Did you even read what I posted? PER goes up if you shoot more and convert at a 30.4% clip from 2 or 21.4% clip from 3. Teams that convert at that percentage lose. Every game.Originally Posted by HeavenHarris
PER includes the stats found in a boxscore, with weights applied somewhat arbitrarily. Garbage in, garbage out. It makes no attempt at quantifying team dynamics, which IMO are pretty ****ing important in winning basketball games. PER is of very little value.
PER isn't meant to "quantify team dynamics." Just like plus/minus isn't meant to measure offensive efficiency.
There is NO stat that is the be all, end all--even the lovely ones that attempt to measure team dynamics.
They're all tools. PER is in no way perfect or without faults, but it's not garbage either. It's one of the better advanced stats out there.
And last I checked, games aren't determined by field goal percentage. Team with the most points wins. Every game. I guarantee it bro.
I want proof.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
If you're shooting 30% from the floor, you're losing.
Not if you score more than the other team. Show me the 30% rule in the NBA handbook bro.
Did you miss my post? Admittedly, I haven't crunched the numbers myself. Dave Berri is a competitor with Hollinger, obviously, but this is probably pretty reliable.
Can you find me a team that's won a game in the last 10 seasons while shooting under 30.4% from the field?
Not if the other team doesn't rebound, take care of the ball, or shoot over 29 percent ;-)
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
Yeah I got ya.
Well if I find proof that PER actually goes up while a players efficiency actually goes down, I will then also consider PER junk.
Until then....
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
Too much irrelevant research involved--It doesn't matter if it's happened in the last 10 years or ever in the history in the NBA.
It's just fact. A team can shoot 10% and still win the game if they score more points than the other team.
The concept to take away from this is that MORE points do have value, relative to how you perform in other parts of the game. It's not like PER just makes chuckers look like superstars, it's a very small part of a relatively large formula, as far as current advanced stats go.
How are you measuring "efficiency"?
Didn't you say it did a good job of measuring offensive efficiency? Haven't you been rambling on about scoring? Yes, it's a small part of a relatively large and worthless formula.
Offensive efficiency =/= shooting efficiency.
I use the term offensive because most of the variables recorded in a common box score are mainly on the offensive end. You could make a case that the box score stats are simplistic and don't measure intangibles/defense very well, and I'd agree--but it's the best we've got right now and PER is one of the best tools--tools-- at taking whatever info. we do have and turning it into a single number that's pretty accurate for what it's supposed to be doing.
You can put any advanced stat out there, even ones the wages of wins use, and point to it's faults. That doesn't mean it's junk.
Why is it one of the best tools? Because ESPN uses it?
PER and ESPN suck ass.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote