RealGM

Realizing that everyone feeds off Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, KG and Rajon Rondo;
here are the NET PER's (Your PER minus your Man's PER)
after 8 games.

NET PER ******* Player ******************** Total Minutes

+13.0 Tony Allen ............................... 167 (a pit bull on D, and finally healthy)
+09.0 Ray Allen ................................ 276 (obviously playing great D)
+05.2 Kevin Garnett .......................... 260 (historically +16 NET PER, huge dropoff for KG)
+04.4 Leon Powe ............................. 140 (little 6'6" man suceeding in the low post)
+02.2 Paul Pierce ............................ 306 (last year was +10.2, had 22 pt. 4Q last night)
+00.3 Rajon Rondo .......................... 246
-02.3 Kendrick Perkins ...................... 211
-02.6 Eddie House .......................... 134
-04.1 Glen Davis ............................ 132 (continues to overachieve with high B-Ball IQ)
-14.7 Patrick O'Bryant ....................... 11
-15.1 Brian Scalabrine ....................... 19 (still here after all these years)
-27.4 Gabe Pruitt ............................ 15
-41.3 Bill Walker ............................. 6 (it would help if he at least had a shot)

And yes, Paul Pierce fans, these numbers do include the 36 point Toronto game.

I don't pay attention to these **** made-up stats...I let me eyes and the stats in the boxscore do the talking/thinking

MyInsatiableOne wrote:I don't pay attention to these **** made-up stats...I let me eyes and the stats in the boxscore do the talking/thinking

I didn't put much stock into Hollinger's opinions, because I didn't think he knew much about talent or basketball.

I never felt that he adequately addressed whether one player was quick enough, big enough, or strong enough to do certain things against another when comparing players.

However, after ignoring his PER stats for a long time, NET PER intrigued me, and I finally went out and bought Hollinger's book and digested it over 6 months or so. That was probably like 2 years ago.

The interesting thing about NET PER is if a point guard beats his man to the interior, and the defending center and power forward allow the PG to score, the minus points go against the opposing PG.

If the defending center or power forward challenge the offensive PG, and the PG passes to his own PF or C for a dunk, the assist goes against the defending PG, but the ASSISTED BASKET (which counts less than an unassisted basket) goes against the C or PF who stepped out to challenge the PG.

Interesting stuff, but far more useful than any stat I've seen.

Because it factors in who can defend.

For like 4 straight years Garnett had the best NET PER in the NBA (last year he was second behind LeBron James), making him arguably the MVP for all of those years.

Last year Paul Pierce had the 10th best NET PER in the NBA, which would make him a top ten player also. It proved Pierce was a lot more complete player than the rest of the world gave him credit for being.

This year, besides Tony Allen's pit bull defense, it's apparent that Ray Allen is continuing the great effort he put forth last year as well. It's these little things why the Celtics have been so successful.

I like Net Per because it makes an attempt to actually measure defense. Almost all fans are way biased towards offense.

The Celtics have thrived best when their defense dominated, their team defense. So the net Per to a small extent let's me loof at how the various players are defending.

For example, the Celtics brain trust descibed TA as our best perimeter defender. Indeed, his defensive PER was the best on the team.