PDA

View Full Version : Westbrook has passed AD in PER



JEDean89
12-15-2014, 10:29 AM
God damn. Single season record is just south of 32. If they keep it up, they will have the two best seasons of all time from a PER standpoint. Westbrook is an absolute monster, the haters will all be silenced.

mightybosstone
12-15-2014, 10:38 AM
Two words bro: sample size. There's a lot of guys in the league capable of posting a 32 PER over a 10-game span. I absolutely assure you that Westy will fall back to earth over the course of the entire season. Davis likely will too.

Andrew32
12-15-2014, 10:46 AM
10 game sample size. Not worth mentioning.
That PER is definitely gonna come wayyy down (below 30).
He is not going to break the record.
He is not gonna keep putting up career best numbers in only 29mpg.

Even Davis is probably going to fall way short of the record though his chances are imo much better then the Thunders star.
People don't realize that when the sample is small a few bad games can result in a dramatic change.
Davis was at what 35-37? Now he is at 33. See a trend?

beasted86
12-15-2014, 12:03 PM
Westbrook has always had a lot of unnecessary haters. I always said I would take him second only to Paul, and even still because of age I'd take him for the next 5 seasons if both were free agents. He's better than Curry, Parker, Wall and the rest easily.

Reminds me of a young Wade. Always underrated.

MonroeFAN
12-15-2014, 12:51 PM
What is this sample size argument? He's been an elite player since he entered the league.

Chronz
12-15-2014, 01:21 PM
That guy has been crazy good. so far

Alayla
12-15-2014, 01:29 PM
Westbrook being disrespected is nothing new.

Jamiecballer
12-15-2014, 01:34 PM
when the shooting numbers come back to earth we will all forget this conversation

Alayla
12-15-2014, 01:53 PM
when the shooting numbers come back to earth we will all forget this conversation

Not really the is westbrook really good or not thing has been going on for years.

Jamiecballer
12-15-2014, 02:34 PM
Not really the is westbrook really good or not thing has been going on for years.

i know that but i meant the thread title. when he returns to earth his per will plummet accordingly. it's basically what's propping him up to such heights right now is that he's shooting at a much better clip than usual.

MonroeFAN
12-15-2014, 02:34 PM
Do not understand the Westbrook hate at all. He performs like a top 7 player and he has a good team. I could understand if they were losing and he was posting gawdy numbers, but he's not.

PurpleLynch
12-15-2014, 02:40 PM
Westbrook is a beast,I agree. His PER will go down,but that doesn't mean anything,his impact is undeniable.
If he develops a better shot and becomes a better playmaker there's no doubt that he will be the best PG in the league.

nickdymez
12-15-2014, 04:46 PM
real high "PER", means he's the goat. So yes, he's the goat.

ghettosean
12-15-2014, 05:20 PM
I've been saying this in the Mike Conley thread... Westy is beasting right now and still being underrated!

Alayla
12-15-2014, 06:10 PM
The people underrating him are basically statheads that are convinced the ball should be in Durant's hands alot more and that Westbrook is playing selfishly when in reality Scott brooks said he WANTS Westbrook taking the amount of shots he does because his aggression takes pressure off everyone else and thats how there offense is designed. There is so much more to basketball than stats but i swear some of these guys if they where in the NBA would avoid taking a half court try with less than a second left on the clock because it would *hurt there shooting numbers* That kind of crap is actually selfish basketball actual players and coaches understand its more selfish NOT to take a chance when you have it than anything else and that part of being a good player is to pretend stats dont even exist.

tredigs
12-15-2014, 06:10 PM
Not really sure he's all that underrated. He's widely considered a top 3 PG (some have him 1 or 2) in a league full of absolute monster PG's, and many (probably most) have him as a top 10 player. He's somewhere in the 4 to 7 range for me.

But, besides the miniature sample size, he's posting one too many career highs for this pace to be sustainable (and if you look at the games he's played in, nearly all have somehow been against bottom tier D's). There's also the fact that as KD continues to play himself into shape/form, Westbrook's career high Usage% will dip accordingly. That said, his MPG are below 30 right now... his per-36 #'s are just sick.

