PDA

View Full Version : Hollinger puts reputation on the line: Phx vs Bulls



Chronz
01-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Bulls WIN according to his momentum theory

Thoughts on the game between Nash vs Rose? Honestly I dont see Nash losing this


PS may be exaggerating

EternalLakeShow
01-22-2010, 07:35 PM
what reputation?:shrug:

GREATNESS ONE
01-22-2010, 07:37 PM
what reputation?:shrug:

lmao

Chronz
01-22-2010, 07:38 PM
Reputation of being an innovator in his field (stats)

Cool007
01-22-2010, 07:44 PM
Actually Bulls DO play better against Suns and usually the games are about Matchups and Bulls matchup very well against Suns.

Deng/Rose/Tyrus etc usually have very good games against Suns.

Last year Rose was pretty much unstoppable against Nash/Suns and Bulls swept them last year.

Just saying.

bears88
01-22-2010, 07:48 PM
This can be a good thing Nash Vs Rose. Rose can learn form a vet like Nash IDK am just saying tho

bears88
01-22-2010, 07:53 PM
its going to be a good match up even thou Rose D is below Average

ldc62
01-22-2010, 07:56 PM
Wheres the link? I'm not a huge fan of Hollinger, but the guy knows his statistics.

Cool007
01-22-2010, 07:56 PM
its going to be a good match up even thou Rose D is below Average

Won't matter - both Nash and Rose will do whatever they want.

Neither will stop each other.

arkanian215
01-22-2010, 08:09 PM
Reputation of being an innovator in his field (stats)

lol any kid who takes stats in college can do what he has done easily.

theuuord
01-22-2010, 08:17 PM
lol any kid who takes stats in college can do what he has done easily.

I took stats. I don't have a regular ESPN column.

ChiSox219
01-22-2010, 08:21 PM
Noah-Lopez is going to be interesting to watch.

dodie53
01-22-2010, 08:25 PM
Hair vs Hair

SteveNash
01-22-2010, 08:29 PM
How much momentum does Chicago have when they just lost to the Warriors and Clippers?

Not to mention that Phoenix is 16-4 at home, while Chicago is 4-15 on the road.

Shady66
01-22-2010, 08:35 PM
This should be a very fun game. Rose vs Nash, both will be great on offence.
and im actually very excited to see Noah vs Lopez
Two great defencive centers who also rebound very well

JLynn943
01-22-2010, 09:36 PM
I took stats. I don't have a regular ESPN column.

You should get on that then. :p

Bulls_fan90
01-22-2010, 09:41 PM
Noah-Lopez is going to be interesting to watch.

Ummm they have the bad Lopez. He dosen't get many minutes.

arkanian215
01-22-2010, 09:44 PM
I took stats. I don't have a regular ESPN column.

hollinger got lucky and did things before other people did it. he just throws a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet and if the results looked reasonable, he published them. look at the forumlas he uses for anything. it is the most simplistic garbage i've ever seen. why people pay him is beyond me. i've seen much better stats analysis from guys who just blog on their own. apparently some get recruited to do stats analysis for professional basketball teams. hollinger's name sells i guess. he's famous. he is the robert bassman of new era basketball stats.

Bulls_fan90
01-22-2010, 09:45 PM
How much momentum does Chicago have when they just lost to the Warriors and Clippers?

Not to mention that Phoenix is 16-4 at home, while Chicago is 4-15 on the road.

Exactly. I dont think we have any momentum. The Bulls are very unpredictable. We beat teams like the Cavs, Boston, Atlanta, Orlando and then lose to the Nets :facepalm:

ChiSox219
01-22-2010, 09:45 PM
Ummm they have the bad Lopez. He dosen't get many minutes.

Step your game up, he's started the last two games and has averaged 19.5ppg/7rpg/2bpg on 80% (16/20) from the field.

Bulls_fan90
01-22-2010, 09:51 PM
Step your game up, he's started the last two games and has averaged 19.5ppg/7rpg/2bpg on 80% (16/20) from the field.

WOW you sure showed me Sorry for my uneducated response. Had no idea he was starting to get minutes.

arkanian215
01-22-2010, 09:55 PM
Exactly. I dont think we have any momentum. The Bulls are very unpredictable. We beat teams like the Cavs, Boston, Atlanta, Orlando and then lose to the Nets :facepalm:

yeah exactly that's why any guy like hollinger who is going to claim he can predict the out come is going to make an *** of himself. the guys who actually can predict stuff have jobs that pays 70k+ a year and the guys who do it well are paid 1-2 mil in bonuses. just ask the guy that citi group owes a ton of money to.

kozelkid
01-22-2010, 10:13 PM
hollinger got lucky and did things before other people did it. he just throws a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet and if the results looked reasonable, he published them. look at the forumlas he uses for anything. it is the most simplistic garbage i've ever seen. why people pay him is beyond me. i've seen much better stats analysis from guys who just blog on their own. apparently some get recruited to do stats analysis for professional basketball teams. hollinger's name sells i guess. he's famous. he is the robert bassman of new era basketball stats.

More often than not Hollinger is an idiot when it comes to analyzing players, but give credit where credit is due. He was very innovative in the field of APBR metrics.
With that said, this should certainly be an interesting game. We match up well with Phoenix so who knows.

Mr.WhiteSox
01-22-2010, 10:45 PM
Bulls vs. Suns who Wins tonight?

chicago lulz
01-22-2010, 10:59 PM
You should probably ask the thread that was already made (for Hollingers column about it), or the NBA game thread, or the Bulls game thread, or the Suns game thread. You know, instead of making a whole new thread for one god damn game.

king4day
01-22-2010, 11:09 PM
Everybody wins tonight.

On a serious note....nevermind

KH12
01-22-2010, 11:11 PM
I wish people would stop giving Bulls fans a bad name in the NBA forum.

