Jump to content


Photo

Is Player Efficiency Rating(PER) Legit??


  • Please log in to reply

#1 OFFLINE   JordanLaw

JordanLaw
  • Greatest Poster of All-Time?

  • 3,807 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
***Is PER legitimate enough to go by??

*For example, if being a top player was mostly based on PER, then Chris Paul is by far the best point guard ever, Dirk Nowitzki is better than Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade is the 6th best player ever, LeBron James is better than Kareem, and Wilt and Magic Johnson and Shaq is a top 3 player ever and better than Wilt, Kareem, and Hakeem.

Also, if we are talking about today, then based on PER, Brook Lopez is a top 5 NBA Player.


And if everything was based on PER, then LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, Tim Duncan, Davis Robinson, Bob Petit, and Charles Barkley are all better than Kareem Abdul Jabar.
(And most everyone has Kareem as the best ever or the 2nd or 3rd best player ever)

**Also, if PER is an efficiency stat, then why is Steve Nash's career PER only at 20 even though Nash is one of the most efficient players ever and the only player to average 50/40/90 for his career?

**Also if that is the case then Larry Bird is tied with Kobe Bryant for being the 18th best player ever. And Larry Bird is a no doubt top 10 player ever, along with Kobe Bryant. Many even have Larry Bird in their top 5. And Larry Bird had some amazing all around statistical seasons and has 3 championship rings and was probably the best player of his generation(it pains me to say that as a Laker fan)

**Also, while Kevin Garnett is a great player, top 25 without a doubt, his highest PER season was almost 30 (29.5) and Kobe Bryant who is a no doubt top 10 player has a highest PER season of 28..


**Me personally, I believe that PER is a stat that works for and benefits certain players, but it is not close to being the most reliable stat in the world.. Becuase players can have amazing major/basic stats (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks), but have a lower PER than a guy with stats not close to their level...


That is the case with Larry Bird, and the case with Kobe Bryant this season
and years past... Kobe is putting up great individual stats this season, yet he trails CP3 by about 1 in PER and CP3 is not putting up close to what Kobe is putting up individually
CP3: 17ppg, 9.3asts, 3stls, 48%FG
Kobe: 30.3ppg, 5.3reb, 5ast, 1.5stl, 48%FG


And Larry Bird has had some 28ppg+, 10+rpg, 8apg seasons and is tied for the 18th best PER ever.
And Bird has had mostly 25ppg, 9rpg, 8apg seasons his entire career.


**WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT PER??

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:09 AM


#2 OFFLINE   The Future

The Future
  • #RipCity #brehsquad

  • 25,929 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
Only when comparing players from similar eras... like 90's vs 00's.

It's not legit when you compare a player from older eras who didn't have the full stats like we have now.

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:19 AM


#3 OFFLINE   celtic fan

celtic fan
  • Greatest Poster of All-Time?

  • 6,197 posts

  • Bball_Jones and The Logo like this
it's not a be all to end all stat. You can't just site PER as proof that player A is better than Player B and as The Future stated, it's not very good for use in comparisons of cross era analysis because it seems to reward not only high volume scoring but guys who take a lot of 3's too.

Also PER always diminishes as a player ages so guys who had long careers but were not longer able to put up superstar numbers but were able to contribute to the teams success (Kareem being a prime example) it hurts their career averages.

And yes I think the stat is somewhat flawed because of your Steve Nash example. Nash is not a volume scorer, he doesn't put up many shots and doesn't look to average 20+ppg... very much like John Stockton and because of how PER is calculated it hurts him... which is absurd given how efficiently he scores and takes care of the ball.

Having said that, it is still a good quick way to see how well a player is play for a particular year.

t02snb_jpg_medium.gif

 

200.gif

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:40 AM


#4 OFFLINE   Dr. Wolf

Dr. Wolf
  • World Famous in Minnesota

  • 19,105 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
It is effective at rating players but you can't use it out of context. Like with regular stats or other advanced stats it can be used as a barometer for player comparison but shouldn't be a sole tool to rate players. Saying a player is better due to a PER higher by a bit is as faulty as saying someone is better because they score more. You need more data and evidence.

Co-Commish of the GSL, former Timberwolves GM: 10.5 Seasons (659-210) 3 Championships

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:15 PM


#5 ONLINE   #1 Euroleague

#1 Euroleague
  • Superstar

  • 1,944 posts


    • Country: Country Flag
Kareem's career was 20 years...PER 1972: 30.
Charles Barkley PER 1991: 29
Shaq easily top 3....however, his PER is low. not sure how Oscar Robertson top 5 league in almost every category (ppg, apg, rpg, FG%, FT%) is lower then Yao Ming, larry bird 86 behind yao ming, john drew...

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:39 PM


#6 ONLINE   ISOMELO

ISOMELO
PER is a decent metric and one of my favorite stats. The thing is you can't compare players from past eras like the 60s to players of today. Why? Because the NBA didn't track steals, blocks, turnovers, and the three pointer wasn't around all things vital to the the PER formula. Bad free throw shooters tend to have lower PER's. Also PER measures per minute production, so a player that plays less minutes and produces is more likely to have a higher PER than a player who plays a lot of minutes and produces.
tumblr_n11so4VD2Q1rdqggno1_400.giftumblr_ltfnpprmxc1qjkukyo1_r1_400.gif

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:27 PM


#7 OFFLINE   Bball_Jones

Bball_Jones
  • baddest dribbler in the whole neighborhood

  • 4,519 posts

Can be useful to a certain degree but gets overblown too many times.

It doesn't determine if a player is better than another player, actually far from it.

30mxxyo.jpg 33 3ub9c.jpg

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:32 PM


#8 OFFLINE   LeBronGOAT

LeBronGOAT
  • Greatest Poster Ever - Lacks Confidence

  • 789 posts

    • Country: Country Flag

it's not a be all to end all stat. You can't just site PER as proof that player A is better than Player B and as The Future stated, it's not very good for use in comparisons of cross era analysis because it seems to reward not only high volume scoring but guys who take a lot of 3's too.

Also PER always diminishes as a player ages so guys who had long careers but were not longer able to put up superstar numbers but were able to contribute to the teams success (Kareem being a prime example) it hurts their career averages.

And yes I think the stat is somewhat flawed because of your Steve Nash example. Nash is not a volume scorer, he doesn't put up many shots and doesn't look to average 20+ppg... very much like John Stockton and because of how PER is calculated it hurts him... which is absurd given how efficiently he scores and takes care of the ball.

Having said that, it is still a good quick way to see how well a player is play for a particular year.

 

EVERY stat "diminishes" as a player ages lol

 

People tend to put up worse stats when aging


tumblr_m1dc2jZHTr1r98qz6o1_500.gif

 

 

Posted 22 January 2014 - 11:06 AM





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome Guest!

Hello and welcome to our forums, Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. You may be required to register to be able to discuss and communicate with other members of our community.