APBRmetrics

[deepak_e]

I suspect John wants to keep his PER formula relatively easy to calculate from the official box score stats you'd find on NBA.com or ESPN.com.

[Don Babbitt]

[jkubatko]

[Mountain]

Nice additions.

For VAR top 100, average age is 26.2 and average height is almost 6-7. It is comprised of 10 listed centers, 46 forwards and 44 guards.Mean VAR of top 100 is 1619. Average WinShares for this group is just a bit over 20.

VAR/WS varies pretty widely from max 67% above average ratio to 44% below. (Or the ratio could be flipped.) Perhaps someone else better with advanced analysis could look at and comment further about this relationship?

I decided to look at top 100 by Winshares. Average about 1/2 a year older and about 1/2 an inch taller. It is comprised of 11 listed centers, 49 forwards and 40 guards.Mean VAR is lower 1553. Average Winshares for this group is a bit over 21.

Small differences between the top 100s can prompt observations about players (Vets and bigs doing better on Winshares than VAR) but also highlight the different approaches. Winshares seeks to account for defensive impact with equal weight as offense, though as shown in team stats. PER admittedly to date emphasizes offense more and reaches to credit nonscoring contributions to offense. Defense is boxscore individual defense contributions only due to lack of reliable shot defense stats and consensus credit/blame rules. Each method's results are informative, looking at both better, a hybrid always possible.

[gabefarkas]

There were 95 players that were in at least 2 of the top 100 lists for VAA, VAR, and WS.

Based on these, I obtained correlation coefficients as follows:

[Mountain]

Thanks Gabe.

[John Hollinger]

I'm still figuring out where to take it next. It's a little bit like turning around an ocean liner at this point. Because so many people use it and emulate it, I can't just screw around with it like I could when it was just an excel formula on my computer that nobody else had ever heard of.

John

[Mike G]

[jkubatko]

[jkubatko]

[KnickerBlogger]

[UGA Hayes]

Even if you had to get the info from a second party I'd find a way to factor charges taken. Also I too am in favor of splitting up offense defense PER.

One criticism I have is that you don't seem to correlate PER with team success all the time.

For instance on the question of Nash, it seems that his teams are among the least turnover proned, even if he himself has around average number of turnovers. Some would say that having Nash decreases team turnovers. He has a very high ball possesion to turnover ratio. If we were keeping a stat it would be called turnovers that didn't happen. Does PER capture this? Could there be way to reward/punish a ballhandler for team efficiency even if its not the PG

[KnickerBlogger]

[Mountain]

PER may continue to stay classic PER. Though it would be possible to keep it and still add a PER 2.0 or advanced PER that was split offense and defense, tweaking offense and building defense fully.

Ideally one formula had appeal but no popular metric handles defense fully and satisfactorily. Separate may be more easily digested and accepted. People can back defense out of existing broad metrics, continue to refine existing alternatives or create new offensive and defensive metrics.

Offensive PER might have the lead on offense but Mike G's work is a worthy challenger that attempts more in some areas and Nick S's NPV is coming on the scene too. VAR has appeal and could perhaps be customized for PGs, wings and bigs.

DCS is a new start but in my view probably needs further changes in weighting. Defensive tendex had appeal and could have been a more valuable toool if the data for the whole league were available. While new metrics tacking on shot defense are possible with assumptions about how to score points from own man and rest of opponents it would be simpler and perhaps more solid if adjusted +/- became real-time and split for offense and defense. Then I'd give adjusted defensive +/- my vote for best defensive metric.

Popularizing metrics is tough but the times might be easier than in the past, especially if APBR attempted further leadership on popularizing a next wave. The thought of building on PER recognized PER's important place in the broader market. But maybe the next stage will come from new sources.

[basketballvalue]