The most misused stat of today: Per 36 numbers

[celticsclay]

A little information about per 36 numbers because I regularly see them misused in modern times and they really are a relatively obsolete stat.

 The reason 36 numbers were traditionally used is because some players 15 years ago were actually averaging 42 minutes a game. In fact in 1999-2000 season over 50 players averaged roughly 35 minutes. The idea of occasionally looking at per 36 numbers was because some teams played their stars and starters very different minutes and it was a way of normalizing those numbers for comparison on all-star games, postseason awards etc.

As an illustration Michael Finley and Paul Pierce were both young players in the 1999-2000 season (note there are a lot better examples than this, but i don't want to spend lots of time finding the ideal one)

Finley played 42.2 minutes that season as a young star and averaged 22.6 points as a 27 year old player. Using per 36 for him his scoring average goes down 3 points per 36

Pierce on the other hand as a rising star averaged 19.5 points in 35.4 minutes. Per 36 actually adjusted his numbers up a tiny bit.

So in this case, we can argue how much it adds if we want, the comparison was a way of just lining up their averages.

Fast forward 15 seasons and nobody is playing 36 minutes basically. Despite their now being 36 more active players because of expansion there were now only 7 players last year that averaged 36 (remember this was 50 before)

So as a starting point we are now trying to stretch out peoples averages to something that nobody really does. It is kind of like saying "what would Brady's yards per game be if every game he played in went to overtime."

On top of that, the stat is routinely abused for big men and part time bench players. Demarcus Cousins led the league in minutes for a center last year and only played 34.6. Less than a third of the NBA centers even averaged 30 minutes a game. So with that in mind, doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous when we start listing out Per 36 numbers for players like Bismack Byombo, Jonas Valuncias, Okafor etc that could never play 36 numbers per game?

I am curious what other people think and why this relic of a stat lives on in this board and occasionally other places...

Edit: I was doing this too fast and realize it is actually 38 players that averaged 36 minutes in 99-2000 and 11 for this year despite it being a bigger league now, but my point remains that that is a crazy difference at the top.

[celticsclay]

Edit: I'll add one comment to this too. I think this could still have value in a situation where Steve Kerr decided his guys got really wiped out last year and was going to cap everyone on his team at 29 minutes this year (despite curry, durant, green and thompson having shown they could play this without a dip in performance). Whereas the Timberwolves suffered a number of injuries and were super young and they ended up playing all their starters 34-35 minutes. In that case unifying their averages would make some sense whether it be per 32, per 36 etc.

However, in reality this is not how per 36 is used in discussions or on these forums. It gets used, way more often than not, for a player like Sully, Valuncias or Byombio that plays is not capable of playing 36 minutes over the course of a season (and may even struggle doing it in back to back games). You could say "Sully gets 8 rebounds in 18 minutes! He would lead the league if the coach would play him 36!" in reality, Sully wouldn't be able to jump or box out for the last 10 minutes of that so rebounds per minute would really go down.

[D Dub]

You just started this thread to talk more about Philly didntcha .   

[Moranis]

per minute stats are a way to normalize players for equal comparisons, but they only work when comparing players playing a similar position and role.  It makes no sense to use per-36 to compare Cousins to Zeller, but makes perfectly fine sense to use per-36 to compare Cousins to Jordan as those two are in similar roles. 

As with all numbers it is in how you use them that is important.

[celticsclay]

per minute stats are a way to normalize players for equal comparisons, but they only work when comparing players playing a similar position and role.  It makes no sense to use per-36 to compare Cousins to Zeller, but makes perfectly fine sense to use per-36 to compare Cousins to Jordan as those two are in similar roles. 

As with all numbers it is in how you use them that is important.

I generally agree with this, but you have to look really closely at why Cousins and Jordan are playing the minutes they are. If Jordan plays less because Rivers has a different coaching philosophy than Joerger or because he has more trust in his backup, then yea sure. However, if Jordan is playing 4 less minutes cause he is always in foul trouble it is once again a bad stat.

