PDA

View Full Version : Lakers Bynum made top 50



ldawg
09-27-2011, 12:03 AM
http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/slamonline-top-50/2011/09/top-50-andrew-bynum-no-44

Bynum made top 50 and could be the best center in the NBA by 2013

Avenged
09-27-2011, 12:05 AM
So he shouldn't have made it? Serious question.

I think his efficiency and production merits top 50. Only thing holding him back is because of the talent he plays with, and yes, injuries.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 12:07 AM
Interesting that he's ranked 5th at his position with Bogut and Gasol (Marc) ranked lower. I wonder if they too see TD as a C and have him ranked in their top 4? Just an indicator of how deep the PF position is David West is ranked in the top 50 but is 15th at his position.

MagicBucsSox
09-27-2011, 12:17 AM
Hahahahaha 2013 Dwight will be 28

John Walls Era
09-27-2011, 12:22 AM
David West a bit high.

ldawg
09-27-2011, 12:28 AM
big things from lopez? he rank no 40

ldawg
09-27-2011, 12:31 AM
Hahahahaha 2013 Dwight will be 28Howard better work on his skills before his Athletic ability declines.

naps
09-27-2011, 12:33 AM
http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/slamonline-top-50/2011/09/top-50-andrew-bynum-no-44

Bynum made top 50 and could be the best center in the NBA by 2013

Optimism? Good. There is a 0.000001% chance that Bynum will be the top center in the league as long as Dwight is around. If somebody can dethrone Dwight that has to be some new face but definitely not Bynum. Absolutely NOT.

010957
09-27-2011, 12:34 AM
ughhh, it's just soo annoying seeing Bynum typically being overrated all the time.. Why is it that Bogut is ranked worse than Bynum in the first place.. really? I mean i know bogut wasn't playing for the lakers last, year, and i know no-one really cares about the bucks, who would. But seriously if anyone watched any games, you'd see that bogut is actually a terrific centre, easily a top 5 centre in this 'centre deprived' league. I may be australian, and believe me I'm not biased.. But Bynum isn't the 42nd best player in the league.... at all

naps
09-27-2011, 12:35 AM
Howard better work on his skills before his Athletic ability declines.


And what evidence do you have that Bynum will be the best center by 2013? Magic ball?

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 12:37 AM
big things from lopez? he rank no 40

In March of last season he averaged 26 and 6 on 54% shooting from the field. I'm guessing the addition of a top 3 PG in Deron Williams and the fact that he started putting things together offensive end (scoring more and more efficiently as well) as the season progressed last season (still lacked in the rebounding and defensive aspects) it gave the writer good enough reason to believe that Brook can have a season worthy of that of a #40 player.

Given the fact that he wasn't at 100% last season after his bout with Mono his strength maybe wasn't at the level in which he would have liked. Next season we should see the defensive improvement and also an increase in his rebounding (Its almost a given since he was so atrocious last season) when he comes into the season at what should be 100% or so.

Brook is a quality player and IMO 22 and 7-8 (very likely) with 1.5+ bpg and average D and efficient scoring should be good enough to be considered a player deserving of a spot at 40.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 12:40 AM
Howard better work on his skills before his Athletic ability declines.

Did you watch Howard last season? He didn't up his scoring average and have the best offensive season of his career by chance or just dunking on people, he has refined his offensive skill set to the point where it's actually respectable. While far from elite he isn't completely reliant on his athleticism for Offense or Defense.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 12:43 AM
44 sounds about right. But I remember Chronz claiming he was top 30 very easy, which made me laugh.

Chacarron
09-27-2011, 12:55 AM
Andrew Bynum should be at least top 40 if you are going to place Brook Lopez at 40.

Bos_Sports4Life
09-27-2011, 01:00 AM
If he EVER stayes healthy, he can be as good as the 2nd best C in the League. But no one is really close too Howard

The_Jamal
09-27-2011, 01:09 AM
Jennings at 43? wtf is that ****

LakersMaster24
09-27-2011, 01:40 AM
If a player is a Top 5 Center in the NBA, then he deserves to be in the Top 50...

