The PER factor

[Section 101]

Yes I know alot of you out there hate PER. Since out problems have been more on the offensive side then defensive this should have some merit. But it's some pretty interesting stats. Yes it's a small sample of the season, but when comparing PER to minutes played it's pretty obvious who should be getting more PT now.

Big men

JT 16.86 Min 16.5
Cuz 16.64 Min 26.2
JJ 14.28 Min 21.2
Hayes 12.71 Min 28.5

Wings

Thomas 25.44 Min 9.2
Thornton 18.58 Min 34.7
Evans 13.82 Min 33.3
Greene 12.72 Min 3.6
Jimmer 11.85 Min 25
Garcia 11.74 Min 11.5
Salmons 8.05 Min 26.5
Outlaw 6.97 Min 15.8


Thomas has mostly played in garbage time so his numbers are misleading a bit.

But it's clear that Salmons and Outlaw are sticking up the court. They should not be getting time over Greene and Garcia at this point. It's not like they have been play great defense. Salmons and Outlaw were brought in the shore up the SF position and have actually made it worse. Both of these were Westfail moves.

Evans and Thornton have produced the best of the guards. So no real complaint about PT here. You could argue IT getting some of Jimmers minutes.

Cuz is producing for his minutes. Yes his FG% sucks, but he's been doing other things on the court. Hayes has the highest mins and the lowest production, but he is the best defender of the bunch. JT should be getting more minutes, he has been the most productive.

 

[TheWileyVet]

Can a more knowledgable poster explain PER to a simpleton?

 

[Section 101]

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity.

To generate PER, I created formulas -- outlined in tortuous detail in my book "Pro Basketball Forecast" -- that return a value for each of a player's accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.

Two important things to remember about PER are that it's per-minute and is pace-adjusted.

Because it's a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Steve Blake and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.

I also adjust each player's rating for his team's pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren't penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.

Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists -- such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins -- who don't get many blocks or steals.

What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats.

I set the league average in PER to 15.00 every season.

Among players with at least 500 minutes in 2010-11, the highest rating was LeBron James' 27.34. The lowest was Stephen Graham's 4.41.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Here's a Wiki article which has all the gory details on PER. (Link)

In short, it's an attempt at a one-number estimate of a player's value. Critiques include the fact that defense is not adequately represented, except for steals and blocks (so shut-down man defense is invisible to PER), the fact that volume shooters are rewarded, even for bad shooting percentages, and players who play primarily against second units or in garbage time are inflated relative to starters.

I am personally not a big fan of PER for essentially these reasons.

 

[Spike]

So if the average is about 15.00, then my eyeballs tell me we are currently a below average team. No surprise there. I may do some math later, but I have to run to practice.

 

[Section 101]

Here's a Wiki article which has all the gory details on PER. (Link)

In short, it's an attempt at a one-number estimate of a player's value. Critiques include the fact that defense is not adequately represented, except for steals and blocks (so shut-down man defense is invisible to PER), the fact that volume shooters are rewarded, even for bad shooting percentages, and players who play primarily against second units or in garbage time are inflated relative to starters.

I am personally not a big fan of PER for essentially these reasons.

The same can be said of just throwing out PPG/rebounds/assists. You don't know if they are second units/garbage time.

 

[bajaden]

The same can be said of just throwing out PPG/rebounds/assists. You don't know if they are second units/garbage time.

I'm not a fan of any one system to fully pass judgement on a players value. I think you have to use all the data available, plus your eye test. Nothing is better than actually watching the player play. If for instance all you looked at were Michael Gilchrists stats at Kentucky, you'd be able to tell he's certainly a good player, but after watching him, you'd know he's a special player. I think my least favorite system is the +/- system. Especially in the short term. It relies too much on the other players on the floor with the player your evaluating. I think in the long term, like over a two year period, it can give you a semi-accurate result.

 

[Section 101]

I'm not a fan of any one system to fully pass judgement on a players value. I think you have to use all the data available, plus your eye test. Nothing is better than actually watching the player play. If for instance all you looked at were Michael Gilchrists stats at Kentucky, you'd be able to tell he's certainly a good player, but after watching him, you'd know he's a special player. I think my least favorite system is the +/- system. Especially in the short term. It relies too much on the other players on the floor with the player your evaluating. I think in the long term, like over a two year period, it can give you a semi-accurate result.

Agree. But it the PER system is supporting the eye test for the SF position and JT getting more time.

 

[Bricklayer]

Can a more knowledgable poster explain PER to a simpleton?

PER was a brilliant invention of an accountant who knows less basketball than your grandmother to give himself legitimacy. I wish I had has the foresight to creat my own "advanced" stat which I could have called the BRICK, then people may have thrown money at me too.

It would be harmless enough, except that as a mysterious "advanced" combination stat with an ESPN face behind it, many a basketball neophyte grasps onto it assuming its a be all and end all of basketball merit. Much easier than watching games or understanding the league.

Now as used in this thread its fine as a summation of what we are seeing out there. It won't ever pick up onthe value of a Chuck Hayes type player, but I was impressed that it actually moderately valued Cousins despite the FG% (most advanced stats love %s because they are allwonderfully measurable and statsy)/

A an aside, Isiah Thomas is 10th in the entire league in PER. Lou Williams is 5th. Just ahead of Balke Griffith.