PDA

View Full Version : Which do you value, a limited but efficient player or a prolific yet inefficient one?



Chronz
08-28-2012, 11:36 PM
Everyone knows a star combines efficiency and usage, but the tier behind it will have a player who only exceeds at one.


Would you rather have a guy who doesnt take on much of the offense but makes the few shots he does hit, or the guy who can carry a bigger load but do so inefficiently.



In other words, focusing solely on offense, would you rather have Chris Kaman or Tyson Chandler. Shane Battier or JR Smith?

It probably depends on the team, so if your contending or rebuilding, which would you rather have? Efficient player with limited usage OR Inefficient player with high usage?

BobbyHillSwag
08-28-2012, 11:40 PM
without factoring in defense at all im taking the inefficient chuckers.

waveycrockett
08-28-2012, 11:41 PM
limited but efficient like Kevin Love/Steph Curry

Prolific but inefficient like Kobe/Melo

mightybosstone
08-28-2012, 11:44 PM
I think the only answer is that every team likely needs both guys. You can't win a championship with just the JR Smiths, you have to have the Shane Battiers, too. And it sort of depends on what is around the roster you have in place. If you have a roster like Miami's, you probably want more efficient, defensive minded guys. If you have a roster like Philly's last year or Denver's, you probably could use a high volume scorer with a massive usage rate to go with the No. 2s, No. 3s and role players you already have in place.

lakers4sho
08-28-2012, 11:57 PM
It probably depends on the team, so if your contending or rebuilding, which would you rather have? Efficient player with limited usage OR Inefficient player with high usage?

well even with contending vs rebuilding, there are still other factors to consider. are we talking about everything else equal?

Supamauhn
08-29-2012, 12:03 AM
You really need to get a dictionary... You can't be prolific and inefficient - that doesn't make sense... Well while we are at it... What is limited? Does the player have some sort of handicap?

mightybosstone
08-29-2012, 12:12 AM
You really need to get a dictionary... You can't be prolific and inefficient - that doesn't make sense... Well while we are at it... What is limited? Does the player have some sort of handicap?

From Webster's:

Prolific: 2. causing abundant growth, generation, or reproduction
3. marked by abundant inventiveness or productivity <a prolific composer>

Inefficient: 2. wasteful of time or energy <inefficient operating procedures

I fail to see how one eliminates the other. For example, suppose I built a machine of mass production that made a product from some sort of animal hide and I made 10 million products with that machine, but only used 5 percent of the animal hide and threw the rest away. Would the machine not be both prolific and inefficient?

The same can be said for basketball players. Allen Iverson is a a great example. We can argue where we might place Iverson in our all-time lists (he probably doesn't crack my top 50), because he was an extremely inefficient, high volume scorer. But there is no question that he was a prolific player that will undoubtedly make the Hall of Fame someday.

b@llhog24
08-29-2012, 12:21 AM
Efficiency.

Bruno
08-29-2012, 12:30 AM
You really need to get a dictionary... You can't be prolific and inefficient - that doesn't make sense... Well while we are at it... What is limited? Does the player have some sort of handicap?

perhaps you should participate in the thread rather than derail it. the word prolific has to do with quantity.

Bruno
08-29-2012, 12:31 AM
I want to say I'd go the efficient player, but I think Chronz said it- it depends on the teams needs.

...but i can't really see any scenario where i'd rather have Kaman over Chandler at this point. trying to think of an example where i'd take the prolific/less efficient player..

mrblisterdundee
08-29-2012, 12:31 AM
What do you mean by inefficient? Allen Iverson might have averaged a low field goal percentage, but often times he was scoring at the free throw line after missing a shot. That said, I would prefer the type of player Iverson was in his prime. Free throws are the best way to score - you get a short rest, you might get a three- or four-point play and you draw a foul on an opposing player. I'd say that's a pretty efficient use of a shot attempt.

greg_ory_2005
08-29-2012, 12:34 AM
I'll go with the chucker. Although he'll have his fair share of meh games, he'll also have games where he explodes. Also depends on who he's playing with too.

mightybosstone
08-29-2012, 12:38 AM
What do you mean by inefficient? Allen Iverson might have averaged a low field goal percentage, but often times he was scoring at the free throw line after missing a shot. That said, I would prefer the type of player Iverson was in his prime. Free throws are the best way to score - you get a short rest, you might get a three- or four-point play and you draw a foul on an opposing player. I'd say that's a pretty efficient use of a shot attempt.

