Author Topic: Is anyone super into "PER"?  (Read 3041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is anyone super into "PER"?
« on: December 19, 2014, 03:48:50 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Just curious... is there any stat junkies out there who are huge fans of "PER"?  I think most of us don't take it seriously, but do any of you stand by it? 

It's interesting, because Rondo historically has a pretty horrible "PER". 

Last year he was 129th with a PER of 15.34
This year he is 150th with a PER of 15.18

Meanwhile, Brandan Wright is a poster-boy for PER.

Last year he was 13th with a PER of 23.60
This year he is 6th with a PER of 26.18

If ever there was a trade that put John Hollinger's reputation on the line... it was the trade we just saw.  Boston moved arguably one of the most overrated players in the league for one the most underrated.  I can't help but be curious to see what happens here.  This is either going to put the nail in the coffin for "PER" or prove it as relevant.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2014, 04:01:33 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
PER is a formula every analyst has some version of it. Hell even some fans do. Formulas can produce funny results.  Yet Wright for his PT has been efficient. Try to think of him more like Humphries than LeBron when it comes to player impact with good PER.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2014, 04:06:08 AM »

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
I think PER just needs some context. Even conventional basketball wisdom would suggest that guys who otherwise would be terrible playing 30 mpg can see their weaknesses minimized and strengths maximized a) in certain roles/systems and b) playing fewer minutes. Wright consistently defends against bench-level competition and operates in an offensive system that creates numerous looks at point-blank range for him.

Can PER tell me that Wright is better than Kendrick Perkins, who plays a similar role in similar minutes (albeit in a far less effective offensive system)? Yeah, probably. But there's no way I'm letting it convince me he's better than DeAndre Jordan, who plays a similar role in greater minutes.


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2014, 04:13:05 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Agreed. Roles and system will always effect efficiency.  If he is finishing at rim and has a high assisted fgs made total it is a PER red flag that formula results don't fully apply to suggesting a player is good.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2014, 04:37:58 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
FWIW, guys like pierce and kg continued to have high PER even as they aged.  Not Rondo, though.  He's always been a low PER guy.

And there aren't a lot of Brandan Wrights out there... backups who average 20+ in PER.  It seems kind of rare.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2014, 04:56:06 AM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
  • Tommy Points: 156
While I think PER has some merit, I just don't think advanced stats work for basketball like they do for baseball.  There are way too many variables in basketball to quantify players with any kind of equation.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2014, 10:11:45 AM »

Offline JDHarkrider

  • Maine Celtic
  • Posts: 1
  • Tommy Points: 0
I am - I think it's the best stat out there - sort of like QBR in football - because it punishes volume shooters, and takes into account rebounds, and assists.

When you have stats like this, it's always good to look at who is highest ranked in PER both in a given year and overall, and then see if that meets the eyeball test. 

For this year for players with more than 100 minutes, the PER rankings are Russell Westbrook, Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, Stepen Curry, Brandan Wright, James Harden, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul and Dwaye Wade - that's a pretty good list, right?

On a career basis, it's Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaq, David Robinson, Wilt Chamberlain, Chris Paul, Bob Pettit, Dwayne Wade, Neil Johnston, and Charles Barkley.   

So then you might think, ok, so that's for averages, are there outliers on an annual basis?  Here's a list of the players who have EVER had PER over 26:  Yao Ming, Anthony Davis, Chamberlain, Stoudemire, Oscar Robertson, Moses Malone, Garnett, Love, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Barkley, Duncan, Malone, Kareem, LeBron, Hakeem, Pettit, David Robinson, Dirk, Wade, Jordan, Bird, Durant, Paul, Mikan, Wilt.

So that's a great list.  No idea if Wright is an outlier.  We'll see. 

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2014, 10:18:36 AM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
This is the actual calculation for PER: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

I have yet to hear someone explain why there is ANY logic behind how it is calculated. I would love for someone to do it.



And Brandan Wright is going to do well in any efficiency-based stat because he does nothing but dunk which as you may have heard is a highly efficient shot. If you asked him to play a large role he would have take more difficult shots than dunks and he would have a mediocre PER.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2014, 10:22:41 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I am - I think it's the best stat out there - sort of like QBR in football - because it punishes volume shooters, and takes into account rebounds, and assists.

When you have stats like this, it's always good to look at who is highest ranked in PER both in a given year and overall, and then see if that meets the eyeball test. 

For this year for players with more than 100 minutes, the PER rankings are Russell Westbrook, Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, Stepen Curry, Brandan Wright, James Harden, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul and Dwaye Wade - that's a pretty good list, right?

