PDA

View Full Version : How do you value efficiency compared to ppg?



el hidalgo
10-20-2012, 08:57 PM
How do you compare the two? In essence, what do you think is the more important stat? What would you rather look for in a player. Points are ultimately what wins the game. You have scorers that can average a great ppg but on a lower percentage (AI, Kobe) and you have players that average a lower ppg but on better efficiency (Chris Paul, Afflalo). Those are just examples.


Anyway, what do you value more?

LongWayFromHome
10-20-2012, 09:03 PM
I value them the appropriate amount.

Deception
10-20-2012, 09:08 PM
Efficiency > PPG

Vampirate
10-20-2012, 09:15 PM
If you have an inefficiant chucker who gets over 25+ points per game, he's probably taking away shots from other players thus lowering his teams offensive production.

Hellcrooner
10-20-2012, 09:25 PM
Efficience over Ppg always.

Id always also have someone that gets you 20 points but gets you some good number assists , or creates plays that give birth to other player getting an asists, that a dude that will score 25 and average just 1 or 2 assists per game.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 09:29 PM
Efficiency > PPG in most cases.

Poor efficiency can easily and quickly erode the value and impact of volume scoring.
It wastes offensive possessions and removes opportunity's for other players to get into or maintain their offensive flow.

Vampirate
10-20-2012, 09:34 PM
Also, if the eficiant player took the same amount of shots as the inefficiant player, than the effeciant player would have more points anyways.

PurpleJesus
10-20-2012, 09:39 PM
A couple nights ago, Andrei Kirilenko scored 13 points on 2/3 shooting...that is crazy efficient, and I take that over a guy who scores 22 points on 5/14 shooting any day.

IndyRealist
10-20-2012, 09:43 PM
Kobe's not really that inefficient.

If your knowledge of basketball consists of more than And1 mixtapes and 2k13, you probably know that PPG is a horrible way to evaluate a player.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 09:46 PM
Kobe's not really that inefficient.

Well one thing that seasonal or playoff averages don't show you is inconsistency.
You can't really be efficient (even if the big picture numbers say you are) if you aren't relatively consistent also.

bholly
10-20-2012, 09:49 PM
In general efficiency over ppg, but you need to put both in context and compare like with like.
For example, guys like DeAndre Jordan and Steve Novak were monsters in terms of scoring efficiency last season, rating in the top 10 or so in TS% and eFG% - but that doesn't mean they're great scorers or great offensive players, it's just a reflection of the fact that their teams have identified the one thing they do well on offense (or in DeAndre's case, the one thing he does not awful) and allowed them to do only that. The high efficiency isn't just a reflection of their overall offensive value, it's a reflection of the way they're being used, so you need to take that into account. The discipline to take only your best shots is a positive asset, and it's great to have a Novak in your offense, and in general you want efficiency, but it doesn't make him anywhere near the level of a high volume but lower efficiency guy like Melo - which is why he's the role-player and Melo's the star.

So when you compare like with like, you take efficiency. When you build/coach a team, your goal should be to have the offense as efficient as possible, and the points will follow. When you're comparing players based on past stats, you need to keep both in context, but in general I value efficiency over PPG.

Munkeysuit
10-20-2012, 09:51 PM
Oh easy! It's just like comparing Lebron James to Carmelo Anthony

topdog
10-20-2012, 09:52 PM
You need more than PER or PPG to determine the quality of a player. For instance:

1. A team may lack scorers meaning that one play has to take more shots and possibly face more double teams thus lowering their efficiency (with the greater number of misses you'd expect), but they need to score a lot for that particular team to win. That's one for points.

2. Some post players may appear to be inefficient shooters if you only look at the field goal stat, but if they regularly battle for tip-ins and putback down low they may "miss" 2 or 3 shots before making one but get 3 or 4 rebounds on the play to complete it or not.

3. Alternatively, a players efficiency may be protected by his lack of taking shots. The basic enduring principle of basketball is ball rotation but that doesn't work if the other team knows someone won't shoot.

Bruno
10-20-2012, 09:57 PM
dont put kobe and AI in the same boat, young gun. their efficiency numbers aren't close.

IndyRealist
10-20-2012, 09:57 PM
Well one thing that seasonal or playoff averages don't show you is inconsistency.
You can't really be efficient (even if the big picture numbers say you are) if you aren't relatively consistent also.

