ESPN adds new overall stat...REAL PLUS/MINUS..Finally!

[PaulieWal]

1) everyone knows PER is a garbage stat.

Lol PER is a garbage stat now?

always has been. which is widely recognized amongst those who do not use the acronym 'lol'

Widely recognized amongst whom? As long as you understand its limitations (not accounting for defense) you can use it to evaluate players.

[MisterHibachi]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

[Knosh]

Also, the values are adjusted for coaches, and Thibodeau is seen as quite a great coach by that metric, which means Bulls players should be rated down a bit

he's a great coach, but he must be the best coach in the history of the league if the bulls are outperforming their individual WARs by that much. the spurs aren't that far out of whack, and popovich is pretty universally considered an excellent coach

and i don't think WAR is supposed to work like that anyway. it relies solely on what has happened on the court and distributes that value to players

From the ESPN article:
"Drawing on advanced statistical modeling techniques (and the analytical wizardry of RPM developer Jeremias Engelmann, formerly of the Phoenix Suns), the metric isolates the unique plus-minus impact of each NBA player by adjusting for the effects of each teammate, opposing player and coach."

Check out http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/coaches.html

[Winsome Gerbil]

That's not what the stat is saying. Read MysticBBs post in this thread, that will probably make things clearer.

I'm very happy that ESPN are pushing this stat, I hope they will use it when they're doing games too so that people will be more familiar with advanced stats.

I'm hoping they don't, because a lot more would be learned if those people spent less time punching a calculator and more time watching the actual game.

In 2014, is this really necessary? Do you honestly believe that people interested in this type of data/analysis aren't watching the game? It's disturbing that you're opposed to people enriching their fan experience and understanding of players/the league.

Far too may of said people are more interested in cheap and easy shortcuts and claims to ultimate knowledge rather than "enriching their fan experience". I might define it as "trying too hard" when you spend thousands of hours designing a series of metrics which may actually describe the league less accurately than a old fashioned list of Points Per Game leaders. I'm actually relatively proud of the WAR stat for correctly getting Josh Smith into its Top 40.

I may actually rarely use of one these stats for something. It appears to provide some a list of roleplayers who's minutes on the floor corresponded to positive minutes for good teams. Or some such. It will inevitably be used to make far greater, and far more stupid, claims.

[illastrate]

Clippers 3 players in the top 15 - you'd expect them to have a better record than they currently have
Timberwolves 2 players in the top 15 - yet they won't sniff the playoffs

Goran Dragic is legit.

They're 1.5 games behind OKC for the 2nd best record in the league. Not exactly a disappointment.

[dice]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

it's widely referenced as a single number indicator of a player's value. and by that measure it is severely flawed. it largely ignores defense and overvalues chucking

there ARE no reliable widely referenced single number indicators of player value. i'd say RAPM comes about as close as any, though there is an obvious problem with outliers

[dice]

Also, the values are adjusted for coaches, and Thibodeau is seen as quite a great coach by that metric, which means Bulls players should be rated down a bit

he's a great coach, but he must be the best coach in the history of the league if the bulls are outperforming their individual WARs by that much. the spurs aren't that far out of whack, and popovich is pretty universally considered an excellent coach

and i don't think WAR is supposed to work like that anyway. it relies solely on what has happened on the court and distributes that value to players

From the ESPN article:
"Drawing on advanced statistical modeling techniques (and the analytical wizardry of RPM developer Jeremias Engelmann, formerly of the Phoenix Suns), the metric isolates the unique plus-minus impact of each NBA player by adjusting for the effects of each teammate, opposing player and coach."

finding the word coach in the analysis does not mean that the coach can be given a WAR rating. which would have to be done to explain how the chicago bulls have such a low sum of individual WARs

the excerpt you just noted backs up what i said: coaching impact is supposed to manifest itself in the final player ratings. put differently, the statistical noise of teammates, coaches, and opponents is supposed to be filtered out, leaving on-court performance to be analyzed numerically. point differentials and team wins are ultimately determined on the court as a result of player actions

[criteriado]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

it's widely referenced as a single number indicator of a player's value. and by that measure it is severely flawed. it largely ignores defense and overvalues chucking

there ARE no reliable widely referenced single number indicators of player value. i'd say RAPM comes about as close as any, though there is an obvious problem with outliers

I think PER is a good stat, as long as you don't think it's THE STAT. You're right that overvalues chuckers and doesn't value D and probably underrates good role players ( RAPM is exactly for that). You can use it as long as you talk about the role of the players, how your team is constructed..etc.

I use PER, WS/48 and RAPM + 82games.com and his on/off court data to evaluate players + watching games. I think I can have a good idea about a player when I do that.

