Ok so I guess I was right, this has nothing to do with stats and is simply a veiled Martin bashing. Unless you think KMart shiuld get the ball over Durant, Kobe, Anthony since his eFG is higher.
Reasonable conclusions to takeaway from my participation in this thread: a) I prefer evaluating eFG% and FT% separately rather than combining them into TS%. b) I think it would be dumb to look at one stat and make conclusions off it (ie, going to Dwight over Yao; Martin over Carmelo). c) I said give me the guy with the higher eFG% in the closing seconds because he's more likely to make the field-goal attempt. This isn't fool proof, as you've discovered with Dwight/Martin. But TS% isn't fool proof either, as you discovered with Chandler, Affalo, etc. d) I don't know you're on this conspiracy theory that I want to subtly bash Kevin Martin. It is about the stats -- I put more stock into eFG% than TS%. You don't. Life goes on.
Just stop, you are essentially saying that because TS% doesn't measure basketball how YOU feel basketball should be measured it's not a good metric. You obviously don't understand how a person like Chandler can score effectively but not put on huge numbers.
No one ever said TS is perfect, I said it is better than EFG in every way, you have yet to give an example that somehow refutes this. Those guys Chandler and Afflalo, Nene, Allen, etc, you realize that they top TS AND EFG right?
Can you believe the audacity I have in forming my own opinion? I mean, thousands of stat geeks celebrated over this new incredible shooting % formula and yet I won't fully embrace it!!!! You guys are funny. I understand the stats, players, and how "they can score effectively" pretty damn well. It doesn't mean I have to buy into every stat produced; I don't think TS% is that great of a stat. Sorry to disappoint you. It's better in every way? How about with 10 seconds left and you need a three-pointer to tie or win? FT's won't help.. TS% fails. I guess it isn't better than eFG% in every way. And considering TS% takes into account eFG%, I'd hope there would be some correlation between their high TS% and high eFG%. :grin:
You know what is really crazy is Patterson has a PER of 16+ and dude is doing that in about 10 minutes per game. PER is effected by minutes played. Most players that only get 10 minutes per game can only muster a 9 or 10 PER at best. What this means is if Patterson were playing 25 to 30 minutes per game maintaining the same level of play he has played with up til now, his PER would likely be somewhere in the 20's. That's nuts.
WOW. That is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. The whole point of PER is that it has NOTHING to do with minutes. It's a per-minute box-score summary stat that gives different weights to different stats.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following: PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER) Go figure.
Im not sure what youre saying in this post, so disregard what I'm saying if you already know this, but PER is a per minute stat, it even says so in the very first sentence of the link you posted. The statement you've quoted is saying that you arrive at league average PER by using minutes as weights, it doesn't mean that PER itself is calculated based on minutes. In other words, if Terrence Williams' PER was 10 and Scola's PER was 20, the average is not 10. You would average the two based on minutes each of them played.
They're using player minutes to find an average PER so they can adjust to it, which makes sense. A single player's PER does not depend on his minutes. Basically what they are saying is: Say, the league consists of 3 players - player A, B, and C. Player A has a PER of 10, B has 15, and C has 20. However, player A played 10 min, B played 15, C played 20. Instead of just taking the average of the 3 and saying the league average is 15, they are weighing it with their minutes. So league average PER = (10*10 + 15*15 +20*20) / (total minutes which is 45) = 18.333. Then they scale the player's unadjusted PER so the average becomes 15. So if the player's unadjusted PER happens to be 18.333 in this case, his final PER is 15.
Ok. I concede that PER is a per minute stat. May I suggest that PER is affected by usage and usage typically goes up as minutes increase? Would you agree with that statement?
Yes, Patterson will probably put up Scola numbers one day. Hopefully he plays stronger defense though.
PER absolutely is affected by usage but usage is does not correlate with minutes. There are plenty of cases in both directions where increase in minutes cause higher usage and vice versa.
Statistically it does not depend on minutes. Realistically it does. 25-30mpg players are much fresher on every possession than 38-40mpg players. It's a matter of quality possessions. Same with bench players. You can't compare a 30mpg player to a starter getting 38mpg. That's what makes the superstars like Durant so amazing, is because they can post huge PERs at 38+ mpg. Don't mean to argue. But this has always made sense to me.
There is much debate in the statistical community (name APBR) whether PER is affected by increase in minutes or not and there are merit to both sides of the argument and I've seen examples of both sides. Chuck Hayes couldn't keep his PER up in the 18 range after his rookie year with increase in minutes while someone like Zach Randolph wins MIP by increasing minutes while playing exactly the same way (PER), but increasing minutes.
Ok. I agree. Now, when you're talking about a typical bench warmer who gets in during blowouts and plays mostly meaningless minutes, isn't the PER typically skewed downward because they get minutes and low usage or they are playing with other bench warmers who are not very good and instead of getting an assist, they get nothing, or they wind up having to take a bad shot at the end of the shot clock, or they simply do not get the proper amount of touches because it is slop play at the end of the game???? My general thought is that players getting spot minutes tend to have lower PERs because of this, which means, for all practical purposes that the odds are against them having a high PER since they are playing mostly junk minutes, while the odds favor their PER increasing significantly with more minutes, more usage, and playing with rotation players........that is, unless they are on a bad team like Cleveland where no matter what they do, even if they play with the starters, the starters are so poor that there is virtually no way to get their PER up to a decent level. Does this make sense? If it does, then it still amazes me that Patterson has pulled a significantly positive PER (above 15) out of his minutes, since a significant amount of them have been coming off the bench in garbage time and playing alongside end of the roster talent. A +16.55 PER is good for a rotation player playing on a playoff contender. It is amazing for a rookie who has literally worked his way into every minute he has played and has played behind a significantly inferior talent (Hill) for the greatest part of his rookie campaign.
I wouldn't say spot minutes necessarily equals low PER. Spot minutes are just generally very erratic moreso due to small sample size. While it certainly isn't a bad thing that Patterson has a good PER but I would just take with cautious optimism. Like I said earlier in the thread, Chuck Hayes' PER was 18 his rookie season in spot minutes.
Lol calm down. We are just pointing out how you are cherry picking which data to use. We should be looking at as much data as possible.
