Love and Mathematics

tziller posted 9/8/2007 from

Last week, Carter Blanchard of Plissken at the Buzzer gave a spirited (and well-received) refutation of John Hollinger's PER, as well as a major tenet of the APBRmetric methodology (the per-minute statistic). On numerous counts, Carter slapped the baby on its ass -- namely, his assertion that 'using any one measure to fully describe a player is fool's work' is golden. Carter endorses looking at the full stat line in analyzing a player's contributions performed and expected. I heartily agree.

But Carter's claims that PER and per-minute statistics equate largely to 'nonsense' are off-target. He says combining numbers, in many cases, serve to obfuscate truth, using the example of Ike Diogu's 19.3 points-per-40-minutes in comparison to the algebraically identical statistic that Ike scored 7.2 points per 13.1 minutes (which happens to be his minutes per game). (Carter says Ike scores 22-per-40, which he did in Golden State. His full-year p/40 was 19.3.) Why do we use the per-40 stat in lieu of per-game? Quick: tell me who's a more prolific scorer, Ike Diogu or Danny Granger. Last season, Granger scored 13.9 points per game (to Diogu's stated 7.2 points per game). Granger played 34 minutes a contest, Diogu 13.1 minutes. You need offense, your options are Diogu and Granger. Pick one.

Looking at points per game and minutes per game, who do you pick? It's cloudy, right? Unless you look to a per-minute figure... where Diogu clearly outshines Granger (19 p/40 to 16.4 p/40). Carter writes "most players don't get buried on the depth chart without a reason." Using this reasoning would insinuate NBA coaches all know what they are doing -- that Granger, Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy are all better than Diogu because they all got more minutes from Rick Carlisle than Ike did. Anyone willing to agree with that statement? Me and my two buddies here thinks that's pretty damn funny.

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

We use per-minute statistics because we don't trust NBA coaches. Relying on per-game -- a minutes-dependent metric -- relies on the assumption NBA coaches make the correct rotational decisions. It's not a bold statement to reject that thinking... and if it is, people should stop criticizing Carlisle, Doc Rivers, Flip Saunders and every other coach that gets killed by fans every single season. On the surface, it's not Ike's fault Troy Murphy got more than double the minutes he did in Indy. When given the opportunity, Ike scored his ass off (something Indy surely needed, with the worst offense in the league). This we know -- the numbers tell us so. Taking Carter's '7.2 per 13.1' and altering it to '19.3 per 40' doesn't obfuscate, it provides ease of comparison. We aren't saying Ike will ever or should ever get 40 minutes per game -- it's a reasonable standard measure to help quick comparisons and quick recognitions. Based on my countless internal references to per-40 numbers, I can tell you 19 p/40 is pretty darn good, but not elite. I could've told you last summer (and did) Kevin Martin would be a tremendous scorer if given minutes, based on looking at his per-40 rates. Of course, per-40 rates don't tell you everything -- in some cases (such as rebounding), they aren't even the best measure of comparison. (That'd be rebound rate, which is so far removed from minutes-dependent I'd expect mutiny from those endorsing per-game numbers.) But as a part of both quick-look comparisons and in-depth qualitative judgment, they are key and much more lucid than per-game or raw statistics.

Which brings us to the ultimate kitchen-sink statistic, Hollinger's PER. I'm not the biggest fan of PER, actually -- like Carter, I endorse using a number of numbers in analyzing a player's contribution -- scoring rate, scoring efficiency, rebound rate, plus-minus, various on-off comparisons, usage rate, assist rate, turnover rate, block and steal percentages, etc. PER is, essentially, all of things wrapped into one. That makes it messy, it makes it complex. Honestly, it makes it so messy and complex it's hard to get more than one qualitative figure out of it. Luckily for those who like PER to some degree, that qualitative figure we can get from it happens to be an important one: quality.

