Explain PER to me - Anthony Davis vs David Robinson

[D-FENS]

Davis 14-15 stats:
24.1 PPG
10.1 RPG
1.6 APG
1.8 SPG
2.9 BPG
57.1% FG
78.0% FT
1.9 FPG
1.3 TOPG
34.9 MPG
=========PER 33.10

Robinson 90-91 stats:
25.6 PPG
13.0 RPG
2.5 APG
1.5 SPG
3.9 BPG
55.2% FG
76.2% FT
3.3 FPG
3.2 TOPG
37.7 MPG
=========PER 27.40

I look at the stats, and the impact of both players, and feel David Robinson had the better stats, impact, skills, and contributed more to winning. How the hell does Davis have such a high PER? Robinson crushes him in rebounds and blocks

[Im Still Ballin]

Turnovers?

[StrongLurk]

Turnover, Minutes, Pace of League.

[kamil]

Turnovers?

That and the SLIGHT difference in minutes per game.

[plowking]

I'm guessing it takes into account pace? Also you have Davis leading in things like turnovers, FG%, FT%, fouls, all while playing less minutes too.

I'm guessing the biggest differential comes in the minutes. Which is stupid, since you want your best players playing as much as possible. Obviously Robinson has a higher impact on the game since he is on the court a longer period of time.

Meh, I don't know. It is a stupid stat that gives arbitrary values to numbers.

[D-FENS]

Which player would you rather have? :roll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaIWpDRQvk

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/history/legends/david-robinson/david-robinson-300-070611.jpg

Robinson actually had to play good centers as well, that makes up for the higher foul totals IMO. Olajuwon, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning, Daugherty, Smits, Mutumbo, Parish, Divac, Laimbeer, Duckworth.

[D-FENS]

I'm guessing it takes into account pace? Also you have Davis leading in things like turnovers, FG%, FT%, fouls, all while playing less minutes too.

I'm guessing the biggest differential comes in the minutes. Which is stupid, since you want your best players playing as much as possible. Obviously Robinson has a higher impact on the game since he is on the court a longer period of time.

Meh, I don't know. It is a stupid stat that gives arbitrary values to numbers.


Good explanation. To me, Davis is closer to a guy like Brandon Wright than he is to Robinson

[dubnation]

Good explanation. To me, Davis is closer to a guy like Brandon Wright than he is to Robinson

Come on man, that's taking it too far. Davis is having a great, great year. Though I do agree that PER definitely overstates his value.

# of possessions (so first of all pace and then minutes) are the main reason for the big difference. Fouls aren't a factor in PER.

[Droid101]

To me, Davis is closer to a guy like Brandon Wright than he is to Robinson
:facepalm

[fpliii]

:facepalm
Pretty much. Yikes.

[plowking]

Good explanation. To me, Davis is closer to a guy like Brandon Wright than he is to Robinson

I disagree. Davis is a great player, already, and he is a PF, so different to a guy like Robinson.

Davis is a similar mold to your Shawn Kemp back in the day. Has a decent handle for a guy his size, can jump out the building, is great on the pick and roll, can hit the shot from the outside with great consistency, can go in the post and make some nice moves, but prefers to face up.

Add all that, and then add the fact he is simply more talented, has a better knack for the game, is better defensively, and is simply even more athletic than one of the most athletic players I've ever seen, and you have a recipe for a great player.

[guy]

Other then what has already been mentioned, I believe the average player in the league is set at a 15 PER for every year, and everyone else's PER is sort of based on how much below or above average they are. I'm pretty sure that's why you still see players from the 60s like Wilt, West, Oscar, etc. still have high PERs despite the fact that there were no blocks, steals, 3s, etc.

So really, part of it could just be that the average player today is worse then they were back then. Either way, I don't think you can really compare PERs across eras.

[rhowen4]

PER is relative to everyone else that year too. at least i'm guessing since 15 is always normalized to reflect an "average" player

[j3lademaster]

You add the positive stats like to's and rebounds, assists, steals blocks minus negative stats like to and fouls and you multiply that by fg%, ft%. The lack of negative stats and % gives Davis an edge. %'s have the largest impact on per since it's multiplicative if minutes are comparable.

Also, per isn't useless, but it doesn't tell the story quite like rapm and like all stats require context.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Pace. And yes Davis being better than Robinson is not ridiculous not that PER means anything

[fpliii]

Anyhow though, I think Robinson was clearly the better player (top 15-20 all-time). PER only tells as much as can be ascertained from the box score, and a ton of Robinson's value was derived from his defense (which doesn't show up there). Davis is has the potential to be a monster on that end, but I think he's closer to pretty good than the Admiral's level defensively.

[Collie]

Other then what has already been mentioned, I believe the average player in the league is set at a 15 PER for every year, and everyone else's PER is sort of based on how much below or above average they are. I'm pretty sure that's why you still see players from the 60s like Wilt, West, Oscar, etc. still have high PERs despite the fact that there were no blocks, steals, 3s, etc.

So really, part of it could just be that the average player today is worse then they were back then. Either way, I don't think you can really compare PERs across eras.

This is why I always ignore "experts" who rank players according to PER. I appreciate PER as a stat that can gauge the overall statistical contribution of a player compared to his peers, but when you start to use it to compare players across eras, it starts losing relevance.

[navy]

82 games

[D-FENS]

This is why I always ignore "experts" who rank players according to PER. I appreciate PER as a stat that can gauge the overall statistical contribution of a player compared to his peers, but when you start to use it to compare players across eras, it starts losing relevance.

Exactly. I hate hearing, all-time leader in PER. We didn't even have PER in the 90's, guys were shooting for the IBM award, LOL.

Basketball is becoming nerdier and nerdier. It's funny that so many nerds cling to the game, because it's played by guys who are often complete thugs or at the least uneducated jocks.

[Budadiiii]

Exactly. I hate hearing, all-time leader in PER. We didn't even have PER in the 90's, guys were shooting for the IBM award, LOL.

Basketball is becoming nerdier and nerdier. It's funny that so many nerds cling to the game, because it's played by guys who are often complete thugs or at the least uneducated jocks.
Pretty hilarious.

But KD's advanced stats are damn good. Damn good. I enjoy glossing over them from time to time, as they bring me joy to read beautiful stats from KD.

[iamgine]

Davis 14-15 stats:
24.1 PPG
10.1 RPG
1.6 APG
1.8 SPG
2.9 BPG
57.1% FG
78.0% FT
1.9 FPG
1.3 TOPG
34.9 MPG
=========PER 33.10

Robinson 90-91 stats:
25.6 PPG
13.0 RPG
2.5 APG
1.5 SPG
3.9 BPG
55.2% FG
76.2% FT
3.3 FPG
3.2 TOPG
37.7 MPG
=========PER 27.40

I look at the stats, and the impact of both players, and feel David Robinson had the better stats, impact, skills, and contributed more to winning. How the hell does Davis have such a high PER? Robinson crushes him in rebounds and blocks
If you look at per 100 possession, Davis score more and have less than half Robinson's turnovers.

[D-FENS]

If you look at per 100 possession, Davis score more and have less than half Robinson's turnovers.

D-Rob had the offense running through him, Davis is just a dive man like Blake Griffin, Shawn Kemp and other catch and dunk players

[inclinerator]

82 games
yea, i doubt davis is gonna have a 33 per by the end of the year id be surprise if it is even 30

[Droid101]

D-Rob had the offense running through him, Davis is just a dive man like Blake Griffin, Shawn Kemp and other catch and dunk players
:roll: Someone who has never watched the Pelicans play detected.

[iamgine]

D-Rob had the offense running through him, Davis is just a dive man like Blake Griffin, Shawn Kemp and other catch and dunk players
I was giving you the answer, not asking for explanation.

[navy]

yea, i doubt davis is gonna have a 33 per by the end of the year id be surprise if it is even 30
Yeah, he has been great so far, but people really need to realize that if you take pers mid season you can get some crazy stuff.
I swear there is a thread about Westbrook's per being 33. Come on now. :facepalm

[ILLsmak]

PER is relative to everyone else that year too. at least i'm guessing since 15 is always normalized to reflect an "average" player


yep, I dunno much about PER, but I did read an article by wuzhisname and that was stated.

