Three Point Shootout Selection

Introduction

The participants for the all-star three point contest have been announced, and as always some of the selections were questionable -- James Jones, Joe Johnson, Mario Chalmers, Ryan Anderson, Kevin Love, and Anthony Morrow. Before I get into the merits of each player, first I need to discuss the common problems in evaluating three point shooting.

Judging three point shooting

1) Quantity is not quality -- the Antoine Walker problem. Named for the career 32.5% shooter with 1386 makes, some people often confuse volume shooting with skill. The leader in three point field goals, for instance, is not necessarily the best three point shooter, although every year a large section of the mainstream media pretends it's true. Imagine making the same argument for free throw shooting. Lebron is tied this year for the lead in free throws and last year Dwight Howard was third. Does that make them the best free throw shooters? Of course not. That's ridiculous, and it's apparent why -- they have the most opportunities, not the most shooting talent. Extending that to the contest, to say that hoisting a ton of shots in a game is key is silly because players aren't being guarded out there. There's certainly a point in that a higher number of shots per possession correlates with taking more difficult three pointers instead of just standing in the corner and waiting for a perfectly open look, but that doesn't mean volume by itself makes a great shooter. Also, this argument isn't about sample size, but who takes the most shots.

2) Yearly variations -- the streaky player problem. Long jump shots have a high variation in percentage converted. Rebounding, for example, has a lower variance meaning over time the statistics for rebounding are stable with fewer great dips or peaks in performance, while a player's three point shooting percentage can have significant changes year to year without a culprit like injuries or new mechanics. This is a well known pattern in NBA statistics, yet it's also ignored by most NBA analysts who cite someone's shooting percentage even 10 or 15 games into the season when discussing a player's shooting skill. With a higher variance, a greater sample size is needed, and as such it's usually better to look at a player's career percentage or, even better, his stats from the last three years.

So how does the league choose its participants? Is it done by feel and reputation, a human-based method? Or something more complicated statistically? Well it's actually only this. Yes, the league makes the two fundamental mistakes in evaluating three point shooting -- they sort players based on percentages for only half a season, and then select the players with the most attempts. In the Truehoop article linked above, Morrow wasn't chosen because he missed the first ten games and thus lagged behind in total makes. No, the league didn't look at three point shots per game or per minute, and they essentially eliminated players with low minutes due to reasons other than shooting from the contest. Luckily, the Nets have been so terrible this year they've been forced to give him huge minutes, and he was chosen based on his 100 plus three's. I know it doesn't seem worthwhile to criticize a pointless exhibition, but the prize money is equivalent to some family's yearly income and millions of people will watch what is supposed to be a showcase of the NBA's best talent.

2011-12 three point contest selections

Seeing how the league selects the participants, this year's six-man group is not surprising. I included a table below that summarizes the basic three point shooting stats of each guy. The outlier is James Jones because he's barely played this year, but since he's the defending champion he was invited back to defend the title (like it actually matters.) As you can see in the table, he is a good shooter, so it's not a travesty. His teammate Mario Chalmers, however, was invited because of his three point percentage, which if you look at his career is most likely a fluke. The Heat's best players aren't point guards, so he's been granted with a large chunk of minutes and open shots.

Player	2011-12 3FGA	2011-12 3FG%	2010-11 3FG%	Career 3FG%
Ryan Anderson	200	43.5	39.3	39.1
Mario Chalmers	123	46.3	35.9	36.5
Joe Johnson	154	35.1	29.7	36.5
James Jones	47	40.4	42.9	40.2
Kevin Love	127	36.2	41.7	36.9
Anthony Morrow	156	41.7	42.3	44.2

Ryan Anderson is a great choice given that the all-star game is in Orlando and he definitely has the "quality" down as well, with a high career and present year average in percentage. He's starting, but even on a per minute basis he's shooting a large number of shots and converting at a high rate. It it were an 82 game season, he'd be on pace to post one of the highest number of three point field goals in a season ever. (Ray Allen holds the record at 269.)

