What's new
By:

Can The Al Jefferson Experiment please end?

GVC said:
Did you miss my post? Admittedly, I haven't crunched the numbers myself. Dave Berri is a competitor with Hollinger, obviously, but this is probably pretty reliable.
Click to expand...

Yeah I got ya.
Well if I find proof that PER actually goes up while a players efficiency actually goes down, I will then also consider PER junk.
Until then....
 
GVC said:
Can you find me a team that's won a game in the last 10 seasons while shooting under 30.4% from the field?
Click to expand...

Too much irrelevant research involved--It doesn't matter if it's happened in the last 10 years or ever in the history in the NBA.
It's just fact. A team can shoot 10% and still win the game if they score more points than the other team.
The concept to take away from this is that MORE points do have value, relative to how you perform in other parts of the game. It's not like PER just makes chuckers look like superstars, it's a very small part of a relatively large formula, as far as current advanced stats go.
 
HeavenHarris said:
It's not like PER just makes chuckers look like superstars, it's a very small part of a relatively large formula
Click to expand...
Didn't you say it did a good job of measuring offensive efficiency? Haven't you been rambling on about scoring? Yes, it's a small part of a relatively large and worthless formula.
 
GVC said:
Didn't you say it did a good job of measuring offensive efficiency? Haven't you been rambling on about scoring? Yes, it's a small part of a relatively large and worthless formula.
Click to expand...

Offensive efficiency =/= shooting efficiency.
I use the term offensive because most of the variables recorded in a common box score are mainly on the offensive end. You could make a case that the box score stats are simplistic and don't measure intangibles/defense very well, and I'd agree--but it's the best we've got right now and PER is one of the best tools--tools-- at taking whatever info. we do have and turning it into a single number that's pretty accurate for what it's supposed to be doing.

You can put any advanced stat out there, even ones the wages of wins use, and point to it's faults. That doesn't mean it's junk.
 
GVC said:
Why is it one of the best tools? Because ESPN uses it?
Click to expand...

well, mostly because other advanced stats aren't very advanced yet. We're in the infancy stage right now. At least publicly. I've worked for 2 NBA teams and they have a ton of stuff they measure in their "box" scores, crazy stuff, which can then be used in more complicated formulas. PER is good for coming up with 1 number to represent the info. we have recored in a box score. I like other stats as well, I wouldn't say PER is THE best. It's just a tool i use alongside other things. Just saying its not garbage bro. We all know the faults in Big Al's game. But he has strengths too, ya know? Teams have/are paying him millions every year for a reason. And PER reflects that.
 
okay time to get back on topic:
whether per +/- etc are junk or not.
big al is junk.
he has a terrible on court attitude.
and does not try to play defense.
and is a black hole
the experiment needs to end.
 
GVC said:
What makes it "good"? How is it any better than points+rebounds+assists? Is that measure also "good"?

What does this have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

"good" is relative. PER is "good"er than pts+rbds+assts because it takes into account more information.
all im saying is PER isn't junk. dunno why anyone would be stuck on saying it's "junk." No stat is perfect, including PER. Like I said, it's a tool.
 
DutchJazzer said:
okay time to get back on topic:
whether per +/- etc are junk or not.
big al is junk.
he has a terrible on court attitude.
and does not try to play defense.
and is a black hole
the experiment needs to end.
Click to expand...



gtfo. you wished big al would get injured. thats junk. **** you bro.
everyone neg this man. black hole? nice racialism.
 
HeavenHarris said:
"good" is relative. PER is "good"er than pts+rbds+assts because it takes into account more information.
all im saying is PER isn't junk. dunno why anyone would be stuck on saying it's "junk." No stat is perfect, including PER. Like I said, it's a tool.
Click to expand...
In other words, PER is "good" because.
 
GVC said:
In other words, PER is "good" because.
Click to expand...

You can obviously cite Hollinger's rebuttal to WoW just as you know WoW has its detractors and limitations as well. PER, like WoW, is not a perfect metric, and the math wars will continue. But dismissing PER as "junk" is a little over the top.
 
DutchJazzer said:
okay time to get back on topic:
whether per +/- etc are junk or not.
big al is junk.
he has a terrible on court attitude.
and does not try to play defense.
and is a black hole
the experiment needs to end.
Click to expand...

So apparently Andrew Bynum, and DeMarcus Cousins would also fit your mold.
Apparently the league should give up on all three big men :-)
 
Big-Al isn´t so bad on the defensive half, if you are a NBA Player yourself, you didn´t want to go through a paint, which is protected by a 289 lb BIG-MAN like BIG-AL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top