Robert Williams has 6th highest PER in NBA

[Moranis]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

exactly, but when he is on the floor he is super efficient and performs very well.  Nothing at all misleading about it.

[Vermont Green]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

[Moranis]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams PER is so high because he does a lot of things really well.  He rebounds at a near elite level, same with blocking shots.  He generates steals fairly well and is a respectable passer.  On a per 36 basis (for comparison) he would average 15.6 p, 13.3 r, 3.4 b, 3.4 a, 1.6 s with just 1.9 t.  And he has even improved his fouls as he is down to 4.1 per 36.  That is pretty fantastic production across the board.  He obviously can't play anywhere near 36 minutes a night and misses a lot of games, but when he is actually on the floor he has been a fantastic player.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams PER is so high because he does a lot of things really well.  He rebounds at a near elite level, same with blocking shots.  He generates steals fairly well and is a respectable passer.  On a per 36 basis (for comparison) he would average 15.6 p, 13.3 r, 3.4 b, 3.4 a, 1.6 s with just 1.9 t.  And he has even improved his fouls as he is down to 4.1 per 36.  That is pretty fantastic production across the board.  He obviously can't play anywhere near 36 minutes a night and misses a lot of games, but when he is actually on the floor he has been a fantastic player.

I'm trying to figure out why its obvious that he can't play anywhere near 36 minutes. Is it because of his defense? His lack of scoring?

If he played starter minutes, do you think he would still have a high PER?

I think its reasonable to state that PER is a fun stat, but it isn't that useful when discussing guys on limited minutes.

[Moranis]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams PER is so high because he does a lot of things really well.  He rebounds at a near elite level, same with blocking shots.  He generates steals fairly well and is a respectable passer.  On a per 36 basis (for comparison) he would average 15.6 p, 13.3 r, 3.4 b, 3.4 a, 1.6 s with just 1.9 t.  And he has even improved his fouls as he is down to 4.1 per 36.  That is pretty fantastic production across the board.  He obviously can't play anywhere near 36 minutes a night and misses a lot of games, but when he is actually on the floor he has been a fantastic player.

I'm trying to figure out why its obvious that he can't play anywhere near 36 minutes. Is it because of his defense? His lack of scoring?

If he played starter minutes, do you think he would still have a high PER?

I think its reasonable to state that PER is a fun stat, but it isn't that useful when discussing guys on limited minutes.

He is fragile and his body can't do it.  That is why he never came close when he was starting and being force fed minutes.

[Kernewek]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

Your first sentence and your second sentence are not as in opposition as you think they are.

[Vermont Green]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams PER is so high because he does a lot of things really well.  He rebounds at a near elite level, same with blocking shots.  He generates steals fairly well and is a respectable passer.  On a per 36 basis (for comparison) he would average 15.6 p, 13.3 r, 3.4 b, 3.4 a, 1.6 s with just 1.9 t.  And he has even improved his fouls as he is down to 4.1 per 36.  That is pretty fantastic production across the board.  He obviously can't play anywhere near 36 minutes a night and misses a lot of games, but when he is actually on the floor he has been a fantastic player.

I'm trying to figure out why its obvious that he can't play anywhere near 36 minutes. Is it because of his defense? His lack of scoring?

If he played starter minutes, do you think he would still have a high PER?

I think its reasonable to state that PER is a fun stat, but it isn't that useful when discussing guys on limited minutes.

Durability is an issue but I don't think the main issue.  He had been playing around 24 min/gm in March and April.  Of course now he is injured but the main problem is that he is a very limited player.  On offense, he can pick and he can dunk.  That is fine but and he does it at high efficiency but that is not enough.  Because he does so few things well, the things he does do well, he has to do really well (72% shooting is really good).  That high efficiency is making up for everything else he doesn't do well.

On defense, he has a good feel for the game, can defend the rim, he hangs out there and gets a high percentage of rebounds, but man to man he gets bullied.  Again, a few things really well but overall limited.

I like Williams as part of our two-headed center (with Thompson).  But these are both very limited NBA players.  One happens to have numbers that distort the PER calculation but these are both nothing more than fringe starters.  (Funny, I am having Deja vu all over again like we are discussing Rondo circa 2013 or 2014).

[gouki88]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams shooting percentages are actually higher when he takes 8+ field goals in a game this season

[Moranis]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams PER is so high because he does a lot of things really well.  He rebounds at a near elite level, same with blocking shots.  He generates steals fairly well and is a respectable passer.  On a per 36 basis (for comparison) he would average 15.6 p, 13.3 r, 3.4 b, 3.4 a, 1.6 s with just 1.9 t.  And he has even improved his fouls as he is down to 4.1 per 36.  That is pretty fantastic production across the board.  He obviously can't play anywhere near 36 minutes a night and misses a lot of games, but when he is actually on the floor he has been a fantastic player.

