PDA

View Full Version : PER vs APER



Hawkeye15
09-24-2010, 01:40 PM
John Hollinger's PER, which is one of the more complicated rating systems based on estimates, with pace factor and league averages factored in, or APER, which is a simplified version using actual unassisted and assisted field goals, instead of estimates. APER also includes APER also includes charges

http://hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx


This link rates players by APER. LeBron still leads easily. But with APER, outliers such as Nash, Melo, and Ginoboli enter the discussion for top 10 efficient players

Which do you prefer?

DerekRE_3
09-24-2010, 02:24 PM
I prefer APER because it makes Tyreke and Carl Landry look better. :D In all honesty, I don't know enough about the differences between the two and everything that goes into each stat to even have an opinion.

daleja424
09-24-2010, 03:02 PM
how is APER adjusted?

JordansBulls
09-24-2010, 06:19 PM
I say PER because with PER I generally know who the top players are in the league yearly statistically and overall.

Not to mention when you look at the Greatest players ever, most of them have good PER and have led in PER a few times.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2010, 08:59 PM
how is APER adjusted?

well, Hollinger uses estimates. This works very well, but APER uses actual assisted and unassisted, and factors in charges. Its actually a slightly less complicated formula, but its another overall efficiency rating out there provided by Joe Treutlein, who attempts to simplify Hollinger's PER rating.

lakers4sho
09-24-2010, 09:59 PM
I have to see the actual formula for both, and see how unassisted and assisted FGs are factored into APER, to have a valid opinion.

That being said I prefer pace adjustments and league averages because usually it takes care of outliers from both end of the spectrum.

Hawkeye15
09-24-2010, 11:02 PM
I have to see the actual formula for both, and see how unassisted and assisted FGs are factored into APER, to have a valid opinion.

That being said I prefer pace adjustments and league averages because usually it takes care of outliers from both end of the spectrum.

this is exactly the type of response I was looking for. Does taking estimates, or individual situations, give us a better reflection? I honestly think taking the estimates in Hollinger's forumla give us the better overall rating. The only thing I hate about PER is it rewards shot creation quite a bit. I am having problems finding out if APER does the same

lakers4sho
09-24-2010, 11:27 PM
Any guesses as to why Nash, Melo, and Manu made the top ten in APER but not PER?

Another interesting observation is that the "efficiency rating" for most generally efficient players (19+ PER) increases when APER is used. For example, we now have D-Wade joining LeBron in the "30+" category.

Patman
09-25-2010, 08:18 AM
Hm hard to say i don't think to much of either Rating on their own but PER seems to give a decent Picture of the efficiency. I didn't see the Formula that is used in APER but it from the Glossary it looks like it also adjusts for Pace and League average.

So i would have to take a closer look at APER to see if it can get additional infos or help evaluating a player.

faze38
09-25-2010, 10:11 AM
To be 100% honest I could care less either way cause honestly you could have the best of both and if u don't win neither of those stats mean jack! But if I had to choose I guess I would go with PER!

tredigs
09-25-2010, 11:11 AM
John Hollinger's PER, which is one of the more complicated rating systems based on estimates, with pace factor and league averages factored in, or APER, which is a simplified version using actual unassisted and assisted field goals, instead of estimates. APER also includes APER also includes charges

http://hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx


This link rates players by APER. LeBron still leads easily. But with APER, outliers such as Nash, Melo, and Ginoboli enter the discussion for top 10 efficient players

Which do you prefer?

I prefer three of the top five APER cat leaders not play for the same team? God, that team is going to ****ing dominate. It really is lame, I gotta say.

edit:
I'll look a little closer at the stat later and actually try to post something slightly meaningful.