Today I want to take a quick glance at player impact based on player efficiency.

Now, there are multiple ways to look at these stats and they don’t truly tell the full story of a players contribution to the team, but at the moment, these are some of the better stats out there without going into some crazy statistical deep-dive (which I’m not even smart enough to do. Just ask my college statistics professor).  What we have now is the GmSc and Hollinger’s PER.

PER:

The PER score created by John Hollinger is his attempt to create a formula to breakdown a player’s contribution to his/her team into one single number.  Here is how the creator of PER, John Hollinger explains it (ESPN):

The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player’s per-minute productivity.

To generate PER, I created formulas — outlined in tortuous detail in my book “Pro Basketball Forecast” — that return a value for each of a player’s accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.

Two important things to remember about PER are that it’s per-minute and is pace-adjusted.

Because it’s a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Steve Blake and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.

I also adjust each player’s rating for his team’s pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren’t penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.

Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player’s accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists — such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins — who don’t get many blocks or steals.

What PER can do, however, is summarize a player’s statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats.

NC State PER (15.00 is considered league average):

1. DJ Funderburk: 23.61
2. Manny Bates: 23.42
3. Jericole Hellems:  18.7
4. Shakeel Moore: 17.2
5. Cam Hayes: 14.7
6. Braxton Beverly: 13.68
7. Dereon Seabron: 13.65
8. Thomas Allen: 11.85

*Players on pace to play 500+ minutes calculated

GmSc (GameScore):

This stat is essentially a simpler version of Hollinger’s PER without the adjusted team pace and other factors include in the PER.  So it is essentially just a combination of adding and subtracting different parts of a player’s boxscore to get their GmSc.

Game Score Formula=(Points)+0.4*(Field Goals Made)+0.7*(Offensive Rebounds)+0.3*(Defensive rebounds)+(Steals)+0.7*(Assists)+0.7*(Blocked Shots)- 0.7*(Field Goal Attempts)-0.4*(Free Throws Missed) – 0.4*(Personal Fouls)-(Turnovers)

NC State GmSC:

1. DJ Funderburk: 9.565
2. Manny Bates: 9.515
3. Jericole Hellems: 8.895
4. Braxton Beverly: 5.435
5. Cam Hayes: 5.377
6. Thomas Allen: 5.171
7. Shakeel Moore: 5.081
8. Dereon Seabron: 3.270

Again, these are just stats to give us an idea of a player’s efficiency and do not take into account any intangibles. This also leaves a lot to be desired for understanding value on the defensive end.  That said, these are still worth taking a look at. Their actual meaning? Well, that’s subjective, so we’ll let you decide.

Here’s my take:

Me? I’m an old school intangibles guy.  I think a lot of the impact being made by players often doesn’t show on the box score or even in deep stats like these.

Look at Hellems on the PER.  Hellems is a hype guy. He’s a ‘feed off the momentum’ guy. So when you look at the PER, it’s not taking into account his ability to get a bucket when the Pack desperately needs a bucket. And it’s not factoring in that Hellems is often matches up on one of the opponent’s best front court players, using up a lot of his energy on that end of the floor.

And what about Beverly? Keatts isn’t playing him because he’s tall or quick. Heck, he’s not really even playing him to be a playmaker or volume scorer. He’s playing him because he’s a veteran and he’ll make the right play when the pressure is on. Case in point, the Pitt game. When his freshmen failed him, Beverly stepped up for Keatts. His energy and leadership helped win that game. But look at the box score, it’s certainly not indicative of his true value.

However, with the exception of Hellems and Beverly, I do have to admit, I think the PER tells an accurate story. It isn’t far off from what I might have thought before diving into these stats and using just the ole “eye test”.

So, do these stats really say anything?  Is one better than the other? Are they a good indicator of the Pack top players?

You tell us.