That's just hollow conjecture. While who is on what team is relevant, caution should be exercised. Otherwise, it just boils down to my made-up world versus yours. PER is the most popular though. Here's the basic thing to keep in mind with PER or any metric: They aren't stats. Metrics are formulas which try to combine various stats.
Stats are just records of what happened in games. Metrics are opinions. Stats are facts. That doesn't mean that I'm arguing that metrics are wrong; I think they have a lot of value. I'm just saying you have to look at the logic that goes behind a formula. The biggest problem I have with PER is that it doesn't distinguish between an assisted and unassisted field goal. Players who have the ability to create their own shots are an entirely different animal than players who can catch and shoot.
Players who can create their own shots change defensive schemes, they draw more attention and they break down defenses. Take Derrick Rose as an example, who had more unassisted field goals than any player in the NBA this year. When he moves towards the rim, defenses implode to stop him, leaving his teammates with wide-open jumpers. As a result, when Rose passes his teammates the ball, they are six percent more likely to make the shot than when he doesn't.
That's the value of a player being able to create his own shot. However, in PER, Hollinger doesn't use the actual stats for assisted versus unassisted field goals; he just uses estimates. Joel Treultein of hoopdata has modified PER to use actual numbers and it is a tremendous improvement. It additionally includes charges drawn. Of course, you might argue that APER gives too much emphasis to being able to create your own shots, which is fine. That's not really the point though.
The point is that either way, it's an opinion. Metrics are statistically based opinions, but they are still opinions. PER is one that has some flaws, but that's my opinion. Field-goal percentage is a stat that tells what it tells but doesn't tell what it doesn't tell. Sometimes people want to make it say more than it actually does. The same goes with effective field-goal percentage, which accounts for threes, and true shooting percentage, which accounts for threes and free-throw shooting.
First, there's positional bias in these things. For instance, Dwight Howard, who possesses a. He is slightly ahead of Steve Nash, who is arguably the greatest actual shooter in the history of the game. The reason is that the bulk of Howard's shots come at the rim, where it's easier to make a shot. Well, you argue, a shot's a shot.
That's an oversimplification. If all shots are at the rim then defenses would just seal off the paint. Outside shots are needed to spread the court and open up the way for inside scoring.
That's why you can't just draw a straight line from field-goal percentage to scoring. Nene may have the league's best field-goal percentage, but that doesn't mean he's the league's best scorer. Additionally there's the fact that field-goal percentage doesn't account for the ability to draw fouls. Some players, because of their ability to draw fouls, are actually far more efficient scorers. However, he has a tremendous ability to both draw shooting fouls and make the free throws.
Field-goal percentage doesn't take into account all the effectively used possessions. For example, say that Durant shot 4-of from the field—that doesn't mean he effectively used 40 percent of his possessions. Let's say he also drew six fouls and went of from the stripe That means he effectively used 9. That's why some people use efficiency, which is points per field-goal attempt as a better measure of scoring proficiency. Last season, Durant scored 1.
There is also something known as a skill curve, which is a proven trend. It indicates that you can't automatically take a player who takes fewer field-goal attempts and then project that if they took the same number of shots they would score more points. The "curve" is that the more a player's field-goal attempts go up, the more the field-goal percentage goes down.
You can't presume keeping the same field-goal percentage. As a player takes more shots, he draws more defensive attention, which in turn issues a lower field-goal percentage. Guns don't kill people, people. Don't blame the guns. Without guns, how would we get our oil?! Without oil, we wouldn't have team planes. Without team planes, we wouldn't have the NBA. So don't hate guns. Anyway, stats are similar to guns—it's not them that lie; it's people that lie. They just use stats to do so.
The thing is they also use stats to reveal truth. The thing with stats is that they are really just a measure of what actually happens in a game. Sometimes people want to say, "If you watched the games" as though somehow watching the game makes what happens in them different or for that matter, that if you know stats you haven't watched the game.
Watching games and stats aren't mutually exclusive. In fact they are literally impossible to separate, as it is impossible to derive a stat without someone having watched the game. Stats and watching are inextricably linked. I know, you mean unless I watch the games I can't use stats, as though unless I have personally watched every game by every team in the NBA, the things that the stats say didn't really happen. Curry , L. All-Time Greats : E. Hayes , J.
Stockton , H. Olajuwon , W. Chamberlain , D. Schayes , J. Active Greats : L. James , L. James , C. Paul , J. Curry , K. Team Schedules and League Schedules. We're almost there. The next step is the problem of making the league average PER We can go through and actually calculate it—but that would be ironic, wouldn't it? We want to make the simplest formula to recreate PER, so we need a shortcut for this step. Luckily, the league average hasn't changed the past few years—each adjustment has been around 54, with no real difference between them.
So the final step is to multiply the weights by You end up with these, the final weights of each stat. Notice I've left out pace adjustments until now. Cincinnati Bearcats. The different roads to the College Football Playoff for teams just outside the top four.
Gausman or Ray? Kershaw or Verlander? Breaking down MLB offseason pitching landscape. San Francisco Giants. Cincinnati Bengals. LeBron James among the stars boarding the Paolo Banchero hype train.
Duke Blue Devils. Odell Beckham Jr. Cam Newton gives Carolina Panthers hope, even if he's no longer 'Superman'. The 'most avoided' fighter? David Benavidez just wants a big fight. Three things to watch at Bellator Cyborg's dominance, Pico's winning streak and the rise of Fortune.
0コメント