Marcus Camby first day news thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Ed O said:
Outlaw is also nine months younger, in spite of playing four more years in the NBA than Thornton... so the chances of Thornton ever getting to Outlaw's level don't seem that high.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

True, and oddly, PER isn't exactly a progressive statistic. It tends to stay somewhat consistent as a career progresses. Great players usually show a great PER early in their careers, average players like Outlaw show an average PER, and bad players generally show a low PER.

It's one of the reasons I am so incredibly high on Greg Oden (if he can just stay fucking healthy!). He was showing the PER of an All-Star player this season, yet the "experts" nationally tend to clown on him. Chris Kaman was an All-Star alternate this season with a PER of 17.2. I know this may sound nuts, but a healthy Oden is extremely underrated in terms of his effectiveness.
 
BGrantFan said:
True, and oddly, PER isn't exactly a progressive statistic. It tends to stay somewhat consistent as a career progresses. Great players usually show a great PER early in their careers, average players like Outlaw show an average PER, and bad players generally show a low PER.

It's one of the reasons I am so incredibly high on Greg Oden (if he can just stay fucking healthy!). He was showing the PER of an All-Star player this season, yet the "experts" nationally tend to clown on him. Chris Kaman was an All-Star alternate this season with a PER of 17.2. I know this may sound nuts, but a healthy Oden is extremely underrated in terms of his effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts.

The best thing about PER and Oden is that it doesn't even capture the effect he has defensively on the floor... if he can stay healthy he is going to be a beast.

Ed O.
 
BGrantFan said:
True, and oddly, PER isn't exactly a progressive statistic. It tends to stay somewhat consistent as a career progresses. Great players usually show a great PER early in their careers, average players like Outlaw show an average PER, and bad players generally show a low PER.
Click to expand...

PER of 15 is not average in the league. It is average per minute played, not per player. (A big misconception about PER).

A PER of 15 is translated to "average NBA starter", not "average NBA player". In other words - PER of 15 for a guy that played nice amounts of time shows you that he is an "above average NBA player".

Given that average NBA salary is around the MLE - Outlaw was a great ROI.
 
andalusian said:
PER of 15 is not average in the league. It is average per minute played, not per player. (A big misconception about PER).

A PER of 15 is translated to "average NBA starter", not "average NBA player". In other words - PER of 15 for a guy that played nice amounts of time shows you that he is an "above average NBA player".

Given that average NBA salary is around the MLE - Outlaw was a great ROI.
Click to expand...

According to this:

"Player Efficiency Rating (PER) League average: 15.0"

That might be a mistake, though.

Ed O.
 
andalusian said:
PER of 15 is not average in the league. It is average per minute played, not per player. (A big misconception about PER).

A PER of 15 is translated to "average NBA starter", not "average NBA player". In other words - PER of 15 for a guy that played nice amounts of time shows you that he is an "above average NBA player".

Given that average NBA salary is around the MLE - Outlaw was a great ROI.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with Outlaw being a decent ROI. "Great" may be stretching it, but it's not like the guy was a total slug. He just had one of the most unique games in the NBA, and it was usually either very good or very bad. In the playoffs, he was very bad, and I have to factor that into my opinion of him being a relatively average player. He is basically a tweener anyhow, so him starting anywhere is going to take a D'Antoni or Nellie system to make him effective.
 
andalusian said:
PER of 15 is not average in the league. It is average per minute played, not per player. (A big misconception about PER).

A PER of 15 is translated to "average NBA starter", not "average NBA player". In other words - PER of 15 for a guy that played nice amounts of time shows you that he is an "above average NBA player".

Given that average NBA salary is around the MLE - Outlaw was a great ROI.
Click to expand...

Also, here:

"The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons."

Do you have a source about it being "average NBA starter"?

Ed O.
 
BGrantFan said:
I have to factor that into my opinion of him being a relatively average player.
Click to expand...

You made that observation while using PER of 15 to justify it - but the reality is that 15 is not average NBA player PER.
 
andalusian said:
You made that observation while using PER of 15 to justify it - but the reality is that 15 is not average NBA player PER.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? Both basketball-reference and ESPN.com say that 15 is the average NBA player.

