Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.
- Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
- Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
- Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.
Enjoy your time at PD!
That's a fine piece of evidence if you're making a case that stats don't matter. I think there's some value in this kind of information, but in this case it clearly gives misleading information. There's no way PF was our strong suit last year, with McBob in and out of the lineup, Hans in and out of the trainers' room, and Posey playing a scary amount of minutes early on. I'm as excited as anybody about Hansbrough's potential, but he was pretty average in a lot of ways, especially if you consider him to be the best PF on the roster.
The four is still our biggest area of need, if you ask me.
PER is a flawed stat and i don't use it or trust it ever. I just wrote a paper on this exact thing. (i don't have a stance either way on the issue i could care less what is the strongest position. They all can use improvement.
Who the hell is 82games?
Basketball is not a game about producing better stats than the man guarding you. It's a completely meaningless stat.
Last edited by Taterhead; 07-13-2011 at 12:54 AM.
PER is flawed in that it is completely biased towards post players. Hansbrough and McRoberts where much more consistent statistically than Foster/Hibbert, so it makes sense.
I think SF was our strongest, with essentially having Danny/PG/Dun/Dahntay play there.
We have good players at power forward but not the traditional attributes that come with a power forward (mostly rebounding and low post scoring). For example, when the Mavs put Dirk at center. They have great production and a great PER at the center position but not the defense and shot blocking needed from a center.
Having a good player at a position doesn't always mean you're getting what you need from that position.
Posey is obviously a beast.
I think the most interesting stat on that page is that our opponent's SGs were their least efficient position. Apparently MDJ and Rush are amazing defensively.
The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity.
To generate PER, I created formulas -- outlined in tortuous detail in my book "Pro Basketball Forecast" -- that return a value for each of a player's accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.
Two important things to remember about PER are that it's per-minute and is pace-adjusted.
Because it's a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Steve Blake and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.
I also adjust each player's rating for his team's pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren't penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.
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.
I set the league average in PER to 15.00 every season.
Among players with at least 500 minutes in 2010-11, the highest rating was LeBron James' 27.34. The lowest was Stephen Graham's 4.41.
The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52).
All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:
uPER = (1 / MP) *
+ (2/3) * AST
+ (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG
+ (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG)))
- VOP * TOV
- VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG)
- VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT)
+ VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB)
+ VOP * DRB% * ORB
+ VOP * STL
+ VOP * DRB% * BLK
- PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]
Most of the terms in the formula above should be clear, but let me define the less obvious ones:
factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT))
VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA)
DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB
I am not going to go into details about what each component of the PER is measuring; that's why John writes and sells books.
Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:
1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA
1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA
1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA
The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statistics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:
Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.
Some of these solutions may not be elegant, but I think they are reasonable. After uPER is calculated, an adjustment must be made for the team's pace. The pace adjustment is:
pace adjustment = lg_Pace / team_Pace
League and team pace factors cannot be computed for seasons prior to 1973-74, so I estimate the above using:
estimated pace adjustment = 2 * lg_PPG / (team_PPG + opp_PPG)
To give you an idea of the accuracy of these estimates, here are the actual pace adjustments and the estimated pace adjustments for teams from the Eastern Conference in 2002-03:
Tm Act Est
ATL 1.00 0.99
BOS 1.00 1.02
CHI 0.97 0.98
CLE 0.97 0.99
DET 1.05 1.06
IND 0.99 1.00
MIA 1.04 1.08
MIL 1.01 0.96
NJN 0.99 1.03
NOH 1.01 1.02
NYK 1.00 0.98
ORL 0.98 0.97
PHI 1.00 0.99
TOR 1.01 1.01
WAS 1.03 1.03
For all seasons where actual pace adjustments can be computed, the root mean square error of the estimates is 0.01967.
Now the pace adjustment is made to uPER (I will call this aPER):
aPER = (pace adjustment) * uPER
The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following:
PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER)
The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons.
And this is why I like to judge with my eyes more than statistics.
SF was our best. but of course our 4th or 5th option will be more efficient that's why PER is so flawed lol. (along with numerous other reasons PER is just a terrible stat. Offensive and defensive rating stats are far better IMO.(but im not a big stat guy more watching film than looking at stats)
and i agree 100% with ilive4sports you cant judge based off stats. Especially a flawed stat like PER.
Last edited by pacer4ever; 07-13-2011 at 03:38 AM.
While we never advocate reliance on 'overall rating' type metrics for players since we believe that "fit" within a team's roster and coaching schemes, financial considerations and other factors play a considerable part in player evaluation, it can be useful to gauge quickly how a player stacks up in certain statistical categories.
PER is a single value stat that measures a player's performance. It takes a bunch of box score stats, and resolves it into a single value. A notable weakness of PER is that it doesn't measure defense, other than the part of defense that can be captured in rebounds, blocks, and steals.
The calculation is here:
As a quick, rough reference for checking a player's performance, it's not bad. But it overrates certain things (Troy, for example, tends to rate well in PER) so don't take it as gospel. Myself, I prefer Win Shares for single stat evaluation.
For reference, here are the PER values of the 2010-11 Pacers (Hollinger describes a PER of 15 as an average player):
13.8 D. Jones
8.5 S. Jones
The Pacers are a bit of a statistical oddity, having a big bunch of players with a PER around 15. Hollinger remarked on this during the season. Most teams tend to be more top heavy.
According to this, Danny outperforms his counterpart by a PER of 2.2 when playing PF and 2.3 when playing SF. Hans outperforms by 2.1 playing PF (and by a huge margin when playing center, but that's in very limited minutes). McBob is a net zero in PER, and a negative when playing center.
So clearly, the "strong" PF position comes from Danny and Hans having high PERs, according to 82games.
Even 82games doesn't use this method to evaluate players though. Their preferred method is a "Simple Rating" which combines PER production with on court/off court rating.
By this measure, McBob fares better despite his poor PER production.
As King Tuts Tomb pointed out though, be wary of all these measures and try not to read too much into them. To quote Obie, it's a tool, not the tool
PER is great for fantasy sports, but that's about it.
Clearly nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough at the center position.
I could honestly say, I felt the PF position was good post Vogel last year. Just not as good as it could be, with how the team is constructed now.