Yeah, but you're forgetting the part where Iverson was a career .425 shooter, .313 three-point shooter AND only a career .780 free-throw shooter. His career numbers of .518 TS% abd .126 WS/48 are pretty inefficient for a player of his caliber who was considered top 5-10 throughout most of his career. His 20.9 PER was pretty solid, though, good enough for 47th best all-time.

b@llhog24
08-29-2012, 12:39 AM
What do you mean by inefficient? Allen Iverson might have averaged a low field goal percentage, but often times he was scoring at the free throw line after missing a shot. That said, I would prefer the type of player Iverson was in his prime. Free throws are the best way to score - you get a short rest, you might get a three- or four-point play and you draw a foul on an opposing player. I'd say that's a pretty efficient use of a shot attempt.

Even with his free throws he's still pretty inefficient.

Chronz
08-29-2012, 12:56 AM
You really need to get a dictionary... You can't be prolific and inefficient - that doesn't make sense... Well while we are at it... What is limited? Does the player have some sort of handicap?
They are similar but one values quantity over quality in some sense.

Chronz
08-29-2012, 01:23 AM
I want to say I'd go the efficient player, but I think Chronz said it- it depends on the teams needs.

...but i can't really see any scenario where i'd rather have Kaman over Chandler at this point. trying to think of an example where i'd take the prolific/less efficient player..

Same here, like even if Im the Bobcats, I think I would rather have Tyson than Kaman. I know the Clippers (and Blake) played better with DeAndre Jordan than they did with Kaman because he was efficient with his limited touches and allowed the true stars to carry the load.


What do you mean by inefficient? Allen Iverson might have averaged a low field goal percentage, but often times he was scoring at the free throw line after missing a shot. That said, I would prefer the type of player Iverson was in his prime. Free throws are the best way to score - you get a short rest, you might get a three- or four-point play and you draw a foul on an opposing player. I'd say that's a pretty efficient use of a shot attempt.
Not focusing on superstars

PatsSoxKnicks
08-29-2012, 03:19 AM
In most cases, I'd definitely prefer the limited but efficient player. You don't usually tend to win many games with the prolific inefficient player unless he's surrounded by the perfect cast of teammates, which is always tough to do. On the other hand, a limited but efficient player is much easier to build with because you don't have to worry about "not enough basketballs to go around" and chemistry issues.

To use the examples from earlier, I think Tyson Chandler would fit well on pretty much any team in the NBA (unless that team has a better center already but thats implied) but I don't think a guy like Kaman would fit on a lot of teams unless he were to drastically reduce the number of touches and then the question becomes is he still efficient enough to serve a role player type role AND will he not mess with the team chemistry.

KnicksorBust
08-29-2012, 11:17 AM
In most cases, I'd definitely prefer the limited but efficient player. You don't usually tend to win many games with the prolific inefficient player unless he's surrounded by the perfect cast of teammates, which is always tough to do. On the other hand, a limited but efficient player is much easier to build with because you don't have to worry about "not enough basketballs to go around" and chemistry issues.

To use the examples from earlier, I think Tyson Chandler would fit well on pretty much any team in the NBA (unless that team has a better center already but thats implied) but I don't think a guy like Kaman would fit on a lot of teams unless he were to drastically reduce the number of touches and then the question becomes is he still efficient enough to serve a role player type role AND will he not mess with the team chemistry.

Yes but guys like Tyson Chandler are only effecient because of their bball iq (they don't take shots they can't make) and people produce their points for them. If you have 5 Tyson Chandlers, their effeciency would plummet.

Raidaz4Life
08-29-2012, 11:27 AM
Limited and efficient. It allows you to play within a system a lot better and I am all about running an effective system over grouping together a bunch of talent.

Longhornfan1234
08-29-2012, 12:24 PM
So...y'all would pick Tyson Chandler over AI?

Raidaz4Life
08-29-2012, 12:26 PM
So...y'all would pick Tyson Chandler over AI?

How are those even comparable?

Jesse2272
08-29-2012, 12:27 PM
If im rebuilding I want efficient player/s to round out my team

Then I add my prolific scorer

balance is key

koreancabbage
08-29-2012, 12:28 PM
So...y'all would pick Tyson Chandler over AI?

pick players in similar positions and maybe I can answer this question. Its apple vs oranges right now.

Longhornfan1234
08-29-2012, 12:28 PM
How are those even comparable?

Tyson is a limited but efficient player, and AI is a prolific yet inefficient player.

koreancabbage
08-29-2012, 12:32 PM
Tyson is a limited but efficient player, and AI is a prolific yet inefficient player.

Imagine if Iverson and Chandler played together in their primes. hmm. do you think Chandler is better than Mutombo as a player? Mutombo was pretty limited as well.

Longhornfan1234
08-29-2012, 12:34 PM
Imagine if Iverson and Chandler played together in their primes. hmm. do you think Chandler is better than Mutombo as a player? Mutombo was pretty limited as well.