-Smak

[D-FENS]

:roll: Someone who has never watched the Pelicans play detected.

Why would I watch them?

[D-FENS]

56% of his field goals are assisted....

http://www.82games.com/1415/14NOP14.HTM

[Micku]

Pace. And yes Davis being better than Robinson is not ridiculous not that PER means anything

I think it's more minutes and turnovers. AD doesn't nearly have nearly as many turnovers. 1.3 compared to 3.2 would help out a lot. And he plays less minutes and is also slightly more efficient than David Robinson.

AD atm has a better PER than Shaq and Jordan's best. The season isn't over tho, so it might go down.

[UK2K]

An extra two TOs per game probably makes a huge difference.

[3ball]

If you look at per 100 possession, Davis score more


shows you the state of the game - davis scores more than david robinson, yet we all know robinson's offensive skill was in another dimension compared to davis.

the spacing of today's game creates a brand of basketball where davis simply doesn't have to create his own shot or take tough, contested shots ON defenders nearly as often as robinson did.

robinson's offensive skill level is not required anymore to put up those kinds of numbers because today's bigs are used to finish plays (i.e. pick n pop), more than create offense (as they had to do in previous eras).
.

[Harison]

Robinson >> AD, and thats obvious to anyone who is old enough.

[GimmeThat]

because there are coaches eager to find out who to pair Anthony Davis with
but also probably can't bear the failure

that's how I'd explain PER to you

[pauk]

If prime David Robinson played in this PFs wannabe Centers era (yes even Dwight would be a PF in the 90s).... his PER would be 40 or something...

[andremiller07]

Does Anthony Davis ever get doubled? I swear I have never seen teams double him.

[Dresta]

Good explanation. To me, Davis is closer to a guy like Brandon Wright than he is to Robinson
Jesus Christ what a ****ing idiot.

[Sakkreth]

Robinson would shit on the league with current centers.

[dreamwarrior]

I watched Robinson play in 91. He wasn't near the beast Davis is but Robinson played in an era of great centers while Davis is starting to shine just as the last great PFs are on their way out...nowtski, Duncan, Garnett, gasol. Davis isn't really THAT good. He just has no one to challenge him.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Turnover, Minutes, Pace of League.

Pretty much, most considerable stuff at least...

That's why PER is "flawed" (when ignorant people trying to make it as something close to the ultimate stat) and can't be compared across eras (98.6 to 92.7 pace difference here, which is not that close to being considerable, mostly/especially when considering stars).

And, at this point at least, I wouldn't take Davis over D-Rob for example... even going by the season you've mentioned (having watched both), without thinking much...

[3ball]

anyone think davis can get enough freebees in a game to get 71 points?

i doubt it... pretty sure you need elite offensive skill and shot creation ability to do that.

[Anaximandro1]

- PER summarizes a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number.

- Two things to remember about PER are that it's per-minute and is pace-adjusted -> players on a slow-paced team aren't penalized.



1990-91 Spurs -> Pace: 98.6 / Robinson 37.7 mpg

2014-15 Pelicans -> Pace: 92.7 / Davis 35.0 mpg



We know that all-time greats combine high efficiency and high usage. Nobody fills out an advanced box score better than them in the playoffs.

WS and PER are metrics that summarize a set of stats in a single number.

So naturally, WS and PER are key performance indicators in the playoffs, and two of the strongest indicators of success. For example:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-piYYn9e1Efc/VJgfdjJMuPI/AAAAAAAADlw/1xE4VBm0R6Q/s1600/7.jpg

[eklip]

shows you the state of the game - davis scores more than david robinson, yet we all know robinson's offensive skill was in another dimension compared to davis.

the spacing of today's game creates a brand of basketball where davis simply doesn't have to create his own shot or take tough, contested shots ON defenders nearly as often as robinson did.

robinson's offensive skill level is not required anymore to put up those kinds of numbers because today's bigs are used to finish plays (i.e. pick n pop), more than create offense (as they had to do in previous eras).
.
It's usually in the playoffs where the best scorers separate themselves from the (very) good scorers. There is a lot more game planing to take away the easy points from the opposing team. You have a lot less space on pick and pops/rolls. There are less transition baskets.

Davis is very good but he isn't a (all-time) great scorer like the numbers would indicate. The same was true for Love last year.

It's isn't just about today's basketball. Karl Malone was a great scorer in the regular season. He was great in transition, he was great at playing pick and pop and pick and roll. In the playoffs he wasn't great. His efficiency drop off was huge (.577 TS% -> .526 TS%). He scored less points in more minutes. He isn't part of today's basketball but pretty much exactly what you describe.

(Both Karl Malone and Davis can make contested shots, but that's not their strength)

[Psileas]

- PER summarizes a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number.

- Two things to remember about PER are that it's per-minute and is pace-adjusted -> players on a slow-paced team aren't penalized.

This is the main matter. PER assumes that the stats of every player develop in a linear way at the exact same degree his mpg and pace increase or decrease, which obviously isn't the case. So, if Duncan produced 22/12 per 36 minutes for the "pace of 90" Spurs, PER assumes he'd be close to a 29/16 player if he played 40 mpg in the 80's for a "pace of 105" team.

Similarly, in the example of 2015 Davis vs 1991 Robinson, it assumes '91 Robinson is given a 14.6% bump of his stats due to the higher minutes and pace, so, it assumes Davis is a 28/12/3.3 bpg/58% FG player if he plays under the same circumstances.

Plus, like others have said, it takes TO's and fouls into account. Most people don't pay any attention to these 2 stats, but Davis is huge there, it's very impressive that a big man with some pretty high usage for a big only averages 1.4 TO's and a defender with his responsibilities only averages 2.0 fouls per game. I still expect that some numbers like his FG%'s and TO's will slip, but, unless injured and unless Westbrook goes nuts for the rest of the season (which I doubt), he has pretty much already secured this artificial PER title for this season and for many others to come.

[chocolatethunder]

I watched Robinson play in 91. He wasn't near the beast Davis is but Robinson played in an era of great centers while Davis is starting to shine just as the last great PFs are on their way out...nowtski, Duncan, Garnett, gasol. Davis isn't really THAT good. He just has no one to challenge him.
You must have been blind to say what you're saying. Robinson was clearly one of the best centers of his era and some years he was the best in the league. He is so underrated here it's ridiculous. You saw him in '91 and WASNT near the beast Davis is? He averaged 23 and 12 w 2.7 assists and 2.3 steals and 4.5 blocks. You must have been blind and two years old in '91. I was 21 and saw his whole career. Davis is really good but he's a power forward and certainly shorter and weaker than Robinson. No one his size was doing the things Robonson did.

[LAZERUSS]

KAJ's 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were FAR more dominant than AD's current season.

PER is just another joke stat that a nerd came up with that explains nothing.

[DMAVS41]

PER is relative to everyone else that year too. at least i'm guessing since 15 is always normalized to reflect an "average" player

Exactly.

PER normalizes every year so that the average player is always 15. So it's an "in relation to the league" stat...which is why it's actually one of the best metrics to compare across eras statistically because it factors in how one performs (statistically at least) in relation to their peers.

[DMAVS41]

KAJ's 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were FAR more dominant than AD's current season.

PER is just another joke stat that a nerd came up with that explains nothing.

Well...it's hardly perfect, but it's not worthless at all.

Also, I'm pretty sure they don't have the full box score information to even calculate an accurate PER for Kareem in the early 70's.

[LAZERUSS]

Exactly.

PER normalizes every year so that the average player is always 15. So it's an "in relation to the league" stat...which is why it's actually one of the best metrics to compare across eras statistically because it factors in how one performs (statistically at least) in relation to their peers.


So when a Chamberlain leads the league in 15 of the 22 recorded stats in 62-63, including running away with the scoring title, easily winning the rpg, and setting a then-record FG% record...(as well as running away with Win-Shares), ...
his PER is 31.8.

Right now AD's is blowing that away at something like 33.6.

Just doesn't make sense at all.

And I agree with Pslieas...it basically PUNISHES players who play more mpg.

[T_L_P]

Well...it's hardly perfect, but it's not worthless at all.

