PDA

View Full Version : #7 Center In The NBA? (Volume IV)



Mile High Champ
08-17-2011, 09:23 PM
Hey guys, Some of you may remember that for the last three years I have conducted a poll at the end of the season that had PSD users vote for the top 10 players at each position. Its is now that time to vote! I would like to start this up once more considering the NBA season is now over and we can get to this discussion since lots has changed since the start of last season. Please TRY AND VOTE FOR THE BEST PLAYER AND DON'T BE A HOMER. I will leave the poll open for one day and than we can carry on to the next best player at that position. I will add more players after each round. I have also included the results of those last 2 years so everyone can see how much things have changed...Enjoy.

REMEMBER this is based on who is the best player, not the player who has the potential to be the best.

1) Dwight Howard
2) Andrew Bynum
3) Tim Duncan
4) Andrew Bogut
5) Al Horford
6) Marc Gasol
7)
8)
9)
10)



2010 Off-Season C Rankings

1) Dwight Howard
2) Yao Ming
3) Andrew Bogut
4) Brook Lopez
5) Andrew Bynum
6) Marc Gasol
7) Joakim Noah
8) Al Horford
9) Al Jefferson
10) Chris Kaman

2009 Off-Season C Rankings

1) Dwight Howard
2) Yao Ming
3) Al Jefferson
4) Shaquille O'Neal
5) Andrea Bargnani
6) Andris Biedrins
7) Emeka Okafor
8) Nene
9) Brook Lopez
10) Andrew Bynum

2008 Off-Season C Rankings:

1) Dwight Howard
2) Yao Ming
3) Al Jefferson
4) Andrew Bynum
5) Chris Kaman
6) Tyson Chandler
7) Shaquille O'Neal
8) Marcus Camby
9) Jermaine O'neal
10) Andrew Bogut

Mile High Champ
08-17-2011, 09:27 PM
Lets Get voting...

GoPacers33
08-17-2011, 09:30 PM
Roy Hibbert

Cal827
08-17-2011, 09:31 PM
Why do people keep forgetting about Al Jefferson... Kinda surprising seeing a center that can average about 20-10-2 consistently who can play decent interior defense and get two blocks per game still on this list... IMO he's at least better than Gasol uprising (at least as of now).

Noah is next but it's a crapshoot for the next spots for me... Nene i guess for 9... as for 10th, Chandler had one good year but is somewhat inconsistent, same thing for Hibbert/Mcgee.... and Don't get me started on Bargnani lol

Also, isn't David Lee a PF?

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 09:34 PM
This list is an absolute JOKE. Andrew Bogut was the most inefficient center in the entire league last season amongst starters who played 30 minutes or more, and he's your number 4? Al Jefferson is the second most inefficient in the league.

Marc Gasol is not better than Tyson Chandler, Noah or Nene. facepalm

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 09:38 PM
Tyson Chandler again.

Crackadalic
08-17-2011, 09:42 PM
This list sucks. I pick Chandler though but damn this list isnt good

beasted86
08-17-2011, 09:46 PM
Has to be Al Jefferson here. Some posters don't know what efficiency is.

Why should I be impressed if a Center scores just over double digits, and makes 60% of their field goals, but 75% of them are assisted? Al Jefferson was 4th in the NBA in Adjusted PER because he creates a lot of his own shots, instead of merely catching and finishing or waiting around for easy put backs. He's a beast on offense, and a quality rebounder.

All this said, Jefferson has been out of shape nearly his whole career. If he ever puts it all together and cuts from 280+ to maybe 260, and reverts back to his natural PF spot, he'll be even more effective. He still gets the "Elton Brand" wrap, but his teams have been worse... and he's still playing out of position which hurts the team.

Cal827
08-17-2011, 09:46 PM
This list is an absolute JOKE. Andrew Bogut was the most inefficient center in the entire league last season amongst starters who played 30 minutes or more, and he's your number 4? Al Jefferson is the second most inefficient in the league.

Marc Gasol is not better than Tyson Chandler, Noah or Nene. facepalm

What the hell are you talking about? He shot about 50% from the field.. His efficiency was about 20.1: nowhere near 2nd worst. :facepalm:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jeffeal01.html

You'll just have to wait to see Noah on the list :D... well most likely.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 09:48 PM
This is what the hell I'm talking about:

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=C&yr=2011&gp=30&mins=30

Second worst brother man, right after Bogut.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 09:51 PM
Has to be Al Jefferson here. Some posters don't know what efficiency is.

Why should I be impressed if a Center scores just over double digits, and makes 60% of their field goals, but 75% of them are assisted? Al Jefferson was 4th in the NBA in Adjusted PER because he creates a lot of his own shots, instead of merely catching and finishing or waiting around for easy put backs. He's a beast on offense, and a quality rebounder.

All this said, Jefferson has been out of shape nearly his whole career. If he ever puts it all together and cuts from 280+ to maybe 260, and reverts back to his natural PF spot, he'll be even more effective. He still gets the "Elton Brand" wrap, but his teams have been worse... and he's still playing out of position which hurts the team.

What you described is not efficiency it is skill.

Why no mention of D however?

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 09:52 PM
Has to be Al Jefferson here. Some posters don't know what efficiency is.

Why should I be impressed if a Center scores just over double digits, and makes 60% of their field goals, but 75% of them are assisted? Al Jefferson was 4th in the NBA in Adjusted PER because he creates a lot of his own shots, instead of merely catching and finishing or waiting around for easy put backs. He's a beast on offense, and a quality rebounder.

All this said, Jefferson has been out of shape nearly his whole career. If he ever puts it all together and cuts from 280+ to maybe 260, and reverts back to his natural PF spot, he'll be even more effective. He still gets the "Elton Brand" wrap, but his teams have been worse... and he's still playing out of position which hurts the team.

ok then why not have Brook Lopez before Al Jefferson? His USG is higher, his PER is almost exactly the same, and his efficiency is better.

Why not have Al Horford ahead of Andrew Bogut? His PER is higher and his efficiency is way better. This list is just way out of whack.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 09:53 PM
This is what the hell I'm talking about:

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=C&yr=2011&gp=30&mins=30

Second worst brother man, right after Bogut.

You should have used 25 mins.

For all the skill in the world and all his offensive low post prowess it does not translate into production for Jefferson. Unlike Bogut however he really isn't impactful on D in the very least.

Cal827
08-17-2011, 09:53 PM
This is what the hell I'm talking about:

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=C&yr=2011&gp=30&mins=30

Second worst brother man, right after Bogut.

I think they just ordered them on their the first letter on their first name... cause watching the Craptors play this season, I can't see how Bargs wouldn't be the least efficient.. he averaged 20ppg on 44% shooting... I ordered them on the EFF and it said that Jefferson was 22.34, Only less than Howard and Horford. The only thing that I would think I would see him in 2nd last is true shooting %, since he only takes 2s and only shot 50% this year... but to be fair... would you prefer Channing Frye over Jefferson just because the TS% is higher? Or how about Nene over Dwight Howard? lol Just like with many of the other stats... there are some flaws.

Mishmin
08-17-2011, 09:55 PM
From here on out- Nene, Noah, Chandler and Hibbert in no particular order

beasted86
08-17-2011, 09:56 PM
This is what the hell I'm talking about:

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=C&yr=2011&gp=30&mins=30

Second worst brother man, right after Bogut.

I love how you point out TS% like it really tells the whole story... yet by every other metric (EFF, PER, APER, WS, AWS) he's top 5 in all these. Also the lowest in the entire NBA in TOR among starting Centers<-- Turnovers are a part of efficiency right?

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 09:59 PM
I love how you point out TS% like it really tells the whole story... yet by every other metric (EFF, PER, APER, WS, AWS) he's top 5 in all these. Also the lowest in the entire NBA in TOR among starting Centers<-- Turnovers are a part of efficiency right?

So is ORtg, OWS, OSPM and eFG% etc. He doesn't rank top 5 in those.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 10:03 PM
if you're impressed by Al's high PER, why didn't you guys vote Nene ahead of Gasol and Andrew? His PER is higher than both of those guys and so is his efficiency.

I mean, there's no consistency for why you guys picked the people you picked, it's like people are just picking their favorite players instead of the best players at their position.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:04 PM
What you described is not efficiency it is skill.

Why no mention of D however?

That's your take on efficiency, this is mine. I've had this debate before, so I'm not going further into it.

As for defense... nobody left on the list has such a severe gap in their defensive presence to overtake the gap in offense between them & Jefferson. The best defender left is Chander, and even still it's not enough.

Chandler is a top 5 defensive Center in the NBA, but he's a system defender. He isn't going to single handed make a team a top 5 rebound and paint defense team like a Dwight Howard or prime Ben Wallace. He has a big impact but not at the level people think. He's made 1 defensive team in his career, and has never been an outstanding rebounder.

Cal827
08-17-2011, 10:05 PM
if you're impressed by Al's high PER, why didn't you guys vote Nene ahead of Gasol and Andrew? His PER is higher than both of those guys and so is his efficiency.

I mean, there's no consistency for why you guys picked the people you picked, it's like people are just picking their favorite players instead of the best players at their position.

Well there is a reason that Bynum (who can barely play 50 games per season), is 2nd on this list :D

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:07 PM
if you're impressed by Al's high PER, why didn't you guys vote Nene ahead of Gasol and Andrew? His PER is higher than both of those guys and so is his efficiency.

