Does John Hollinger's new MVP stat really work for you?
The great John Holligner, the creator of "PER" (Player Efficiency Rating) has devised a new stat called "VA" (Value Added).
It basically determines which player contributes the most to their team by using a formula consisting of the players PER and minutes played.
Here's the actual formula
VA = ((Minutes * (PER -- Position Replacement Level)) / 67)
Minutes, times PER, times 11.5 for PF, 11.0 for PG, 10.6 for C, and 10.5 for SG and SF, divided by 67 = Value Added
Here's the article on ESPN.com (the second link is the actual VA ranking on ESPN.com)
@ Ron-D: No doubt, Hollinger really did it this time. I was really happy when he introduced the per stat, because it really put players like Iverson (lower percentage shooting, turnover prone players) in their place.
PER rewards players for not just putting up big numbers, but for actually being efficient.
This new stat though, should help put to rest alot of this nonsense about who MVP really is.
EDIT: I had a step of the formula a bit wrong, here's a better example from the article
"Chris Paul, for example, has played 2,470 minutes with a PER of 30.06 through Tuesday's games. Since the average replacement level PER for a point guard is 11.0, we take the difference (30.06-11.0) and multiply by his minutes played, returning a product of 47,078.2.
There's one more step. We want VA to mean something, and in this case we want it to be the approximate number of additional points the player has been worth to his team, over the course of the season, relative to a replacement level player. To get to Point A from Point B requires us to divide the result by 67. Yes, 67. Sorry, that's what works. (If you're curious, a point of PER over the course of 2,000 minutes is worth about 30 points to a team, meaning that one point of PER over one minute is worth 1/67th of a point.)"
@ "Judas G" - I hear you, PER shouldn't be the only way you gage a player, but it's the best stat to determine how they perform overall. PER doesn't just hurt a player like Iverson, it would also reward him if was an efficient player.
When Iverson was in Philly, he would typically have nights like this:
11-27FG, 7-9FT, 29 points, 3 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 steals and 6 turnovers.
PER = 17.0
If he performed like this instead;
14-27FG, 8-9FT, 36 points, 3 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 steals and 2 turnovers.
PER = 32.0
If A.I. made more shots and turned the ball over less, he'd have a higher PER.
He had a tendancy to accumulate more negative stats than positive ones, which hurt his team.
- Ron-DLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Hollinger is a genius, crazy with numbers, yes it works for me
- 1 decade ago
@!#$ JH i hate this guy man. he thinks # are everything. i get it but to think that PER is everything is nonsense. not only does this guy hate on some of the greatest teams he also is practically sucking on LBJ @!#$ this guy is what you would say a non basketball fan. he is what you call i need # to know what a good player is. i get his whole ideas and all but it seems like he does it to put certain players in there place from not being great. i understand AI has a low PER but that does not take away AI from being a great player. the guy is 6'0 frist of all playing like he is 6'7. stats are numbers and they dont value the true game of a player.