Pre-Season PER
Here is the PER (Player Efficiency Rating per Minute) for the first 4 pre-season games. Lot's of noise in these #'s given the small sample set and the obvious issues with PER. Nevertheless here's my conclusion: Terrybl (Jerryd, Travis, Ike); Meh (LaMarcus); Good (Greg, Serg, Rudy); Gods (bROY, Shavs, Batum, Martell)
Player/Pre-Season PER/Last Season PER
LaMarcus Aldridge/16.9/18.5
Greg Oden/18.3/NM
Jerryd Bayless/6.5/NM
Brandon Roy/32.4/19.4
Sergio Rodriguez/14.7/9.0
Travis Outlaw/12.5/15.7
Rudy Fernandez /16.8/NM
Shavlik Randolph/28.6/15.6
Nicolas Batum/33.6/NM
Ike Diogu/7.6/17.2
Martell Webster/28.4/12.0
Joel Przybilla/13.6/12.3
Note: As usual with PER these are adjusted so the average NBA player is a 15.
Your take?
0 recs |
24
comments
Read Related
Comments
those twelve guys should win 52 games
our team average is 19.16. And if the league average is 15 and the average team wins 41 games therefore, we should win 52 games this year (since 19.16/15 * 41 = 52). Who says you can prove anything with stats.
by NWfan on Oct 13, 2008 2:40 PM PDT 0 recs
you're kidding right?
was that a weighted average?
by begottenson on
Oct 13, 2008 3:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
of cousre I'm kidding
But it a rational analysis to apply to PER. If the system were consistent, each players PER would be scaled so that the # would be correlated to wins, but I really doubt anyone has attempted this before. It would be interesting to take any team and determine a weighted average (by minutes per game played) of that team then try to correlate to the number wins. That right, wages of wins plus PER making a frankenstein stat.
That being said, no I did not weight each players PER but just took the average of the group. It would be better if they were weighted by the time each player was on the court. But since I believe that these number are just trivia, I give you my trivial conclusion 52 wins.
by NWfan on
Oct 13, 2008 10:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
With no disrespect to Dave Berri, ...
his Wages of Wins statistical model gives way, way too much credence to rebounds.
For example, Ronnie Brewer has a bright future — as I was even extremely pissed off when the Seattle SuperSonics passed on him during the 2006 NBA Draft for a crappy foreign stiff in Mouhamed Sene — however, there’s now way in hell that he’s the 7th best shooting guard in the NBA and, moreover, the 3rd most productive shooting guard per 48 minutes. Look, any ranking that places Brewer ahead of several superior players — such as Kevin Martin, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Richard Hamilton, and even Dwyane Wade — is undeniably flawed and should thereby be ignored under any circumstances.
Anyhow, my favorite statistic is the simple, yet effective net points per 100 possessions.
by AK1984 on
Oct 13, 2008 11:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Heh!
Nice use of stats to fit a bias. Bravo!
the Spanish contributors on this board are hellah cool
by G_dubs on
Oct 14, 2008 4:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
What happened to Hill, Tatum, and Blake?
"Personally, I'd rather give an elephant a prostate exam on Chili Day." --Dave on rooting for the Lakers or Celtics
by MiledAnimal on Oct 13, 2008 2:49 PM PDT 0 recs
Hill was 2.3. Tatum was 4.8. Blake didn't play but was 12.0 last season
…and I agree. Those guys SHOULD win 52 games, but I’m biased.
by boeeee on Oct 13, 2008 2:55 PM PDT 0 recs
Lot’s of noise in these #’s given the small sample set and the obvious issues with PER.
So lets go ahead and try to draw meaningful conclusions from these next to worthless numbers!
After a lot of thought, here’s my conclusion: Sage Rosenfels, Yinka Dare, XM radio and analogous colors.
by Bandwagon Butcher on Oct 13, 2008 3:16 PM PDT 0 recs
analogous colors this early in the season !?
You make it hard to believe you really gave this much though Mr Buther.
by holder on
Oct 13, 2008 4:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Roy's PER
is absolutely nuts, especially when you consider he just came off of a knee surgery. 32.4 = wow.
1. Seeing the Blazers score 111 in their first pre season win and Greg Oden dunk and Rudy pass like a magician G and Nicolus Batum up close- $150.00
2. Large Soda (insert pic of son dropping full soda right after we leave concession stand) another Large soda and nachos – $30.00
3. Throat lozenges -$ 4.50 at walgreens
4 Joy of seeing your fav team (cake) finally come out of the oven – Priceless
by CMCWizard on Oct 13, 2008 6:48 PM PDT 0 recs
These are small sample sizes that are taken from pre-season games.