Dude is just insanely fun to watch and so ****ing good. All NBA 1st team Athlete. Strange that two of either him, CP3, Curry and Harden won't make All NBA 1st Team with the types of years they're having/capable of.

jerellh528
12-15-2014, 06:47 PM
Who cares about his per? Anyone who watches him can tell he's an absolute beast of a basketball player and a high impact guy. I admire his playing style and passion. He's what rose fans wish rose was.

Chronz
12-16-2014, 04:55 AM
Who cares about his per? Anyone who watches him can tell he's an absolute beast of a basketball player and a high impact guy. I admire his playing style and passion. He's what rose fans wish rose was.

People who care about PER = people who want more than vague descriptors. High impact? Rly bro?

mightybosstone
12-16-2014, 10:24 AM
What is this sample size argument? He's been an elite player since he entered the league.
What are you talking about? No one is using sample size to suggest that Westbrook is somehow a ****** basketball player or overrated. We're using it to just suggest that this ridiculous tear he's on to start the season isn't likely to continue. His TS% right now is 59.7%, but he's never posted anything higher than 54.5% over an entire season in his career. He's shooting 5.1% higher than his career high FG% and 2.7% higher than his career high 3-point FG%. And this remarkable PER (33.1) would be a MASSIVE increase from his previous season high, as he's never even topped a 25 PER over an entire season in his career.

No one's suggesting that he isn't an elite player or that he can't play at an elite level. We're just suggesting that it's very unlikely that he plays at THIS kind of level for an entire season.


Do not understand the Westbrook hate at all. He performs like a top 7 player and he has a good team. I could understand if they were losing and he was posting gawdy numbers, but he's not.
What hate? I haven't seen a single person in this thread hate on the guy, call him overrated or suggest that he's not a top 10 caliber player. I've only seen two types of posters: the guys who are using common sense to determine that his numbers are likely to decrease a bit and the posters who are overreacting to those posters and questioning where the Westbrook "hatred" is coming from and why he's so "underrated."

Minimal
12-16-2014, 03:58 PM
Been saying this for couple of years - Westbrook is the best point guard in nba. In 36 minutes 32 PPG, 8 APG, 7 RPG 2 SPG on 49% shooting, thats some ridiculous numbers.

MTar786
12-17-2014, 10:39 PM
people think westbrook is gonna fizzle down or whatever, i think he is just entering his prime. his shot selection has gotten a lot better. and he paces himself now. two things he didnt do before

MTar786
12-17-2014, 10:41 PM
Been saying this for couple of years - Westbrook is the best point guard in nba. In 36 minutes 32 PPG, 8 APG, 7 RPG 2 SPG on 49% shooting, thats some ridiculous numbers.

i agree. but i dont agree he was best pg a couple of years ago. I think he was the best from last season. but he will be from now on as he is entering his prime.

Sadds The Gr8
12-18-2014, 06:03 AM
Both of their per's will go down but they're still beasts

Burkey3472
12-18-2014, 10:09 AM
Both of their PER's will go down during the course of the season but they are both elite players that are playing like elite players.

FlashBolt
12-19-2014, 02:34 AM
Remember when they said trade Westbrook for Rondo? Haha. We have two of the top 5 players in the NBA. You can take Reggie Jackson.. but Westbrook is a no-no. What this guy is doing this season.. is just amazing.

JV35
12-19-2014, 02:38 AM
They'll both fall down to earth. Agree with those who say that (b/c of the sample size) it's not even worth mentioning.

If he's still got that PER in April, I'll check back in.

ewing
12-20-2014, 12:38 AM
People who care about PER = people who want more than vague descriptors. High impact? Rly bro?

PER is not a vague descriptor?

