Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro
Trae Young leads the NBA in Player Efficiency Rating after the first week of the season with a mark of 42.3, followed by Karl-Anthony Towns at 39.7 and Dejounte Murray at 37.4. Kyrie Irving and Mitchell Robinson round out the top-5.
PER (Week 1)
1. Trae Young: 42.3
2. Karl-Anthony Towns: 39.7
3. Dejounte Murray: 37.4
4. Kyrie Irving: 36.9
5. Mitchell Robinson: 36.3
dhsilv2 wrote:2008 wants their metric back!
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:2008 wants their metric back!
PER is a great tool for those that understand its flaws. 8 of the last 10 MVP's have lead the NBA in PER. Steph was #3 in 2015 and Rose was #9 in 2011. PER's biggest flaw is that it favors big's that don't shoot outside 3 feet. So for Trae to be at the top, even briefly, is an accomplishment.
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:2008 wants their metric back!
PER is a great tool for those that understand its flaws. 8 of the last 10 MVP's have lead the NBA in PER. Steph was #3 in 2015 and Rose was #9 in 2011. PER's biggest flaw is that it favors big's that don't shoot outside 3 feet. So for Trae to be at the top, even briefly, is an accomplishment.
It's not worthless...it's still awful and I fully know how it works.
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:PER is a great tool for those that understand its flaws. 8 of the last 10 MVP's have lead the NBA in PER. Steph was #3 in 2015 and Rose was #9 in 2011. PER's biggest flaw is that it favors big's that don't shoot outside 3 feet. So for Trae to be at the top, even briefly, is an accomplishment.
It's not worthless...it's still awful and I fully know how it works.
Nope... it's great, but you don't need to like it.
Try this: Multiply PER x USG%. Then it goes:
Trae
Kyrie
Kawhi
KAT
Giannis
Even more useful!!!
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
It's not worthless...it's still awful and I fully know how it works.
Nope... it's great, but you don't need to like it.
Try this: Multiply PER x USG%. Then it goes:
Trae
Kyrie
Kawhi
KAT
Giannis
Even more useful!!!
you multiply by a stat already overly factored into PER....
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:Nope... it's great, but you don't need to like it.
Try this: Multiply PER x USG%. Then it goes:
Trae
Kyrie
Kawhi
KAT
Giannis
Even more useful!!!
you multiply by a stat already overly factored into PER....
If USG% was overly factored in PER than Aaron Holiday couldn't possibly have the leagues Highest USG% (41.9) and the lowest PER (-27.5) at the same time. As far as I know, USG% isn't factored in at all.
Multiplying by USG% removes guys like Mitchell Robinson from #5 and drops them below 50 where they belong.
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
you multiply by a stat already overly factored into PER....
If USG% was overly factored in PER than Aaron Holiday couldn't possibly have the leagues Highest USG% (41.9) and the lowest PER (-27.5) at the same time. As far as I know, USG% isn't factored in at all.
Multiplying by USG% removes guys like Mitchell Robinson from #5 and drops them below 50 where they belong.
High usage is heavily factored into John's formula.
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:If USG% was overly factored in PER than Aaron Holiday couldn't possibly have the leagues Highest USG% (41.9) and the lowest PER (-27.5) at the same time. As far as I know, USG% isn't factored in at all.
Multiplying by USG% removes guys like Mitchell Robinson from #5 and drops them below 50 where they belong.
High usage is heavily factored into John's formula.
I don't see it ....
[ 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) ]
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
High usage is heavily factored into John's formula.
I don't see it ....
[ 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) ]
and how do you calculate usage?
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:I don't see it ....
[ 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) ]
and how do you calculate usage?
I concede your point, there is some crossover. But it isn't factored in nearly enough which is what makes PER so hard for some folks to digest. My basic point is that seeing a player with a high PER or a high USG% means very little. A high PER with low USG% might just mean that your a serviceable big and a high USG% with a low PER and you're probably a chucker. But if your PER and your USG% are both 25+ than you are likely an All NBA candidate. The two stats need each other... and no stat is valuable alone aside from a W.
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
and how do you calculate usage?
I concede your point, there is some crossover. But it isn't factored in nearly enough which is what makes PER so hard for some folks to digest. My basic point is that seeing a player with a high PER or a high USG% means very little. A high PER with low USG% might just mean that your a serviceable big and a high USG% with a low PER and you're probably a chucker. But if your PER and your USG% are both 25+ than you are likely an All NBA candidate. The two stats need each other... and no stat is valuable alone aside from a W.
PER is just a horrible stat that over values high usage players and thus why nobody today uses it.
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:I concede your point, there is some crossover. But it isn't factored in nearly enough which is what makes PER so hard for some folks to digest. My basic point is that seeing a player with a high PER or a high USG% means very little. A high PER with low USG% might just mean that your a serviceable big and a high USG% with a low PER and you're probably a chucker. But if your PER and your USG% are both 25+ than you are likely an All NBA candidate. The two stats need each other... and no stat is valuable alone aside from a W.
PER is just a horrible stat that over values high usage players and thus why nobody today uses it.
LOL... you said that, were wrong, and said it again.
There are problems with the PER stat but it isn't in overvaluing high USG% players. A low PER with a high USG% is common and is one way to determine a player's stats are BS:
Sexton
Hardaway Jr.
Dennis Smith
Malik Monk
Wiggins
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
PER is just a horrible stat that over values high usage players and thus why nobody today uses it.
LOL... you said that, were wrong, and said it again.
There are problems with the PER stat but it isn't in overvaluing high USG% players. A low PER with a high USG% is common and is one way to determine a player's stats are BS:
Sexton
Hardaway Jr.
