[tuck243Participant]

So, I did some digging and I wanted to remove the use of the 36 per min stat as a leading argument for/against a player.   The reason?  Only 7 players in the league currently play 36+ minutes.  It doesn’t take into account that most of the players in the league aren’t averaging 25 minutes per game (most players don’t average this for their careers).   Yet, we use a stat that is more of a guess players will average more points, rebounds, etc with additional minutes than actual facts.  There isn’t much data to back up the notion that players are able to reach anything near these stats with additional minutes, but I still see it used in arguments a lot.  

I’ve done some research and will have the actual facts later this week (need a bigger sampling size).  So far, there are few players whose stats go up dramatically when they receive additional minutes (Think Paul George).   Most are moderate to low increases..( right now….it’s enough players on the low side to back up my claim).

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

[Andrew1984Participant]

 I totally agree, and would add that an argument in the format of, "But if he played more…" is actually an argument against the player in question, because it is an admission that his own coach doesn’t find him useful enough to justify a higher minute count. 

[Andrew1984Participant]

 I totally agree, and would add that an argument in the format of, "But if he played more…" is actually an argument against the player in question, because it is an admission that his own coach doesn’t find him useful enough to justify a higher minute count. 

[TripleDoubleScoutParticipant]

 I think the per 36 stat is way more useful when assessing college prospects, whose minutes fluctuate for a variety of reasons. But yes, when it comes to NBA players, it doesn’t have much practical use.

[TripleDoubleScoutParticipant]

 I think the per 36 stat is way more useful when assessing college prospects, whose minutes fluctuate for a variety of reasons. But yes, when it comes to NBA players, it doesn’t have much practical use.

[GBeeParticipant]

 It’s just a reference point for rate of productivity.  Factor in pace adjusted stats and it’s just a means of normalization for comparison purposes.  If you just use rates like ORB% or AST%, people would be clueless as to what to compare the rates to.

They’re grain of salt stats and as with all stats there are qualitative factors you have to consider, like in this instance whether or not the player is good enough to deserve starter’s minutes.

 

[GBeeParticipant]

 It’s just a reference point for rate of productivity.  Factor in pace adjusted stats and it’s just a means of normalization for comparison purposes.  If you just use rates like ORB% or AST%, people would be clueless as to what to compare the rates to.

They’re grain of salt stats and as with all stats there are qualitative factors you have to consider, like in this instance whether or not the player is good enough to deserve starter’s minutes.

 

[treytalkssports.comParticipant]

I’m not sure if the OP understands the point of per 36 stats. That number is not used primarily because players play that amount, but because it approximates what was considered to be starters’ minutes (3/4 of a game). Other places use per 40 or per 48 stats. You could use per 24 stats if you would rather. 

The goal of the stat is to record efficiency by reducing variables like minutes per game and shots per game. These might mark whether a player could be more efficient in a larger role, or it may mark whether a player with bloated shot attempts and minutes are not as good as the regular stat lines indicate. 

Of course small samples sizes are a weakness for this, but that is an issue with all stats.

It’s an imperfect statistic. No intelligent basketball mind says that is an end all be all, as if Brandon Wright could be Anthony Davis if he could finally get minutes. But other statistics help us to understand that Wright’s efficiency and per 36 minute stats are the result of being a one-trick pony, and playing offenses where he gets to use that one trick in spurts, but that one trick would not provide a good "go-to" offense. 

But that doesn’t mean we should throw the bath water, baby, bathtub, and house out with it. Per 36 minute stats could give us tips that players like Paul Milsap, Reggie Jackson, Ryan Anderson, were Marcin Gortat were more than just backups and could function in starter roles. But the per 36 stat has to be weighed with other stats and the proverbial "eye test."

Don’t throw them out. Just weigh them appropriately. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[treytalkssports.comParticipant]

And the per 48 stat right now indicates players like TJ Warren, Jeffery Lauvergne, Donatas Motiejunas, Shabazz Mohammad, Nikola Jokic, Kent Bazemore, Archie Goodwin, Alex Len, and Festus Ezeli all could possibly be effective starters on good teams. 

[tuck243Participant]

it’s often used on this site not to "gauge" where certains players will be given starters minutes, but usually the end all be all.   It’s often used to replace ACTUAL production and give people legit arguments (when it’s inconclusive).   That’s why I said, we have to stop "leading" with this stat because it shouldn’t really be used in that way.  

We’re arguing the same points…  But I only disagree with the 36 minutes…  I rather see it more around the average of starters for more accuracy.    Something like 32 minutes if people are going to use it the way that bothers me. 

[treytalkssports.comParticipant]

 Understood

[treytalkssports.comParticipant]

 Understood

[tuck243Participant]

it’s often used on this site not to "gauge" where certains players will be given starters minutes, but usually the end all be all.   It’s often used to replace ACTUAL production and give people legit arguments (when it’s inconclusive).   That’s why I said, we have to stop "leading" with this stat because it shouldn’t really be used in that way.  