No...Mutombo is the better player. I get your point.

Chronz
08-29-2012, 12:47 PM
So...y'all would pick Tyson Chandler over AI?

I know that seems like what Im asking but we arent talking about stars here, AI wasnt efficient but considering his usage he wasnt that bad, his efficiency only begins to look bad when you compare him to guys like Kobe, Tmac, MJ, Wade etc.... When his usage came down, his efficiency shot up.

Would you take Chris Kaman over Chandler?

Most days, Kaman has a usage% well over league average. Tyson has one well below league average. One guy has a TS% below .500 (pathetic) the other has one above .700 (insane).

rapjuicer06
08-29-2012, 12:50 PM
It's soooo hard to tell. But I wouldn't want a team full of limited efficient players or Chuckers. It's a very hard question to answer

Longhornfan1234
08-29-2012, 12:52 PM
I know that seems like what Im asking but we arent talking about stars here, AI wasnt efficient but considering his usage he wasnt that bad, his efficiency only begins to look bad when you compare him to guys like Kobe, Tmac, MJ, Wade etc.... When his usage came down, his efficiency shot up.

Would you take Chris Kaman over Chandler?

Most days, Kaman has a usage% well over league average. Tyson has one well below league average. One guy has a TS% below .500 (pathetic) the other has one above .700 (insane).

Looking at those stats...I would have no choice to pick Tyson.

rapjuicer06
08-29-2012, 12:53 PM
I know that seems like what Im asking but we arent talking about stars here, AI wasnt efficient but considering his usage he wasnt that bad, his efficiency only begins to look bad when you compare him to guys like Kobe, Tmac, MJ, Wade etc.... When his usage came down, his efficiency shot up.

Would you take Chris Kaman over Chandler?

Most days, Kaman has a usage% well over league average. Tyson has one well below league average. One guy has a TS% below .500 (pathetic) the other has one above .700 (insane).

I would take Kaman on the Thunder and I would take Chandler on the Heat. It's a very hard question to answer

mjm07
08-29-2012, 12:53 PM
I think the only answer is that every team likely needs both guys. You can't win a championship with just the JR Smiths, you have to have the Shane Battiers, too. And it sort of depends on what is around the roster you have in place. If you have a roster like Miami's, you probably want more efficient, defensive minded guys. If you have a roster like Philly's last year or Denver's, you probably could use a high volume scorer with a massive usage rate to go with the No. 2s, No. 3s and role players you already have in place.

Great post.

Efficient low usage player for me.

Chronz
08-29-2012, 12:59 PM
I would take Kaman on the Thunder and I would take Chandler on the Heat. It's a very hard question to answer

Yup, its why I look forward to seeing how the Mavs do with the Dirk+Kaman frontcourt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


What about Stephen Jackson vs Battier in their primes

C-Style
08-29-2012, 01:01 PM
ill take a prolific but slightly less efficient one = Kobe

rapjuicer06
08-29-2012, 01:08 PM
Yup, its why I look forward to seeing how the Mavs do with the Dirk+Kaman frontcourt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


What about Stephen Jackson vs Battier in their primes

I don't think Kaman and Dirk will go very well at all.

Man, these choices are tough as hell. I'd take Battier as a starter and Jackson in a 6th man role.

Raidaz4Life
08-29-2012, 02:19 PM
I actually think it depends on whether or not you have a play maker or not. If you have a player that can get your efficient players opportunities then there is no reason not to take the efficient players... but if your team is the 2005 Lakers minus Kobe or 2007 Cavs Minus Lebron then you almost need a prolific player to spark some offensive output.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-29-2012, 03:05 PM
Yes but guys like Tyson Chandler are only effecient because of their bball iq (they don't take shots they can't make) and people produce their points for them. If you have 5 Tyson Chandlers, their effeciency would plummet.

Well obviously lol. My point was that its easier to build with them, as in I'm assuming the team already has a higher usage/star player on the team already. I suppose that's not a correct assumption because if you get a team like the Bobcats, you would probably prefer a higher usage inefficient player.

I still feel like the majority of teams (more than half) are better off with the limited but efficient role player.

JasonJohnHorn
08-29-2012, 03:07 PM
I'd take Battier over smith and chandler over Kaman. Does that make sense?

Would I take Stockton over Kobe? Yes.

heyman321
08-29-2012, 03:20 PM
I'd rather have the best of both worlds: a limited yet inefficient player, kinda like Kendrick Perkins.

dtmagnet
08-29-2012, 07:49 PM
Depends if the chucker is Jalen Rose or Kobe Bryant.

D-Leethal
08-29-2012, 08:47 PM
Are you looking to add a guy to help carry your offense and/or be a 6th man scoring punch? Do you already have bonafide scorers and looking to bolster a ready-made lineup?

