Which do you prefer WS or PER? EFG% of TS%?

[20MexicanosIn1Van]

Which do you prefer WS or PER? EFG% of TS%? Why? I'm trying to understand the difference between the two.

[Dr Positivity]

TS or eFG - TS for sure due to FTs. Actually I barely use eFG at all. If I want to look at "only from the field" efficiency I'll just look at 2P% and 3P%

PER or WS - Both have strengths and weaknesses. Win Shares, Wins Produced or any stat taking the same approach (eg I created a stat this summer based on Individual ORTG - on-court defense) favors low volume, high efficiency players over high volume players at average or worse efficiency. This makes sense on paper, because you'd think no matter how many shots you take, if it's less efficient than the other team it's not helping you win. However the problem is context. A lot of low volume, high efficiency players depend on teammates and the system. Kosta Koufos gets lots of open shots at the rim in Denver and looks like a 6-7 W player, but in the more slow and clogged Memphis his offensive flaws are exposed. The opposite is how a player like LMA who's value extends past what win-based stats can measure because even though his midrange shot volume makes him inefficient, POR gets great value out of the spacing his outside shooting creates. So PER would probably do a better job of measuring players like Koufos and LMA. Overall I've come around to PER being the best statistic for player value. It is not perfect but considering the most used stat in baseball OPS has twice the flaws (not measuring how singles > walks/or in general how hits move bases without a force, plus the huge uncaptured value of defense and running) it's close enough. The truth is that finding a more accurate stat than PER will be near impossible anyways. Compared to a sport like baseball there is a cap on what statistics can capture in basketball for player value because players will always be making each other better or being made better by someone else in a non-statistical way.

[calamity]

EFG%, but all are useful when put into context and accounted for properly.

[Colbinii]

It is all situational. If I want to know how good a shooter is from the field, I will look at eFG%, if I want to look at how efficient a player is at scoring, I will look at TS%.

If I am comparing players on teams with similar wins, I will look at WS, if I am comparing players to get a general idea as to how good they are, I will look at PER.

WS and PER are very flawed in my eyes, but just like every other statistic, should be used in the CORRECT CONTEXT.

[Doctor MJ]

Which do you prefer WS or PER? EFG% of TS%? Why? I'm trying to understand the difference between the two.

In general I prefer to use WS plus WS/48 instead of PER, because I think it does a more reasonable job at balancing usage & efficiency on offense, and has a better window into defense. I still use both though.

I prefer TS% over eFG% by quite a bit and rarely actually look at eFG% specifically. When I look for more nuance than TS% can provide, I typically jump straight into the basic box score. As far as the difference, TS% factors in free throws where eFG% does not. When evaluating the likely success of a scorer in a situation you have to factor in that he might get to the line and that will impact that success.