Bullsfan22
01-22-2010, 11:32 PM
who gives a **** but bulls and suns fans? why is it always random *** bulls fans that make threads about the bulls. I literally have never seen you post in the bulls forum.

theuuord
01-22-2010, 11:35 PM
hollinger got lucky and did things before other people did it. he just throws a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet and if the results looked reasonable, he published them. look at the forumlas he uses for anything. it is the most simplistic garbage i've ever seen. why people pay him is beyond me. i've seen much better stats analysis from guys who just blog on their own. apparently some get recruited to do stats analysis for professional basketball teams. hollinger's name sells i guess. he's famous. he is the robert bassman of new era basketball stats.

could you please describe how the formula for PER is "simplistic garbage?"

The simplistic part, specifically.

TheWatcher34
01-22-2010, 11:37 PM
for Rose not even a whole lifetime would be enough to accomplish what Nash has done.

ldc62
01-22-2010, 11:38 PM
lol any kid who takes stats in college can do what he has done easily.

THe only thing hes done is enhance to stats of offensive and defensive ratings (points created and allowed per 100 possessions). Any kid who has a degree in stats definitely knows more than him. He has a job because he is a decent writer.

theuuord
01-22-2010, 11:47 PM
THe only thing hes done is enhance to stats of offensive and defensive ratings (points created and allowed per 100 possessions).

Dean Oliver was the guy who did that.

dwadefan03
01-23-2010, 12:12 AM
of course rose does well against nash. nashs defense could make mario chalmers look like an all star

jimbobjarree
01-23-2010, 12:28 AM
go Bulls!

Raph12
01-23-2010, 01:00 AM
Bulls WIN according to his momentum theory

Thoughts on the game between Nash vs Rose? Honestly I dont see Nash losing this


PS may be exaggerating

Hollinger was on the money so far, Nash has gotten destroyed by Rose and the Bulls are up 10... it is a long game though, we'll see what happens.

D1JM
01-23-2010, 01:25 AM
i guess he was right

The_Ocho_24
01-23-2010, 01:45 AM
Noah-Lopez is going to be interesting to watch.

really???

RadiantShot
01-23-2010, 01:50 AM
God...Derrick Rose is an absolute monster, got to give him love for that last dunk on Dragic.

_KB24_
01-23-2010, 02:01 AM
At first glace, I immediately thought, what reputation? :S

ldc62
01-23-2010, 02:07 AM
Dean Oliver was the guy who did that.

I said enhance. So he basically put a few of his own touches. Sorry for not clarifying...

ldc62
01-23-2010, 02:07 AM
OMG... I gotta give Hollinger more credit. He might actually get it right.

marvILLous
01-23-2010, 02:08 AM
wowow haha

Chicagofaithful
01-23-2010, 02:12 AM
good win for chicago... suns gotta change up the roster

ko8e24
01-23-2010, 02:28 AM
hell has officially frozen over. John "the tool" Hollinger actually got something right for a change.

bbcmillionaire
01-23-2010, 02:42 AM
lol guess he was right

ldc62
01-23-2010, 02:42 AM
He had nothing to lose anyways... since his reputation is almost equivalent to nothing.

ChiSox219
01-23-2010, 02:44 AM
Great call by Hollinger.

Cool007
01-23-2010, 02:48 AM
Actually Bulls DO play better against Suns and usually the games are about Matchups and Bulls matchup very well against Suns.

Deng/Rose/Tyrus etc usually have very good games against Suns.

Last year Rose was pretty much unstoppable against Nash/Suns and Bulls swept them last year.

Just saying.


That's what I said and yes, I was right.

Where is Chronz, he opened this thread thinking it was really ridiculous.

Chronz
01-23-2010, 03:19 AM
That's what I said and yes, I was right.

Where is Chronz, he opened this thread thinking it was really ridiculous.

I dont recall using the words ridiculous but to me momentum and slumps are just other words for recent success/failure. Not saying they dont matter, just that at the end of the year it all sorts out anyways so I thought it was a ballsy call by Hollinger. (ps Basically summarizing but he devoted an entire article to why Chicago would win tonight and why Phoenix would lose).

But really I just made the thread because its been awhile since we had a good Hollinger bash fest, and deep down I was hoping hed get it right, but totally distancing myself if he got it wrong. Ya dig

Chronz
01-23-2010, 03:21 AM
He had nothing to lose anyways... since his reputation is almost equivalent to nothing.
Why is that exactly? Like who is this all according to, he is respected among his peers, well regarded among some coaches. Its not like hes a brainless stat head, the notion that he doesnt watch games is flawed. Its just become cliche to say that about anyone who uses stats. Hollinger IS stat centric but to say he has no rep is going too far in the opposite direction.

Cool007
01-23-2010, 03:22 AM
I dont recall using the words ridiculous but to me momentum and slumps are just other words for recent success/failure. Not saying they dont matter, just that at the end of the year it all sorts out anyways so I thought it was a ballsy call by Hollinger. (ps Basically summarizing but he devoted an entire article to why Chicago would win tonight and why Phoenix would lose).

But really I just made the thread because its been awhile since we had a good Hollinger bash fest, and deep down I was hoping hed get it right, but totally distancing myself if he got it wrong. Ya dig

Fair.

I got ya.

It was a pretty darn good game though.

thedfactor
01-23-2010, 03:25 AM
Derrick Rose: "You think you got what it take?"

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 03:32 AM
Well great game by Rose. Could have gotten to the line more, but he was on fire with his shooting so I can't complain.

Chronz
01-23-2010, 03:51 AM
Rose tore em up, best game of his career

nitric
01-23-2010, 03:53 AM
Rose tore em up, best game of his career

Game 1 is still his best of his career

Chronz
01-23-2010, 04:05 AM
Best regular season game of his career

JiffyMix88
01-23-2010, 04:08 AM
Well great game by Rose. Could have gotten to the line more, but he was on fire with his shooting so I can't complain.

lmao i love ur sig ****ing hilarious

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 04:13 AM
Haha, thanks.

ink
01-23-2010, 04:26 AM
Statistically speaking, what does it mean when he gets one right? ;) j/k

Chronz
01-23-2010, 05:38 AM
Not a damn thing but people do the inverse all the time

Voodoo Alchemy
01-23-2010, 05:52 AM
as much as i love rose, i would still take brooks over him.

