Re: The most important stat that nobody seems to use! (PER differential)
> "... this is getting dangerously to the old strategy advocated byNo but if each man outproduces the guy guarding him, his team will
> World B. Free (or was it George Gervin): "everybody outscore their
> man, and our team will win". A true enough statement (and if one
> uses points rather than PER, one doesn't even need any statistics,
> because a team which has each of its players outscore each of his
> opponents is *guaranteed* to win the game). But a bad recipe for
> team basketball, because there's more to basketball than just going
> out there and trying to light up the scoreboard more than your
> opponent does. Someone like Free (or Kobe) would love to have
> his coach use such a strategy, but as Phil Jackson and Shaq will
> tell you, it's not the way to win a championship
> PER of course is not as vulnerable to this criticism because it
> is a more broadly based stat which looks at more than scoring. But
> the same general problem arises: basketball is not a set of five
> 1-on-1 matchups, with whoever wins the most matchups winning the game."
win. And no, it's not five 1-on-1 matchups, the bench is very
important. And the PER does not reward players for shooting, not in
the least. In fact, look at the guys on my underrated team (Boykins,
Mason, Posey, Cardinal, Haywood) and you'll see that only Boykins
shoot much more frequently than the man he's guarding.
> "It's a team game."agreed
>Agreed, that's why you have to look at PER differntial over the course
> "Why is this important? Two reasons: a negative PER differential
> is not necessarily a sign of failure. If Bruce Bowen has to go up
> against the likes of Kobe and Ray Allen while Tony Parker's matched
> up against an aged Payton (or Derek Fisher) and Brent Barry, Bowen
> might get outscored and out-PERed, but if he holds Kobe and Allen
> below their average or hold their efficiency below average, while
> not missing too many shots or committing too many turnovers of his
> own (and any points he scores are a bonus), he's done his job and
> put the Spurs in a good position to win. I doubt that he out-PERs
> his opponent most nights, because he's usually matched up against
> some hugely productive offensive machine while he himself will not
> score very many points. But (to repeat) that negative differential
> doesn't mean he's a bad player or doing a bad job. At least, not
> on this San Antonio team; he might be an undesirable player on a
> lesser team which needs more scoring from all of its players.
> Meanwhile, Parker would have a much easier time out-PERing his
> opponent, because Payton usually doesn't score that much these
> days are Barry, while an efficient players, doesn't pile up
> many points or assists."
of a season. Clearly based on PER differential over the entire season,
Parker has been more valuable to his team than Bowen. But in
mentioning Bowen you have brought up one of the very few guys who is
highly regarded yet has a negative PER diff. I would argue that the
Spurs are better off playing Ginobili and Turkoglu in most cases.
>Again, I'm not suggesting that we use the PER diff to analyze
> "The other problem with PER differential is the team nature of
> defense. Houston had a nice defensive scheme against Kobe, but
> it was dependent on the whole team giving help; defense is NOT
> a 1-on-1 task, at least not when teams are using good team
> defense. At the end of Game 4, the TV commentators noted that
> for perhaps the first time in the game, the Houston defense
> slipped and left the Houston defender (I forget who it was,
> Mobeley?) 1-on-1 against Kobe; that was enough for Kobe to
> drive in and get one of his few field goals of the game.
> Kobe played 50 minutes that game, and for 49 minutes the
> Houston defender was apparently bottling Kobe up on 6-20
> shooting. For 1 minute (or really, about 3 seconds) the
> Houston team defense was slow to help out, and Kobe went
> 1-1 in that time period. Was Kobe's (presumably) mediocre
> PER due to Mobeley's defense? Was his high PER during
> those closing moments due to lack of Mobeley defense?
> Or was Kobe's PER determined by the quality of the
> Houston *team* defense, and not due to Mobelely alone?
> The PER differential is a good thing to look at, and DeanO's
> defensive box scores are good things to look at, but an
> over-reliance on an assumption that one player's defense is
> responsible for the performance of his opponent is not a good
> thing. I suspect that's why Popovich and Larry Brown were
> driven batty by Rick Carlisle's use of defensive stats to
> pump up Ron Artest for Defensive Player of the Year."
individual games or series. They aren't reliable without enough
minutes of play. I'm coming from the perspective of a GM trying to
build a winning team, hence the focus on full season stats. If you
want to use the PER diff to predict playoff series, so far the team
with the better PER differential has won every series.
>From: "mrintp2000" <shzys@...>Isn't zone played some in the NBA? Don't players play a variety of matchups
>Subject: [APBR_analysis] The most important stat that nobody seems to use!
>Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 23:11:09 -0000
>I've read a lot of the discussion about the PER and many people seem
>to correctly regard it as the best way to measure a players
>production. But even better, is to measure a player production vs. his
>opposing player. This way, defense is correctly valued by the stats
>without an overemphasis on creating defensive stats that don't exist
>or overvaluing unimportant stats. Allow me to illustrate with an
in a game?
Isn't it often hard to classify what position a player really plays (let
alone the position he defends)?
Don't get me wrong - the PER differential can give SOME insight. But we
need to remember the limitations.
I can promise you that Reggie Miller's low opposing SG PER can be greatly
attributed to Ron Artest (and maybe a few others). That's the type of thing
I'm talking about.
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!