RaiderKid318
12-20-2014, 01:10 AM
Davis is back up, next pel is holiday at 49..... Yikes

Chronz
12-20-2014, 03:23 PM
PER is not a vague descriptor?
Only for those who dont understand the methodology. Its a tool to evaluate players on the efficiency vs usage scale. One of many others. When used in conjunction with other statistics, its definitely far more telling than simply saying this player is good.

xnick5757
12-20-2014, 04:04 PM
Only for those who dont understand the methodology. Its a tool to evaluate players on the efficiency vs usage scale. One of many others. When used in conjunction with other statistics, its definitely far more telling than simply saying this player is good.

the main problem with PER is that it rewards chuckers

ewing
12-20-2014, 04:14 PM
Only for those who dont understand the methodology. Its a tool to evaluate players on the efficiency vs usage scale. One of many others. When used in conjunction with other statistics, its definitely far more telling than simply saying this player is good.


You give someone per and i know nothing about them. The fact that two players as drastically different as the two being discussed in this thread are leaders in PER show us exactly how little PER tells us. Its basically tells us they are good, nothing more

JEDean89
12-20-2014, 04:58 PM
^^^^ wtf are you talking about? the fact that the best players in the league are almost always the best in PER says that it does tell us something. PER is useful for figuring out just how much statistical production you are getting from a guy in the minutes he plays. Brendan Wright gives a ton of production in his limited minutes and gets it very efficiently. For a PG and PF to lead the league shows it is a solid metric. If it was only bigs or only guards then you know it would be ********.

jesus christ people are such whiny *****es about per on this forum. yes it doesn't factor in defense as much as it should, mainly because it is difficult to quantify defense, but it is a good metric to see through just the raw numbers. No chuckers are not rewarded unless they hit their FG's efficiently. It's why Melo's PER is never over 25, he isn't efficient. If you don't get PER don't ***** about. I like to measure players based on PER and their known defensive ability. I think it's a better way to measure a guy then per 36 minutes too, it's simlpy a statistic that takes a lot into account to get it to one number.

Chronz
12-20-2014, 05:15 PM
You give someone per and i know nothing about them. The fact that two players as drastically different as the two being discussed in this thread are leaders in PER show us exactly how little PER tells us. Its basically tells us they are good, nothing more
Nonsense, it tells us more than just if two players are good, it gives us various levels of goodness. We also have historical precedence to compare to. No stat is meant to be used alone to give the entire tale so if thats the complaint then you may as well never use stats, in which case you're just willfully limiting your understanding of the game and its quantifiable elements.

Chronz
12-20-2014, 05:22 PM
the main problem with PER is that it rewards chuckers
I want it to. Its on the extreme end of the usage vs efficiency spectrum.

ewing
12-20-2014, 05:23 PM
Nonsense, it tells us more than just if two players are good, it gives us various levels of goodness. We also have historical precedence to compare to. No stat is meant to be used alone to give the entire tale so if thats the complaint then you may as well never use stats, in which case you're just willfully limiting your understanding of the game and its quantifiable elements.

I just think it is a stupid stat. I would much rather look at a bunch of stats that can tell me what someone is good at and what someone isn't as good at then one that tells me that a player is good. PER tells us nothing else

JEDean89
12-21-2014, 05:43 PM
seriously, what's incredible about these two's PER happening at the same time is that they are both higher than Jordan's best and Chamberlains best season's, aka, the two best individual seasons in nba history. Westbrook's minutes will go up and so his PER will likely drop a bit but Anthony Davis deserves serious respect for even competing with those 2 at 21 years of age.

flea
12-21-2014, 06:11 PM
PER is a box score stat only, so that's one drawback. If I really want a cumulative box score stat, I'll go to WS (warts and all, it's just better).

If I want to dig deeper without the team element involved I'd rather see their Points/Rebounds/Assists/Efficiency. It takes basically the same amount of time to throw out there or glance at, and it actually means something. PER is a raw number that has no intrinsic meaning. There are no team adjustments, pace adjustments, and there is no mean or median set. It has nothing to do with defense, even though it purports to.

