Forget about PER for a second, Giannis is by far the mvp frontrunner this year and last year for that matter. The media tried to put Bron ahead of him this year because of what happened to Kobe.
I think it's more to do with them trying to stir up conversations and arguments around the league so the talk shows and journalists would have some content to work off. I'm pretty sure they started this whole narrative of LeBron having a good chance at MVP around the weekend in which the Lakers beat the Bucks and Clippers. Wouldn't be surprised if it was to do with Kobe, either, especially with people like Rachel Nichols playing with the headlines
@@moikes714 i agree, but Giannis was miles ahead in the MVP race until Kobe died, then magically it's a neck and neck race for it. I hate that Kobe died, but i hate it more when people use his death to promote things.
They just try to create a narrative for ratings, it would only be extremely disturbing if LBJ actually won the award because of media influence. Also Rachel Nichols votes so that’s a joke in itself.
Ben10 Fishing not just what happened to Kobe but they want him to tie MJ. Some of the Lebron media was saying Giannis was MVP most the year but allegedly they was going to switch up end of season but it was cancelled
"the reality is that the game of basketball is far too complex and nuanced for players accomplishment to be summed up into one statistical number" OMG this quote is everything
That argument is stupidly redundant. Reality is far too complex to be summed up or represented accurately by statistics. They give you a pretty decent estimate of the reality depending on how good the model is and how reliable your measurements are.
@@ContextReallyMatters So you're going to ignore the fact that it's a stat to measure efficiency and he literally was not that? How can you do the 2 most inefficient things and be the most efficient player?
@@ContextReallyMatters if you're arguing this then you didn't watch the gotdam video. aight let's break it down bby girl: russ avg a triple double yes but was he an efficient scorer? No low FG%, abysmal 3P% was he an efficient passer/ball handler as a PG? No, avg 6 turnovers a game. Was he an efficient rebounder? That stats sort of up to interpretation. Sometimes he fights with his own front court players for the rebound but ill give him efficient rebounding fuck it. Thats 2/3 stats where he avg a triple double that he's inefficient in. You lose
@@Schmoopies He lead the league in scoring, was third in assists, was top ten in rebounds and steals. He lead the league in plus/minus and lead the league in assist percentage. He averaged a triple double for an entire season. So I understand that his fg% was low and he did average 5 and a half turnovers but those other numbers offset that. The dude had a monster statistical season and that's why he lead the league in PER.
PER is an old ass “advanced” stat, I think it was invented in 2001. There are way better metrics out now. It’s not bad, but it’s not the gold standard or anything lol. It rewards volume shooting way too much
I think dated is definitely a better way of putting it, instead of bad. When it was first introduced it was definitely useful, but current day's advanced stats are definitely superior.
@@MysticMungusSlungus absolutely. PER is a fine stat to cite and if a player's PER is pretty high then its USUALLY safe to assume they're a good player. Over the past decade, as the pace of the game has increased, its become clear that the stat rewards volume shooting and rebounding way too much.
@@brandonreed3670 Good call. Rebounding messes up a lot of things as well. It's one of the reasons DBPM isn't entirely useful, without also knowing the players D-Rating in conjunction with it, especially for rebounding wings.
@John doue Quebec There isn't one. They are a number of stats that work really well together, to tell you how different portions of a player's game functions. Trying to roll all of that up into a single number would make it lose all tangible value. It would be like going to the doctor, and your doctor telling you that you're a "3 out of 10". What would that mean? Do I have cancer? Do I have a torn ACL? All I know is that I'm a "3".
It’s a usage stat to create more hype for the best player on each team. It’s a stat created for “talk shows” like first take to give more content. That’s why I don’t watch these shows any more. These “experts” don’t know more than the die hard nba fan, and frankly it’s insulting that they get so much praise.
None of this has anything to do with the Giannis intro: He has the highest ever PER but is hardly an inefficient, high volume shooter. While he probably didn't have the greatest regular season of all time, it wouldn't be for the reasons here.
it showed the formula for how being inefficient wont hurt you, all you have to do is take shots, he may not be a "volume shooter" by definition, but he was the go to scorer for milwaukee, him being efficient just added to his PER, so point being being efficient will obv help, but being inefficient wont hurt you...so garbage stat.