PER is ultimately a way of aggregating statistical output...nobodies seriously claims it should be used to say 14 Davis > 71 Kareem.

That said, Kareem's teams were probably scoring 25 more PPG than Davis' team is right now (can't look up those numbers). And I'd be tempted to say he's grabbing more available rebounds than Kareem was.

Laz is on the other end of the spectrum. He always talks about Wilt grabbing 25 boards in his prime without admitting those numbers are inflated as fck. Pace does mean something.

[VengefulAngel]

So when a Chamberlain leads the league in 15 of the 22 recorded stats in 62-63, including running away with the scoring title, easily winning the rpg, and setting a then-record FG% record...(as well as running away with Win-Shares), ...
his PER is 31.8.

Right now AD's is blowing that away at something like 33.6.

Just doesn't make sense at all.

And I agree with Pslieas...it basically PUNISHES players who play more mpg.

Lebron's PER for a quarter of season was 34.2, wait for the season to end it likely come down to around 30.8...

[Sakkreth]

anyone think davis can get enough freebees in a game to get 71 points?

i doubt it... pretty sure you need elite offensive skill and shot creation ability to do that.

Freebies. I like this term and sadly that's exactly how most of big men score in todays league, even the best ones.

[LAZERUSS]

PER is ultimately a way of aggregating statistical output...nobodies seriously claims it should be used to say 14 Davis > 71 Kareem.

That said, Kareem's teams were probably scoring 25 more PPG than Davis' team is right now (can't look up those numbers). And I'd be tempted to say he's grabbing more available rebounds than Kareem was.

Laz is on the other end of the spectrum. He always talks about Wilt grabbing 25 boards in his prime without admitting those numbers are inflated as fck. Pace does mean something.

Chamberlain was crushing his peers on the the glass, as well. Not to mention that he had seasons where he was outshooting the league eFG% by margins of well over .100, and as high as .271.

[DMAVS41]

So when a Chamberlain leads the league in 15 of the 22 recorded stats in 62-63, including running away with the scoring title, easily winning the rpg, and setting a then-record FG% record...(as well as running away with Win-Shares), ...
his PER is 31.8.

Right now AD's is blowing that away at something like 33.6.

Just doesn't make sense at all.

And I agree with Pslieas...it basically PUNISHES players who play more mpg.

Again...I don't think they had the full box score information. And yes...you can't compare the PER of two players that aren't playing similar minutes.

As with all stats....you have to compare like with like.

[DMAVS41]

Chamberlain was crushing his peers on the the glass, as well. Not to mention that he had seasons where he was outshooting the league eFG% by margins of well over .100, and as high as .271.

Dude. You aren't getting it.

Some of the raw stats are hugely skewed here because Wilt played so many more minutes.

Wilt played roughly what...47 minutes a game in the years you are talking about?

Kareem played between 40 and 44.

Davis is playing 35.

Of course Davis is going to have an absurdly high PER...as he should. His production in those minutes is off the ****ing charts.

25/10/2/2/3 on 63% TS in 35 minutes per game? Insane production.

[chocolatethunder]

I get what PER attempts to do but really comparing two players of different eras is really tricky especially if you weren't alive to see them or don't really have a grasp of the context of the numbers. Right now, I would just say Robinson is one of the all time greats and Davis is killing it right now. While it's nice that PER takes pace into account and all that bullshit, it's not the be all end all of stats.

[j3lademaster]

So when a Chamberlain leads the league in 15 of the 22 recorded stats in 62-63, including running away with the scoring title, easily winning the rpg, and setting a then-record FG% record...(as well as running away with Win-Shares), ...
his PER is 31.8.

Right now AD's is blowing that away at something like 33.6.

Just doesn't make sense at all.

And I agree with Pslieas...it basically PUNISHES players who play more mpg.Agree with that to an extent. Basically you're increasing AD's stats by ~37% to bring it in line with Wilt's 47.6 mpg which obviously is BS. But the main killer of Wilt's per is his ft %. %'s are going to play the biggest impact on one's per because it's multiplicative, not additive like pts + rebs etc. 2nd big killer of Wilt's per is that... wasn't he averaging like 8 blocks which weren't recorded? Or something crazy like that. And who knows how many steals. Then last but not least, the pace of Wilt's era. With those stats Wilt will easily have the highest per's recorded in NBA history, despite his ft%'s and being "punished" for his impressive mpg and pace of his era. That's really damn impressive.

[j3lademaster]

I get what PER attempts to do but really comparing two players of different eras is really tricky especially if you weren't alive to see them or don't really have a grasp of the context of the numbers. Right now, I would just say Robinson is one of the all time greats and Davis is killing it right now. While it's nice that PER takes pace into account and all that bullshit, it's not the be all end all of stats.Who are you saying this to? I literally read zero posts in this thread making even close to such a claim.

[chocolatethunder]

Who are you saying this to? I literally read zero posts in this thread making even close to such a claim.
No one in particular, I'm making a statement about PER in general because the OP asked how could it be that AD's PER is better than Robinsons. Calm down pal, we're just talking about stats.

[dunksby]

PER is for stupid people who want everything explained to them by a plain two-digit number. There is no need for PER when you can study the stats that make up it's formula in detail individually.

[DMAVS41]

PER is for stupid people who want everything explained to them by a plain two-digit number. There is no need for PER when you can study the stats that make up it's formula in detail individually.

What?

It's a nice metric tons see how a player compares to league averages. You really want to go through all of that on a per metric basis when comparing a current player to a player from the 90's?

Jesus...it was never intended to represent the true value of a player overall. It's just a quick metric to see how a guy is performing in relation to his peers...

And again...you have to compare like with like.

You don't compare Wright's PER to to the PER of a player playing double his minutes.

[guy]

What?

It's a nice metric tons see how a player compares to league averages. You really want to go through all of that on a per metric basis when comparing a current player to a player from the 90's?

Jesus...it was never intended to represent the true value of a player overall. It's just a quick metric to see how a guy is performing in relation to his peers...

And again...you have to compare like with like.

You don't compare Wright's PER to to the PER of a player playing double his minutes.

Well using the same logic, its hard to compare someone like AD playing 35 mpg to someone like Robinson playing 38 mpg. Maybe not as hard, but still hard.

And I don't know. While it maybe safe to assume that the average player is the same across eras, maybe its not. Cause I have a hard time thinking the disparity is that wide where Robinson is nearly 6 PER below AD. Shit, I have a hard time thinking that AD this season is basically the most productive player of all-time which is what PER would indicate.

Its a stat. Shouldn't be taken too seriously, but this one really is. What it really says is the most productive per minute per possession adjusted for the average player in the league. I understand the usefulness, but I think a similar stat that didn't take into account MPG and didn't take into account what the average player in the league is doing would be more useful. I think just adjusting for pace still makes sense. Taking out the adjustment for MPG doesn't penalize players that are actually able to play more, which is a good thing. And taking out what the average player does makes it much more easier to compare across eras. There's already a lot of debate on how good the average player is today vs before, so it would make sense to take that out. Of course, not saying I would know how to do that, just a suggestion. 2013 Tim Duncan isn't better then 2001 Tim Duncan, but PER would tell you that he's better.

[stalkerforlife]

PER can be fun, but it absolutely does not tell you who the better player is from player to player.

It's just a gimmick to prop up your favorite players.

Robinson shits on Davis.

[Bodhi]

KAJ's 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were FAR more dominant than AD's current season.

PER is just another joke stat that a nerd came up with that explains nothing.

John Hollinger came up with PER and he's doing a pretty damn good job running the Grizzlies. I guarantee he knows more about basketball than any poster here

People are so caught up in their nostalgia goggles that they aren't realizing how great Anthony Davis is

[Sakkreth]

PER is just another stat and like any other stat it has to be taken in context. One stat alone will never show who's the better player.

[Kblaze8855]

Jesus...it was never intended to represent the true value of a player overall.

If you read what the guy who created it says...it sure sounds like thats what hes going for. Hell he comes right out saying the exact opposite of what some do when attempting to explain potential problems. ISH says...you cant compare guys who play different minutes. Hollinger says:


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.