I think you would be hard pressed to honestly disagree with me that when 36 minutes per game in blogs and forums this (how you are saying) is how they are most frequently used.

[PhoSita]

You make good points.

I think for today it probably makes more sense to use a lower per-minute measurement, since the average minutes played for a starter is significantly lower than it once was.

Should probably be something along the lines of per-30 or per-32.  You're right that very few players actually average 36 minutes a game, so it's kind of a weird hypothetical to use as a measuring standard ("If this guy played 36 minutes a game he'd average ___").

I think per-minute stats are useful for assessing the rate at which players affect the box score.  Of course, we could also use things like TRB%, AST%, USG, and so on.  But putting it in terms of a box score is probably a more affecting illustration for most people.

As Moranis said, as with all stats context is required in order for it to be useful at all.


The other way we could go is just normalize the use of Per-48.  It's very rare that a player actually plays 48 minutes in a game, and then only when there is at least one overtime period.  Still, that could be one way to unmoor the numbers we're talking about from the misleading perception that the per-minute average is something that a player could actually plausibly achieve.

[celticsclay]

You just started this thread to talk more about Philly didntcha .

Aside from Philly having one player on a minute restriction (embiid) I don't really see how this even tangentially relates to them.

[wayupnorth]

TP to you.

[LarBrd33]

Doesn't have much value if you're looking at players who average like less than 15 minutes off the bench.  Like, we can't look at Jordan Mickey's stats in garbage time and realistically say that he'd flourish with 36 minutes in the starting lineup.

Where it's helpful is for looking at guys who put up minutes in the 25-46 minute range, imo.   People lost their mind over how great Rondo's stats were during the 2012 playoffs... 17.3 points, 11.9 assists, 6.7 rebounds and 2.4 steals.... but a key reason those stats were high is because he was playing an obscene 42.6 minutes per game.   Adjust it to the 36 minute average and his stats were pretty well in line with his other per 36 minute stats:  14.6 points, 10.1 assists, 5.7 rebounds and 2 steals.   In his final season in Boston he averaged 31.8 minutes... adjust it to 36 and he arguably had the best stats of his career:  9.4 points, 12.2 assists, 8.5 rebounds, 2 steals.   Rondo's career per-36 of 12 points, 9.5 assists, 5.3 rebounds and 2 steals are not dramatically different than the per-36 stats he put up during that playoff run everyone overreacted to.

The fact is, there are a great many players who will consistently put up per minute numbers.  You give them 25 minutes, they'll produce at a consistent pace.  You give them 40 minutes, they'll produce at a consistent pace.   Just because on one team he's getting 40 while on another team he might get 25 does not mean he was "better" one year and worse the other.  Isaiah Thomas is an excellent example of this.  He had his minutes dive to 25 on the Suns and his numbers were career low.   BUt his per-36 numbers that season were well in line with his numbers any other year:  21.4 points, 5.2 assists, 1.4 steals... his career per-36 was 21 points, 6 assists and 1.2 steals.   Same player less minutes.

Likewise, it's valuable for looking at a guy like Jimmy Butler who put up big stats while averaging 39 minutes... in comparison to a guy like Jae Crowder or Avery Bradley (averaging low 30 minutes).   I've been arguing for a while that with enough minutes and a big enough role, guys like Crowder and Bradley could probably put up 80% of what Jimmy Butler puts up.

During Butler's break-out season he avearged 18.6 points, 5.4 rebounds, 3 assists and 1.6 steals per-36.

Jae last year put up per-36 of 16.2 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2 assists and 2 steals with 44%/34%/82% shooting.

Avery last year put up per-36 of 16.4 points, 3.1 rebounds, 2.2 assists and 1.7 steals with 45%/36%/78% shooting.

