I love looking at the PER rankings

[KingSpeed]

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

It's confirms so much of my own beliefs:

That Andrew Bynum is not even the best center named Andrew, nor is he even better than Nazr Mohammed.

That both Bogut and Mohammed are better players than that garbage running the point in Utah.

That Greg Oden, in only his second injury riddled season, is better than Kobe Bryant.

That Nic Batum is better than 2009 All Star Danny Granger

And finally, that LeBron is the best player in the NBA and it isn't even close.

Go Blazers.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Well said.

 

[crowTrobot]

and david lee and kevin love are better than brandon roy lol

hollinger PER always has been a little too biased towards rebounding

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

You think that Deron Williams is garbage? I guess in some cases the eyeball test is a lot different than PER; I just saw somewhere that Larry Brown thought he might be as valuable to his team as anyone in the league.

 

[Sex Panther]

After reading what you said, I didn't even need to look at the article. Stupid.

 

[KingSpeed]

After reading what you said, I didn't even need to look at the article. Stupid.

It's not an article. It's the PER rankings. Unemotional, hard data. To be fair to Deron Williams, he is the 4th best PG on the list. Which is just about right.

 

[Luther]

Is Kevin Love more valuable than Lamarcus? I think Lamarcus could be one of the best PF in the league but I don't know if he has the motivation.

 

[Nikolokolus]

The only thing that I don't like about PER is that it doesn't account for role -- it's still possible to rack up great per minute numbers (pace adjusted) against reserves ... but as a catch all efficiency rating, it's still not bad.

 

[Celtic Fan]

basing your opinions on players soley on PER is like basing the best shooter in the league on FT%. It tells part of the story, just not the whole story. Even Hollinger says it's not the be all to end all but a tool to use when evaluating players.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I would rather have Kevin Love than LaMarcus Aldridge. Does that make me crazy?

 

[andalusian]

I would rather have Kevin Love than LaMarcus Aldridge. Does that make me crazy?

Yes. K-Love is a much better player than people gave him credit for before the draft - but he is a much bigger defensive liability than LMA.

 

[Mamba]

You're so good @ being sarcastic!

 

[OddEnormous]

basing your opinions on players soley on PER is like basing the best shooter in the league on FT%. It tells part of the story, just not the whole story. Even Hollinger says it's not the be all to end all but a tool to use when evaluating players.

careful dude.

If you aren't basing every single one of your opinions on PER you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Opinions are a thing of the past. It's all about cold hard stat formulas invented by people who don't even back them.

Sure, It starts with a simple opinion and then all of the sudden you'll have people on here threatening you with being put in their sig.

This is hardcore. Prepare yourself for thug life yo.

 

[Celtic Fan]

I'm plugging my ears! I can't hear you!!
la-la-la-la-la

 

[Sex Panther]

basing your opinions on players soley on PER is like basing the best shooter in the league on FT%. It tells part of the story, just not the whole story. Even Hollinger says it's not the be all to end all but a tool to use when evaluating players.

plus 1

 

[DaRizzle]

careful dude.

If you aren't basing every single one of your opinions on PER you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Opinions are a thing of the past. It's all about cold hard stat formulas invented by people who don't even back them.

Sure, It starts with a simple opinion and then all of the sudden you'll have people on here threatening you with being put in their sig.

This is hardcore. Prepare yourself for thug life yo.

and here is the thread you can bash PER....sweeping generalizations comparing players solely on PER...(rather than our argument where we were comparing PER of the same player 2 years in a row)

 

[OddEnormous]

sweeping generalizations comparing players solely on PER...

Oh, ok.... So NOW P.E.R. doesn't work.

I think I'm finally catching on. PER is used to win an argument as long as it's in accordance with one's own opinion. Otherwise it's a sweeping generalization.

Got it.

Some guy on here was saying the same thing a few weeks back and people were going to put him in their sig and everything.

It got very Boyz in the Hood.

I hope he's ok.

 

[andalusian]

PER is a nice way to get a general feel for a player's mostly offensive efficiency given enough data. Like everything else in life - it has to be used in context - the role in the team, injuries and the like - it can not be used as a stand alone number that is the final answer on anything - but it is not a bad number for an initial discussion before getting into the nitty-gritty details mentioned above.

 

[OddEnormous]

it has to be used in context

You are treading on dangerous ground my friend. Be warned.

 

[mook]

Seems fashionable in here now to whine about how much people like PER. But it sure as hell beats out most of the old single-number-statistics people used.
"He's a superstar--dude puts up 27 ppg!"
"He's a 20/10 power forward."
"The guy scores 29 points on a per-36 minute basis."
"He's a defensive powerhouse. The guy gets 3 blocks (or steals) a game!"

PER is still clunky, but compared to these other means of quantifying a player's real value? It's the worst single statistic for measuring a player's contribution, except for all the others.

 

[OddEnormous]

Seems fashionable in here now to whine about how much people like PER. But it sure as hell beats out most of the old single-number-statistics people used.
"He's a superstar--dude puts up 27 ppg!"
"He's a 20/10 power forward."
"The guy scores 29 points on a per-36 minute basis."
"He's a defensive powerhouse. The guy gets 3 blocks (or steals) a game!"