JJ_JKidd
01-23-2010, 10:30 AM
What theory was he talking abt?

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 11:05 AM
could you please describe how the formula for PER is "simplistic garbage?"

The simplistic part, specifically.

PER Player Efficiency Rating is my overall rating of a player’s per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

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) ]


factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT))
VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA)
DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB


http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

more on that b-r page. all hollinger does is use simple linear weights to every "factor" that he considers attributable to a player's production. he uses things like pace, league averages, rebounding rate, team production etc. He fiddled with the weights until they produced a list that in his opinion matched the numerical value that the computer crunched. can you seriously assign a single value to a player and compare players across all positions? in my opinion, since i'm a stats guy myself, heck no. what's a rebound worth to a point guard compared to a center? it certainly shouldn't be the same. then there are the things not captured in the regular stat lines. guys like shane battier, bruce bowen, anderson varejao, ronny turiaf will constantly be underrated because it doesn't adjust for things that don't get measured in pts, blks etc.

hollinger also admits that there is a bias towards more productive offensive players.

anyone who has taken stats can come up with similar formulas that assign weights to each factor.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 11:38 AM
PER Player Efficiency Rating is my overall rating of a player’s per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

more on that b-r page. all hollinger does is use simple linear weights to every "factor" that he considers attributable to a player's production. he uses things like pace, league averages, rebounding rate, team production etc. He fiddled with the weights until they produced a list that in his opinion matched the numerical value that the computer crunched. can you seriously assign a single value to a player and compare players across all positions? in my opinion, since i'm a stats guy myself, heck no. what's a rebound worth to a point guard compared to a center? it certainly shouldn't be the same. then there are the things not captured in the regular stat lines. guys like shane battier, bruce bowen, anderson varejao, ronny turiaf will constantly be underrated because it doesn't adjust for things that don't get measured in pts, blks etc.

hollinger also admits that there is a bias towards more productive offensive players.

anyone who has taken stats can come up with similar formulas that assign weights to each factor.
You aren't giving enough credit to this stat and you are looking far too much into it... It's a good stat to use if you are eyeballing a player, and like every stat, it has it's fault. You are looking far too much into it. Overall, I'd say it's a damn good stat if a person is going to look to different players overall. It's not something you'd use if you are going to make a deep analysis on a player. But overall, it's a pretty damn good stat to look at most players.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 01:01 PM
You aren't giving enough credit to this stat and you are looking far too much into it... It's a good stat to use if you are eyeballing a player, and like every stat, it has it's fault. You are looking far too much into it. Overall, I'd say it's a damn good stat if a person is going to look to different players overall. It's not something you'd use if you are going to make a deep analysis on a player. But overall, it's a pretty damn good stat to look at most players.

my point is you can't make a stat that's actually means anything without taking far more into account. my point was that this is a simplistic model. it is garbage.
notice i replied to theuuord's post:
Originally Posted by theuuord
could you please describe how the formula for PER is "simplistic garbage?"

The simplistic part, specifically.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 01:13 PM
my point is you can't make a stat that's actually means anything without taking far more into account. my point was that this is a simplistic model. it is garbage.
notice i replied to theuuord's post:

Like I said, it has it's faults. There are great defensive players, that numbers won't show. It has it's faults, but it is still far and few and that's where context comes in. As for your argument of a rebound for a pg vs a center, the same argument can be made for assists vice versa. Point is, it evens out.

Mr.WhiteSox
01-23-2010, 01:20 PM
What a game by D-rose. Allstar anyone??

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 01:47 PM
Like I said, it has it's faults. There are great defensive players, that numbers won't show. It has it's faults, but it is still far and few and that's where context comes in. As for your argument of a rebound for a pg vs a center, the same argument can be made for assists vice versa. Point is, it evens out.

what's a rebound worth to a point guard compared to a center? it certainly shouldn't be the same.if a point guard and a center have the same attributes in everything, he would have the same PER as a center. suppose they both have the same stat lines and everything else that's factored into PER. according this measure these two players have the same rating despite the fact that one is a center and one is a point guard. a center that doesn't rebound well (at whatever low dreb%) is more concerning than a point guard who has those same numbers. yet, PER says they're equally "valuable" (efficient in the time played on the court). imo that makes no sense.

i'm not sure what you mean by it evens out.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 02:01 PM
if a point guard and a center have the same attributes in everything, he would have the same PER as a center. suppose they both have the same stat lines and everything else that's factored into PER. according this measure these two players have the same rating despite the fact that one is a center and one is a point guard. a center that doesn't rebound well (at whatever low dreb%) is more concerning than a point guard who has those same numbers. yet, PER says they're equally "valuable" (efficient in the time played on the court). imo that makes no sense.

i'm not sure what you mean by it evens out.

Well like I said, PER isn't an end all stat. What I mean by evens out, you take Bargnani for example. He's a below average rebounder, but he's a stud offensively. His PER suffers in the rebounding aspect, but is great in other aspects like 3pt shooting and scoring.
I keep saying it, you are looking far too much into it. If a big man has a same PER as a guard, but is low at rebounds, then he's doing something else good, hence the reason it "evens out".
It's a VERY good ball park stat especially if you use it properly and in context. With that said, it's not a stat I'm going to take serious if I'm making a deep evaluation of a particular player or comparing him to another. More should go into it then.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 02:19 PM
Well like I said, PER isn't an end all stat. What I mean by evens out, you take Bargnani for example. He's a below average rebounder, but he's a stud offensively. His PER suffers in the rebounding aspect, but is great in other aspects like 3pt shooting and scoring.
I keep saying it, you are looking far too much into it. If a big man has a same PER as a guard, but is low at rebounds, then he's doing something else good, hence the reason it "evens out".
It's a VERY good ball park stat especially if you use it properly and in context. With that said, it's not a stat I'm going to take serious if I'm making a deep evaluation of a particular player or comparing him to another. More should go into it then.

ok so that's what you meant by evens out.

i could see someone easily expanding it incorporate what role guys play. A highly effective bench player who comes in for ten minutes a game should be treated as one.
the current list:

1 Paul Davis, WAS
2 Daniel Green, CLE
3 Ryan Bowen, OKC
4 LeBron James, CLE
5 Trey Gilder, MEM
6 Kyle Weaver, OKC
7 Tim Duncan, SAS
8 Dwyane Wade, MIA
9 Chris Bosh, TOR
10 Chris Paul, NOR
11 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
12 D.J. White, OKC
13 Kevin Durant, OKC
14 Greg Oden, POR
15 Steve Nash, PHO

It might look better or it might not. Hopefully, theuuord doesn't have so much faith in John Hollinger after this.

