RealGM

Do you see any flaws in The Per Efficiency Rating Stat? And if so what are they?

I don't think defense should go against it since it doesn't claim to be a defensive stat. (P.S I don't think defensive rebounds is a great teller of how good someone is defensively, there's been plenty of great rebounding big men who couldn't guard a pole)

I'm not a expert on the subject but in my opinion it kinda seems to separate the more versatile players that bring more then one thing from the one dimensional type of players.

It overrates volume scoring. If you score a lot of points, even if you aren't that efficient at it you will have a favorable PER.

It overrates volume scoring and and it doesn't measure defense properly. That's exactly why low-usage defensive specialists like Bruce Bowen have a really low career PER.

I think you have to knock PER on defense simply because of how it's used to evaluate players as a whole. If people widely considered it as an only offense stat, that'd be one thing. But players like Jimmy Butler have a lower PER than James Harden, simply because Harden focuses all his effort on the offensive end while Jimmy is a 2 way player.

Volume scoring is also a flaw, as others have said.

It overrates rebounding and usage rate/volume scoring. It underates efficiency and it doesn't really tell us much about defense.

It still has its usefulness but not as a stand alone stat.

Can somebody recommend me a more efficient stat? I always use PER to see how good a player is and to compare him with other players. Also let me know how the stat works or if I should continue to use PER.

Zeitgeister wrote:It overrates volume scoring. If you score a lot of points, even if you aren't that efficient at it you will have a favorable PER.

Andrew Wiggins' PER says the contrary

TheDavinciCHODE wrote:

Zeitgeister wrote:It overrates volume scoring. If you score a lot of points, even if you aren't that efficient at it you will have a favorable PER.

Andrew Wiggins' PER says the contrary

That's because Wiggins sucks at getting steals and blocks, is nothing special at getting rebounds. PER is a stat that is basically just measuring how much positive statistical accumulation you can get. Wiggins gets the scoring, but barely anything else and then he has 2.5 tpg while not getting much in terms of assists.

sanitylaker wrote:It overrates volume scoring and and it doesn't measure defense properly. That's exactly why low-usage defensive specialists like Bruce Bowen have a really low career PER.

Yes, Bill Russell has a lower career PER than Walt Bellamy who never even appeared in one conf. final.

TheDavinciCHODE wrote:

Zeitgeister wrote:It overrates volume scoring. If you score a lot of points, even if you aren't that efficient at it you will have a favorable PER.

Andrew Wiggins' PER says the contrary

How? Wiggins is a one-dimensional volume scorer and has a very favorable PER - his PER is above average while his WS/48, BPM, ORtg/DRtg, RPM ... are all terrible

Kobe was never a PER favorite, yet if you look up volume scorer in the dictionary there's 2 pictures (1 of him in a #8 jersey and 1 of him in a #24 jersey) lol

Another major flaw is that it treats all made+missed FGs and assists the same.

-shot creation has value
-assists to three point shooters aren't indicative of passing ability to the extent that 2FG assists are. More credit should go to the shooter on 3s and less should go to the passer.

It's a good metric to see who dominate the ball well , and that's it . Also , has low math inside it , but doesn't matter that much .

Clearly it doesn't evaluate defense properly. Enes Kanter is in the top 15 last time I checked.

Daddy 801 wrote:Clearly it doesn't evaluate defense properly. Enes Kanter is in the top 15 last time I checked.

Because it doesn't take into account defense really. We don't have counting stats for defense unless we count steals and rebounds as defense.

The_Hater wrote:It overrates rebounding and usage rate/volume scoring. It underates efficiency and it doesn't really tell us much about defense.

It still has its usefulness but not as a stand alone stat.

uPER = (1 / MP) *
[ 3P
+ (2/3) * AST
+ (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG
+ (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG)))
- VOP * TOV
- VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG)
- VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT)
+ VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB)
+ VOP * DRB% * ORB
+ VOP * STL
+ VOP * DRB% * BLK
- PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]

Look at how much revolves around rebound related counting stats.

Augusto61 wrote:Can somebody recommend me a more efficient stat? I always use PER to see how good a player is and to compare him with other players. Also let me know how the stat works or if I should continue to use PER.

I'm wondering this too. However, using what I do know of statistics, the best thing to do is to take a look at all advanced stats, understand the bias from each metric and take a look at the numbers in context. Way easier said than done though.

Brauer wrote:

Augusto61 wrote:Can somebody recommend me a more efficient stat? I always use PER to see how good a player is and to compare him with other players. Also let me know how the stat works or if I should continue to use PER.

I'm wondering this too. However, using what I do know of statistics, the best thing to do is to take a look at all advanced stats, understand the bias from each metric and take a look at the numbers in context. Way easier said than done though.

There are really only two families of advanced stats today. One of them is based on some arbitrary numeric score, most famously PER and BPM. The other family relies on plus and minus based scoring such as APM, RPM and RAPM.

Take stats in, spit out a score

PER: Awards stat sheet stuffers, that can be used to compare players across teams, undervalues defense.