True. But as it relates to PER, just because someone came up with a formula, called it a "stat" and had the mainstream media push it as such, doesn't make it legitimate.
Basketball Examined but is any stat legitimate in that sense? Every stat needs to be taken in context. You can easily say “oh this stat is flawed because when comparing players it’s inconsistent” for every stat.
@@HenryZhoupokemon not every stat is as flawed as others. The ideal scenario of creating a metric is statistic is to make sure that your main variable is unbiased as much as possible. What makes PER a highly flawed statistic is that it doesn't translate well into what it's supposed to measure: performance or wins. It's just a hodgepodge of different stats, with different % contributions. It over values certain metrics (FGM) and under rates others (mostly defense).
@@HenryZhoupokemon and to add, there are stats that you can compare consistently across the board. TS% is one of them (measures both 2pts and 3pts according to weight).
I'm a LeBron fan and I think it's a terrible stat. Relax. Way better stats are out there to measure a player's ability and value. I believe in studying film, but it has to be done together with production since the eye test is the most flawed measure out there.
@@VictorFPoB A LeBron fan and a bronsexual are 2 completely different type of people. My point is the main people who uses these stats do not know the game of basketball. I do agree stats and film breakdown do work together bit if you just use stats as an argument you should be quiet.
@nKosi Ama Kosi because many players look great by the eye test but are holding their teams back. For instance in the 2000s Josh Smith looked amazing, but then advanced analytics exposed him for being inefficient. Same thing with Monta Ellis.
@@VictorFPoB eye test and knowing the game of basketball i.e film work/study are 2 different things. Advance stats can be just as flawed as the eye test
It's funny how these Lebron stans and media always push stats for their arguments however they have conveniently left out that Lebron's teammate AD is putting better numbers in almost every single category just so they can make a fake MVP case for him. what a joke
@@lukedro Yep its hilarious seeing giannis stans and AD stans be told their stats dont mean shit. Lebron is obviously the better player than both. Stats dont matter. When these guys face off lebron comes out on top.
77 ROFL yes I may say some "dumb hyperbolic" things in a comment section but not as dumb as getting mad online and caping for wright, Broussard, Nichols, bayless and kellerman
G. O. A. T. Is an acronym. We know this because there is a period after each letter. It stands for greatest of all time. If G. O. A. T is another acronym what does it stand for? Greatest of all T? I didn’t know that T was a word.
I remember people being excited when Hollinger got Hired by Memphis. I think I was in HS at that point but was familiar with Hollinger's articles for ESPN and had gotten into statistical analysis while in 6th -7th grade. We all thought it was cool to see him get the Grizz job, but I never understood why some players were consistently rated higher than gys I believed were clearly better. I just figured it was my own bias, but as I got older and found other writers and statheads (like Berry) I began to understand the flaws of PER and , as a result, understood some of our questionable draft and FA decisions. It's no coincidence that we got better as his and Chris Wallace's power waned. There is no one stat to rule them all, but there are many useful stats that help paint a full picture of a player's worth. PER is not one of them.
There are way better advanced stats. PIPM, RAPTOR, win shares, wins added, box creation and more. Also, you diss PER but keep using arguably the most misleading stat in basketball, FG%. TS% is superior in every way.
TS% is misleading because harden in the regular season is considered an efficient because he pad his free throws to inflate this efficiency. Once the playoffs begin, he gets less free throw and the efficiency declines
@@bornegamerz1180 why shouldn't free throws count towards efficiency? If they count as points why not count towards efficiency as well when they potentially use up a possession?
@Chris Paul’s 3rd Cousin because it doesn't take into account the weight of shots. Let's make an example: If two players both take 10 shots, player A only takes 2s and makes 50% of them, he scores 10 points on 50% FG%. Then player B also takes 10 shots, but only takes 3s and makes 40% of them, he scores 12 points on 40% FG%. So why did player B score more points than player A despite having a lower FG% and them taking the same amount of shots?
