake is 28, Channing is 25, Outlaw and Roy are 24, Rudy and LMA are 23, Sergio's 22, Oden's 21, Batum is 20

LaMarcus - 19.1
Roy - 24.0
Outlaw - 15.1
Blake - 14.5
Rudy - 15.4
Joel - 15.4
Batum - 12.9
Oden - 18.1
Sergio - 12.5
Frye - 10.0

The Story: Roy has the best PER season of any Blazer since Clyde's 1987-88 season (when Clyde had a PER of 24.1). The Blazers have two more of their young core with 18+ PER. Rudy has a Drazen Petrovic-esque rookie year (is PER is also 0.1 below Drazen's). Batum's rookie year is better than Cliff's, but the worst of any of the starters between 1989, 1998, and 2008. The team wins 54, but with experience could have upped it to 56.

The 1989-90 team was just starting to plateau. The core was 27 on average, and the time was right to make their move. They had three good chances during their plateau, and almost took it all home twice.

The 1998-99 team was interesting, because it really (when you look at the PER's) was based around Sabonis and Sheed. A big frontline that could take on Shaq and his size, with the best players on the team being frontliners. Trader Bob tweaked and tweaked, but couldn't make it happen. The pieces all got too old, and eventually blew up because winning wasn't enough.

The 2008-09 team is younger than both teams by a couple of years, but already has as much talent as the best of the teams. The worst of the rotation has been let go, and replaced by Andre Miller (who had a PER last year of 18.6). This reminds me a lot of the Danny Ainge move, but the one thing KP isn't doing is adding that second piece, which turned out to be not so good for the 1990-91 team (Walter Davis). The team isn't going to suddenly grow much older due to trades or signings.

Looking at all of these PERs (which I'm not taking as gospel so much as a good single indicator of "good" versus "bad" versus "average" players), it becomes apparent that backup PF is really not a big deal, and that one of your starters can be below average and the team can make waves anyway.

Looking Ahead: If Batum can improve to average, and Oden can stay in the game long enough to make an impact long-term, this team is going to SCARY good. Not quite "1989-90 Blazers with Sabas" good, but... not as far away as it seems.

 

I'm only halfway through it, but a great read so far.

I would never have guessed that Rider was so poor offensively in 98-99. What an overrated player he was, huh?

 

Nice research brother!

 

Thank you (and thank you too HCP).

I was surprised by that too; I remember he was our offensive go-to guy in the regular season and playoffs (until he hurt his knee against Utah). But the PER reveals just how deceptive that was, because he was high volume, low reward. Not effecient at all.

 

Awesome post! I think this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt how good this team could become.

I also find it interesting how suprisingly low some players' PER was (most of the 98-99 team) and how incredible Sabas really was. 20 PER at 35!

 

Andre Miller brings a career 18 PER, with it higher than that the last two years, to the PG position this season. An above 16 PER from the PG spot has been rare since Porter left Portland. I'm really starting to like this move.

 

98-99 was the lockout year. I wonder how things would have gone for that team over an 82 game season. Whitsitt obviously didn't think much of that team, considering he overhauled it for 99-00.

 

Oh good point, I completely forgot about that.

 

Nice post, BC. Great to get a little historical perspective on this team.

 

Indeed. Gives me the chills how good we are gonna be. .

 

I really like this post, but it's making me dislike PER even more.

Seeing guys like Buck Williams, Pippen, Kersey, Cliff, and Duck near or below "average" makes me cringe. Those players had serious value to those teams. Much more than some "average" player would.

 

I think it would make us all think about how PER relates to role players; it just reflects an inefficiency in their game. Buck was a monster on the glass, and was a great garbage man, but his poor FT shooting and limited range prevents him from being a superstar. Duck had good range and a soft touch, but was a poor rebounder and defender. Pippen was smarter than the entire team put together, but was old and not as efficient as he used to be.

Their role on the team was larger than "average" because they were main rotation players, but in comparison with all the players in the league, their performance was "average". But value is completely situational. Value in a team sense is based on need. We needed Buck, Duck, Kersey, and Cliff to perform for us, and they did, just not as efficiently as a Roy or LMA would in their position. They were rarely asked to "carry the load", but their performance in their team roles was admirable.

What might make people uncomfortable is looking at those beloved and valued Blazers and their PERs, and then thinking about Outlaw, who's maligned for being a player remarkably similar to Kersey or Robinson. In fact, Kersey fouled and turned the ball over at a faster clip than Outlaw (while we're on the subject of disruption). Outlaw's a bad defender, but he's not significantly worse than Kersey in his role.