Joe Johnson is the worst selection of the contest. The only reason he was chosen is that he's taken a high number of three pointers. It's like the people behind the contest are conflating taking a high number of shots in a game with a high number of shots in a contest where the ball is placed on a rack in front of you with no defenders. Joe Johnson shot under 30 percent last year, and he's an inch above the league average of 34.7 this season. If an avid NBA fan listed the top ten three point shooters in the league, what are the chances he would be listed? I don't even think causal fans would make this mistake because it's Joe Johnson.

Fellow all-star Kevin Love makes me wonder if the committee had to include two guys who would play in the Sunday game so the contest would have "big names." Even then, these two aren't the best candidates because Steve Nash, who for his career is a 42.9% shooter, is also on the all-star squad. That's only eighth all-time. No big deal. Maybe he didn't want to be part of the contest, but there's also Chris Paul, shooting 44.8% this season and around 40% the two previous ones. Compared to non-all-stars, however, Kevin fares even worse, but he's playing a league high in minutes per game, and by the league's emphasis on volume he made the group. The problem with imposing a quota on certain types of players is that unqualified selections can occur, and there's really no point in trying to corral the all-star players into the contest when the guys aren't megastars and they are instead Joe Johnson and Kevin Love. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see one of the best rebounders in the league try for a three point crown, as the current best rebounders who have won the contest Larry Bird and Nowitzki aren't near Love's elite level.

Finally there's Anthony Morrow with his first appearance. He should have been selected sooner, but it's great to see him this year as he's, you know, second all-time in three point percentage. He's always shot a high number of three pointers when he plays, but his defense limits his minutes and he normally misses a few games each year. That shouldn't matter in this contest, and Morrow has a decent chance to break the record for contest points (25) held by Craig Hodges and Jason Kapono.

Method

I can complain all I want, but if I'm not offering a solution it's armchair quarter-backing. Based on an earlier study I did to find the best shooter, I created a simple method for the selections. If you don't want to know the nitty-gritty of the math behind this, skip ahead to the next section. I looked at the past three seasons, and weighted this current season by 3, last season by 2, and two years ago with 1. The weighting essentially just means that you can multiply the three point field goals by that amount (3, 2 or 1) and it's done to give more value to recent performance. After that, I simply divide the three point field goals by the attempts.

Then I calculate the three point attempts per minute for each player from the past three seasons with the same weights. This is done to reward guys who take more shots, and thus more difficult ones, and punish those who only shoot when open, which raises their percentage compared to the players who take contested shots. It's not perfect, but it's a modest improvement. I implement this by creating a usage multiplier on a scale of 1 to 1.2; it's multiplied with the three point percentage from the past three years for a three point contest score. The scale is based on how a player's shots per minute ranks with everyone else -- the player with the highest rate gets 1.2, a player with zero shots per minute 1.0, and one with half the shot attempts per minute as the leader would receive 1.1.

After that, the adjusted percentages are standardized on a 100 scale. It's really simple to do so; you just divide each adjusted percentage by the maximum percentage found and multiply by one hundred. The maximum percentage leader has to have a minimum of 300 weighted shots. A weighted shot means that you only need 100 three point attempts total in the current season to qualify because the weighting for that season is 3. I use a 100 scale so it looks an academic grading system, and is thus easier to read and compare. Below are the results, and my thoughts on who should have been selected.

My selections

I can say with confidence that the top players on my list are better than the group selected by the league. The top player is surprising to most, but to NBA-junkies it's not. Yep, Steve Novak destroyed everyone else with his shooting percentages; it wasn't close. Not only was his 46.8% shooting the best out of anyone with enough attempts to qualify, but he also shot more three pointers per minute than anyone else. He barely cleared the minimum amount of shot attempts to qualify, but his track record in college was also impeccable and his lead is so large I think he deserves to be in the contest.