@@bornegamerz1180 I hate the way Harden plays, but FTs are part of the game. Also, his specific playstyle doesn't work in the playoffs, but other players whose games aren't affected are all better by TS%. It's not misleading, it's the best way to measure scoring efficiency in relation to shots taken. In fact, FTs are literally the most efficient way of scoring.
@Chris Paul’s 3rd Cousin it's because it looks at both 2pt shots and 3pt shots as equals, whereas we know that 3pt shots have more value than a 2pt shot
With all due respect to Westbrook this is why I never felt he was the MVP especially when looking at Kawhi Leonard who is closer to Russ's PER at higher efficiency in less minutes with a slower pace. See that more shots increasing PER is very flawed, great video
I've always wanted a stat like that to go along with eye test, but they're always flawed. Sometimes it just happens that player A has higher PER than player B, but everytime they play: player B outperforms player A.
John Flanagan nah Giannis was the clear runaway most of the season 2 Damn games against the bucks and clippers doesn’t change that and I’m no bucks fan it’s like saying ZION is roy for that one month he went off
I never liked stats that put together too many stats to combine into one formula. I'd rather just get league averages of every Stat with the standard deviation. Then simply evaluate each player stats compared to league averages. Then use a metric (Z-score or percentile) to add up each category by position. It's more work but I get pretty accurate results.
I have this same issue with people that cite WAR as a major stat in baseball. It’s a positional metric and it’s why I disregard the metric. I always assumed PER rewarded volume but I did t realize it did so for bad shooting. Good work!
I just realized, Giannis will most likely be 1st in PER and beat Wilt Chamberlain, but we forget that Wilt held this record for almost 60 years and did this without BLOCKS OR STEALS. Wilt Chamberlain most likely averaged over 10 blocks a game, which would mean that he could have a PER higher than 40
Advanced statistics are the bane of all sports in general. They make it hard for anyone other than the most diehard of fans to comprehend what's really going on, thus turning off a potentially large casual audience. Which in turn limits the potential for higher ratings, attendance, etc. Plus you don't need advanced statistics to tell who's a good player to begin with.
Maybe Steph and Kawhi should have been co-MVPs in 2016-17 but they were ignored because everyone was sympathetic with Russ. KD missed the last 20 games and the Dubs were still the best team in the league.
Problem is people want to use advanced stats to do the thinking for them. I would NEVER base my analysis on a stat that I cant even figure out. People need to understand that basketball is a sport. A competition. There is only 1 goal in competition and thats winning. Stats is what you get while trying to WIN.
Your analysis and research is phenomenal, love the music you accompany to your videos. Amazing channel for those who are basketball purists, as you correctly stated measures of defensive impact are lacking, I know deflections are now measured, I always said that should have been a stat as well as opponent field goal percentage, this helps to differentiate great defenders from just good shot blockers. But I believe the defensive stats are not looked upon greatly to fit the pro-offensive basketball narrative to help with views and making the league popular. As with many sports, nobody seems to want to watch or aspire to be defensive players. KEEP UP YOUR GREAT WORK, YOU ARE DOING BASKETBALL A GREAT SERVICE FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME!!
I agree with everything you stated in the video except for the misleading segment about Westbrook. Looking at Field Goal % is very misleading when judging the true value of a player's scoring. True Shooting is much more valuable. You would never say a Prime Chauncey Billups is less efficient than Ben Wallace, one of the worst starting offensive centers of all time, even though Chauncey shoots a lower field goal percentage. Secondly, PER has never just been purely about scoring, so that segment is again misleading to some.Please do not use FG% as a measure of someone's efficiency of scoring. His True Shooting was above league average TS% on absurd volume. Scoring INCLUDES Free Throws. A huge part of Russell Westbrook's game, like all of the Greatest Players of All Time, is drawing fouls and making Free Throws. You completely threw that out the window. I have to give you a dislike on this one. It is either misleading or not well researched enough.
I think P.J. Tucker is a great example of why PER is flawed. If below 10 is "brutal" and he has a 8.7, that would make him among the worst players in the league, which he most certainly is not. There's so many things that he does that don't show up on the stat sheet in the first place, and thus aren't calculated into PER. Anyone who, like SVG says, watches the tape will understand that P.J. Tucker is a good spot-up three-point shooter (in an offense that produces spot-up threes far more than average) and a very tenacious defender who will disrupt the player he defends, which is often the opposing teams best, on a regular basis. He wouldn't be playing 30+ on a playoff team if he was as bad as PER says he is.