He knows it isnt accurate because it cant account for defense at all(reason enough to disregard it for me). But after his cursory "I know it isnt perfect" he goes on explaining...thats its essentially perfect. Does it all the time.

[DMAVS41]

If you read what the guy who created it says...it sure sounds like thats what hes going for. Hell he comes right out saying the exact opposite of what some do when attempting to explain potential problems. ISH says...you cant compare guys who play different minutes. Hollinger says:



He knows it isnt accurate because it cant account for defense at all(reason enough to disregard it for me). But after his cursory "I know it isnt perfect" he goes on explaining...thats its essentially perfect. Does it all the time.

I don't care who is saying...don't care if it's the creator of the stat or the so called smartest guy in the world.

Only a moron would think comparing someone like Anthony Davis to Brandan Wright on PER makes sense.

Like you said...it doesn't account for defense (nor should it in my opinion) and while it's minute adjusted, it doesn't correct for guys playing completely different roles.

RAPM is much better at that...and even that you should always compare like with like.

But this seems like one of those long conversations where you say stats are stupid and they don't talk like that in the Barber Shop...etc.

PER has it's uses....those uses just aren't comparing different players playing completely different roles playing considerably different minutes per game.



Also, why would you disregard it because it doesn't include defense? That seems silly. Considering it's only a production stat essentially. Do you discount efg% because it doesn't include defense? Don't see the connection unless you are saying that PER needs to encapsulate an entire players' value for it to be worthwhile...and that is flawed like we've said. No difference between someone turning around and saying..."ppg doesn't include defense...so that's enough reason for me to disregard it"

Seems like just an ignorant view of what the goal of certain metrics should be used for if that is the case for you.

[3ball]

He isn't part of today's basketball but pretty much exactly what you describe.

(Both Karl Malone and Davis can make contested shots, but that's not their strength)


comparing karl malone to anthony davis is one of the worst comparisons you can make.

karl malone played nothing like anthony davis - malone was forced to play differently because he played in an era where there was no spacing - so it was impossible for karl to get all the freebees that anthony davis gets.

karl malone is one of the greatest scorers of all time at both creating his own shot and scoring ON defenders, which is the exact opposite of anthony davis... its just ridiculous to compare karl malone, one of the greatest 1-on-1 players ever, to a guy like davis who gets most of his points on freebees.
.

[ralph_i_el]

Davis 14-15 stats:
24.1 PPG
10.1 RPG
1.6 APG
1.8 SPG
2.9 BPG
57.1% FG
78.0% FT
1.9 FPG
1.3 TOPG
34.9 MPG
=========PER 33.10

Robinson 90-91 stats:
25.6 PPG
13.0 RPG
2.5 APG
1.5 SPG
3.9 BPG
55.2% FG
76.2% FT
3.3 FPG
3.2 TOPG
37.7 MPG
=========PER 27.40

I look at the stats, and the impact of both players, and feel David Robinson had the better stats, impact, skills, and contributed more to winning. How the hell does Davis have such a high PER? Robinson crushes him in rebounds and blocks

Fouls and turnovers. PER is also worked out so the league average is 15. In DRobs league, players might have played at a higher pace and therefore accrued more stats.

[ralph_i_el]

comparing karl malone to anthony davis is one of the worst comparisons you can make.

karl malone played nothing like anthony davis - malone was forced to play differently because he played in an era where there was no spacing - so it was impossible for karl to get all the freebees that anthony davis gets.

karl malone is one of the greatest scorers of all time at both creating his own shot and scoring ON defenders, which is the exact opposite of anthony davis... its just ridiculous to compare karl malone, one of the greatest 1-on-1 players ever, to a guy like davis who gets most of his points on freebees.
.

:rolleyes: Most of AD's points come off freebies, which is why he's taking 1/4 of his shots from the deep midrange, and hitting 50% of them. Just because he moves well off the ball and is great at catching Lobs and putbacks, doesn't mean he's not a nasty scorer. His faceup game is on point. Best combination of Length+Quickness in the league (Maybe Durant has him there but idk)

It's ridiculous to compare AD to Malone because AD is turning into a cross between Dirk and Tyson Chandler.

How can you disparage a guy for not playing 1 on 1 iso ball in an era where that strategy isn't nearly as effective?

[3ball]

Most of AD's points come off freebies, which is why he's taking 1/4 of his shots from the deep midrange, and hitting 50% of them.


open jumpers (like out of the pick n pop) ARE freebees.

he is not creating that offense - the guard creates it, and he just finishes the play... "finishing plays" doesn't just mean dunks - it includes jumpshots or ANY play where said player didn't create his own shot.

heck, 27% of shots today are 3-pointers, so right there, we know that at least 27% of today's shots are just play-finishing.





How can you disparage a guy for not playing 1 on 1 iso ball in an era where that strategy isn't nearly as effective?


the effectiveness of 1-on-1 play has not been reduced at all - but the spacing and rule changes have made ball movement easier, which has allowed ball movement to overtake 1-on-1 as a viable option.

but guys still go 1-on-1 all the time, and it's easier to set up an iso with spacing than without - heck almost all of westbrook, harden and kobe's buckets come off of 1-on-1.

i'm not knocking davis for NOT iso'ing - i'm saying that his offensive skill and stats should not be compared to guys in previous eras who didn't have the benefit of spacing and were FORCED to get all their stats by iso'ing and taking tougher shots.

today's spacing & rule changes make it easier to pass, cut, and drive, as the league intended - consequently, today's players get to take much easier shots than players in previous eras.
.

[ralph_i_el]

open jumpers (like out of the pick n pop) ARE freebees.

he is not creating that offense - the guard creates it, and he just finishes the play... "finishing plays" doesn't just mean dunks - it includes jumpshots or ANY play where said player didn't create his own shot.

heck, 27% of shots today are 3-pointers, so right there, we know that at least 27% of today's shots are just play-finishing.



the effectiveness of 1-on-1 play has not been reduced at all - but the spacing and rule changes have made ball movement easier, which has allowed ball movement to overtake 1-on-1 as a viable option.

but guys still go 1-on-1 all the time, and it's easier to set up an iso with spacing than without - heck almost all of westbrook, harden and kobe's buckets come off of 1-on-1.

i'm not knocking davis for NOT iso'ing - i'm saying that his offensive skill and stats should not be compared to guys in previous eras who didn't have the benefit of spacing and were FORCED to get all their stats by iso'ing and taking tougher shots.

today's spacing & rule changes make it easier to pass, cut, and drive, as the league intended - consequently, today's players get to take much easier shots than players in previous eras.
.

Oh so what you're saying is that if AD had a point guard like....John Stockton....he'd be scoring 30+ ppg?

The "Freebie" jumpers are created by the threat of him diving to the rim, or catching the pass and just going right by his man. You can't contest his jumper because if you come out to contest his triple threat at 18ft, he's going by you to the rim. He already has an all around game. You can create a shot with your off ball movement. Creating a shot doesn't mean just dribbling around or posting someone up.


How can anyone take you seriously when all you talk about is how the game is so much easier today and all of today's players can't hold a candle to guys from 20 years ago? You sound like an old man with alzheimers. We've all heard your spiel already dude give it a break :rolleyes:


OH and btw, we have the %ast'd stats for Malone's last 4 seasons (they didn't start recording that stat until 2000). He was assisted on a SIGNIFICANTLY higher % of his shots than Davis is (and he was scoring 20+ ppg in 3 of those seasons), and in none of those seasons did he shoot as high a % from midrange as AD is shooting now. If you take the scoring difference between those seasons and his prime, and consider the difference made up of only non-assisted iso shots, their %ast'd are about the same


Take off your nostalgia goggles.

[navy]

heck, 27% of shots today are 3-pointers, so right there, we know that at least 27% of today's shots are just play-finishing.


Are you really this dumb? :biggums:

[Kblaze8855]

I don't care who is saying...don't care if it's the creator of the stat or the so called smartest guy in the world.

Only a moron would think comparing someone like Anthony Davis to Brandan Wright on PER makes sense.

Like you said...it doesn't account for defense (nor should it in my opinion) and while it's minute adjusted, it doesn't correct for guys playing completely different roles.

RAPM is much better at that...and even that you should always compare like with like.