[Winsome Gerbil]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

it's widely referenced as a single number indicator of a player's value. and by that measure it is severely flawed. it largely ignores defense and overvalues chucking

there ARE no reliable widely referenced single number indicators of player value. i'd say RAPM comes about as close as any, though there is an obvious problem with outliers

I can't believe I am going to go to bat for PER of all things, but just let me note that a basketball-reference.com search of:

all players with a career PER of 20 or more
who played at least 10,000 career minutes

produces a list where of the Top 50 players all time in PER, only Kevin Love, Yao Ming, Pau Gasol, Chris Webber and Manu Ginoboli are not HOF locks, and frankly there's a good chance all of those players make it too. You can say it misjudges that, does not take into account this, and I would not entirely disagree with assessment. But what it DOES measure is staggeringly accurate when it comes to lining up with what GMs, coaches, and HOF voters have always valued. I would be shocked if there is any stat, simple or advanced, that more accurately predicts HOF inclusion at the highest levels.

[jokeboy86]

Finally... The Rock... HAS COME BACK .... Oh wrong thread.

[MisterHibachi]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

it's widely referenced as a single number indicator of a player's value. and by that measure it is severely flawed. it largely ignores defense and overvalues chucking

there ARE no reliable widely referenced single number indicators of player value. i'd say RAPM comes about as close as any, though there is an obvious problem with outliers

Well, people should learn what each stat tells them before using it. It's not the stat's fault that people use it wrongly. PER ignores defense because the box score ignores defense. If you don't trust the box score, you shouldn't trust PER. But the box score does tell you important things. It's important to know who had how many points, rebounds, assists, whatever. Box score ignores context, but that's what the eye test is for.

Obviously no stat is the end-all, be-all, RAPM and PER included. I don't think anyone is arguing that. They're all part of the puzzle, tho.

[Leslie Forman]

I'm using 82games.com and on/off the court data. Not RAPM. He is an average replacement player but he replaced an awful player, so he looks better and the record looks better.

He looks great on PER and awful at RPM, it evens out.

It's the same argument that Jazz fans argue with Burke on his campaign for ROY. Burke replaced an awful player and the Jazz were much better even though he's a below average player.

If you're going to sit there and imply that the Bulls would be better off with, say, Pat Beverly instead, I assure you that every goddamn Bulls fan would disagree.

RPM, WAR, whatever, all of it is useless at understanding the nuances of basketball. While I myself rely on advanced stats plenty, it will never take into account things like "oh hey, there's a guy who can actually dribble the ball on the team now."

While advanced stats are interesting, no team sport will ever be as easily adaptable to it as baseball, unless basketball turns into a one-on-one game while the other eight guys sit on the bench and watch.

[justin12140]

this whole advanced stats **** is so annoying to me. Im fine with stats that show how a player does in certain situations (like in PnR, shooting from the elbow, passing out of a double team) but these all inclusive stats that try and capture an entire players impact are stupid as hell. yall could prolly spout of the best RPMs in the league of the top of your head but couldnt even tell me what a box & 1 is smh

[jazzfan1971]

There's no need to dismiss the stat just because you don't agree with a couple of cherry picked examples.

It seems to me that is a very valid reason to dismiss a stat.

[jinxed]

There's no need to dismiss the stat just because you don't agree with a couple of cherry picked examples.

It seems to me that is a very valid reason to dismiss a stat.

1)Is there a single stat out there which you don't disagree with a few outcomes?
2)RAPM has shown to be the best predictor of future outcomes, making it a better stat than PER, Win Shares..etc..
3) If the stat gets so much right..Lebron and KD one and two, accurately states the best defenders in the league..(Sanders,Garnett,Gasol, Duncan, Bogut, Iggy, Dwight), how can you dismiss it just because in your eyes it is not perfect?

Do you just dismiss Steve Nash as a foul shooter because he only gets 90% in? Isn't 90% of pretty much anything pretty good?

4) How do you know the cherry picked examples you don't like aren't because YOU don't understand what the stat is saying our maybe your preconceptions were the ones that were wrong and not the stat?

[jinxed]

I'm using 82games.com and on/off the court data. Not RAPM. He is an average replacement player but he replaced an awful player, so he looks better and the record looks better.

He looks great on PER and awful at RPM, it evens out.

It's the same argument that Jazz fans argue with Burke on his campaign for ROY. Burke replaced an awful player and the Jazz were much better even though he's a below average player.

If you're going to sit there and imply that the Bulls would be better off with, say, Pat Beverly instead, I assure you that every goddamn Bulls fan would disagree.

RPM, WAR, whatever, all of it is useless at understanding the nuances of basketball. While I myself rely on advanced stats plenty, it will never take into account things like "oh hey, there's a guy who can actually dribble the ball on the team now."

While advanced stats are interesting, no team sport will ever be as easily adaptable to it as baseball, unless basketball turns into a one-on-one game while the other eight guys sit on the bench and watch.