Rank	Player	Score
1	Steve Novak	100.0
2	Matt Bonner	87.6
3	Kyle Korver	87.3
4	Brandon Rush	87.2
5	Stephen Curry	86.8
6	Mike Miller	86.7
7	James Jones*	86.6
8	Anthony Morrow*	86.5
9	Ray Allen	85.9
10	Ryan Anderson*	85.0
29	Mario Chalmers*	77.4
61	Kevin Love*	73.2
129	Joe Johnson*	66.2

Out of 179 ranked players. Three years of three point shooting data.
*Selected participants

Even though none of the top six are in the contest, three of the picks are perfectly fine. James Jones is the defending champ and he's ranked 7th. Anthony Morrow is 8th, and his career percentages are even better. Also, note that the difference between the 5th and 8th guys is 0.3, which is virtually negligible. Ryan Anderson isn't far behind at 10th, and the contest is in his home arena. Mario Chalmers, however, is a stretch, especially if you consider his percentage this year to be a fluke. Kevin Love is far behind, and Joe Johnson is ranked in the bottom third of qualified players. In fact, he's in between other all-star teammates not known for their outside shooting -- Luol Deng, Carmelo Anthony, Andre Iguodala, and LeBron James. The worst player was Tyreke Evans with a score of 49.5. Another interesting tidbit? Klay Thompson, who did not qualify with enough attempts since he's a rookie, had a score of 101.9 (a score over 100 is possible because he did not qualify and thus beat the guy who set the curve.) With a limited number of attempts I'd expect his numbers to regress to the mean, but with his age it bears close attention.

I'm not saying my system is perfect, but it's fairly simple and the top six guys are undeniably better three point shooters than what the league picked. The one player without the same reputation is Brandon Rush, but he's leading the league this year in three point percentage and the last couple years he's been over 41%. Here are my picks using my created three point contest score listed as a guide: Steve Novak, Matt Bonner, Kyle Korver, Stephen Curry, Anthony Morrow, and Ryan Anderson. Alternates: Brandon Rush, then James Jones, then Klay Thompson.

Edit: Joe Johnson because of an injury is being replaced by Kevin Durant, who had a score of only 68.6 because he's been struggling with his outside shot the past couple years, but it's still better than Joe Johnson's and his career numbers are better.

Playoff Performance

Introduction


One of the most common refrains about an NBA star is how the player either performed when it mattered or folded in the playoffs. Usually championships are used to measure guys against one another, but basketball is a team sport and your teammates ultimately will decide whether you win a title or not. However, individual performance can be tracked, but it must be adjusted for the fact that on average a player's percentages and statistics on a per minute basis go down. Only the best teams in the league are allowed, and the further one goes into the playoffs the harder the competition gets. Offensive numbers plummet as squads tighten up their defense, while having more days off only intensifies the series where the same players match up for as many as seven games in a row. Even with the gauntlet that is the playoffs, do any players truly get better? And whose performance is the worst?

Methodology

I devised this idea when I was trying to compare Tim Duncan's playoffs to Kevin Garnett's. In his prime, Garnett had terrible teammates while Duncan enjoyed the likes of David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and a nice cast of role players employed by Popovich. Using just per game averages is troublesome because it can mask poor shooting percentages and minutes played will skew the results. There are certainly a lot of problems with the advanced metric PER, but one of its disadvantages is actually helpful here -- it rewards players for shooting more often, meaning a guy scared of the playoffs limelight can't just stand in the corner and only take shots when he's open for a better PER number. You can also compare players with little in common because every box score statistic is used.

When you look at the two aforementioned big men's playoff stats, however, you'll notice that Duncan got to play heavy minutes in his best years while Garnett only went to the finals when he was in his thirties after he lost most of his explosiveness. Only using the difference between career regular season and playoff PER would be problematic in that respect. A better method is to compare the difference in regular season and playoff performance on a season by season basis. A number is calculated for an average of career regular season PER weighted each season by playoff minutes. Then the difference between the weighted regular season and playoffs PER will show how performance dipped or increased.