Chronz
01-23-2010, 03:03 PM
PER Player Efficiency Rating is my overall rating of a player’s per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

more on that b-r page. all hollinger does is use simple linear weights to every "factor" that he considers attributable to a player's production. he uses things like pace, league averages, rebounding rate, team production etc. He fiddled with the weights until they produced a list that in his opinion matched the numerical value that the computer crunched. can you seriously assign a single value to a player and compare players across all positions? in my opinion, since i'm a stats guy myself, heck no. what's a rebound worth to a point guard compared to a center? it certainly shouldn't be the same. then there are the things not captured in the regular stat lines. guys like shane battier, bruce bowen, anderson varejao, ronny turiaf will constantly be underrated because it doesn't adjust for things that don't get measured in pts, blks etc.

hollinger also admits that there is a bias towards more productive offensive players.

anyone who has taken stats can come up with similar formulas that assign weights to each factor.

If the foundation to your argument is a lie then I dont agree with your point.

If thats simple then you have an expanded sense of stats, but IMO its not as simple as you want to make it seem. Its a simple concept (Assigning values to stats) but if you think he just randomly assigned weights to all the stats to match his opinion then your understanding of APBR is sorely lacking.

The adjusting for positions is still debated to this day. Rebounding is the only aspect I would really consider doing it for but even then Im not so sure its right.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 03:19 PM
ok so that's what you meant by evens out.

i could see someone easily expanding it incorporate what role guys play. A highly effective bench player who comes in for ten minutes a game should be treated as one.
the current list:

1 Paul Davis, WAS
2 Daniel Green, CLE
3 Ryan Bowen, OKC
4 LeBron James, CLE
5 Trey Gilder, MEM
6 Kyle Weaver, OKC
7 Tim Duncan, SAS
8 Dwyane Wade, MIA
9 Chris Bosh, TOR
10 Chris Paul, NOR
11 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
12 D.J. White, OKC
13 Kevin Durant, OKC
14 Greg Oden, POR
15 Steve Nash, PHO

It might look better or it might not. Hopefully, theuuord doesn't have so much faith in John Hollinger after this.

Because there isn't such thing as volume?
Cmon!

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 03:43 PM
If the foundation to your argument is a lie then I dont agree with your point.

If thats simple then you have an expanded sense of stats, but IMO its not as simple as you want to make it seem. Its a simple concept (Assigning values to stats) but if you think he just randomly assigned weights to all the stats to match his opinion then your understanding of APBR is sorely lacking.

The adjusting for positions is still debated to this day. Rebounding is the only aspect I would really consider doing it for but even then Im not so sure its right.
do you think he decided to go with that specific equation one day? it took years of fiddling with the weights. trial and error. then one day he said, hmm this looks close enough I'm going to go with this and wrote about it and had it published. i see no intuition behind putting a weight of 3 on points or 2/3 on assists.

when did i say they were randomly assigned? i said he fiddled with them.

MiamiHeat
01-23-2010, 03:54 PM
Haha, thanks.

that wasn't really a dunk on Barbosa

:shrug:

DaBUU
01-23-2010, 05:21 PM
that wasn't really a dunk on Barbosa

:shrug:

Barbosa went up to defend and Rose literally flew past him actually, so still a dunk

Chronz
01-23-2010, 05:36 PM
do you think he decided to go with that specific equation one day? it took years of fiddling with the weights. trial and error. then one day he said, hmm this looks close enough I'm going to go with this and wrote about it and had it published. i see no intuition behind putting a weight of 3 on points or 2/3 on assists.

when did i say they were randomly assigned? i said he fiddled with them.

Believe me, there is no confusion in my mind, I got a good handle where this all came from. I would love to see where you got your facts from, thats all Im saying. I see the reasoning just fine, and its not from "trial and error". But I admit its always useful to go back and see what the polor opposite value does to a players overall ranking. Being that assists and shot creation are the area where this happens the most, its interesting to note the overall picture doesnt change much.

MiamiHeat
01-23-2010, 05:50 PM
Barbosa went up to defend and Rose literally flew past him actually, so still a dunk

barbosa just went to the side and it wasn't ON him

effen5
01-23-2010, 05:55 PM
Here we go....:facepalm:

Chronz
01-23-2010, 06:44 PM
PS Really even if we were to agree that he was a simpleton, you do acknowledge he was the first of his kind to make a profession out of such a seemingly easy foundation. And to a degree your right, he wasnt even the first to think of this but he did popularize it. I just disagree with some of your claims regarding the thought process behind the weighted values.

theuuord
01-23-2010, 06:58 PM
ok so that's what you meant by evens out.

i could see someone easily expanding it incorporate what role guys play. A highly effective bench player who comes in for ten minutes a game should be treated as one.
the current list:

1 Paul Davis, WAS
2 Daniel Green, CLE
3 Ryan Bowen, OKC
4 LeBron James, CLE
5 Trey Gilder, MEM
6 Kyle Weaver, OKC
7 Tim Duncan, SAS
8 Dwyane Wade, MIA
9 Chris Bosh, TOR
10 Chris Paul, NOR
11 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
12 D.J. White, OKC
13 Kevin Durant, OKC
14 Greg Oden, POR
15 Steve Nash, PHO

It might look better or it might not. Hopefully, theuuord doesn't have so much faith in John Hollinger after this.

uh, you have to weight it for context. If a guy comes in for a minute, makes a jump shot, and then gets injured and never plays again, technically his field goal percentage is 1.000. Is he the best shooter in NBA history?