Therefore, those stats are pretty much rendered useless as a viable measuring tool.
by AK1984 on Oct 13, 2008 7:05 PM PDT 0 recs
Player Efficiency Rating ...
is fine for analyzing players’ overall performance on offense. Regarding defense, though, it’s useless as hell.
For example, Al Jefferson is an offensive machine (22.7 PER); however, he was one of the worst defenders in the NBA last season (On-Court Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions: 116.0; Net Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions: +12.1; On-Court Effective Field-Goal Percetage Allowed: 52.4; Net Effective Field-Goal Percentage Allowed: +4.2). Because of Jefferson’s horrible defense, he was an overall hindrance to the Minnesota Timberwolves (On-Court/Off-Court +/- Production: -8.7 & Net Points Per 100 Possessions: -11.7).
As the Kevin Garnett led Boston Celtics proved this year, the cliché “defense wins championships” rings true.
by AK1984 on
Oct 13, 2008 10:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Batum did not ahve a stellar PER in last year's Euro league according to Hollinger.
He said he didn’t know anything about him before the draft, but also said he would steer way clear of him due to the rating.
Stats are of course part of the story, and can be a useful evaluation tool, but I would never base a judgment on a player soley due to the stats. There are intangibles and, oh yeah, something called defense.
the Spanish contributors on this board are hellah cool
by G_dubs on
Oct 13, 2008 11:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Y'know, I mostly agree with you.
John Hollinger, however, was correct last year regarding his belief that the European Marco Belinelli would be a bust in the NBA. That’s ‘cause Belinelli was flat-out inefficient offensively — which, for the most part, Hollinger properly measured with PER — yet, that notwithstanding, the “Italian Stallion” was also an epic failure due to his downright porous defense. Hollinger, however, didn’t take that into account during his original evaluation of Belinelli. PER doesn’t rightfully account for defense, though.
Conversely, Nicolas Batum will get a pass on offense — no matter his sample size output so far this pre-season — at this juncture of his career. That, of course, is due to the Frenchman’s undoubtedly outstanding defense. On the wing, Batum is a lockdown one-on-one perimeter defender — as well as a potent weapon defending the passing lanes due to his long wingspan — thus, that compensates for any adjustments that he might have to ultimately offensively as a rookie this season.
Stats are useful tools, but that’s only if someone understands how to analyze and apply said stats.
by AK1984 on
Oct 14, 2008 12:07 AM PDT
up
0 recs
We are in agreement, I think.
Hollinger didn’t even mention that Batum was a defensive stand-out. He said something snarky like, “The dude can’t play”.
The “real eyes” scouting reports on him do not reflect this, especially if his defensive skills are taken into account. I don’t even know if he looked at any “real eyes” reports. It didn’t sound like it because I remember him prefacing that “he didn’t really know anything about him” (except for his PER rating).
the Spanish contributors on this board are hellah cool
by G_dubs on
Oct 14, 2008 3:40 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Where did you get the raw stats?
Did you summarize them by looking at individual box scores or is there a source for them alread summarized?
the Spanish contributors on this board are hellah cool
by G_dubs on Oct 13, 2008 11:20 PM PDT 0 recs
doh!
the Spanish contributors on this board are hella cool
by G_dubs on
Oct 14, 2008 4:39 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I hate PERS
Dumbest stat ever! EVER!
PERS inspired me to make up my own dumb stat.
Blazers Edge has an alarmist vision and a poet's heart.
by tominhawaii on Oct 14, 2008 6:43 AM PDT 0 recs
How about a lame posts per day average for the site
And[just kiding Boee]some sort of individual achievement award at the end of the season.
by southern oregon on
Oct 14, 2008 10:16 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That's tough
It depends on what is going on with the team or the NBA. I still don’t know what a PER is and if a PER of 1 is better or worse than a PER of 100.
Blazers Edge has an alarmist vision and a poet's heart.
by tominhawaii on
Oct 15, 2008 3:19 AM PDT
up
0 recs
So would the award
be for the most lame posts, the least lame posts, or would it be on a percentage basis?
Because I’m way ahead on most lame posts, but I’m not sure my percentage is as good as some others. I’ve a volume lame poster.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.
by jscot on
Oct 15, 2008 5:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Argh "I'm" not "I've"
That was lame.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.
by jscot on
Oct 15, 2008 5:05 AM PDT
up
1 recs