For example, imagine a player, Moses Monroe, with two seasons in the league where his rookie year he had a 12 PER and his sophomore year 19. He went to the finals in his rookie year as a bench player, but the next year their star player suffered a devastating injury and the team missed the playoffs entirely. His playoffs PER is around 12 while his career PER around 16. Simply comparing those two numbers one would conclude he's terrible in the playoffs, but using the method outlined above one would see his performance remained steady. His playoffs PER was low because his only appearance was as a rookie when he struggled throughout the whole year.

Players included in this study needed a minimum of 4000 minutes in the playoffs. This was chosen to trim the list of candidates, but also with more appearances random chance or circumstance have less of an effect on the results. I regretfully couldn't include guys from the pre-80's basketball eras because basic statistics like turnovers weren't even tracked until the 1977-78 season, and consequently a true PER can't be calculated. I also included a few players I thought were interesting who were under the minutes requirement, although most of the important players in the last 30 years had 4000 or more.

Results

I broke up the results in two tables. One is for the stars, shown directly below, who are defined as having a regular season PER of 18 and above. While this was somewhat arbitrary, I needed some systematic way of separating Michael Jordan from, say, Tayshaun Prince. It's much more of an accomplishment to raise your statistics when your output is already amazing. For people who don't know PER or need a refresher, 15 is the league average, 20 is an all-star candidate, 25 is a weak MVP candidate, and 30 is a historic season. Averaging over 25 for a career is amazing, and from the table below only Olajuwon, Duncan, Jordan, O'Neal, and Lebron have done it for the playoffs. I also included basic stats on a per 40 minutes basis (per 40 so the comparison is more apples to apples.)

In terms of PER differences, there are a few surprises. One is that Michael Jordan doesn't dominate the list, but given that his performance hardly even dipped from his lofty level I'd say it's actually a compliment. A difference of -0.11 is essentially zero, and he has the highest playoffs PER and points per 40 minutes at an astounding 32. The only stars who improved were Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Reggie Miller, Tim Duncan, and James Worthy. Those men are generally highly regarded for delivering in the playoffs, and remember Michael Jordan is right behind them in sixth place.

Star Players and Playoffs

Name	Rank	PER difference	Regular season PER	Playoff PER	Points/ 40 mins	Rebounds/40 mins	Assists/40 mins
Isiah Thomas	1	1.46	18.3	19.8	21.5	5.0	9.4
Hakeem Olajuwon	2	1.22	24.5	25.7	26.1	11.3	3.2
Reggie Miller	3	1.09	18.5	19.5	22.4	3.1	2.7
Tim Duncan	4	0.27	25.2	25.4	23.0	12.5	3.5
James Worthy	5	0.13	18.2	18.3	22.8	5.6	3.5
Michael Jordan	6	-0.11	28.7	28.6	32.0	6.2	5.5
Charles Barkley	7	-0.14	24.3	24.2	23.4	13.1	4.0
Ray Allen	8	-0.30	18.1	17.8	19.7	4.1	3.4
Dirk Nowitzki	9	-0.32	25.1	24.8	25.1	10.1	2.5
Dwyane Wade*	10	-0.69	25.3	24.6	25.5	5.7	5.5
Manu Ginobili*	11	-0.75	21.3	20.5	21.0	5.9	4.8
Scottie Pippen	12	-0.88	19.2	18.3	18.0	7.8	5.2
Magic Johnson	13	-0.91	23.9	23.0	19.6	7.8	12.4
Chauncey Billups	14	-0.92	20.3	19.4	19.1	3.7	6.3
Jason Kidd	15	-1.02	18.6	17.6	13.9	7.0	8.5
Kobe Bryant	16	-1.07	23.4	22.3	25.9	5.2	4.8
Kevin McHale	17	-1.25	20.6	19.4	22.3	8.8	1.9
Shaquille O'Neal	18	-1.30	27.4	26.1	25.9	12.4	2.9
Paul Pierce	19	-1.39	19.9	18.5	21.5	6.5	4.1
Jeff Hornacek	20	-1.81	18.3	16.5	17.6	4.4	4.4
Lebron James	21	-1.82	28.1	26.3	25.7	7.7	6.4
Tony Parker	22	-1.83	18.4	16.6	20.7	3.5	5.4
Clyde Drexler	23	-1.83	21.5	19.7	21.3	7.2	6.4
Vince Carter*	24	-1.98	21.7	19.7	23.1	6.2	4.5
Patrick Ewing	25	-2.00	21.6	19.6	21.6	11.0	2.1
Steve Nash	26	-2.03	21.9	19.9	19.4	3.9	10.0
Chris Webber*	27	-2.03	20.9	18.9	20.6	9.6	4.0
John Stockton	28	-2.16	22.0	19.8	15.2	3.8	11.5
Kevin Garnett	29	-2.26	23.9	21.7	20.2	11.5	4.0
David Robinson	30	-2.36	25.4	23.0	21.0	12.3	2.7
Gary Payton	31	-2.74	18.1	15.4	15.7	4.2	5.9
Larry Bird	32	-2.79	24.2	21.4	22.6	9.8	6.2
Karl Malone	33	-3.18	24.3	21.1	24.1	10.4	3.1
Dominique Wilkins*	34	-3.45	22.2	18.7	26.2	6.9	2.6