I mean, there's no consistency for why you guys picked the people you picked, it's like people are just picking their favorite players instead of the best players at their position.

You are right, there is no consistency. But then again, that's why we aren't experts and this is just a forum poll that doesn't matter much. Just something to pass the time.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:11 PM
That's your take on efficiency, this is mine. I've had this debate before, so I'm not going further into it.

As for defense... nobody left on the list has such a severe gap in their defensive presence to overtake the gap in offense between them & Jefferson. The best defender left is Chander, and even still it's not enough.

Chandler is a top 5 defensive Center in the NBA, but he's a system defender. He isn't going to single handed make a team a top 5 rebound and paint defense team like a Dwight Howard or prime Ben Wallace. He has a big impact but not at the level people think. He's made 1 defensive team in his career, and has never been an outstanding rebounder.

Why are we comparing Chandler's D to Dwight and prime Ben Wallace? :confused: They are two of the best defensive Cs of all time. Chandler is not a system Defender. There is also a considerable gap not only between him and Chandler but also Jordan, Noah, Okafor, Perkins and Noah.

To say the gap isn't big really shows your lack of appreciation for their D.

It's not about who's take it is. It is an actual fact. You try to argue offensive efficiency with your opinion on it and not what it actual metrics which are made to determine it.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:11 PM
So is ORtg, OWS, OSPM and eFG% etc. He doesn't rank top 5 in those.

If he's not 2nd to worst in any of these...what's your point?

Are you debating just for debating sake, or do you support that Al Jefferson is the 2nd most inefficient Center.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:20 PM
Why are we comparing Chandler's D to Dwight and prime Ben Wallace? :confused: They are two of the best defensive Cs of all time. Chandler is not a system Defender. There is also a considerable gap not only between him and Chandler but also Jordan, Noah, Okafor, Perkins and Noah.

To say the gap isn't big really shows your lack of appreciation for their D.

It's not about who's take it is. It is an actual fact. You try to argue offensive efficiency with your opinion on it and not what it actual metrics which are made to determine it.

Watching Chandler, I'm just not that impressed in comparison to how people here talk. You'd think the guy WAS one of those top defensive Centers all time out there.

And for sure, there is no considerable gap between Chandler and the guys you mentioned.

MacFitz92
08-17-2011, 10:30 PM
The Mavericks couldn't get out of the first round. They went and got Chandler, and with Butler and Roddy injured, they won an NBA Championship whilst sweeping the Lakers.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:33 PM
I'm going to try to put this offensive efficiency debate into perspective.


Player PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48 FG% 3P% FT%
Tyson Chandler 18.4 .697 .654 12.2 26.6 19.7 2.4 0.9 3.0 14.1 14.2 131 102 5.8 3.5 9.4 0.218 .654 .732
Nene Hilario 20.4 .657 .615 7.5 20.8 14.4 10.4 1.8 2.4 13.9 18.8 123 104 6.4 3.1 9.6 0.201 .615 .200 .711
DeAndre Jordan 14.8 .648 .686 11.9 20.9 16.5 3.2 1.0 5.4 18.8 11.7 116 105 2.6 2.6 5.2 0.122 .686 .000 .452
Marcin Gortat 17.8 .594 .561 8.5 27.4 18.0 5.5 0.9 3.3 10.5 17.1 117 105 3.7 2.7 6.4 0.152 .561 .250 .725
Emeka Okafor 16.0 .584 .573 12.2 24.3 18.2 3.0 0.9 4.6 15.7 15.8 111 102 2.7 3.8 6.5 0.136 .573 .000 .562
Joakim Noah 18.8 .579 .525 13.9 22.8 18.5 10.7 1.6 3.5 15.7 16.8 117 97 3.1 3.6 6.7 0.205 .525 .000 .739
Brook Lopez 19.3 .549 .492 7.8 12.3 10.0 8.8 0.9 3.2 10.4 27.3 108 110 4.4 1.9 6.3 0.105 .492 .000 .787
Al Jefferson 20.1 .528 .496 9.6 23.2 16.3 9.2 0.8 4.2 6.8 24.2 111 108 5.1 2.7 7.8 0.128 .496 .761

League average TS% at the C is 55.3%, eFG% 52.0%, FG% 51.2%, FT% 66.3% PER 11.78.


Player G Min OSPM DSPM SPM
Nene Hilario 75 2291 2.06 2.08 4.15
Joakim Noah 48 1576 0.30 3.47 3.77
Tyson Chandler 74 2059 0.33 2.67 2.99
Marcin Gortat 80 2032 -0.60 1.80 1.20
Al Jefferson 82 2926 1.28 -0.57 0.71
Emeka Okafor 72 2273 -1.85 2.01 0.15
DeAndre Jordan 80 2047 -1.95 2.00 0.05
Brook Lopez 82 2889 1.48 -1.76 -0.27

If we want to take a statistical look at this there is no way Al Jefferson deserves to be ahead of Chandler, Nene, Noah.

I'm feeling lazy to post more numbers but if I'm challenged I'll have no problem with posting more.

From here on out I'll be going Chandler, Nene and Noah, Al Jefferson.

Of course there is more to the game than just stats but since that is what is being debated currently I made my case based on some of the stats available out there.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:33 PM
It's not about who's take it is. It is an actual fact. You try to argue offensive efficiency with your opinion on it and not what it actual metrics which are made to determine it.

Like I said, I don't feel like dragging this thread off topic, but my take on efficiency is either use their base FG% or use opinion, because IMO eFG & TS% are "theory" stats which is another way of saying "opinion" stats. I'm sure there are people here willing to convince me 2/3 is as good as 3/3 efficiency wise... so who's really using the facts? Since when is 66% as good as 100%? But that's another topic....

My "opinion" is if one guy stands in the corner and takes an uncontested jumpshot off of a pass, and another takes a contested jumpshot being double teamed, there is no "statistic" that 100% accurately tells us who is a better shooter... So the same thing comes in the standing of assisted field goals and different roles on a team. It's not only about skill, efficiency is surely involved.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:37 PM
If he's not 2nd to worst in any of these...what's your point?

Are you debating just for debating sake, or do you support that Al Jefferson is the 2nd most inefficient Center.

What about you talking about? You are being selective. You said every other metric had him in the top 5 which indeed is totally incorrect. You ignore those that aren't in your favour and take those that are into consideration. Statistics that are not universally accepted as metrics to gauge a player's offensive worth or efficiency.

I disputed the point you made of the stats you posted being the all the other metrics out there. I do not support the notion that Jefferson is the 2nd worst defensive C in the league. He is however in the lower third in terms of offensive efficiency among Cs.

Are you just quoting random numbers for the sake of quoting random numbers or do you think in terms of offensive efficiency Al Jefferson is a top 5 C in the NBA.

DR_1
08-17-2011, 10:42 PM
Noah for the third time.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:46 PM
The Mavericks couldn't get out of the first round. They went and got Chandler, and with Butler and Roddy injured, they won an NBA Championship whilst sweeping the Lakers.

While Chandler played a key role on the Mavericks, I don't understand why fans want to jump to conclusion of: + Chandler = Mavericks champions

Here's my take on it. The Nuggets 2.5 years ago traded Iverson for Billups. Suddenly it was + Billups = Nuggets legit contenders... except the very next season, this notion was totally exposed as false.

Maybe, just maybe, there is not just 1 event, but a series of events that led to the Mavericks doing what they did, just as the Nuggets reached the WCF and could have beat the Lakers if not for some stupid inbound passes. There doesn't have to be a direct correlation where 1 player gets all the credit.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:48 PM
do you think in terms of offensive efficiency Al Jefferson is a top 5 C in the NBA.

Given his situation & role, yes.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:49 PM
Like I said, I don't feel like dragging this thread off topic, but my take on efficiency is either use their base FG% or use opinion, because IMO eFG & TS% are "theory" stats which is another way of saying "opinion" stats. I'm sure there are people here willing to convince me 2/3 is as good as 3/3 efficiency wise... so who's really using the facts? Since when is 66% as good as 100%? But that's another topic....

My "opinion" is if one guy stands in the corner and takes an uncontested jumpshot off of a pass, and another takes a contested jumpshot being double teamed, there is no "statistic" that 100% accurately tells us who is a better shooter... So the same thing comes in the standing of assisted field goals and different roles on a team. It's not only about skill, efficiency is surely involved.

Bro.

We can sit here whole day every single day and argue our opinions neither one of us will ever win.

I can't argue your opinion. If you don't want come to terms with the difference between efficiency and skill than that's fine.

Like I said in my earlier posts in the Rose vs Griffin thread people tend to overrate offensive efficiency and don't really put it into context. Is Al Jefferson a more gifted offensive player than Tyson Chandler and all the others left on here? Hell yes. However that is not what you are trying to argue you are trying to argue offensive efficiency and quite frankly he is not the most efficient offensively.

You can say what you want about eFG% and TS% but then you come and use APER, AWS etc. So aren't those also theory stats? Those are theory stats which are less accepted in the statistical community than the ones I quoted. But for some reason you see nothing wrong with posting those? :confused:

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:50 PM
Given his situation & role, yes.

:confused:

His situation and role? Please elaborate.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:53 PM
While I've been busy arguing efficiency Noah is winning this poll with no poster giving a single reason for that choice. Smh.

The C poll is really messed up.

