PDA

View Full Version : Go L.A.! Pau & Kobe #1 and #3 Best in NBA (Statistcally)



DaBUU
11-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Please discuss.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/PRA.jsp?league=00&season=22010&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams

chicago lulz
11-19-2010, 12:49 PM
you didn't exactly go about this the right way...

ManRam
11-19-2010, 12:50 PM
Are you serious with this thread?

I love having the Lakers shoved down my throat!

J4KOP99
11-19-2010, 12:51 PM
Haha

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 12:53 PM
It would be worth keeping this thread open just to discuss how bogus that stat is.

News24/7
11-19-2010, 12:54 PM
Are you serious with this thread?

I love having the Lakers shoved down my throat!

yet looking at your past posts, you don't seem to mind the heat being shoved down that place.

but with that said, i agree that it's annoying that this type of **** comes up everyday.

ManRam
11-19-2010, 12:55 PM
As for the stat...

It sucks. Plain and simple.

DLeeicious
11-19-2010, 12:57 PM
OP is such a Laker homer. And Rose sucks so if he is #2 on that list then it's a dumb list.

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 12:58 PM
Are you serious with this thread?

I love having the Lakers shoved down my throat!

I think it's actually a baiting thread. Rose is there at #2, just above Kobe (OP has Bulls sig).

But "(Points + Rebounds + Assists) : Average"? WTF?

Baller1
11-19-2010, 01:00 PM
:laugh2:

If we're going to use stats from NBA.com, at least use something relatively accredited.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp

News24/7
11-19-2010, 01:00 PM
I think it's actually a baiting thread. Rose is there at #2, just above Kobe (OP has Bulls sig).

But "(Points + Rebounds + Assists) : Average"? WTF?

yeah it's a pretty useless stat.

Although that is a pretty funny catch with Rose at #2 :laugh:

ManRam
11-19-2010, 01:00 PM
It's a good fantasy stat I guess...if you are in a three category league :shrug:

Any sort of efficiency stat is far better than this in terms of real basketball, and Kobe and Rose rank a lot lower on those.

DaBUU
11-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Its baiting becuase I posted a thread about stats? You know, actual facts and not opinions. I didnt make this list up or get it from some crap site, got it from NBA.com. And becuase Rose is listed #2, now I'm baiting? give me a break, i guess the name Derrick Rose is banned from the NBA forum now. I was messing around with throwing Rose in there, this could be a decent thread and topic, but of course right off the bat people start crying,

DaBUU
11-19-2010, 01:02 PM
:laugh2:

If we're going to use stats from NBA.com, at least use something relatively accredited.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp

this is also worth discussing

News24/7
11-19-2010, 01:02 PM
OP is such a Laker homer. And Rose sucks so if he is #2 on that list then it's a dumb list.

How does a top 5 PG suck? :confused:

News24/7
11-19-2010, 01:03 PM
Its baiting becuase I posted a thread about stats

Isn't there a nba stats forum where you can post this kind of stuff?

Baller1
11-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Its baiting becuase I posted a thread about stats? You know, actual facts and not opinions. I didnt make this list up or get it from some crap site, got it from NBA.com. And becuase Rose is listed #2, now I'm baiting? give me a break, i guess the name Derrick Rose is banned from the NBA forum now. I was messing around with throwing Rose in there, this could be a decent thread and topic, but of course right off the bat people start crying,

Because it's an utterly useless stat.

ManRam
11-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Its baiting becuase I posted a thread about stats? You know, actual facts and not opinions. I didnt make this list up or get it from some crap site, got it from NBA.com. And becuase Rose is listed #2, now I'm baiting? give me a break, i guess the name Derrick Rose is banned from the NBA forum now. I was messing around with throwing Rose in there, this could be a decent thread and topic, but of course right off the bat people start crying,

You presented this "stat" in a very subjective and obnoxious way. That's the problem. If you wanted intelligent discussion on the matter, I'm guessing you didn't, you would have made the thread in a better, more accessible and more objective way. Not "GO LA!"...and oh yeah, "Rose is #2". It's clear what your motives are, and that's why the thread stinks.

DaBUU
11-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Because it's an utterly useless stat.

yes points, assists, and rebounds are useless

DaBUU
11-19-2010, 01:07 PM
alright i changed it, now everyone can stop crying

DLeeicious
11-19-2010, 01:08 PM
How does a top 5 PG suck? :confused:

Where do I begin?

- He has a huge ego and lets it get in the way constantly.

- He has zero work ethic and if he has a weakness he just lets it be.