*Less than 4000 career playoff minutes

There's actually two groups near the top of the list. Guys with a difference of 1 or more like Reggie Miller can say with confidence they improved, but there's a large group in the -0.32 to +.27 range who remained as effective in the playoffs as in the regular season, which is definitely an accomplishment given the competition and stage. Barkley doesn't have a title, but he shouldn't be blamed for disappearing when it matters because he was still a force as the round mound of rebound. Nowitzki and Ray Allen won titles in recent years, and given how well they play when the pressure is on they definitely deserve one.

Looking through the middle of the table, it's apparent how common it is for a player's statistics to go south in the playoffs. The average reduction was -1.21, where you'll see a host of stars with titles to their names like Kevin McHale and Paul Pierce. Shaq and Kobe had differences worse then -1, but they also have a few titles to their names. Magic Johnson deserves his nickname, but he also didn't literally get better in the playoffs. A drop-off over one PER isn't the difference between a bust and a star, but it's also enough to suggest there is a definite disparity between the regular season and the playoffs.

The worst performer was Dominique Wilkins, a flashy dunker who never won a title and subsequently was known as a big scorer who wilted at important moments in the playoffs. Conventional wisdom was correct, as it was for Karl Malone. Both these superstars had falloffs over -3 on their PER scores, which is such a significant drop they have little to argue in defense. Others at the bottom of the table won't shock most NBA fans -- David Robinson, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber, and Patrick Ewing. Guys like Stockton and Payton are surprising, but the former never won a title in a long career and the latter was a bit player on the Miami Heat led by Wade. I'm surprised to see Nash on the list, but since he also doesn't possess a title it's not entirely a shock.

The biggest surprise of the results is definitely Larry Bird with a PER difference of -2.79, and I understand why people will want my head for even including him in the table. He was hobbled in the playoffs a couple times, but this is over his entire career, and he's known as a player who will run through a wall if it means a win for his team. In one of his MVP seasons, he lost to the Lakers in '85 with a poor shooting slump. Back troubles were one explanation, but others said he had trouble against Michael Cooper's defense. Maybe Bird is a case where bad timing on injuries unfairly impacts his playoff stats, but wouldn't every player say that? If normal probabilistic variation is the mechanism behind playoff success and victory, then isn't there no meaning behind the clutchness ethos we hear in sports? I don't think I'd go quite so far.

