Doesn't change, but the formula isn't the best representation for good players on bad teams cause they will always be slightly inefficient because they have to take bad looks.
Here's how you the ratings effect different positions and roles Star players on above average teams, PER > OR = expected, because they usually have other players to share the ball with and get good looks Star/Good players on shit teams, PER < Expected, because of the amount of bad shots they may have to take to compensate for having worse teammates high minute average Wing players on good teams, PER < Expected, due to not assisting/shooting the ball much and this formula takes into account minutes played If anyone wants me to analyse why your PER is the way it is quote your player and I will do it.
Code: PER MIN FGM FGA 3PM 3PA FTM FTA OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS 11 Clayton Evans Sabres 18.77 35.20 7.80 20.20 2.00 6.30 3.30 4.70 2.70 4.80 7.50 2.50 1.30 0.70 1.70 1.30 21.00 I have an idea why my PER is less than ideal. A pretty horrible volume shooter (see Cock last season). Can see myself struggling to get looks and struggling with my mid-range jumper. Should be looking to dish more assists and do better from the charity stripe. What else can you tell me Jabba?
Suffer from the good player on average team. If you passed up on say 3 or 4 of the bad shots and turned 2 of them into assists your PER would be 24 Rest of your stat line is pretty bloody good, 7 boards, < 2 fouls, < 2 T/O are well decent for a wing
Code: PER MIN FGM FGA 3PM 3PA FTM FTA OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS 3 Lucas Schaw Pandas 27.95 39.20 9.00 19.30 2.50 6.50 5.80 7.30 1.80 7.80 9.70 7.50 2.00 0.30 2.30 5.00 26.30
You can't actually get much higher unless you up your production. Fouling too much and being an average 3pt shooter don't really hamper your PER thaaaaat much /carryharder 27-28 PER is LBJ and KD territory