But this seems like one of those long conversations where you say stats are stupid and they don't talk like that in the Barber Shop...etc.

PER has it's uses....those uses just aren't comparing different players playing completely different roles playing considerably different minutes per game.

You can care or not. You dont tell me what was intended by something...when the creator says otherwise.

If he created it...his intent simply matters more than your opinion...when the issue is...what its intended to do.

The reasons I disregard PER are numerous....but when it comes down to it....im listening to its creator before...some guy...when the issue is how its to be used and judged.

If you created a formula...id probably look at it the way you intend. Id likely disregard its findings...but if the question is...how to use it...im asking you...not someone else.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

[juju151111]

open jumpers (like out of the pick n pop) ARE freebees.

he is not creating that offense - the guard creates it, and he just finishes the play... "finishing plays" doesn't just mean dunks - it includes jumpshots or ANY play where said player didn't create his own shot.

heck, 27% of shots today are 3-pointers, so right there, we know that at least 27% of today's shots are just play-finishing.



the effectiveness of 1-on-1 play has not been reduced at all - but the spacing and rule changes have made ball movement easier, which has allowed ball movement to overtake 1-on-1 as a viable option.

but guys still go 1-on-1 all the time, and it's easier to set up an iso with spacing than without - heck almost all of westbrook, harden and kobe's buckets come off of 1-on-1.

i'm not knocking davis for NOT iso'ing - i'm saying that his offensive skill and stats should not be compared to guys in previous eras who didn't have the benefit of spacing and were FORCED to get all their stats by iso'ing and taking tougher shots.

today's spacing & rule changes make it easier to pass, cut, and drive, as the league intended - consequently, today's players get to take much easier shots than players in previous eras.
.
bro seriously etc are you talking about. You just say nonsense all day. In any era the pick and roll Is deadly and a player who shoots the midrange has good has Davis would be a nightmare for any era. Just like Dirk was still a good player in 03 a noted defensive era. Davis is making his midrange shot like layups. No defense can stop it which is why the pick and roll has been around forever. His midrange with his freakish body and athleticism allows him to score so much. Karl Malone in the later part of his career and mvp year was making the sake damn midrange shots.

[3ball]

In any era the pick and roll Is deadly and a player who shoots the midrange has good has Davis would be a nightmare for any era. Just like Dirk was still a good player in 03 a noted defensive era. Davis is making his midrange shot like layups.


you guys aren't getting it - karl malone and dirk nowitski get plenty of freebees just like anthony davis...

but those guys were also exceptional at scoring ON their defender, which davis isn't... that's why you could give it to malone and dirk on the block and run the whole offense through them - you can't do that with davis.





bro seriously etc are you talking about. You just say nonsense all day.


no one said davis would get completely shut down in previous eras.

but more physicality and no spacing makes it harder for ANY player, particularly one whose game is built around taking advantage of spacing (freebees).

i'm not sure what got all you guys' panties in a bunch - all i said is that karl malone is a much better scorer than anthony davis, in particular, scoring ON defenders - this is common knowledge, but somehow I'M talking nonsense?

[3ball]

Are you really this dumb? :biggums:
you don't think 3-pointers are play finishing?

[juju151111]

you guys aren't getting it - karl malone and dirk nowitski get plenty of freebees just like anthony davis...

but those guys were also exceptional at scoring ON their defender, which davis isn't... that's why you could give it to malone and dirk on the block and run the whole offense through them - you can't do that with davis.



no one said davis would get completely shut down in previous eras.

but more physicality and no spacing makes it harder for ANY player, particularly one whose game is built around taking advantage of spacing (freebees).

i'm not sure what got all you guys' panties in a bunch - all i said is that karl malone is a much better scorer than anthony davis, in particular, scoring ON defenders - this is common knowledge, but somehow I'M talking nonsense?
It doesn't matter how he puts the ball in the basket has long has he does and he can take his man off the dribble. This isn't a Dwight Howard situation circa 07-10 before Howard got a post game. Davis has a face up game and his athleticism and freakish body allows him to get by people. He also not doing this against scrub competition. He faced LMA,Noah(Last DPOTY), Griffin, Spurs etc.... Not one of these teams really have come up with a solid way to stop him. I hope they make the playoffs tho because I want to sweep him in the Postseason for the final verdict, but in the regular season he has been stellar.

I agree prime Karl Malone is better then this years Davis creating his own shot tho.

[3ball]

Oh so what you're saying is that if AD had a point guard like....John Stockton....he'd be scoring 30+ ppg?


all players get freebees, but david robinson, nowitski and malone were also exceptional at scoring ON their defender, which davis isn't... that's why you could give it to malone, robinson, and dirk on the block and run the whole offense through them - you can't do that with davis.

i'm waiting to see if davis can dominate in the playoffs before i crown him a future all-time great.

and no one said davis would get completely shut down in previous eras.

but more physicality and no spacing makes it harder for ANY player, particularly one whose game is built around taking advantage of spacing (freebees/play-finishes).

all i said is that karl malone is a much better scorer than anthony davis, in particular, scoring ON defenders - this is common knowledge, but somehow I'M talking nonsense?
.

[SHAQisGOAT]

So it's an "in relation to the league" stat...which is why it's actually one of the best metrics to compare across eras statistically because it factors in how one performs (statistically at least) in relation to their peers.

Huh? More like the other way around, it's nice to use - not remotely close to the "ultimate stat" or something like that though - when comparing a player's certain season to his peers in that same season...

PER can't really be "compared" across eras.

You got years when blocks/steals weren't recorded, got years without a 3pt line, different rules (written/unwritten) across eras, different play styles and whatnot too, so on and so on... Too many things to account for, many "subtle things" that won't change the game/impact much but make a considerable difference, ultimately, in terms of PER.

Another example is, there's about a 10% difference in pace when comparing recent days to a decade like the 80's... Not considerable at all, especially/mostly when comparing stars; yet PER "takes it" into account as being considerable, plenty...

Bird once averaged 30/9/6 on 53/41/92... His highest PER is not really messing with Durant's highest, and Larry was averaging the same at today's pace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA
Shit, even in 1992 as a COMPLETE shell, Celtics' average pace below 96... Bird was putting up 20/10/7/1/1 in less than 37 min.

Magic's best PER is not as good as CP3's... Tell me you would take Paul over Magic? Same Magic who was still putting up his regular numbers, his usual impact, when he was past his peak with the Lakers' average pace of 94.
:rolleyes:

D-Wade's career high PER is better than Kareem's :rolleyes:

I could go on and on, many examples... PER is far from settling who's the better player, far from being the ultimate stat, and it has many "flaws" (when you can't use it or overblow it).

[Paul George 24]

davis - empty stats

[j3lademaster]

you don't think 3-pointers are play finishing?What if you create the shot yourself? Or get an outlet pass and pull up in transition?

[tpols]

you guys aren't getting it - karl malone and dirk nowitski get plenty of freebees just like anthony davis...

but those guys were also exceptional at scoring ON their defender, which davis isn't... that's why you could give it to malone and dirk on the block and run the whole offense through them - you can't do that with davis.



no one said davis would get completely shut down in previous eras.

but more physicality and no spacing makes it harder for ANY player, particularly one whose game is built around taking advantage of spacing (freebees).

i'm not sure what got all you guys' panties in a bunch - all i said is that karl malone is a much better scorer than anthony davis, in particular, scoring ON defenders - this is common knowledge, but somehow I'M talking nonsense?

Dirk is on a whole other level from Karl Malone in one on one situational scorers. Idk why you're lumping them together.

Karl Malone has significantly higher assisted percentages for the few years there's data available for it for him than Anthony Davis has had in his whole career. The same guy who was fed off pick and roll and in transition by arguably the greatest passer ever his whole career. And whose lack of defensive value goes completely unrecognized by the advanced Stat presented in the OP especially in comparison to Davis.

[Artillery]

Robinson played in the wrong era for a guy with his style. In the current NBA, his numbers would be even better than they already were in the 90s. His game meshes so well with the modern NBA.

[DatAsh]

This is the main matter. PER assumes that the stats of every player develop in a linear way at the exact same degree his mpg and pace increase or decrease, which obviously isn't the case. So, if Duncan produced 22/12 per 36 minutes for the "pace of 90" Spurs, PER assumes he'd be close to a 29/16 player if he played 40 mpg in the 80's for a "pace of 105" team.

