Here's how it's calculated See if you can get it through your thick skull. The article doesn't show the whole picture because it omits how all the weighing factors are determined, which is really the crux of PER, but you can easily see it's not some simple plug and chug with PPG and FG% like you're suggesting.
That's a straw man argument. Which post do you see durvasa rejecting the idea that PER has it's flaws?
Its like saying "points scored" has major flaws. Its just information. The manner in which you take that information and make inferences from it can be flawed in a major way, but that doesn't mean the information itself is flawed (unless that information is false due to errors in the data). Are you able to admit that?
Look, I know how it is calculated, I have read the formula, my point is that the boxscore is flawed from the get go, and when you use a lot of that data as a baseline it is going to cause the rest of the output to be even more flawed. DD
Wrong.....points scored doesn't attempt to encompass a players complete efficiency. Everyone knows that points scored does not take into consideration assists, rebounds, etc. You are arguing apples and oranges. The bottom line is that there is no statistic that truly sums up a players efficiency accurately.
Just because PER takes into consideration of several stat doesn't make it any more/less of a stat. It's the same as how TS% takes into account all forms of scoring, like 3PT and FT. If I have 3 apples and put it in a bag, I would still have 3 apples.
Yeah, but each person might view those 3 apples differently. One guy might put more weight on the sour one, another would say, no the sweet apple is more important. And yet another might decide that both of those should only be counted as half an apple because they are not as important as the red one... DD
Especially when the results come back with guys like David Robinson as the 2nd ranked player of PER in the history of the NBA. It almost makes it laughable. I know this stings all the stat geeks out there but it is what it is. Get over it.
PER is simply how John Hollinger views the effectiveness of players. he's just using quantitive information based on his subjective weighting of stats. we all do the same when we make our own judgements about a player, he has just put his thought process into a formula. we all make summaries of how effective a player is based on what we think is important. take it for what it's worth.
If you think 2nd place makes him the second best player. Then it is wrong. It is information that Robinson played efficiently. Nothing more and nothing less.
PER only attempts to encompass what all can be gleaned from the boxscore. There is nothing in the formula for incorporating team defense, shot contests that don't result in a shot-block, charges drawn, double-teams drawn, hockey assists, etc. Since a boxscore isn't complete, you can't say that PER is attempting to encompass "complete" efficiency. Its just a way to combine the good and bad of a player's boxscore statistics. Sure. And PER does take into account things like assists and rebounds. On the other hand, PER doesn't take into account a lot of what goes into defense and various other actions that aren't captured in a boxscore, as anyone can very plainly read in "What is PER?" on ESPN.com. http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240 Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists -- such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins -- who don't get many blocks or steals. What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats.
Sure, you could make that point. But it doesn't stop the fact that in the end there are 3 apples in the bag, no matter how you want to perceive the importance of each apple. That's the same for PER, it's a superficial but useful statistic, because it essentially acts as the bag. You could analyze each stat that the PER encompasses individually, to determine the worth of each apple per say. But in the end no matter how much you want to argue that the sweet apple is more important, you can't change the fact that it contains 3 apple. PER doesn't function to be THE stat, it functions to be A stat. Only when people argue (or straw man argue) that the PER is the ultimate stat is when things go wrong.