5ass
09-27-2011, 01:50 AM
howard
bogut
horford
noah
jefferson
marc gasol

over bynum anyday

Chronz
09-27-2011, 10:49 AM
ughhh, it's just soo annoying seeing Bynum typically being overrated all the time.. Why is it that Bogut is ranked worse than Bynum in the first place.. really? I mean i know bogut wasn't playing for the lakers last, year, and i know no-one really cares about the bucks, who would. But seriously if anyone watched any games, you'd see that bogut is actually a terrific centre, easily a top 5 centre in this 'centre deprived' league. I may be australian, and believe me I'm not biased.. But Bynum isn't the 42nd best player in the league.... at all

Interesting, so your argument centers around the fact that nobody watches Bogut and anyone who supports him must be biased? I believe that your not biased because most Aussies I talk to loathe Bogut for some reason but thats changing I think. But your argument that only you have the ability to watch Bogut and know his worth is weak. Ive seen all the games you have and then some, I think Bogut is his superior if ever so slight on defense, but on offense hes CLEARLY not in Bynums league.

Also hes underrated here but not a bad showing.

Chronz
09-27-2011, 10:51 AM
44 sounds about right. But I remember Chronz claiming he was top 30 very easy, which made me laugh.
Was it top 30? Sounds right and yes I was laughing from many of the points you were making then. My favorite was how you didnt consider Deron an All-Star because he wasnt making the team for years.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 10:52 AM
Was it top 30? Sounds right

Yea, you said top 30 easy, which still deserves a :facepalm:

Greet
09-27-2011, 10:53 AM
Andrew Bynum should be at least top 40 if you are going to place Brook Lopez at 40.

I'll take Brook's production for a whole season over Bynum's for ~half.

Was it top 30? Sounds right and yes I was laughing from many of the points you were making then. My favorite was how you didnt consider Deron an All-Star because he wasnt making the team for years.

lol'd

beasted86
09-27-2011, 11:01 AM
Was it top 30? Sounds right and yes I was laughing from many of the points you were making then. My favorite was how you didnt consider Deron an All-Star because he wasnt making the team for years.

Are you genuinely confusing me with someone else, or are you just making things up?

Chronz
09-27-2011, 11:04 AM
Yea, you said top 30 easy, which still deserves a :facepalm:
Can we not go down this road, it inevitably leads to you tapping out in the face of statistical aka non-biased information only to go on bad mouthing my viewpoint in other threads.

I understand you dont respect the stance that someone you consider to be a Top 44 player could possibly challenge for Top 30 but the truth is the only thing preventing him from being in the top15 is his low MPG threshold. Literally all he needs to do is play more minutes and prove he can stay healthy. THATS IT. His TALENT is unquestionably there.

SeoulBeatz
09-27-2011, 11:09 AM
Brandon Jennings at 43 is a travesty.

Dude is so overrated it's not even funny.

If he's 43, then Ty Lawson and Jrue Holiday should be 42 and 41.

One 55 point game can't save 2 seasons of inconsistency, poor shot selection, and jacking 3's when you can't shoot them.

Still bitter about him ****ing up my fantasy team last season, lol.

Greet
09-27-2011, 11:13 AM
Brandon Jennings at 43 is a travesty.

Dude is so overrated it's not even funny.

If he's 43, then Ty Lawson and Jrue Holiday should be 42 and 41.

One 55 point game can't save 2 seasons of inconsistency, poor shot selection, and jacking 3's when you can't shoot them.

Still bitter about him ****ing up my fantasy team last season, lol.

Oh look a 76er fan overrated Jrue Holiday, what's new?

Chronz
09-27-2011, 11:14 AM
Are you genuinely confusing me with someone else, or are you just making things up?
You were the guy who said Bynum wasnt providing All-Star caliber minutes because he never made the All-Star team correct.

Chronz
09-27-2011, 11:16 AM
Oh look a 76er fan overrated Jrue Holiday, what's new?

Saying Jrue > Jennings is the opposite of overrating someone. Thats using all objective information available to come to the most logical conclusion.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 11:16 AM
Brandon Jennings at 43 is a travesty.

Dude is so overrated it's not even funny.

If he's 43, then Ty Lawson and Jrue Holiday should be 42 and 41.

One 55 point game can't save 2 seasons of inconsistency, poor shot selection, and jacking 3's when you can't shoot them.

Still bitter about him ****ing up my fantasy team last season, lol.


I'm guessing he's also going to be ahead of Jrue. Honestly I didn't even take the time to read his reasoning because I can't see any for ranking him so high going forward after he regressed last season.

Avenged
09-27-2011, 11:16 AM
I'll take Bynum's production for 64 games than Brook's 82.

