Problems are most so-called analysts, writers and commentators don't watch all games and mostly homer. Then these are the people who vote for the MVP. A player was mentioned as one of the MVP candidates 2 seasons ago when he average 25pts and 10rebs. This season his team is on par to win another 50games and he is averaged 19pts and 9rebs. No one mentioned about him anymore. Is pretty clear, 90% of analysts analyze players based on STATS than the impact of the players!
Well, that's a bit of an extreme situation. The arguments i hear is that Ginobili is right up there with the best players in the league, based on his per minute stats. Say, you compare him to a guy like Brandon Roy. Roy's PER is 24.16, Manu's is 23.30. So, per minute they have similar production. But Roy plays 10 minutes more and actually does more game to game. IMO he is clearly playing MUCH better.* You don't have to look at per minute stats to see that the first guy is scoring better in your example. Again, my issue is that instead of using these stats as tools to demonstrate a point in your analysis, they are taken as proof of something other than what they actually are. Scoring more points per game is not proof that you are a better score, just that you score more game to game. Scoring more points per minute is not proof that you are a better scorer either, just that you score more per 40 minutes. Nothing more nothing less. If you are using the stat to prove a point then there should be some other analysis, otherwise it is irrelevant imo. * I realize Manu has not played alot this season but the topic is relevant for any season.
I agree it is not an issue if the player does see more minutes. And, you are right about what per minute stats tells you...but how important is that? Ideally, you would like to know what a player contributes to the outcome of each game, how he can help you win. Coaches understand roles, age, health and all the other aspect that go into minutes played. You have to wonder why some guys who seem so great in limited minutes don't play more, especially if there is no star ahead of them in the rotation.
How important is it to know how well a player played in the minutes he got? Pretty important. The first thing I'd like to know about a player is, given the minutes he did have, how well did he play? I can get a better feel for that with per-minute stats than per-game stats, but obviously neither tell you everything. Then, I can ask other questions like why does he only play X minutes a game, what type of opponents does he usually face, how would he fit in a different system and with more minutes against starters, etc.
Im sure everyone knows that if players are similar in per minute/per possession stats, you hold the one who sustains his level of play for a longer duration in higher regard. But what I hate hearing is suggesting that a players per minute production always decreases with more playing time when in fact players seem to play better the more time they get, or that everyone plays better off the bench. Durvasa is just saying minutes and production go hand in hand and there are cases when even though a player is playing alot more and his per game stats look alot better the superior player is the guy who hasnt gotten the chance to show his per minute stats are in tune with his abilities.
I fully understand what you mean but for the sake of comparing players, imo, it is not relevant if a player WILL NOT play more minutes. It would probably be more useful to compare the production of player A and his back up to player B and his back up. Because that is the production the team will actually see from game to game. My issue is not with the stats themselves but the assumptions made by them. We see it on our team as well. Carl Landry has had higher PER's than Scola both years, per minute he's a more efficient player. So what, is Adleman an idiot for not playing Landry more? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he realizes that Scola is the better/more skilled player but Landry is very athletic and he can be very efficient if he comes in and plays with alot of energy. Energy that he would not be able to sustain for 30 minutes a night.
That may very well be true in the case of Landry and Scola. But there are a number of other situations where a backup was indeed "better" (or had more abilities, potential) than the starter, and that was reflected in the per-minute stats but not in the per-game stats. But you're right, there's an important piece of information that gets lost when you only look at per-minute stats. If a player is getting 35 minutes a game, unless the coach is a total idiot he must be doing something well if he's not doing much in the boxscore. So sometimes MPG reflects things that aren't evident in the boxscore like consistency, leadership, or other intangibles.
Exactly, durvasa. All i'm saying is that stats are tools you may use to build the structure of your analysis. In general, they tell you one small bit of information but anything further is an inference or assumption. Score 1 for the humans.
