Analytics has Enes Kanter is top ten in PER
- Thread starter couscous
- Start date
GVC
Well-Known Member
1. Which can be said about any arbitrary combination of box score stats (that puts sufficient weight on scoring).
2. Which is largely due to being conditioned to look at box score stats to evaluate players (i.e. there's a potential confirmation bias problem).
Just because PER is "regression-based" (or whatever...), doesn't mean it does a particularly good job at measuring the ordinal or cardinal value of players. The coefficients used in PER are estimated using team-level regressions, which don't translate nearly as well to individual players (e.g. are all baskets equal? Is the player who scores the basket the only player who contributes to the basket? Does individual defense matter?). Further, the linear regression model Hollinger uses may be (probably is) mis-specified (e.g. are assisted baskets worth more than unassisted baskets? Does it make sense that the break even field goal percentage for PER is so low?).
It's junk.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Way to miss the point. How does the list look if you do points+rebounds+assists?
10 wives? Wow, what an original insult. Never heard that one before. I hope you spent hours coming up with something so clever, because that really stings and stuff. Brilliant.
Kanter is hated because he demanded a trade, lowered his value, and the badmouthed the oragnization after he left. If you can find someone who did something similar who isn't hated by a fan base because of that, let me know. What's more telling is that on his first game back none of the starters gave him the customary fist bump, and many spoke out against him after the game and during it. It's one thing for us fans with 10 wives (BTW, you've never been married since you actually believe that having 10 wives would actually mellow someone out) to hate him, it's more telling when his former teammates hate him too.
Fixed.
Fine. You're far beyond better than me at any of the advanced analytic stuff. However:
If it's junk then why does it consistently measure the best players in the NBA AND all time greats? The NBA is an eyeball test league. That drives the numbers guys nuts. We can measure them any way we like but at the end of the day the eyeball test is really all that matters in making a coaching difference. You can give Al Jefferson a top 5 per and he has to shop his *** around for a good contract. You can give genuine top 10, first vote All Stars a top 5 per and any team will max them.
Call it junk all you like but it's still the most trustworthy metric there is in measuring NBA value. It's an eyeball test league.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I've already (implicitly) answered this question. The players we think of as the best players score a lot of points, grab a lot of rebounds, and dish out a lot of assists. As such, they have high PERs. You can devise any number of statistics that combine box score statistics - provided they put sufficient weight on scoring - that will return high scores for the players we think of as the best. That doesn't mean the statistic does a good job of measuring relative value generally, or measuring the value of players who play complementary, off-ball roles (since most box score stats are accumulated by players with possession of the ball). Further, even though Hollinger provides some of the constituent stats (reb%, TS%, etc.), PER is still a bit of a black box, and provides little information about how a player is utilised to attain their PER. I don't like statistics like PER or WS because I think roles and lineups - including player/skill complementarities - matter. 22 doesn't tell you anything. A couple examples:
1. Kyle Korver: Defenses have to account for Kyle Korver, even though he doesn't have the ball very much. Atlanta is a much better team when he's on the floor, as the various plus-minus statistics indicate. PER tells us he's a below average player. Nonsense.
2. Al Jefferson: I don't want to pile on here; Al Jefferson is a much better player than a lot of Jazzfanz posters think. With that said, he's a defensive sieve, who makes reads/decisions very slowly. As such, teams are limited in the style they play, and the teammates they put around Al. I like the argument that he provides consistent enough halfcourt offense to make a bad team better, but is too inflexible and defensively challenged to make a decent team great. PER both overvalues Al, and doesn't tell us why.
I've cited adjusted/real plus-minus on this site before, but even this statistic is problematic. Where box score statistics, and PER's constituent stats, give us some information about what players have done to score well, plus-minus is an absolute black box. I'm gathering a bunch of NBA data, and might use it to look at player/skill complementarities, which may provide a way to measure how different combinations of players (and their particular skill sets) contribute to effective lineups. This, along with measures of the relative scarcity of certain players/skills, may provide a better basis for measuring the value of players to a particular lineup or team (which is what really matters) and where market inefficiencies exist.
This is a last ditch effort to save my PhD, which has been an unmitigated disaster to date. I'm not nearly as smart as my mother always told me, unfortunately, and I couldn't be any less motivated/self-disciplined. Fortunately, the topic falls (comfortably) within the realm of Labor Economics - lineup/match specific capital, skill complementarities, market inefficiencies, etc. - so I may be able to turn a distraction into productive work. I probably should never have left the sheet metal shop. Oh well.
I have no idea what you mean. Who are these "numbers guys", and why/how are they driven nuts?
As previously stated, the eyeball test is problematic: We've been conditioned to see value in players who accumulate box score stats, and to ignore the contributions of players in complementary roles.
The Jazz Wonderbra
Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure that David Locke drew a picture of Kanter on a famous post back in the day. My sources would suggest that David Locke and Kanter dress up like cowboys with bare chaps and ride the bull together. They collectively are about the worst thing that has ever happened to the Jazz. So, why do we keep talking about him?
The only thing Kanter misses about Utah are the mountains...
The only thing I miss is that he distracted David Locke from talking...
Let's close that negative ***'t chapter and move on already.
The only thing Kanter misses about Utah are the mountains...
The only thing I miss is that he distracted David Locke from talking...
Let's close that negative ***'t chapter and move on already.
