The Andrew Wiggins Thread

[Feilong]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/APkrawczynski/status/551452529285165056[/tweet]

[urinesane]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

[Note30]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

Cause pie isnt much better

[Worm Guts]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

Why is it ****?

[Feilong]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

Problem with PER is that it isn't balanced for all players. Bigs can have a high PER much easier than guards.

[Worm Guts]

We really don't have to be so defensive. Wiggins hasn't been good, but he is obviously getting better and we're still only 1/3 of the way through his rookie season.

[AQuintus]

Why is it ****?

3 reasons:

1) Like all box score aggregate stats, it doesn't take into account defense (except for steals, blocks, and D Rebounds).

2) The formula overrates volume shooting even if it's not efficient volume shooting.

3) The way stats are weighted in the formula seems to underrate assists and overrate rebounds (though, to be fair, assists might be less valuable and rebounds more valuable to winning)

[urinesane]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

Cause pie isnt much better

Yeah, but pie is delicious!

[Worm Guts]

Why is it ****?

3 reasons:

1) Like all box score aggregate stats, it doesn't take into account defense (except for steals, blocks, and D Rebounds).

2) The formula overrates volume shooting even if it's not efficient volume shooting.

3) The way stats are weighted in the formula seems to underrate assists and overrate rebounds (though, to be fair, assists might be less valuable and rebounds more valuable to winning)

I don't think any of that makes it a bad stat. It just means it's not a perfect way of ranking players. But there is no perfect way of ranking players.

[Calinks]

I really like what I am seeing out of Wiggins lately. I was seeing too much Wesley Johnson disappearing for my taste early. He didn't look engaged for large chunks of the game. Lately he has done a much better job of that and playing aggressively. He doesnt have to get 20 points but I want to see him be aggressive on both ends.

[urinesane]

Why is it ****?

3 reasons:

1) Like all box score aggregate stats, it doesn't take into account defense (except for steals, blocks, and D Rebounds).

2) The formula overrates volume shooting even if it's not efficient volume shooting.

3) The way stats are weighted in the formula seems to underrate assists and overrate rebounds (though, to be fair, assists might be less valuable and rebounds more valuable to winning)

I don't think any of that makes it a bad stat. It just means it's not a perfect way of ranking players. But there is no perfect way of ranking players.

The issue is context. When someone slams down a player's PER number as the main evidence showing a player is bad, that's an issue.

If it were used the way it should, as a sometimes interesting, but incredibly flawed stat, it wouldn't be a big deal. People act like it's some sort of checkmate to support their argument for or against a player though, when it's simply too flawed and has been over hyped to the point where many accept just a PER as a valid argument against a player.

It's the lazy ESPN 5 minute blurb way of forming opinions.

[Killboard]

Another statical analisis going on Wiggins. This time with better company.



http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/assessing-andrew-wiggins-30-games-in/

[PZiv]

according to that he is currently like Chris Bosh with all likelyhood that he will be better, not bad.

[slinky]

3 reasons:

1) Like all box score aggregate stats, it doesn't take into account defense (except for steals, blocks, and D Rebounds).

2) The formula overrates volume shooting even if it's not efficient volume shooting.

3) The way stats are weighted in the formula seems to underrate assists and overrate rebounds (though, to be fair, assists might be less valuable and rebounds more valuable to winning)

I don't think any of that makes it a bad stat. It just means it's not a perfect way of ranking players. But there is no perfect way of ranking players.

The issue is context. When someone slams down a player's PER number as the main evidence showing a player is bad, that's an issue.

If it were used the way it should, as a sometimes interesting, but incredibly flawed stat, it wouldn't be a big deal. People act like it's some sort of checkmate to support their argument for or against a player though, when it's simply too flawed and has been over hyped to the point where many accept just a PER as a valid argument against a player.

It's the lazy ESPN 5 minute blurb way of forming opinions.

I would argue the above is true though for any 1 statistic you look at. You are right about context, but I don't see that as a knock against PER but rather the way people pick and choose which stat to use to support their argument. To me its really no different than per36 stats that people use to inflate an argument of value.