LeBron James receives more negative press than anyone else right now for his playoff production, but he is far from the worst and even at a reduced level is better than almost anyone else. He also had one of the best single season playoff runs in history sporting a godly 37.4 PER with game averages of 35, 9, and 7 before he was vanquished by the Orlando Magic. However, he hasn't always delivered, and last year in particular he was underwhelming.

Further into the Numbers

Perhaps it's better to visualize the data in a graph so the players are grouped more intuitively. The one included below displays a player's PER difference along with his playoff PER to separate players based on their overall performance. The winners in this are the players in the top right hand corner, while the guys in the bottom left corner suffer the indignity of both functioning poorly compared to everyone else and compared to their regular season play. You can also see that while Isiah Thomas should be commended for his improvement, but Karl Malone still had a better PER. This comments on the exaggerations of the media -- even a disappointment like David Robinson is still fantastic, as the differences are fairly small. Isiah Thomas certainly didn't will his team to victories on his own, and he also didn't turn into Michael Jordan or even regular season Lebron.

I'd also like to reiterate that I am in no way endorsing PER as the be-all, end-all of player rating measures. This method does not with 100 percent accuracy tell you who achieved and who didn't. The innate problem with PER is that it relies on box score stats, which, for instance, don't track individual defense well. Gary Payton's forte was tough man to man defending, as the Glove was arguably the best antidote (i.e. could slightly slow him down) to Michael Jordan. That doesn't show up in PER, and any increase in ability at that end in the court wouldn't be detected. It doesn't, however, excuse the fact that his accuracy submarined while shooting less the playoffs than the regular season. I will note that he was stellar in 1996 when he lost to the Bulls on one of the best teams to never win a title.

One cause for a negative PER difference is relativistic. It's Kevin Garnett syndrome -- if you play at a high level of energy in every game, or in every single moment of your life, when the playoffs roll around you can't up your game because the dial is already cranked to 11, and as a result it looks as though you're going backwards when it's actually everyone else moving forward while you stay still. This could also explain Larry Bird, who no one will confuse with playoff disappointment.

But how important is that average drop of 1 PER? Hollinger, the man behind the metric, now publishes estimated wins added derived from PER. Essentially, you find the replacement PER difference of the player (normally you take the difference between the player's PER and a replacement level guy of around 11), multiply it by minutes, and convert it to wins. A difference in 1 PER over 4000 minutes equates to roughly 2 wins given away. It's not a disaster, but in a close playoff series that dip in performance could swing one team to victory. The most extreme player in this regard is Karl Malone, who strangely never missed the playoffs, and whose drop in PER amounted to an estimated 12.5 wins "lost." If you adjust his PER reduction in terms of everyone else (the average loss is 1.21 PER) it's still 7.8 wins. By contrast, Olajuwon added an estimated 7.0 wins throughout his career in the playoffs, although he was trumped by a lesser player who leads the next group at 7.3 wins.

Role Players

The next table is comprised of "role players," whose regular season PER numbers were below 18. Again, I'm not saying that's the sole factor in determining whether or not you're a role player, but it was an easy way to separate Derek Fisher from Dwyane Wade. There were 19 players with 4000 playoff minutes and over who qualified, and I included one more role player, Steve Kerr, who was almost like a good luck charm in winning a title. The same patterns are observed with this group as the last: few actually get better, the average drop was -0.89, title winners occupy both the top and bottom of the table, no one had a mythic rise in PER, and conversely no one had a mythic reduction.