We’re arguing the same points…  But I only disagree with the 36 minutes…  I rather see it more around the average of starters for more accuracy.    Something like 32 minutes if people are going to use it the way that bothers me. 

[treytalkssports.comParticipant]

And the per 48 stat right now indicates players like TJ Warren, Jeffery Lauvergne, Donatas Motiejunas, Shabazz Mohammad, Nikola Jokic, Kent Bazemore, Archie Goodwin, Alex Len, and Festus Ezeli all could possibly be effective starters on good teams. 

[treytalkssports.comParticipant]

I’m not sure if the OP understands the point of per 36 stats. That number is not used primarily because players play that amount, but because it approximates what was considered to be starters’ minutes (3/4 of a game). Other places use per 40 or per 48 stats. You could use per 24 stats if you would rather. 

The goal of the stat is to record efficiency by reducing variables like minutes per game and shots per game. These might mark whether a player could be more efficient in a larger role, or it may mark whether a player with bloated shot attempts and minutes are not as good as the regular stat lines indicate. 

Of course small samples sizes are a weakness for this, but that is an issue with all stats.

It’s an imperfect statistic. No intelligent basketball mind says that is an end all be all, as if Brandon Wright could be Anthony Davis if he could finally get minutes. But other statistics help us to understand that Wright’s efficiency and per 36 minute stats are the result of being a one-trick pony, and playing offenses where he gets to use that one trick in spurts, but that one trick would not provide a good "go-to" offense. 

But that doesn’t mean we should throw the bath water, baby, bathtub, and house out with it. Per 36 minute stats could give us tips that players like Paul Milsap, Reggie Jackson, Ryan Anderson, were Marcin Gortat were more than just backups and could function in starter roles. But the per 36 stat has to be weighed with other stats and the proverbial "eye test."

Don’t throw them out. Just weigh them appropriately. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 You might need to use it to only look at certain players.  So, look at guys playing AT LEAST 30 or 32 minutes a night (starters).  That helps you compare starters to starters.  So teams play their top guys a lot.  Other teams like the Spurs (and the Warriors on many nights) don’t play their main guys as much.  So, PER 36 MINUTES might be a good ways to compare guys.  

Hmm.  Maybe for guys who play between 15 and 30 minutes you can use a PER 24 MINUTE AVERAGE.

The PER 36 would compare YOUR TOP GUYS, basically starters and your core guys.

PER 24 would help measure your rotation guys and maybe some of the younger guys who aren’t getting consistent minutes.

Yeah, probably harder to judge guys only playing 8 or 9 minutes a game.

 

 

 

 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 You might need to use it to only look at certain players.  So, look at guys playing AT LEAST 30 or 32 minutes a night (starters).  That helps you compare starters to starters.  So teams play their top guys a lot.  Other teams like the Spurs (and the Warriors on many nights) don’t play their main guys as much.  So, PER 36 MINUTES might be a good ways to compare guys.  

Hmm.  Maybe for guys who play between 15 and 30 minutes you can use a PER 24 MINUTE AVERAGE.

The PER 36 would compare YOUR TOP GUYS, basically starters and your core guys.

PER 24 would help measure your rotation guys and maybe some of the younger guys who aren’t getting consistent minutes.

Yeah, probably harder to judge guys only playing 8 or 9 minutes a game.

 

 

 

 

[properbreaksParticipant]

I wanted to give you five points for that. I understand using the per sometimes, but most of the time; no. I could calculate in my head when I was in the 5th grade how much a person who plays 18 minutes would average, if they played 36. The difference is the more he plays the more tired he’s going to be and the more the defense is going to strategize to stop him as he scores more points per game. It can work sometimes, but for most players it doesn’t mean much because variables change.

[properbreaksParticipant]

I wanted to give you five points for that. I understand using the per sometimes, but most of the time; no. I could calculate in my head when I was in the 5th grade how much a person who plays 18 minutes would average, if they played 36. The difference is the more he plays the more tired he’s going to be and the more the defense is going to strategize to stop him as he scores more points per game. It can work sometimes, but for most players it doesn’t mean much because variables change.

[holefillers1Participant]

 It also gets Mareese Speights drafted in the first round

[GBeeParticipant]

 You must think that NBA scouts are incredibly lazy and that the job is easy.

[GBeeParticipant]

 You must think that NBA scouts are incredibly lazy and that the job is easy.

[holefillers1Participant]

 It also gets Mareese Speights drafted in the first round

[holefillers1Participant]

No, I am speaking to reason why these stats should be taking into consideration, but should not be the sole purpose of defining a players ability…Speights played like 25 a game at Florida and during my draft prep that year i remember reading a per36 article claiming him the most underrated.  Also I wish there was a sarcasm button on this site to eliminate trolling.

