Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    7,733
    vCash
    1500

    Per36 vs. Per48?

    Hey guys, I'm relatively new to the world of Basketball Advanced Statistics and just wanted to see your guys' opinions on which Per Minute Stat do you think is more accurate/precise in terms of overall production. Per36 or Per48? Why? Discuss. Thanks!

    Detroit Lions (7-3)
    AAL - Teryl Austin (Defensive Coordinator)

    -----
    Detroit Pistons (3-10)
    #MaxMooseMonroe

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    33,479
    vCash
    1894
    same

    "It’s absolutely ludicrous” (to judge players based on whether they’ve won a title.)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16,016
    vCash
    1500
    ^ agree.

    I use PER 36 more just because guys usually don't play 48 minutes.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,560
    vCash
    1500
    There is also Per 40 Pace Adjusted:

    http://www.draftexpress.com/stats.ph...s=all&qual=all
    Quote Originally Posted by effen5 View Post
    2 years ago, this team was worth 650 million dollars. Derrick Rose has played ten games since and now this team is worth a billion dollars. Clearly, it's Tom Thibodeu.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Europe
    Posts
    1,167
    vCash
    1500
    doesn't make a difference, the Per 48 will just be higher, but it's exactly the same, because it's minutes based.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    36,608
    vCash
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by Gators123 View Post
    ^ agree.

    I use PER 36 more just because guys usually don't play 48 minutes.
    This.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Agreed with all above, but would just add - and hopefully this goes without saying - that the most important thing would be to maintain consistency when comparing players, ie. don't compare one's per 36 numbers to anothers per 48 numbers.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    23,141
    vCash
    950
    I would say a per 36 would be more reliable data personally....

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,295
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    I would say a per 36 would be more reliable data personally....
    What do you mean by "reliable"? Because both are equal in terms of showing production per minutes. It's just that time is a variable. If player A scores 15 points per 36 and playeer B scores 21, then player A scores 20 per 48 and player B scores 28. Their comparative efficiency maintains the same proportion.

    But if you mean, as others have said above, that 36 minutes more accurately reflects real playing time, then I'd agree.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    29,122
    vCash
    500
    I personally would prefer looking at their per36. Realistically, players aren't going to play a full 48 minutes and they sure as hell aren't going to average that.

    Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, and Colin Kaepernick walk into a bar... To watch Russell Wilson win the Super Bowl.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    23,141
    vCash
    950
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    What do you mean by "reliable"? Because both are equal in terms of showing production per minutes. It's just that time is a variable. If player A scores 15 points per 36 and playeer B scores 21, then player A scores 20 per 48 and player B scores 28. Their comparative efficiency maintains the same proportion.

    But if you mean, as others have said above, that 36 minutes more accurately reflects real playing time, then I'd agree.
    I did, maybe reliable wasn't the best word to convey what I meant. I think honestly you want to keep the sample size as universally close to an average playing time as possible because the further you exceed that, the more variables can skew the information. I mean nobody really plays 48 minutes on a nightly basis so to suggest two player's that actually only played 24 minutes a game statistics would remain directly proportionate would more than likely be inaccurate in conveying an actual stat and efficiency spread if they played an entire game.


    I mean I already know a lot of people can find the per 36 unreliable for that reason...

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    33,479
    vCash
    1894
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    I did, maybe reliable wasn't the best word to convey what I meant. I think honestly you want to keep the sample size as universally close to an average playing time as possible because the further you exceed that, the more variables can skew the information. I mean nobody really plays 48 minutes on a nightly basis so to suggest two player's that actually only played 24 minutes a game statistics would remain directly proportionate would more than likely be inaccurate in conveying an actual stat and efficiency spread if they played an entire game.


    I mean I already know a lot of people can find the per 36 unreliable for that reason...
    They are the SAME. What exactly are they skewing?

    "It’s absolutely ludicrous” (to judge players based on whether they’ve won a title.)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ****ing Bruges
    Posts
    35,537
    vCash
    1500
    They aren't the same. Can a player who plays 25-30 minutes maintain production for 36 probably.

    But I don't think it's the same per 48. Exhaustion sets in the physicality of the game takes its toll and efficiency will go down.

    Per 48 minutes is a dumb scale

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Europe
    Posts
    1,167
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebbs View Post
    They aren't the same. Can a player who plays 25-30 minutes maintain production for 36 probably.

    But I don't think it's the same per 48. Exhaustion sets in the physicality of the game takes its toll and efficiency will go down.

    Per 48 minutes is a dumb scale
    But in the end it doesn't matter, because some players would even get bigger numbers with more time and some would drop before they reach 36 minutes (allthough there is nearly no correlation between higher minutes and efficiency). They both show per minute stats, maybe we should just change to per minute stats.

    if you compare players on a per 48 basis it isn't different then comparing them on a per 36 basis. It only matters that you use the same numbers.... you could also use per 1 minute per 10/12/24 or whatever floats your boat, the stat tells the same story every time.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    435
    vCash
    1500
    The 36 is just showing what they could make if they played a good nights game with 36 mins on the floor. Its good for estimating if your bench player could become a starter or not if given the right minutes.

    Per 48 is more for comparing a lot of people and if you don't care on the numbers. Like 36 is meant to be a starters minutes. Across the board the 48 to me is a good basis to estimate a players overall greatness. Although I like the 36 more for the types of things I look into.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •