Don't base it all on this PER crap. If you base it all on PER then Zach Randolph is better the Kobe and Nash, which he's not!
There are inconsistencies to your logic. You say PER is a bad way to measure a player's effectiveness, yet you keep nitpicking at Kobe's rebounds and assists.
<div class="quote_poster">sportsaholic Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Don't base it all on this PER crap. If you base it all on PER then Zach Randolph is better the Kobe and Nash, which he's not!</div> Again I'll restate, Kobe's PER is not accurate because he had to play through a knee injury, and Lebron is better than Randolph because he plays 40 MPG, compared to Randolph's 35, yet they produce almost the same per. Zach Randolph has been effective this season (PER isn't the end all, but is mostly right). Per is the best manner to measure offensive output because it accounts for ball possessions and minutes per game. It's ridiculous that you discount it simply because you're boy isn't on top. Aside from Randolph, every other player above Nash is great. Duncan, Kg, Yao, have all certainly been better than Nash.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Why not? Zach Randolph has been effective this season, you're stuck in the past. Per is the best manner to measure offensive output because it accounts for ball possessions and minutes per game. It's ridiculous that you discount it simply because you're boy isn't on top.</div> No. Thats not the problem. It's that its a BS formula on a Knicks website. If you base it all on this then Zach Randolph is better then LeBron James.
<div class="quote_poster">sportsaholic Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No. Thats not the problem. It's that its a BS formula on a Knicks website. If you base it all on this then Zach Randolph is better then LeBron James.</div> First, LeBron James has struggled as of late, and why is it a BS formula? All the players with higher PER, except for Randolph/Gasol, usually have a case for being better than Nash this season (see 82games.com below). Again, Per is not the end all statistic, but is mostly correct. It doesn't account for defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating Again, Steve Nash has more ball possessions (because of the tempo) to generate all those statistics, which diminishes him. Yes, he is better than Randolph (and Gasol this year because his lack of minutes), but not many others in the top ten echelon really. <font color=""Red"">Edit- </font>Ah yes I forgot, 82games.com goes into greater lengths to decipher other statistics. If you observe how they rank players, you'll notice Nash is better than Randolph for example, but still in the "bottom ten" of the top ten players in the league (so to speak).
<div class="quote_poster">sportsaholic Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Okay. Fine. But he needs to get assist in regulation! He had a lot of time to get them but he din't.'' C'mon! he's 6'6 and he adverges 5 rebounds a game! Nash is nearly 5 inches shorter and he adverges 3!</div> Rodman was 6'8 and he averaged 19 rebounds a game for a whole season. Yao Ming is 7'6 and his highest rebounding season was in the 05-06 season with 10 rebounds a game. What's your point?
<div class="quote_poster">sportsaholic Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Don't base it all on this PER crap. If you base it all on PER then Zach Randolph is better the Kobe and Nash, which he's not!</div> Why are you comparing Nash with Kobe? They play completely different roles on their team and their teams have a 180 degree on offensive philosophy. Suns run and gun, Lakers play in a halfcourt set. PER is a great indicator to gauge a players efficiency. Of course it doesn't answer every question, but it's a good scientific reference point.
