Hey LOKI, come defend your precious PER this time...

[juju151111]

LOL.. Shaq in 2002 averaged more points, many more rebounds, exactly the same assists and a much higher FG% and his PER is somehow lower. Wow, what a great stat formula!

Huh??Wait wat are u comparing shaq 2002 stats too.Please explain???Also read Loki post on Page 1 to understand Per better if u need to.

[Fatal9]

Exactly.

because Barkley averaged something like 27/14/53% that series

* 27/13/47.6%

I notice you have a tendency to make minor adjustments like this.

[jmill]

* 27/13/47.6%

I notice you have a tendency to make minor adjustments like this.

Funny thing is there's not really an excuse for it either because it's really easy to go verify his actually numbers.

[juju151111]

Funny thing is there's not really an excuse for it either because it's really easy to go verify his actually numbers.

Doesn't matter really.27,13,47% is still great.The point he was making was wade didn't go against barkley and pips stats.

[Loki]

* 27/13/47.6%

I notice you have a tendency to make minor adjustments like this.

I edited it prior to your post to read 50%. Actually no, check my long post on page 2 -- I wrote 50% there, but forgot to correct my initial post.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Loki, PER does not take into account who was playing against each other in a game or series. You need to read Hollinger's definition again:

The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity.

To generate it, I created formulas -- which I outlined in tortuous detail in the 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 is that it's per-minute and pace-adjusted.

It's a per-minute measure because that allows us to compare, say, T.J. Ford to Jose Calderon, even though there is a disparity in the minutes they 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's games have fewer possessions than those of a fast-paced team such as Golden State.

Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players -- such as Bruce Bowen and Jason Collins -- who are defensive specialists but 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 that 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 who played at least 500 minutes in 2006-07, the highest rating was Dwyane Wade's 29.04. The lowest was Collins's 3.02.

[2LeTTeRS]

Loki, PER does not take into account who was playing against each other in a game or series. You need to read Hollinger's definition again:

That article does not specify if when listing the PER during a playoff series if all the other players in that games players are examined or the leauge average for that season is what is normalized as 15.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

That article does not specify if when listing the PER during a playoff series if all the other players in that games players are examined or the leauge average for that season is what is normalized as 15.

True, but it explains how it is calculated. Now then... Hollinger looked at more than just one year to calculate the Finals performance. He even states as much when he says:

That's where this project comes in. Using both numbers and a healthy dose of opinion, my task today is to rank the top 50 individual NBA Finals performances since the merger. I've included the player efficiency rating (PER) of every player in the top 50 as a guide, but this wasn't my only measuring stick. Basically, everything counts: competition, defense, clutch play, winning, durability ... it all matters.

He wasn't just looking at the competition in the Finals. The other players in the Finals did not really matter at all when considering the rating.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Exactly.

Also, PER is based on league/player averages (in this case, presumably Finals averages for both teams). In Wade's case (and Duncan's in 2003), no one else dominated during those Finals, which would mean that their own dominance would be compared to only non-dominant players playing in the series. In Jordan's case in '91, both Magic and Pippen clearly outplayed any non-Wade and non-Duncan player in the '06 and '03 Finals. In other words, there wasn't the deviation from other players in the series that Wade and Duncan enjoyed because, well, there were better players playing in Jordan's series. This also explains how a 41/9/6/51% series from Jordan in '93 only measured a 27.6 in PER -- because Barkley averaged something like 27/14/53% that series (and Pip put up like 21/9/8). This is exactly what the case is, since 41/8.5/6.3/51% (Jordan's 1993 Finals averages) is well beyond Jordan's season averages that year in every category, yet he recorded a 29.7 PER that season and supposedly only a 27.6 PER during the Finals. That's because he had other players playing in those Finals (Barkley, Magic, Pippen in both '91 and '93) who played at a very high level while Wade and Duncan didn't.

Pretty easy to understand, actually. Basically, there was a greater deviation from Wade and the other players in the '06 Finals than there was between Jordan and other players in his best Finals because, well, there were better players having better series in those Finals.

Actually, you're completely right. Owned Eliteballer :)

[XxNeXuSxX]

This thread wasn't made to bash Jordan for the sake of Kobe.

Yes, yes it was. Look at the OP, look at a history of all his threads created. Thank you.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

[quote]All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:

uPER = (1 / MP) *
[ 3P
+ (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

[Loki]

Loki, PER does not take into account who was playing against each other in a game or series. You need to read Hollinger's definition again:

You're wrong. This is how SEASONAL PER is calculated. Obviously when calculating PER for a SINGLE SERIES, he's using the averages from THAT SERIES as opposed to the entire season for the entire league.

Can't believe you don't grasp this.

So looing at the formula, it isn't the competition per se as it is league pace and team pace factors in.

Yes, and in THIS CASE, the "league" = the two teams playing in the Finals and all the players therein.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Yes, and in THIS CASE, the "league" = the two teams playing in the Finals and all the players therein.

Then you are missing the point as well. Pace has nothing to do with competition on who is on the court but has everything to do with how the team plays. A player's PER does not change because he is playing a great player. A player's PER however may be affected because he is playing a slower team therefore having less opportunities to get statistics. But when you factor in pace... the PER evens out.

Jordan can have a 30 PER in the fast paced 80's or the slow paced 90's. It makes no difference what the individual competition is since it garners the team's influence.

For example:

Jordan goes up against a team that averages 95 PPG. They have no real superstars but they get their points, rebounds, collectively as a team. Then he goes against a a team that has a superstar or two on the team bbut they still only average 95 PPG. But they don't get their points, rebounds, etc as a collective team, they rely on their superstars for most of the output. Will his PER be higher playing against one team or the other? NOPE. They will be the same.

[sic]

Give me tha 2006 Wade in any NBA finals anytime. Specially after watching the great closer ( ) kobe choking against detroit in the finals and now against the Celtics.