Silent
08-17-2011, 10:54 PM
This list is fail Noah is a top 5 center easily

beasted86
08-17-2011, 10:55 PM
Bro.

We can sit here whole day every single day and argue our opinions neither one of us will ever win.

I can't argue your opinion. If you don't want come to terms with the difference between efficiency and skill than that's fine.

Like I said in my earlier posts in the Rose vs Griffin thread people tend to overrate offensive efficiency and don't really put it into context. Is Al Jefferson a more gifted offensive player than Tyson Chandler and all the others left on here? Hell yes. However that is not what you are trying to argue you are trying to argue offensive efficiency and quite frankly he is not the most efficient offensively.

You can say what you want about eFG% and TS% but then you come and use APER, AWS etc. So aren't those also theory stats? Those are theory stats which are less accepted in the statistical community than the ones I quoted. But for some reason you see nothing wrong with posting those? :confused:
I posted those stats using his link, that's why I used them.

PER is a useful stat for giving a general guideline of "who's stats are better" (not who's the better player, key difference). But otherwise, you won't see me making many arguments in any thread using advanced stats. Other posters here can support that as I've always been a believer in "base stats" over "theory stats".

And when comparing players opinion is ALWAYS going to come into play. There usually isn't an obvious choice or else why would we compare them?

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 10:58 PM
I posted those stats using his link, that's why I used them.

PER is a useful stat for giving a general guideline of "who's stats are better" (not who's the better player, key difference). But otherwise, you won't see me making many arguments in any thread using advanced stats. Other posters here can support that as I've always been a believer in "base stats" over "theory stats".

And when comparing players opinion is ALWAYS going to come into play. There usually isn't an obvious choice or else why would we compare them?

So you think the best way to gauge a player's worth is through basic stats and your opinion?

beasted86
08-17-2011, 11:10 PM
:confused:

His situation and role? Please elaborate.

Jefferson hasn't played any length of time with an elite perimeter player. He had Deron for half a season, and it was obvious it was difficult learning Sloan's flex offense, and find a role on how to play next to Millsap, and finding his way under a coaching change midseason... along with a new PG, and to top it off, it was reported he came in a little out of shape. These are factors that an affect his offensive efficiency.

As for role... he simply creates more of his own shots. I always expect the higher a player's assisted%, the higher their FG% should be. Jefferson was in the mid 50s if I remember right, which isn't that high for a post player.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 11:11 PM
So you think the best way to gauge a player's worth is through basic stats and your opinion?

basically.

It's no less effective than 20 pages worth of "theory stats" that are basically the same thing as an opinion. No two players play the same exact role, with the same exact teammates, under the same exact circumstances anyway... so there is always a fault in any argument no matter how detailed a case someone thinks they have.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 11:17 PM
If you don't want come to terms with the difference between efficiency and skill than that's fine.

And just because you keep harping on this point, I'm going to ask you to elaborate.

If player A takes 3 layups and makes all 3, and scores 6 points on 100% FG%, and player B takes 3 three point shots, and makes 2 for 6 points on 66.6% FG%, who is more efficient of the two, and who is more skilled?

I could add a long monologue of what these players had to do to get those points, but just to keep it simple answer the above.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:26 PM
And just because you keep harping on this point, I'm going to ask you to elaborate.

If player A takes 3 layups and makes all 3, and scores 6 points on 100% FG%, and player B takes 3 three point shots, and makes 2 for 6 points on 66.6% FG%, who is more efficient of the two, and who is more skilled?

I could add a long monologue of what these players had to do to get those points, but just to keep it simple answer the above.

Such a small and arbitrary sample size is obviously not enough to accurately say who is more efficient. You should add more and then I'd be able to give you an answer. By your basis they are equally efficient. The score the same amount of points on the same amount of shots.

You can't tell by #s who is a more skilled player. Apparently you don't understand the difference STILL. So I can't understand your reasoning.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:30 PM
basically.

It's no less effective than 20 pages worth of "theory stats" that are basically the same thing as an opinion. No two players play the same exact role, with the same exact teammates, under the same exact circumstances anyway... so there is always a fault in any argument no matter how detailed a case someone thinks they have.

I'm sorry but this is absolutely the worst thing you've said in this entire thread. :puke:

I'd really like to hear what you say 10 years from now when these "theory stats" are generally accepted. Since to you a solid and comprehensively sound offensive metric is an opinion then there is nothing I could say to help you.

You know what's the difference between these "theory stats" and your opinion their foundation is based on facts. Your opinion is NOT.

NBA-GMaster
08-17-2011, 11:32 PM
Between Noah, Chandler, Nene, Lopez and Jefferson.. My vote goes to Jefferson..
In terms of points per game: LOPEZ 20.4, JEFFERSON 18.6, NENE 14.5(reg) 14.2(plf), NOAH 11.7(reg) 8.7(plf), CHANDLER 10.1(reg) 8(plf)

Rebounds per game: NOAH 10.4(reg) 10.2(plf), JEFFERSON 9.7, CHANDLER 9.4(reg) 9.2(plf), NENE 7.6(reg) 9(plf), LOPEZ 6

Blocks per game: NOAH 1.5(reg) 2.1(plf), JEFFERSON 1.9, LOPEZ 1.5, CHANDLER 1.1(reg) .9(plf), NENE 1(reg) .8(plf)

FG AVG regular season (%,FGMade-FGAttempt): NENE .615, 5.4-8.7, JEFFERSON .496, 8-16.1, LOPEZ .492, 7.9-16,NOAH .525,4.4-8.4, CHANDLER .654%,3.6-5.5

Minutes per game: JEFFERSON 35.9, LOPEZ 35.2, NOAH 33(reg&plf), NENE 31(reg&plf), CHANDLER 30(reg&plf)

In terms of Defense: 1. Noah, 2. Chandler, 3. Jefferson, 4. Lopez , 5.Nene

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:33 PM
Jefferson hasn't played any length of time with an elite perimeter player. He had Deron for half a season, and it was obvious it was difficult learning Sloan's flex offense, and find a role on how to play next to Millsap, and finding his way under a coaching change midseason... along with a new PG, and to top it off, it was reported he came in a little out of shape. These are factors that an affect his offensive efficiency.

As for role... he simply creates more of his own shots. I always expect the higher a player's assisted%, the higher their FG% should be. Jefferson was in the mid 50s if I remember right, which isn't that high for a post player.

The best post you've made in this entire thread.

However tell me something. What was Jefferson's issue in terms of his offensive efficiency (or whatever you call whatever you perceive to be offensive efficiency) while he was a Celtic and a member of the Wolves?

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:34 PM
Between Noah, Chandler, Nene, Lopez and Jefferson.. My vote goes to Jefferson..
In terms of points per game: LOPEZ 20.4, JEFFERSON 18.6, NENE 14.5(reg) 14.2(plf), NOAH 11.7(reg) 8.7(plf), CHANDLER 10.1(reg) 8(plf)

Rebounds per game: NOAH 10.4(reg) 10.2(plf), JEFFERSON 9.7, CHANDLER 9.4(reg) 9.2(plf), NENE 7.6(reg) 9(plf), LOPEZ 6

Blocks per game: NOAH 1.5(reg) 2.1(plf), JEFFERSON 1.9, LOPEZ 1.5, CHANDLER 1.1(reg) .9(plf), NENE 1(reg) .8(plf)

FG AVG regular season (%,FGMade-FGAttempt): JEFFERSON .496, 8-16.1, NENE .615, 5.4-8.7, LOPEZ .492, 7.9-16,NOAH .525,4.4-8.4, CHANDLER .654%,3.6-5.5

Minutes per game: JEFFERSON 35.9, LOPEZ 35.2, NOAH 33(reg&plf), NENE 31(reg&plf), CHANDLER 30(reg&plf)

In terms of Defense: 1. Noah, 2. Chandler, 3. Jefferson, 4. Lopez , 5.Nene

When a man puts Noah ahead of Chandler and Jefferson and Lopez ahead of Nene on defense he really is misinformed.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 11:34 PM
Such a small and arbitrary sample size is obviously not enough to accurately say who is more efficient.

What? Wait... I thought 'efficiency' was based on facts, not opinion.

The 'facts' are in the statistics: 3/3 > 2/3.

You see how that works? You see why I feel there's really no difference between an opinion and a theory stat? Obviously anyone can use their brain and conclude based on opinion that they are equally efficient, but by the facts one is better than the other. So my point remains even in judging efficiency its never just a black and white closed case anyhow.

As for skill, its obvious a lot of factors come into play, and not just efficiency either.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:41 PM
What? Wait... I thought 'efficiency' was based on facts, not opinion.

The 'facts' are in the statistics: 3/3 > 2/3.

You see how that works? You see why I feel there's really no difference between an opinion and a theory stat? Obviously anyone can use their brain and conclude based on opinion that they are equally efficient, but by the facts one is better than the other. So my point remains even in judging efficiency its never just a black and white closed case anyhow.

As for skill, its obvious a lot of factors come into play, and not just efficiency either.

So you clearly leave out everything else I said. I gave you an answer.

Why did you so conveniently leave out the rest. I answered your question.

How is there no difference are you really that small minded?

Tell me something and use FG% as your lone indicator.

Player A scores 15 points per game on 6-12 shooting from the field
Player B scores 16 points per game on 4-10 shooting from the field

who is the better offensive player?