I think the problem with this stat is how it's used. As a barometer of how efficient different players are compared to each other it's a decent starting point, but it doesn't really take context into great detail or factor in that great players are not necessarily efficient. Using it as a baseline to say "player A outplayed Player B" is flawed, but using it to say "player A plays a more efficient style than player B" is a worthwhile use.
I don't like PER myself, but the counter argument for PER is someone that inefficient would not be allowed to shoot that much in reality by their team, especially if it doesn't lead to winning. I haven't done the math, but what this means is that there is probably a slight advantage to worse teams for this category (since the stars of those teams would be allowed to shoot more)... but this could be counteracted if winning was factored in. What is clear is that PER cares more about points, assists and rebounding totals vs how those are gotten there. I don't think this is entirely bad, since at the end of the day, only the better players are allowed to shoot as much as they want.
PER is calculated using weights for each category, it doesn’t make sense to compare players based on how many categories they lead in. You have to look at how much the lead in each category too, someone may be slightly less efficient than another player in all the shooting categories, but if they have twice as many assists that more than makes up for it.
I mean a lot of the issues you stated were explained in the original article. The defensive stats (blocks, steals) somewhat boost/diminish a players PER undeservingly.
This is because PPG is actually a calculation itself, of your made FG/FT attempts. PER uses the shot attempts and makes in its formula, so it doesn't need to know your PPG, the ingredients for such are already in the calculation.
jamesNewman well I was specifically referring to his graphics and the players that he compared because like the one thing that was pretty drastically different in a couple of examples was points per game yet he never shined a light on that
@@joneatsbagels7239 Right. He didn't highlight it, because like I said, it's not part of the PER calculation. The things you use to calculate PPG, you use to calculate PER. PPG itself is meaningless due to the fact that PER contains the shot attempts and makes in it.
jamesNewman well what I’m saying is that in part of the video there was the direct comparison of players with better stats and therefore the “better player” having a lower PER than another player with “worse stats” yet he failed to mention that the player with “worse stats” on some occasions had a little or very large disparity in PPG which is why I’m saying how points maybe would affect it because of how they had a higher PER with “worse stats”
If it was a sound judge of total offense, it would seem to be easy enough to incorporate defense by measuring everyones you guards PER and its difference from avg to develop a defensive PER. But with efficiency not a part of it, that is a pretty major flaw.
I agree that PER is flawed, I have two real problems with this. First, your double comparison of Porzingis and Love compared to Oubre and Harris. Kristaps/Oubre outpaced Love/Harris in the same four categories but only Kristaps had the higher PER. But the exact same thing happens with FG%. Dame outshot Brandon Ingram from both 2 and 3 (Dame: .518 and .394, Ingram: .509 and .387), but Ingram had the better overall FG% (BI: .460 to Dame: .457). And yet, Dame outshot Donovan Mitchell from both 2 and 3 (Mitchell: .501 and .364) and this time had the higher FG% as well (Mitchell shot .453). Is field goal percentage "inconsistent." No, it's just how math works: you gotta look at the actual numbers, not just count the categories. And with your cross-year comparisons that's PER working exactly as intended! The whole idea of setting the league average at 15 is that the same stats can mean different things in 1980, 1990, 200, 2010 and 2020. Scoring 30 a game means less now than it did in the hand-check-filled 90s. PER accounts for that. Now, I agree PER does have it's problems and how it measures shooting efficiency is one arguably of them. But I stress *arguably.* You're right that a player who simply shoots more will raise his efficiency. But there's an obstacle to *just* shooting more: the coach. You have to be *really good* to get away with the inefficiency that Westbrook does. And average player that tried it would get yanked right out the game. Of course, players like Westbrook and Iverson before him may well put a cap on how good your team can be. The question is how should that "cap" be reflected in a stat? And this is a philosophical question about what we want stats to do. Do they measure a player's skill? Their individual accomplishments? Their contributions to winning? What are we even measuring in that last one when we have a player who guarantees his team a high floor but a low ceiling?