On a career basis, it's Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaq, David Robinson, Wilt Chamberlain, Chris Paul, Bob Pettit, Dwayne Wade, Neil Johnston, and Charles Barkley.   

So then you might think, ok, so that's for averages, are there outliers on an annual basis?  Here's a list of the players who have EVER had PER over 26:  Yao Ming, Anthony Davis, Chamberlain, Stoudemire, Oscar Robertson, Moses Malone, Garnett, Love, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Barkley, Duncan, Malone, Kareem, LeBron, Hakeem, Pettit, David Robinson, Dirk, Wade, Jordan, Bird, Durant, Paul, Mikan, Wilt.

So that's a great list.  No idea if Wright is an outlier.  We'll see.

It doesn't punish volume shooters, actually -- it does the opposite.

At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2014, 10:26:50 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
PER doesn't punish volume shooters. One of the primary reasons Rondo's PER is so low is that he doesn't shoot much.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2014, 10:32:29 AM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17833
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
I am - I think it's the best stat out there - sort of like QBR in football - because it punishes volume shooters, and takes into account rebounds, and assists.

When you have stats like this, it's always good to look at who is highest ranked in PER both in a given year and overall, and then see if that meets the eyeball test. 

For this year for players with more than 100 minutes, the PER rankings are Russell Westbrook, Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, Stepen Curry, Brandan Wright, James Harden, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul and Dwaye Wade - that's a pretty good list, right?

On a career basis, it's Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaq, David Robinson, Wilt Chamberlain, Chris Paul, Bob Pettit, Dwayne Wade, Neil Johnston, and Charles Barkley.   

So then you might think, ok, so that's for averages, are there outliers on an annual basis?  Here's a list of the players who have EVER had PER over 26:  Yao Ming, Anthony Davis, Chamberlain, Stoudemire, Oscar Robertson, Moses Malone, Garnett, Love, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Barkley, Duncan, Malone, Kareem, LeBron, Hakeem, Pettit, David Robinson, Dirk, Wade, Jordan, Bird, Durant, Paul, Mikan, Wilt.

So that's a great list.  No idea if Wright is an outlier.  We'll see.

It doesn't punish volume shooters, actually -- it does the opposite.
dos, my knowledge concerning PER is negligible to zip. from what little i gather, PER rewards efficency. yet, your point says the opposite - that volume shooters (the antithesis of efficient shooters) are not punished.

my head hurts.  :-[ please explain for me.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2014, 10:35:52 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
No problem! The easiest example comes from a Wages of Wins article from a couple years back:

Quote
Say a player shoots 40% from two point range. If he takes 10 shots his PERs ranking will rise by 6.6 (4*1.65) and decline by 4.32 (6*0.72). So the net gain is 2.28. If he doubles his shot attempts to 20 he will see his PERs ranking rise by 13.2 (8*1.65) and decline by 8.64 (12*0.72). Now his net gain is 4.56. The player is still shooting 40%, which is below average. But his PERs ranking increases the more shots he takes.

http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/24/john-hollinger-responds/

So, basically, PER rewards efficient shooting, but it also happens to reward shooting in general, efficient or not.

edit: I'll add to this that the values Hollinger has given to the various box score stats -- it's been broken down a few places over the years:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113144-cracking-the-code-how-to-calculate-hollingers-per-without-all-the-mess
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/04/wayne-winston-simplifies-pers/

are entirely arbitrary. There's a bit of an internet myth that he wanted to create a catch all formula that would still put Jordan at the top of the charts, as if that needed any justification, which is why the things are weighted the way they are.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2014, 10:41:17 AM by D.o.s. »
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2014, 10:47:44 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Meanwhile, Brandan Wright is a poster-boy for PER.

I don't think this is true.  Brandan Wright is a poster-boy for advanced analytics in general and looks good under metrics such as Wins Produced, Win Shares, and Real Plus-Minus.

Rondo, on the other hand looks better using some of these other methods vs. PER.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2014, 10:53:52 AM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
That's funny, because Brandon Wright is actually one of my classic examples over the past couple years of why PER is useless.

I'll never understand people's desire to narrow stats down into one less specific number.  Does looking at 5 different numbers really take that much longer?  You WANT stats to tell you something about an area of the game, if you're going to go and generalize them that completely ruins the purpose.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: Is anyone super into "PER"?
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2014, 11:01:13 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I'll never understand people's desire to narrow stats down into one less specific number.  Does looking at 5 different numbers really take that much longer?  You WANT stats to tell you something about an area of the game, if you're going to go and generalize them that completely ruins the purpose.

While we may find ourselves on the opposite sides of an opinion from time to time, I wholeheartedly cosign this post.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.