Look, PER isn't a perfect stat. But if you're looking for perfection then I suggest you look for a linear universe, because we don't live in one. As far as evaluating production from players it's one of the better metrics. Yes, it overvalues efficient big men and undervalues defensive-minded wings, but Hollinger himself acknowledges that and states it multiple times (about guys like Trenton Hassell and Battier).

I don't think it's the be-all-end-all Holy Grail of statisics. More importantly, I don't think anyone in the world thinks that - including Hollinger. But as a metric, it's a heck of a lot more helpful than just looking at raw field goal percentage or points per game.

ecorrea
01-23-2010, 07:10 PM
ok so that's what you meant by evens out.

the current list:

1 Paul Davis, WAS
2 Daniel Green, CLE
3 Ryan Bowen, OKC
4 LeBron James, CLE
5 Trey Gilder, MEM
6 Kyle Weaver, OKC
7 Tim Duncan, SAS
8 Dwyane Wade, MIA
9 Chris Bosh, TOR
10 Chris Paul, NOR
11 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
12 D.J. White, OKC
13 Kevin Durant, OKC
14 Greg Oden, POR
15 Steve Nash, PHO



i think we are missing kobe dwight and maybe someone im forgetting for the max players in the league

theuuord
01-23-2010, 07:15 PM
Again, in context... let's take the guys with at least 9 estimated wins added (which is essentially PER put into a time-played context):

1 LeBron James, CLE 17.8
2 Dwyane Wade, MIA 12.8
3 Kevin Durant, OKC 11.9
4 Chris Bosh, TOR 11.7
5 Tim Duncan, SAS 10.6
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL 10.4
7 Carmelo Anthony, DEN 9.9
8 Chris Paul, NOR 9.7
9 Brandon Roy, POR 9.3
10 Dwight Howard, ORL 9.2
11 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 9.2
12 Steve Nash, PHO 9.1

Now save a little juggling (Wade should be lower and Kobe higher IMO), that looks like the best dozen players in the NBA this year - or, at the very least, the most productive.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 07:43 PM
PS Really even if we were to agree that he was a simpleton, you do acknowledge he was the first of his kind to make a profession out of such a seemingly easy foundation. And to a degree your right, he wasnt even the first to think of this but he did popularize it. I just disagree with some of your claims regarding the thought process behind the weighted values.

I don't see why you should give a weight of 3 for each point scored by the player when he places a weight of 2/3 on assists. shouldn't an assist hold more value?

Also, why league averages? Nets play their atlantic rivals 4 times each and the rest of the league a range of times. Do the Grizzlies players get enough credit after the season PER's are set? That conference is ridiculously tough, and the west in general is tough. It has adjustment for what competition they face.

It also doesn't adjust for the defensive contributions of other players on their team. LeBron gets lots of blocks as a help defender. According to Hollinger a block is a block regardless of whether you're doing it face up or from the weak side as someone else is contesting the initial shot attempt.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 07:44 PM
i think we are missing kobe dwight and maybe someone im forgetting for the max players in the league

yeah that was my fault. i forgot to refilter it allow only qualified players on the list.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 07:46 PM
uh, you have to weight it for context. If a guy comes in for a minute, makes a jump shot, and then gets injured and never plays again, technically his field goal percentage is 1.000. Is he the best shooter in NBA history?

Look, PER isn't a perfect stat. But if you're looking for perfection then I suggest you look for a linear universe, because we don't live in one. As far as evaluating production from players it's one of the better metrics. Yes, it overvalues efficient big men and undervalues defensive-minded wings, but Hollinger himself acknowledges that and states it multiple times (about guys like Trenton Hassell and Battier).

I don't think it's the be-all-end-all Holy Grail of statisics. More importantly, I don't think anyone in the world thinks that - including Hollinger. But as a metric, it's a heck of a lot more helpful than just looking at raw field goal percentage or points per game.

don't you see why it's very simplistic and as a stat, there is outright bias built into it. for statisticians biased stats are useless because they don't mean anything.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 07:48 PM
Because there isn't such thing as volume?
Cmon!

yeah wrong list.

1 LeBron James, CLE
2 Tim Duncan, SAS
3 Dwyane Wade, MIA
4 Chris Bosh, TOR
5 Chris Paul, NOR
6 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
7 Kevin Durant, OKC
8 Greg Oden, POR
9 Steve Nash, PHO
10 Kevin Love, MIN
11 Kobe Bryant, LAL
12 Dwight Howard, ORL
13 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
14 Brandon Roy, POR
15 Pau Gasol, LAL
16 Corey Maggette, GSW
17 Zach Randolph, MEM
18 Carl Landry, HOU
19 Chauncey Billups, DEN
20 Marreese Speights, PHI
The other one was all players.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 08:08 PM
I don't see why you should give a weight of 3 for each point scored by the player when he places a weight of 2/3 on assists. shouldn't an assist hold more value?

Also, why league averages? Nets play their atlantic rivals 4 times each and the rest of the league a range of times. Do the Grizzlies players get enough credit after the season PER's are set? That conference is ridiculously tough, and the west in general is tough. It has adjustment for what competition they face.

It also doesn't adjust for the defensive contributions of other players on their team. LeBron gets lots of blocks as a help defender. According to Hollinger a block is a block regardless of whether you're doing it face up or from the weak side as someone else is contesting the initial shot attempt.

Because as we keep telling you, no stat is perfect. However, when you look at the leaders of PER, they are generally players you expect to be the best.
We keep telling you no stat, is perfect, but PER is still very good. And no one has come out with a better stat yet, so I will stick with PER in the mean time.


yeah wrong list.

1 LeBron James, CLE
2 Tim Duncan, SAS
3 Dwyane Wade, MIA
4 Chris Bosh, TOR
5 Chris Paul, NOR
6 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
7 Kevin Durant, OKC
8 Greg Oden, POR
9 Steve Nash, PHO
10 Kevin Love, MIN
11 Kobe Bryant, LAL
12 Dwight Howard, ORL
13 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
14 Brandon Roy, POR
15 Pau Gasol, LAL
16 Corey Maggette, GSW
17 Zach Randolph, MEM
18 Carl Landry, HOU
19 Chauncey Billups, DEN
20 Marreese Speights, PHI
The other one was all players.

