Can Danny?

I have said time and again that PER is the most useless stat in basketball and that it doesn't mean a damn thing when evaluating players. Even John Hollinger finally had to admit that his stat is flawed. While he didn't go so far to admit that his favorite formula is a load of crap, one can't help but read between the lines. His defense for PER is as ridiculous as a stat. He says that Eddy Curry is a monster but can only play 20 minutes per game because of fouls and conditioning. However he defends his rankings by insisting that Curry being "better" isn't a shock.

Curry, for instance, projects to average 22.0 points per 40 minutes and shoot 56.5 percent from the floor; since he averaged 21.0 and 56.3 percent last year, this shouldn't be controversial. The fact this gives him a better projected PER than Kidd may strike some folks as odd based on the two players' reputations, but if he outrated Kidd on this metric this season it wouldn't shock me at all.

The key phrase is "if he outrated Kidd on this metric". Hollinger believes that this is a defense of his system when in reality it is the final proof that this metric has no value to basketball fans. What's the point of projecting a player's stats per 40 if they have no chance of playing 40 minutes a game. Better yet, what guarentee is there that the player would be able to keep up their performance if they had to stay on the court longer? This is like the NFL having a per snap ranking or if track and field aficionados took a person's 400 meter time, multiplied it by 4, and claimed that number would be the sprinters "per mile" ranking. In the end, by Hollinger's rationale, if NBA games were 20 minutes long, Eddy Curry would be better than Jason Kidd. I really don't think there are many non-Knicks fanatics out there who would agree with that.

Hollinger can cop as many pleas as he wants but his preseason projections simply show how ridiculous PER is. At best, this is a fantasy basketball stat. It has no validity when it comes to how well a person plays or the impact a player has. If you have a metric where you wouldn't be surprised if Eddy Curry was ranked better than Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby, Rip Hamilton, and Joe Johnson and claims that there are 107 players projected ahead of Ron Artest, then you need to find yourself a new metric.