Baseball stats like OBP and SLG are flawed too, but at they rate stats that reflect reaching base and total bases respectively. PER is basically one of those +/- charts coaches will use but for box score stats, with very few minuses. I doubt PER is any more indicative of a player's value than simply adding points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, and field goal attempts together and then subtracting missed shots and turnovers.

It's not valueless, but it's just sort of a stupid and clumsy way to do things. Plus it creates confusion for players closer to league average and who excel at non-box score stats or don't rely on scoring for their value.

ewing
12-21-2014, 07:21 PM
^^^^ wtf are you talking about? the fact that the best players in the league are almost always the best in PER says that it does tell us something. PER is useful for figuring out just how much statistical production you are getting from a guy in the minutes he plays. Brendan Wright gives a ton of production in his limited minutes and gets it very efficiently. For a PG and PF to lead the league shows it is a solid metric. If it was only bigs or only guards then you know it would be ********.

jesus christ people are such whiny *****es about per on this forum. yes it doesn't factor in defense as much as it should, mainly because it is difficult to quantify defense, but it is a good metric to see through just the raw numbers. No chuckers are not rewarded unless they hit their FG's efficiently. It's why Melo's PER is never over 25, he isn't efficient. If you don't get PER don't ***** about. I like to measure players based on PER and their known defensive ability. I think it's a better way to measure a guy then per 36 minutes too, it's simlpy a statistic that takes a lot into account to get it to one number.

I'm sorry

ewing
12-21-2014, 07:24 PM
PER is a box score stat only, so that's one drawback. If I really want a cumulative box score stat, I'll go to WS (warts and all, it's just better).

If I want to dig deeper without the team element involved I'd rather see their Points/Rebounds/Assists/Efficiency. It takes basically the same amount of time to throw out there or glance at, and it actually means something. PER is a raw number that has no intrinsic meaning. There are no team adjustments, pace adjustments, and there is no mean or median set. It has nothing to do with defense, even though it purports to.

Baseball stats like OBP and SLG are flawed too, but at they rate stats that reflect reaching base and total bases respectively. PER is basically one of those +/- charts coaches will use but for box score stats, with very few minuses. I doubt PER is any more indicative of a player's value than simply adding points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, and field goal attempts together and then subtracting missed shots and turnovers.

It's not valueless, but it's just sort of a stupid and clumsy way to do things. Plus it creates confusion for players closer to league average and who excel at non-box score stats or don't rely on scoring for their value.


why do you want a cumulative box score stat? Its stupid.

Chronz
12-22-2014, 04:22 AM
I just think it is a stupid stat. I would much rather look at a bunch of stats that can tell me what someone is good at and what someone isn't as good at then one that tells me that a player is good. PER tells us nothing else

I dont see what makes a useful tool stupid. The whole "look at 1 stat" argument applies to every single statistic in the NBA. If you only showed me rebounds per game I would know even less about this players quantitative value because its ignoring the vast majority of his statistical profile . All in 1 stats aren't meant for anything but helping contextualize all those numbers. I dont see why you would limit yourself in any way.

Sean Moore
12-22-2014, 04:32 AM
I dont see what makes a useful tool stupid. The whole "look at 1 stat" argument applies to every single statistic in the NBA. If you only showed me rebounds per game I would know even less about this players quantitative value because its ignoring the vast majority of his statistical profile . All in 1 stats aren't meant for anything but helping contextualize all those numbers. I dont see why you would limit yourself in any way.

How would you be limiting yourself. There is so much more important aspects of the game and metrics than PER. If it disappeared tomorrow I'm guessing the world of basketball would still go on.

Chronz
12-22-2014, 04:38 AM
How would you be limiting yourself.
By excluding something.



There is so much more important aspects of the game and metrics than PER.
Who suggested otherwise? You seem to think the inclusion of something means the exclusion of everything else, when my entire point has been about being open to it all. Put your straws away.



If it disappeared tomorrow I'm guessing the world of basketball would still go on.