Extremely disrespectful to russ. Why would you bring up his FG% when his TS% is league average? Averaging 32 PPG on 55% TS is very impressive. Also why did you compare his 3P shooting to only players averaging 5 more more, those were some of the best shooters in the league and your comparing Russ to them when he’s not one of the best, still he wasn’t that inefficient from 3, 34% for a guard is decent espcially on 7 + attempts per game. Russ was dominant in every facet of the game that season and relatively efficient. I knew something was up the moment this guy just started cherry picking inconsistencies of PER while not actually going in depth into the formula. Dissapointed.
Homie, Westbrook was not efficient that season, watch his games. He stat padded hard, took many shots, took away opportunities from his teammates as a whole. That’s why the went out in the first-round.
Hi Hi I watched every game of that season man every single one. I know way more about Westbrook than you I’ve been watching him his whole career. He was not stat padding, his contested rebound % was among the highest in the league and his adjusted assists and assist percentage were top 2 in the league. Stop your narrative ✋ 55% TS for 32 PPG is actually impressive, ESPECIALLY when you co consider he was averaging 10 boards and 10 assists + great defence.
Gotta say, not your best video. 1. Most of the examples you gave of PER failing to correctly rate players were bad examples. Like James Harden and AD or Kristaps vs Kevin Love. PER values each stat a different amount and points is the most important factor. And most the the examples you gave had the "wrongful" player with way more points. And also you should pick between counting off. Vs def. Rebounds or just counting total. So tht way you aren't double counting. Also, again you tried to compare players just by counting the categories they won, but didn't factor in how important each category was or how much they won by. Which doesn't prove anything. I looked at all the examples and none of them were horrifically wrong. Most other advanced stats don't perfectly rate players either. But we all know that. No one is treating it tht way. As Max Kellerman said, its just a stat tht takes everything into account for you and it allows you to compare seasons from different years a bit easier. Also on your point on how it rewards inefficiency. I think you were going too hard to try and make it look bad but. You simply could have phrased it as it rewards high volume scorers. Instead of saying it over values inefficient players. And the reason it rewards high scorers is because high scorers are typically seen as the best in the game. So, if you ask me the stat matches public perception just fine. If you score more than 30 points, most people don't care how efficient it was. Now I do, and I guess you do too, but just keep that in mind when looking at PER.
Just like all stats - PER is not be-all-end-all. Hollinger himself admitted there are flaws in the formula. It is one way to measure success and ability of a player, but should be considered in conjunction with the holistic picture of the player.
Giannis is the mvp hands down no discussion he's leading thede bucks in every statistical category meanwhile lebron is getting carried AD is literally averaging more pts, rpg, bpg and spg while shooting better from the field and free throw line while beinga DPOTY candidate but apparently he doesn't deserve mvp😂
I don't love PER, but I think a lower field goal percentage can be expected if a player is taking more shots, to some degree. Of course there's position to consider as well.
I agree, if you take more shots your FG% often goes down, but when you're shooting 42% and 25% it means that you're shot chucking and your team needs to spread the shots around more. Those shot percentages are below league average, teams with no offensive superstars often shoot better than that. Russ is good when he drives the the basket and is a descent finisher around the rim, but his mid range and 3 point shot has never been good, but he hasn't realized that because he's a bad shooter he shouldn't take many outside shots. I'd much rather have a player like Ben Simmons who is also a bad shooter but is self-aware, and sticks to his strengths which offensively is play making and getting to the rim. MJ or Lebron have taken a lot of shots before, but I've never claimed they're shot chuckers before because they're very efficient.
@@Ben-hl5mu I was just referring to the system, regardless of who the players are. I think what I was saying is that fg% alone isn't enough without taking the number of shots (points) into consideration. 10/10 does not equal 20/20, basically. When discussing these things, it's probably best to hold as many things constant as possible. What I mean is, compare percentages for the same number of points or the same number of shots. 10/20 vs 12/20 or 10/20 vs 10/18 or whatever.
