Question about PER (Nash vs Paul)

[Toodles]

I'm kind of curious about the formula and what makes Chris Paul so beastly when it comes to PER. In particular why he is head and shoulders (6+ points) above someone like Steve Nash who shoots the ball at a higher percentage. Paul had 3 fewer assists and 2 fewer turnovers per 36 than nash but 5 more points (which are accrued less efficiently than Nash's points). Is the TOV and point differential the culprit here or is there something I'm missing?

[Doctor MJ]

It's Paul's freakish ability to not commit turnovers while still doing everything else well. PER weights TOs quite heavily.

Also, in case you're curious, Evan Z has done some great work using regression analysis on specific factors. (So like APM & RAPM but on things other than scoreboard edge.). Here's his point guard analysis from recent data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... IM0E#gid=0

You'll notice:

1. Paul is 1, Nash is 2
2. Nash kills everybody in terms of improving team effective FG%.
3. Paul kills everybody in terms of reducing turnovers.

So, point 3 is very well covered by PER and it makes Paul look very good (which he is), but Nash's outlier impact on simply getting a teammate a good shot isn't covered well at all.

And of course, keep in mind that this data doesn't actually cover Nash's most glamorous days in Phoenix. The all-purpose Offensive APM & RAPM metrics have always favored Nash over Paul until this last season.

[Rapcity_11]

Also, Paul rebounds more, get a ton of steals and plays a slower pace.

[Nivek]

Paul also shoots more, which PER rewards.

[colts18]

Also, Paul rebounds more, get a ton of steals and plays a slower pace.

The slow pace is a big point. Thats why Cp3 is ahead of Magic despite Magic being better. PER overrates slow pace PG's (Billups for example).

[Doctor MJ]

Also, Paul rebounds more, get a ton of steals and plays a slower pace.

The slow pace is a big point. Thats why Cp3 is ahead of Magic despite Magic being better. PER overrates slow pace PG's (Billups for example).

What's your argument for why PER overrates slow pace?

[kabstah]

Didn't we have a thread here a while ago discussing how pace affects scoring, and it turned out that the effect for star players was quite small? PER assumes linear correlation between scoring and pace, so it expects a player at 10% increased pace to have 10% increased scoring. If it turns out that the correlation is less than linear, like if the square of scoring is linear to pace or something, then PER would be lower for a player at higher pace due to that player not meeting the model's unrealistic expectations.

[colts18]

Also, Paul rebounds more, get a ton of steals and plays a slower pace.

The slow pace is a big point. Thats why Cp3 is ahead of Magic despite Magic being better. PER overrates slow pace PG's (Billups for example).

What's your argument for why PER overrates slow pace?

Paul is a ballhog so in 88 possessions he will take about the same amount of possessions as Nash will in 95, this will cause PER to rate him favorably. Of course PER also favors volume scoring so despite Nash being more efficient, Paul gets more credit for shooting less (in lesser pace).

[Rapcity_11]

Paul is a ballhog so in 88 possessions he will take about the same amount of possessions as Nash will in 95, this will cause PER to rate him favorably. Of course PER also favors volume scoring so despite Nash being more efficient, Paul gets more credit for shooting less (in lesser pace).

That's not overrating pace. Just using a faulty assumption of linear possession use.