Greet
09-27-2011, 11:18 AM
I'll take Bynum's production for 64 games than Brook's 82.

Which is why you aren't a GM.

I'd like you too take a look at Brook's #'s when Deron joined the team. All facets of his game improved because he was no longer the only scoring threat on the team. Bynum can't stay healthy and isn't nearly as good offensively then Brook.

Brook demands a double team every time he gets the ball, Bynum is usually in a good position, wide open or in a 1 on 1 situation because Bynum has two players on the team that demand a double team in the post.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 11:19 AM
Oh look a 76er fan overrated Jrue Holiday, what's new?

Interesting. Indeed very interesting. Because he thinks Jrue is better than Jennings? Interesting.

Avenged
09-27-2011, 11:19 AM
Which is why you aren't a GM.

I'd like you too take a look at Brook's #'s when Deron joined the team. All facets of his game improved because he was no longer the only scoring threat on the team. Bynum can't stay healthy and isn't nearly as good offensively then Brook.

Brook demands a double team every time he gets the ball, Bynum is usually in a good position, wide open or in a 1 on 1 situation because Bynum has two players on the team that demand a double team in the post.

And yet it still doesn't match Bynum's.. Go figure.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 11:20 AM
I'll take Bynum's production for 64 games than Brook's 82.

If he's healthy for those 64 games and can log me 30+ minutes a game I'd take that as well.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 11:23 AM
You were the guy who said Bynum wasnt providing All-Star caliber minutes because he never made the All-Star team correct.

Yes, I laughed when you said Bynum has been playing All-star caliber basketball for the past 3 years. But what does that have to do with Deron Williams?

NVM... I did the research for you. You genuinely mistook me for another poster, maybe because our usernames both end with 86:
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18877651&postcount=153

But to make my stance clear anyway, it's still laughable that you think Bynum played all-star worthy basketball and I would have laughed at any comparison to the Deron Williams situation as well.

Avenged
09-27-2011, 11:23 AM
I mean if we're talking scoring, give Bynum the minutes Brook has on him (+8) and his USG 17.6 compared to 27.3, judging by Bynum's production with so minimal, his scoring opportunities will rise.

Chronz
09-27-2011, 11:25 AM
Yes, I laughed when you said Bynum has been playing All-star caliber basketball for the past 3 years. But what does that have to do with Deron Williams?

NVM... I did the research for you. You genuinely mistook me for another poster, maybe because our usernames both end with 86:
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18877651&postcount=153

But to make my stance clear anyway, it's still laughable that you think Bynum played all-star worthy basketball and I would have laughed at any comparison to the Deron Williams situation as well.

Yes you do alot of laughing but not enough analysis to bolster your tone, thanks for clearing that up though.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 11:25 AM
Anyway back on topic, I don't agree with all the rankings by SLAM, but overall Bynum is right around the 40 mark overall in the league. Definitely not top 30 though.

Chacarron
09-27-2011, 11:26 AM
I'll take Brook's production for a whole season over Bynum's for ~half.



I'll take Bynum's production for 64 games than Brook's 82.

I would also take Bynum's production on offense and DEFENSE for 18 less games. This has nothing to do with me being a Lakers fan, rather I can recognize the better player when I see him and when he holds the edge in every major statistical category, with the exception of PPG.

Chronz
09-27-2011, 11:28 AM
Which is why you aren't a GM.

I'd like you too take a look at Brook's #'s when Deron joined the team. All facets of his game improved because he was no longer the only scoring threat on the team. Bynum can't stay healthy and isn't nearly as good offensively then Brook.

Brook demands a double team every time he gets the ball, Bynum is usually in a good position, wide open or in a 1 on 1 situation because Bynum has two players on the team that demand a double team in the post.

Have you seen Bynums #'s without Kobe/Pau on the floor throughout his career? Have you seen his #'s in various play sets? The guy isnt this efficient because hes being spoonfed dunks its because he creates those dunks by being such a monstrous finisher. Most centers wouldnt be able to finish the plays Kobe-Pau (The Triangle) set up for him.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Yes you do alot of laughing but not enough analysis to bolster your tone, thanks for clearing that up though.

I do a lot of analysis, you have your own way of looking at things, I have mine.

You buy into advanced stats wholeheartedly and believe they say something that I don't think they say. We've had different discussions in different threads about the subject, so it doesn't really matter what player or players we are comparing, the end result will still be very different analyses on the subject because of that.

