Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 603 Location: Columbus, OH
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject:
mateo82 wrote:
Sorry, I have to complain about the move to "per 36".
As I wrote in my blog, I can’t win here.
Quote:
All it does is ensure that every pundit and fan alike is going to keep debating players based on per game statistics.
I don't understand how that would change if I started displaying per 48 minute statistics.
Quote:
Why not just go with per 48? Per 48 makes since. It's the length of a basketball game.
How many players actually play 48 minutes per game?
Look, you prefer per 48 to per 36, someone else prefers it the other way around, someone else wants per 40, etc. This is just a way to display the player’s per minute production, so any multiplier is in some sense arbitrary. We can expect a solid starter to play about 36 minutes per game. That seems to me to be a reasonable standard. It's not a reasonable standard to you. C'est la vie. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
Per 36 is fine, it actually lets you visualize what a player would be averaging in those minutes. No one could ever player 48 minutes,
"
It seems that there are two goals in expressing stats in a per-minute format: to put every player on a level field for comparisons, and to show the quality of a player's performance in and of itself. We can use anything for the first, but the second requires using a realistic standard.
Given that per-X-minute statistics are arbitrary, my take is the important thing is to have consistency of use. It seemed like we had pretty well settled on using 40 minutes within the community. Is anyone else using 36?
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 603 Location: Columbus, OH
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:
Kevin Pelton wrote:
Given that per-X-minute statistics are arbitrary, my take is the important thing is to have consistency of use. It seemed like we had pretty well settled on using 40 minutes within the community. Is anyone else using 36?
The consensus in this thread seemed to be that people preferred per 36 minute rates.
DLew wrote:
How easy would it be to add a menu where the user can select per 36, 40 or 48? That way people could go with whatever they like.
This is certainly do-able. It's just a question of whether or not I want to spend the time doing it. Changing from per-36 to per-whatever is a matter of changing one line of code. Giving people options is more complicated. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
Sorry, I have to complain about the move to "per 36".
As I wrote in my blog, I can’t win here.
I would put both per 40 and per 48.
jkubatko wrote:
Quote:
Why not just go with per 48? Per 48 makes since. It's the length of a basketball game.
How many players actually play 48 minutes per game?
Look, you prefer per 48 to per 36, someone else prefers it the other way around, someone else wants per 40, etc. This is just a way to display the player’s per minute production, so any multiplier is in some sense arbitrary. We can expect a solid starter to play about 36 minutes per game. That seems to me to be a reasonable standard. It's not a reasonable standard to you. C'est la vie.
Per 48 is not arbitrary. It is the length of a basketball game. It doesn't reflect what a player would ever perform in a game, and it's not supposed to. It's used because per-minute is practically unreadable. Per 40 or per 36 or any other number is arbitrary by the definition of the word arbitrary, no matter how good of a reason you think you have for using one. To me that's a deal-breaker, I'm not using arbitrary numbers in analytical analysis no matter how "reasonable" I or anyone else thinks it is.
Now, if people really insist on having an arbitrary per-X stat, fine, I can live with it though i'll never use it myself. I think giving per48 as well is a good compromise. But it's your site. It's just a shame that there aren't any good stat sites out there that give per48 stats.
If you really want to avoid arbitrariness, why not flip things up?
Instead of points per time period, use time period per point.
For example, Kevin Garnett:
19.8 pts/36 min -> 1 minute, 49 seconds per point
10.2 reb/36 min -> 3:32 per rebound
3.9 ast/36 min -> 9:13 per assist
etc.
All the information is preserved, and there's no arbitrariness. Of course, now lower numbers are good instead of bad (except for things like turnovers, where higher numbers are now good instead of bad).
Be sure to send me a royalties check once you make the switch. _________________ Eli W. (formerly John Quincy)
CountTheBasket.com
Not bad, but it's missing the "pop" factor. If I see a per 48 stat and it immediately pops out about how good it is, same for the per 40 stat (unfortunately, it's unavoidable). But I'd be scratching my head for the first couple of months figuring out whether a basket every 3:38 seconds was acceptable or not. And no one would have a clue what I was talking about.
Still, I really like it and, no joke, I might actually start doing this.
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 972 Location: Durham, NC
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject:
mateo82 wrote:
Not bad, but it's missing the "pop" factor. If I see a per 48 stat and it immediately pops out about how good it is, same for the per 40 stat (unfortunately, it's unavoidable). But I'd be scratching my head for the first couple of months figuring out whether a basket every 3:38 seconds was acceptable or not. And no one would have a clue what I was talking about.
Still, I really like it and, no joke, I might actually start doing this.
Your opinion of what "pops" and what doesn't seems like the very definition of arbitrary to me.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1794 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject:
I'm just guessing, but I get the feeling the majority of players can play up to 36 minutes in a game without showing fatigue, and only a minority can do so for 40. The difference is just 4 minutes, but that's 50% more rest.
By 'show fatigue', of course I'm referring to how well per-minute rates hold up. Players who regularly go 40+ mpg have the advantage of playing more minutes vs reserves. So their per-minute stats may also scale (down) to 36 reliably.
Most games go 48 minutes; some go 53, or 58, etc. The average is about 48.5 .
Most players who register 48 in a game do so in overtime games. Per-48 doesn't mean anything more than to indicate 20% of a team's player-minutes (regulation game). 36 minutes is 15% of total. It's also 3 quarters of play. _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 603 Location: Columbus, OH
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject:
mateo82 wrote:
I would put both per 40 and per 48.
And then what do I do when people say that they want per 36? Or per 32? Or per whatever?
Quote:
To me that's a deal-breaker, I'm not using arbitrary numbers in analytical analysis no matter how "reasonable" I or anyone else thinks it is.
This is the second time that you've written something like this and I still can't figure out what you mean. In general, any conclusions drawn from an analysis of per minute statistics can be extended to any multiplier. For example, if Player A scores more points per minute than Player B, then Player A scores more points per 36 minutes, more points per 40 minutes, more points per 48 minutes, etc.
Quote:
Now, if people really insist on having an arbitrary per-X stat, fine, I can live with it though i'll never use it myself.
Do you ever use Player Efficiency Rating (PER)? Based on what you wrote above you shouldn't, as an arbitrary multiplier (that is, 15) is used to scale PER. How about True Shooting Percentage (TS%)? TS% is arbitrarily divided by 2 (i.e., multiplied by 0.5) to make it look like a shooting percentage. If you are consistent with the statement above, then you should never use either of those stats. _________________ Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
And no one would have a clue what I was talking about.