@@Ben-hl5mu Jordans fg% is overrated, so is lebrons, alot of their fga's are dunks, so yes, they arent chuckers, they are dunkers, jordan took heavy advantage of the iso friendly league he played in most of his career, lebron should be "efficient" he dunks alot, and he has played with alot of great offensive players to make it easy for him
Acoarding to per 20 to 22.5 is a borderline all star. Kobe’s per was 21.9 the year he won his fifth ring meaning if you go by per Kobe was only a borderline all star the year he lead his team to a championship and was still universally considered a top 2 player.
That 15 being average across all seasons actual makes the comparison pointless because in a particular season where there are a bunch of great performances the a player having an average year is now being a label as below average because it’s essentially a curve
Ok I get it. But Russ averaged a triple double. That season. And he played defense. So as flawed as PER may be, Russ deserved to be considered the best or one of the best players that season. And I'm not even a fan of his.
ACTUALLY (have to be a party pooper here) But I am very sure that ridge regressed adjusted plus-minus can sum up a player'si impact effectively with one number, as long as you know where that player's plus-minus is coming from. For that you'd have to use the eye-test. Just have to remember to know if you're examining regular season performance or playoff performance too.
It’s so funny how they flip the MVP criteria every year. First it’s wins, then it’s historic performances year in and year out but we never know when it’s gunna be which.
what? Its the same every year. Top team, most contributing to wins. If one performs historically then obviously he will have contributed better than others. You also need to look at the candidates. The criteria doesnt change, but the candidates do.
Rafael Mertin Steph Curry, Russell Westbrook, two starkly different criteria. Steph Curry won because of his team’s record and his performance, westbrook won solely on performance alone. In the most recent MVPs there’s been a narrative switch every single year. There’s absolutely no consistency.
I also HATE DEFENSIVE RATING. 😞😞😞 We used to watch games and see if a defender can shutdown the elite scorers of the NBA, that's how you got your reputation as a defender. I don't see Alex Caruso as a LOCKDOWN DEFENDER against any of the Top 30 NBA perimeter scorers.
I agree, but damn you kill Westbrook's MVP in every video. It amazes me that someone that inefficient with such a record ever won the MVP. He singlehandedly killed the triple-double's relevancy...
Great argument and well said. My question is if the stated point of P.E.R is to show a player's on court production than I don't believe efficiency factors in. That would be another stat to track a player's production's efficiency, No?
I got laughed at by people when I said russ was overrated and inefficient that season. He did what he had to do with the construction of the team, but to say he was the mvp and the most efficient was confusing. Glad there's plenty of evidence showing I was right. This why I sub.
Yeah the Russell Westbrook mvp season critique isn’t the debunk you think it is. PER isn’t a shooting efficiency stat, it takes more than just his shooting percentage into account.
should we not take into account the difference between the stats for example lets say player 1 leads player 2 in 8 of the 12 stats but player 2 has a big lead in the 4 stats he leads and has a minimal difference in the 8 stats he trails should this not mean that player 2 would have a higher PER or do I just not get how the stat works
So if the spread is also important, then please explain the Grant Hill graphic at 5:33. Justify how the spread from the 3 stats in '98 somehow negate and override the spread from the 9 stats of the '96 season?
Tragic Hero stats don’t prove who was more efficient ! Someone who was in the game for 40 minutes drop 20 points compared to someone who was in for 5 minutes dropping 15 points , who was more efficient in the time being in the game ? But who had better stats ? I 100% agree with you tragic , this is about efficiency not stats
I don't think all the stats are weighted equally. PPG seems to hold a lot more weight than the other stats, since the players with higher PPG tend to have a higher PER. You seem like you're expecting all the stats to count equally, but obviously this can't be the case
PER, an efficiency stat that rewards inefficiency, totally logical. But lets be honest, every sport has these "advanced metrics" that sound really good until you look into them. Just pray we don't get to the convoluted point that baseball is.
PER alone is not indicative: the real stat that guys should be looking at is a combination of RPM and BPM. PER is just indicative of how productive a player is, it does reward inefficiency but it also rewards efficiency (even more so than missing shots). And PER is actually one of the best stat for comparing players of different eras, but like the OP said, it is not perfect.
