Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $390 of $700 target

Question for stat guys about PER....


REHawksFan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Atlantaholic said:

A healthy Nurkic instead of Whitside would have them with roughly the exact same record this year. Doubt Nurkic would be giving them considerably more production and value than  Whiteside's 18ps 17rbs and 3.5blks per 36 mins on 63% TS%. I mean, that is all star production no doubt about it. Any Hawk fan that can sit there and say these are empty numbers and wouldn't take it is insane IMO. I'm sure you could ask Miami fans right now and they would gladly welcome Whiteside back with open arms, attitude problem notwithstanding. 

You are looking at raw stats. Nurk does a lot that doesn't show up on the stat sheet and he really makes it easier on the two guards. Whiteside is on pace for over a 6 WAR. That's top 10-12 good for a center. Nurk had over a 10 WAR. That's a top 5 center. Nurk was a role playing superstar for Portland. His lost hurt and hurt bad. Now if you put them together and remove some trash like Myers Leonard, you got a 50 win squad. Whiteside would single handlely change their bench. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

You are looking at raw stats. Nurk does a lot that doesn't show up on the stat sheet and he really makes it easier on the two guards. Whiteside is on pace for over a 6 WAR. That's top 10-12 good for a center. Nurk had over a 10 WAR. That's a top 5 center. Nurk was a role playing superstar for Portland. His lost hurt and hurt bad. Now if you put them together and remove some trash like Myers Leonard, you got a 50 win squad. Whiteside would single handlely change their bench. 

Even assuming that 4 WAR difference (over an entire year) it would transalte to just two extra wins so far this year. Now, obviously having both of them together would for sure make them better but doubt Portland wants to pay 28 million for Whiteside to play 25mpg as a backup. The entire reasoning behind the move was for Whiteside to be a stop gap IMO and he will be gone by next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

Even assuming that 4 WAR difference (over an entire year) it would transalte to just two extra wins so far this year. Now, obviously having both of them together would for sure make them better but doubt Portland wants to pay 28 million for Whiteside to play 25mpg as a backup. The entire reasoning behind the move was for Whiteside to be a stop gap IMO and he will be gone by next year.

It's a massive difference actually. Just using Player ratings adding Nurk's from last year. The Blazers expected wins right now is 38 wins. With Nurk, 49 wins. Since Portland system is hard to stop in the RS with Nurk, maybe even an overachieving 60 wins. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-nba-predictions/trail-blazers/

 

Whiteside will likely get more than Len, but not that much more. Maybe 8 million. Maybe 9 but no one is paying Whiteside over the full MLE. No one

Edited by NBASupes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never followed PER as its has very little accounting for a player’s ability to contribute to stops and overvalues rebounding and shot attempts.  Win shares and advanced boxes usually back up my eyes.  I grade everyone relative to a Steph or Jimmy Butler scale because those are just my guys.  Bigs are so weird these days with the best ones camping out at the arc it’s case by case.  I’d probably compare most Bigs to Steven Adams or Bam impact.

Edited by benhillboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
53 minutes ago, enrique said:

That is the real downside to WinShares for sure...there is no player in the world that could play on the Hawks and have a very high WS this season. So using it to compare players is more like saying Player A is the 3rd best player on the team with the 5th best record in the NBA, rather than saying Player A is better than Player B. Player B may be the best player on a team that is really not going to win much at all this current season.  

Trae currently has 37% of the Hawks' win shares.

Bledsoe currently has 10% of the Bucks' win shares.

What can you conclude from that about the individual players? Not a hell of a lot except that Trae is more vital to the Hawks than Bledsoe is to the Bucks...

 

I think you guys have a misconception that a team's actual wins are divided up among the players.  That isn't the case.  It is supposed to project to how much a player influences their team's wins and losses but you can have very high WS on bad teams and the reverse.

Examples:  

Anthony Davis 2018-19 - Pelicans finished 13th in the West with 33 wins but Davis put up a .247 WS/48 (the per minute version of this stat).  4th highest in the league.

Khris Middleton 2018-19 - Bucks finished 1st in the East with 60 wins but Middleton put up a .123 WS/48.  #94 in the league despite being the #2 guy on Milwaukee.

 

Look at John Collins as a rookie for another example.  We were pretty woeful in terms of wins but he was among the leaders for all rookies in WS and WS/48 because he played well and efficiently.  Despite Utah's 48 wins, Donovan Mitchell wasn't even close to his number because he was way less efficient.  (.541% TS% compared to Collins' .620% TS%).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, benhillboy said:

I’ve never followed PER as its has very little accounting for a player’s ability to contribute to stops and overvalues rebounding and shot attempts.  Win shares and advanced boxes usually back up my eyes.  I grade everyone relative to a Steph or Jimmy Butler scale because those are just my guys.  Bigs are so weird these days with the best ones camping out at the arc it’s case by case.  I’d probably compare most Bigs to Steven Adams or Bam impact.