I see very little wrong with that list. Speights probably shouldn't be on the list, but volume affects his case as well.

DenButsu
01-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Although there isn't a question in the thread title, the correct answer is Hinrich.

KnicksorBust
01-23-2010, 08:15 PM
Again, in context... let's take the guys with at least 9 estimated wins added (which is essentially PER put into a time-played context):

1 LeBron James, CLE 17.8
2 Dwyane Wade, MIA 12.8
3 Kevin Durant, OKC 11.9
4 Chris Bosh, TOR 11.7
5 Tim Duncan, SAS 10.6
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL 10.4
7 Carmelo Anthony, DEN 9.9
8 Chris Paul, NOR 9.7
9 Brandon Roy, POR 9.3
10 Dwight Howard, ORL 9.2
11 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 9.2
12 Steve Nash, PHO 9.1

Now save a little juggling (Wade should be lower and Kobe higher IMO), that looks like the best dozen players in the NBA this year - or, at the very least, the most productive.

No metric will ever completely balance and weigh every category of statistic perfectly so that it includes a newly added defensive stop category, effective screens set, or an outlet pass category and give us a completely accurate of who the best and worst players in the league are at that time. However, I think PER does a damn good job and that list is perfect proof of it. Meanwhile we can use other ratings to help support those underrated defensive players.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 08:20 PM
No metric will ever completely balance and weigh every category of statistic perfectly so that it includes a newly added defensive stop category, effective screens set, or an outlet pass category and give us a completely accurate of who the best and worst players in the league are at that time. However, I think PER does a damn good job and that list is perfect proof of it. Meanwhile we can use other ratings to help support those underrated defensive players.

Exactly. All about context and using stats properly.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 08:31 PM
Again, in context... let's take the guys with at least 9 estimated wins added (which is essentially PER put into a time-played context):

1 LeBron James, CLE 17.8
2 Dwyane Wade, MIA 12.8
3 Kevin Durant, OKC 11.9
4 Chris Bosh, TOR 11.7
5 Tim Duncan, SAS 10.6
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL 10.4
7 Carmelo Anthony, DEN 9.9
8 Chris Paul, NOR 9.7
9 Brandon Roy, POR 9.3
10 Dwight Howard, ORL 9.2
11 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 9.2
12 Steve Nash, PHO 9.1

Now save a little juggling (Wade should be lower and Kobe higher IMO), that looks like the best dozen players in the NBA this year - or, at the very least, the most productive.

PER already has the time adjustment built in. ewa is what the player adds over a supposed replacement with couple of other adjustments.
The PER List

1 LeBron James, CLE
2 Tim Duncan, SAS
3 Dwyane Wade, MIA
4 Chris Bosh, TOR
5 Chris Paul, NOR
6 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
7 Kevin Durant, OKC
8 Greg Oden, POR
9 Steve Nash, PHO
10 Kevin Love, MIN
11 Kobe Bryant, LAL
12 Dwight Howard, ORL
13 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
14 Brandon Roy, POR
15 Pau Gasol, LAL
16 Corey Maggette, GSW
17 Zach Randolph, MEM
18 Carl Landry, HOU
19 Chauncey Billups, DEN
20 Marreese Speights, PHI
No it's not perfect of course and no stat will ever be perfect but even at the end of the year, his PER stat is biased. It doesn't differentiate between team schedules, conference strength or strategy. Western conference players will constantly be underrated since they all face much higher competition more often every year. This stat is supposed to let us compare across all players? Then why are we only looking at the top 10, 15 or 50? Ryan Anderson > Tyreke Evans? Yeah in my dreams. Yi better than CDR? Kris Humphries better than Devin Harris, Paul Pierce, G-Force?
Yeah I know, the HUMP is that good.

clearly i'm not going to convince anyone of anything ever so i'm just gonna leave this one alone.

KnicksorBust
01-23-2010, 08:38 PM
PER already has the time adjustment built in. ewa is what the player adds over a supposed replacement with couple of other adjustments.
The PER List

1 LeBron James, CLE
2 Tim Duncan, SAS
3 Dwyane Wade, MIA
4 Chris Bosh, TOR
5 Chris Paul, NOR
6 Carmelo Anthony, DEN
7 Kevin Durant, OKC
8 Greg Oden, POR
9 Steve Nash, PHO
10 Kevin Love, MIN
11 Kobe Bryant, LAL
12 Dwight Howard, ORL
13 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
14 Brandon Roy, POR
15 Pau Gasol, LAL
16 Corey Maggette, GSW
17 Zach Randolph, MEM
18 Carl Landry, HOU
19 Chauncey Billups, DEN
20 Marreese Speights, PHI
No it's not perfect of course and no stat will ever be perfect but even at the end of the year, his PER stat is biased. It doesn't differentiate between team schedules, conference strength or strategy. Western conference players will constantly be underrated since they all face much higher competition more often every year. This stat is supposed to let us compare across all players? Then why are we only looking at the top 10, 15 or 50? Ryan Anderson > Tyreke Evans? Yeah in my dreams. Yi better than CDR? Kris Humphries better than Devin Harris, Paul Pierce, G-Force?
Yeah I know, the HUMP is that good.

clearly i'm not going to convince anyone of anything ever so i'm just gonna leave this one alone.

Ryan Anderson plays under 20mpg so obviously his PER is skewed. Yi might be better than CDR, at least he's consistent and does things besides score. Kris Humphries is another under 20mpg player whose PER is skewed. It's a fairly accurate measure of whose having the best season. I'm reading a book called "Mathletics" and if there's one thing you realize it's there's going to be "outliers" who screw up any stat. Even you have to admit that if you had to make a list of the top 15 players of the season so far. PER's top 15 players probably has 12 of them with the top 5 all near the very top. Not too bad if you ask me.

theuuord
01-23-2010, 08:47 PM
don't you see why it's very simplistic and as a stat, there is outright bias built into it. for statisticians biased stats are useless because they don't mean anything.