Inefficient and inconsistent are two different things. If you have a player that can go for 81, then unless he averages 81 he's by definition inconsistent. But in general you still want the guy that can put up 81 in a game. That's why you HAVE to look at the "big picture numbers" as you put it. If for every 8-24 game a player has, he also has a 12-16 game, then he averages out to be pretty efficient.

bholly
10-20-2012, 09:58 PM
Oh easy! It's just like comparing Lebron James to Carmelo Anthony

How is it like that? The more efficient one has had a higher PPG each of the last 5 seasons. That's like exactly the opposite of what would be a good example.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 09:59 PM
dont put kobe and AI in the same boat, young gun. their efficiency numbers aren't close.

Hmm... wouldn't go that far.

Iverson's playoff TS% prior to 05 was 49%
Kobe's playoff TS% prior to 05 was 52%

Kobe was playing next to Prime Shaq who drew the attention of opposing defenses, kept the lanes open and frequently kept opposing defenses from double/triple teaming him.

Iverson never had those luxuries... so perhaps Iverson would have been just an efficient playing next to O'neal.

I believe Kobe is the better and more efficient scorer obviously but maybe saying they are in the same boat isn't unrealistic.

IndyRealist
10-20-2012, 10:01 PM
You need more than PER or PPG to determine the quality of a player. For instance:

1. A team may lack scorers meaning that one play has to take more shots and possibly face more double teams thus lowering their efficiency (with the greater number of misses you'd expect), but they need to score a lot for that particular team to win. That's one for points.

2. Some post players may appear to be inefficient shooters if you only look at the field goal stat, but if they regularly battle for tip-ins and putback down low they may "miss" 2 or 3 shots before making one but get 3 or 4 rebounds on the play to complete it or not.

3. Alternatively, a players efficiency may be protected by his lack of taking shots. The basic enduring principle of basketball is ball rotation but that doesn't work if the other team knows someone won't shoot.

PER does not measure efficiency, despite being in the name. PER rewards low percentage, volume shooting.

But your point stands, context matters.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-20-2012, 10:03 PM
Oooh ooh ooohh. I know why this thread was made! :)

Vampirate
10-20-2012, 10:04 PM
How is it like that? The more efficient one has had a higher PPG each of the last 5 seasons. That's like exactly the opposite of what would be a good example.

Prime Allen Iverson vs Prime Steve Nash, in terms of scoring.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2012, 10:04 PM
I mean, you need context. Is this Carl Landry, or Allen Iverson? What does his team look like?

But in general, efficiency is almost always preferred. It sure is at a team level. If a team doesn't score efficiently as a whole, their offense is usually not good. Same can be said of an individual, but you need context in it as well.

IndyRealist
10-20-2012, 10:05 PM
Hmm... wouldn't go that far.

Iverson's playoff TS% prior to 05 was 49%
Kobe's playoff TS% prior to 05 was 52%

Kobe was playing next to Prime Shaq who drew the attention of opposing defenses, kept the lanes open and frequently kept opposing defenses from double/triple teaming him.

Iverson never had those luxuries... so perhaps Iverson would have been just an efficient playing next to O'neal.

I believe Kobe is the better and more efficient scorer but maybe saying they are in the same boat isn't unrealistic.

Kobe's career TS% is 55.4%, AI's is 51.8%. That's pretty significant for high volume guys. Playoffs are a very small sample size.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 10:07 PM
Kobe's career TS% is 55.4%, AI's is 51.8%. That's pretty significant for high volume guys. Playoffs are a very small sample size.
I said in my post that Kobe was the better/more efficient scorer.

However when examining their efficiency in the playoffs under the old rules I don't think Kobe had that sizable of an edge over Iverson especially when considering the circumstances/teams they were playing under/for.

The playoffs matter even if it is a smaller sample size.
I think the playoffs matter even more then the regular season.

Some players are remarkably better offensively in the regular season then they are in the playoffs (Wilt) and that can't just be swept under the rug.

bholly
10-20-2012, 10:08 PM
Prime Allen Iverson vs Prime Steve Nash, in terms of scoring.

yup, way better example.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2012, 10:09 PM
Prime Allen Iverson vs Prime Steve Nash, in terms of scoring.

Oh god, then efficiency all day. The only hitch is, does the less efficient scorer have anything around him that can contribute in that area.

IndyRealist
10-20-2012, 10:15 PM
I said in my post that Kobe was the better/more efficient scorer.

However when examining their efficiency in the playoffs under the old rules I don't think Kobe had that sizable of an edge over Iverson especially when considering the circumstances/teams they were playing under/for.

The playoffs matter even if it is a smaller sample size.
I think the playoffs matter even more then the regular season.

