Although basketball has been around for nearly 125 years, this is a sport that is still growing in analytics. In recent years, more and more information is transmitted to players and coaches in the form of advanced statistics. One of my favorites is Player Performance Efficiency (PER) developed by John Hollinger a few years ago.
Overall, this rating is intended to puncture a number of a player's number. With a detailed formula Hollinger has developed a system that is proportional to the performance of each player.
Average National Basketball Association players rated 15.0. NBA superstars are often considered the top 20s. Dormitory and high school grades will be considerably lower than the NBA, but I'm in for a moment.
Hollinger's formula is complex, but I think this is a very accurate view of how a player performs on the floor. For that reason, in my days as a dummy assistant assistant coach, I wanted to find out if I could find a way to measure a player's performance a bit faster than the formula used by Hollinger.
Fortunately was able to find a much simpler method for evaluating players. While this method was easier to calculate, I found it very effective and accurate when determining the players' playing time and predicting who will end the year. My version of PER I used to determine which players were more effective in certain groups, against certain groups, and overall positive contributions to the team.
If you're a coach, you know that you get a box score in the quarter or half. This was the time I wrote the notes carefully to determine the player's PER.
Let me explain.
Instead of the Hollinger formula. I simplified when I looked at the player's positive contributions, such as points, rebounds, theft, help, blocking and amount. Each positive contribution is one point to qualify. So, if a player has 15 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 steals, and 1 block, a total of 27 [eddig.]
negative things happen in the game. So traffic (TOs), distant fields (FGs), 3-point (3pts) and missed free throws (FTs) are all counted as -1 . Errors do not count as a negative point because irregularities may be good or bad depending on the situation. So let's say the same player from the shot 3-10 on the FGs, 3-5 on the FTs, 2-4 on the 3 cards and 3 TO, which is a total of negative 14 (-7 a For FGs, -2 FTs, -2 for 3pts, -3 for TOs = 14).
Now, I remember the same player net 27 positive points. However, due to missed shots and traffic, we have to score 14 points, which means that the player must leave a corrected PER. Players who are ineffective will most certainly suffer from this rating.
The fast version of PER I was extremely useful because the math of each player could be done in the dressing room or on the bench. If you perform this rating consistently for at least one season, you can determine how much the average PER will be for the types of players. You can also determine who will have the prize at the end of the season. It is also possible to determine who deserves more playing time.
There I found this to be the most useful. If a player played only a few minutes per game, but with a high PER, they would suggest more time to the player.
You may think that PER is always visible. No, my friend. You will sometimes see that according to the PER, some players will help you more than you hurt or vice versa.
This fast PER was like an assistant coach to help me use as a coach when I became a coach. There were not a lot of advanced metrics I've been training for so far, but this PER allowed our team to win an Austrian championship.
Like any statistic, the game must also be considered. Not all things can be said, just as a box score does not always reflect the game exactly. But this rating can certainly be useful.
I hope it's useful to you as well. Good luck, coach!
Source by SBOBET