weekend_warrior wrote:I think that a maximum of 5 points (and only integer values) is not enough to represent the differences sufficiently, especially in performances compared to peers. I do agree on the order of your list for the most part though.
I was thinking the same thing. This is most easily seen by him having 3 players tied with Curry which of course isn't accurate at all.
Needs a much larger scale to be of any value, but more importantly player's value isn't determined in this manner. You can be fairly one-dimensional and still be much more valuable than another player who would score higher on a chart like this. It's really not achieving what the OP hopes.
And finally people are not being very objective about their own PG's here.