BPM: a per 100 possession stat, does not take into account playing time. Once again only good at measuring offense.

Take plus minus from boxscore and adjust it.

We need to do adjustment because teams are not equal. Most GSW players have amazing plus minus. The pros of a plus minus based stat is that they are largely an unbiased measure of a player's effectiveness. Who cares what kind of numbers you put up or don't put up as long as your team is +20 pts per 100 possession with you playing.

APM: you take the basic plus/minus that you see on boxscores, solve a system of linear equations that takes into account the teammates and opponents on the court. Why? See above sentence. It doesn't do a good job at doing this because basketball is not a 1v1 game.

RAPM: utilizes regularization to shrink the estimates toward the mean. This introduces bias into the estimate, but greatly reduces the error. This generates more accurate and independent adjusted plus minus values, but can force low volume players toward the average. Thus, this is very good at finding the extremely good players and the extremely bad ones.

RPM: ESPN's version of RAPM with their tuning with some box score mumbo jumbo.

tl;dr Use ESPN's RPM. It is probably the best single number metric you can find.

paulbball wrote:

Brauer wrote:

Augusto61 wrote:Can somebody recommend me a more efficient stat? I always use PER to see how good a player is and to compare him with other players. Also let me know how the stat works or if I should continue to use PER.

I'm wondering this too. However, using what I do know of statistics, the best thing to do is to take a look at all advanced stats, understand the bias from each metric and take a look at the numbers in context. Way easier said than done though.

There are really only two families of advanced stats today. One of them is based on some arbitrary numeric score, most famously PER and BPM. The other family relies on plus and minus based scoring such as APM, RPM and RAPM.

Take stats in, spit out a score

PER: Awards stat sheet stuffers, that can be used to compare players across teams, undervalues defense.

BPM: a per 100 possession stat, does not take into account playing time. Once again only good at measuring offense.

Take plus minus from boxscore and adjust it.

We need to do adjustment because teams are not equal. Most GSW players have amazing plus minus. The pros of a plus minus based stat is that they are largely an unbiased measure of a player's effectiveness. Who cares what kind of numbers you put up or don't put up as long as your team is +20 pts per 100 possession with you playing.

APM: you take the basic plus/minus that you see on boxscores, solve a system of linear equations that takes into account the teammates and opponents on the court. Why? See above sentence. It doesn't do a good job at doing this because basketball is not a 1v1 game.

RAPM: utilizes regularization to shrink the estimates toward the mean. This introduces bias into the estimate, but greatly reduces the error. This generates more accurate and independent adjusted plus minus values, but can force low volume players toward the average. Thus, this is very good at finding the extremely good players and the extremely bad ones.

RPM: ESPN's version of RAPM with their tuning with some box score mumbo jumbo.

tl;dr Use ESPN's RPM. It is probably the best single number metric you can find.

According to this stat Jae Crowder is better than Carmelo Anthony. There are some interesting comparisons but that one is hard to buy.

Augusto61 wrote:

paulbball wrote:

Brauer wrote:
I'm wondering this too. However, using what I do know of statistics, the best thing to do is to take a look at all advanced stats, understand the bias from each metric and take a look at the numbers in context. Way easier said than done though.

There are really only two families of advanced stats today. One of them is based on some arbitrary numeric score, most famously PER and BPM. The other family relies on plus and minus based scoring such as APM, RPM and RAPM.

Take stats in, spit out a score

PER: Awards stat sheet stuffers, that can be used to compare players across teams, undervalues defense.

BPM: a per 100 possession stat, does not take into account playing time. Once again only good at measuring offense.

Take plus minus from boxscore and adjust it.

We need to do adjustment because teams are not equal. Most GSW players have amazing plus minus. The pros of a plus minus based stat is that they are largely an unbiased measure of a player's effectiveness. Who cares what kind of numbers you put up or don't put up as long as your team is +20 pts per 100 possession with you playing.

APM: you take the basic plus/minus that you see on boxscores, solve a system of linear equations that takes into account the teammates and opponents on the court. Why? See above sentence. It doesn't do a good job at doing this because basketball is not a 1v1 game.

RAPM: utilizes regularization to shrink the estimates toward the mean. This introduces bias into the estimate, but greatly reduces the error. This generates more accurate and independent adjusted plus minus values, but can force low volume players toward the average. Thus, this is very good at finding the extremely good players and the extremely bad ones.

RPM: ESPN's version of RAPM with their tuning with some box score mumbo jumbo.

tl;dr Use ESPN's RPM. It is probably the best single number metric you can find.

According to this stat Jae Crowder is better than Carmelo Anthony. There are some interesting comparisons but that one is hard to buy.

1. You are missing the key point of 'R' part of RPM/RAPM. Celtics are the 3rd seed, and might even end up 2nd. My Knicks are in the dumpster. See what I'm getting at?

2. RPM and every advanced stats out there shows that Melo is a superior offensive player, but Melo's defensive stats are more than suspect. As a result, Crowder has a better total RPM.

3. Have you considered the idea that Crowder may actually have more impact than Melo on the court? It is magical how some players are always on losing teams.