PER doesnt claim that Bynum and Dalembert have been fairly equal players this season, rather it reveals that Dalembert have been slightly more efficient per minute. Again the metric PER only calculates the efficiency of a players production on a per minute basis, it DOES NOT measure the overall worth/value of player, if you think it does so, the fault is yours, not the metric. I'm not sure why this point is so hard to comprehend.
If you're trying to prove something, you need clearly define what it is you're trying to prove. What does this mean: "PER has some major flaws"? We have to first come to an agreement on what is the purpose of PER -- i.e. how its intended to be used. I'm not sure you've really thought too carefully on that, but that should be the first step before you venture into your proof. So, for example, if we agreed that the way to use PER is to just rank every player, and conclude "Well, player A has a higher PER than player B, therefore player A is playing better" then your complaint makes some sense. However, no one who really understands this stuff uses PER in that way.
Stats adjusted for minutes might uncover players who are capable of producing like a star, or expose alleged stars who's stats might be inflated. Its useful in that regard. But, I agree, one should proceed with caution when comparing per-minute stats of full-time players with guys who play 15-20 minutes.
Well that is fine. If you are intelligent enough to realize that sometimes PER is misleading such as the example with Bynum and Dalambert then my case is closed. If however you keep arguing that both players are equally impressive on a per minute basis because of a formula created by John Holiner then i think u are an idiot.
And to also add....According to this formula they have David Robinson as the 4th most productive player in the history of the league. These sort of results in my opinion would indicate that by no means is PER a reliable source in debating which player is better than the other. I understand that many claim that this is not the purpose of PER yet when i read debates online everyone is quick to claim that player a is better than player b because of PER.
why is it impossible for dalambert to perform at a higher level than he normally does for a 12-game stretch, thus making a him a better player than he normally is? why is it so hard to understand?
No player evaluation metric will perfectly rank every player. Especially when its based on a limited slice of information (the box score, which doesn't capture many important details in the game). Still, there is some use in have a statistic that you can look at to get a quick summary of the player's contributions by the box score. PER helps in that way. Its trivial to go through a ranking of any such metric and selectively pick out cases where it doesn't seem to get it right. Still, if some random guy (A) has a 22 PER and another random guy (B) has a 13 PER, then I can be fairly confident that (A) is helping his team more when he's on the floor than (B). The closer the difference in PER is, the less confident I can be. This, to me, is the proper way to view PER and similar player evaluation metrics. Fault the people that don't know how to use PER, then. Some of us understand PER and its limitations. Again, it was never advertised as the end-all statistic by its creator, so the crux of your argument is really irrelevant IMO.
why do you not think david robinson was one of the most productive regular season players ever? do you have some specifics you'd like to share that indicate he wasn't? you didn't answer my last question so i won't hold my breath on getting this answer. did you know that in the '94-'95 season, robinson averaged 30 points, 11 rebounds, and 5 assists per game? playing on the slowest-paced team in the league? do you feel 30/11/5 is unproductive? do you think the fact it was done on the slowest-paced team doesn't make it even more productive? what is your argument? why is 30/11/5 not productive? and if it helps you sleep better, the spurs had the best record in the league that year so it was clearly translating to wins. as the rockets were well aware as we went 1-5 versus the spurs in the regular season. and i know what you're thinking, wasn't that the year hakeem destroyed robinson in the playoffs? yep. and robinson's PER wasn't higher in the playoffs than hakeem's. in fact, part of the reason hakeem is considered so great is how he did in the playoffs, specifically winning those 2 titles. and guess what, hakeem ranks higher in playoff PER than regular season PER. he has one of the highest playoff vs regular season differentials. it's almost like PER has accurately reflected what happened. and david robinson? part of the reason he is not considered the 4th best player ever is because he wasn't viewed as a big time playoff performer. and guess what, he has one of the bigger negative playoff vs regular season PER differentials (if i wasn't at work, i'd look up the actual numbers). he isn't close to 4th in playoff PER. and considering the playoffs are what most discussions of greatest players center on, it would make sense to look their first instead of whining that david robinson, one of the most productive players ever in the regular, wasn't really one of the most productive players ever in the regular season.
