RealGM

The same critique offered for NBA Efficiency also applies to Hollinger’s PERs, except the problem is even worse. Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points.

Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots.

But again, our model of wins suggests that inefficient shooting does not help a team win more games. Hence the conflict between PERs and Wins Produced. Hollinger has set his weights so that inefficient scorers still look pretty good. We argue that inefficient scoring reduces a team’s ability to win games, and therefore these players are not nearly as effective as people might believe.

moofs wrote:There's a rundown on how "shooting more" causes better PER in and of itself.
I'll dig it up later if I get a chance.

Iverson used to have really good PER scores back in the early 2000s.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

They're all top 10 in WP48, too, though.

MaxRider wrote:imagine Iverson is playing in this era
especially when they are allowing the Iverson-rule now (palming the ball)

moofs wrote:

MaxRider wrote:imagine Iverson is playing in this era
especially when they are allowing the Iverson-rule now (palming the ball)

Considering he was never that great of a shooter, I have no idea.

TMU wrote:Capela is one mean Frenchman.

MaxRider wrote:

moofs wrote:

MaxRider wrote:imagine Iverson is playing in this era
especially when they are allowing the Iverson-rule now (palming the ball)

Considering he was never that great of a shooter, I have no idea.

the way they are calling foul and he can palm the ball
nobody can guard him one on one
NBA added no palm ball rule just to slow him down

moofs wrote:

MaxRider wrote:

moofs wrote:
Considering he was never that great of a shooter, I have no idea.

the way they are calling foul and he can palm the ball
nobody can guard him one on one
NBA added no palm ball rule just to slow him down

He never had to play with that rule, either, and wasn't much different either before or after it.
https://www.boxscoregeeks.com/players/544-allen-iverson?direction=desc&sort=per48_wins_produced
Arguably, he was better after it went into effect, but it was never really enforced.

Until shown otherwise, I'm going to claim that the 2001 finals was a result of Deke and a very solid core, not Iverson.
https://www.boxscoregeeks.com/teams/phi/2000?direction=desc&sort=per48_wins_produced

K_chile22 wrote:

moofs wrote:Until shown otherwise, I'm going to claim that the 2001 finals was a result of Deke and a very solid core, not Iverson.
https://www.boxscoregeeks.com/teams/phi/2000?direction=desc&sort=per48_wins_produced

I'm on the "Iverson is very overrated" bandwagon, but that last part is a stretch even for me lol

Basically, my train of thought goes, "Iverson couldn't shoot worth a crap, but was more than happy to do it, and it was indeed very impressive to watch (for as much crap as I talk about him, I really enjoyed watching him play). The reason that team worked was (basically the inverse of how the Rockets work) because they had one indefatigable scorer who wasn't actually very good at scoring, and who was fairly pesky on defense, and 4 very good rebounder/defenders who created extra shot attempts and possessions while reducing the other team's efficiency."
(the Rockets work by getting ridiculously high usage on 3 point shooting, super efficient 2 point shooting, spacing from a respectable lob-threat mobile center, decent defense, and passable rebounding)

I'll grant that the team doesn't work without *A* scorer, but Deke made that team tough, and the other defender/rebounders as a whole were the actual engine.

Take, say, a Dominique Wilkins, or DeMar DeRozan, Russell Westbrook, or Kyrie Irving (anachronistic, I know), or from the time, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, or Vince Carter on that team instead, and I suspect it'd have been a lot more potent. The only real question imo is whether they could have kept up with Iverson's usage rate.

moofs wrote:

K_chile22 wrote:

moofs wrote:Until shown otherwise, I'm going to claim that the 2001 finals was a result of Deke and a very solid core, not Iverson.
https://www.boxscoregeeks.com/teams/phi/2000?direction=desc&sort=per48_wins_produced

I'm on the "Iverson is very overrated" bandwagon, but that last part is a stretch even for me lol

Basically, my train of thought goes, "Iverson couldn't shoot worth a crap, but was more than happy to do it, and it was indeed very impressive to watch (for as much crap as I talk about him, I really enjoyed watching him play). The reason that team worked was (basically the inverse of how the Rockets work) because they had one indefatigable scorer who wasn't actually very good at scoring, and who was fairly pesky on defense, and 4 very good rebounder/defenders who created extra shot attempts and possessions while reducing the other team's efficiency."

I'll grant that the team doesn't work without *A* scorer, but Deke made that team tough, and the other defender/rebounders as a whole were the actual engine.

Take, say, a Dominique Wilkins, or DeMar DeRozan, Russell Westbrook, or Kyrie Irving (anachronistic, I know), or from the time, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, or Vince Carter on that team instead, and I suspect it'd have been a lot more potent. The only real question imo is whether they could have kept up with Iverson's usage rate.