Ed O.
 
andalusian said:
You made that observation while using PER of 15 to justify it - but the reality is that 15 is not average NBA player PER.
Click to expand...

I used a PER of 15 to support it, not to justify it, but I stand by it. What is the PER for an average NBA player? According to Hollinger, it is 15 for players, not for the starters.

What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats.

I set the league average in PER to 15.00 every season.
Click to expand...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

Please correct me if I am wrong. It's just my opinion!
 
Anyone have a link to the 95.5 interview? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
 
Ed O said:
Do you have a source for that? Both basketball-reference and ESPN.com say that 15 is the average NBA player.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

We have had this discussion before, on this very site, and I gave you a link to the way PER is calculated and to Hollinger's own definitions.

Anyway, here is Hollinger's initial definition:

* A Year For the Ages: 35.0
*Runaway MVP Candidate: 30.0
*Strong MVP Candidate: 27.5
*Weak MVP Candidate: 25.0
*Bona fide All-Star: 22.5
*Borderline All-Star: 20.0
*Solid 2nd option: 18.0
*3rd Banana: 16.5
*Pretty good player: 15.0
*In the rotation: 13.0
*Scrounging for minutes: 11.0
*Definitely renting: 9.0
*The Next Stop: DLeague 5.0
Click to expand...

He has since, many times in his columns, referred to PER of 15 as "average starter" which is what you would assume is what a pretty good player is. The NBA has 450 players and 150 starters.

Again, "average NBA player PER" is pretty meaningless because PER is averaged by minute, not per player, again, we go to Hollinger:

"The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance."
Click to expand...

Since PER is an efficiency rating (not totals, so it has to have some kind of "balance" in it - and in PER it is balanced by minutes and pace) and is normalized to the league as a whole - it makes no sense to normalize something that measures efficiency to "number of players", it has to be normalized to something else that is efficiency based as well - thus the use of per minute).

Specifically from the article about calculating PER:

The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following:

PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER)

The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons.
Click to expand...

The normalization is for minute. With 15 set as the "average NBA minute played". (Notice that 15 is just an arbitrary number, it is just there to inter-season comparisons somewhat reasonable to make).

In other words - you do not average efficiency (how much work per hour a machine can do) with the number of machines in the factory - the 2 are not related.

Miles per gallon is an efficiency measure for work performed by car engines and the car they are installed it - what constitute it is not calculated by the number of miles driven or the average of all the cars on the road - these things are just not directly related.

Same with PER. It's a per-minute efficiency rating - and as such - the way you normalize it is "per minute", not "per player".

It only makes sense that the better players play more minutes, not all NBA players play the same minutes. So - by finding the "league efficiency" and normalizing for it - you normalize per minute, not per player.
 
Last edited:
andalusian said:
We have had this discussion before, on this very site, and I gave you a link to the way PER is calculated and to Hollinger's own definitions.

Anyway, here is Hollinger's initial definition:



He has since, many times in his columns, referred to PER of 15 as "average starter" which is what you would assume is what a pretty good player is. The NBA has 450 players and 150 starters.

Again, "average NBA player PER" is pretty meaningless because PER is averaged by minute, not per player, again, we go to Hollinger:



Since PER is an efficiency rating (not totals, so it has to have some kind of "balance" in it - and in PER it is balanced by minutes and pace) and is normalized to the league as a whole - it makes no sense to normalize something that measures efficiency to "number of players", it has to be normalized to something else that is efficiency based as well - thus the use of per minute).

Specifically from the article about calculating PER:



The normalization is for minute. With 15 set as the "average NBA minute played". (Notice that 15 is just an arbitrary number, it is just there to inter-season comparisons somewhat reasonable to make).

In other words - you do not average efficiency (how much work per hour a machine can do) with the number of machines in the factory - the 2 are not related.

Miles per gallon is an efficiency measure for work performed by car engines and the car they are installed it - what constitute it is not calculated by the number of miles driven or the average of all the cars on the road - these things are just not directly related.

Same with PER. It's a per-minute efficiency rating - and as such - the way you normalize it is "per minute", not "per player".