- He has no desire to be a leader or try and take over games. Just leans on his teammates for that.

- He can't shoot.

- He is slow getting to the hoop.

I could go on and on.

Baller1
11-19-2010, 01:08 PM
yes points, assists, and rebounds are useless

So points, assists, and rebounds make up for a players lack of defense (i.e steals and blocks), while completely disregarding how efficiently those players are scoring to accumulate those points? Yeah, that's why it's useless.

ManRam
11-19-2010, 01:10 PM
It's not useless, every stat has a use...it's just not one of the 50 or so most telling stats. Too many variables aren't being taken into account, especially when you are trying to combine so many different aspects of the game.

chicago lulz
11-19-2010, 01:10 PM
arguing statistics is like arguing 'science vs religion', all based on theory and never 100% factual. so in the end no one is actually right :[

DaBUU
11-19-2010, 01:10 PM
It's a good fantasy stat I guess...if you are in a three category league :shrug:

Any sort of efficiency stat is far better than this in terms of real basketball, and Kobe and Rose rank a lot lower on those.

Kevin Durant is ranked #20 on this list. how does that make this list more valuable? we all know what Durant does, hes an MVP candidate for gods sake.

News24/7
11-19-2010, 01:13 PM
Where do I begin?

- He has a huge ego and lets it get in the way constantly.

- He has zero work ethic and if he has a weakness he just lets it be.

- He has no desire to be a leader or try and take over games. Just leans on his teammates for that.

- He can't shoot.

- He is slow getting to the hoop.

I could go on and on.

maybe were seeing different people cause i don't see much ego from Rose, at least not lately.

Once again, wtf? I've heard otherwise.

This is his third year in the NBA and still very young, i would give him more time for that kind of responsibility.

You mean from the 3 point line? Then yes. He seems to be pretty good mid range though. However Rondo can't shoot beyond 15 feet yet no one seems to complain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyIEhnv3Cqc Looks pretty quick to me.

Please do go on and on, i got time. I don't question your intelligence but i do question where you got this bogus information from?

stunt515
11-19-2010, 01:15 PM
Where do I begin?

- He has a huge ego and lets it get in the way constantly.

- He has zero work ethic and if he has a weakness he just lets it be.

- He has no desire to be a leader or try and take over games. Just leans on his teammates for that.

- He can't shoot.

- He is slow getting to the hoop.

I could go on and on.


im sorry but that is just such a bad comment. Derrick rose is one of the most humble players in the league. Also have you watched the last few bulls games and seen what derrick rose has done in the 4th quarter. Plus u said hes slow getting to the hoop, have you ever watched him play. He is one of the best/fastest player in the league getting to the hoop, that is his biggest strength

ShakeN'Bake
11-19-2010, 01:15 PM
It would be worth keeping this thread open just to discuss how bogus that stat is.

Ya not sure if this stat really says much.

DLeeicious
11-19-2010, 01:15 PM
maybe were seeing different people cause i don't see much ego from Rose, at least not lately.

Once again, wtf? I've heard otherwise.

This is his third year in the NBA and still very young, i would give him more time for that kind of responsibility.

You mean from the 3 point line? Then yes. He seems to be pretty good mid range though. However Rondo can't shoot beyond 15 feet yet no one seems to complain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyIEhnv3Cqc Looks pretty quick to me.

Please do go on and on, i got time. I don't question your intelligence but i do question where you got this bogus information from?


I gathered this info from watching him play twice over the last few years.

- He also never finds an open man.

- He is terrible on the fast break, I swear the Bulls would be better off just giving the ball to Noah on fast breaks (and we've all seen PG Noah in action).

- He argues with the refs way too much.

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 01:20 PM
arguing statistics is like arguing 'science vs religion', all based on theory and never 100% factual. so in the end no one is actually right :[

No, not really. Not at all.

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 01:21 PM
Ya not sure if this stat really says much.

Which was exactly my point.

Raidaz4Life
11-19-2010, 01:22 PM
Kevin Durant is ranked #20 on this list. how does that make this list more valuable? we all know what Durant does, hes an MVP candidate for gods sake.

I actually strongly agree with this point. Efficiency stats have become the most overrated stats ever.

News24/7
11-19-2010, 01:24 PM
I gathered this info from watching him play twice over the last few years.

- He also never finds an open man.

- He is terrible on the fast break, I swear the Bulls would be better off just giving the ball to Noah on fast breaks (and we've all seen PG Noah in action).

