thebigbird wrote:danfantastk32 wrote:thebigbird wrote:Caruso has a 6.8 net rating, higher than Rondo. He also has good size at 6'5 and is playing meaningful minutes for the first time in his career. All things considered, he's doing pretty well. Cook also has a much better net rating than Rondo. We'd be better off with either playing instead of Rondo.
Quinn's rockin a paltry 9.63 per as well. MY stats say Rondo is the better choice. By a large margin.
No one uses PER, lol. Boban Marjanovic has a higher career PER than Kareem. Guess he's the better choice too.
If you want to use PER as the end all be all then Rondo is better than Danny Green, KCP, Kuzma, and Avery Bradley too. I dont think you'd find anyone who agrees with you on that.
I use PER.
Or at least, I like it. The frustrating thing about hoops is that it's not a static game like baseball, where you can nail down pretty much everything that takes place. So, as much as I appreciate advanced stats, you do have to take them with a grain of salt. Like on/off and net ratings: I like those too, but there's a school of thought that it's so noisy, even when adjusted, that you can only get an accurate picture from using multi-season increments. So they've obviously got their flaws as well. (For example: We're currently plus 10.4/100 when AD is OFF the court, and I don't think anyone here wouldn't play him for 48 minutes if they could.)
But getting back to PER, I do think it has some value given that the players who lead the league are invariably, with a couple of exceptions, are pretty much exactly the ones you'd think. Put another way: If you have a measurement that has players like Wilt, Kareem, Jordan and LeBron annually leading, then you're headed in the right direction. Without an end-all, be-all measurement like WAR or WHIP, it's just another piece to help form a composite. And I will always take that over the "eye test" or pulling stuff out of our ass based on subjective biases.