Mizerooskie wrote:[snip]
Also, there were 38 PFs in the NBA with a PER of 15 or better. There were 23 SGs (and 18 SFs). In fact, PF is the position with the most 15+ PER players in the league. So it's much easier to find a good PF than it is to find a good SG (or SF).
Regarding Booker and Seraphin, both are still developing, 2nd year players.
Among NBA PFs, Seraphin was 34th and Booker 36th in PER (both of which were major improvements over their rookie years). It's not a stretch to imagine that they'll further improve this season.
If you rate Seraphin among centers, his ranking rises to 24th.
when I read this, my first thought is that maybe PER isn't that valuable when
comparing players at different positions, that it values the stats that PFs
produce more than what SF/SGs do. Alternatively, PER may be saying that
PFs ARE more important than SF/SGs.
Also if PER is adjusted so that league average = 15, if you have the same number
of PFs as SFs or SGs, you should have about the same number of players above and
below that figure...assuming league average is median, not the arithmetic mean.
or maybe I am totally not getting what PER is trying to describe and how it is designed
to do that.