Bluerapoileagle
08-17-2011, 11:43 PM
I voted Nene, but maybe it's just because he always destroys the Raptors when they play the Nuggets.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 11:45 PM
I'm sorry but this is absolutely the worst thing you've said in this entire thread. :puke:

I'd really like to hear what you say 10 years from now when these "theory stats" are generally accepted. Since to you a solid and comprehensively sound offensive metric is an opinion then there is nothing I could say to help you.

You know what's the difference between these "theory stats" and your opinion their foundation is based on facts. Your opinion is NOT.

That's where you are wrong. They are both based on the facts of base statistics. They just interpret & use them differently. While I'm leaving them how they are, advanced statistics develop a theory on what the base statistic is supposed to 'really' be saying.

But I can definitely form an educated opinion using base statistics. Things like pace, assisted % of FG, blk%, etc... are all base statistics based on actual events. "Advanced stats" like PER, EFF, WS, eFG, TS%, ORtg, etc... are NOT and are a developed theory on formulas to try and help us better analyze a base statistic, but at the end of the day there is always a hole in an advanced stat, while there is never a hole in a base stat as it's the purest form of fact. 3/3 is always 100%, and 2/3 is always 66.6%. Me forming an opinion on efficiency based on the base stat is just as innaccurate as the advanced stat.

Bruno
08-17-2011, 11:47 PM
Went NeNe. Best combination of smarts, efficiency, defense and rebounding out of any of the players left on the board.

beasted86
08-17-2011, 11:49 PM
who is the better offensive player?

That would take an opinion guy. Hasn't that been my whole point?

If you only want the facts of who shot better, it's clear.

Cal827
08-17-2011, 11:56 PM
I voted Nene, but maybe it's just because he always destroys the Raptors when they play the Nuggets.

To be fair,that's basically what half of the NBA does to the Raptors lol

knicksfan42
08-18-2011, 12:06 AM
What about you talking about? You are being selective. You said every other metric had him in the top 5 which indeed is totally incorrect. You ignore those that aren't in your favour and take those that are into consideration.

The funny thing is you are the one who's being disingenuous. The one's that don't favor him. Really like the highly touted and widely discussed Offensive Win Shares stat. How could he only use the stats most frequently brought up in most advanced stat debates. Based on what I've read on these forums PER, WS, and WS/48 seem to the the most valuable stats when judging a player. So it's interesting that you're accusing him of only choosing the stats that most favor his argument when could very well have simply chosen the (seemingly) most valued stats. I've seen TS used and I've seen eFG used, but ORtg and OWS, almost never. Its absolutely unfair to say that not mentioning those two stats is him simply ignoring stats which don't favor him.

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 12:09 AM
That's where you are wrong. They are both based on the facts of base statistics. They just interpret & use them differently. While I'm leaving them how they are, advanced statistics develop a theory on what the base statistic is supposed to 'really' be saying.

But I can definitely form an educated opinion using base statistics. Things like pace, assisted % of FG, blk%, etc... are all base statistics based on actual events. "Advanced stats" like PER, EFF, WS, eFG, TS%, ORtg, etc... are NOT and are a developed theory on formulas to try and help us better analyze a base statistic, but at the end of the day there is always a hole in an advanced stat, while there is never a hole in a base stat as it's the purest form of fact. 3/3 is always 100%, and 2/3 is always 66.6%. Me forming an opinion on efficiency based on the base stat is just as innaccurate as the advanced stat.

Do you honestly read the stuff that you are saying?

I am not the statistical genius to blast you on this like Chronz is but I'll give it a shot.

TS% values how much points a player produces every time he shoots the basketball. Now tell me something. What is "theoretical" about that? That is a fact.

eFG% weighs the value of a 3 pointer higher than a 2, why? Because as you basically say 3 is more than 2 and should be weighed as such right? That's basic. AGAIN another FACT.

PER evaluates how many points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals you get and takes away points for personal fouls and turnovers. All of those are what again? They are FACTS.

ORtg well I will have to regurgitate Dean Oliver's words for that one by simply saying


The number of team possessions that an individual can claim responsibility for through individual scoring possessions, missed shots, and turnovers.
Example

On a scoring possession, a player receives the same number of total possessions. On a missed field goal that is not rebounded or on a turnover, that player receives a total possession.

Again all based on what? FACTS!!!!

WS generally speaking will give how much you gave statistically to a team offensively and defensively, and by the margin of victory you have in each game, determine how many games you were worth.

Tell me something is that not also based on facts? I'll say it again I am not the best person to take you to school on this however I'll leave that up to Chronz who has a more comprehensive understanding of each of these statistics and can explain the flaws in your argument way better than I can.

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 12:11 AM
That would take an opinion guy. Hasn't that been my whole point?

If you only want the facts of who shot better, it's clear.

I did not dodge your questions why are you dodging mine? Again being very selective.

A player could have all the skill in the world that however does not make him a better offensive player. Is Carmelo better offensively than LeBron? NO. Is he more skilled offensively than LeBron YES.

Stop dodging. I don't dodge you. I reply to your entire posts and damn near every point you attempt to make.

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 12:19 AM
The funny thing is you are the one who's being disingenuous. The one's that don't favor him. Really like the highly touted and widely discussed Offensive Win Shares stat. How could he only use the stats most frequently brought up in most advanced stat debates. Based on what I've read on these forums PER, WS, and WS/48 seem to the the most valuable stats when judging a player. So it's interesting that you're accusing him of only choosing the stats that most favor his argument when could very well have simply chosen the (seemingly) most valued stats. I've seen TS used and I've seen eFG used, but ORtg and OWS, almost never. Its absolutely unfair to say that not mentioning those two stats is him simply ignoring stats which don't favor him.

Why jump into a debate that you don't even understand?

The debate is not of overall efficiency (rebounding, steals, blocks, points etc) but rather OFFENSIVE efficiency.

I was not be disingenuous. I merely point out the more accurate metrics for gauge a player's offensive worth in terms of efficiency.

Tell me something. If I asked you who was a better defensive player in terms of statistics would you give me PER, WS and WS/48? I can answer that for you, no you would not. So why should that be considered in who's better in terms of offensive efficiency.

Hell I posted all the #s earlier. If I was being disingenuous why would I even post them? PS in terms of WS and WS/48 Jefferson doesn't even make the top 10 and in terms of PER. It tends to favour shot creation. So to make a blanket statement and say well Jeff has a better PER so he's a better player without analyzing the statistics from every angle is what is indeed ignorant.

PacersForLife
08-18-2011, 12:36 AM
If the Mavs hadn't won the championship, I doubt Tyson Chandler would even be considered on this list. Roy Hibbert and Al Jefferson are far better than Chandler and I'll even say both are better than Gasol. This list is more based on people "homering" for their teams' center...
:facepalm:

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 12:46 AM
If the Mavs hadn't won the championship, I doubt Tyson Chandler would even be considered on this list. Roy Hibbert and Al Jefferson are far better than Chandler and I'll even say both are better than Gasol. This list is more based on people "homering" for their teams' center...
:facepalm:

The only votes Roy Hibbert has gotten in these threads are from the 2 biggest Pacer homers on this entire site.

Hibbert was garbage last season and really is not living up to his potential. He regressed so much during the course of last season I mean really a 7'2 C playing as if he's a 6'4 SG. Hibbert needs to grow a spine before he can crack the top 10. Chandler plays with heart, grit and tenacity. Hibbert? Well he think's he's Brandon Rush ever so often.

He shot 46.1% from the field last season. That atrocious. League average was 51.2, he had a TS% of 50.7 league average 55.3.

His defense just like damn near everything got worst as the season progressed and he really showed that he was a long ways away from becoming the C everyone knows he can be.

juno10
08-18-2011, 01:04 AM
tell me how does a center a 7 footer at that shoot only 46% atleast bargnani has some what of an excuse since he's mostly a jumpshooter, is this guy like missing layups or something.

The_Pharouh
08-18-2011, 01:08 AM
Chandler

beasted86
08-18-2011, 01:57 AM
Do you honestly read the stuff that you are saying?

I am not the statistical genius to blast you on this like Chronz is but I'll give it a shot.

TS% values how much points a player produces every time he shoots the basketball. Now tell me something. What is "theoretical" about that? That is a fact.

eFG% weighs the value of a 3 pointer higher than a 2, why? Because as you basically say 3 is more than 2 and should be weighed as such right? That's basic. AGAIN another FACT.

PER evaluates how many points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals you get and takes away points for personal fouls and turnovers. All of those are what again? They are FACTS.

ORtg well I will have to regurgitate Dean Oliver's words for that one by simply saying



Again all based on what? FACTS!!!!

WS generally speaking will give how much you gave statistically to a team offensively and defensively, and by the margin of victory you have in each game, determine how many games you were worth.

Tell me something is that not also based on facts? I'll say it again I am not the best person to take you to school on this however I'll leave that up to Chronz who has a more comprehensive understanding of each of these statistics and can explain the flaws in your argument way better than I can.

All of them are based on facts, but none of them ARE facts.

TS% - Scenario: Player A: 2/4 FG: 50%, Player B: 2/4 FG: 50%, but he steps in to take a defensive 3 second technical FT for his team which he makes. According to TS%, Player B is a better shooter. Flawed, it's obviously not a fact, just a result of circumstance.

eFG% says 2/3 = 3/3. That's the definition of mathematically impossible if you know anything about elementary arithmatic. Again, flawed, not factual. If used in the context of who scores more per shot, this is 100% accurate, but basically nobody uses it in that basic context.