[holefillers1Participant]

No, I am speaking to reason why these stats should be taking into consideration, but should not be the sole purpose of defining a players ability…Speights played like 25 a game at Florida and during my draft prep that year i remember reading a per36 article claiming him the most underrated.  Also I wish there was a sarcasm button on this site to eliminate trolling.

[GBeeParticipant]

 OK so forget the fact that he was 6’10 with long arms, strong frame, a good athlete with good hands, a money jump hook and a pretty jumper for a big. Forget all that, his status as a prospect all boiled down to his per 36 stats.

I’m not trolling you. Just responding to a lazy comment.

 

[GBeeParticipant]

 OK so forget the fact that he was 6’10 with long arms, strong frame, a good athlete with good hands, a money jump hook and a pretty jumper for a big. Forget all that, his status as a prospect all boiled down to his per 36 stats.

I’m not trolling you. Just responding to a lazy comment.

 

[holefillers1Participant]

Never said the only stat..you just did though. He only palyed 25 min per at Florida. And these stats were the main tool to justify taking him over guys like Ibaka and Jordan. Bottom line is he played minimal minutes because he has an extremely low BBIQ. I saw him play a lot in Philadelphia and I feel this is a prime example of why we should take these stats with a”grain of salt”…still lazy?

[holefillers1Participant]

Never said the only stat..you just did though. He only palyed 25 min per at Florida. And these stats were the main tool to justify taking him over guys like Ibaka and Jordan. Bottom line is he played minimal minutes because he has an extremely low BBIQ. I saw him play a lot in Philadelphia and I feel this is a prime example of why we should take these stats with a”grain of salt”…still lazy?

[GBeeParticipant]

 "These stats were the main tool to justify taking him… "

What the hell does this mean? Are you talking about hindight re-ordering of a draft after their careers unfolded? Please.

If you believe that his per 36 stats were the main reason why he was taken where he was, then scouting NBA talent is simple and anyone can do it.  I’d be leaning more towards scouts evaluating/grading his attributes and projecting him out leading to where he was taken.

Ibaka was an unknown both in terms of what he was capable of doing as well as his timetable.  Jordan was horrible in college and displayed an even lower BBall IQ than Speights.

And yes, your initial comment was very lazy.

 

[GBeeParticipant]

 "These stats were the main tool to justify taking him… "

What the hell does this mean? Are you talking about hindight re-ordering of a draft after their careers unfolded? Please.

If you believe that his per 36 stats were the main reason why he was taken where he was, then scouting NBA talent is simple and anyone can do it.  I’d be leaning more towards scouts evaluating/grading his attributes and projecting him out leading to where he was taken.

Ibaka was an unknown both in terms of what he was capable of doing as well as his timetable.  Jordan was horrible in college and displayed an even lower BBall IQ than Speights.

And yes, your initial comment was very lazy.

 

[holefillers1Participant]

 I made a tongue and cheek comment about Mareese Speights and you attack me with assumption after assumption.  I dont need any stats spot talent. Go away troll.

[holefillers1Participant]

 I made a tongue and cheek comment about Mareese Speights and you attack me with assumption after assumption.  I dont need any stats spot talent. Go away troll.

[DolanCareParticipant]

 I completely agree with the OP. The stat is useful to explain to quickly how effective a player is during their time on the court. A stat line of 8 points, 3 rebounds and 2 assists is hardly noteworthy, especially to someone who doesn’t watch much basketball. But in a 14 minute timeframe it’s an incredibly productive performace…. the ‘per 36 min’ stat succiently summarizes that point. 

That said, I truly doubt anyone in NBA management uses the stat to gauge a player’s talent. It’s something used in sport columns to explain bench player’s contribution in a way that a casual basketball fan, or hurried reader, can understand quickly. 

The same conversation could be applied to the PER statistic. It’s a convenient stat that exposes players, who may be talented individually, but inefficent in the flow of orgainzed ball. (READ: Rudy Gay).

 

 

[DolanCareParticipant]

 I completely agree with the OP. The stat is useful to explain to quickly how effective a player is during their time on the court. A stat line of 8 points, 3 rebounds and 2 assists is hardly noteworthy, especially to someone who doesn’t watch much basketball. But in a 14 minute timeframe it’s an incredibly productive performace…. the ‘per 36 min’ stat succiently summarizes that point. 

That said, I truly doubt anyone in NBA management uses the stat to gauge a player’s talent. It’s something used in sport columns to explain bench player’s contribution in a way that a casual basketball fan, or hurried reader, can understand quickly. 

The same conversation could be applied to the PER statistic. It’s a convenient stat that exposes players, who may be talented individually, but inefficent in the flow of orgainzed ball. (READ: Rudy Gay).

 

 

[MatosParticipant]

 Didnt I say this in multiple previous threads and get bashed?

[MatosParticipant]

 Didnt I say this in multiple previous threads and get bashed?

[Author]

Posts