PER tells us who did good and who did bad, regardless of what the player's coach thinks of him. I could go on for kilobytes explaining how this is valuable or lining up example after example of the usefulness of having a sensical metric which quickly reveals a measure of minutes-independent quality. It doesn't tell you who is a good defender, and the fact it includes any defensive stats at all actually cloud things. (Many in APBRmetrics have endorsed 'Offensive PER' -- a stat much like PER but with steals, fouls and blocks removed since PER is not a credible measure of defensive ability anyway.) And of course, PER can overrate players (including Carter's examples of Earl Boykins and Bernard Robinson, who fared better than Lamar Odom in the measure last year). Like any stat, PER can be fooled. Boykins' scoring tear in weaponful Denver boosted his PER into the above-average category when his Milwaukee malaise was much more telling. Bernard Robinson played less than 300 minutes, and no statistic for any player at less than 1,000 minutes in a season should ever really be trusted... including PER. Lamar Odom is better than both Robinson and Boykins, every basketball fan knows this to be fact. But Boykins is no slouch offensively. He scores often, creates a ton of shots with turning the ball over and shoots fairly efficiently (when you consider how many shots he takes from deep). Various individual stats (usage, scoring per-minute, effective field goal percentage) tell us this; PER sums it up. Now look at minutes per game (21 for his career) and points per game (9.8) and tell me Earl Boykins is a really good offensive player. And then score one for PER.

No one statistic is ever going to be the be-all-end-all Holy Grail of individual measures. Hollinger nor his acolytes/peers have never come close to claiming PER is that golden chalice. But when you endorse raw numbers instead of PER and then tell me "most players don't get buried on the depth chart without a reason," you're begging for this (admittedly unfair, but nonetheless cogent) graphic:

PER isn't the final answer, but it's damn sure better than the alternative.

Tags:

NBA

Dirk Nowitzki

Danny Granger

Dwyane Wade

Ike Diogu

Troy Murphy

Kobe Bryant

Mike Dunleavy

Comments (22)

tykeenan

+6

Excellent post, but let me make some comments. In the Ike Diogu situation, saying that his points/40 numbers are high doesn't really tell me anything new about his scoring. I know this isn't scientific, but eyeballing the common stats shows pretty much the same thing--he's scoring more than one point for every two minutes he plays, which is impressive. The important thing is that he plays 13.7 minutes. From that, I can guess a few things: he doesn't play defense, a lot of those minutes are in garbage time, etc. Players get fewer minutes than they deserve without cause sometimes, but they rarely play that few without good reason. Magic fans, for instance, said that Darko deserved more PT last year, yet he still averaged 23.9 mpg, ten more than Diogu. Looking at the minutes tells me something about when they occur, too, which in turn tells me something about the quality of those points. I know the limitations of the stats.
But I really don't care that much about per-40 averages, so let's get to PER. In the Boykins case, I'm not sure PER tells us anything that the three stats you mention don't. It might be a time saver, but I'm not sure it really says anything new. I knew that Boykins was a good scorer before I looked at his PER (that could because I've watched him, though). PER just validated what a few stats already told me. Does it provide anything new in that case?
So what does PER allow us to do that a collection of other stats doesn't? If we're going to create an all-encompassing metric, I think we have to assume that it says "this is a player's worth." Well, just as we use a stat like ppg to compare scorers, we have to use that giant metric to compare players' worth. But when we compare points, I know that things like a team's style or other players will affect those numbers. When we compare PER's, I have no idea what's affecting the numbers. Any time I see what seems like an unusual comparison, like the Boykins/Odom one, I immediately look to the common stats. Now, that might say something about my reliance on possibly antiquated forms of comparison, but it also says something about our knowledge of the stats. As Carter says in the post, we don't know the limitations of PER. In part, it's on us to do that, but looking at the formula makes it seem like something only a statistician could figure out. It's fine for people to say "PER has limitations," but I want to know what those limitations are. As of now, the only one I know is that it seems wrong a lot of the time.
As for your top 10 lists, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that anyone adds up the stats on the left to decide who the best players are. And even if someone did, I can look at that list and know that it favors big man because rebounds occur more often than assists. Kidd is first because he gets more combined rebounds and assists than anyone else. Fewer guards show up because they turn it over more often than big men. (By the way, I'm surprised LBJ isn't on there.) I look at the PER list and know that it's like that because it says it is.
Again, I think this is primarily an issue of knowing limitations. I'd love for someone to explain the specific limitations of PER to me.
Are there convenient offensive PER lists somewhere? That seems like a better stat. Like in baseball, I fear we'll never be able to quantify defense.