People often falsley use both of these out of context to say who is a better shooter. This in itself is surely flawed because it doesn't take into account roles played or assisted FGs. If you think these two stats accurately depict the difference between the shooting ability of James Jones & Kevin Durant, you are really screwed in logic.

PER & ORtg have various flaws that if you don't know by now, all I can say is Google it. Both of these are baseline "all inclusive stats" that are used out of context far too often. IE: Because player "X" has a higher ORtg does not mean he is a better offensive player than "Y"; Because "X" player has higher PER does not mean he is a better player than "Y"

While all of these advanced stats are just theories, they all hold some value for giving a baseline. The problem is people think that baseline is 100% fact. Whether anyone thinks they are more valueable is a debate I'm not getting into, but anyone who thinks advanced stats are "more accurate" is either a fool or doesn't know what accurate means. Accuracy in statistics means trueness, preciseness, 100% fool proof. No advanced stat is 100% fool proof. Every base stat is 100% fool proof. The opinions drawn from them may not be sometimes, but the stats themselves are 100% fact, and indeed more accurate than any advanced stat.

On a side note, you seem to take this web forum stuff a little too serious with all the name calling and emoticons thrown around and exclamation points. Every thread you seem to do the same thing it's a little childish. But whatever, do you...

Raps08-09 Champ
08-18-2011, 02:28 AM
Chandler and his defense.

The_Jamal
08-18-2011, 03:30 AM
Gasol ahead of Nene, Noah, Chandler and AlJeff is really a disgrace.

Chronz
08-18-2011, 06:05 AM
Im late for the party but Im jumping in midflight anyways.


All of them are based on facts, but none of them ARE facts.

TS% - Scenario: Player A: 2/4 FG: 50%, Player B: 2/4 FG: 50%, but he steps in to take a defensive 3 second technical FT for his team which he makes. According to TS%, Player B is a better shooter. Flawed, it's obviously not a fact, just a result of circumstance.
Actually TS% accounts for this (at least on average) by weighing each free throw as .44 of a made shot. The reason being, as you noted, it didnt technically cost his team a possession. However as it is an average there will eventually be players that are somewhat over/underrated but it is of very little importance in the grand scheme of things, TS% is still by far the greatest measure for scoring efficiency by virtue of it correlating with winning on a team level to a larger degree than any other descriptor stat (Aside from Off.RTG)


eFG% says 2/3 = 3/3. That's the definition of mathematically impossible if you know anything about elementary arithmatic. Again, flawed, not factual. If used in the context of who scores more per shot, this is 100% accurate, but basically nobody uses it in that basic context.

What other context could you use it in?


People often falsley use both of these out of context to say who is a better shooter. This in itself is surely flawed because it doesn't take into account roles played or assisted FGs. If you think these two stats accurately depict the difference between the shooting ability of James Jones & Kevin Durant, you are really screwed in logic.

Thats why a players usage should always be considered when we measure efficiency. We have other stats to measure various aspects of shooting and as you noted the rate at which they are assisted.

For example, in the case of Durant vs JJ, we can clearly see the heavier load Durant carries, not only that but now we have even more useful data, the kind that tells us when both are spotting up, they actually shoot a much closer % (42% vs 43%).



PER & ORtg have various flaws that if you don't know by now, all I can say is Google it. Both of these are baseline "all inclusive stats" that are used out of context far too often. IE: Because player "X" has a higher ORtg does not mean he is a better offensive player than "Y"; Because "X" player has higher PER does not mean he is a better player than "Y"
If a player has a higher Off.RTG while accounting for a greater proportion of his teams offense, theres a good chance the stat is dead on and it will be evident in their PER/WS.


While all of these advanced stats are just theories, they all hold some value for giving a baseline. The problem is people think that baseline is 100% fact. Whether anyone thinks they are more valueable is a debate I'm not getting into, but anyone who thinks advanced stats are "more accurate" is either a fool or doesn't know what accurate means. Accuracy in statistics means trueness, preciseness, 100% fool proof. No advanced stat is 100% fool proof. Every base stat is 100% fool proof. The opinions drawn from them may not be sometimes, but the stats themselves are 100% fact, and more accurate than any advanced stat.

Im not following you.

I take it this has to do with Al Jefferson vs TC, and both players have their own statistical strengths to work with. Its simply a matter of preference, you can say TC wouldnt be able to create his own shots and would suffer in Jeffersons role but the opposite would hold true for Al J.

One player is capable of optimizing his efficiency to the point where he leads the league.

The other is capable of carrying a scoring role but doesnt see the floor well for others and cannot function in a motion offense (based on what I saw this year)

If your building a team you have to ask yourself if Jefferson is the kind of piece I want dominating my teams possessions or if you find more value in a role player who can maximize his impact without dominating the ball. There is real value in that.

On the other hand you have to question Tysons consistency throughout his career, is he going to remain as effective as he was last year or will he revert to a lesser form?

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 10:25 AM
All of them are based on facts, but none of them ARE facts.

TS% - Scenario: Player A: 2/4 FG: 50%, Player B: 2/4 FG: 50%, but he steps in to take a defensive 3 second technical FT for his team which he makes. According to TS%, Player B is a better shooter. Flawed, it's obviously not a fact, just a result of circumstance.

A result of circumstance? Are technical free throws not a part of the game? So because one player happens to take one and not another means it circumstance? It's part of the game. It has to be taken into account. You basically ignore the fact that TS% values how much points a player produces every time he shoots the basketball. That is not circumstance that is fact.

I know you are going to dodge this question but I am still going to ask. Which is more important points scored or buckets scored?


eFG% says 2/3 = 3/3. That's the definition of mathematically impossible if you know anything about elementary arithmatic. Again, flawed, not factual. If used in the context of who scores more per shot, this is 100% accurate, but basically nobody uses it in that basic context.

Is 3 more than 2? Yes. So tell me something should it not be accounted as such?

It's sad in all honesty that you don't get it. Basketball is about points. Who scores more points wins the game. Well for such reason eFG% is a much better indication of a player's offensive worth than plain FG%. It values points scored rather than buckets made.

It's that simple. 2-3 = 3-3 if the both account for 6 points. A team can score 60 out of 100 FGs and lose to a team who scores 40 out of 100.

I swear if you can come to terms with such a basic principle there is no helping you.

All I'll say on this again is the team who scores more points wins the game not the team who scores more or a higher % of their field goals. That is what TS% and eFG% ascertains.


People often falsley use both of these out of context to say who is a better shooter. This in itself is surely flawed because it doesn't take into account roles played or assisted FGs. If you think these two stats accurately depict the difference between the shooting ability of James Jones & Kevin Durant, you are really screwed in logic.

This right here is exactly my point. When talking efficiency one must already put it into context. Minutes played, USG%, role, position etc must all be taken into consideration. Tell me according to FG% who would you say is a better shooter Danillo Gallinari or Michael Beasley? or better yet who is a better shooter Chauncey Billups or Derrick Rose?


PER & ORtg have various flaws that if you don't know by now, all I can say is Google it. Both of these are baseline "all inclusive stats" that are used out of context far too often. IE: Because player "X" has a higher ORtg does not mean he is a better offensive player than "Y"; Because "X" player has higher PER does not mean he is a better player than "Y"

:confused:

Who said that was the case? Have you ever seen me use PER or ORtg independently to state who is a better offensively or who is better overall that whom? If you have then I'll gladly leave PSD forever.

In all my posts I have been holistic when comparing players.

Tell me something if Player X is scores more per game than Player Y does that mean he's a better scorer? If Player X shoots a higher FG% than Player Y does that mean he's a better shooter?

If a player has a greater PER that doesn't mean he's a better PER all that means is that he has a better PER. There are various aspects of basketball that come into play with PER to their is no way one can defiantly say one player is better than another if his PER is better. Same with ORtg, if a player has a higher ORtg that's all that means that he has a higher ORtg. Same goes for FG%, PPG, or any other stat used by itself.

I'll say this however. If a player has a higher TS%, eFG%, ORtg, OSPM, OVORP, AdjOSPM, PPG, on a reasonable USG% with more OWS or any combination of the sort there is a strong chance that he is a better offensive player.


While all of these advanced stats are just theories, they all hold some value for giving a baseline. The problem is people think that baseline is 100% fact. Whether anyone thinks they are more valueable is a debate I'm not getting into, but anyone who thinks advanced stats are "more accurate" is either a fool or doesn't know what accurate means. Accuracy in statistics means trueness, preciseness, 100% fool proof. No advanced stat is 100% fool proof. Every base stat is 100% fool proof. The opinions drawn from them may not be sometimes, but the stats themselves are 100% fact, and indeed more accurate than any advanced stat.

Is your opinion 100% fool proof? I think I adequately explained all this to you earlier in the post so I would not continue to.


On a side note, you seem to take this web forum stuff a little too serious with all the name calling and emoticons thrown around and exclamation points. Every thread you seem to do the same thing it's a little childish. But whatever, do you...

That is what I'll continue to do.

ddhulett
08-18-2011, 10:53 AM
Has to be Al Jefferson here. Some posters don't know what efficiency is.

Why should I be impressed if a Center scores just over double digits, and makes 60% of their field goals, but 75% of them are assisted? Al Jefferson was 4th in the NBA in Adjusted PER because he creates a lot of his own shots, instead of merely catching and finishing or waiting around for easy put backs. He's a beast on offense, and a quality rebounder.