I think that's valuable and important.  Clearly neither Jae or Avery has been given the same 1st option role that Butler has received.  But to me, it spoke to an idea that if you give those guys enough minutes, they could potentially put up near all-star numbers.   So far through 3 games, both of those guys are putting up all-star numbers... but Bradley in particular (who is averaging 36.7mpg) is currently Top 15 in the league.  Still early, but it doesn't surprise me.   

Role matters as well... that's why I tend to favor players with high shooting percentages.  Even when Steph Curry was a young player, he was getting plenty of minutes.  But his shooting percentages were astronomical.  I brought up multiple times that I would have loved to see what Steph could do with a more pronounced role in the offense.  Here was a kid shooting 49%/46%/90% and yet he was only getting 11-14 shots per night.   This was because Monta Ellis was the ball-dominating force on that team  You had Ellis taking 22 shots per night while putting up significantly lower shooting percentage.   I had to wonder what Curry would do with those kind of shot attempts.  Last couple years, we've seen it.  Curry had his shot attempts raise to 18-20 and his field goal percentages stayed consistent. 

These are things to consider when looking at a player like Avery Bradley.  He and Olynyk have been our most consistent shooters over the past 3 seasons.   What might happen to Avery Bradley if a team (and it might not ever happen on the Celtics) gives him consistent 36+ minutes and makes him a focal-point of the offense.   Was the last game a glimpse at that?  I think it probably was.   Though, that's not to say that he ever actually will get 36+ minutes and a consistently focalpoint role in an offense.


Per-36 is a valuable stat in context.   I get why you created this thread... it's a reaction to me tongue-in-cheek pointing out that Embiid's per-36 stats are incredible.   But for what Per-36 is typically used for, it has value for sure.

[max215]

It's just a way to normalize stats. Use whatever number you want. 36 and 48 are the only ones people use, but we could use per-10 or per-5 numbers and it wouldn't make a difference.

[celticsclay]

You make good points.

I think for today it probably makes more sense to use a lower per-minute measurement, since the average minutes played for a starter is significantly lower than it once was.

Should probably be something along the lines of per-30 or per-32.  You're right that very few players actually average 36 minutes a game, so it's kind of a weird hypothetical to use as a measuring standard ("If this guy played 36 minutes a game he'd average ___").

I think per-minute stats are useful for assessing the rate at which players affect the box score.  Of course, we could also use things like TRB%, AST%, USG, and so on.  But putting it in terms of a box score is probably a more affecting illustration for most people.

As Moranis said, as with all stats context is required in order for it to be useful at all.


The other way we could go is just normalize the use of Per-48.  It's very rare that a player actually plays 48 minutes in a game, and then only when there is at least one overtime period.  Still, that could be one way to unmoor the numbers we're talking about from the misleading perception that the per-minute average is something that a player could actually plausibly achieve.

Phosita. TP I agree with basically all of that. Perhaps the biggest secondary problem is that general fans may not even be realizing that just about nobody averages 36 minutes a game and it is really an archaic measurement from a time period when every star guard or small forward (and many power forwards) averaged 36 or more every game.

Finally it is a good point that we have had so many statistical advancements that tell us more, there is even less need for a raw archaic counting stat.

[bdm860]

Now I can't tell you why or when Per-36 became popular, or why people use it now, but I can just tell you why I use it.

To me, 36 minutes is a normalish amount of time to expect a lot of starters to play in an important game.  Those season averages include blowouts, back-to-backs, minutes restrictions, lineup experiments, resting for the playoffs, etc.

So only 7 players averaged 36+ minutes last year in the regular season, but then look at the playoffs when the games become a lot more important and we see 21 players (on 11 of the 16 playoff teams) averaged 36+ minutes.   In Game 7 of the Finals, 7 players played 36+ minutes.  In Game 7 of the WCF, 8 players played 36+. This is why I think it's a good number.  If I have an 8-9 man rotation in a close, important game, how many minutes might a starter play?  So let's use this number as a way to normalize stats across the board.