Similarly, in the example of 2015 Davis vs 1991 Robinson, it assumes '91 Robinson is given a 14.6% bump of his stats due to the higher minutes and pace, so, it assumes Davis is a 28/12/3.3 bpg/58% FG player if he plays under the same circumstances.

Plus, like others have said, it takes TO's and fouls into account. Most people don't pay any attention to these 2 stats, but Davis is huge there, it's very impressive that a big man with some pretty high usage for a big only averages 1.4 TO's and a defender with his responsibilities only averages 2.0 fouls per game. I still expect that some numbers like his FG%'s and TO's will slip, but, unless injured and unless Westbrook goes nuts for the rest of the season (which I doubt), he has pretty much already secured this artificial PER title for this season and for many others to come.

Agree with everything, but Davis holds the ball less than Robinson imo. Robinson has more TO, but I don't think he's increasing team turnovers that much more, which is what really matters.

[2LeTTeRS]

If you read what the guy who created it says...it sure sounds like thats what hes going for. Hell he comes right out saying the exact opposite of what some do when attempting to explain potential problems. ISH says...you cant compare guys who play different minutes. Hollinger says:



He knows it isnt accurate because it cant account for defense at all(reason enough to disregard it for me). But after his cursory "I know it isnt perfect" he goes on explaining...thats its essentially perfect. Does it all the time.

Any metric that solely quantifies production by boxscore stats with no weight on impact on the game is incomplete. PER doesn't tell you if a player x is better than player y; it merely tells you which player puts up better #'s.

[DMAVS41]

You can care or not. You dont tell me what was intended by something...when the creator says otherwise.

If he created it...his intent simply matters more than your opinion...when the issue is...what its intended to do.

The reasons I disregard PER are numerous....but when it comes down to it....im listening to its creator before...some guy...when the issue is how its to be used and judged.

If you created a formula...id probably look at it the way you intend. Id likely disregard its findings...but if the question is...how to use it...im asking you...not someone else.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.


Well....I think if you had a conversation with him you'd come away more on my side because Hollinger isn't a moron. And only a moron thinks you can compare Anthony Davis and Brandan Wright using PER. Sorry...

Also, you dodged, as usual, the main issue I have with you here.

Why do you disregard PER because it doesn't account for defense? Again...does that mean you disregard fg% or ppg because they don't account for defense?

You saying that displays your ignorance about what PER is. It's not a single number to tell you which player is best overall on offense and defense. It just isn't that...and you holding it to that standard doesn't mean anything...just something someone that doesn't know what the **** they are talking about would do.

Why people have such a hard time with stats is beyond me. You try to compare like with like as much as possible. And even then...trying to boil down a player to one number is just idiotic...only made worse by people that think PER should be held to a different standard than any other single number.

In the same way MJ's fg% doesn't fully represent him as a player....PER doesn't fully represent what any player is or does.

Please explain...

[nathanjizzle]

I dont get how people are so obsessed with formulas to judge how good a player is, it just doesnt work and isnt reliable. Anyone that believes in it or uses it as an argument doesnt know basketball that well.

[3ball]

Dirk is on a whole other level from Karl Malone in one on one situational scorers. Idk why you're lumping them together.


this isn't true - you don't realize that all a player like karl malone needs is ONE GO-TO move to have offense-creating capability.

some guys had special moves they lived off of, like kareem's skyhook... for many bigs like karl malone, it was their turnaround jumpshot - karl could get 30+ just off of that, and did many nights.





Karl Malone has significantly higher assisted percentages for the few years there's data available for it for him


who cares - all players get freebees/play-finishes... but you could also run an entire offense through karl malone on the block.. you can't do that with davis.

karl malone can get 30+ by going 1-on-1 exclusively - his offensive repertoire had that capacity... the repertoire of anthony davis is not sufficient for this style of play, which is why he it would be much harder for him in previous eras.

[3ball]

Agree with everything, but Davis holds the ball less than Robinson imo. Robinson has more TO, but I don't think he's increasing team turnovers that much more, which is what really matters.
the reason robinson had way more turnovers is because he was CREATING OFFENSE, while davis just PLAY-FINISHES.... :facepalm

seriously, you can't see how the even the stats (not just the eye test) back up this notion?

[3ball]

So, if Duncan produced 22/12 per 36 minutes for the "pace of 90" Spurs, PER assumes he'd be close to a 29/16 player if he played 40 mpg in the 80's for a "pace of 105" team.

Similarly, in the example of 2015 Davis vs 1991 Robinson, it assumes '91 Robinson is given a 14.6% bump of his stats due to the higher minutes and pace, so, it assumes Davis is a 28/12/3.3 bpg/58% FG player if he plays under the same circumstances.


you've described how PER views the game, but do YOU think it makes sense to take a player's stats from one era, and multiply by a factor to get the stats they would put up in another era?

such a methodology ignores that previous eras played under different rules and played a different brand of basketball entirely.

i'm not sure people get it - if anthony davis was given the ball on the block in a 1-on-1 situation repeatedly and told to get 30 points that way, he would not be able to do it - but in previous eras, that's the only way a big man could have a big scoring game.

there was no spacing to facilitate ball movement for open shots like today's game, so guys like kareem, moses malone, and hakeem had to be experts at scoring ON defenders inside.

seriously, guys like hakeem olajuwon couldn't average 28ppg in the 80's, but we are supposed to believe PER when the stat says brandon wright, er, anthony davis would?... gtfo
.

[tpols]

this isn't true - you don't realize that all a player like karl malone needs is ONE GO-TO move to have offense-creating capability.

some guys had special moves they lived off of, like kareem's skyhook... for many bigs like karl malone, it was their turnaround jumpshot - karl could get 30+ just off of that, and did many nights.



who cares - all players get freebees/play-finishes... but you could also run an entire offense through karl malone on the block.. you can't do that with davis.

karl malone can get 30+ by going 1-on-1 exclusively - his offensive repertoire had that capacity... the repertoire of anthony davis is not sufficient for this style of play, which is why he it would be much harder for him in previous eras.
Thats just false.. Karl Malone never got 30+ consistently off his iso reportage.. He had one of the best passers and offensive set up man in the history of basketball for the large majority of his career. One of the biggest knocks on him was he couldn't score/take over with iso clutch scoring in the playoffs when it counted. Keep making shit up though. :oldlol:

[3ball]

One of the biggest knocks on him was he couldn't score/take over with iso clutch scoring in the playoffs when it counted.


there's something you are missing about the difference in eras..

unlike today, where the spacing enables the roll man to often be wide open when they finish the play at the rim, the roll man in previous eras still had to make a move when they caught the ball, and then they had to finish ON a defender - karl was one of the greatest finishers in history scoring in the paint ON defenders.

look at ANY game - karl finished ON defenders on literally 90% of his paint shots... otoh, the spacing allows davis to get more open shots and shots where the defense is late allowing davis to finish in stride.





He had one of the best passers and offensive set up man in the history of basketball for the large majority of his career.


and they did it with no spacing... no one spreading the floor... just imagine what they would do with today's spacing and 22 three-pointers per game (27% of all shot attempts).

and again, the reason they were so successful is due to karl's ability to score ON defenders at such a high rate off the pick and roll... not as many teams ran the pick and roll back then because the play wasn't as easy without spacing as it is today - players still had to make a move and score ON defenders after rolling or popping... but utah still had ton of success with it, because they had karl malone, one of the greatest players ever at scoring ON defenders in the paint.

it's amazing that you are arguing davis doesn't get most of his points off of freebees/play-finishes - he obviously does and it's pretty common knowledge... you are the troll for arguing against it.
.

[Psileas]

you've described how PER views the game, but do YOU think it makes sense to take a player's stats from one era, and multiply by a factor to get the stats they would put up in another era?

What makes you think I believe it makes sense? Never have I defended the view that a constant factor can be used to adjust for pace or playing time.

[Kblaze8855]

Well....I think if you had a conversation with him you'd come away more on my side because Hollinger isn't a moron. And only a moron thinks you can compare Anthony Davis and Brandan Wright using PER. Sorry...