Posted 9/8/2007 [reply] [flag]
- tziller
  
  +4
  
  On the top 10s: But when you think about it, the PER is really that stuff on the left, but weighted properly (as in the rebounds vs assists issue), made independent of playing time (so we can find the diamonds in the rough), made independent of pace, and standardized to an easily comparable form. To make the number on the left make sense, you'd need a lot more numbers than you do with PER. Yes, it has issues. But as a kitchen sink measure, it's the best we have.
  
  Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
  - tykeenan
    
    +2
    
    No doubt, PER's the best kitchen sink measure we have. My problem is with the idea of creating kitchen sink measures in the first place. In my view, we use statistics to explain the events of basketball. I just don't think PER -- or any stat of its kind -- helps explain those events in a descriptive way. As I've said before in these comments, I don't see a direct connection between the number and on-court performance. It would help if I knew what a PER unit signified, but as of now the best explanations we have for that are Hollinger's general ranges (which usually seem right on) and the assumption that a higher PER means a player is more efficient than another. The problem is that those explanations seem to become less relevant when the PER differences between players become smaller. I agree with what Carter says below -- basketball nerds like everyone who's commented here have the time and energy to go deeper.
    
    Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
Jason

+6

When you're looking at individual players like Ike or Boykins, I agree that PER doesn't add much that you can't glean from the rest of the statistics. When considering a small handful of players, it's probably best to consider a variety of the stats we have available. (No statistical evaluation of Boykins is complete without consideration of his 315-lb bench press, by the way.)
What I like most about PER is the fact that it enables easy comparisons between players and seasons, enabling better overall player rankings, career trending, or even crazy cross-era comparisons. For this kind of analysis, I don't think it's uncommon to start with PER, then look at individual stats when something interesting or unexpected has been highlighted.
Back to Odom and the genesis of Carter's original post ... it isn't too difficult to find statistics that paint him as an elite player. For instance, in the past decade, only two other players matched his '06-07 averages of 9.8 rebounds and 4.8 assists per game: Webber and KG (who actually did it 6 straight seasons before this last one). But when you compare all of Odom's numbers to KG's, the difference is clear--KG beats him handily in every single category except made 3-pointers. This kind of comparison helps me to reconcile the fact that Odom's PER is slightly above average despite his rare combination of skills.
Speaking of PER, it looks like Hollinger has his 2007-08 projections up, with Yao in the top slot (and CP3 at #6).

Posted 9/8/2007 [reply] [flag]
- Doctor Dribbles
  
  +5
  
  Excellent post by tziller and great response by Jason. The cross-era comparisons really are a phenomenal aspect of the stat, given that the league average is always normalized to 15.0 each season regardless of high-scoring or defense-oriented eras.
  And PER has given Odom his due, at least in his better years when it was 18+. Which makes sense: The guy is a talent, no question, but he can't carry a team (and may even be more suited as a third banana than second option).
  More power to Carter for questioning a stat we all value (and Ty for being quick to respond on his behalf), but I think Carter inadvertently weakened his argument by citing Bernard Robinson et al's high PER (without qualifying that their high ratings came in just a handful of minutes) as evidence that the stat is misleading. That's just way too easy a point to refute.
  
  Still, I'm now really curious if a player we all "know" to be worse than Odom--either intuitively or using a range of accepted stats--legitimately put up a higher PER than he did last season. Shouldn't that be the litmus test? If a guy like Brian Scalabrine or Matt Barnes has an above-average PER, we know something's wrong.
  Ok, everyone go have a good time tonight...get drunk and make bad decisions.
  
  Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
  - tykeenan
    
    +4
    
    Here are some players who rated higher than Odom's 89th last year. I think all these guys are definitely worse, but there's obviously room for other opinions: Boykins (85), Matt Bonner (82), Nazr Mohammed (81), Brent Barry (77), Tony Allen (72), Ruben Patterson (48--by his stats, you could make an argument he's better, but a 41-place difference seems extreme).
    I already responded to the Robinson PER example in other places, but here it is again: that was mostly just to show how
    looking at just the stat doesn't say much. The post was really about relying on more than just one flawed stat for our player rankings.
    
    Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
- tykeenan
  
  +5
  
  I agree that PER is somewhat useful for making cross-era/season comparisons--I actually think the best thing about it is that it normalizes everything around 15 for each season, so we can actually tell if someone's good relative to the rest of the league. Let's use an example of a cross-era comparison that I'll make up, though. For the sake of argument, let's say Oscar Robertson was 1 PER point better than Magic for their careers. Okay, so it told me Oscar was a better player. But by how much? What does 1 PER point signify? I don't doubt that Hollinger has some idea what that means, but I have no clue. What has the comparison really told me? Without knowing the limitations and meaning of the units, I have to trust the stat blindly. I'd much rather know who was the more productive scorer, rebounder, etc. Those are comparisons that tell me something somewhat specific about on-court performance.
  As for the Odom/KG comparison, I should make it clear that we don't think the basketball triple crown (ppg, rpg, apg) stats are the only important ones. Something like rebound rate or eFG% is useful. But they're good because we can actually figure out what they mean and how they work. I have no idea what PER really means.
  Also, TZ, I forgot to compliment you on the awesome Idiocracy picture in my last comment.
  
  Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
missgossip

+4

Some super important points to make here:

1. Yes, love the borderline Free Darko pictures!

2. And, love the stats wars in general. This is hot!!

3. I normally don't pay much attention to all that stats jazz. But I was thinking the same thing as Team Plissken -- there's a problem with throwing around something like the PER without truly knowing the limitations, because a lot of people do tend to view it as pure worth, which isn't accurate. Sure, it may be useful, and much better than nothing, but just be warned! I think that's the point. Hey, the SATs are actually *very* good predictors of college performance and even later job performance. But they are also somewhat biased/racist/etc. They are still useful, for sure, but just be warned. And, when feasible, try to look at other predictors for an applicant to get a fuller picture.

3. My first thought about a per-40 average (or any kind of equalizing stat like the PER) is exactly Ty Keenan's point above -- it doesn't take into account quality of minutes and reasons for amounts of minutes.

4. My second thought about per-40 averages is Carter's point, extrapolation on low minutes is dangerous. I love to do this... walk into the gym, shoot a three...and I often make my first one fresh, so then I walk out. Extrapolate and I'm a rock star! (Granted, I *am* a rock star, but, you know).

5. As for the point at Thank You Isiah, it is MUCH easier to do this kind of statistical stuff with baseball because of the individual performance aspect of the game versus the dynamic/team/flow-of-the-game/ambiguous-categories-of-actions stuff in basketball.

6. I totally have a blog crush on Carter and Ty. (TZ, I know you're married! Kiss kiss kiss........)

Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
- Jason
  
  +5
  
  I agree with a lot of the points that Carter and Ty have made as well, especially with regards to PER's complexity-related weaknesses. Its calculation is complicated, the value of an incremental point is hard to quantify, and it's sometimes difficult (or impossible) to explain why certain players are rated higher than others.
  The main difference to me is that I tend to trust it more often than not. My judgment might be clouded by my own Hollinger fandom, but I've also seen a lot of examples of low-minute, high-PER (or other per-minute stats) guys turn into quality full-time players: Al Jefferson, Z-Bo, T-Mac in Toronto, Brad Miller in Charlotte, etc.
  So when it comes to guys like Ike, or better yet, Paul Millsap, I tend to believe that they could shine in the right environment.
  
  Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
  - tykeenan
    
    +2
    
    Millsap is an interesting case. By all accounts, he should
    have a high PER -- he does extremely well in the minutes he plays. Yet his role as an energy guy allows him to play all-out in those limited minutes. If he played more often, I'm sure he'd
    still be good, but I also think his PER would dip due to the change in role. That point's not meant to be a knock on PER -- it's doing everything it's supposed to in that case. Just another warning that we need to extrapolate with caution.
    
    Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
    - tziller
      
      +3
      
      But isn't David Lee a similar type? And doesn't he play lights out even when he plays 35 minutes?
      Several stats indicate Millsap would be awesome in big minutes. No stats indicate he wouldn't... we're just making excuses for Sloan based on our own trust in him as a coach and the NBA as meritocratic. A big part of APBRmetrics is testing that thinking and finding better, objective alternates.
      
      Posted 9/10/2007 [reply] [flag]
      - tykeenan
        
        +2
        
        No doubt. By all means, give Millsap the chance to prove himself, but we shouldn't be surprised if he doesn't achieve the same level of production in those minutes. It's the difference between saying that 1) he should get more PT because he's proven himself in limited minutes and 2) the stats indicate he produces like a player who plays more minutes. Same result, but the reasoning relies on different modes of viewing.
        
        Posted 9/10/2007 [reply] [flag]
        
        tziller
        
        +2
        
        Not to get ahead of myself, I think I'll flesh this out more fully in the future, but: several studies have shown there isn't a drop-off for most players who see their minutes increase after showing solid PER in limited minutes. Examples off the top of my head: Michael Redd, Kevin Martin, Zach Randolph...
        
        Posted 9/10/2007 [reply] [flag]
carter_blanchard

+3

Wow, Miss G, you just made my day.
And TZ, I really liked the response; give me just a second to roll up my sleeves.
Here's my problem with the per-40 stuff restated a little more clearly (hopefully). Coming back to the popular Ike example, there are two issues at play: how much he scores, and how much he plays. Because there's two parts of the story, two numbers are needed to convey it. Given the choice between knowing someone's PPG and MPG or his points-per-40, I'll take the former every time. If you want to give me his points-per-40 and his MPG for better cross-referencing ability, I'd be fine with that, because it's the same information just presented differently. What I object to is people just giving the per-40 and leaving out the fact that the dude couldn't get off the bench for any meaningful stretch because he can't guard anyone in the NBA.
And basically PER is the extreme of that kind of aggregation. If you only have time to give one number and desperately need to convey a player's value, sure, PER's your best bet. But who are we kidding, if we have time to sit around and argue about the merits of PER, we have time to look at and discuss multiple stats (including clever stuff like eFG% and REB-r).

Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
- tziller
  
  +5
  
  I agree wholeheartedly -- knowing minutes is highly important. In fact, my one pet peeve on the Hollinger tab on ESPN.com player cards is that MPG isn't there; you have to click over to the mundane stats tab to get that. It's as important or more important than any other stat, honestly, because it is the ultimate describer. I don't buy that players who only get 13 MPG must suck -- Rick Carlisle was such a defense fetishist that of course he'd strap an undersized PF to the bench no matter said player's offensive ability. But yeah, minutes are an important factor in comparison and prognostication -- Kevin Pelton once said estimating a player's minutes was the most difficult thing about projection that player's performance.
  (I really like coupling PER with usage rate, in actuality. High PER + low usage -- someone like Fred Hoiberg -- tells me that quality won't extrapolate if you give The Mayor the keys to your offense. But high PER + moderate-to-high usage, even with low minutes... that's when you take a closer look.)
  Now I've got to spend three days poring over Hollinger's projections.
  
  Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
  - carter_blanchard
    
    +4
    
    Oo, I really like the idea of that PER-usage rate combo. That's the beauty of the internets, every once and a while someone drops some knowledge on ya.
    I think what my inital problem was is that people tend to translate that E from "efficiency" to "value." Keeping MPG and usage rates in mind would help to check that.
    
    Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
TheHype

+4

Can I take this discussion as a course and have credit? You guys rule!
That, and Brawndo has what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes!

