Gtown07

Articles on top players in the NBA according to PER. 2 things to note.

First, LBJ is number one by a very wide margin.

Second, Steve MVP Nash is number 19.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...t&lid=tab1pos1

Goubot

That article is already causing a stir around here. He's predicting a huge increase for LeBron, who he has pegged to score 36.2/40 with a 37.2 Usage Rate. I'm a bit skeptical on this, since he's not on a team that requires that one player take such a huge offensive load (think that Usage was more than Kobe's last year),. And it's very difficult to incrase your Usage that much while simultaneously increasing TS% and cutting on Turnovers. But that year would be on par with some of Jordan's best. I've always pondered what the ceiling on James is, and I can't find a reasonable answer. He still has a few trouble spots to deal with, such as free throw shooting (74%. An increase would be huge because he takes several a game) and long range shooting, but is generally solid in all other aspects of the game.

Anyway, Hollinger's predictions are always pessimistic except for young players, so I don't really take much stock into those. This is a case where the predictions might be a bit too optomistic, though.

Dunno what your point on singling Nash out was. He always ranks very highly but not in the upper echelon (which, to be fair, was pretty insane last year) .

cpawfan

I believe he has set back the perception of PER quite a bit with his projections though. People are too busy focusing on the end result (PER) instead of the poor assumptions Hollinger is making on the different statistical areas.

__________________

lw32

Hollinger's rankings really mean little. So Chuck Hayes is 33rd, and we all know Carroll Dawson is a stats guy, especially Daryl Morey who is the biggest numbers guy the NBA has to offer. Houston is basically grooming their protege GM, Morey the statistical wiz. So why the heck is Hayes getting bench splinters if Hollinger's formula is decent? Wouldn't a fellow stats guy understand and appreciate his method?

Hollinger's statistical projections are utterly useless if the biggest stat head in the league won't put a high ranking player on the floor. What does that tell us?

I really don't care if the player is efficient. He's not too efficient if he can't earn playing time is he?

Also, it's a per minute productivity. So, to bring back an example, Hayes can go for 15 minutes a night...and then what? Fatigue may hit, but Hollinger can't factor in fatigue. Nor can he account for a player that loses concentration.

Hayes may be ranked 20 spots higher than Dwight Howard in PER, but in the end it means squat. Far too much emphasis is put in these statistical formulas, especially seeing as it's per minute productivity. What's the use in a player that's productive over 20 minutes, but is an enigma if given any more time?

__________________
Charles Barkley: "I think it would have been an insult if they put Bird on me. He was the worst defensive player ever."

"Stanley's idea of a balanced meal is a Big Mac in each hand" -- then Orlando Magic GM Pat Williams on overweight Magic first round draft choice Stanley Roberts

Gtown07

Hollinger responds to his detractors in an article he wrote this week:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...ohn&id=2632049

Also regarding Hayes and why the Rockets don't play him. I'm pretty sure Van Gundy decides who plays and who doesnt. Obviously I dont think Hayes is the 33rd best player in the NBA but I think his Hollinger's system is relevant when deciding the importance of a player.

lw32

Van Gundy decides who plays, but you can be sure that Morey and Dawson play a large role in decisions.

Hollinger's system is great per minute, but that's about it. Once you have a large range of players and the amount of minutes they play it gets useless ranking them. I don't mind PER, but why rank? It's not a who's better than who ranking, it's an efficiency per minute ranking. So why give that perception? If player X can't play a lick of defense, it doesn't show up in the PER very well. What about certain coaches who run certain offensive sets. If I'm a coach and I'm put in a situation where the players on the roster don't fit my system, I play the guys who do fit. Not who's more efficient.

Let's not even get into the competition the reserve player is up against. A lot of times you'll see both coaches throw on the bench players to end the game. Some of these "efficient" players are going up against scrub competition. Whereas if the starters were in the story, and efficency, would be a whole lot different. Scrub X would not be efficient.

I just think Hollinger's rankings are not the be all and end all, they're overrated by some and don't tell the whole story on their own.

Off topic, efficient. Anyone remember the saying "i before e except after c." What happened there?

__________________
Charles Barkley: "I think it would have been an insult if they put Bird on me. He was the worst defensive player ever."

"Stanley's idea of a balanced meal is a Big Mac in each hand" -- then Orlando Magic GM Pat Williams on overweight Magic first round draft choice Stanley Roberts

Premier

Good post.

By the way, "i before e" rarely works [science, sufficient, agencies, financier.

__________________

jokeaward

After c is the exception.

__________________
When I go to Albertson's I need to buy some Mitchum Ice Blast... and bananas.

Aurelino

Like Premier?

__________________
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Pioneer10

I think it's a bit silly for Hollinger to throw up predicted PER's. PER is a reflection of what a player did during a season but I'm not sure how you can logically design a system to throw that into a calculation to produce an estimate for next year.

__________________

Aurelino