[celticsclay]

Doesn't have much value if you're looking at players who average like less than 15 minutes off the bench.  Like, we can't look at Jordan Mickey's stats in garbage time and realistically say that he'd flourish with 36 minutes in the starting lineup.

Where it's helpful is for looking at guys who put up minutes in the 25-46 minute range, imo.   People lost their mind over how great Rondo's stats were during the 2012 playoffs... 17.3 points, 11.9 assists, 6.7 rebounds and 2.4 steals.... but a key reason those stats were high is because he was playing an obscene 42.6 minutes per game.   Adjust it to the 36 minute average and his stats were pretty well in line with his other per 36 minute stats:  14.6 points, 10.1 assists, 5.7 rebounds and 2 steals.   In his final season in Boston he averaged 31.8 minutes... adjust it to 36 and he arguably had the best stats of his career:  9.4 points, 12.2 assists, 8.5 rebounds, 2 steals.   Rondo's career per-36 of 12 points, 9.5 assists, 5.3 rebounds and 2 steals are not dramatically different than the per-36 stats he put up during that playoff run everyone overreacted to.

Likewise, it's valuable for looking at a guy like Jimmy Butler who put up big stats while averaging 39 minutes... in comparison to a guy like Jae Crowder or Avery Bradley (averaging low 30 minutes).   I've been arguing for a while that with enough minutes and a big enough role, guys like Crowder and Bradley could probably put up 80% of what Jimmy Butler puts up.

During Butler's break-out season he avearged 18.6 points, 5.4 rebounds, 3 assists and 1.6 steals per-36.

Jae last year put up per-36 of 16.2 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2 assists and 2 steals with 44%/34%/82% shooting.

Avery last year put up per-36 of 16.4 points, 3.1 rebounds, 2.2 assists and 1.7 steals with 45%/36%/78% shooting.

I think that's valuable and important.  Clearly neither Jae or Avery has been given the same 1st option role that Butler has received.  But to me, it spoke to an idea that if you give those guys enough minutes, they could potentially put up near all-star numbers.   So far through 3 games, both of those guys are putting up all-star numbers... but Bradley in particular (who is averaging 36.7mpg) is currently Top 15 in the league.  Still early, but it doesn't surprise me.   

Role matters as well... that's why I tend to favor players with high shooting percentages.  Even when Steph Curry was a young player, he was getting plenty of minutes.  But his shooting percentages were astronomical.  I brought up multiple times that I would have loved to see what Steph could do with a more pronounced role in the offense.  Here was a kid shooting 49%/46%/90% and yet he was only getting 11-14 shots per night.   This was because Monta Ellis was the ball-dominating force on that team  You had Ellis taking 22 shots per night while putting up significantly lower shooting percentage.   I had to wonder what Curry would do with those kind of shot attempts.  Last couple years, we've seen it.  Curry had his shot attempts raise to 18-20 and his field goal percentages stayed consistent. 

These are things to consider when looking at a player like Avery Bradley.  He and Olynyk have been our most consistent shooters over the past 3 seasons.   What might happen to Avery Bradley if a team (and it might not ever happen on the Celtics) gives him consistent 36+ minutes and makes him a focal-point of the offense.   Was the last game a glimpse at that?  I think it probably was.   Though, that's not to say that he ever actually will get 36+ minutes and a consistently focalpoint role in an offense.


Per-36 is a valuable stat in context.   I get why you created this thread... it's a reaction to me tongue-in-cheek pointing out that Embiid's per-36 stats are incredible.   But for what Per-36 is typically used for, it has value for sure.

Honestly LB don't flatter yourself that much. I like Embiid a lot and his numbers are fine without the per 36. However, the per 36 debate and its value is a lot bigger than one player. For years we have seen crazy per 36 numbers from everyone from Sully, Bismack, Brandon Wright, Zeller etc. What actually got me thinking about it was looking at the crazy averages for players through 3 games (I made a thread with some of the fun ones) and then starting to think about how crazy people's numbers get off minute size.