Again, you can't name one stat in the NBA that isn't biased to some degree. Every stat - counting, metric, or otherwise - comes with its own set of biases. The point of advanced statistical models isn't to completely abandon biases (which would be impossible), but to minimize them as much as possible. PER does way more in the way of minimizing biases than most other statistical models.



PER already has the time adjustment built in. ewa is what the player adds over a supposed replacement with couple of other adjustments.

PER does not adjust for the amount of time a person plays, only what they have produced in the time they are on the floor. Paul Davis has played eight minutes this year and technically leads the NBA in PER. VA is derived from PER (and yes, adjusted for replacement - that's the context) and then EWA comes from that. EWA is like PER on steroids.


No it's not perfect of course and no stat will ever be perfect but even at the end of the year, his PER stat is biased. It doesn't differentiate between team schedules, conference strength or strategy. Western conference players will constantly be underrated since they all face much higher competition more often every year.

You're right. PER (and therefore EWA) are not perfect metrics. Congrats, you've proven something no one is arguing against, because NO STAT IS PERFECT.
It IS, however, way better than other models - like Berri's, for instance (want to talk simplistic, there's one for you) and a good tool for loosely evaluating players.

Of course, as with everything else, context is needed, and while you and I seem to agree on that I don't think you understand that people realize it.


This stat is supposed to let us compare across all players? Then why are we only looking at the top 10, 15 or 50? Ryan Anderson > Tyreke Evans? Yeah in my dreams.

Tyreke Evans is 9th among point guards in PER. Anderson is 14th among PF's. Tyreke Evans is 36th in the NBA in EWA. Anderson is tied for 107th. Again, context is a big factor that you don't seem to consider.


Yi better than CDR? Kris Humphries better than Devin Harris, Paul Pierce, G-Force?
Yeah I know, the HUMP is that good.

I don't think I need to do what I just did for Tyreke Evans and Ryan Anderson to explain why your method of thinking about PER is still wrong. I hope you would have gotten the point the first time.


clearly i'm not going to convince anyone of anything ever so i'm just gonna leave this one alone.

You're unconvincing because you're wrongly approaching the concept, not because we have a "bias" against you.

D Roses Bulls
01-23-2010, 09:23 PM
for Rose not even a whole lifetime would be enough to accomplish what Nash has done.

what? no titles and 2 mvp awards? yeah rose could accomplish that. give him a break, hes 21 years old

D Roses Bulls
01-23-2010, 09:27 PM
who gives a **** but bulls and suns fans? why is it always random *** bulls fans that make threads about the bulls. I literally have never seen you post in the bulls forum.

who gives a crap, theres been far worst threads made before and i mean far worse. im barely on anymore and i barely ever posted in the bulls fan but i can guarantee im a bigger fan then 95 percent of these people who claim to be bulls fans and put down derrick rose one minute and the next minute, kissing his butt. a lot of teams have a lot of band wagon fans. because you dont post in the bulls forum doesnt mean your not a real bulls fan.

D Roses Bulls
01-23-2010, 09:32 PM
Bulls WIN according to his momentum theory

Thoughts on the game between Nash vs Rose? Honestly I dont see Nash losing this


PS may be exaggerating

well your fortune cookie was wrong chronz. rose tore him up and john hollinger is an idiot. a lot of people could look at stats and put together a bunch of crap. i actually saw a stat on bulls.com that samsmith answered a question from a guy that showed how hinrich is more productive then rose when he in the court. thats why stats are meaningless sometimes and any idiot could do what he does, or say someone like skip bayless. those guys arnt experts, i bet hollinger never even picked up a basketball all his life.

theuuord
01-23-2010, 09:49 PM
well your fortune cookie was wrong chronz. rose tore him up and john hollinger is an idiot. a lot of people could look at stats and put together a bunch of crap. i actually saw a stat on bulls.com that samsmith answered a question from a guy that showed how hinrich is more productive then rose when he in the court. thats why stats are meaningless sometimes and any idiot could do what he does, or say someone like skip bayless. those guys arnt experts, i bet hollinger never even picked up a basketball all his life.

What was Hollinger wrong about?

ko8e24
01-23-2010, 10:01 PM
This should be merged with that HOllinger thread or be simply moved to a Bulls forum or Suns forum. C'mon Mods, do ur job, do some clean-up around here. There's way too many active threads on the NBA forum that deserve to either be closed or moved to somewhere else.

arkanian215
01-23-2010, 10:05 PM
Again, you can't name one stat in the NBA that isn't biased to some degree. Every stat - counting, metric, or otherwise - comes with its own set of biases. The point of advanced statistical models isn't to completely abandon biases (which would be impossible), but to minimize them as much as possible. PER does way more in the way of minimizing biases than most other statistical models.

I never said there was an unbiased stat did I?


PER does not adjust for the amount of time a person plays, only what they have produced in the time they are on the floor. Paul Davis has played eight minutes this year and technically leads the NBA in PER. VA is derived from PER (and yes, adjusted for replacement - that's the context) and then EWA comes from that. EWA is like PER on steroids.

Yes PER does factor minutes in. http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/7/0/4706604464b973bebda830a8dd22fca8.png


Tyreke Evans is 9th among point guards in PER. Anderson is 14th among PF's. Tyreke Evans is 36th in the NBA in EWA. Anderson is tied for 107th. Again, context is a big factor that you don't seem to consider.

I don't think I need to do what I just did for Tyreke Evans and Ryan Anderson to explain why your method of thinking about PER is still wrong. I hope you would have gotten the point the first time.
We're talking about PER here. This stat says Ryan Anderson is more efficient with his time on the court as Tyreke Evans.

theuuord
01-23-2010, 10:14 PM
I never said there was an unbiased stat did I?

Then why are you so off-put at PER? As a statistically-minded person I would assume you'd be more drawn to less biased stats like PER than others that don't do nearly as well at minimizing (and explaining its own) bias.



