http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/butleja01.html 72 Points, 7.2 Steals & 7.2 Turnovers... Jackie Butler 2004-2005
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mahinia01.html 32.9 Points, 7.8 Rebounds, 6.3 Blocks... Ian Mahinmi
Winner! http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/leege01.html 86.4 Points, (Zero everything else) George Lee
http://www.basketball-reference.com...omp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts_per_mp Chuck Nevitt: 108 points and 36 offensive rebounds and 216 free throw attempts per 36 minutes in 93-94. He played 1 minute that season.
Awesome find. :grin: How about Claude Gregory? 36 Points, 36 Rebounds, 18 Steals & 36 Turnovers... This is way tooooo fun... Tyson Wheeler averaged 48 Points & 24 Assists with 0 Turnovers... :grin:
I think Nevitt's 36.0 fouls per game should probably disqualify him, as he couldn't stay on the court for 36 minutes. :grin: Gotta love Darrell Armstrong firing up 27 treys a game, too!
This is pathetic (of me) -- I am laughing until I'm crying at Nevitt, because I remember him pretty well.
Dear God, this probably blew a planet out of orbit or sunk a small island as you have found a pic with Chuck Nevitt being guarded by Joe Barry Carroll. There just can't be more than one of these ...
Per 36 is such a terrible stat, it disgusts me when sports writers try to use it to say something significant.
Note the intensity on Chuck's face. He knows he needs to score right now to keep his per-36 above 100!
Why would it be any more terrible than, say, field goal percentage? FG% = field goals made per field goal attempted pts/T = points scored per unit for floor time
That depends on the player, doesn't it? And if your hang up is on the "36 minutes" than you're missing the point. It can be per-[whatever unit of time you like], like per minute or per 20 minutes. The only difference is that it will be scaled up or down by some constant factor, but it conveys identical information about the player. And I'll ask the same question. What makes it more terrible than FG%? If some players attempted shots more frequently or are given a different role on their team, their FG% wouldn't be the same. So is that a terrible stat we should throw out, and we should be disgusted at anyone who refers to it?
FG% is a stat of actual performance though. You use it to measure what a player does in their current circumstances. You don't really use it to project out what they could do. Per36 is often used to measure what a player would do if given more minutes, which is where it breaks down. Per36 is a useful stat when used in very limited situations, but it gets used to project out a pace of a player which is a terrible idea. You can't project out a player who gets 10 minutes per game to what they would do with 36 minutes per game.
Neither stat is any more real or reflecting "actual performance" than the other. They are both rates. One is describing how frequently a player makes a shot when he attempts it. The other is describing how frequently a player scores when he's on the floor. If you have a problem with people making projections, ok, but referring to a per36 statistic does not in itself mean or imply that you're making a projection. And I could just as easily say that people shouldn't assume a player's FG% will remain the same if a team tries to get him more shots. However, if a player is shooting a high FG% then there is at least some reason to consider getting him more looks. Similarly, if a player scores very frequently and a team is starved for scoring, then there would be some reason to consider getting him more minutes.