While I know players play less now than I used to, even I was surprised less than 10 players in the entire league and not a single frontcourt player played 36 minutes per game last year.

[celticsclay]

Another example: I like KO a lot but he has never played more 22 minutes per game despite playing on teams with really limited frontcourt depth. I don't know if it is stamina, strength or just not being good enough to get that many minutes, but KO is unlikely to ever be on the floor for 30 minutes a game. If he was, his numbers would definitely be worse per minute. So giving out per 36 for him isn't a "real" stat.

[LarBrd33]

Doesn't have much value if you're looking at players who average like less than 15 minutes off the bench.  Like, we can't look at Jordan Mickey's stats in garbage time and realistically say that he'd flourish with 36 minutes in the starting lineup.

Where it's helpful is for looking at guys who put up minutes in the 25-46 minute range, imo.   People lost their mind over how great Rondo's stats were during the 2012 playoffs... 17.3 points, 11.9 assists, 6.7 rebounds and 2.4 steals.... but a key reason those stats were high is because he was playing an obscene 42.6 minutes per game.   Adjust it to the 36 minute average and his stats were pretty well in line with his other per 36 minute stats:  14.6 points, 10.1 assists, 5.7 rebounds and 2 steals.   In his final season in Boston he averaged 31.8 minutes... adjust it to 36 and he arguably had the best stats of his career:  9.4 points, 12.2 assists, 8.5 rebounds, 2 steals.   Rondo's career per-36 of 12 points, 9.5 assists, 5.3 rebounds and 2 steals are not dramatically different than the per-36 stats he put up during that playoff run everyone overreacted to.

The fact is, there are a great many players who will consistently put up per minute numbers.  You give them 25 minutes, they'll produce at a consistent pace.  You give them 40 minutes, they'll produce at a consistent pace.   Just because on one team he's getting 40 while on another team he might get 25 does not mean he was "better" one year and worse the other.  Isaiah Thomas is an excellent example of this.  He had his minutes dive to 25 on the Suns and his numbers were career low.   BUt his per-36 numbers that season were well in line with his numbers any other year:  21.4 points, 5.2 assists, 1.4 steals... his career per-36 was 21 points, 6 assists and 1.2 steals.   Same player less minutes.

Likewise, it's valuable for looking at a guy like Jimmy Butler who put up big stats while averaging 39 minutes... in comparison to a guy like Jae Crowder or Avery Bradley (averaging low 30 minutes).   I've been arguing for a while that with enough minutes and a big enough role, guys like Crowder and Bradley could probably put up 80% of what Jimmy Butler puts up.

During Butler's break-out season he avearged 18.6 points, 5.4 rebounds, 3 assists and 1.6 steals per-36.

Jae last year put up per-36 of 16.2 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2 assists and 2 steals with 44%/34%/82% shooting.

Avery last year put up per-36 of 16.4 points, 3.1 rebounds, 2.2 assists and 1.7 steals with 45%/36%/78% shooting.

I think that's valuable and important.  Clearly neither Jae or Avery has been given the same 1st option role that Butler has received.  But to me, it spoke to an idea that if you give those guys enough minutes, they could potentially put up near all-star numbers.   So far through 3 games, both of those guys are putting up all-star numbers... but Bradley in particular (who is averaging 36.7mpg) is currently Top 15 in the league.  Still early, but it doesn't surprise me.   

Role matters as well... that's why I tend to favor players with high shooting percentages.  Even when Steph Curry was a young player, he was getting plenty of minutes.  But his shooting percentages were astronomical.  I brought up multiple times that I would have loved to see what Steph could do with a more pronounced role in the offense.  Here was a kid shooting 49%/46%/90% and yet he was only getting 11-14 shots per night.   This was because Monta Ellis was the ball-dominating force on that team  You had Ellis taking 22 shots per night while putting up significantly lower shooting percentage.   I had to wonder what Curry would do with those kind of shot attempts.  Last couple years, we've seen it.  Curry had his shot attempts raise to 18-20 and his field goal percentages stayed consistent. 