[Zeitgeister]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

They still use it because it is not a sh*tty stat.

I think it's difficult for people to come to terms with the truth so they dismiss any relevant information that discredits their viewpoint. That truth in this case is that Wiggins has had a pretty terrible season, thus far. That does not mean he will have a terrible career. He's been quite good the past few games.

Do you also think TS% is a terrible stat? Wiggins has a .487 TS% which is very, very bad. His rebound and assist ratings are also pretty poor. These are the fundamental reasons he has a terrible PER. He hasn't been good, so far.

[urinesane]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

They still use it because it is not a sh*tty stat.

I think it's difficult for people to come to terms with the truth so they dismiss any relevant information that discredits their viewpoint. That truth in this case is that Wiggins has had a pretty terrible season, thus far. That does not mean he will have a terrible career. He's been quite good the past few games.

Do you also think TS% is a terrible stat? Wiggins has a .487 TS% which is very, very bad. His rebound and assist ratings are also pretty poor. These are the fundamental reasons he has a terrible PER. He hasn't been good, so far.

He hasn't had a terrible season for a 19 year old with the 3 best players on his projected lottery team injured all year, while being thrust into a larger role and put on the other teams best player for defense each night.

With actual context, I think he has done just fine. Sure he could be doing better, but under the circumstances, I could see him doing much worse too.

Context doesn't matter though right? All hail advanced stats!

If you've actually been watching him play this year, you know he hasn't had a terrible season.

If you are going to be a Wolves fan, you probably will want to learn to use context, otherwise you will go crazy.

[Narf]

Per is just a count of total points, rebounds, assists, etc. per minute then normalized. It tells you Wiggins is not a #2 scoring option yet and needs to work on his rebounding. That's pretty much it's only value with Wiggins, as he wont be a high rebounder like bigs or high assist guy for years.

Also, can someone with a brain tell 538 to stop comparing the first 1/3 of Wiggins rookie season to the last 2/3 of everyone else's rookie season? It'd be nice if they actually used statistically similar numbers.

The only thing I worry about with Wiggins PER is his lack of rebounding. He needs to work on that.

[Zeitgeister]

PER is a sh*tty stat by the way.

Why do people still use it?

They still use it because it is not a sh*tty stat.

I think it's difficult for people to come to terms with the truth so they dismiss any relevant information that discredits their viewpoint. That truth in this case is that Wiggins has had a pretty terrible season, thus far. That does not mean he will have a terrible career. He's been quite good the past few games.

Do you also think TS% is a terrible stat? Wiggins has a .487 TS% which is very, very bad. His rebound and assist ratings are also pretty poor. These are the fundamental reasons he has a terrible PER. He hasn't been good, so far.

He hasn't had a terrible season for a 19 year old with the 3 best players on his projected lottery team injured all year, while being thrust into a larger role and put on the other teams best player for defense each night.

With actual context, I think he has done just fine. Sure he could be doing better, but under the circumstances, I could see him doing much worse too.

Context doesn't matter though right? All hail advanced stats!

If you've actually been watching him play this year, you know he hasn't had a terrible season.

If you are going to be a Wolves fan, you probably will want to learn to use context, otherwise you will go crazy.

I disagree, I don't think he could be doing much worse. No offense to the guy, trust me I want him to be a superstar as much as anyone but I'm willing to come to grips with the fact that he just hasn't been good so far. Yes, context and advanced stats both matter. You don't just throw out the advanced stats because they aren't kind to a player on your favorite team though. You say he's thrust into a larger role, but he's only taking 12 shots a game, those are not unreasonable expectations for a #1 lottery pick. The only difference with the people injured is that Rubio would be getting him the ball in more advantageous positions. It's good for him to be challenged by playing without Rubio anyway.

Now I'm saying all of this with full knowledge of the fact that he's been quite good the past several games. I hope he keeps it up.

[southern wolf]

Four straight 20 point games for Wiggins. His rebound numbers are up too. Flip should be careful with his minutes, though. He can't play 40 every night.

[MinneOOPalis]

I wonder how much having a low post scoring option like Okafor would help Wiggins' game.