Matthew wrote:I never said it wasnt, so why roll your eyes?
Here's the problem I have with it:A PER is a much accurate system of efficiency scoring because it's based on a per minute efficiency
A per minute system? A NBA game is 48 minutes, and the more valueable a player the more minutes he plays. Think of all the great players, magic, bird, Jordan, shaq.. they all logged rather significant minutes becuase they were instrumental in their teams sucess. If you go by production by minutes, you might be fooled that bobby jackson was the best player in the nba in 2002 becuase of his great bench play.
No he wouldn't be because his PER was only 19.2 that year.
The point is, an efficiency rating should show how productive a player is on the court, regardless of how long he plays. Also, all these players mentioned play significant minutes whether it be 30 mpg or 45mpg. The point of making it a per minute rating is to cut down on the inconsistency that comes from the different teams' pace of the game. For example, team A might average 80 posession a game and team B might average 70 posessions. Because of this, let's say on a typical game that team A plays there are 100 available rebounds and the latter has 80. A player from team A grabs 10 of these rebounds and a player from team B grabs 10 also. The player from team B's the superior rebounder but per game stats would not show that. By limiting it to a per minute based rating, it eliminates such inconsistency.
Also, I didn't roll my eyes to be sarcastic to you, but rather showing my general discontent of NBA.com's statistics.
) I'm inclined to believe stats are all we have to evaluate players. Also, the pace problem can be easily fixed by stats based on rates 
.
