Batum for #4 pick?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

We've beaten this pretty well to death, and I'm certainly not going to look at regular season vs. playoff PERs for every 3rd option on every playoff team. Just a couple general points. Batum should not have been our 3rd option against MEM. He was actually our 6th leading scorer during the regular season (5th if you count Wes and Afflalo as 1 option since we got Afflalo about a week before Wes went down). Batum's major strength is his rebounding and facilitating. He averaged 8.6 RPG and 5.2 APG in the playoffs. Other than LeBron, name one small forward in the playoffs this year that topped one of those numbers, let alone both. I think most teams would take that kind of production, plus his 14.2 PPG, from their small forward in the playoffs. Again, I'm not saying Batum played great, but you don't average 14.2 PPG, 8.6 RPG and 5.2 APG (or 15.2 PPG, 7.6 RPG and 4.8 APG last year) by disappearing.

And, it wasn't just this year. Batum played very well against HOU last year and both his PPG and RPG were up, and his APG about the same in the playoffs last year vs. the regular season.

I admit I discount Batum's earlier playoff performances under Nate McMillan. McMillan always severely under utilized Batum. Under Nate, Batum's one and only role was to stand in the corner for the occasional corner 3.

Second, PER isn't the be all end all stat to begin with, but it's absolutely HORRIBLE when comparing small sample sizes, like a single playoff series (in Batum's case). Just look at Spencer Hawes, for example. He had an absolutely stellar PER = 18.8 in the post season, compared to a rather crappy PER = 9.8 during the regular season. If you're just going by PER, it certainly looks like Hawes was one of those role players that stepped up his game in the playoffs. The truth is much different. Over two series, Hawes played in 8 playoff games, but did not make one single meaningful contribution to his team. He only played garbage time minutes. In the first round, he scored 2 points in a 27-point loss to SAS. In the second round against HOU, he scored 2 points in a 25-point win, 8 points in a 33-point win and 11 points in a 21-point loss - all meaningless garbage time points that had zero impact on his team's playoff success. But, there's that gaudy playoff PER of 18.8.

Yeah, I know it's just one example, but PER has always led to a large number of what I call S^4 - Small Sample Size Superstars, guys who have all-star like PERs, but don't really help their teams win. Of course, with a small sample size, it can also swing in the other direction. If a player has one bad game, it can drastically skew their PER in a 4 or 5 game playoff series.

BNM

That's why you look at PER in accordance with USG% and use a minutes restriction to eliminate things such as Spencer Hawes. We will just have to agree to disagree, I find that PER is pretty good indicator of how good a player is - otherwise, the top players in the league wouldn't be damn near at the top of PER. If you eliminate players based on games played, limited minutes, it pretty much shows you who stands out from the rest. I'm not seeing a whole lot of "PER superstars" that are false positives on this list...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics
 
That's why you look at PER in accordance with USG% and use a minutes restriction to eliminate things such as Spencer Hawes. We will just have to agree to disagree, I find that PER is pretty good indicator of how good a player is - otherwise, the top players in the league wouldn't be damn near at the top of PER. If you eliminate players based on games played, limited minutes, it pretty much shows you who stands out from the rest. I'm not seeing a whole lot of "PER superstars" that are false positives on this list...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics

The top players have the highest PERs because they all score a lot. It's a pretty simple correlation. PER is heavily influenced by scoring and can be misleading for players whose primary role is not scoring. It's Hollinger's attempt at one stat to rule them all. It's not useless, but it's far from perfect. You mentioned Jimmy Butler, until he started scoring 20 PPG, he had a pretty ho um PER. Draymond Green is a GREAT role player, but he'll never score enough to come close to a 20 PER player. By definition, a single playoff series is a small sample size.

BNM
 
The top players have the highest PERs because they all score a lot. It's a pretty simple correlation. PER is heavily influenced by scoring and can be misleading for players whose primary role is not scoring. It's Hollinger's attempt at one stat to rule them all. It's not useless, but it's far from perfect. You mentioned Jimmy Butler, until he started scoring 20 PPG, he had a pretty ho um PER. Draymond Green is a GREAT role player, but he'll never score enough to come close to a 20 PER player. By definition, a single playoff series is a small sample size.

BNM

Also--- it wasn't a single playoff series. IT was the course of his career here.
If you look at the list I have given you, not everyone on that list are elite, or even great, scorers.

A lot of them are really well-rounded players and strong defenders are up there, too.

Once again, I think the true importance of PER is somewhere between you & I.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the list I have given you, not everyone on that list are elite, or even great, scorers.

A lot of them are really well-rounded players and strong defenders are up there, too.

Once again, I think the true importance of PER is somewhere between you & I.

Well, we just traded one player with PER = 13.1 for two players, each with a PER = 13.2. So, you should be happy about that.

BNM
 
What can you say about a guy with a 6 PER?

Regardless of sample size even.

How about a 25 PER?
 
Well, we just traded one player with PER = 13.1 for two players, each with a PER = 13.2. So, you should be happy about that.

BNM

Nope. Not thrilled with Gerald Henderson, but Vonleh has intriguing potential. Gerald Henderson is garbage and Batum is definitely a better player. This was about Vonleh. I'm happy with that. He was a HELLUVA prospect last year.

Batum is also 26 and Vonleh is 19, so there is a decent chance Vonley gets his PER up a little.
 
Nope. Not thrilled with Gerald Henderson, but Vonleh has intriguing potential. Gerald Henderson is garbage and Batum is definitely a better player. This was about Vonleh. I'm happy with that. He was a HELLUVA prospect last year.

Batum is also 26 and Vonleh is 19, so there is a decent chance Vonley gets his PER up a little.

You never know. Batum was 19 at the start of his rookie year and posted a PER = 12.9 as a starter playing 1454 minutes on a team that won 54 games. Vonleh was a 19-year old bench warmer that posted a PER = 13.2 in 259 minutes of garbage time on a 33-win team. Batum sure looked like he had more potential, but six years later, his PER was only 13.1.

BNM
 
You never know. Batum was 19 at the start of his rookie year and posted a PER = 12.9 as a starter playing 1454 minutes on a team that won 54 games. Vonleh was a 19-year old bench warmer that posted a PER = 13.2 in 259 minutes of garbage time on a 33-win team. Batum sure looked like he had more potential, but six years later, his PER was only 13.1.

BNM

TO be fair, Batum's career avg PER is 15.2. He did get better.

In order for thsi to be a good trade, Vonleh needs to get to a 15+ PER and stay that way in the playoffs - which I doubt will happen in the next year or two.
 
You're forgetting what the extra $4mil in cap space might net us. Lots variables with this move, too early to declare anything.
 
I think Vonleh can easily get his PER over 17, even higher within 2 years. Maybe even this year, though in limited minutes.
 
You'd almost think a teams total PER is more important than its win-loss record....
 
You'd almost think a teams total PER is more important than its win-loss record....

That would be an interesting spread actually, how often the team with the highest AVG PER/per player on championship teams vs teams that lost.

I'm sure there is a correlation between having high AVG per and win/loss record.
 
That would be an interesting spread actually, how often the team with the highest AVG PER/per player on championship teams vs teams that lost.

I'm sure there is a correlation between having high AVG per and win/loss record.
not arguing that I just think people value PER as a stat way to much
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top