All this said, Jefferson has been out of shape nearly his whole career. If he ever puts it all together and cuts from 280+ to maybe 260, and reverts back to his natural PF spot, he'll be even more effective. He still gets the "Elton Brand" wrap, but his teams have been worse... and he's still playing out of position which hurts the team.

Problem is Jefferson and Horford are more PF than Centers, these guys don't defend the rim like a Center.

I think this list should be changed because you might as well include Amar'e etc....

jp611
08-18-2011, 10:56 AM
Noah still not picked is an absolute joke

beasted86
08-18-2011, 01:56 PM
I am going to just respond to both posts at once.

I think my case was clear from the start if you go back and read my first post, that efficiency isn't only determined by a handful of stats namely TS% alone which was the original basis for the case made claiming Jefferson inefficient... And both of you have alluded to the same thing that it takes a bigger picture. That argument is even more flawed given the flaws inherant to TS%.

My stance that some of these advanced stats do have some flaws is definitely correct. Some flawed in their formula and others in the context people use them.

All said getting back to topic, Jefferson is undervalued by a lot of people who use stats in the wrong context.

marj987
08-18-2011, 02:55 PM
Not even gonna be a himer here, but I actually think Brook Lopez should be before Tyson.

Avenged
08-18-2011, 03:43 PM
There's much more to it than looking at PER and TS% and basing your vote off of efficiency. There's a reason why Tyson hasn't been picked yet, although I had him at 6.

DR_1
08-18-2011, 05:39 PM
Oh look, the Bulls-haters voted.

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 05:46 PM
I am going to just respond to both posts at once.

I think my case was clear from the start if you go back and read my first post, that efficiency isn't only determined by a handful of stats namely TS% alone which was the original basis for the case made claiming Jefferson inefficient... And both of you have alluded to the same thing that it takes a bigger picture. That argument is even more flawed given the flaws inherant to TS%.

My stance that some of these advanced stats do have some flaws is definitely correct. Some flawed in their formula and others in the context people use them.

All said getting back to topic, Jefferson is undervalued by a lot of people who use stats in the wrong context.

You are truly unbelievable. I really hope that one day you can open your eyes. Don't like the stats I have no problem with that but you run from every single question posed to you that is why you'll never learn.

You close your mind and remain ignorant to the facts because in your ignorant opinion there can be nothing factual about a formula made by made. When in actuality there is. You remain closed minded and dodge everything being said to you. It really makes it useless trying to hold a debate when you think your opinion is better than anything anyone has to say.

Tell me something. Who are these people who are using stats in the wrong context? I don't even know why I continue to ask you any questions because you continue to run from them all.

beasted86
08-18-2011, 06:59 PM
You are truly unbelievable. I really hope that one day you can open your eyes. Don't like the stats I have no problem with that but you run from every single question posed to you that is why you'll never learn.

You close your mind and remain ignorant to the facts because in your ignorant opinion there can be nothing factual about a formula made by made. When in actuality there is. You remain closed minded and dodge everything being said to you. It really makes it useless trying to hold a debate when you think your opinion is better than anything anyone has to say.

Tell me something. Who are these people who are using stats in the wrong context? I don't even know why I continue to ask you any questions because you continue to run from them all.

Actually it's more the opposite way around. You believe what you believe no matter how apparent and simple the concept is of someone trying to persuade you otherwise. You can't even come to grips that 3/3 will always be a higher percentage than 2/3. This is the simplest of concepts and just shows how on such a small scale you aren't intelligent enough to grasp it... so why bother enduring pages long worth of text on more detailed formulas.

To waste time answering your questions that go nowhere... there's one person right on the first or second page that gave reasoning for Jefferson being the 2nd most inefficient Center in the NBA by TS%. That is just one example of using a stat out of context as TS% by itself doesn't mean alot, and is flawed by composition.

Anyhow I'm done here. Argue and throw insults with yourself from here on out.

This poll is over anyway.

Swashcuff
08-18-2011, 07:22 PM
Actually it's more the opposite way around. You believe what you believe no matter how apparent and simple the concept is of someone trying to persuade you otherwise. You can't even come to grips that 3/3 will always be a higher percentage than 2/3. This is the simplest of concepts and just shows how on such a small scale you aren't intelligent enough to grasp it... so why bother enduring pages long worth of text on more detailed formulas.

To waste time answering your questions that go nowhere... there's one person right on the first or second page that gave reasoning for Jefferson being the 2nd most inefficient Center in the NBA by TS%. That is just one example of using a stat out of context as TS% by itself doesn't mean alot, and is flawed by composition.

Anyhow I'm done here. Argue and throw insults with yourself from here on out.

This poll is over anyway.

^^^
The definition of ignorance.

The game is won by the team who wins more points not the top who scores more buckets. In basketball Math 2-3 is equal to 3-3 IF they both equal 6 points as a result. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't attempt to hold such a debate. It's not how many about how many field goals you make its about how many points you score off those field goals.

You don't understand that though so you continue to debate games of 21 without a 3pt line at the neighborhood park, we'll debate the NBA.

69centers
08-18-2011, 07:53 PM
My stance that some of these advanced stats do have some flaws is definitely correct. Some flawed in their formula and others in the context people use them.

Where were you in the 6th best center thread when it was me alone trying to tell this to the advanced stat gurus? At least you and I know they're flawed. Good luck convincing anyone else in here, though.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-19-2011, 02:08 AM
I'll say this however. If a player has a higher TS%, eFG%, ORtg, OSPM, OVORP, AdjOSPM, PPG, on a reasonable USG% with more OWS or any combination of the sort there is a strong chance that he is a better offensive player.


AdjOSPM? Are you referring to BoP OSPM? Or is this a new stat I'm not aware of?

PS- Where'd you get OVORP from? Did you actually sort through that guys spreadsheet?

PatsSoxKnicks
08-19-2011, 02:12 AM
Where were you in the 6th best center thread when it was me alone trying to tell this to the advanced stat gurus? At least you and I know they're flawed. Good luck convincing anyone else in here, though.

lmao, you didn't convince anyone of anything. All you said was that the majority of people don't use advanced stats and for some reason odd reason, you think the majority is always right (despite there being numerous occasions on which the majority was wrong throughout history). But I lol'd hard at the basketball cards reference. That was funny, trying to insinuate that basketball cards know more than executives :laugh2:

Execs use advanced stats but you'd rather remain ignorant and be like the casual fan then be enlightened. Thats the point you proved.

Not to mention, your ignorance showed when you couldn't even grasp the simplest basketball concept (TS%), nor were you able to grasp how to use the stat correctly.

SteBO
08-19-2011, 09:47 AM
Actually it's more the opposite way around. You believe what you believe no matter how apparent and simple the concept is of someone trying to persuade you otherwise. You can't even come to grips that 3/3 will always be a higher percentage than 2/3. This is the simplest of concepts and just shows how on such a small scale you aren't intelligent enough to grasp it... so why bother enduring pages long worth of text on more detailed formulas.

To waste time answering your questions that go nowhere... there's one person right on the first or second page that gave reasoning for Jefferson being the 2nd most inefficient Center in the NBA by TS%. That is just one example of using a stat out of context as TS% by itself doesn't mean alot, and is flawed by composition.

Anyhow I'm done here. Argue and throw insults with yourself from here on out.

This poll is over anyway.
I get your overall point, but if 3/3 and 2/3 both equal 6 points, which is undoubtedly possible, why does that matter? Isn't points scored the most important aspect in sports?

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 09:55 AM
AdjOSPM? Are you referring to BoP OSPM? Or is this a new stat I'm not aware of?

PS- Where'd you get OVORP from? Did you actually sort through that guys spreadsheet?

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17288366&postcount=1

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bx1NfCUslJwxOTc5ZDBiMjctZDk1Mi00OGI3LTk4N mUtMWM1M2ViMjQ4NzQ3&hl=en

I got it from you bro. :)

Some more from DanielM (DSMok1)

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/nba-stats/aspm-box-score-spurs-celtics/

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/nba-stats/a-review-of-adjusted-plusminus-and-stabilization/

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/nba-stats/aspm-vorp-all-stars-2011/

millerandco
08-19-2011, 10:00 AM
how duncan got this high shows how much of a joke this list it

tredigs
08-19-2011, 12:50 PM
how duncan got this high shows how much of a joke this list it

What would your list have been?

(A convenient caveat always left out when people write dismissive jabs like this).

PatsSoxKnicks
08-19-2011, 01:17 PM
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17288366&postcount=1

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bx1NfCUslJwxOTc5ZDBiMjctZDk1Mi00OGI3LTk4N mUtMWM1M2ViMjQ4NzQ3&hl=en

I got it from you bro. :)

Some more from DanielM (DSMok1)

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/nba-stats/aspm-box-score-spurs-celtics/

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/nba-stats/a-review-of-adjusted-plusminus-and-stabilization/

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/nba-stats/aspm-vorp-all-stars-2011/

Oh, :laugh2:

I thought he had maybe posted a cleaner version of his #'s or something.

Well, just to let you know, the #'s in that thread are old. But I'll post the updated #'s, which I had wanted to do. Again though, if you looked through his spreadsheet, its insanely complicated, so I'm not 100% sure that I even took the right #'s (I think I did).

And yeah, I've definitely seen the last 2 articles. Not sure if I ever saw the first one.