- He argues with the refs way too much.

watching him play....twice? two times in his 2.10 years of his career? Well that's certainly not even close to the reasonable amount. I'm gonna take a wild guess that the two times you saw him play was when he had an off day.

So he lacks awareness? I agree that he will have to become more of a pass-first then a shoot-first PG, but i don't think it's 100% his fault. Sometimes when that happens, it's usually because the team does not spread out a lot. I think as he gets older, or when he gets the right teammates, he will mature better and get more assists then he does now.

I've seen worse. MUCH worse. Watch Jose Calderon and you will know exactly what i mean.

That's....basically every single player that has ever played a competitive sport like basketball, football, and baseball.

mikantsass
11-19-2010, 01:25 PM
Lol Rose is #2, I wonder why this Bulls idiot started the thread

News24/7
11-19-2010, 01:29 PM
i have very mixed feelings with Efficiency stats. I feel like whenever i see two players for example, player A shoots great and is averaging a lot of points, or assists, or boards, etc etc. and player B is good as well but not as great as player A. Then all of a sudden i see that player B has an efficiency rating of 27.3 and player A efficiency rating of 22.1.

Not all the time this is the case but that's just how I've seen it and i feel like my judgment and my eyes are wrong sometimes. It's quite frustrating actually :(.

DLeeicious
11-19-2010, 01:31 PM
watching him play....twice? two times in his 2.10 years of his career? Well that's certainly not even close to the reasonable amount. I'm gonna take a wild guess that the two times you saw him play was when he had an off day.

So he lacks awareness? I agree that he will have to become more of a pass-first then a shoot-first PG, but i don't think it's 100% his fault. Sometimes when that happens, it's usually because the team does not spread out a lot. I think as he gets older, or when he gets the right teammates, he will mature better and get more assists then he does now.

I've seen worse. MUCH worse. Watch Jose Calderon and you will know exactly what i mean.

That's....basically every single player that has ever played a competitive sport like basketball, football, and baseball.

I think I gathered enough in the 2 games to passionately hate a player I think that's enough games.

I mean you can like him but personally I would rather have Calderon anyday. Just my opinion/hatred.


Lol Rose is #2, I wonder why this Bulls idiot started the thread

Don't worry already taken care of.

Cubsfan365
11-19-2010, 01:31 PM
watching him play....twice? two times in his 2.10 years of his career? Well that's certainly not even close to the reasonable amount. I'm gonna take a wild guess that the two times you saw him play was when he had an off day.

So he lacks awareness? I agree that he will have to become more of a pass-first then a shoot-first PG, but i don't think it's 100% his fault. Sometimes when that happens, it's usually because the team does not spread out a lot. I think as he gets older, or when he gets the right teammates, he will mature better and get more assists then he does now.

I've seen worse. MUCH worse. Watch Jose Calderon and you will know exactly what i mean.

That's....basically every single player that has ever played a competitive sport like basketball, football, and baseball.
Come on man. He's being sarcastic obviously

PatsSoxKnicks
11-19-2010, 01:33 PM
If this stat was pace adjusted, it might have some relevance. No, actually it still wouldn't. You can't just add up assists, points and rebounds. It makes no sense. The correlation between this stat and winning is probably among the lowest correlation coefficients among any stats.

Southsideheat
11-19-2010, 01:37 PM
The funny thing is that people actually think you can use something like sabermetrics in basketball when it clearly can't work because there's 5 guys on the court working together.

People hate Rose on this site because people are obnioxious bringing him up constantly and defending him. I really don't need some teenager from bumbletown with 10,000 posts to tell me that Rose is good. If you don't think he's good, it sounds like a personal problem and honestly i really don't have time for it.

DLeeicious
11-19-2010, 01:41 PM
The funny thing is that people actually think you can use something like sabermetrics in basketball when it clearly can't work because there's 5 guys on the court working together.

People hate Rose on this site because people are obnioxious bringing him up constantly and defending him. I really don't need some teenager from bumbletown with 10,000 posts to tell me that Rose is good. If you don't think he's good, it sounds like a personal problem and honestly i really don't have time for it.

You can like him but there is no way the Bulls ever even sniff the playoffs with him as their PG. He doesn't have "it" like Calderon, Udrih, Arroyo, etc..

YankeesR#2
11-19-2010, 01:42 PM
http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22010&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=7&splitDD=All%20Teams

I think this rating is just as relevent

sep11ie
11-19-2010, 01:45 PM
Are you serious with this thread?

I love having the Lakers shoved down my throat!