But by the look of that thread, and this one, most agree Bynum is generally overrated regardless of where your 'analysis' ranks him..

mamba24
09-27-2011, 11:32 AM
I totally think Bynum is a top 5 center. If he ever stays healthy he could be the 2nd best. Dwight will be the best for a few more years. By the time he starts fading off into the sunset, Bynum's knees will be so bad he won't be able to perform very well...

Chronz
09-27-2011, 11:57 AM
EDIT) NVM

That entire post was based on the idea that you were the guy who tapped out at the end. The was rlundi.

I dont even remember what your argument against him was

beasted86
09-27-2011, 12:09 PM
I meant to say researched analysis.


In other words you have nothing to back your opinion and your arguments against those stats came with no actual analysis.

I use "basic" statistics. Facts like pace, assisted%, FG%, floor shot locations, and so forth to make a complete evaluation. You on the other hand will rely heavily on 1 or 2 advanced stat categories based on a theory to make your claim.

So like I said, you have your way of looking at things, I have mine.


Well yea, this has been the story for awhile now. It wasnt too long ago that PSD voted Bargnani of all people ahead of Bynum. I told them then what I told them now, their excuses were baseless. Sure enough Bynum made the list for #2 center seems to have gained more respect.
By the time Bynum gets his chance to be the featured star on a team, either a new excuse will have been developed by then, or he won't be on the Lakers so his success/failure will be irrelevant.


I understand Im still in the minority of where I rank him but I expect that to change once people understand how impactful he is given he stays healthy.

Was he not healthy this past season? Assuming being healthy should make a difference, why was his impact on pace with his previous 2-3 seasons for the most part? He picked up his rebounding slightly, but I really can't tell any other major difference

Chronz
09-27-2011, 12:24 PM
Those cease to be basic stats once you start accounting for context of pace, efficiency, shot location and any sort of possession analysis.

You didnt provide any of those in our first argument or else I would have remembered, when I thought you were lundi (someone who I told to post more often BTW) I remembered the argument against his efficiency.

LOL at the idea that I only use 2 stats to develop a theory, yes beasted, your much more equipped and privy to the ways of statistical evaluations, I can only hope to learn from your example. Care to begin the lesson, show me your mastered technique because Ive clearly forgotten since our last encounter.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 12:30 PM
Those cease to be basic stats once you start accounting for context of pace, efficiency, shot location and any sort of possession analysis.

You didnt provide any of those in our first argument or else I would have remembered, when I thought you were lundi (someone who I told to post more often BTW) I remembered the argument against his efficiency.

LOL at the idea that I only use 2 stats to develop a theory, yes beasted, your much more equipped and privy to the ways of statistical evaluations, I can only hope to learn from your example. Care to begin the lesson, show me your mastered technique because Ive clearly forgotten since our last encounter.

This word is poisonous to any discussion we might have because we view it completely different. If a simple concept like 3/3 > 2/3 cannot be overcome, then all further debate is pointless.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 12:36 PM
This word is poisonous to any discussion we might have because we view it completely different. If a simple concept like 3/3 > 2/3 cannot be overcome, then all further debate is pointless.

This returns.

Basketball is about scoring more points than the other team not making more buckets. That's the only simple concept you need.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 12:50 PM
This returns.

Basketball is about scoring more points than the other team not making more buckets. That's the only simple concept you need.

So which one does it do... tell us about scoring efficiency or shooting efficiency... because a foolproof case can be made why it's flawed at both.

Shooting efficiency: 3/3 is 100%, 2/3 is 66%. Also two players can have the same exact shooting efficiency from the field, and create the same amount of FT opportunities for himself, but one guy steps in for an extra team technical foul and thus the stat is now skewed.

Scoring efficiency: Takes no account for role or usage, and neither does it take into account assisted % or how many turnovers or blocked shots.

So what exactly is it saying?

Chronz
09-27-2011, 12:57 PM
This word is poisonous to any discussion we might have because we view it completely different. If a simple concept like 3/3 > 2/3 cannot be overcome, then all further debate is pointless.

Which is why I only engage in debates where the player wins in either extreme definition of the word because there can only be 2. You value someones shot making ability over anothers shot finishing trait. Bynum combines the best of both, and once you engage in this debate I can show you why.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 01:00 PM
So which one does it do... tell us about scoring efficiency or shooting efficiency... because a foolproof case can be made why it's flawed at both.

