adamcz wrote:A: Because his track record seems better than most of the guys listed above
For me that is a big thing. I've followed the Hollinger PER analysis for five years now and I'm not convinced it necessarily tells you which players are more valuable than others. For example, Redd has in the past had a very high PER but we've always been debating how much a factor he really is on the court. By the same token, Charlie V usually has a much higher PER than I think his actual play on the court has really shown.
In contrast, Redd has never been a super-high guy as it relates to wins produced. Sure he's been good, but not in my opinion on a relative basis when compared to how high the PER values him. (maybe Berri or Hollinger disagree with this). From my vantage point, I tend to view Redd as a player more along the lines of how Berri statistical model views him, hence I see some merit in Berri.
Where the Berri formula is best applied is by Ty over at BucksDiary. As you guys know, Ty now does game by game boxscores where he calculates how well your counterpart does using Berri's formula. So you get an offensive and defensive rating. And in doing so you see how many times Redd or Mo's 24-point game in reality get's destroyed by the fact they just gave up 30 points to "Stephen Jackson" or "Beno Udrih"