The world went on without turnovers, steals, blocks and differentiation of rebounds. World changed for the better.

ewing
12-22-2014, 06:21 AM
I dont see what makes a useful tool stupid. The whole "look at 1 stat" argument applies to every single statistic in the NBA. If you only showed me rebounds per game I would know even less about this players quantitative value because its ignoring the vast majority of his statistical profile . All in 1 stats aren't meant for anything but helping contextualize all those numbers. I dont see why you would limit yourself in any way.

How is it useful? Are you going to game plan against someone's per, learn a players strengths/weaknesses, get any insight into the game what so ever? It is a stupid stat for nerds that like lists

Sean Moore
12-22-2014, 08:12 AM
By excluding something.

Excluding something I deem of little to no value is of little to no consequence in my eyes.


Who suggested otherwise? You seem to think the inclusion of something means the exclusion of everything else, when my entire point has been about being open to it all. Put your straws away.

You seem to be under the assumption I indeed think this way. Not sure as to why.


The world went on without turnovers, steals, blocks and differentiation of rebounds. World changed for the better.

Those are at least quantifiable. Can't really debate how many turnovers per game a player had, though it is very debatable if a higher or lower PER value truly makes a player better or worse in comparison to their peers.

Sean Moore
12-22-2014, 08:31 AM
seriously, what's incredible about these two's PER happening at the same time is that they are both higher than Jordan's best and Chamberlains best season's, aka, the two best individual seasons in nba history. Westbrook's minutes will go up and so his PER will likely drop a bit but Anthony Davis deserves serious respect for even competing with those 2 at 21 years of age.

Which begs the question have players evolved their games as a result of new advanced metrics such as PER. Does this give guys like Westbrook and Davis a sort of unfair advantage in producing better advanced metric stats over guys like Jordan and Chamberlain who both had no idea of anything to do with PER.

Chronz
12-22-2014, 10:29 PM
How is it useful? Are you going to game plan against someone's per, learn a players strengths/weaknesses, get any insight into the game what so ever? It is a stupid stat for nerds that like lists
I've already explained how, it helps contextualize a players overall production on the usage vs efficiency scale while accounting for era translations.

I don't see what makes it stupid when your single minded rationale would apply to any individual stat.

And spare me the unsubstantiated opinions, gms and coaches alike have testified to it's usefulness.

Chronz
12-22-2014, 10:35 PM
Excluding something I deem of little to no value is of little to no consequence in my eyes.
Thankfully you do not speak on the behalf of others. I don't care for unsubstantiated opinions, so in a thinner vein, i couldn't care less.


You seem to be under the assumption I indeed think this way. Not sure as to why.
It's because you implied it by putting words into my mouth. Otherwise, why state there is more to the game than stats? That's clear to even the creator of the stat itself. Find a valid complaint for your next rebuttal.


Those are at least quantifiable. Can't really debate how many turnovers per game a player had, though it is very debatable if a higher or lower PER value truly makes a player better or worse in comparison to their peers
Lol Wat?

Show me how they are quantifiable without these sort of metrics. That you believe this makes me question just how much you understand the current state of apbr.

FlashBolt
12-22-2014, 10:53 PM
How is it useful? Are you going to game plan against someone's per, learn a players strengths/weaknesses, get any insight into the game what so ever? It is a stupid stat for nerds that like lists

Oh shut up. Jordan having the highest PER is already proof that it is fairly consistent. You don't agree with it because you are too simple minded.

Sean Moore
12-23-2014, 04:59 AM
Thankfully you do not speak on the behalf of others. I don't care for unsubstantiated opinions, so in a thinner vein, i couldn't care less.

The majority of sports debates consist of unsubstantiated opinions. How is this any different.


It's because you implied it by putting words into my mouth. Otherwise, why state there is more to the game than stats? That's clear to even the creator of the stat itself. Find a valid complaint for your next rebuttal.

Where did I say there is more to the game than stats. I only specified a single stat and implied it was not indicative of anything truly groundbreaking. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion you did about the said implication. Now who's putting words into who's mouth.



Lol Wat?