Shooting efficiency: 3/3 is 100%, 2/3 is 66%. Also two players can have the same exact shooting efficiency from the field, and create the same amount of FT opportunities for himself, but one guy steps in for an extra team technical foul and thus the stat is now skewed.

Scoring efficiency: Takes no account for role or usage, and neither does it take into account assisted % or how many turnovers or blocked shots.

So what exactly is it saying?

It's simply saying how much points a player scores per shot attempt.

How is it flawed? The stat takes technical foul FTs into consideration. Something which needs to be understood as well. In order to take a technical free throw in the first place you have to be just about the most the best free throw shooter on your team at the time on the floor.

Your problem is and I told you this already that you want a stat that tells your everything. There is no such stat. Simply put when looking at a player's TS% one should take the player's USG% into account when trying to ascertain their exact worth.

What's the point bout assisted %? I don't get that. Do you think player A is more efficient than player B because he creates his own shot? Being assisted on a shot is not just standing around and putting the ball in the hole when it's passed to you. It takes just as much skill to effectively put yourself in a good position not only to score but where you can be easily found.

Stop asking stats to tell you things that they are not suppose to. You don't ask a player's ORB/G to tell you how many points he scores so then why are you asking TS% to tell you otherwise?

beasted86
09-27-2011, 01:21 PM
It's simply saying how much points a player scores per shot attempt.
Not only per shot attempt, per shot & FT attempt.... but the problem is "efficiency" and TS% shouldn't me intermixed if that's all it says.


How is it flawed? The stat takes technical foul FTs into consideration. Something which needs to be understood as well. In order to take a technical free throw in the first place you have to be just about the most the best free throw shooter on your team at the time on the floor.

I'm not saying it shouldn't. I was giving an example of how the stat can be skewed to show two shooters of the same accuracy at different efficiencies, and in that purpose, it is flawed.


Your problem is and I told you this already that you want a stat that tells your everything. There is no such stat. Simply put when looking at a player's TS% one should take the player's USG% into account when trying to ascertain their exact worth.
USG% has it's own flaws, but substituting "USG%" with a players "role", even TS% and usage is not enough. What if a player forces the issue and gets blocked frequently? This doesn't shows up as a missed FGA and that would neither affect a players USG% or TS% but most definitely should be part of discussion on scoring efficiency. There are other variables also.


What's the point bout assisted %? I don't get that. Do you think player A is more efficient than player B because he creates his own shot? Being assisted on a shot is not just standing around and putting the ball in the hole when it's passed to you. It takes just as much skill to effectively put yourself in a good position not only to score but where you can be easily found.
Unfortunately there is no "moving without the ball" stat. There's also no "how many feet away was the opponents defender when you shot the ball" stat. So all we have is assisted% as a gauge for shot creation.


Stop asking stats to tell you things that they are not suppose to. You don't ask a player's ORB/G to tell you how many points he scores so then why are you asking TS% to tell you otherwise?
I don't ask them... you guys tell me that's what they say, so I'm asking why do you think it says that.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 01:42 PM
Not only per shot attempt, per shot & FT attempt.... but the problem is "efficiency" and TS% shouldn't me intermixed if that's all it says.

Actually it is per shot attempt.


I'm not saying it shouldn't. I was giving an example of how the stat can be skewed to show two shooters of the same accuracy at different efficiencies, and in that purpose, it is flawed.

Being more efficient doesn't mean you're a better shooter that's not what it measures either.


USG% has it's own flaws, but substituting "USG%" with a players "role", even TS% and usage is not enough. What if a player forces the issue and gets blocked frequently? This doesn't shows up as a missed FGA and that would neither affect a players USG% or TS% but most definitely should be part of discussion on scoring efficiency. There are other variables also.

These what if scenarios you are presenting are extremes that aren't very well thought out.


Unfortunately there is no "moving without the ball" stat. There's also no "how many feet away was the opponents defender when you shot the ball" stat. So all we have is assisted% as a gauge for shot creation.

I hear you. Again however attempting to say that because is a player creates more he's a more efficient player is wrong plain and simple.


I don't ask them... you guys tell me that's what they say, so I'm asking why do you think it says that.