Name	Rank	PER Difference	Regular season PER	Playoff PER	Points/ 40 mins	Rebounds/40 mins	Assists/40 mins
Robert Horry	1	0.94	13.5	14.5	11.4	8.0	3.4
Derek Fisher	2	0.39	11.9	12.3	12.7	3.4	3.8
Michael Cooper	3	0.15	13.0	13.2	13.3	4.8	5.9
Dennis Johnson	4	-0.08	14.5	14.4	17.8	4.5	5.8
Maurice Cheeks	5	-0.12	16.7	16.6	15.8	3.7	7.6
Ben Wallace	6	-0.43	16.7	16.3	8.3	12.9	1.5
Charles Oakley	7	-0.43	14.0	13.6	12.1	11.3	2.2
Tayshaun Prince	8	-0.54	14.9	14.4	13.4	6.0	3.0
Dan Majerle	9	-0.75	13.9	13.1	13.6	5.7	2.9
Bruce Bowen	10	-0.75	8.2	7.5	7.7	3.5	1.7
Richard Hamilton	11	-0.93	17.4	16.5	20.6	4.0	3.7
Sam Perkins	12	-0.99	15.2	14.3	15.6	7.8	2.1
Joe Dumars	13	-1.00	15.4	14.4	17.2	2.5	5.0
Horace Grant	14	-1.08	16.8	15.7	12.4	9.4	2.3
AC Green	15	-1.39	14.9	13.5	12.8	10.5	1.3
Rasheed Wallace	16	-1.44	16.9	15.5	16.3	7.5	1.8
Byron Scott	17	-2.14	16.0	13.8	18.3	4.0	2.9
Danny Ainge	18	-2.17	14.3	12.2	15.1	3.5	5.2
Dennis Rodman	19	-2.53	14.8	12.3	9.0	14.0	1.7
Steve Kerr*	20	-2.58	13.7	11.2	11.1	2.2	3.1

*Less than 4000 career playoff minutes

The fact that Robert Horry is the king of this group in a way validates the study. His nickname is Big Shot Rob, and he had a number of key moments for several different teams in the playoffs. He also has more championship titles than anyone except for Celtics players from the 50's and 60's. Another rarity is that he was a part of three different multi-title teams: the Olajuwon-led Rockets of the mid 90's, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers at the turn of the century, and two of the Spurs' championships from the last decade. He undoubtedly upped his game, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here -- even with his improvement he's miles away from having the same impact as Karl Malone, LeBron James, or David Robinson.

Inversely, Steve Kerr's five titles with the Bulls and Spurs are definitely more happenstance and luck than his superb "winning" skills. He's had his moments, sure, but he's also had both his shooting percentages and shots per minute rate go down. Kerr has the worst PER difference, and the next two guys also had success. Rodman is not the type of guy to dominate the box score stats except for rebounds; however, even his prodigious talent at crashing the boards was lessened in the playoffs. Danny Ainge has the moniker of a clutch player because of his playoff glories, but the evidence points otherwise.

A couple Lakers -- Michael Cooper and Derek Fisher -- sport some of the top marks, but in Fisher's case especially I have to preface that statement with how that still didn't turn him into a star. It's also much easier raising your game when there's a lot to improve. It is, however, interesting to see what championship pieces improved. For example, Ben Wallace and Prince barely saw a dip in their numbers while Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton could not say the same.

Conclusion


While there are problems with the statistical metric PER, the comparisons here are limited to a player versus his own stats in the same season. The results mainly agree with conventional wisdom, but there are also a few surprises. Charles Barkley has no ring, but it's certainly not for how he did in the playoffs. Larry Bird's stats were worse even though that's contrary to the NBA's lore. Two others were even worse though; Malone and Wilkins lost over 3 PER from their regular season scores to the playoffs. That kind of difference is large enough to distinguish between an MVP winner and a fourth place finisher in the voting -- significant, yes, but Malone was still a good player.

Overall, stats go down in the playoffs, but not at a monstrous rate. The average star player will lose about 1 PER between the regular season and playoffs, and few are able to buck that trend. Many barely had a change in their numbers, which is accomplishment in itself due to the higher competition and especially with someone performing at such a high level like Michael Jordan, and most others received a sizable reduction in play. There's a short list of guys who can legitimately claim they got better when it mattered, as they experienced a significant boost in PER at 4000 minutes and more -- Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Reggie Miller, and Robert Horry.