Show me how they are quantifiable without these sort of metrics. That you believe this makes me question just how much you understand the current state of apbr.

How astute of you. So now that I've stated that I don't hold these metrics in the same esteem you do my intelligence and understanding of the game are now in question. Pretty nifty tactic you used there. To which I will return the favor by taking the same ground as you and putting it into an even thinner vein of I could care less. Oh and give you an lol right back atcha in the very same breath for an additional and ultimately meaningless added sense of dramatic flare.

To answer you question, I was referring to a different measure of quantifiability when I gave my original statement. I merely meant that it was the literal quantifiable amounts themselves that could not be questioned, not the impact of what they meant on the court; To which the metric PER itself I feel is a bit lackluster in gaining any sort of significant further insight. To paraphrase, I don't need to compare the PER of Anthony Davis and LaMarcus Aldridge to know who the better of the two is. I can surmise this for myself with my own two eyes.

ewing
12-23-2014, 06:57 AM
I've already explained how, it helps contextualize a players overall production on the usage vs efficiency scale while accounting for era translations.

I don't see what makes it stupid when your single minded rationale would apply to any individual stat.

And spare me the unsubstantiated opinions, gms and coaches alike have testified to it's usefulness.

what?

ewing
12-23-2014, 06:58 AM
Oh shut up. Jordan having the highest PER is already proof that it is fairly consistent. You don't agree with it because you are too simple minded.

it says Jordan is the best, insightful

Chronz
12-23-2014, 01:05 PM
The majority of sports debates consist of unsubstantiated opinions. How is this any different.
2 words. Peer review. That's the entire point of APBR. You don't have to be correct but you should at least make the attempt if you're going to speak on the relative value of stats.


Where did I say there is more to the game than stats. I only specified a single stat and implied it was not indicative of anything truly groundbreaking. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion you did about the said implication. Now who's putting words into who's mouth.

Lol ur right. I was about to quote ur exact phrasing but you did isolate per and not all stats. Moving on.


How astute of you. So now that I've stated that I don't hold these metrics in the same esteem you do my intelligence and understanding of the game are now in question. Pretty nifty tactic you used there. To which I will return the favor by taking the same ground as you and putting it into an even thinner vein of I could care less. Oh and give you an lol right back atcha in the very same breath for an additional and ultimately meaningless added sense of dramatic flare.

To answer you question, I was referring to a different measure of quantifiability when I gave my original statement. I merely meant that it was the literal quantifiable amounts themselves that could not be questioned, not the impact of what they meant on the court;
Simply tallying up a number isn't quantifying it. Not in any meaningful sense of the word. But even if we agreed, the fact that we went so long without something you find more important (a raw statistic) shows that the world continues regardless, that's more of an empty insult than an argument. Look PER is outdated but it played a role in the popularization of advanced stats and its proliferation within the execs.




To which the metric PER itself I feel is a bit lackluster in gaining any sort of significant further insight. To paraphrase, I don't need to compare the PER of Anthony Davis and LaMarcus Aldridge to know who the better of the two is. I can surmise this for myself with my own two eyes
I can as well but it's good to have objective measures supporting me. I gather as much evidence as i can before coming to a conclusion, simply arguing with my eyeballs alone isn't going to sway anyone.

Chronz
12-23-2014, 01:08 PM
it says Jordan is the best, insightful
Would rebounds suggest that about MJ. Seriously the crux of your argument has been isolating. a single stat. Well show me any other single stat that would tell You more. You Will Find these sort of all in 1, linear weights type.

RLundi
12-23-2014, 02:28 PM
^^^^ wtf are you talking about? the fact that the best players in the league are almost always the best in PER says that it does tell us something. PER is useful for figuring out just how much statistical production you are getting from a guy in the minutes he plays. Brendan Wright gives a ton of production in his limited minutes and gets it very efficiently. For a PG and PF to lead the league shows it is a solid metric. If it was only bigs or only guards then you know it would be ********.

jesus christ people are such whiny *****es about per on this forum. yes it doesn't factor in defense as much as it should, mainly because it is difficult to quantify defense, but it is a good metric to see through just the raw numbers. No chuckers are not rewarded unless they hit their FG's efficiently. It's why Melo's PER is never over 25, he isn't efficient. If you don't get PER don't ***** about. I like to measure players based on PER and their known defensive ability. I think it's a better way to measure a guy then per 36 minutes too, it's simlpy a statistic that takes a lot into account to get it to one number.