That is definitely PER's biggest limitations - doesn't reflect defense and rewards volume scoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I think you guys have a misconception that a team's actual wins are divided up among the players.  That isn't the case.  It is supposed to project to how much a player influences their team's wins and losses but you can have very high WS on bad teams and the reverse.

Examples:  

Anthony Davis 2018-19 - Pelicans finished 13th in the West with 33 wins but Davis put up a .247 WS/48 (the per minute version of this stat).  4th highest in the league.

Khris Middleton 2018-19 - Bucks finished 1st in the East with 60 wins but Middleton put up a .123 WS/48.  #94 in the league despite being the #2 guy on Milwaukee.

 

Look at John Collins as a rookie for another example.  We were pretty woeful in terms of wins but he was among the leaders for all rookies in WS and WS/48 because he played well and efficiently.  Despite Utah's 48 wins, Donovan Mitchell wasn't even close to his number because he was way less efficient.  (.541% TS% compared to Collins' .620% TS%).

 

Yes. If you break it down per48. That being said. The idea is that you should be able to add up all the win shares (positive and negative) and get the wins for the team. 

Here is Basketball-Reference's explanation https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Edited by enrique
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AHF said:

Examples:  

 

Anthony Davis 2018-19 - Pelicans finished 13th in the West with 33 wins but Davis put up a .247 WS/48 (the per minute version of this stat).  4th highest in the league.

Khris Middleton 2018-19 - Bucks finished 1st in the East with 60 wins but Middleton put up a .123 WS/48.  #94 in the league despite being the #2 guy on Milwaukee.

Incidentally, Middleton was the 5th highest WS on the Bucks in their 60 win season. And if you add up all the Bucks WS you will find that you come up with almost 60. The difference is due (like usual) to the players that are moved, waived, etc. In general, Basketball Reference has a 1:1 ratio now (and have done so for a while) on Win Shares. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
50 minutes ago, Watchman said:

I've never seen the formula before, but did realize it emphasizes rebounding.  Hence, most guys in the high twenties or thirties are big guys who rebound well.  I think we should come up with our own rating system.  We could call it the SQUAWK.

Statistical

Quantification of

Unambiguous

Analytics for

Winning

Knowledge

~lw3

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
18 hours ago, enrique said:

Yes. If you break it down per48. That being said. The idea is that you should be able to add up all the win shares (positive and negative) and get the wins for the team. 

Here is Basketball-Reference's explanation https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Agree that the idea is to get close to actual win total but the credit for those wins is disproportionately attributed if the team has widely varying levels of play so if a player is on a bad team with a bunch of bad players they will own that team's win share.  If a player is on a good team with good players the wins will be spread much more evenly.  So it isn't just "you are on a good team so your number will be good and you can't have a good number on a bad team."

For total win shares last season, you had KAT in the top 10 despite being on the #11 team in the West.  Vucevic and Drummond were also #10 and #11 in overall win shares despite their teams being basically middle of the pack teams in the league in win totals.  Those guys are all above the top WS contributor for the 58 win Raptors despite them being #2 in the overall league in wins.  The WS numbers are driven by the far the most by individual performance and great performers will have great WS numbers regardless of what their teams do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Agree that the idea is to get close to actual win total but the credit for those wins is disproportionately attributed if the team has widely varying levels of play so if a player is on a bad team with a bunch of bad players they will own that team's win share.  If a player is on a good team with good players the wins will be spread much more evenly.  So it isn't just "you are on a good team so your number will be good and you can't have a good number on a bad team."

For total win shares last season, you had KAT in the top 10 despite being on the #11 team in the West.  Vucevic and Drummond were also #10 and #11 in overall win shares despite their teams being basically middle of the pack teams in the league in win totals.  Those guys are all above the top WS contributor for the 58 win Raptors despite them being #2 in the overall league in wins.  The WS numbers are driven by the far the most by individual performance and great performers will have great WS numbers regardless of what their teams do.

I totally agree that a good player will have the highest win shares for their team. I also agree that a great player on a bad team can have a decent win share rating. All that being said, there is NO player that could play for Atlanta right now that could have 9 win shares. Yet Harden is there. Why? Because no player can have much more than 35% of their teams win shares. Just go through the list and divide the players’ win shares by the teams’ wins and rank the percentages. What that means in practical terms is that the upper limit for any player will be about a third of the total wins their team accumulated throughout the season. Just look at the current Top 20 win share players. What do you notice? Is Clint Capela the 20th best player? Put him on the Hawks and remove Trae. He would never land in the Top 20 for Win Shares. It just is mathematically impossible. 

Edited by enrique
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...