Yes PER does factor minutes in. http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/7/0/4706604464b973bebda830a8dd22fca8.png

It factors in per-minute production, not the actual amount of minutes played (whether per game or otherwise). Again. Paul Davis has played eight minutes and leads the league in PER. If it actually factored in total playing time the story would be much different.


We're talking about PER here. This stat says Ryan Anderson is more efficient with his time on the court as Tyreke Evans.

You really didn't read what you quoted, did you? According to PER by position Evans is more valuable.

For the fourth or fifth time, like any statistic, you have to put PER in context. You seem to be missing that crucial point.

DenButsu
01-23-2010, 10:24 PM
i actually saw a stat on bulls.com that samsmith answered a question from a guy that showed how hinrich is more productive then rose when he in the court.

To my eyes, Hinrich was equally as important as Rose in the Bulls win over the Suns. Just as key as Rose's scoring was on the offensive end, Hinrich shutting down Nash completely reduced the dimensionality and effectiveness of the Suns offense, and on top of that it also generated a lot of turnovers which resulted in easy shots for Rose (Nash had a full 5 turnovers on only 7 assists).

heathonater
01-23-2010, 10:31 PM
looks like hollinger is a genius. lol

D Roses Bulls
01-23-2010, 11:30 PM
What was Hollinger wrong about?

never said hollinger was wrong. he doesnt really make predictions. chronz has said nash was gonna pretty tare rose up, i was sayin he was wrong. hollinger just is a meaningless stats guy

DenButsu
01-23-2010, 11:48 PM
never said hollinger was wrong. he doesnt really make predictions. chronz has said nash was gonna pretty tare rose up, i was sayin he was wrong. hollinger just is a meaningless stats guy

Yeah, if things like actually understanding basketball have no significance to you.

kozelkid
01-24-2010, 12:08 AM
never said hollinger was wrong. he doesnt really make predictions. chronz has said nash was gonna pretty tare rose up, i was sayin he was wrong. hollinger just is a meaningless stats guy

Well then you'd be wrong cause Nash could have very well tore Rose up. Hinrich guarded him and due to Hinrich's great defense, Nash played mediocre.

D Roses Bulls
01-24-2010, 04:05 AM
Yeah, if things like actually understanding basketball have no significance to you.

its easy to understand the game of basketball, just watch it and analyze it. dont believe me? go back to old threads of mine of when i made predictions, when everyone was callin me crazy last season for picking orlando to go to the finals in mid season and why i picked them. im not a genious, anyone could figure that out if they watch a lot of basketball and most of these espn so called experts dont watch every team or every player. they go by stats, but sometimes stats arnt always the case. its the right mixture of talent and coaching and team work.

Chronz
01-24-2010, 04:22 AM
well your fortune cookie was wrong chronz. rose tore him up and john hollinger is an idiot. a lot of people could look at stats and put together a bunch of crap. i actually saw a stat on bulls.com that samsmith answered a question from a guy that showed how hinrich is more productive then rose when he in the court. thats why stats are meaningless sometimes and any idiot could do what he does, or say someone like skip bayless. those guys arnt experts, i bet hollinger never even picked up a basketball all his life.
Nothing you said convinced me you knew what you were talking about but ok. Hollinger is an idiot in a thread he was absolutely dead on about. And what fortune cookie, its almost as if you think I was maing any bold claim or leap of faith, I was simply saying it was a ballsy claim from Hollinger considering the teams overall records.

Chronz
01-24-2010, 04:24 AM
its easy to understand the game of basketball, just watch it and analyze it. dont believe me? go back to old threads of mine of when i made predictions, when everyone was callin me crazy last season for picking orlando to go to the finals in mid season and why i picked them. im not a genious, anyone could figure that out if they watch a lot of basketball and most of these espn so called experts dont watch every team or every player. they go by stats, but sometimes stats arnt always the case. its the right mixture of talent and coaching and team work.

I can bring up ALOT of old posts of yours that were dead wrong and laughable, what makes you think you know more than Hollinger or anyone else who understands statistics?

Statik1
01-24-2010, 04:27 AM
Bulls put it to PHX the other night. But I guess you can "put it" to any team that refuses to play D. Over all good game and loved that dunk Rose put on Dragic.

ecorrea
01-24-2010, 04:35 AM
yo yo yo did anyone see that throwdown by d mr rose?

Statik1
01-24-2010, 04:44 AM
yo yo yo did anyone see that throwdown by d mr rose?

Yo ecorrea, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but I had just talked about the rose dunk. One of my best posts of all time!

http://i.imgur.com/VSUwL.jpg



That dunk was beast!

D Roses Bulls
01-24-2010, 08:36 AM
I can bring up ALOT of old posts of yours that were dead wrong and laughable, what makes you think you know more than Hollinger or anyone else who understands statistics?

REALLY? copy and paste baby. how i was wrong bout rose being the best pg in the east this year when i called it last year? wait, i was right. or how about when i said the cavs wouldnt make to the finals even though they had the best record? wait, i was right again. or maybe you can bring up when i said hedo wouldnt make toronto better and the magic were better off without him, guess i was wrong there. NO again i was right. i was being smart with you when i replied to your post, i was just playing with you, but seriously point my posts out. if i even have one post thatwas "laughable" it wont be for long.

arkanian215
01-24-2010, 09:51 AM
Then why are you so off-put at PER? As a statistically-minded person I would assume you'd be more drawn to less biased stats like PER than others that don't do nearly as well at minimizing (and explaining its own) bias.


could you please describe how the formula for PER is "simplistic garbage?"

The simplistic part, specifically.
This whole conversation started because of that. You wanted my opinion of why I thought it was simplistic garbage.


It factors in per-minute production, not the actual amount of minutes played (whether per game or otherwise). Again. Paul Davis has played eight minutes and leads the league in PER. If it actually factored in total playing time the story would be much different.



You really didn't read what you quoted, did you? According to PER by position Evans is more valuable.

For the fourth or fifth time, like any statistic, you have to put PER in context. You seem to be missing that crucial point.
Doesn't PER allow you to compare players across positions and across years? Isn't that the point of the stat?