RealGM

This is all I need to know about the PER system.

If someone wants to claim Michael Redd is better than Tracy McGrady, I know the number of a great psychologist.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinge ... onType%3d2

PER is the most overrated stat there is. It heavily favors high scorers, even if they do little else.

Michael Redd is not a better overall player than Tracy McGrady, we all know that.

But as I've said before and I'll say again, PER is NOT a stat that necessarily says who is "better". PER is a just a stat. Like RPG or blocks or whatever, PER is just another one of those.

Some (Hollinger) who try to make stats to calculate who the "best" players are will never succeed, because stats don't mean anything.

jeremyd236 wrote:PER is a just a stat. Like RPG or blocks or whatever, PER is just another one of those.

No it is not.

It's probably because Tracy McGrady didn't play like Tracy McGrady for the first 40 games or so of the season. Plus he's always been a guy who needs a ton of shots to get his points. But I'm sure his PER over the last month or so has been much better than where it is overall.

I like PER because it's a good way to quantify all of a guy's efficiency stats into one number while equalizing for playing time. Hollinger is over-reliant on it because it's his stat, but it's definitely the easiest way to quickly compare guys who get unequal amounts of playing time.

There's no holy grail stat in basketball but PER is definitely a good one to be aware of...too bad ESPN makes the detailed PER stuff Insider, though you can get it for free on Knickerblogger.net.

Another reason why all these new stats made up in sports are useless. Watch the players on the court and see whose better that way. You don't need per or VORP 3 or w/e it is to prove whose better.

I wonder what Michael Redd's PER would be if he didn't play any fourth quarters?

Which begs the question, what would his fourth quarter PER be?

*SHUDDERS*

ReddBogutCharlieV wrote:Another reason why all these new stats made up in sports are useless. Watch the players on the court and see whose better that way. You don't need per or VORP 3 or w/e it is to prove whose better.

Yea, watch every player's stints throughout every game and filter it through your well developed catagories of contribution and performance and then recall it accurately when talking to others. Oops, I just made the argument for advanced statistics and their intelligent use (as opposed to fan's eye , however bloated the regard for it, limited-sample subjectivity.

Epicurus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yea, watch every player's stints throughout every game and filter it through your well developed catagories of contribution and performance and then recall it accurately when talking to others. Oops, I just made the argument for advanced statistics and their intelligent use (as opposed to fan's eye , however bloated the regard for it, limited-sample subjectivity.

Do you think coaches look at per and winscores when going after a player? Do you think coaches go on 82games.com and look at a players clutch stats and if one player has a higher free throw percentage in the 4th quarter they will sign him? Hollinger and others really just made these stats up to sell their articles.

Epicurus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yea, watch every player's stints throughout every game and filter it through your well developed catagories of contribution and performance and then recall it accurately when talking to others. Oops, I just made the argument for advanced statistics and their intelligent use (as opposed to fan's eye , however bloated the regard for it, limited-sample subjectivity.

I understand what you are saying, but does that mean you believe Redd to be a better player than McGrady?

ReddBogutCharlieV wrote:Do you think coaches look at per and winscores when going after a player? Do you think coaches go on 82games.com and look at a players clutch stats and if one player has a higher free throw percentage in the 4th quarter they will sign him? Hollinger and others really just made these stats up to sell their articles.

Wouldn't we be better off with Larry K did consider these things?

With the Rockets winning all these games there have been a number of articles on Daryl Morey (their GM) who is a huge numbers guy. Teams like the Nuggets (notably Dean Oliver works for them) and Celtics are also among the teams that pay close attention to advanced stats, but they collect a lot of stuff in house from video. It's not necessarily very well advertised though because the teams doing it don't release any of their data since they want to protect their information. It's difficult to say what impact they're having on teams' decision-making, but it's safe to say that personnel people are certainly beginning to consider them.

And ironically, Dave Berri and his winscore predicted the Bucks' current situation much better than pretty much any other expert. Of course, Berri and Morey seem to be mortal enemies from what I've heard, but they're both smart enough to know that intuition alone will only take you so far.

ReddBogutCharlieV wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Do you think coaches look at per and winscores when going after a player? Do you think coaches go on 82games.com and look at a players clutch stats and if one player has a higher free throw percentage in the 4th quarter they will sign him? Hollinger and others really just made these stats up to sell their articles.

I'm not sure what they use for a factual base. I do know that they do not use the impressions of ReddBogutCharlieV. I also know that some too often look more at scoring than performance that contributes to wins. I do know that those creating the advanced stats (both of which the public is privy and those that are kept secret within organizations) draw upon far more than their imaginations, as you imply. And I do know that coaches use 82games, especially the stuff available for fee. I think you need to understand the difference between the NBA and your junior high team regarding the use of information (which includes very catagorized video).

I don't know, I don't need stats to know if a player is good or not.

REDDzone wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I understand what you are saying, but does that mean you believe Redd to be a better player than McGrady?

I haven't seen enough (certainly not a comparable amount) of McGrady to answer that question. Nearly everyone looks good on highlights (except those getting dunked on).

ReddBogutCharlieV wrote:I don't know, I don't need stats to know if a player is good or not.

Of course, no one is talking about the demarcation between good and bad, but the gradients of good.

Epicurus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Of course, no one is talking about the demarcation between good and bad, but the gradients of good.

I was just going by this thread. The op basically asks if Michael Redd is a better player than Tracy McGrady by this stat and that's obviously a no answer.

I have a friend who devised a new version of PER (well I say devised, he told me about it, someone else may have come up with the idea first on one of those geek forums) anyway instead of taking players minutes into account it considers team possessions, it was quite interesting.

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:I have a friend who devised a new version of PER (well I say devised, he told me about it, someone else may have come up with the idea first on one of those geek forums) anyway instead of taking players minutes into account it considers team possessions, it was quite interesting.

I'm not an expert on PER, but I know that there's an adjustment for pace in the formula. I'm sure he's thought about it much more than I have, so I assume he already knows that though.

ReddBogutCharlieV wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Do you think coaches look at per and winscores when going after a player? Do you think coaches go on 82games.com and look at a players clutch stats and if one player has a higher free throw percentage in the 4th quarter they will sign him? Hollinger and others really just made these stats up to sell their articles.

Advanced stats aren't gospel just as the human eye isn't either. Smart teams in both baseball and basketball use advanced stats along with their own perception as part of the evaluation process.

There isn't a team in either sport that will simply just look at various advanced stats and then say i want to acquire or get rid of a player/players. It is a tool though that would be stupid to ignore, as would ignoring personal perception. Given all the amount of statistical breakdowns out there for both sports, to dismiss them out of hand would be the height of foolishness.

A smart scout/GM/coach may not agree with what a certain stat or stats says about how good a player is, but it gives them a reason to at least question and look deeper if maybe their own perception might be wrong or somewhat off base.

jeremyd236 wrote:Michael Redd is not a better overall player than Tracy McGrady, we all know that.

But as I've said before and I'll say again, PER is NOT a stat that necessarily says who is "better". PER is a just a stat. Like RPG or blocks or whatever, PER is just another one of those.

Some (Hollinger) who try to make stats to calculate who the "best" players are will never succeed, because stats don't mean anything.

Amen...WINS MEAN EVERYTHING! Not stats!