J.R. Smith has literally been shanghaied away for the foreshortened 2011-2012 NBA season: rolling ILH sandbox thread

well it considers usage which imo is necessary because there are guys who only take a few open threes a game, which are not looks a first scoring option on team will get, besides that tho its all abt efficiency, which is why martin is rated so high, he scores tons points on v few shots

but yeah it for sure over rates martin

I don't know how anyone could scroll through the top 200 PER list and not think "this stat is broken."

tyrus thomas is 51st and afflalo is 176th.

it's not an efficiency measure at all, it's an efficacy measure.

(and not a great one)

like why is tyrus 51st? Cuz when he's on the court a lot of shit happens. None of the shit that happens is efficient.

curry down

ugh his ankles are made of confetti.

His whole rep is based on stats! If you read Hollinger for actual game analysis ur REALLY doing it wrong.

― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:08 PM (44 minutes ago)

the stats he uses/invents are an attempt to quantify what he sees with his own eyes - and his analysis of strategy/player skills is very good, you're fronting iud - in fact this is essentially what any statistic does!

as ice says PER is not a perfect stat but it is the best single stat that exists, which is the entire justification for its existence in the first place!

like when espn did that player rankings countdown he wrote a column saying why he thought rose had a better year than cp3 even though paul had a marginally better PER - and then followed it up with research into cp3's assist quality which he included in his player profile - the guy is not some robot deluded by his own genius, in fact he's totally self-aware and very funny which is another reason he is awesome

you have it backwards, his belief in PER leads him to have some really delusional player evaluations.

If he sees some guy who has a high PER and isn't getting playing time he absolutely rips into their GM/Coach (I think he's even done this with Tyrus!)

is not a perfect stat but it is the best single stat that exists
― k3vin k., Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:57 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

It is arguably the best single stat used by ESPN.com, sure. I'm sure the Mavs front office has 20 stats that blow it out of the fucking water.

not everyone is right all the time dude! he is the best basketball writer there is & a force for good in the universe!

It's not about a batting average, it's about a stat guru who designed a "player efficiency rating" that doesn't reward efficiency.

in what universe is Afflalo not one of the most efficient players? It's just bizarre that he kept that as the name. Bizarre and pretty dumb

he's not a bad writer per se and I actually agree with him a lot in terms of his opinions that aren't stat-driven. But his stats are junk.

btw apparently we're going to be seeing a "disgusting and graphic" photo of monta ellis soon.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/warriors/2011/12/20/monta-ellis-warriors-to-be-in-sexual-harrassment-suit/#respond

gee last year for example he played starters minutes but didn't score, rebound, or assist particularly well, when he decided to shoot he was pretty effective but when you're playing 34 minutes a game and averaging a 12.6/3.6/2.4 as a 6-5 guard you're pretty much an average player on offense when it comes to like, making your team score points which is what wins basketball games. he is a very 'efficient' player but given his low usage rate he's not an especially effective player - what you said upthread is otm in this case, lol semantics tho

I was going to say, he has a nice TS% but he's pretty average or even subpar in most ways.

i guess that first effective should be 'efficient'

PER probably slightly underrates afflalo, he's a good team player but doesn't have the ball in his hands enough to be anything more than a solid starter, you're prob overrating him

tho afflalo literally acknowledged his "low usage rate" in an interview a few months ago so if he can take some more shots without sacrificing too much efficiency he could be a pretty good player, which he is not rght now

what you said upthread is otm in this case, lol semantics tho

― k3vin k., Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:38 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

I think it's not too much to ask that when you build your rep around a stat you also know the meaning of the words in your stat.

especially if you're a writer.

are you done trolling now

you mean disagreeing with you?

Efficiency has a broader meaning in this context - if you had a guy who only took one shot a game but always made it, I don't think anyone would talk about his amazing efficiency.

Efficiency has a broader meaning in this context - if you had a guy who only took one shot a game but always made it, I don't think anyone would talk about his amazing efficiency.

― milo z, Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:53 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Permalink

sure they would!

they'd just beg him and his team to put him in that situation more.

efficiency is a lack of waste: turnovers, missed FGs, wasted possessions, poor fouls (arguably). PER rewards production far far more than this, which is why, for example, Dwight Howard is number 2. He's extremely productive, not extremely efficient.

Hollinger defines PER as a "player's per-minute productivity" - which isn't surprising, you can post amazing percentage stats but if you're not making use of them it's not really all that efficient. And players are certainly punished for being woefully inefficient.

You seem to equate efficiency pretty much entirely with TS%?

no, turnovers are just as important.

PER is absolutely a productivity stat, which is why its name is dumb.

not really, it's productivity per minute, which is certainly a suitable definition of efficiency

So TS% and turnovers. Which happen to be the only stats where Afflalo is outstanding (TS%) or good (Turnover Rate). He doesn't score a lot of points or create a lot of plays or excel (statistically) anywhere defensively. Which would, one might say, make him an efficient shooter but not particularly efficient anywhere else in his game.

but if the productivity includes a lot of waste, it's not efficient.

Monta you idiot.

What ever happened to the Monta for Iggy trade?

efficiency is a lack of waste: turnovers, missed FGs, wasted possessions, poor fouls (arguably). PER rewards production far far more than this, which is why, for example, Dwight Howard is number 2. He's extremely productive, not extremely efficient.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:56 AM (3 minutes ago)

production is a key part of efficiency!

there is a balance, like no one would say that a corner shooter who plays 30 mins a game & shoots 50% from 3 day in and day out and does nothing else is a good player, he is literally a waste of space even though he scores very efficiently. similarly someone who takes 50 shots a game and averages 30 ppg on 24% shooting would not be a good use of playing time

for example to extrapolate reggie miller who posted insane TS% his whole career, even led the league a couple times, as a guard, was never in the top 15 or so i don't think in PER, which seems fair

if one player has a ratio of 20:1 in production to waste, he is more efficient than one who has a ratio of 200:50, even if the other player is much more productive.

PER is absolutely a productivity stat, which is why its name is dumb.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:00 AM (6 minutes ago)

it's both but i'm glad you realize how dumb this argument has been, and how efficiency is not necessarily always better than productivity!

if one player has a ratio of 20:1 in production to waste, he is more efficient than one who has a ratio of 200:50, even if the other player is much more productive.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:07 AM (33 seconds ago)

yes but the former player can play a significant amount of minutes and still contribute very little to his team; there are only 5 players on the court at once in basketball, it is hard to hide these guys!

which again if your only point is to say you disagree with hollinger on semantics, i don't care enough to disagree with you strongly

for example to extrapolate reggie miller who posted insane TS% his whole career, even led the league a couple times, as a guard, was never in the top 15 or so i don't think in PER, which seems fair

― k3vin k., Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:07 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Permalink

you really don't think he was ever a top 15 player?

which again if your only point is to say you disagree with hollinger on semantics, i don't care enough to disagree with you strongly

― k3vin k., Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:12 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Permalink

you said I was otm about it!

if we're creating for the purposes of this discussion an imaginary binary between 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness' then yes i know what you mean when you say a player is more effective than efficient and am cool with that. my main point is that the two aren't exclusive and that productivity is more important than strict efficiency, especially on a per-minute basis, which is what PER is. again, not a perfect stat

he should have called it Total Production Rating or something.

reggie probably wasn't ever a top 10 player

xp OK FINE!

yeah reggie wasn't top 10, top 15 sounds about right though. around 94 or so.

reggie was #1 at hilariously killing the knicks and making spike lee sad

reggie is definitely top 15 all time at maxing out his talent. He could do like 3 things and he was able to do them so well he became a hall of famer.