These are things to consider when looking at a player like Avery Bradley.  He and Olynyk have been our most consistent shooters over the past 3 seasons.   What might happen to Avery Bradley if a team (and it might not ever happen on the Celtics) gives him consistent 36+ minutes and makes him a focal-point of the offense.   Was the last game a glimpse at that?  I think it probably was.   Though, that's not to say that he ever actually will get 36+ minutes and a consistently focalpoint role in an offense.


Per-36 is a valuable stat in context.   I get why you created this thread... it's a reaction to me tongue-in-cheek pointing out that Embiid's per-36 stats are incredible.   But for what Per-36 is typically used for, it has value for sure.

Honestly LB don't flatter yourself that much.

Tim Duncan is another phenomenal example.   In Duncan's prime he was averaging 39-40 minutes per game.   Over his last 6 years, he was down to 28 minutes per game.   His stats were significantly lower.  From averaging 25/12/3 to averaging 15/9/2.    But look at the guy's Per-36 numbers it's EERIE how consistent he was regardless of whether he was getting 40 or 28 minutes per game.  Just look at it... it's all the proof you need that Per-36 has value.   Same player... just less minutes:

Code: [Select]

                               
Season     FG%  TRB AST BLK  PTS
1997-98   .549 11.0 2.5 2.3 19.4
1998-99   .495 10.5 2.2 2.3 19.9
1999-00   .490 11.5 2.9 2.1 21.5
2000-01   .499 11.3 2.8 2.2 20.6
2001-02   .508 11.3 3.3 2.2 22.6
2002-03   .513 11.8 3.6 2.7 21.3
2003-04   .501 12.2 3.0 2.6 21.9
2004-05   .496 12.0 2.9 2.8 21.9
2005-06   .484 11.4 3.3 2.1 19.2
2006-07   .546 11.2 3.6 2.5 21.1
2007-08   .497 12.0 3.0 2.1 20.5
2008-09   .504 11.4 3.8 1.8 20.7
2009-10   .518 11.6 3.6 1.7 20.6
2010-11   .500 11.3 3.4 2.4 17.1
2011-12   .492 11.5 2.9 1.9 19.7
2012-13   .502 11.9 3.2 3.2 21.3
2013-14   .490 12.0 3.7 2.3 18.7
2014-15   .512 11.4 3.7 2.4 17.3
2015-16   .488 10.5 3.8 1.8 12.2
Career    .506 11.5 3.2 2.3 20.1

It's really not that shocking.  If you give a player 12 more minutes per night, he's going to put up more stats.  Obviously.   If you take a guy like Michael Carter Williams and cut his minutes in half, don't be shocked that he puts up half the stats, but his per-minute rebounding and assist rates stay consistent. 

Some people may misuse the stat or misinterpret it, but it absolutely has value when looking at a guy like Bradley who might average 28-31 minutes vs a guy like Jimmy Butler who might average 39 minutes.    Adjust them both to 36 to have a better look at how they compare. 

There might be some belief that these guys averaging 25-30 minutes would be incapable of putting up bigger numbers in 36-40 minutes, but that has never seemed to be the case.  Bismack Biyombo is a great example of a player who consistently put up solid stats in his limited minutes.  His per-36 numbers were pretty consistent.   When he finally got more minutes, he put up the expected stats and got himself a fat contract as a result. 

Always consider role as well, but adjusting minutes is important.  Rondo's stats were consistent even when he was receiving a ridiculous 43 per night.   Thomas's stats were consistent even when he was down to 25 minutes on the Suns.   Duncan's stats were consistent whether he was getting 28 or 40 minutes per game.   It's not a misused stat.  Some people just might not understand it.  Others might just be grumpy that Joel Embiid's per-36 stats are incredible right now.