Actually you do. You want TS% to tell you more than it was created for. TS% is perfectly fine in doing that, is the best stat in doing what it does and that is saying how efficiently a player will score, in possessions in games. The fact that TS% exists doesn't erase all other stats, if you want a good three point shot at the end of regulation you don't look at TS% you look at 3FG%. If you want to see who on your team scores in the most efficient way then you look at TS%. It's simple as that.

It says nothing about scoring volume, role on a team, ability to create your own shot, playmaking (either the player's or his teammates', etc.). It only says that on the average for the same number of possessions that end in a shot (or shooting foul), Bynum will score a bit more points than Al Jefferson-- nothing else.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 02:02 PM
Actually it is per shot attempt.
:confused:, really confused here as I just presented an example how a player through no reason of his own received an extra FT attempt. So, no, it is actually per shot attempt & FT attempt.



Being more efficient doesn't mean you're a better shooter that's not what it measures either. TS% does not accurately say who is a more efficient shooter or more efficient scorer, so it shouldn't be used to describe either.



These what if scenarios you are presenting are extremes that aren't very well thought out. Not sure how it's an extreme. If a player adds 1 or 2 more possessions that don't show up every game by either getting his shot blocked, or dumping off a bad pass once he's up in the air and realizes he has nothing... I don't see how that should not be counted towards a player's scoring efficiency. Even at only 1 or 2 possessions a game that adds up to a large total over a full season.



I hear you. Again however attempting to say that because is a player creates more he's a more efficient player is wrong plain and simple.
It does bring the assumption that if that said player played on a team with poor ball handlers their efficiency might drop.



Actually you do. You want TS% to tell you more than it was created for. TS% is perfectly fine in doing that, is the best stat in doing what it does and that is saying how efficiently a player will score, in possessions in games. The fact that TS% exists doesn't erase all other stats, if you want a good three point shot at the end of regulation you don't look at TS% you look at 3FG%. If you want to see who on your team scores in the most efficient way then you look at TS%. It's simple as that.

It says nothing about scoring volume, role on a team, ability to create your own shot, playmaking (either the player's or his teammates', etc.). It only says that on the average for the same number of possessions that end in a shot (or shooting foul), Bynum will score a bit more points than Al Jefferson-- nothing else.

Yeah, like I said, there is a fundamental difference in how we view advanced stats, so most of the time these debates on players go nowhere.

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 02:37 PM
:confused:, really confused here as I just presented an example how a player through no reason of his own received an extra FT attempt. So, no, it is actually per shot attempt & FT attempt

I already explained this to you in the last part of my previous post.


TS% does not accurately say who is a more efficient shooter or more efficient scorer, so it shouldn't be used to describe either.

What is efficiency? Give me your definition so I can better understand your POV.


Not sure how it's an extreme. If a player adds 1 or 2 more possessions that don't show up every game by either getting his shot blocked, or dumping off a bad pass once he's up in the air and realizes he has nothing... I don't see how that should not be counted towards a player's scoring efficiency. Even at only 1 or 2 possessions a game that adds up to a large total over a full season.

You see the problem with this is it cannot be accounted for by any statistic. Who is to say a player is forcing the issue? It can be a matter of coincidence it can be a matter of height. It can be a matter of style of shot etc. Is Dirk more efficient than Chuck because he evades shot blockers more effectively?


It does bring the assumption that if that said player played on a team with poor ball handlers their efficiency might drop.

Incorrect. It's the player's ability to get himself in to good positions in the first place. Possibility is that he may get less shots and maybe only have better shots. Thus meaning the player efficiency may actually go the other way. It's no secret that good teammates are going to help your efficiency regardless. So either way you take it if two players have identical supporting casts and one creates more while the other is assisted more doesn't really that one is more efficient than the other because of the way he scores.



Yeah, like I said, there is a fundamental difference in how we view advanced stats, so most of the time these debates on players go nowhere.

I really can't begin to comprehend how you view this stat in particular. Everything I said about it in this instance was factual. We see it on the court all the time. I don't understand how we can view it differently.

Honestly sometimes I think you look at the colour red but don't think it's red and try to convince yourself that its orange. You try to argue something that is indeed factual.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 02:52 PM
What is efficiency? Give me your definition so I can better understand your POV.

My take on shooting efficiency from stats is based FGA, FG%, assisted%, and some stake in USG%. Scoring efficiency involves a lot more.



You see the problem with this is it cannot be accounted for by any statistic. Who is to say a player is forcing the issue? It can be a matter of coincidence it can be a matter of height. It can be a matter of style of shot etc. Is Dirk more efficient than Chuck because he evades shot blockers more effectively?