Also, you dodged, as usual, the main issue I have with you here.

Why do you disregard PER because it doesn't account for defense? Again...does that mean you disregard fg% or ppg because they don't account for defense?

You saying that displays your ignorance about what PER is. It's not a single number to tell you which player is best overall on offense and defense. It just isn't that...and you holding it to that standard doesn't mean anything...just something someone that doesn't know what the **** they are talking about would do.

Why people have such a hard time with stats is beyond me. You try to compare like with like as much as possible. And even then...trying to boil down a player to one number is just idiotic...only made worse by people that think PER should be held to a different standard than any other single number.

In the same way MJ's fg% doesn't fully represent him as a player....PER doesn't fully represent what any player is or does.

Please explain...

Im gonna go on and let the mans words decide my opinion on what he thinks. Ive read too many articles/posted bits of them with him implying its a true measure of player value to assume he means it to be something else. He created it...its his baby..he props it up as a near all encompassing measure of ones basketball contributions. Not every time....but enough that I take his acknowledgment of its obvious errors the way I do an ISH poster saying "Sure ___ isn't perfect* and then going on to argue 40 pages about why it pretty much is. Like someone saying "With all due respect..." then disrespecting the hell outta the subject. Its just lip service.

Far as my disregarding what you claim is the meat of the issue....its fairly obvious my initial post was on Hollingers explanation of how to use it and how he believes since its done per minute its fine to judge players who play very different minutes. You trying to frame the argument elsewhere over a sentence doesn't mean I need to go into another tome on the ills of per and why each aspect of the game is poorly represented.

Ive literally written 3-4 part posts on the matter...tens of thousands of words im fairly sure you read at the time. I don't feel like a rehash.

At its most basic....we both know PER is often used(by its creator and many advocates) to suggest that player ____ simply had a better season or career than player ____. That's the primary use in day to day conversation.

And that use....again...only pays lip service to the obvious flaws while going on as the basis of epic arguments in favor of the formulas findings which disregard defense in full, when and how all stats come to be recorded, and too many other things to go into right now.

The formula simply does not give enough information for it to be used the way it often is. Doesn't matter how you feel it should be used...im talking bottom line use.

The way PER is often used as evidence of basketball performance is just a joke. And ive laughed enough over the years to not write any more books on the subject. Id be happy to direct you to previous discussions.

[LAZERUSS]

Just curious...

"Pace" is almost always used against players from previous eras, but I never see any compensation for eFG%'s.

For instance, Chamberlain shot .540 from the field in '66, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .433. Davis is shooting .579 in an NBA that is shooting an eFG% of .498. Wilt's .540 in '66 becomes .621 in '14-15.

And how about Wilt's '67 season? A .683 FG% in a league that shot .441. His .683 in '67 translates to .771 in '14-15.

KAJ averaged 31.7 ppg in '71, while playing 40.3 mpg. He shot .577 from the field, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .449. His .577 translates to .640 in today's NBA.

[Akhenaten]

karl malone, one of the greatest 1-on-1 players ever,
.

http://cdn.diply.com/img/1560149b-1630-4f58-a002-3fb5f477f5a4.jpg

[lilojmayo]

Can someone give me a cliff note version to this thread?

I've always wondered why Davis PER is higher than everyone else's in NBA history without really putting the best stats of all time ( eye test wise )

[DMAVS41]

Im gonna go on and let the mans words decide my opinion on what he thinks. Ive read too many articles/posted bits of them with him implying its a true measure of player value to assume he means it to be something else. He created it...its his baby..he props it up as a near all encompassing measure of ones basketball contributions. Not every time....but enough that I take his acknowledgment of its obvious errors the way I do an ISH poster saying "Sure ___ isn't perfect* and then going on to argue 40 pages about why it pretty much is. Like someone saying "With all due respect..." then disrespecting the hell outta the subject. Its just lip service.

Far as my disregarding what you claim is the meat of the issue....its fairly obvious my initial post was on Hollingers explanation of how to use it and how he believes since its done per minute its fine to judge players who play very different minutes. You trying to frame the argument elsewhere over a sentence doesn't mean I need to go into another tome on the ills of per and why each aspect of the game is poorly represented.

Ive literally written 3-4 part posts on the matter...tens of thousands of words im fairly sure you read at the time. I don't feel like a rehash.

At its most basic....we both know PER is often used(by its creator and many advocates) to suggest that player ____ simply had a better season or career than player ____. That's the primary use in day to day conversation.

And that use....again...only pays lip service to the obvious flaws while going on as the basis of epic arguments in favor of the formulas findings which disregard defense in full, when and how all stats come to be recorded, and too many other things to go into right now.

The formula simply does not give enough information for it to be used the way it often is. Doesn't matter how you feel it should be used...im talking bottom line use.

The way PER is often used as evidence of basketball performance is just a joke. And ive laughed enough over the years to not write any more books on the subject. Id be happy to direct you to previous discussions.


How PER is often used? Hell, I could point to a thousand posts on here about how fg% or ppg is often used. The comparison you are making doesn't hold.

If you discount PER because it doesn't include defense....on your line of thinking...you should discount ppg and fg%. Those two stats are often used in the exact same way you lament about PER.

Again, even if the creator of something is saying it...doesn't make it right. It's just an objective fact about this world that only an ignorant person would think you could accurately compare Brandan Wright and Anthony Davis using PER.

So basically what you are doing is just attacking the weakest point here and drawing conclusions. Which is fine, but that is why you lose out on seeing any value in PER and probably most stats as well.

I think you were the same guy telling me you don't like RAPM because it had Amir Johnson higher than Kobe a couple times. But again, saying things like that is just a profound misunderstanding.

Whatever...you'd think the fact that all teams have gone full steam ahead on advanced metrics and stats and data and analysis...that would be enough for you to consider perhaps the old "eye test" and "barber shop talk" isn't good enough. It's fine and getting a feel for a player team is still and always will be important, but so much goes on in a basketball game in which you aren't seeing...unless you are watching it like game tape repeatedly....and no way you have time for that.

PER shouldn't be held to the one number represents the player like some do...and it shouldn't be held to complete disregard status like you do.

[Mr Feeny]

Just curious...

"Pace" is almost always used against players from previous eras, but I never see any compensation for eFG%'s.

For instance, Chamberlain shot .540 from the field in '66, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .433. Davis is shooting .579 in an NBA that is shooting an eFG% of .498. Wilt's .540 in '66 becomes .621 in '14-15.

And how about Wilt's '67 season? A .683 FG% in a league that shot .441. His .683 in '67 translates to .771 in '14-15.

KAJ averaged 31.7 ppg in '71, while playing 40.3 mpg. He shot .577 from the field, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .449. His .577 translates to .640 in today's NBA.

You want to "adjust" shooting percentages now? Are you an idiot?

[LAZERUSS]

You want to "adjust" shooting percentages now? Are you an idiot?

Let me ask you this...

You wouldn't "adjust" for pitcher's ERAs in different era's? Is a 1.56 ERA in 1994, or a 1.74 ERA in 2000, the same as a 1.56 ERA in 1916 or 1968? Same with Kershaw's 1.77 ERA this past year. Is that better than Pedro's 2.07 in 1999?

There were reasons why players shot much worse in the early 60's. How about schedules which had five games in five nights? You are probably too young to remember the NBA strike a couple of years ago, but because of it, the NBA had to condense schedules for much of the first half of the season. Guess what...ppg and eFG%'s dropped like a lead balloon. When the schedule became more "normalized" (i.e., playing every other day), offensive production and efficiency went up.

I could, and have, posted player-after-player whose FG%'s rose dramatically from the early 60's into the late 60's, and beyond. Look up players like West, Imhoff, Johnny Green, ...even WILT. Same with KAJ. A prime Kareem had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513 in the 70's. He shot FAR better in the 80's. Look up Artis Gilmore. His FG%'s went thru the roof in the 80's.

Did all of those guys learn to shoot later in their careers?

[Mr Feeny]

Let me ask you this...