Agreed.

ewing
12-23-2014, 02:35 PM
Would rebounds suggest that about MJ. Seriously the crux of your argument has been isolating. a single stat. Well show me any other single stat that would tell You more. You Will Find these sort of all in 1, linear weights type.


i said from the beginning that I would rather look at a multitude of stats then 1. Having an all inclusive stat is stupid b/c its meaningfulness is lost in its parts. If I didn't know who Russel Westbrook was or who AD was but you gave be a ton of stats on them i could construct and imagine of how they play, what they are good at, what they are bad at, what guys might be a good teammates for them,etc. PER only tells me they are very good at basketball. In another thread on here a poster told me the Damien Lillard FG% on two point FGs was up significantly. Now if a wanted i could see if he is taking more or less of these shots, if they are coming from the same spots on the floor, where they are off the dribble or catch, etc. I can try to gain insight about the player. PER gives no insight it is a dumb stat for people that want something to point to and go "see told ya so"

Chronz
12-24-2014, 12:52 AM
i said from the beginning that I would rather look at a multitude of stats then 1.
I would too, the only difference is that PER would be among them. Which has always been the case. My entire point is that it tells you MORE than any other single stat you would look at, so this is an empty complaint. PER doesn't have to apologize for being more informative than any 1 stat, unless you are looking at the other, superior linear weights .



Having an all inclusive stat is stupid b/c its meaningfulness is lost in its parts.
I already addressed why I disagree


If I didn't know who Russel Westbrook was or who AD was but you gave be a ton of stats on them i could construct and imagine of how they play, what they are good at, what they are bad at, what guys might be a good teammates for them,etc. PER only tells me they are very good at basketball.Me too, and PER would enhance that productive baseline. I dont know what qualifies as a stat for you but PER is one of those for me, that it tells you more than any other single stat you looked at on its own isn't a negative thing. PER helps unearth the underlying factors of pace, comp and minutes that factor into raw numbers. Again, I dont know what stats are a ton for you but Im assuming its mostly the traditional stuff. This is the problem with vague complaints to me.

Like what would be the productive value of them all? You imagining things isn't exactly my idea of more insight.


In another thread on here a poster told me the Damien Lillard FG% on two point FGs was up significantly. Now if a wanted i could see if he is taking more or less of these shots, if they are coming from the same spots on the floor, where they are off the dribble or catch, etc. I can try to gain insight about the player. PER gives no insight it is a dumb stat for people that want something to point to and go "see told ya so"
I disagree entirely, you can gain more insight from more information. And Im pretty sure coaches and GM's dont look at linear weights to say that crap.

Chronz
12-24-2014, 12:57 AM
Agreed.

If you could lead the league in any stat, what stat would you want it to be?

Sean Moore
12-24-2014, 06:17 AM
2 words. Peer review. That's the entire point of APBR. You don't have to be correct but you should at least make the attempt if you're going to speak on the relative value of stats.

Only in a perfect world lol. From my own experiences, although it could be considered anecdotal, it just seems like a bunch of fanboys and haters seeing what they want to see and ignoring everything else. Very rarely do I see anything truly groundbreaking. Just years and years of the same pointless bickering.


Lol ur right. I was about to quote ur exact phrasing but you did isolate per and not all stats. Moving on.

Here I expected some sort of snappy comeback. Kudos.


Simply tallying up a number isn't quantifying it. Not in any meaningful sense of the word. But even if we agreed, the fact that we went so long without something you find more important (a raw statistic) shows that the world continues regardless, that's more of an empty insult than an argument. Look PER is outdated but it played a role in the popularization of advanced stats and its proliferation within the execs.

