per 40 comparison is only valid when players played similar minutes. embiid only played 23 min per game and that's just ain't good enough. brow was just better player in college and much more defensive stud than embiid ever was. if brow was in this draft he would be so far ahead of anybody. i mean it won't even be close.
Following potential 2014 draftees
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
per 40 comparison is only valid when players played similar minutes. embiid only played 23 min per game and that's just ain't good enough. brow was just better player in college and much more defensive stud than embiid ever was. if brow was in this draft he would be so far ahead of anybody. i mean it won't even be close.
A-Train (old)
Well-Known Member
If they played similar minutes, you would just compare their stats on the season. Don't understand the logic there, but okay..
If they played similar minutes, you would just compare their stats on the season. Don't understand the logic there, but okay..
No, it does make sense, especially for stats like rebounds. You saw with Kanter and Favors that per minute rebounds usually go down when you increase playing time.
A-Train (old)
Well-Known Member
Like that makes any sense. Favors averages 8.8 RPG this season with 30 mins per game average and his per 36 average for rebounds is 10.5.
Still worse though.
A-Train (old)
Well-Known Member
Yeah, 2.93 compared to 2.91.. Never knew that could happen. Lmao
If they played similar minutes, you would just compare their stats on the season. Don't understand the logic there, but okay..
just take with a grain of salt. i do compare player's per 36 and per 40 a lot, but it only works well with players with similar min. for ex. jabari parker & wiggins. they are like within 2 minutes. you can do parker & melo. parker played like 31 min. but melo played like near 37 min i think.
i just don't like comparing a guy with a starter min and a guy with a 6th man min. any decent 6th man in the nba posts very good per 36, but it only tells half the story. most of the time there is legitimate reason why these guys don't play 30+ min. usually their effectiveness go down drastically if they don't any rests. l
and it's just not fair for a guy who played more minutes. brow played 9 more min than embiid. brow was dominant from start till the end. that's significant. 23 min to 32 min is just a huge difference to me. embiid has his moments, but he had many games where i was like 'where da hell is embiid?' i always give this example. michael jordan's per 36 isn't better than his regular stats. it only means jordan is so great that you couldn't take him out. he had to play 40 min. karl too. his per 36 number goes down because prime malone avg 40 min. and some dudes get it going while they are on the field. james harden for ex. i think kobe would be a lousy 24 min player because he needs to get into his mamba rhythm.
embiid really was a half-assed starter. i was very curious to see what kind of number he would've put up if he played 30-33 min. his lack of minutes is one of the reason why i never ever had #1 in my ranking even before his back went out. i started questioning his durability and stamina. i started asking why he is taken out? maybe it really was about durability, and stamina. maybe because they know he wouldn't be as effective when he is huffin and puffin out there.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Guys that play more minutes are able to get a better feel for the game and get into a rhythm so they are able to put up better stats.
Like atrain said..... why would you use per 36 or per 40 minute stats to compare players with virtually the same amount of minutes played?
If thier minutes are the same then just use per game numbers. Duh
Like atrain said..... why would you use per 36 or per 40 minute stats to compare players with virtually the same amount of minutes played?
If thier minutes are the same then just use per game numbers. Duh
Now that we're slipping, I really do hope a team falls madly in love with Aaron Gordon and pushes either Randle or Exum down to us at least...
A-Train (old)
Well-Known Member
Aaron Gordon's stats in the NCAA Tournament (4-games);
14.4 PPG, 9.5 RPG, 3.3 APG, 2.2 BPG, and 1.2 SPG.
61% from field (25-41), 66% from three (4-6), and 25% from free throw (3-12).
Averaged 33 mins per game in the tournament and also averaged 2 TOPG.
Teams they played, Weber St., Gonzaga, San Diego St., and Wisconsin.
14.4 PPG, 9.5 RPG, 3.3 APG, 2.2 BPG, and 1.2 SPG.
61% from field (25-41), 66% from three (4-6), and 25% from free throw (3-12).
Averaged 33 mins per game in the tournament and also averaged 2 TOPG.
Teams they played, Weber St., Gonzaga, San Diego St., and Wisconsin.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
it's hard to find players with same min.
and some dudes can't play longer minutes because they get tired or they start to force things. some dude just aren't meant to play long minutes. their effectiveness and efficiency go down drastically.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
You brought up parker and wiggins and how thier minutes are so similar, yet you would compare them using per 36/40....... nevermind, its like explaining something to a rock
wiggins played 2 more min. similar min.
regular stat 32.8 min
wiggins
17.1/5.9/1.5
parker 30.7 min
19.1/8.7/1.2
and this happens when you do per 40
wiggins per 40
20.8/7.1/1.9
parker per 40
25/11.4/1.5
gap becomes wider when you do their per 40. that's the beauty of per 40. but it can be very misleading when player A plays 10 more min than player B.
some of you act like you never dissected player's stat in your life. too many college stat noobs here.
Last edited:
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I see.
So basically its ok to use per 40 or per 36 stats if you say it is.
Gotcha.
Hopefully everyone will remember to ask you if its the correct situation to use the per 40/36 stat next time they want to compare players.
i rephrased it to 'misleading'.
9 min apart from brow and embiid is just too much and misleading to me. at least that's how i look at it. it minimizes brow's dominance and pimps embiid when embiid didn't do much in the game sometimes.
and embiid did have great block number 2.6 block(23min), but brow avged 4.9 block. IMO, that's the most significant difference.
i view as embiid all potential, maybe better mutombo with offense at the next level. Brow? i viewed him as modern day bill russell at that time. huge huge difference. and i'm very high on bill russell.
9 min apart from brow and embiid is just too much and misleading to me. at least that's how i look at it. it minimizes brow's dominance and pimps embiid when embiid didn't do much in the game sometimes.
and embiid did have great block number 2.6 block(23min), but brow avged 4.9 block. IMO, that's the most significant difference.
i view as embiid all potential, maybe better mutombo with offense at the next level. Brow? i viewed him as modern day bill russell at that time. huge huge difference. and i'm very high on bill russell.
yes, it's genius isn't it? parker only avg 2 more points than wiggins. but per 40, 4.2 more points
parker > wiggins
and embiid? hey look he only played 23 min! his per 40 is similar to brow's
embiid = brow
A-Train (old)
Well-Known Member
It's different because AD played 10 more mins a game than Embiid. Wiggins played 2 more than Parker and his stats were still worse.