No homo

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 01:46 PM
i have very mixed feelings with Efficiency stats. I feel like whenever i see two players for example, player A shoots great and is averaging a lot of points, or assists, or boards, etc etc. and player B is good as well but not as great as player A. Then all of a sudden i see that player B has an efficiency rating of 27.3 and player A efficiency rating of 22.1.

Not all the time this is the case but that's just how I've seen it and i feel like my judgment and my eyes are wrong sometimes. It's quite frustrating actually :(.

What you're getting into is the difference between efficiency and production. Efficiency without production is essentially meaningless, because, well, the player isn't producing anything of value that contributes to winning. On the other hand, inefficient production is clearly (and demonstrably) less helpful for winning than efficient production.

Simply put, inefficiency basically boils down to wasted possessions via missed shots, and turnovers. It also is about the value of shots made (3 pointers being more valuable than 2 pointers).

So four players on 12 offensive possessions, all shooting a .500 fg% and scoring 10 points:

A: 5/10 fgm/a, 0/4 3pt m/a, 2 turnovers, 10 pts

B: 5/10 fgm/a, 0/4 3pt m/a, 10 pts, 0 turnovers, and his team has 2 remaining scoring opportunities (=possessions)

C: 4/8 fgm/a, 2/4 3ptm/a, 2 turnovers, 10 pts, & 2 possessions remaining

D: 4/8 fgm/a, 2/4 3ptm/a, 0 turnovers, & 4 possessions remaining


A is the least efficient, B&C are equally efficient (although in different ways), and D is the most efficient.

So comparing a player who has great efficiency but only scores 7 points a game to an inefficient player who scores 27, of course the latter is much more valuable.

But comparing a player who scores 25 a game much more efficiently than a player who scores 27, the 25-pt player is probably more valuable because he isn't wasting as many scoring opportunities for his team.

ManRam
11-19-2010, 01:51 PM
No homo

I'm Lloyd. Phrases like that aren't in my vocab.

[sitting back, letting Den do the "hard" work]

Southsideheat
11-19-2010, 01:51 PM
What you're getting into is the difference between efficiency and production. Efficiency without production is essentially meaningless, because, well, the player isn't producing anything of value that contributes to winning. On the other hand, inefficient production is clearly (and demonstrably) less helpful for winning than efficient production.

Simply put, inefficiency basically boils down to wasted possessions via missed shots, and turnovers. It also is about the value of shots made (3 pointers being more valuable than 2 pointers).

So four players on 12 offensive possessions, all shooting a .500 fg% and scoring 10 points:

A: 5/10 fgm/a, 0/4 3pt m/a, 2 turnovers, 10 pts

B: 5/10 fgm/a, 0/4 3pt m/a, 10 pts, 0 turnovers, and his team has 2 remaining scoring opportunities (=possessions)

C: 4/8 fgm/a, 2/4 3ptm/a, 2 turnovers, 10 pts, & 2 possessions remaining

D: 4/8 fgm/a, 2/4 3ptm/a, 0 turnovers, & 4 possessions remaining


A is the least efficient, B&C are equally efficient (although in different ways), and D is the most efficient.

So comparing a player who has great efficiency but only scores 7 points a game to an inefficient player who scores 27, of course the latter is much more valuable.

But comparing a player who scores 25 a game much more efficiently than a player who scores 27, the 25-pt player is probably more valuable because he isn't wasting as many scoring opportunities for his team.

And all of this depends on who is on the floor with a certain player so all of this is meaningless.

Raph12
11-19-2010, 01:55 PM
Pts+Rbs+Asts doesn't equal "Best in NBA (Statistically)" lol.

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 01:56 PM
And all of this depends on who is on the floor with a certain player so all of this is meaningless.

"Don't criticize what you can't understand."
-Bob Dylan

avrpatsfan
11-19-2010, 01:58 PM
:laugh:

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 01:58 PM
And all of this depends on who is on the floor with a certain player so all of this is meaningless.

not true at all. Its why Kevin Love was more efficient, and had a higher PER than 8 all stars last year. Individual's offensive ratings can be effected by their surroundings to a degree, but it isn't that much

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 01:59 PM
um, NBA.com efficiency rating is a joke. Its basically a fantasy rating.

DenButsu
11-19-2010, 01:59 PM
And all of this depends on who is on the floor with a certain player so all of this is meaningless.

Let me make a slightly more productive reply:

Find out who Dean Oliver is, how he became well known and respected, and who he works for now. And then ask yourself why his current employer would pay his salary if "all of this is meaningless".

xbrackattackx
11-19-2010, 02:01 PM
I love having the Lakers shoved down my throat!

