2025 Rookie Class

[nate33]

Stolen from 76ciology on the GB:

[WizarDynasty]

Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

[doclinkin]

Too bad Will Riley tweaked his thumb and stayed out. Only Zikarsky and Sion James played fewer minutes. He did look skilled in the minutes he was available. Skinny and overmatched on defense but poised and picking his spots on offense.

[payitforward]

Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

Actually, PER does not look good on low volume. Unless you shoot @33% or lower, your PER rises with every extra shot you take. PER looks better on high volume than low.

In any case, I'm pretty sure no one takes PER seriously enough any more that it leads them astray.

I'm also pretty sure NBA FG%'s do NOT trend down significantly over the length of the season, as you seem to suggest.

Teams make mistakes, b/c this isn't an exact science, & mistakes are inherent at every level.

OTOH, with far more resources available to them than are available to you or me, I'm quite sure that teams make far fewer mistakes than you do. Or than I do.

[nate33]

Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

Actually, PER does not look good on low volume. Unless you shoot @33% or lower, your PER rises with every extra shot you take. PER looks better on high volume than low.

In any case, I'm pretty sure no one takes PER seriously enough any more that it leads them astray.

I'm also pretty sure NBA FG%'s do NOT trend down significantly over the length of the season, as you seem to suggest.

Teams make mistakes, b/c this isn't an exact science, & mistakes are inherent at every level.

OTOH, with far more resources available to them than are available to you or me, I'm quite sure that teams make far fewer mistakes than you do. Or than I do.

The best thing about PER is that it is seasonally adjusted so that the league average PER every year is 15. It makes it very useful to compare players of different eras. But, yeah, PER's weakness is that it does seem to reward high volume, low efficiency shooters (though I recall Hollinger refuting that criticism somehow due to some statistical magic in the seasonal adjustment).

At any rate, PER and WS/48, being purely box score metrics, do not capture the elements of good play that box scores don't track: things like positional defense, off ball gravity, shot deterrence, and ball movement. That's why RAPM, BPM and EPM, which incorporate elements of plus/minus metrics are generally better overall stats.

[doclinkin]

Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

Actually, PER does not look good on low volume. Unless you shoot @33% or lower, your PER rises with every extra shot you take. PER looks better on high volume than low.

In any case, I'm pretty sure no one takes PER seriously enough any more that it leads them astray.

I'm also pretty sure NBA FG%'s do NOT trend down significantly over the length of the season, as you seem to suggest.

Teams make mistakes, b/c this isn't an exact science, & mistakes are inherent at every level.

OTOH, with far more resources available to them than are available to you or me, I'm quite sure that teams make far fewer mistakes than you do. Or than I do.

The best thing about PER is that it is seasonally adjusted so that the league average PER every year is 15. It makes it very useful to compare players of different eras. But, yeah, PER's weakness is that it does seem to reward high volume, low efficiency shooters (though I recall Hollinger refuting that criticism somehow due to some statistical magic in the seasonal adjustment).

At any rate, PER and WS/48, being purely box score metrics, do not capture the elements of good play that box scores don't track: things like positional defense, off ball gravity, shot deterrence, and ball movement. That's why RAPM, BPM and EPM, which incorporate elements of plus/minus metrics are generally better overall stats.

Pretty sure wiz’nasty was talking about Per36 numbers, mentioned in the chart. Because in that case yeah sometimes a low volume low minutes guy can stand out in a small sample size.

[nate33]

Pretty sure wiz’nasty was talking about Per36 numbers, mentioned in the chart. Because in that case yeah sometimes a low volume low minutes guy can stand out in a small sample size.

Sure. You can't compare a 12 mpg guy with a 36 mpg guy on a per 36 basis and assume it will hold up.

But it's better to use per 36 numbers rather than raw stats to compare a 32 mpg guy versus a 38 mpg guy.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Per always looks good on low volume, that's why teams make alot of mistakes.
Volume almost always exposes hidden injuries which makes Per useless, most of these start falling apart when asked to execute for 82 games. Stress wears down the body.

This is true but for summer league I think it's a different set of issues. The sample sample size is small for everyone. And then add in that teams get different players to try different things at different times and sit out guys at various times and these kinds of stats aren't super helpful. Summer league is more about seeing if guys can do things their team wants them to or not and then hoping it will translate into a time when teams are more consistently trying to win and the competition is better.