http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl.../insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics It's confirms so much of my own beliefs: That Andrew Bynum is not even the best center named Andrew, nor is he even better than Nazr Mohammed. That both Bogut and Mohammed are better players than that garbage running the point in Utah. That Greg Oden, in only his second injury riddled season, is better than Kobe Bryant. That Nic Batum is better than 2009 All Star Danny Granger And finally, that LeBron is the best player in the NBA and it isn't even close. Go Blazers.
and david lee and kevin love are better than brandon roy lol hollinger PER always has been a little too biased towards rebounding
You think that Deron Williams is garbage? I guess in some cases the eyeball test is a lot different than PER; I just saw somewhere that Larry Brown thought he might be as valuable to his team as anyone in the league.
It's not an article. It's the PER rankings. Unemotional, hard data. To be fair to Deron Williams, he is the 4th best PG on the list. Which is just about right.
Is Kevin Love more valuable than Lamarcus? I think Lamarcus could be one of the best PF in the league but I don't know if he has the motivation.
The only thing that I don't like about PER is that it doesn't account for role -- it's still possible to rack up great per minute numbers (pace adjusted) against reserves ... but as a catch all efficiency rating, it's still not bad.
basing your opinions on players soley on PER is like basing the best shooter in the league on FT%. It tells part of the story, just not the whole story. Even Hollinger says it's not the be all to end all but a tool to use when evaluating players.
Yes. K-Love is a much better player than people gave him credit for before the draft - but he is a much bigger defensive liability than LMA.
careful dude. If you aren't basing every single one of your opinions on PER you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Opinions are a thing of the past. It's all about cold hard stat formulas invented by people who don't even back them. Sure, It starts with a simple opinion and then all of the sudden you'll have people on here threatening you with being put in their sig. This is hardcore. Prepare yourself for thug life yo.
and here is the thread you can bash PER....sweeping generalizations comparing players solely on PER...(rather than our argument where we were comparing PER of the same player 2 years in a row)
Oh, ok.... So NOW P.E.R. doesn't work. I think I'm finally catching on. PER is used to win an argument as long as it's in accordance with one's own opinion. Otherwise it's a sweeping generalization. Got it. Some guy on here was saying the same thing a few weeks back and people were going to put him in their sig and everything. It got very Boyz in the Hood. I hope he's ok.
PER is a nice way to get a general feel for a player's mostly offensive efficiency given enough data. Like everything else in life - it has to be used in context - the role in the team, injuries and the like - it can not be used as a stand alone number that is the final answer on anything - but it is not a bad number for an initial discussion before getting into the nitty-gritty details mentioned above.
Seems fashionable in here now to whine about how much people like PER. But it sure as hell beats out most of the old single-number-statistics people used. "He's a superstar--dude puts up 27 ppg!" "He's a 20/10 power forward." "The guy scores 29 points on a per-36 minute basis." "He's a defensive powerhouse. The guy gets 3 blocks (or steals) a game!" PER is still clunky, but compared to these other means of quantifying a player's real value? It's the worst single statistic for measuring a player's contribution, except for all the others.