Incorrect. It's the player's ability to get himself in to good positions in the first place. Possibility is that he may get less shots and maybe only have better shots. Thus meaning the player efficiency may actually go the other way. It's no secret that good teammates are going to help your efficiency regardless. So either way you take it if two players have identical supporting casts and one creates more while the other is assisted more doesn't really that one is more efficient than the other because of the way he scores.

I can reason with both of these, but if it's not accounted for then it's not accurate. So using TS% as the main baseline for efficiency (either shooting or scoring) is just as inaccurate as using FG% as the main baseline for efficiency.



I really can't begin to comprehend how you view this stat in particular. Everything I said about it in this instance was factual. We see it on the court all the time. I don't understand how we can view it differently.

Honestly sometimes I think you look at the colour red but don't think it's red and try to convince yourself that its orange. You try to argue something that is indeed factual.

I view it as exactly what I said in one of the responses above: A stat that tells us who scored more per shot & FT attempt. But that doesn't mean much to me in regards to who is more efficient without taking a whole lot more into context.

And I actually think it's the other way around. You've already convinced yourself that 2/3 = 3/3, when by all normal standards of math couldn't be more wrong, so you tell me who's trying to fool himself.

ramz.n
09-27-2011, 03:11 PM
hes done nothing to prove hes an elite center..his numbers aren't impressive, his conditioning and durability is questionable, the only thing he has going for him is hes 23 and hes been in the league for 6 years.

Chronz
09-27-2011, 03:14 PM
Enough with the semantics, can you name the class of players you have Bynum with?

Chronz
09-27-2011, 03:15 PM
hes done nothing to prove hes an elite center..his numbers aren't impressive, his conditioning and durability is questionable, the only thing he has going for him is hes 23 and hes been in the league for 6 years.

Thats one mans take based on.....

Swashcuff
09-27-2011, 03:15 PM
My take on shooting efficiency from stats is based FGA, FG%, assisted%, and some stake in USG%. Scoring efficiency involves a lot more.

What about scoring efficiency? Not shooting?


I can reason with both of these, but if it's not accounted for then it's not accurate. So using TS% as the main baseline for efficiency (either shooting or scoring) is just as inaccurate as using FG% as the main baseline for efficiency.

It's not. That's extremely wrong. Scoring efficiency and shooting efficiency are two different things. I told you this before. You can't use TS% on its own to determine if one player is a better shooter than another however you can use it to determine who scores at a higher/better rate than another.


I view it as exactly what I said in one of the responses above: A stat that tells us who scored more per shot & FT attempt. But that doesn't mean much to me in regards to who is more efficient without taking a whole lot more into context.

And I actually think it's the other way around. You've already convinced yourself that 2/3 = 3/3, when by all normal standards of math couldn't be more wrong, so you tell me who's trying to fool himself.

What do still can't seem to wrap your mind around to this very moment that scores points is more important that scoring field goals. Again if the outcome of 2/3 and 3/3 is the same then why shouldn't it be equal? It's basketball aren't we dealing with the outcome here? Or is your concern that the 1 miss hurts the team in a way that is not accounted for in TS%? If that's the case then again that's your gripe but the added FT/FTA makes up for that.

beasted86
09-27-2011, 04:09 PM
What about scoring efficiency? Not shooting?
Scoring efficiency based on stats? MIN, PPG, FG%, FGA, FTA, FT%, TOV, AST%, Pace, USG%... And away from stats only, different weights can be applied to those based on my opinion of how their teammates differ.


It's not. That's extremely wrong. Scoring efficiency and shooting efficiency are two different things. I told you this before. You can't use TS% on its own to determine if one player is a better shooter than another however you can use it to determine who scores at a higher/better rate than another.

What do still can't seem to wrap your mind around to this very moment that scores points is more important that scoring field goals. Again if the outcome of 2/3 and 3/3 is the same then why shouldn't it be equal? It's basketball aren't we dealing with the outcome here? Or is your concern that the 1 miss hurts the team in a way that is not accounted for in TS%? If that's the case then again that's your gripe but the added FT/FTA makes up for that.

Like I keep saying, there is a fundamental difference in how we both look at different stats & advanced stats, and the weight we put on each. Both of us seem to understand how they come up with the formula for these stats, but view what they are saying completely different.