What's new
By:

Can The Al Jefferson Experiment please end?

GVC said:
Statistically, the Jazz have been better with Al on the court than off. Maybe Al has a negative effect on the team when he's sitting on the bench...
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because Favors has absolutely no confidence in his offensive game, or maybe it's because Millsap disappears for 19 games at a time.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
PER anyone?
Click to expand...
Jesus. PER is terrible at measuring anything. It doesn't measure team defense at all (Hollinger would say as much).

You can always take a look at team stats with players on/off court (there are problems with this...the biggest being that the stat doesn't account for the players you're on/off the floor with on either team). The defense was 1.9 points per 100 possessions worse with Al on the court last season. So far this season, the defense is 4.2 points per 100 possessions worse with Al on the court.

TheSilencer1313 said:
I still believe his assists are up over these first 20 games, as opposed to last years first 20 games.
Click to expand...
1. You said nothing about the first 20 games last season.

2. Regardless, Al had exactly the same number of assists in his first 20 games last season as the first 20 games of this season (39). Through 20 games last season, Al averaged 33.1 minutes per game. He stands at 33.4 minutes per game so far this season.

3. Belief is a poor substitute for verifiable fact.
 
GVC said:
Jesus. PER is terrible at measuring anything. It doesn't measure team defense at all (Hollinger would say as much).

You can always take a look at team stats with players on/off court (there are problems with this...the biggest being that the stat doesn't account for the players you're on/off the floor with on either team). The defense was 1.9 points per 100 possessions worse with Al on the court last season. So far this season, the defense is 4.2 points per 100 possessions worse with Al on the court.

1. You said nothing about the first 20 games last season.

2. Regardless, Al had exactly the same number of assists in his first 20 games last season as the first 20 games of this season (39). Through 20 games last season, Al averaged 33.1 minutes per game. He stands at 33.4 minutes per game so far this season.

3. Belief is a poor substitute for verifiable fact.
Click to expand...

I was joking about PER....
And after everything you said, you might be correct. I don't have the time to look all this crap up, as I have have two jobs, and two kids that occupy my time.
I watch the games, and observe. That is all.
 
why so dismissive about PER? it's pretty great at measuring offensive efficiency, and BIG AL is great at that.
haters gonna hate.
 
HeavenHarris said:
why so dismissive about PER? it's pretty great at measuring offensive efficiency, and BIG AL is great at that.
haters gonna hate.
Click to expand...
So terribly wrong.

From Dave Berri of Wages of Wins (quoting from wikipedia...): "Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots"

PER is junk.
 
GVC said:
You've certainly made a habit of doing so on Jazzfanz.
Click to expand...

I know you're supposedly a sports savant, but you end up sounding like an A-typical sports writer.
I'm just a long time Jazz fan, that watches the games, and doesn't get into the scientific (David Locke-type) analysis like you do.
 
GVC said:
So terribly wrong.

From Dave Berri of Wages of Wins (quoting from wikipedia...): "Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots"

PER is junk.
Click to expand...

No, that quote doesn't prove PER is junk at all. PER doesn't go up by just shooting more, you have to continue converting on those increased attempts. PER does reward increased volume in scoring a bit, because it IS valuable. Ever heard of usage rate? For a simple example, a guy capable of going 1/2 from the field isn't as valuable in the NBA as the guy you can give the ball to 20 times and have him make 10 shots, even though they both end up shooting 50%. Plus PER includes much more than that.
 
HeavenHarris said:
No, that quote doesn't prove PER is junk at all. PER doesn't go up by shooting more, you have to continue converting on those increased attempts. PER does reward increased volume in scoring a bit, because it IS valuable. For example, a guy capable of going 1/2 from the field isn't as valuable in the NBA as the guy you can give the ball too 20 times and have him make 10 shots, even though they both end up shooting 50%. Plus PER includes much more than that.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what I posted? PER goes up if you shoot more and convert at a 30.4% clip from 2 or 21.4% clip from 3. Teams that convert at that percentage lose. Every game.

PER includes the stats found in a boxscore, with weights applied somewhat arbitrarily. Garbage in, garbage out. It makes no attempt at quantifying team dynamics, which IMO are pretty ****ing important in winning basketball games. PER is of very little value.
 
PER isn't meant to "quantify team dynamics." Just like plus/minus isn't meant to measure offensive efficiency.
There is NO stat that is the be all, end all--even the lovely ones that attempt to measure team dynamics.
They're all tools. PER is in no way perfect or without faults, but it's not garbage either. It's one of the better advanced stats out there.
And last I checked, games aren't determined by field goal percentage. Team with the most points wins. Every game. I guarantee it bro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top