Posted 9/9/2007 [reply] [flag]
- The_Limit
  
  +1
  
  Yeah, Brawndo has electrolytes, and it's coming out this December. i saw it on brawndo.com. awesome.
  
  Posted 9/13/2007 [reply] [flag]
BullsBlogger

+2

Some of this is repeated from the TYI comments.
Not that I don't 'get' the conclusion to Plissken's (or FreeDarko's follow-up) post, but the whole argument seems like a strawman. Who is out there saying that everyone with a higher PER should get more minutes without question to context?

Minutes-adjustment doesn't mean if a player grabs 17reb/40min he would (and should) be playing starters minutes to get 17 rebounds. It's that in the limited minutes such a player recieves, he produces like someone who gets 17rebounds in 40minutes. Thus the name player EFFICIENCY rating.

Now, that kindof cuts per-minute off at the knees in terms of usability. However, there have been studies that while (of course) not every player performs equally (or better) per-minute when given more minutes, a majority of them do.
Knickerblogger was writing about such findings 2 and a half years ago about research from guys like Hollinger and Kubatko.
Maybe it's progress that now more people know about PER so the same criticisms can percolate and be refuted (sorry, discussed) all over again. Maybe.

Posted 9/10/2007 [reply] [flag]
- carter_blanchard
  
  +2
  
  (note: in a previous version of this comment I was unnecessarily rude, my apologies)
  I really thought I was done talking on this topic, and don't mean to prolong this anymore than it has to be, but I can't let this one go. All that study showed was that most players (particularly rookies and sophomores who start off playing low minutes) tend to improve after another year in the league. No effort was made to distinguish between the effect of extra minutes and the effect of extra experience. There's no reason to assume that the extra minutes were the cause of the increased efficiency. I'd definitely argue that the increased efficiency was typically the cause of the extra minutes.
  Just because we don't embrace all stats unquestionably doesn't mean we don't understand how to use them.
  Also, I did concede earlier that, exactly as you point out, if you emphasize the meaning of the E, a lot of PER's misuse would be checked. Nonetheless, it remains a good point.
  
  Posted 9/11/2007 [reply] [flag]
  - BullsBlogger
    
    +2
    
    I'd still like to know where this gross misuse of PER is found. You're the one hyperventalating over Lamar Odom's 'ranking', which PER isn't meant to be in the first place, and merely arguing what all reasonable people question initially when introduced to per-minute and efficiency stats. I don't percieve some mass of followers embracing these things unquestionably and you're out there as the skeptic. You're just the uninitiated.
    
    Posted 9/11/2007 [reply] [flag]
tziller

+1

A follow-up to this post is now live: Love and Mathematics Pt. 2: The Paul Millsap Quandary.

Posted 9/12/2007 [reply] [flag]

Links (16)

People Hate Statistics
Published 9/8/2007 by Hot Shit College Student at Thank You Isiah
And I'll probably never figure out why. Tom Ziller shouldn't have to defend PER at Ballhype, but he does anyway. Baseball has been numerically sliced and diced to the point that refuting SABRmetric evidence as nonsense will earn you a significant internet pounding. Why are APBRmetrics constantly open to ridicule? The beauty of PER is that it defines average production, and allows one to compare players with a shorthand number. It has a utility similar to baseball's OPS+. ...

Hollinger Predicts Slides For Martin, Artest; More of Same From Bibby
Published 9/9/2007 by TZ <info@sactownroyalty.com> at Sactown Royalty: Front Page Posts
... at Plissken at the Buzzer, and follow with my response at Ballhype, if you're interested.

No stupid questions, just confused bloggers
Published 9/9/2007 by Doctor Dribbles at We Rite Goode
... blog, which has the unfortunate distinction of being a Sacramento Kings blog--went and did me a lot better. Writing on BallHype, Ziller goes all "your argument, not so much" to Plissken, with convincing prose, anecdotes, and even a few graphics to defend PER's honor. Good stuff. More interestingly, it's drawn out a bunch of well-read sports bloggers, who reveal where they come down on PER ( ...