The point to take home is that team value and role is separate from performance efficiency, which is based on an league average. Average players perform essential roles every day. Look at Big Shot Bob. His role on those teams was valuable to that team, but compared to the average player, he wasn't all that. But he fit his role, did his job very well, and has 7 rings to show for it.

 

Excellent post.

I'm not Outlaw's biggest fan, but I cringe when I hear people point to his PER as a major point for why he should be traded. While he leaves a lot to be desired, his PER doesn't account for the fact that he is one of few Blazers that can create his own shot.

I feel that some hold PER very highly, and I think it's dangerous to hold any one stat very high. There are factors that no stat, formula, or metric and measure.

Again, I love the original post in this thread, but it really made me think about how I'm slowly pushing myself away from using PER too often.

 

I'm no stat expert, but in one sense, I think the team's PER ratings last season were mildly deceptive.

The Blazers, as a team, were very efficient on offense. 3 obvious reasons: good offensive rebounding, low turnovers, and above average 3 point shooting.

The offensive rebounding should be a "sustainable" skill. The low turnovers came at a price - a refusal to push the pace and look for easy baskets. The 3-point shooting, IMHO, was a case of catching lightning in a bottle. I seriously question whether the team could reach the next level if they continued to rely to heavily on it.

My hope, is that adding Miller signals a course correction. The team may have more turnovers this season, and they may hit fewer treys....but they will more than make up for it with more easy baskets, and more points-in-the-paint.
That style of offense should be more effective in the play-offs.

(keeping fingers, toes, and eyes crossed!)

 

If you had done this last week you might have recieved some votes for best poster in that other thread, silly.

 

You know, after writing said post, I'm with you. PER is only good in comparing players in similar team roles across different years or teams. Comparing Roy's 24.0 with Clyde's 22.2 is definitely applicable there. Comparing Cliff to Outlaw? Applicable. Comparing Duck to 1998 Sabas? Applicable.

But, people tend not to take team role into account when they rag on a player for being inefficient. Batum, Bayless, and Outlaw all showed severe inefficiencies in their games last year, but a good coach can minimize those limitations by placing the players in situations where their efficient traits are maximized, and by surrounding that player with teammates who make up for what he lacks. Outlaw's a black hole on offense, but when a player passes the ball to him, it's because the play being run is to the point where someone needs to shoot the ball. That's his role: to shoot. And he does so when asked.

I remember a play in a game where the ball had been passed to Outlaw, and you could see that the play was designed to be a breakdown of Outlaw's defender by using Outlaw's footspeed on a drive. But it required bait and a specific time to drive. Outlaw had the ball in the corner near the 3-point line, and waited for a signal. Nate shouted "GO!" or "NOW!" (you could hear the shout on the TV) and Outlaw drove past the defener and scored (with a foul). I think this is Outlaw at his best: he is a coache's tool (just not the mose efficient one) willing to do whatever the coach asks.

You can say the same thing about Duck. He was out of shape with his weight problem, but was always at his best at the start of the game when he was fresh. So Rick Adelman ran several plays for Duck at the beginning of the first quarter, and he made the most of that opportunity. Overall, he wasn't efficient at his job, but he was maximized when he was most effective, and had players around him (Buck, Jerome, Cooper) who minimized his defensive weakness.

If I had the original post to do over, I'd have brought in more ancillary stats to show the reason for the low PER of each player below 18. That would tell the story more than just "look at this guy with a strangely low PER!"

 

He's not just using PER, I'm sure. In the case of Frye and Sergio, there are other stats to support their low PER, real problems with their games that interfere with the role he needed out of them. Sergio's TOV% (estimated turnovers per 100 plays) was 24.7, worst by far of anyone on the team playing more than 500 minutes. Channing's True Shooting Percentage (accounting for 3pt shots and FTs) was 46.5%, the worst of anyone over 500 minutes. So in both cases, it's not just general inefficiency; it's inefficiencies at the one stat they need to be really good at. Those are showstopping performance flaws for the roles we needed to fill.

Miller was actually brought in to minimize the second worst on the team in both the above stats: Bayless. If he's the answer at backup PG (or indeed at PG in general), he needs mentoring. Serious mentoring. Miller solved two problems at once (just like Turk would have) buy giving us a starting quality PG and moving our starting PG to backup where he can be one of the best in that role.

Bayless needs to get his act together this year, because he's now the slowest runner in front of the bear.