http://www.82games.com/1415/1415BOS5.HTM
I recognize that this is a small sample at this point in the season but I find it interesting that based on Position PER, our two strongest positions are SF and C while most of the "conventional wisdom" is that our strongest positions are PG and PF.
Sullinger has minutes at both PF and C and actually has much better PER numbers according to 82Games when he plays C. http://www.82games.com/1415/14BOS12.HTM .
Go figure....
(I recognize that PER is not an end all stat but it is reasonable to gage a trend or relative performance).
Some of those numbers seem shaky. Here's why:
According to the team data we are +5.9 at C and +2.2 at SF and -1.6 at PF, -3.3 at SG and -2.7 at PG, right?
So then go to the C's front page and look at the individual players. Let's look at who as an individual is positive:
Sullinger is +9; according to the same site he's played twice as much at PF than at C. Smart is at +2.3 and Rondo is at 2.0 vs their opponent; these guys should be our PGs. Zeller is +1.2, so between his contribution and Sully's C contribution, that's the C positive component. Thornton is +2.9, 5 times as much at SG than SF, but SF is the one that is positive. Everyone else is Negative. Green, the majority of time at SF, is negative, but somehow SF as the team is positive.
I don't know. Seems sloppy. Basically our positive players are 2 PGs, a solid young player best suited at PF long term, a journeyman gunner SG and a young interesting C playing only 14 mpg.
The net 'by position' differentials are positional PER differentials whereas the plus/minus numbers on the front page are simple net plus/minus ratings. They are totally different numbers so don't look for them to match up.
If you look at Sullinger's positional page, in the third of his time that he has played the Center position, he has posted a PER of 36.3, whereas during those minutes, the opposing team's Center has posted a PER of 12.2. Thus, for those minutes, the Celtics enjoyed a positional advantage of 24.1 PER rating at that position.
In his minutes at PF, the Net PER advantage has been smaller, just 1.5. Yet he has played 2/3 of his minutes at that position.
When Kelly has been at center, his net positional PER differential has been -1.6. He's enjoyed a much better positional advantage at PF, with a net PER of 5.6, but he has played only 11% of his minutes at PF.
Finally, Zeller has played all of his limited minutes at Center, and has posted a net PER of 5.5.
Bass hasn't really played Center at all - just a blink of time so we'll ignore him.
Basically what this shows is that we've actually manned the Center position with those three guys to an aggregate of:
Kelly: 234 minutes at Net PER of -1.5
Sully: 108 minutes at Net PER of +24.1
Zeller: 138 minutes at Net PER of 5.5
The weighted average of that is: +5.9 So that's where that number comes from.
Now, the simplistic analysis might think that this means that Sully should be playing center more than Kelly and Kelly should be playing more PF than Sully. And maybe that is true. Or not. You have to look at the actual match ups. Maybe, in this short, small-sample season so far Sully has played center against inferior opposing centers. Or maybe Kelly has had the fortune of playing PF against inferior PFs. The sample sizes need to get bigger and against more varied opponents before we use this sort of data to start to form an opinion.
Similarly, at other positions. For example, the team SF net PER is +2.2. Green's personal overall net PER is negative, so you ask how can that be? Well, Green's net PER at the SF position is a solid +5.2. It's the 19% of his minutes that he's been at PF that are killing his PER rating as, at that position his Net PER is a horrible -19.3.
In addition to dragging Green's individual net numbers down, of course, his minutes at PF also drag down the team's positional Net PER at PF. That's why, even though both Sully and Kelly have overall positive PF numbers, the team Net PER at PF is just -1.6.
Dear Brad: Please. Stop putting Green at PF. This is something a lot of us have been screaming about for years. Green is an SF. Not a PF. Oh, and while you are at it, please keep Turner at SG. He is sucking wind at SF.And so on. Hopefully this makes the numbers a little clearer.
It also suggests that so far, we probably have not always played players at the most optimal positions.