Links!
Published 9/10/2007 by Patrick at Give Me The Rock
... For you statistically incline folks, Ballhype has quite the raging debate going on over John Hollinger’s PER. It’s enough to get me a nerd hard-on. ...

Territorial Pissings
Published 9/10/2007 by Ty Keenan at Plissken at the Buzzer
... wrote a great rebuttal to Carter’s Friday ...

The Interpretation of Symbols
Published 9/10/2007 by SilverBird5000 at freedarko.com
... over Hollinger's Player Efficiency Ranking (PER)- that great Rosetta Stone of NBA statistical analysis, whose benevolent tyranny over our league it is our duty as fans to periodically resist. The argument comes down to the wisdom of the per-minute adjustment, which is a central part of PER, along with pretty much every other Ultimate Metric in the marketplace. On the one hand, adjusting for minutes played seems like a good idea, insofar as it immunizes our judgment from the folly of coaches. If a player who should be getting 40 minutes a game only gets 20, his per-game stats will understate his true value. What per-minute adjustments do is control for mismanagement, as Ziller correctly points out . The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes the homogeneity of court time. It assumes that if a player scored 20 points in 20 minutes, he would also score 40 points in 40 minutes. That there will by systemat ...

Monday Evening Layup Drill
Published 9/10/2007 by Matt Watson at Detroit Bad Boys
... On the merits of PER and other comparison stats. ...

Scouting Prospects Hitting the Links
Published 9/10/2007 by JakeTheSnake <info@bulletsforever.com> at Bullets Forever: Front Page Posts
... A big debate is going on over at Ballhype about numbers, statistics, and PER. I'd tell you more about it, but I fall in the 5/4ths of the world that has problems with fractions. ...

Tuesday Bullets
Published 9/11/2007 at ESPN.com - True Hoop - Blog
... , a must-read rebuttal, ...

[Insert clever link title here]
Published 9/11/2007 by Pradamaster <info@bulletsforever.com> at Bullets Forever: Front Page Posts
... Follow-ups to yesterday's PER discussion can be found ...

Daily Dimes 9/12
Published 9/12/2007 by Sebastian Pruiti at Half Court Heave
... Mad mathematical workings [Ball ...

I Like PER (and other thoughts)
Published 9/12/2007 by Kurt at Forum Blue And Gold
... , questioning the usefulness of PER, Tom Ziller (of Sactown Royalty and writing for Ballhype) puts up a passionate defense, the smart folks at ...

On Second Thought...: Using Statistics to Re-do the All-Defense Lineup
Published 9/12/2007 by Ben Q. Rock at Third Quarter Collapse: Front Page Posts
... responded in this post on Ballhype, and the discussion has spun-off into so many posts on so many blogs that it’s hard to keep them straight. ...

Abraham Linking: Lords of NBA Math, Cheating Pats...
Published 9/12/2007 by Stop Mike Lupica at Stop Mike Lupica
... set it in that post, and Free Darko has been posting about it all week. Also get involved are in this discussion of the big dawgs are the honorable Tom Ziller and Jason Gurney. We're impressed by the discussion, and wish we had more time to get involved, as numbers-crunching is our thing. But we've been too busy this week, and haven't gotten our two cents in yet. That's okay, because the big dawgs are having a great discussion about it... check it out if you get a chance. ...

FanHouse's Top Five: Love and Basketball (And John Hollinger and PER)
Published 9/13/2007 by PostmanE at FanHouse
... arguing against John Hollinger's PER. And the knowledge has since turned from a drizzle to a cascade: our own Tom Ziller did do two separate posts holding PER up, ...

The known unknowns: Early questions and answers in the NBA
Published 12/6/2007 by Crucifictorious at We Rite Goode
... . That list appeared on ESPN one year ago today, using John Hollinger's PER statistic as an arbiter of success. Granted, a great PER doesn't automatically equate to basketball greatness, but debates ...

Comments (22)

Links (16)

Related Content