PS- When you referred to AdjOSPM, were you referring to the Basketball on Paper OSPM from bball-ref or is this a new stat?

Edit: Never mind, I see where you got it from. Maybe I need to read my own threads from time to time :laugh2: I should probably :facepalm: myself

I think what confused me is that you cited 2 stats from him and the fact that OVORP is based on AdjOSPM.

On another note, I suppose the basketball on paper SPM should just be called SPM from this point onward. There's no point in the other version.

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 01:35 PM
Oh, :laugh2:

I thought he had maybe posted a cleaner version of his #'s or something.

Well, just to let you know, the #'s in that thread are old. But I'll post the updated #'s, which I had wanted to do. Again though, if you looked through his spreadsheet, its insanely complicated, so I'm not 100% sure that I even took the right #'s (I think I did).

And yeah, I've definitely seen the last 2 articles. Not sure if I ever saw the first one.

PS- When you referred to AdjOSPM, were you referring to the Basketball on Paper OSPM from bball-ref or is this a new stat?

It's also one of Daniel's metrics. I didn't find any explanation of it from him but in relation of statistics to player IMO its pretty accurate indicator of a player's offensive worth. The one site I can find with a description and explanation of it's formula is now banned.

http://www.basketball-analysis.com/

Edit: just saw your edit. :laugh2:

It's understandable though, with the different amount of metrics from every sport that you have going through your head it's understandable if you forget one by one from time to time. :)

Oh and I am also getting back to you on that MJ, Bird, DRob issue. I too am really debating with myself as to what you should do.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-19-2011, 01:58 PM
It's also one of Daniel's metrics. I didn't find any explanation of it from him but in relation of statistics to player IMO its pretty accurate indicator of a player's offensive worth. The one site I can find with a description and explanation of it's formula is now banned.

http://www.basketball-analysis.com/

Edit: just saw your edit. :laugh2:

It's understandable though, with the different amount of metrics from every sport that you have going through your head it's understandable if you forget one by one from time to time. :)

Oh and I am also getting back to you on that MJ, Bird, DRob issue. I too am really debating with myself as to what you should do.

I think I vaguely remember that site and if I'm not mistaken, that was not Daniel. But the guy from that site, forgot his name, had come out with a similar stat based around the advanced descriptive stats and APM. I don't know that I ever got around to reading his explanation though. But I'm pretty sure that wasn't DSMOK.

PS- Interesting that the site got banned. I wonder if he got a job for an NBA team, can't think of any other reason it would be banned.

As far as Daniel goes, I think his explanation is up on the APBR board. I'll see if I can find the link, which I need myself because I could use a refresher. Was the link I posted in that Stats Forum thread dead (due to the APBR forum crash)? If it is, I'm pretty sure it'll be in one of the recovered threads.

:laugh2: Yeah, you definitely have a point.

69centers
08-19-2011, 02:08 PM
lmao, you didn't convince anyone of anything. All you said was that the majority of people don't use advanced stats and for some reason odd reason, you think the majority is always right (despite there being numerous occasions on which the majority was wrong throughout history).

I said I didn't care or use them because they were flawed. No, I never pointed out how they were flawed, which is why I praised beasted86 for coming in here and doing just that. I did say that the majority of people do not care about them, but I never tried to say they were wrong solely because of that.

Again, thanks beasted86 for coming in here and showing how flawed they really are. I noticed you have absolutely no response for how he broke them down and pointed out their flaws. Just keep trying to come back at me on it, who never gave you those reasons.

Chronz
08-19-2011, 02:25 PM
I am going to just respond to both posts at once.

I think my case was clear from the start if you go back and read my first post,
I guess I have no choice but to start from the beginning;




Has to be Al Jefferson here. Some posters don't know what efficiency is. Why should I be impressed if a Center scores just over double digits, and makes 60% of their field goals, but 75% of them are assisted? Al Jefferson was 4th in the NBA in Adjusted PER because he creates a lot of his own shots, instead of merely catching and finishing or waiting around for easy put backs. He's a beast on offense, and a quality rebounder.

All this said, Jefferson has been out of shape nearly his whole career. If he ever puts it all together and cuts from 280+ to maybe 260, and reverts back to his natural PF spot, he'll be even more effective. He still gets the "Elton Brand" wrap, but his teams have been worse... and he's still playing out of position which hurts the team.
Again, I spoke of the value of having role players who maximize their efficiency vs that of a creator. Its a matter of preference but you cannot deny the merit of having someone so efficient if its a consistent trait. TC doesnt have this consistency so you have reason to value Al above him.

PS Brand was far superior but as a Clippers fan I understand your gripe.



that efficiency isn't only determined by a handful of stats namely TS% alone which was the original basis for the case made claiming Jefferson inefficient... And both of you have alluded to the same thing that it takes a bigger picture.
Well yea, if stats did all the thinking for you, the game would be boring.


That argument is even more flawed given the flaws inherant to TS%.
What argument vs what flaws? Ive already explained to you how much superior TS% is to its alternative (FG%) and that it only falls short of measuring full on efficiency to PPP.


My stance that some of these advanced stats do have some flaws is definitely correct. Some flawed in their formula and others in the context people use them.

Which stats?


All said getting back to topic, Jefferson is undervalued by a lot of people who use stats in the wrong context.

Perhaps, but can you show us the proper context?

PatsSoxKnicks
08-19-2011, 03:21 PM
I said I didn't care or use them because they were flawed. No, I never pointed out how they were flawed, which is why I praised beasted86 for coming in here and doing just that. I did say that the majority of people do not care about them, but I never tried to say they were wrong solely because of that.

Well obviously all stats have their flaws, especially if not used correctly. But you don't even know how to do that. Whats worse, you don't even know what the flaws are. Basically, you think FG% is better because you don't even know what TS% is. Nor do you seem interested in learning what it is. It's one thing to hate a stat because you recognize its flaws, its another to remain completely ignorant and hate a stat because you think your brain is incapable of handling 2nd grade math. You fall in to the later half.



Again, thanks beasted86 for coming in here and showing how flawed they really are. I noticed you have absolutely no response for how he broke them down and pointed out their flaws. Just keep trying to come back at me on it, who never gave you those reasons.

Well I honestly haven't even read any of his posts, so I'm not even sure what he's arguing. I came into this thread late, as did you obviously because you have no clue whats going on either. You just saw beasted say something about advanced stats being flawed and latched onto it.

Also, whats the point in just repeating whats already been said? Swash and Chronz have obviously already addressed this.

From a quick glance, it looks like he's arguing about TS% and something about technical free throws, which are on average accounted for in TS%. Also, looks like he doesn't realize that 6 points is 6 points whether its on 3/3 or 2/3.

But I honestly have no desire to read each one of his posts, especially as I have to go to work soon.

PS- From the post Chronz just quoted, it looks like beasted has actually been USING advanced stats. And he appears to be arguing that some advanced stats are flawed in the context that people use them, which is right.

So whatever has been going on, it doesn't look like you and beasted are on the same page either.

Chronz
08-19-2011, 04:01 PM
So whatever has been going on, it doesn't look like you and beasted are on the same page either.

Correct

69centers
08-19-2011, 11:28 PM
Well obviously all stats have their flaws, especially if not used correctly. But you don't even know how to do that. Whats worse, you don't even know what the flaws are. Basically, you think FG% is better because you don't even know what TS% is.

Wow, where did you get this from? :bs:

Who says because I won't take the time to argue over why I feel TS% and other advanced stats automatically means that I don't know them? If I feel so strongly against something, and don't even want to take on the effort to go into detail, that is my prerogative. Don't come in here and slander my name saying I don't know something when you have absolutely no idea what I know.

I don't pay any attention to TS% because it incorporates free throws. This completely skews any attempt to measure how someone who can shoot well from the field, despite missing some free throws, and how it will have any certain affect on the game. They can totally dominate the game when it counts, but because they missed 3 free throws in the 2nd quarter, their TS% stinks. On the flipside, a guy can shoot terrible from the field, but go 12/13 at the line and have an inflated stat.

One of the most telling ways of how you can dismiss some of these stats is looking where players rank in history, according to that stat. When superstars are near the bottom of the list, and no name role players at the top, the stat is 100% flawed.

Tim Duncan, 156th all time. Wilt Chamberlain (190th); Kevin Garnett, (179th); Hakeem Olajuwon, (151st). Oscar Robertson (101st); Michael Jordan (78th); Larry Bird (99th).

Guess what players are in the top 10 all time? Guys like Cedric Maxwell (2nd all time), James Donaldson (3rd all time), Brent Barry (10th all time), Ed Pinckney (17th).

Ed friggin' Pinckney, 17th best TS% NBA player of all time. :jumpy: C'mon, now. Do you see where this is going? Sound stats do not have this many mediocre to sub par role players in their top 20, or top 10 players to ever play the game ranking 78-190.

When you have a stat that puts Ed Pinckney way, way over Bird, Wilt, Jordan, KG, Hakeem, and Duncan, it's not a stat I will ever care about.

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 11:35 PM
Wow, where did you get this from? :bs:

Who says because I won't take the time to argue over why I feel TS% and other advanced stats automatically means that I don't know them? If I feel so strongly against something, and don't even want to take on the effort to go into detail, that is my prerogative. Don't come in here and slander my name saying I don't know something when you have absolutely no idea what I know.