Dennis Smith
Malik Monk
Wiggins
Without digging in more. Look at Wiggins. His PER has at times in his career rates him as an average if not slightly above average nba player. Meanwhile every other metric we have indicates his play is below that of a replacement level player. Wiggins two season with a PER over 16 are also his two highest usage seasons.
So thank you for the perfect example of why PER is a bad stat.
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:LOL... you said that, were wrong, and said it again.
There are problems with the PER stat but it isn't in overvaluing high USG% players. A low PER with a high USG% is common and is one way to determine a player's stats are BS:
Sexton
Hardaway Jr.
Dennis Smith
Malik Monk
Wiggins
Without digging in more. Look at Wiggins. His PER has at times in his career rates him as an average if not slightly above average nba player. Meanwhile every other metric we have indicates his play is below that of a replacement level player. Wiggins two season with a PER over 16 are also his two highest usage seasons.
So thank you for the perfect example of why PER is a bad stat.
A tool isn't a bad tool just because someone doesn't know when to use it. If you hand me a box of screws I'll have to agree that a hammer is the wrong tool, but if you attempt to hammer in a screw and then tell me the hammer is a bad tool I'm going to laugh at you.
But if you look a little closer you will see that the two seasons in which Wiggins had a 16+ PER he also had his best TS% and FT%, his fewest 3PA and most FTA.
In Wiggins' best season he finished 108th in PER which would give him the 4th highest PER on an average NBA team. Last season he finished 274th in PER which would give him the 9th highest PER on an average NBA team.... I've got to say that, even though we're using the wrong tool, the results seem about right. We hammered the crap out of that screw!
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Without digging in more. Look at Wiggins. His PER has at times in his career rates him as an average if not slightly above average nba player. Meanwhile every other metric we have indicates his play is below that of a replacement level player. Wiggins two season with a PER over 16 are also his two highest usage seasons.
So thank you for the perfect example of why PER is a bad stat.
A tool isn't a bad tool just because someone doesn't know when to use it. If you hand me a box of screws I'll have to agree that a hammer is the wrong tool, but if you attempt to hammer in a screw and then tell me the hammer is a bad tool I'm going to laugh at you.
But if you look a little closer you will see that the two seasons in which Wiggins had a 16+ PER he also had his best TS% and FT%, his fewest 3PA and most FTA.
In Wiggins' best season he finished 108th in PER which would give him the 4th highest PER on an average NBA team. Last season he finished 274th in PER which would give him the 9th highest PER on an average NBA team.... I've got to say that, even though we're using the wrong tool, the results seem about right. We hammered the crap out of that screw!
Wiggins was never a top 250 player in the nba. That's the point.
PER is a tool where you really always have a better option. It's and over sized swiss army knife that doesn't fit in your pocket. Sure you can use it but there are 100 better do it all tools.
Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:A tool isn't a bad tool just because someone doesn't know when to use it. If you hand me a box of screws I'll have to agree that a hammer is the wrong tool, but if you attempt to hammer in a screw and then tell me the hammer is a bad tool I'm going to laugh at you.
But if you look a little closer you will see that the two seasons in which Wiggins had a 16+ PER he also had his best TS% and FT%, his fewest 3PA and most FTA.
In Wiggins' best season he finished 108th in PER which would give him the 4th highest PER on an average NBA team. Last season he finished 274th in PER which would give him the 9th highest PER on an average NBA team.... I've got to say that, even though we're using the wrong tool, the results seem about right. We hammered the crap out of that screw!
Wiggins was never a top 250 player in the nba. That's the point.
PER is a tool where you really always have a better option. It's and over sized swiss army knife that doesn't fit in your pocket. Sure you can use it but there are 100 better do it all tools.
Ummm... yes he is. You are overestimating the skill level of the 8th man on just about every NBA roster. Situation matters and his situation has sucked. He would be useful on a team where he was treated like the 4th best player. The 4th best player on a typical NBA team takes about 10 FGA and 4 3PA per game. His issue is more that the team treats him like a #1 option and he clearly is nowhere close. But in their defense... what have their options been, post-extension. He's there and no help is coming soon. Pass him the ball and hope for the best!
And you're spot on... PER is a big blunt instrument. It is absolutely valuable as a quick observation. If you walk into the doctor and your arm hurts they may take an x-ray. If that proves inconclusive they might go to a CT scan. But if you walk into the office with a bone sticking out of your arm they can see the problem right away. That first glance is what PER is good for. You can get into the weeds if you want to but a career PER of 12 should have been enough to tell CHA not to give Batum that contract. It is a very simple but useful stat; I'm sorry you can't appreciate it.
dhsilv2 wrote:Pickled Prunes wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Wiggins was never a top 250 player in the nba. That's the point.
PER is a tool where you really always have a better option. It's and over sized swiss army knife that doesn't fit in your pocket. Sure you can use it but there are 100 better do it all tools.
Ummm... yes he is. You are overestimating the skill level of the 8th man on just about every NBA roster. Situation matters and his situation has sucked. He would be useful on a team where he was treated like the 4th best player. The 4th best player on a typical NBA team takes about 10 FGA and 4 3PA per game. His issue is more that the team treats him like a #1 option and he clearly is nowhere close. But in their defense... what have their options been, post-extension. He's there and no help is coming soon. Pass him the ball and hope for the best!
And you're spot on... PER is a big blunt instrument. It is absolutely valuable as a quick observation. If you walk into the doctor and your arm hurts they may take an x-ray. If that proves inconclusive they might go to a CT scan. But if you walk into the office with a bone sticking out of your arm they can see the problem right away. That first glance is what PER is good for. You can get into the weeds if you want to but a career PER of 12 should have been enough to tell CHA not to give Batum that contract. It is a very simple but useful stat; I'm sorry you can't appreciate it.
In world with BPM, WS/48, RAPM, BPM, etc there's no reason to use PER.