PER is still clunky, but compared to these other means of quantifying a player's real value? It's the worst single statistic for measuring a player's contribution, except for all the others.

How is it "The best"?

(I think you meant to say "best." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)

BTW who's whining about it?

 

[DaRizzle]

Oh, ok.... So NOW P.E.R. doesn't work.

I think I'm finally catching on. PER is used to win an argument as long as it's in accordance with one's own opinion. Otherwise it's a sweeping generalization.

Got it.

Some guy on here was saying the same thing a few weeks back and people were going to put him in their sig and everything.

It got very Boyz in the Hood.

I hope he's ok.

Dont plead ignorance on Kingspeed assumptions...you know he is looking for the most skewed PER's so he can make moronic arguments.

That is FAAAAAR differnent comparing the PER of the SAME PLAYER in consecutive years on the same team...A 5 point jump in PER by the same player on the same team you can easily say "that player has improved"....if you want to argue by how much then that is a different story

 

[OddEnormous]

Dont plead ignorance on Kingspeed assumptions...you know he is looking for the most skewed PER's so he can make moronic arguments.

That is FAAAAAR differnent comparing the PER of the SAME PLAYER in consecutive years on the same team...A 5 point jump in PER by the same player on the same team you can easily say "that player has improved"....if you want to argue by how much then that is a different story

You looked at the PER and rendered the opinion that they were sweeping generalizations.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Do you have stats?

 

[DaRizzle]

You looked at the PER and rendered the opinion that they were sweeping generalizations.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Do you have stats?

sigh....either you are fucking with me or are too clueless to help....either way im done

 

[oldmangrouch]

There are 3 "problems" with PER.

1) Some people overgeneralize the numbers. It is a valuable tool - not the only tool. In particular, it is much better at measuring offense than defense.

2) It is PT neutral, which means a player can have a high PER and still not be super valuable to their team.

3) Any evaluation that gives credit to unpopular players (eg Zach) will be disparaged. Conversely, a system that points out that a popular player (eg Roy or Blake) is regresssing will also provoke hostility.

 

[OddEnormous]

im done

Good choice.

 

[andalusian]

There are 3 "problems" with PER.

1) Some people overgeneralize the numbers. It is a valuable tool - not the only tool. In particular, it is much better at measuring offense than defense.

3) Any evaluation that gives credit to unpopular players (eg Zach) will be disparaged. Conversely, a system that points out that a popular player (eg Roy or Blake) is regresssing will also provoke hostility.

Your points 1 and 3 have a lot more to do with each other than Zach's popularity. Zach is a fantastic offensive player, have been for a long time - and PER captures it fantastically well. What PER does not catch is how sucky his defense mostly is - which really helps you evaluate him in the grand scheme of things.

Nic Batum, last year, was a below average starter offensively, as his PER showed, but his stellar defense made up for his lack of efficiency on the offensive side, making him a worthwhile starter for a team lacking in defense but not lacking in offense. Luckily for us, this year he has improved to be almost all-star level offensively, at least in efficiency while retaining his fantastic defensive abilities.

 

[OddEnormous]

There are 3 "problems" with PER.

1) Some people overgeneralize the numbers. It is a valuable tool - not the only tool. In particular, it is much better at measuring offense than defense.

2) It is PT neutral, which means a player can have a high PER and still not be super valuable to their team.

3) Any evaluation that gives credit to unpopular players (eg Zach) will be disparaged. Conversely, a system that points out that a popular player (eg Roy or Blake) is regresssing will also provoke hostility.

Excellent post.

Wrepped

 

[OddEnormous]

YNic Batum, last year, was a below average starter offensively, as his PER showed, but his stellar defense made up for his lack of efficiency on the offensive side, making him a worthwhile starter for a team lacking in defense but not lacking in offense. Luckily for us, this year he has improved to be almost all-star level offensively, at least in efficiency while retaining his fantastic defensive abilities.

Right! So what's the point of flopping PER out every time there's an argument re a player if all it's doing is actually just reformatting the old numbers and spitting out what is essentially the same info?

I actually don't have a problem with it. I just think it's another stat like the rest of them that can be looked at and then judged.

My problem with PER is the the way people throw it around as if it's something you couldn't possibly argue against.

There's no room for human opinion anymore.

 

[andalusian]

Right! So what's the point of flopping PER out every time there's an argument re a player?

I have no generic point. I try to use PER when discussing players only where it makes sense. I am sure that sometimes I am not right, but that's how I try to use it.

I actually don't have a problem with it. I just think it's another stat like the rest of them that can be looked at and then judged.

Well, of course. It's a tool. But, it makes no sense to ignore this tool if some tools use and abuse it. it's not the tool's fault, it's the user (well, tool) that misuses it...

My problem with PER is the the way people throw it around as if it's something you couldn't possibly argue against.

Are we really taking Eric's posts as anything other than unfounded entertainment masked by unbridled enthusiasm?

There's no room for human opinion anymore.

There is always room for human opinion. It is just that opinions backed by (properly used) data are usually more valuable.