That's what she said.

Southsideheat
11-19-2010, 02:04 PM
"Don't criticize what you can't understand."
-Bob Dylan

But i do understand. You can't be efficient as an individual player if you teammates don't know where to be on the court, or if your team is down all the time, or you're the only scoring option on your team, or your offensive gameplan is to put up as many shots as possible etc.

It's not baseball where its a pitcher versus a hitter. And even then there are instances where things aren't being accounted for. Basketball is about teams being larger than the summation of their parts. Player A could be way more efficient than player B if he was on team B instead of team A.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 02:04 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2011&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=28&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=per

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2011&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=28&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2011&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=28&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=off_rtg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2011&year_max=2011&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=28&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws_per_48


here are 4 different things to look at, just for starters. PER, Offrtg, Win shares, Win shares/48.

Clearly Pau Gasol is in the top 3 statistically. As is Paul. Kobe is for sure top 10 statistically so far. And as the season wears on, many of the current top 10 will fall back to the mean, and Kobe will rise again into a top 5-6 statistical player

Avenged
11-19-2010, 02:05 PM
So it's points+rebounds+assists?

At least the 2 Lakers stars are getting the job done. It's not like they're not efficient in doing so, they're both in the top 10 in efficiency as of right now.

PatsSoxKnicks
11-19-2010, 02:06 PM
Let me make a slightly more productive reply:

Find out who Dean Oliver is, how he became well known and respected, and who he works for now. And then ask yourself why his current employer would pay his salary if "all of this is meaningless".

And its not just Dean Oliver, there are "stats" guys littered all around the NBA. The Rockets, the Magic (I think, not sure), the Celtics, the Cavs, etc.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 02:07 PM
But i do understand. You can't be efficient as an individual player if you teammates don't know where to be on the court, or if your team is down all the time, or you're the only scoring option on your team, or your offensive gameplan is to put up as many shots as possible etc.

It's not baseball where its a pitcher versus a hitter. And even then there are instances where things aren't being accounted for. Basketball is about teams being larger than the summation of their parts. Player A could be way more efficient than player B if he was on team B instead of team A.

while this is partially true, it doesn't change the fact that player A may be more efficient than player B, DESPITE his weaker surroundings. So, if a player on a bad team has better efficiency numbers than a player on a good player, it makes it even more impressive.

Southsideheat
11-19-2010, 02:08 PM
Let me make a slightly more productive reply:

Find out who Dean Oliver is, how he became well known and respected, and who he works for now. And then ask yourself why his current employer would pay his salary if "all of this is meaningless".

Because they're looking for an edge. Doesn't mean they know he is correct in his evaluations. It happens everyday in the global market. Investments succeed and fail.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 02:08 PM
Hence why the term, "Stats are easier to get on a bad team."
Not true at all to be more efficient on a bad team

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 02:09 PM
Because they're looking for an edge. Doesn't mean they know he is correct in his evaluations. It happens everyday in the global market. Investments succeed and fail.

then why are the teams that use those tools so great at getting steals in the draft/trades? Its not chance

Southsideheat
11-19-2010, 02:11 PM
while this is partially true, it doesn't change the fact that player A may be more efficient than player B, DESPITE his weaker surroundings. So, if a player on a bad team has better efficiency numbers than a player on a good player, it makes it even more impressive.

What if player B is asked to do different things than player A, and because of it, that is why he's on a better team?

Avenged
11-19-2010, 02:12 PM
The top 10 players in efficiency are:

1. Chris Paul
2. Pau Gasol
3. Al Horford
4. Russell Westbrook
5. Dwight Howard
6. Kobe Bryant
7. Luis Scola
8. Lebron James
9. Paul Millsap
10. Dwyane Wade

Expect some of these to fall down as the season progresses. And just for the record since people were mentioning Rose, he's 16 in per...

Southsideheat
11-19-2010, 02:14 PM
then why are the teams that use those tools so great at getting steals in the draft/trades? Its not chance

Sample size. And lets just say what they are. They're tools, i'm not discounting them, maybe a little, but these tools should be used in conjuction with other tools, and not just by themselves.

daleja424
11-19-2010, 02:19 PM
we have a statistics forum for threads about stats...

and this thread has become a joke and a place for mocking the OP...

closed.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2010, 02:26 PM
What if player B is asked to do different things than player A, and because of it, that is why he's on a better team?

now you are referring to role players. And those can become debateable when measuring a bit easier.