Player efficiency

[moqui]

how they are doing after 4 games according to a pair of advanced statistical metrics

 

[sufandu]

I have no frame of reference for what's good with advanced metrics. Can someone explain them a little?

 

[AccuRater]

how they are doing after 4 games according to a pair of advanced statistical metrics

Jeremy's got a pretty good O but not such a hot PER. OK

What does this tell us?

 

[Gabjon]

how they are doing after 4 games according to a pair of advanced statistical metrics

People don't like stats here we are all about feelings...I feel this and I feel that. The next thing you will start doing is applying logic to your statical information to draw conclusions! We can't have that now can we?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I have no frame of reference for what's good with advanced metrics. Can someone explain them a little?

Yeah, so what this chart is telling us is that Southerland is playing better than Jeremy Grant.

Really though, the encouraging things on there are Christmas and MCW. These kinds of metrics generally favor big men if they're doing big men things - rebounding and converting shots at the rim. Christmas is doing big man things well. MCW's rates are encouraging because he's done so many things well, even though he hasn't really shot the ball particularly well so far.

Those are really quick and dirty explanations, and may very well be wrong.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Basically player efficiency represents points score per 100 possessions used I believe. I don't really know what PER is context.

 

[Knicks411]

I don't really think Hollinger PER plays too well at the college level. In the NBA, it's set so average is 15. I think it might be a lot higher in college.

PER is mostly an offensive stat, though not totally, but for Coleman to have an offensive rating of 82 and a PER over what is supposed to be average doesn't make sense to me. (Though he is beasting on the glass)

 

[moqui]

I don't really think Hollinger PER plays too well at the college level. In the NBA, it's set so average is 15. I think it might be a lot higher in college.

PER is mostly an offensive stat, though not totally, but for Coleman to have an offensive rating of 82 and a PER over what is supposed to be average doesn't make sense to me. (Though he is beasting on the glass)

My guess is that Pomeroy puts more weight on turnovers rate than does Hollinger . . . DC's turnover rate at the moment is pretty high . . . that should normalize over time. This is also an example of small sample size . . . I would expect the two measures to converge as the season progresses.

I'm not sure what the average PER is in college. At the top end, the numbers tend to be very high compared to pro players, but at the lower end you even see some negative PER . . . there are roughly 3500 college players,so it wouldn't surprise me if the average wasn't the same 15 or maybe even below.

 

[Knicks411]

I know Hollinger's system is very heavy on usage; I believe I read somewhere that as long as you shoot above 38% or something (the threshold was very low) that taking additional shots will increase your PER. Coleman has a pretty high usage rate, in part because of the turnovers though, so I dunno.

I think it might be the defensive rebounds, which wouldn't have anything to do with the offensive rating, but helps his PER

 

[moqui]

I think it might be the defensive rebounds, which wouldn't have anything to do with the offensive rating, but helps his PER

yes, that is probably it

 

[SaintTristan]

This statistic is key to college hoops. It's not good that we have one guard in the top 4. That's got to change if we are going to do something in march.

 

[br801]

This statistic is key to college hoops. It's not good that we have one guard in the top 4. That's got to change if we are going to do something in march.

So I take it you're embarking on another of your anti-Triche crusades. How predictable and pathetic.