I never said PER was the only measurement, but it is a valuable measurement. Would you consider field goal percentage to be a measurement that matters, because Fox is sitting at 56% while Garland sits at 39% and your buddy Trae Young sits at 38%.
You're making the same case Simmons is making, however, which is treating subjective outlooks as definitive objectivity. I'm doing the same, but I'll gladly own that. I'm not taking Trae over Fox, and I'm not sure anyone would. He's a volume scorer with really horrific shooting numbers. You taking Garland? That's subjective. His efficiency comps are on par with Fox, except Garland is shooting almost as bad as Young from the field at 39%. Fox towers above both of them at around 55%.
Something that definitely needs to be in this discussion is age. Do you take Fox over Paul or Steph or Kyrie if it's just a question of just this season? No, but he's only 24 years old. Part of Simmons' main argument is in regard to the Lakers future. You take Fox over many of those "top 36" guys on your list if you're building for the future, and you take him over many of the young guys, too. Simmons thesis is based on which option spells the best long-term residual, and Fox's age has to be a significant factor.
And I never claimed you said it was, man. I just told you it’s a flawed and outdated stat that was your only argument of *any* substance.
Using any type of measurement based off a 7 game sample size isn’t really valuable at all under the scope of an 82 game season, which is something you can’t seem to grasp. Maybe you do, but just want to die on this hill for Fox because he’s a UK guy, and everyone has an obsession of telling “sports analysts” due to a victim complex — who knows. But the reality is comparing players SOLEY off the minimal games played this season is comical, especially if it’s your main and only argument.
No, I wouldn’t consider field goal % to matter IN THE FIRST 7 GAMES OF THE SEASON”
I could show you many examples of one clearly inferior player putting better stats in some categories over clearly superior players all day.
For example, in the format of your argument:
“Donovan Mitchell is better than LeBron James. Mitchell is averaging 31 PPG on 48% shooting, where as LeBron is averaging 24 PPG on 43%.”
“You wouldn’t take Mikal Bridges over Luka Doncic? Haha! Mikal is shooting 60% from the field while Luka is only averaging 53%.”
“SGA is better than Joel Embiid. SGA is 3rd in PER, while Embiid is 18th”
“Alperen Sengun is better than DeAarron Fox! Sengun is 10th in PER, Fox is 12”
You see how dumb your logic is? You’re using a disingenuous argument based on a small sample size of 7 games, and disregarding past full seasons of data.
I’m fully confident if you polled all 30 GMs who’d theyd rather take, Trae or Fox, 30/30 would pick Trae without hesitation. Fortunately for fans of NBA teams, GMs don’t take the first 10 games of the season to make an evaluation of a player and disregard the past completely.
Trae is a multi time all star, all-nba selection, and has brought his team to the ECF, in which he almost won — against the defending champs.
Fox has never made an all star team (most likely won’t make many due to the guard play in the west), an all-nba team, and has never made the playoffs
Trae Young’s CAREER averages are arguably better than Fox’s stats over this tiny 10 game sample size that you’re so bullish on, haha:
Trae’s career averages (289 games): 25/4/9 on 44/35/87
Fox this year (7 games): 26/6/5 on 55/37/87
Why don’t we compare last years averages instead of 7 game sample sizes?
Last year,
Trae: 28/4/10 on 46/38(on 8 attempts!!)/90
Fox: 23/4/6/ on 47/30/75
They aren’t even in the same league, not kidding. Trae is on a different planet in every aspect on offense, and even though he’s a terrible defender, Fox isn’t anything special on that end so it doesn’t really matter.
Yes, I’m also unequivocally taking Garland. Because I don’t just look at 7 game sample sizes to fit my narrative.
Garlands been in the league for 3 full seasons (his 4th year just started) and already has a better statistically season than Fox has ever had, made an all star team, and made the play-in game. He’s not as drastically better than fox like Trae is, but he’s still notably better. He’s already better and he’ll continue to get better (not that potential has anything to do with this, but just wanted to add on.)
Fox doesn’t have a better season than 22/3/9 on 46/38/89, while making the play-in, and the all star team. GMs might even prefer Garlands more steady and less reckless play than Trae, so he would definitely be picked over Fox.
And no, age doesn’t need to be discussed WHATSOEVER. That’s just you moving the goalposts because you realize how little of an argument you have for fox. We’re talking about the best 8 PG’s right now. The best 35 players in the league right now. Fox definitely isn’t in the top 8 PG’s and he might be in the top 35, but he’s no higher than 30. Which is just being trivial. Simmons was right.
The fact that I named 10+ PGs and like 20+ players I thought Fox was better, and the only guys you had a big enough problem with were 2 players, shows you all you need to know.
Fox is great player. He’s a fringe all star at best. Simmons was right about him, just because he’s a UK guy doesn’t mean you have to overrate him.