This just shows you don't understand this stat. RPM DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT "oh there is a guy who can dribble the ball now". It takes into account literally EVERYTHING that goes into a basket since it is a plus/minus based stat. This is why we love the stat, because it does take into account ball handling, setting screens, floor spacing and all those important things box score stats never did.

[dice]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

it's widely referenced as a single number indicator of a player's value. and by that measure it is severely flawed. it largely ignores defense and overvalues chucking

there ARE no reliable widely referenced single number indicators of player value. i'd say RAPM comes about as close as any, though there is an obvious problem with outliers

I can't believe I am going to go to bat for PER of all things, but just let me note that a basketball-reference.com search of:

all players with a career PER of 20 or more
who played at least 10,000 career minutes

produces a list where of the Top 50 players all time in PER, only Kevin Love, Yao Ming, Pau Gasol, Chris Webber and Manu Ginoboli are not HOF locks, and frankly there's a good chance all of those players make it too. You can say it misjudges that, does not take into account this, and I would not entirely disagree with assessment. But what it DOES measure is staggeringly accurate when it comes to lining up with what GMs, coaches, and HOF voters have always valued. I would be shocked if there is any stat, simple or advanced, that more accurately predicts HOF inclusion at the highest levels.

thing is, you could make a VERY basic formula yourself (say P + R + A + B + S - TO) and you'd come up with a very similar list

i guess it's the pretense of being an "advanced" and all-encompassing stat that irritates me most about its use

[dice]

PER is a box score measurement. It tells you which players put up the best box scores and its pretty good at doing that. It does what it claims to do. Not garbage.

it's widely referenced as a single number indicator of a player's value. and by that measure it is severely flawed. it largely ignores defense and overvalues chucking

there ARE no reliable widely referenced single number indicators of player value. i'd say RAPM comes about as close as any, though there is an obvious problem with outliers

Well, people should learn what each stat tells them before using it. It's not the stat's fault that people use it wrongly

no, it's not the stat's fault. it's the fault of its creator, who clearly doesn't know what goes into winning basketball. not at a high level, anyway

efficiency could easily be better incorporated using box scores, for example

[Leslie Forman]

This just shows you don't understand this stat. RPM DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT "oh there is a guy who can dribble the ball now". It takes into account literally EVERYTHING that goes into a basket since it is a plus/minus based stat. This is why we love the stat, because it does take into account ball handling, setting screens, floor spacing and all those important things box score stats never did.

No it doesn't. It does not take in the fact that since DJ Augustin is on the team, now all of those offensively challenged players on his team can now expend a lot less energy on that end, particularly the old ass, past-his-prime starting PG. If it really was that useful, then a team of Pat Beverly, Vince Carter, Andre Iguodala, Nick Collison, and DeAndre Jordan would be title favorites. I don't need a stat to tell me that's not true.

Everyone keeps looking for some basketball equivalent of baseball's WAR (I know there is a basketball one as well, but it's equally as flawed), but it's just not possible in such a team-oriented sport. RPM, WAR, WS, PER, none of these can encapsulate the true impact of a basketball player.

[jinxed]

No it doesn't. It does not take in the fact that since DJ Augustin is on the team, now all of those offensively challenged players on his team can now expend a lot less energy on that end, particularly the old ass, past-his-prime starting PG. r.

As long as the benefits take place while Augustin is on the court, then of course it does. Why would you think it doesn't? It would take this into account because this would show up in the +/- ratings. Anything, literally anything that you do that contributes to your team scoring a point, or stopping the opposing team from scoring a point will show up in this stat, because it is based on how the TEAM DOES WHILE YOU ARE ON THE COURT. So anything, literally anything, that you do while you are on the court to help your team will show up in this stat.

What doesn't show up is off the court stuff, locker room presence, how you may help your team in practice or anything that goes on that you may do to help or hinder your team while you are NOT on the court.

If it really was that useful, then a team of Pat Beverly, Vince Carter, Andre Iguodala, Nick Collison, and DeAndre Jordan would be title favorites.

No it doesn't say that at all, because you never know how those players would gel from a chemistry stand point. What this stat shows..in the words of Mark Cuban , who paid statisticians Wayne Winston and Jeff Sagarin 100's of thousands to develop the original versions of this stat..

"One more point, these numbers don’t reflect necessarily the best players in the league, but what they do reflect is the players that are being best put in a position to succeed and are delivering." - Mark Cuban.

http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/08/nba-all-stars-by-the-numbers/

Also when you mention Vince Carter and Collison you aren't taking into account that they are bench players, and bench players can expend more energy in their shorter periods of play than they would if they had to play the whole game and pace themselves. That is one of the reasons you see hustle guys like Collison and Birdman rank so high, they can go all out for short periods of time. There is no guarantee that if they started and had to reserve their energy this would hold up over a whole game .

I suggest you look at the WAR ranking for a more accurate portrayal of who the top contributer's have been.