PDA

View Full Version : More accurate efficiency metric: pts per possession or pts per minute?



DenButsu
09-27-2010, 01:48 PM
I saw Chronz post something about this in another thread, pretty much blasting the usefulness of points per minute as an accurate measure of efficiency. But I didn't quite grasp what, specifically, the flaws with it really were. If anyone can help enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. :cool:

Patman
09-27-2010, 02:14 PM
I saw Chronz post something about this in another thread, pretty much blasting the usefulness of points per minute as an accurate measure of efficiency. But I didn't quite grasp what, specifically, the flaws with it really were. If anyone can help enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. :cool:

Iwould say the problem is that points per minute does not account for pace, so a player like Monta will still have a way to high ppm in relation to other players that play on slower teams. So Monta is still one of the top SG scoring wise if you take Points per 48 min. (3rd with 29.6 according to ESPN). So this doesn't solve the Problem of guys that play on high paced teams.
So Chronz is right if he blast those stats they to not that much to give you a better picture.

lakers4sho
09-27-2010, 07:43 PM
I usually base my analysis per possession, because it takes care of factors such as pace.

Guy above said it fairly well.

DenButsu
09-27-2010, 11:07 PM
I think I'm gonna have to go back and dig up what Chronz said. I know pace is one factor. But there was something along the lines of, "But in some ways points per minutes is even worse than _______ (can't remember what) _______, because ... (can't remember why)".

Pace is one factor, but I think this was something else, possibly about turnovers and/or free throws.

Hawkeye15
09-30-2010, 02:08 PM
Iwould say the problem is that points per minute does not account for pace, so a player like Monta will still have a way to high ppm in relation to other players that play on slower teams. So Monta is still one of the top SG scoring wise if you take Points per 48 min. (3rd with 29.6 according to ESPN). So this doesn't solve the Problem of guys that play on high paced teams.
So Chronz is right if he blast those stats they to not that much to give you a better picture.

yeah, this. Per possession equals the pace. A guy on the Suns averaging 20 a game will have a higher PMM rate than a player averaging 18 on the Blazers. But the Blazers player has a higher PPP. Therefore, he is the higher paced scorer really

Chronz
10-01-2010, 02:00 AM
I have no problem with per minute stats, I think what your talking about was that Pts Per Shot stat that Doug Collins likes to trot around. Its basically a halfassed version of TS% in that it tries to incorporate the benefit of guys who can get to the line, only without penalizing those misses.

DenButsu
10-01-2010, 02:29 AM
I have no problem with per minute stats, I think what your talking about was that Pts Per Shot stat that Doug Collins likes to trot around. Its basically a halfassed version of TS% in that it tries to incorporate the benefit of guys who can get to the line, only without penalizing those misses.
Yeah you're right, that's exactly what I was thinking of, thanks.

lakers4sho
10-03-2010, 01:19 PM
I have no problem with per minute stats, I think what your talking about was that Pts Per Shot stat that Doug Collins likes to trot around. Its basically a halfassed version of TS% in that it tries to incorporate the benefit of guys who can get to the line, only without penalizing those misses.

Oh God, don't even get me started with Collins and his holy PPS.

arkanian215
10-05-2010, 10:51 AM
I'm not sure why stats sites bother with per 36 or per whatever minutes as a way to compare players across different playing times. Guys who play limited minutes but are really good at being hustle guys sometimes project to be above average players in some categories. If they tried to sustain that level of play for more minutes, his productivity would drop. It just seems like a base to compare players' basic stats assuming a linear multiplier when it is not necessarily so.