Krapinsky wrote:You say that's average
I don't say that's average. John Hollinger, the guy that created PER, says that's average.
but do you know how many SG's had a 15 PER or better last year? 18 out of 65
15 PER is average for ALL players. Yeah, most SGs are below average. I could have told you that without even looking at the stats. The position sucks right now. That doesn't mean that just because a guy is no longer bad just because the other guys at his position are also bad.
Lance Stephenson and Bradley Beal also don't make your 15 PER cut off. I guess those guys are worthless too.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anyone is "worthless", I just said that I wouldn't expect them (or Beal) so suddenly become star players. If a guy shows little to no improvement for three straight years, why should anyone suddenly expect to show big improvement in the 4th year?
Also: Stephenson - 5.5, 7.0, 11.8, 14.7. He's been crap, but he's showing gradual improvement. There's reason to believe that improvement will continue and he will become an above average (maybe even star) player. The same is NOT true of Barnes, Waiters, and Thompson.
With regard to Barnes and Klay, let's take a look at the Warriors. They have Curry, Lee, Bogut, Klay, Iggy, Barnes... so much depth, so many options, and only one ball to go around. In this case, everyone's PER suffers. Do you think that Iggy was a 'below average' player last year due to his sub-14 PER? Or do you think his PER took a hit because he was playing on a stacked team?
PER is an aggregation of box score stats, so obviously less opportunities = lower stats = lower PER. However, not everyone's PER suffered. Curry's PER went from 21.3 to 24.3. Bogut's PER went from 13.8 to 17.0. Lee's PER went from stayed essentially the same (19.2 to 19.1).
Maybe Iggy's PER dropped because he's getting older (over 30 now) and regressing naturally. Over the last three years (including the years that we was "the man" in Denver and Philly), his PER has dropped from 17.6 (PHI) to 15.2 (DEN) to 13.7 (GS). He peaked at 19.0 at 24.
Also, the ball fewer touches does not explain a lack of rebounds, steals, blocks, too many turnovers, or not enough FTAs per FGA. Those are all problems that both Barnes and Thompson have.
I think we just have different expectations of what to expect in a Love trade (if measuring in terms of NBA players we'd be getting back)
Again, this isn't about what I would expect in a Love trade. This is about predicting whether young players will become stars.
If a guy went from a PER of 9 to 14 to 17, I would feel comfortable expecting them to continue to improve despite 2 years below 15 PER.
and/or I think you place an disproportionate amount of value on picks vs. young players.
No. I put a correct amount of value on picks that could (maybe even should) result in quality young players with star potential vs guys that don't have that potential.
I'd have no problem taking a talented young guy that's shown consistent improvement from year-to-year over a pick.
Remember, we've drafted Williams, Johnson, and Flynn with our recent top 5 picks, and no one would take all three of those guys in place of one of Barnes, Thompson, or Waiters at this point.
1) Kahn is no longer the GM
2) The team has also drafted Garnett and Love
3) Just because those guys sucked doesn't suddenly mean that Barnes, Thompson, and Waiters have star potential.
But Aquintus' splice jobs are too much work for my blood and take constant editing to make it right.
I 