It only makes sense that the better players play more minutes, not all NBA players play the same minutes. So - by finding the "league efficiency" and normalizing for it - you normalize per minute, not per player.
Click to expand...

Hollinger explained it before this season. I can't find "average starter" in the column.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

Unless you have a direct quote from Hollinger contradicting his quote in this article, I will have to remain unconvinced.
 
Last edited:
The Google search PER average NBA starter 15 shows nothing support this "average starter" theory outside of your own post in this thread.

Again, no big deal, and I'm only offering my opinion of Travis Outlaw being an average NBA player.
 
BGrantFan said:
Hollinger explained it before this season. I can't find "average starter" in the column.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

Unless you have a direct quote from Hollinger contradicting his quote in this article, I will have to remain unconvinced.
Click to expand...

He is telling you that league average (per season) is set to 15 in the very link you provided, not that the player average is 15. You yourself provided the direct link.

I set the league average in PER to 15.00 every season.
Click to expand...

and the specific of how to calculated it, which is based on his book (and expanded to prior years in the link above) that I provided above shows you that the math specifically normalizes to 15 to match that.

It's math, there is no interpretation of the formula. It is pretty clear that this is exactly what he means.
 
BGrantFan said:
The Google search PER average NBA starter 15 shows nothing support this "average starter" theory outside of your own post in this thread.

Again, no big deal, and I'm only offering my opinion of Travis Outlaw being an average NBA player.
Click to expand...

This just tells you that there are tons of people that have no real concept of statistics.
 
By Hollinger's own ranking Blake has a PER of 11.42 which makes him a barely servicable backup.

So he gave a team that traded away the league's second best rebounder and their best defender for a barely servicable back up point guard and an injured small forward a B+?


He has officially lost his damn mind.
 
andalusian said:
He is telling you that league average (per season) is set to 15 in the very link you provided, not that the player average is 15. You yourself provided the direct link.



and the specific of how to calculated it, which is based on his book (and expanded to prior years in the link above) that I provided above shows you that the math specifically normalizes to 15 to match that.

It's math, there is no interpretation of the formula. It is pretty clear that this is exactly what he means.
Click to expand...

Where does he say that 15 is the average for an NBA starter? If that's the case, does that mean that Dante Cunningham and his 14.9 PER in scrub minutes should be an All-Star level starter?

I'm sorry, but I think you're the one misunderstanding Hollinger. "League average" is "league average". I have read nothing about him ever stating it applies on a "starter scale" as opposed to an "average" scale.
 
I just emailed Hollinger to find out the answer.

I'll post the reply when I get it!
 
BGrantFan said:
Where does he say that 15 is the average for an NBA starter? If that's the case, does that mean that Dante Cunningham and his 14.9 PER in scrub minutes should be an All-Star level starter?
Click to expand...

No, it means that his efficiency is about the same as the per minute efficiency of all the players played - which roughly translates to the same as the production an average starter will give you. Of course, in small sample sizes - this is not a reliable measure - but I think that everyone is happy with Dante giving us "quality minutes" and the PER measure shows that it is pretty reasonable. Dante is giving you quality production per minute he is there. Of course, given that he is an inexperienced rookie and has a lot of learning to do - one expects that if he played more minutes and some of it as a starter - his production might dip. But, overall, it shows you that the gut feeling you get that Dante is a good player and plays well - is proven by this.

I'm sorry, but I think you're the one misunderstanding Hollinger. "League average" is "league average". I have read nothing about him ever stating it applies on a "starter scale" as opposed to an "average" scale.
Click to expand...

Average by what? The moment you talk about efficiency, it means that it is not "by player", but "by minute".

The formula does not have any division by "number of players" - thus it is not average per player.
 
andalusian said:
No, it means that his efficiency is about the same as the per minute efficiency of all the players played - which roughly translates to the same as the production an average starter will give you. Of course, in small sample sizes - this is not a reliable measure - but I think that everyone is happy with Dante giving us "quality minutes" and the PER measure shows that it is pretty reasonable. Dante is giving you quality production per minute he is there. Of course, given that he is an inexperienced rookie and has a lot of learning to do - one expects that if he played more minutes and some of it as a starter - his production might dip. But, overall, it shows you that the gut feeling you get that Dante is a good player and plays well - is proven by this.