That is fine......and overall I do fault the people but when debating online it can get a bit tiresome when somebody has some measure that they point out every single time. Perfect example is going through this thread and reading comments like Dalambert is just as effective as Bynum.
Go back to the Olajuwon vs Duncan discussion. Olajuwon has better stats across the board in terms of per game except .3 in rebounds and yet Duncan has a better PER. Considering that Olajuwon blows away Duncan in terms of which player is actually a better basketball player and the fact that his stats prove this I find the PER measurement to be irrelevant and idiotic to use when debating about these 2 players. This is just an example. There are many others. Bottom line is that PER can be used once in a while but many times it does not do many players justice.........such as Olajuwon.
D-Rob is simply the 4th ranked in PER, not the "4th most productive player in the history of the league." I have no clue why some would choose to see it that way, as PER is not defined as being the definitive overall evaluation of player production. PER is just a stat, one among many that augment and enhance what you find in simple boxscores. Many people are interpreting it and it's intent incorrectly and basing their entire argument around this. Gotta say, I greatly admire durvasa and francis 4 prez for the patient and thorough way they are explaining this concept.
I really don't want to get into a Olajuwon vs Duncan debate, but that's just a really bad argument. I've already pointed out earlier that there is a huge difference in pace from Olajuwon's day and Duncan's. More possessions means more opportunities to put up numbers in a box score. Can you agree that a fair statistical comparison would at least take that into account? You can't really say "the stats prove it" if you're not doing an apples-to-apples comparisons of the stats. Also, you can't just use "Olajuwon blows away Duncan in terms of which player is actually a better basketball player" as evidence against PER. Even though I may agree with that subjective take, you have to either use objective facts to back it up or point out specific things that Olajuwon did better that helped his team win which PER doesn't sufficiently take into account. And then the argument can proceed from that point. Of course, you need to understand something about how PER is calculated to do this. If you want a break down of the formula, here it is: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
No offense, Tony Siragusa, but this "ex jock who actually played the game" routine of yours would be more impressive if you looked like you'd actually cut to the basket once in awhile, instead of cutting in the buffet line.
Normally I would think that Sam and his comment above wer out of line. But DD is on too high of a horse lately and it is getting annoying.
I'd like to agree, but honestly we can't have our vets devolving CF into that kind of name calling and personal insults (funny though it may be).
The problem is, even this isn't true. Sam Dalembert 21.78 PER, Joakim Noah 13.89. You can not make any useful conclusions about a player without both seeing them play and having perspective of their role on the team. I used to be in the crowd that said there was a big problem with stats, including "new" metrics, then I realized it was just the people I was having basketball discussions with. A guy like leebigez knows more about basketball than most of these guys that just spout out numbers without perspective. Once someone starts comparing guys like Allen Iverson or Carmelo Anthony to role players, I stop listening. Rockets should know more than anyone how statistically superior efficient players can't always assume large roles.
No offense taken, Sam - why would that be offensive? However, the point still stands, all these statistics have done is give everyone something to point to and say "I told ya so"....you can find a formula that shows any player is better than the other, and around and round you go. The funny thing is, that all of these FLAWED formulas are based upon human input and human created algorithms, thus taking a flawed basis and making it more flawed in the end. I agree with those that say it is just a metric meant to be used with others as a way of evaluating, but hardly the end all metric. I would still put more trust in the trained eye than any of these so called "Advanced" metrics. Now off to the buffet line, I hear they have prime rib today. DD
You don't want to get into an Olajuwon vs. Duncan discussion because you realize that PER doesn't do Olajuwon justice. Why do people even use these sorts of measurements ? Most people use something like PER in order to better evaluate a player. So in essence if this is what most if not all people use PER for and we have ridiculous discrepancies such as David Robinson 4th and Olajuwon 14th then in my humble opinion PER is overall a meaningless formula created by a stats nerd. Please answer me this question.......... How can you as an NBA observer justify people claiming that Dalambert is just as efficient as Bynum through 12 games ? And plz no more rhetoric lets just be honest......I hope for the sake of sanity you do not agree with this ridiculous notion.
I've watched a lot of Chicago this year and "while on the floor" Dally has been a bit more productive. I forget Noah is even out there a lot with the Bulls this year. That is, when he's not chucking up bricks. He needs to get it together.