StarvingKnick22
08-29-2012, 09:07 PM
Why do all of your threads have to do with the knicks in a bad way?

Chronz
08-29-2012, 09:15 PM
Why do all of your threads have to do with the knicks in a bad way?

They dont

Shammyguy3
08-29-2012, 09:57 PM
In most cases, I'd definitely prefer the limited but efficient player. You don't usually tend to win many games with the prolific inefficient player unless he's surrounded by the perfect cast of teammates, which is always tough to do. On the other hand, a limited but efficient player is much easier to build with because you don't have to worry about "not enough basketballs to go around" and chemistry issues.

To use the examples from earlier, I think Tyson Chandler would fit well on pretty much any team in the NBA (unless that team has a better center already but thats implied) but I don't think a guy like Kaman would fit on a lot of teams unless he were to drastically reduce the number of touches and then the question becomes is he still efficient enough to serve a role player type role AND will he not mess with the team chemistry.


Limited and efficient. It allows you to play within a system a lot better and I am all about running an effective system over grouping together a bunch of talent.

agree with both of those posts.

blastmasta26
08-29-2012, 10:00 PM
This is like that PG thread recently (playmaker vs. facilitator vs. scorer? Can't remember the last one), impossible to truly answer without knowing the build of the team.

But I'll ignore that just as I did in the other thread and say that limited and efficient role players are preferable to inefficient chuckers. The former will give you consistency; sure, a volume shooter can explode but he can also implode. If you were to build a team of all efficient guys, they would probably have a better outlook than a team of chuckers. Plus, efficient players tend to be smarter than inefficient ones as their style of play accurately depicts that. And this may just be a stereotype, but efficient players are more likely to be good defenders than volume shooters.

And for both of the examples, I would take efficiency: Tyson over Kaman and Battier over JR. JR has great talent, but that's irrelevant when a guy like Battier brings good play night in and night out but JR is a man of hot and cold nights.

dh144498
08-30-2012, 12:55 PM
limited players can only be role players. the prolific ones are the centerpiece of a team.

DenButsu
08-31-2012, 01:17 AM
Well if the premise is that the hypothetical team is either rebuilding or a contender, I'll take the effecient player in either case.

On a contender it can be assumed that the player in question is a complimentary player to one or more stars on his team. Efficient role players can really help improve the efficacy of the stars by keeping defenses honest and not wasting valuable possessions.

In the case of a rebuilding team, I'd assume that the team hopes to acquire a star or two either throgh the draft or via free agency. Either way, setting up a roster that is grounded in solid fundamentals and efficient play will be a more fertile breeding ground for a rising or newly arrived star to prosper.

IMO, any team that prioritizes the prolific, inefficient scorer is probably either just making poor decisions, or (deliberately, perhaps) neglecting the team's future in order to sell tickets and perhaps earn a low playoff seed in order not to lose too much money in the short term, but at the expense of never positioning themselves to be potential contenders.

DenButsu
08-31-2012, 01:21 AM
BTW, the best proof of concept of the value of efficient players might be the Spurs.

It's become a (truth-based) cliche by now that every season everybody writes them off, but every season they surprise once again by finding a path to success. And it's precisely because they have such a top notch scouting team which finds a steady flow of efficient role players to compliment their star trio that they are able to continually remain relevant.

b@llhog24
09-01-2012, 12:59 AM
limited players can only be role players. the prolific ones are the centerpiece of a team.

Even if that were true he's not talking about stars.

JLynn943
09-01-2012, 02:03 AM
It depends. If the team has no good viable offensive options (perhaps mostly consisting of skilled defenders and role players), you need the prolific scorer. If you already have plenty of scoring options, then you want the efficient, limited one.

kjoke
09-01-2012, 02:10 AM
Is this like a healthy Brandon Roy vs Melo?

SugeKnight
09-01-2012, 02:40 AM
It depends, but I'd take Monta over Afflalo any day

Chronz
09-01-2012, 04:40 AM
It depends, but I'd take Monta over Afflalo any day

Good comparison

DenButsu
09-01-2012, 06:34 AM
Good comparison

I don't think so. O.J. Mayo and Afflalo, maybe.

BobbyHillSwag
09-02-2012, 10:00 AM
I don't think so. O.J. Mayo and Afflalo, maybe.

this, monta is far beyond afflalo's level

BlondeBomber41
09-02-2012, 07:39 PM
One thing you gotta keep in mind is alot of times those players are "inefficient" due to circumstance. For example, I bet If Chris Kaman was on a team in which he wasn't counted on to be a high scorer he'd be much more efficient because he could be choosier with his FG attempts.