Average by what? The moment you talk about efficiency, it means that it is not "by player", but "by minute".

The formula does not have any division by "number of players" - thus it is not average per player.
Click to expand...

As I just posted, I emailed Hollinger to find out what the '15' represents in terms of rating/comparing players. My question was more in depth, and I will post the reply when I receive it. I still don't see anything from him that states that 15 is an "average starter", so I'm curious to find out from him directly what the answer is.
 
BGrantFan said:
As I just posted, I emailed Hollinger to find out what the '15' represents in terms of rating/comparing players. My question was more in depth, and I will post the reply when I receive it. I still don't see anything from him that states that 15 is an "average starter", so I'm curious to find out from him directly what the answer is.
Click to expand...

His definition in print is 15 = "Pretty Good Player". You can take that to the bank.

http://www.alleyoop.com/prates.shtm
 
BGrantFan said:
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just wondering what the number '15' represents as a qualitative value. Since I don't see an "average" player on that list, I anxiously await John's reply!
Click to expand...

Given the player rates around 15, I'd call 15 the 4th or 5th option on offense, likely a minor starter or talented 6th man. Dante and Travis both fit this description pretty much spot on.
 
Here is a direct quote from Hollinger in one of his past chats:

Richard (Irvine, CA)


John: PER Question for you. You cit 15 as the avg. PER. But since stars have the ball a disproportionate time, shouldn't the mean PER be the barometer by which we determine whether or not a player is above or below average?
John Hollinger
(3:11 PM)


The problem isn't that stars have the ball a disportionate amount of time, it's that they play a disproportionate number of minutes, so in any given year there are far more players below the mean PER than above it. However, the same goes for almost any stat in any category in any sport -- look at the league average in ERA or batting average or completion percentage or yards per carry, and you'll have more guys below it than above it, since the ones who are above get more chances to perform.
Click to expand...

This is from - http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/22977

Notice that Hollinger does a good job of using the word "mean" (as mathematical average) - specifically he tells that "in any given year there are far more players below the mean PER than above it." - if there are more player below the mean PER (15) than above it - again, it is all "per minute", not "per player".
 
I found Camby's interview intersting when it came to Miller. Initially when discussing playing for the Blazers, he mentioned Roy and Aldrdige. He never mentioned Miller which I found odd since he is the vet starting PG for the Blazers and a player Camby personally has played with in Denver.

Camby was professional and when asked directly about Miller, he said some nice things about Miller. But in the end, when asked who he was looking forward to playing with (or something like that, I was listening in the car) he mentioned Roy and Aldrdige but not Miller.

I wonder if there is a history with those two because I was surprised how he never on his own mentioned Miller and only spoke positively about him when directly asked.

Probably not a big thing, but got a funny feeling (about Miller) when it came to his thoughts about this team.
 
I'm fairly sure andalusion is right. 15.0 PER is the average per-minute production of the league. But since the better players, the starters, play far more minutes than the reserves, the vast majority of that 15.0 PER average comes from their play. Thus 15.0 is not precisely "average starter," but it's closer to that than to "average player" and therefore 15.0 is a fine proxy for average starter.

If you're putting up a 15.0 PER, you're meeting a standard set mostly by other starters in the league. Also by the reserves, but their contribution to that standard is much less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THE HCP
More Crazy Rumors!
4 5 6
Replies
157
Views
11K
hasoos
hasoos
ABM
A Season To Remember: Blazers' 2009-10 Timeline
Replies
0
Views
255
ABM
ABM
BrianFromWA
Random thoughts from today's news/chats
Replies
10
Views
885
Rastapopoulos
Rastapopoulos
ucatchtrout
Jan 19th vs Milwaukee
Replies
6
Views
972
Fez Hammersticks
Fez Hammersticks
SlyPokerDog
THE BLAZERS' FAIRY TALE LOOKS TO BE ENDING
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
5K
Blazer_Hippie
Blazer_Hippie

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top