How come we don't see any mention of PER or efficiency anymore?

[The Iron Fist]

I thought the consensus was that was the best way to determine who the best player is along with 50% fg.

[HOoopCityJones]

The excuses have changed my good man.

[The Iron Fist]

The excuses have changed my good man.
I hear you. Its just weird because, for as long as I've been here, even before this name, all I've heard is that PER is the best metric to determine who the best players are with FG% a close second. During that time, I also remember people mentioning something about, "turning your pla", no, wait, it was, "workin", no, um, something about how you fix your team, hold on, lemme think. Oh yea, "making your teammates better". It didn't matter how terrible the teammates were or if they even deserved to be in the league, as long as a guy was on your team, it was the leaders responsibility to make his teammates better.

I don't hear much of that anymore. Or is it translated into spanish as "he needs more help"?

[9erempiree]

I killed it with my "efficient but not dominant" campaign.

[3ball]

PER is actually a good metric - all the raw production metrics are good - otoh, it turns out the media and stat guy's infatuation with efficiency is OVER.

everyone thought it was all about efficiency last year, until the Spurs blew that theory right out of the water - but at the time, people didn't realize THAT's why the Spurs had won by so much.

this year, Lebron showed everyone that volume and raw production > efficiency, because volume can help control the flow of the game and help your team play at it's preferred pace... If he had attempted 35 shots per game in last year's Finals instead of 17, his team would have had a chance to win, just like they did this year.

raw production measures like PER and PPG are good... i also like the offensive win share stat, since it measures how many points a player "produces" (special definition) over and above the average player (be aware that it is tied to the team's wins).

[bobopenguin]

- any stats that work against lebron are not allowed to be discussed
- any facts that prove to be against Lebron are not allow to be brought up.
- any players that perform better than Lebron are not allowed to be discussed.

u have to obey these rules in this forum otherwise one of the stan will flood u with the lion essay.
:no:

[nzahir]

PER is actually a good metric - all the raw production metrics are good - otoh, it turns out the media and stat guy's infatuation with efficiency is OVER.

everyone thought it was all about efficiency last year, until the Spurs blew that theory right out of the water - but at the time, people didn't realize THAT's why the Spurs had won by so much.

this year, Lebron showed everyone that volume and raw production > efficiency, because volume can help control the flow of the game and help your team play at it's preferred pace... If he had attempted 35 shots per game in last year's Finals instead of 17, his team would have had a chance to win, just like they did this year.

raw production measures like PER and PPG are good... i also like the offensive win share stat, since it measures how many points a player "produces" (special definition) over and above the average player (be aware that it is tied to the team's wins).
If volume>raw production why did cavs lose but when lebron was efficient in 2012 and 2013 they won?? :D

[Doranku]

If volume>raw production why did cavs lose but when lebron was efficient in 2012 and 2013 they won?? :D

In 2012 and 2013, LeBron had Wade and Bosh.

This finals, LeBron had Matthew Dellavedova and JR Smith





Is it really that hard to figure out?

[coin24]

If volume>raw production why did cavs lose but when lebron was efficient in 2012 and 2013 they won?? :D

In 2012 he had barrier and miller on fire. Plus wade and bosh
2013 was Ray Ray..

2014 not enough to carry his overrated ass and thus the heat got there shit pushed in.

2015 ISO bran, single coverage and look what happened..:lol

[Pushxx]

Efficiency as important as it ever has been, and there are a lot of ways to investigate it when analyzing the NBA and its players.

PER, on the other hand, is being more widely realized as the ambiguously-weighted stat that it is.

[nzahir]

In 2012 and 2013, LeBron had Wade and Bosh.

This finals, LeBron had Matthew Dellavedova and JR Smith





Is it really that hard to figure out?
I obviously knew the answer, I was trying to get it out of him and for him to realize that you also need a team to win

[SugarHill]

2014 Durant came along and it's been decided that PER is bad unless LeBron leads the league again. Until then PER sucks.

[HOoopCityJones]

2014 Durant came along and it's been decided that PER is bad unless LeBron leads the league again. Until then PER sucks.

The sad part is it's the truth. :roll:

[HurricaneKid]

Out of curiosity OP (and some of the rest of you), do you seriously think LeBron's Finals PER wasn't an absolutely insane number? Because it was. PER rewards volume shooting.

[J Shuttlesworth]

So I'm confused... are you guys saying PER is a good stat or not?

[daily]

:rolleyes:
I killed it with my "efficient but not dominant" campaign.Nope. Nobody takes you serious


Lebron killed it with with his below average shooting this post season

[Rocketswin2013]

PER rewards shot jacking. I think his PER would be fine. IIRC his PER was worse than Curry's and Harden's before the Finals. Now it isn't, that should solve it. BTW - PER rewards shot jacking because of offensive rebounding opportunities it gives, which was really relevant to this series.

[ISHGoat]

Im a huge lestan and ill say that if lebron was more efficient, that would have led to a higher PER and they would not have lost in 6 like they did

[SugarHill]

PER rewards shot jacking. I think his PER would be fine. IIRC his PER was worse than Curry's and Harden's before the Finals. Now it isn't, that should solve it. BTW - PER rewards shot jacking because of offensive rebounding opportunities it gives, which was really relevant to this series.
How come Kobe never had truly impressive PER?

[warriorfan]

PER is for lazy people who dont watch games and can't take individual stats into context. for lame kids who think real basketball is like video games and you can compare players properly by taking 1 made up number and seeing whoever's is larger.

[NBASTATMAN]

PER is still very Relevant... What were Curry's and Bron's PER for the Finals ?

Lebron's PER for the entire playoffs were 25.3 .. Very good but not MJ like or even Lebron like 2012-2014

Curry 's PER for the entire playoffs were 24.5 and he led the playoffs in Win Shares... Great playoffs for Curry..


MJ always had the besT PER, best stats, always won the big games, and he passed KOBESTANS EYE TEST TOO... :roll:

[Sarcastic]

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/lockerroom/movinggoalpost.gif

https://warosu.org/data/ck/img/0054/34/1400084863723.jpg

[HOoopCityJones]

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/lockerroom/movinggoalpost.gif

https://warosu.org/data/ck/img/0054/34/1400084863723.jpg

Damn. :oldlol:

[hawke812]

So I'm confused... are you guys saying PER is a good stat or not?

They saying is good when it shows lebron in a good light. Bad when it does not:confusedshrug:

[gilalizard]

So I'm confused... are you guys saying PER is a good stat or not?


When it favors LeBron, it is. If it doesn't favor LeBron, it isn't.

It really couldn't be more clear.

[Rocketswin2013]

How come Kobe never had truly impressive PER?
I'd say his '06 PER is pretty impressive. 28-30 is the same tier IMO. 30+is next level.
Curry had a 28 PER this year while sitting out fourths. He was at 26-9-5 65 TS% per 36. That's insane.

LeBron was at 29-8-7 on 62 TS% in 09 and he sat out fourths. "Next level".

25-27 is just, "great". Below that, it's only all-star level and "really good". This is just my opinion(except the off reb, that's fact), I'm no advanced stat nerd with this.