PER

The thing is, Dalembert is doing a lot more than Noah. Noah plays more minutes than Sam, but he does everything worse than him. For example, for a center, Noah is shooting 40% on the floor. That is terrible FG% for a guy who is not expected to score.

That is not to say, that Dalembert is better than Noah, or that Dalembert will help the Bulls more than Noah will in the long run. But as it stands now, at the moment, Noah isn't doing a very good job helping the team.

I think what durvasa emphasized is that PER is inaccurate with small sample sizes, but like all statistics and frequencies, in the long run the PER will scale towards something more indicative of the player's performance.

But at the end of the day PER is merely one stat. It doesn't take into account things like leadership, intangible aspects of basketball equally important to the team's success.

 

Exactly, but it does create a metric for us internet warriors to point to as some way of winning an argument.

When the fact is there is no definitive answer, and one players skill set may fit better with a coach or system or other group of players than others.

But that is never taken into account in any discussion, it is simply something that folks point to and go...AHA !!!!!

When AHA !!!! is relatively meaningless in truth.

DD

 

If you understood this fact then why were you using this stat to defend Bud's defense and calling folks out for being stubborn for not buying into the stat?

 

Dalembert has been more efficient than Bynum through 12 games. He shoots a higher percentage from the field and from the free throw line. He hasn't turned the ball over as much. But he also plays a very different role. If he was asked to do the things Bynum does, his efficiency would drop way down. His efficiency will drop anyway if history is any indication.

And, where are the people calling for Dalembert to make the all-star team because of his 20+ PER through 12 games? No one is making a big deal about this other than you.

 

Dalambert has played his role more effectively on the Rockets than Andrew Bynum has played his role on the Lakers. To my eye, this is because Kobe is not getting Bynum involved enough in the offense, instead choosing to chuck 400+ shots a night. I'm not saying Dalambert could ever play Bynums role, or that Bynum couldn't play Dalambert's role more effectively, but, due to various circumstances, Dalambert is, to this point, more effective at what he is asked to do than Bynum is at what he is asked to do.

 

Reread my sentence. You are picking out two players -- not at random -- and using your prior information about who they are to decide that Dalembert probably is not helping his team as much as Noah. It doesn't change what I said.

 

I did not say I was not guilty of using it, just saying it is not close to a defining stat.

Heck, in truth even eyeball tests are not as relevent as the different people possessing those eyeballs have different viewpoints about basketball and what they like, or understand.

DD

 

Good, now if only you follow this simple approach when making posts in this forum, people will give you a lot less crap than they are giving you now.

 

I doubt that Flaming, it is just too late for me now....lol.

DD

 

DD, here are two easy steps to take the target off your back in these basketball discussion:

(1) Add "in my opinion" to every basketball point you make.

(2) If someone says something you think is totally wrong or stupid, instead of suggesting that they are generally ignorant about basketball, simply say you disagree with that specific point.

Trust me, you'll can get across any argument just as effectively if not more so, and people will respond to you more respectfully.

Try it out for a while.

 

I appreciate the advice Durv, I think you are a good guy.

Thanks - will try....

DD

 

I know. But that is not the same thing as picking out two players at random.

I can do that with any stat. Even if in the vast majority of cases it ranks players properly, I can pick out cases where it doesn't get it right. That doesn't really prove anything, other than it will not give you a perfect ordering. But anyone who understands how these stats work already knows that.

Likewise.

 

I won't say I've watched Chicago a lot but when I have seen them play Noah was the better player. I concede that Dalembert has scored better but I wouldn't even say he's the better offensive player to this point. Noah doesn't get in the way of the primary scorer as often as Dalembert does which I think is one of the worst things you can do as a defensive oriented big. And defensively, imo, it isn't even close. Noah, when I've seen him, hasn't looked nearly as lost as often as Dalembert does.

But, all of this is beside the point. I can go back last season and cherry pick some PER comparisons Brad Miller 16.37, Kendrick Perkins 9.60. It's not just a small sample size. You can NEVER just look at any or all stats and make a meaningful conclusion on a player's contributions to his team.

Ok, I can agree with that. I thought you meant 'at random', every time, as in any player with about a 22 PER is helping his team more than any player with a 13 PER. Sounds like you mean 'at random', most times that's the case. However, I'd say that's true about a lot of stats when you compare players with that great of a disparity.

And, to be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with your main point durvasa. I was just using your post to make it clear that without perspective all of these stats are irrelevant.

 

I agree. And PER isn't the only game in town, but it does a decent enough job in most cases. People just need to understand its limitations and not treat it as a holy grail stat. Its just one thing you can look at to help support an argument. The wider the disparity, the more compelling the argument becomes.

 

I find it funny that some of the biggest opponents of PER (like the OP) like to cite to PPG, RPG, APG, and other traditional box score stats to make their arguments (i.e. Hakeem > Duncan because he had higher PPG, RPG, APG, SPG, BPG, so this shows PER is flawed because Duncan had higher PER).

The traditional stats have pretty much all of PER's flaws (like small sample size doesn't tell you a whole lot, one player having a small advantage over another doesn't mean he's slightly better, etc.) and a lot more (like not accounting for minutes played and pace of play, ignoring the efficiency difference between 2 guys with the same FG% because of difference in # of 3PT attempts, # of FT attempts and turnovers per touch).


PER is not a perfect stat. Nothing is. It gets less and less perfect the dumber the user gets.

 

TOTALLY agree (at least not their OVERALL contribution). Just wanted to point our how much Noah has sucked this season because it's frustrating (fantasy). lol

 

On Bynum's TOs - when you're asked to do more offensively, you tend to turn the ball over more. PER doesn't take that into account, does it?

Dalembert's blocks - that's pretty much all he's asked to do. That's how I feel about his blocked shots. PER doesn't take that into account, does it?

On Dalembert's points - he's not asked to score points. The defense doesn't care about him for the most part. I'm guessing PER doesn't take that into account either.

 

You think he's more efficient because PER says he's more efficient. Who says PER defines "efficient" effectively? If Dalembert is more "efficient" than Bynum, then why do we even care about who's more "efficient"? Who said we have to care about that?