There is so much that goes in to the analytics of basketball that it is pretty much arrogant to actually think that a single stat could completely surmise an individual players worth unequivocally. I remember when PER first came around all the fanboys who tried to act like this was so. You would think that they would have awarded Hollinger the Noble Prize of basketball if this were the case. Anyways, now it's at least somewhat refreshing to see more and more of the collective brain trust move away from that notion. Though there are the occasional hard heads that will use any sort of evidence that supports their own personal views no matter how many holes one will poke in their argument.


I can as well but it's good to have objective measures supporting me. I gather as much evidence as i can before coming to a conclusion, simply arguing with my eyeballs alone isn't going to sway anyone.

No it won't, but it's a start and how we all first started out becoming fans of the sport one way or another.

Sean Moore
12-24-2014, 06:30 AM
If you could lead the league in any stat, what stat would you want it to be?

Total wins. Haha.

No but seriously that is a pretty ambiguous question. Are we talking about basic stats, advanced stats or both. Also, how much of a margin do I get to lead the league in this stat.

Sean Moore
12-24-2014, 06:53 AM
Funny thing. I just looked for this years PER leaders and noticed that Brandan Wright is number eight in the league. Can someone please explain to me how that happens. What an anomaly. I mean, I have the guy on my fantasy team and all but strictly for his high fg%. I also noticed he is ranked pretty high in fantasy as well. But number eight in the league. Come on now. Lol.

ewing
12-24-2014, 07:13 AM
Total wins. Haha.

No but seriously that is a pretty ambiguous question. Are we talking about basic stats, advanced stats or both. Also, how much of a margin do I get to lead the league in this stat.


Shame, you had it right before you backed off

Sean Moore
12-24-2014, 07:26 AM
Shame, you had it right before you backed off

He conceded that PER was outdated. That suits me just fine. Everything else he said was pretty much valid. Besides, I want to see how he answers my follow up question.

ewing
12-24-2014, 10:53 AM
I would too, the only difference is that PER would be among them. Which has always been the case. My entire point is that it tells you MORE than any other single stat you would look at, so this is an empty complaint. PER doesn't have to apologize for being more informative than any 1 stat, unless you are looking at the other, superior linear weights .



I already addressed why I disagree

Me too, and PER would enhance that productive baseline. I dont know what qualifies as a stat for you but PER is one of those for me, that it tells you more than any other single stat you looked at on its own isn't a negative thing. PER helps unearth the underlying factors of pace, comp and minutes that factor into raw numbers. Again, I dont know what stats are a ton for you but Im assuming its mostly the traditional stuff. This is the problem with vague complaints to me.

Like what would be the productive value of them all? You imagining things isn't exactly my idea of more insight.


I disagree entirely, you can gain more insight from more information. And Im pretty sure coaches and GM's dont look at linear weights to say that crap.


If by linear weights you mean how a player gets their, I assure you they do. If you didn't you wouldn't be much of a coach. I'll give an example and you tell me if i am missing something.

you have a player shoots a decent %, however he is much worse off the dribble going right. As a player you might not realize just how much worse you are at these shots and you might make decisions that force you into them. As a coach, I try to get you to recognize this and not put the ball on the floor when it going to lead to one of these looks. We also make sure you worked shooting the ball off the bounce going right. Now think of it on the otherside of the ball as a coach you know the drop an opposing player who is an excellent overall shooter has when taking shots off the dribble going right- how do you coach?

Jamiecballer
12-24-2014, 11:15 AM
Funny thing. I just looked for this years PER leaders and noticed that Brandan Wright is number eight in the league. Can someone please explain to me how that happens. What an anomaly. I mean, I have the guy on my fantasy team and all but strictly for his high fg%. I also noticed he is ranked pretty high in fantasy as well. But number eight in the league. Come on now. Lol.
It suggests he is a very valuable player that some smart GM will take advantage of by giving greater opportunity. Most likely Ainge but I'm hoping the Raptors will push to acquire.