You wouldn't "adjust" for pitcher's ERAs in different era's? Is a 1.56 ERA in 1994, or a 1.74 ERA in 2000, the same as a 1.56 ERA in 1916 or 1968? Same with Kershaw's 1.77 ERA this past year. Is that better than Pedro's 2.07 in 1999?

There were reasons why players shot much worse in the early 60's. How about schedules which had five games in five nights? You are probably too young to remember the NBA strike a couple of years ago, but because of it, the NBA had to condense schedules for much of the first half of the season. Guess what...ppg and eFG%'s dropped like a lead balloon. When the schedule became more "normalized" (i.e., playing every other day), offensive production and efficiency went up.

I could, and have, posted player-after-player whose FG%'s rose dramatically from the early 60's into the late 60's, and beyond. Look up players like West, Imhoff, Johnny Green, ...even WILT. Same with KAJ. A prime Kareem had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513 in the 70's. He shot FAR better in the 80's. Look up Artis Gilmore. His FG%'s went thru the roof in the 80's.

Did all of those guys learn to shoot later in their careers?

Why are we discussing other sports all of a sudden? Your analogy is insanely wide off the mark.

As far as shooting percentages, you could argue that offensive play developed over the past few decades. Generally speaking, today's shooters are better than those who averaged 43%fg for their careers 50 years ago. You don't need numbers to see this. We can just open out eyes. Surely, you must see it as well?

Talking about schedules, we had a very messy schedule inslucing many back to back to backs 3 years ago. The shooting was still substanceally better than it was in the 60's

[ThatCoolKid]

Just curious...

"Pace" is almost always used against players from previous eras, but I never see any compensation for eFG%'s.

For instance, Chamberlain shot .540 from the field in '66, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .433. Davis is shooting .579 in an NBA that is shooting an eFG% of .498. Wilt's .540 in '66 becomes .621 in '14-15.

And how about Wilt's '67 season? A .683 FG% in a league that shot .441. His .683 in '67 translates to .771 in '14-15.

KAJ averaged 31.7 ppg in '71, while playing 40.3 mpg. He shot .577 from the field, in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .449. His .577 translates to .640 in today's NBA.

If the three point shot didn't exist until 1979, then of course all seasons prior to that would have a league eFG% much less than in the modern 3 point era. Wilt's eFG% wouldn't magically jump up proportionally just because other players were making threes, he certainly didn't have the range to shoot 3s himself. Same with KAJ.

[LAZERUSS]

If the three point shot didn't exist until 1979, then of course all seasons prior to that would have a league eFG% much less than in the modern 3 point era. Wilt's eFG% wouldn't magically jump up proportionally just because other players were making threes, he certainly didn't have the range to shoot 3s himself. Same with KAJ.

VERY narrow-minded post.

Wilt averaged 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG% in 1960.
He averaged 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG% in 1962.
He averaged 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG% in 1966.
He averaged 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG% in 1967.

BTW, from '62 on, his FT% declined almost every season. Did he become a better shooter later in his career, or did something else change?

KAJ averaged 35 ppg on a .574 FG% in '72.
He averaged 30 ppg on a .513 FG% in '74.
He averaged 25 ppg on a .604 FG% in '80.
And he averaged 22 ppg on a .599 FG% in '85.

Look up Gilmore. A PRIME 27 year old Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on a .522 FG% in '77. A 35 year old Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on a .623 FG% in '85. What changed?


The reality is...DEFENSIVE SCHEMES change yearly. AS does the way certain players are defended.

As for the 3pt shot...it has SPREAD the floor. Low-post players are shooting unfathomable FG%'s now. Even horrific shooters like Brandan Wright can shoot .700+ now.

A washed up, 370 lb. Shaq hung a 45 point as recently as 2009. How?

I'm sorry, but you really need to STUDY the game. A prime KAJ and Wilt would FEAST today. Their FG%'s likely would go thru the roof.

[greymatter]

PER normalizes everything to a league average of 15 PER. 91-92 featured a league with much deeper talent. PER is a measure one's contributions vs everyone else in the league. Davis' PER being higher than Drob's is more a reflection of this than uh....actually being better than Drob was.

Let's not get carried away here. Drob was a superstar from his rookie season and was a DPOY candidate every year of his prime. Davis will probably develop into a regular all NBA defender, but will never hold a candle to Drob on the defensive end.

The talent level of the league's best defensive bigs is a joke compared to the talent of years past. No one in their right mind would take Chandler, Noah, Gasol, Ibaka over the likes of prime KG, Duncan, Mourning, Ben Wallace, pre-injury D12.

[Kblaze8855]

How PER is often used? Hell, I could point to a thousand posts on here about how fg% or ppg is often used. The comparison you are making doesn't hold.

If you discount PER because it doesn't include defense....on your line of thinking...you should discount ppg and fg%. Those two stats are often used in the exact same way you lament about PER.

Again, even if the creator of something is saying it...doesn't make it right. It's just an objective fact about this world that only an ignorant person would think you could accurately compare Brandan Wright and Anthony Davis using PER.

So basically what you are doing is just attacking the weakest point here and drawing conclusions. Which is fine, but that is why you lose out on seeing any value in PER and probably most stats as well.

I think you were the same guy telling me you don't like RAPM because it had Amir Johnson higher than Kobe a couple times. But again, saying things like that is just a profound misunderstanding.

Whatever...you'd think the fact that all teams have gone full steam ahead on advanced metrics and stats and data and analysis...that would be enough for you to consider perhaps the old "eye test" and "barber shop talk" isn't good enough. It's fine and getting a feel for a player team is still and always will be important, but so much goes on in a basketball game in which you aren't seeing...unless you are watching it like game tape repeatedly....and no way you have time for that.

PER shouldn't be held to the one number represents the player like some do...and it shouldn't be held to complete disregard status like you do.

The Amir thing stood out to me so let me direct you to a bit of the topic being discussed at the time:



Iggy is better than Kobe. Why? Because he plays FAR FAR better defense. You can't deny this.


Note...that's from 2009 when Kobe had won MVP the previous year....and led his team to the next 2 titles.



Odom was over Dirk last year..Odom had an incredible year..especially on the defensive end. if you look at the stats you will understand why...He had a Def APM of 5.52, Dirk had a Def APM of 1.62.....Lamar Odom is GREAT defender, Dirk is slightly above average.





If the statistic says somebody sucks that you think is good..it's because they SUCK and you are wrong. It's not because the stat is bad..the stat is good, it's your intuition that is terribly wrong.



Kevin Durant also sucked...Dwight at the peak of his career...was worse than aging Brad Miller...Dwight was slightly above average in his 09 season..he said with no room for misinterpretation that Thaddeus Young was better.....Durant sucked(in the 300s)...oh and:




An average team A with Amir Johnson, playing an average team B with Kobe Bryant beats them. You see, since Amir Johnson is a bad offensive player, his team will score 98 points instead of 100, but since Kobe is a bad defender, he'll give up two points on d so Amir's team is back at 100 points scored. But playing his lockdown defense Amir's defense will cause his opponents team to score 8 less points than normal. Which means Kobe's average team would normally score 92 points, but since they have Kobe, they will score 7 points above their average meaning they will score 99 points per 100 possessions.

Team A of four average players and Amir Johnson at power forward would beat Team B of four average players and Kobe Bryant at sg 100-99.

Oh and he believed Jamison was better than 08 Tim Duncan and that Nene was better some seasons of Duncans prime.

Also:


Because COMMON SENSE is WRONG...



I WIN. You Lose. You just aren't smart enough bud. sorry.

Brutal KO

This guy was an idiot at best and a maniac at worst.



Now...

Disregarding PER isn't the same as disregarding production.....

Its much like TS%.

I disregard it because I have the numbers that comprise it and nothing is gained by combining them....I still have to go see how it was reached to learn anything about how the player is playing.

PER is the same.

Why does it need to be considered....when every number that generates it is on the same page to glance at?

I'll decide for myself what to value....John Hollinger does not need to decide what an offensive rebound is worth for me.

[DMAVS41]

You can decide whatever you want...

I'm talking about disregarding something because it doesn't do something it's not designed to do. That is what I don't follow with you.

If someone was using RAPM or PER in the way the guy above was...I'm right there with you.

But I'd be just as much against someone using fg% or ppg in that way as well.