I'm trying to figure out why its obvious that he can't play anywhere near 36 minutes. Is it because of his defense? His lack of scoring?

If he played starter minutes, do you think he would still have a high PER?

I think its reasonable to state that PER is a fun stat, but it isn't that useful when discussing guys on limited minutes.

Durability is an issue but I don't think the main issue.  He had been playing around 24 min/gm in March and April.  Of course now he is injured but the main problem is that he is a very limited player.  On offense, he can pick and he can dunk.  That is fine but and he does it at high efficiency but that is not enough.  Because he does so few things well, the things he does do well, he has to do really well (72% shooting is really good).  That high efficiency is making up for everything else he doesn't do well.

On defense, he has a good feel for the game, can defend the rim, he hangs out there and gets a high percentage of rebounds, but man to man he gets bullied.  Again, a few things really well but overall limited.

I like Williams as part of our two-headed center (with Thompson).  But these are both very limited NBA players.  One happens to have numbers that distort the PER calculation but these are both nothing more than fringe starters.  (Funny, I am having Deja vu all over again like we are discussing Rondo circa 2013 or 2014).

23% of his shots are from 3-10 feet and he hits those at 63.6%.  6% of his shots are from 10-16 feet and he hits those at 64.3%.  Now sure, 65.3% of his shots are inside of 3 feet and he hits those at an insane 80.1%, but as indicated above he has far more range than you give him credit for.  He doesn't shoot very much because he generally takes very good looks, which he hits at a very high rate. 

[Muzzy66]

  Not sure why posters are using the guy who is shooting 72% from the field and and squeezing tons of other types of production into 19 minutes a game as an example of PER being a flukey stat.  It's measuring exactly what it's supposed to measure.  Timelord isn't the 6th best player in the league, and PER doesn't claim that he is.

I think that is it in a nutshell.  Williams is shooting 72% and that is inflating his PER.  PER may not be "flukey" in general, but in this specific case it is.  Robert Williams will only continue to shoot 72% so long as he only takes 5 shots, all dunks or put-backs.  If he were to start to play like a regular NBA starter and take say 10 shots (not just dunks), he would probably only shoot 50% or whatever and have more turnovers so his PER would go down and be more representative of his actual on-court value.

If I was a GM and was trying to value Robert Williams for a possible trade, I would discount his PER.  Stats only have relevance in context and the context around Williams PER render the stat highly non-representative of his value as a player.  A smart GM would drill down and see that his PER is based on 72% Fg% and only dunks so how much value is a player that can only score on alley oop dunks?  In this case, the players apparent efficiency as calculated by PER does not correlate with his value.  In fact, once you reveal the context of the stat, it confirms the players actual limitations. So maybe in that respect, the stat has some value, but only after you look under the hood.

Williams PER is so high because he does a lot of things really well.  He rebounds at a near elite level, same with blocking shots.  He generates steals fairly well and is a respectable passer.  On a per 36 basis (for comparison) he would average 15.6 p, 13.3 r, 3.4 b, 3.4 a, 1.6 s with just 1.9 t.  And he has even improved his fouls as he is down to 4.1 per 36.  That is pretty fantastic production across the board.  He obviously can't play anywhere near 36 minutes a night and misses a lot of games, but when he is actually on the floor he has been a fantastic player.

I'm trying to figure out why its obvious that he can't play anywhere near 36 minutes. Is it because of his defense? His lack of scoring?

If he played starter minutes, do you think he would still have a high PER?

I think its reasonable to state that PER is a fun stat, but it isn't that useful when discussing guys on limited minutes.

Durability is an issue but I don't think the main issue.  He had been playing around 24 min/gm in March and April.  Of course now he is injured but the main problem is that he is a very limited player.  On offense, he can pick and he can dunk.  That is fine but and he does it at high efficiency but that is not enough.  Because he does so few things well, the things he does do well, he has to do really well (72% shooting is really good).  That high efficiency is making up for everything else he doesn't do well.

On defense, he has a good feel for the game, can defend the rim, he hangs out there and gets a high percentage of rebounds, but man to man he gets bullied.  Again, a few things really well but overall limited.

I like Williams as part of our two-headed center (with Thompson).  But these are both very limited NBA players.  One happens to have numbers that distort the PER calculation but these are both nothing more than fringe starters.  (Funny, I am having Deja vu all over again like we are discussing Rondo circa 2013 or 2014).

23% of his shots are from 3-10 feet and he hits those at 63.6%.  6% of his shots are from 10-16 feet and he hits those at 64.3%.  Now sure, 65.3% of his shots are inside of 3 feet and he hits those at an insane 80.1%, but as indicated above he has far more range than you give him credit for.  He doesn't shoot very much because he generally takes very good looks, which he hits at a very high rate.

These words bring a joyful tear to my eyes.

If only there were more players on this Celtics roster who had that same mentality...