I don't pay any attention to TS% because it incorporates free throws. This completely skews any attempt to measure how someone who can shoot well from the field, despite missing some free throws, and how it will have any certain affect on the game. They can totally dominate the game when it counts, but because they missed 3 free throws in the 2nd quarter, their TS% stinks. On the flipside, a guy can shoot terrible from the field, but go 12/13 at the line and have an inflated stat.

One of the most telling ways of how you can dismiss some of these stats is looking where players rank in history, according to that stat. When superstars are near the bottom of the list, and no name role players at the top, the stat is 100% flawed.

Tim Duncan, 156th all time. Wilt Chamberlain (190th); Kevin Garnett, (179th); Hakeem Olajuwon, (151st). Oscar Robertson (101st); Michael Jordan (78th); Larry Bird (99th).

Guess what players are in the top 10 all time? Guys like Cedric Maxwell (2nd all time), James Donaldson (3rd all time), Brent Barry (10th all time), Ed Pinckney (17th).

Ed friggin' Pinckney, 17th best TS% NBA player of all time. :jumpy: C'mon, now. Do you see where this is going? Sound stats do not have this many mediocre to sub par role players in their top 20, or top 10 players to ever play the game ranking 78-190.

When you have a stat that puts Ed Pinckney way, way over Bird, Wilt, Jordan, KG, Hakeem, and Duncan, it's not a stat I will ever care about.

Rank Player FG%

1. S O'Neal .5823
2. Artis Gilmore* .5819
3. Mark West .5803
4. Dwight Howard .5778
5. Steve Johnson .5722
6. Darryl Dawkins .5720
7. J Donaldson .5706
8. Tyson Chandler .5682
9. Bo Outlaw .5673
10. Jeff Ruland .5637
11. Nene Hilario .5631
12. K Abdul-Jabbar* .5595
13. Bobby Jones .5583
14. Kevin McHale* .5538
15. Buck Williams .5492
16. Larry Nance .5461
David Lee .5461
18. Otis Thorpe .5457
19. Cedric Maxwell .5455
20. Eddy Curry .5451

What was that you were saying about TS% again?

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 11:40 PM
When you have a stat that puts Ed Pinckney way, way over Bird, Wilt, Jordan, KG, Hakeem, and Duncan, it's not a stat I will ever care about.

Mark West is ahead of D-Rob, MJ, KG, Hakeem, Duncan, Kareem, Wilt, Bird etc etc etc

Why do care about FG%?

69centers
08-19-2011, 11:43 PM
What was that you were saying about TS% again?

I'm pretty positive that while I did sayI felt FG% was a better stat than TS%, I never said I liked it or held it in much regard. In fact, when I originally came in these poll threads, I argued Jefferson's high PPG and rebounding and not his or anyone else's FG%.

I think FG% is also flawed, but not as bad as TS%. FG% should only be ranked by position. I would never compare people solely by FG% regardless.

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 11:44 PM
Why are people (69centers, Beasted) asking of a stat what it was not intended for?

You guys want TS% to measure something that you are trying to intend it for.

TS% measures how much points a player scores per shot attempt. You guys want it to measure how many FGs a players makes as opposed to how much he misses. That's foolish.

Why don't you ask FG% to tell you how much blocks a player has while you're at it then? :pity:

Again I dare one of you to answer this question. Which is more important points scored or FGs made?

69centers
08-19-2011, 11:47 PM
Look up the top 50 players in history for PPG. Every one of them was a bona fide superstar stud. Same deal if you look up RPG. Look up TS%, FG%, and some of the other less common stats and you'll find skewed rankings with chump players mixed in.

My main critique that started all this was my comment to people who dismissed Al Jefferson having much higher RPG and PPG than anyone else in the poll, yet people saying they weren't voting for him because his efficiency and TS% sucked. When people starting using that as a measuring stick, and ignoring the main stats, it's plain wrong.

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 11:49 PM
Look up the top 50 players in history for PPG. Every one of them was a bona fide superstar stud. Same deal if you look up RPG. Look up TS%, FG%, and some of the other less common stats and you'll find skewed rankings with chump players mixed in.

My main critique that started all this was my comment to people who dismissed Al Jefferson having much higher RPG and PPG than anyone else in the poll, yet people saying they weren't voting for him because his efficiency and TS% sucked.

Who is the better player

Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson?

69centers
08-19-2011, 11:52 PM
Who is the better player

Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson?

I know where you're going with this. The difference between 26.6 (for 6th all time) and 25.3 (11th all time) isn't very much. Everyone on the list was a stud. It doesn't have to automatically mean 1-50 is actually and exactly how they rank 1-50. At least you don't have Cedric Maxwell at 2nd all time and Tim Duncan at 156th. Huge gap there.

Swashcuff
08-19-2011, 11:55 PM
I know where you're going with this. The difference between 26.6 (for 6th all time) and 25.3 (11th all time) isn't very much. Everyone on the list was a stud. It doesn't have to automatically mean 1-50 is actually and exactly how they rank 1-50. At least you don't have Cedric Maxwell at 2nd all time and Tim Duncan at 156th. Huge gap there.

Better player Carmelo Anthony (13th all time) or Scottie Pippen (173rd)

bigger gap

69centers
08-19-2011, 11:58 PM
Better player Carmelo Anthony (13th all time) or Scottie Pippen (173rd)

bigger gap

This is just a case of mostly all of the top 200 being great players, proving the stat is extremely sound. When you have a stat where bench and role players rank in the top 5, you already lost any credibility. You can easily compare most players in the top 25 with those 100-140 on the PPG list, because they are so close in ability. The list is chock-o-block full of great players. Not so with the advanced stats lists.

Swashcuff
08-20-2011, 12:05 AM
This is just a case of mostly all of the top 200 being great players, proving the stat is extremely sound. When you have a stat where bench and role players rank in the top 5, you already lost any credibility. You can easily compare most players in the top 25 with those 100-140 on the PPG list, because they are so close in ability. The list is chock-o-block full of great players. Not so with the advanced stats lists.

Bill Walton (349th) or George McGinnis (54th)

Swashcuff
08-20-2011, 12:13 AM
Not so with the advanced stats lists.

You know why you would say that that isn't the case with advanced statistics? Because you don't understand how to use them or how to put them into perspective.

You want a list to tell you something that is not what it is made for and when you don't get that you think the stat is worthless. Like I said. You should look to PPG to tell you how many rebounds a player grabs because that's essentially what you are trying to do with advanced statistics asking them to tell you something that they are not.

Why don't you watch the list of PER, WS or WS/48 leaders? The gaps MUCH smaller and more accurate than that of PPG.

Swashcuff
08-20-2011, 12:46 AM
I think I need to post this.


Points Per Game - PPG
The average number of points a player scores per game played. It is calculated by dividing Points by Games Played (Pts/G).

Rebounds Per Game - RPG
The average number of rebouds a player has per game game played. It is calculated by dividing Total Rebounds by Games Played (Reb/G).

Assists Per Game - APG
The average number of assists a player has per game played. It is calculated by dividing Assists by Games Played (Ast/G).

Steals Per Game - SPG
The average number of steals a player has per game played. It is calculated by dividing Steals by Games Played (Stl/G).

Blocks Per Game - BPG
The average number of blocks a player has per game played. It is calculated by dividing Blocks by Games Played (Blk/G)

TS%
True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

Effective Field Goal Percentage - EFG%
Similar to Field Goal Percentage, except that 3 point field goals are counted for 50% more since they count for an extra points. This stat gives a better point-scoring potential of players who attempt a lot of three pointers. It is calculated by adding 2 point field goals to 150% of the number of 3 point field goals all divided by field goal attempts. ((2FG+(1.5*3FG))/FGA)

PER
Player Efficiency Rating (available since the 1951-52 season); PER is a rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance."

WS
Win Shares; an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player.

WS/48
Win Shares Per 48 Minutes (available since the 1951-52 season in the NBA); an estimate of the number of wins contributed by the player per 48 minutes (league average is approximately 0.100).


Now of course there are dozens more statistics out there I just quoted a few to show that each and every stat tells us something different and is used to measure a different aspect (or a combination of aspects) of basketball.

It would be foolish in all honesty to expect TS% to represent only the greatest players of all time. By that basis we should expect every statistic to reflect that as well.

No matter where/when we use statistics, whether it be for sports, accounts, energy, business, surveys, engineering etc. there is one constant throughout. No 2 statistics are made to reflect the same exact thing. Each statistic is unique and tells us something different. If you ask each stat to tell you the same thing then you're obviously not using it correctly.

If someone don't believe in stats that's fine but don't come and tell me that you believe in some and not others because those others don't tell you what they think they should. IMO that's the height of ignorance at it's utmost finest.

Chronz
08-20-2011, 12:59 AM
Ed friggin' Pinckney, 17th best TS% NBA player of all time. :jumpy: C'mon, now. Do you see where this is going?
I dont, whats your point.


Sound stats do not have this many mediocre to sub par role players in their top 20, or top 10 players to ever play the game ranking 78-190.

Why not? If a guy gos 2/4 and another guy gos 4/10, isnt it suppose to tell you that?


When you have a stat that puts Ed Pinckney way, way over Bird, Wilt, Jordan, KG, Hakeem, and Duncan, it's not a stat I will ever care about.
Shame, we'll just have to make due with all the statisticians, GM's, Analyst, and Coaches then. Oh well, our loss right.