Some players are remarkably better offensively in the regular season then they are in the playoffs (Wilt) and that can't just be swept under the rug.

Well on March 23rd's Kobe is way more efficient than AI. March 23rd's matter. (I have no idea if this is true.)

Sure playoffs matter. But when making comparisons sample size matters. Cherry picking stats by limiting the sample size to only playoff games and only prior to 2005 doesn't really tell you anything about their careers.

Chronz
10-20-2012, 10:23 PM
I said in my post that Kobe was the better/more efficient scorer.

However when examining their efficiency in the playoffs under the old rules I don't think Kobe had that sizable of an edge over Iverson especially when considering the circumstances/teams they were playing under/for.

The playoffs matter even if it is a smaller sample size.
I think the playoffs matter even more then the regular season.

Some players are remarkably better offensively in the regular season then they are in the playoffs (Wilt) and that can't just be swept under the rug.

Your claims dont line up with what I saw and assessed. More than any other star (Save for maybe Shaq by virtue of being his teammate) faced as many top flight defensive clubs in the playoffs. Comparing AI shooting 41% or whatever it was against the likes of Toronto, Milwaukee and whatever else the East was trotting out doesn't compare to facing the Spurs/Blazers. When you account for their situations the comparison grows silly, even if you feel Shaq helped him out, I see no proof that it was to an absurd degree. And Wilt was one of the greatest playoff performers ever. A guy like Bird/Magic/KAJ wouldv'e been more apt comparisons.

torocan
10-20-2012, 10:24 PM
You need more than PER or PPG to determine the quality of a player. For instance:

1. A team may lack scorers meaning that one play has to take more shots and possibly face more double teams thus lowering their efficiency (with the greater number of misses you'd expect), but they need to score a lot for that particular team to win. That's one for points.

2. Some post players may appear to be inefficient shooters if you only look at the field goal stat, but if they regularly battle for tip-ins and putback down low they may "miss" 2 or 3 shots before making one but get 3 or 4 rebounds on the play to complete it or not.

3. Alternatively, a players efficiency may be protected by his lack of taking shots. The basic enduring principle of basketball is ball rotation but that doesn't work if the other team knows someone won't shoot.

Mostly this. Context matters.

It's hard to be efficient if your offense is so lousy that you get double/triple teamed all the time.

And it's hard to score points if you don't get alot of shots due to multiple scorers on the team or are the 2nd/3rd scoring option.

Stats give a picture, but must be judged as only a part of a player's offensive game, not the entire picture.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2012, 10:24 PM
I have a feeling Andrew32 is going to end up making Laker/Kobe fans actually like me. I am having a hard time not biting.

PurpleJesus
10-20-2012, 10:32 PM
Oooh ooh ooohh. I know why this thread was made! :)

??

hugepatsfan
10-20-2012, 10:38 PM
Also, if the eficiant player took the same amount of shots as the inefficiant player, than the effeciant player would have more points anyways.

Not neccesarily true. A player taking 11 shots a game might not able to maintain their efficiency if they upped it to 20 shot a game. That's why volume stats need to be looked at in conjunction with efficiciency stats IMO.

A 25 PPG scorer at 45% is probably more valuable than a 12 PPG scorer at 50%.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 10:38 PM
More than any other star (Save for maybe Shaq by virtue of being his teammate) faced as many top flight defensive clubs in the playoffs. Comparing AI shooting 41% or whatever it was against the likes of Toronto, Milwaukee and whatever else the East was trotting out doesn't compare to facing the Spurs/Blazers.

Eh... I think the sample - size argument is better then this one.

The East had many playoff teams with elite perimeter defenses (Detroit, NJ) and the West had some teams with truly putrid perimeter defenses.
For example the 01 Spurs might have had the worst perimeter defense ever for a playoff team.

#2. Iverson was the one attracting the brunt of the opposing teams defensive attention and he had to face constant double/triple teams.
By virtue of who they played with Kobe did not have to face those same obstacles as a scorer which makes a HUGE difference.



Even if you feel Shaq helped him out, I see no proof that it was to an absurd degree.
Wilt was one of the greatest playoff performers ever. A guy like Bird/Magic/KAJ would've been more apt comparisons.

#1. 1-3% is not that large of a difference to call it an absurd degree.

#2. I disagree.

He was an inefficient volume scorer in his younger years who didn't pass very well and he played inconsistent defense.

His offensive numbers in the playoffs compared to the regular season are staggeringly worse which was my main point anyway I don't feel like discussing his worth as an overall playoff performer.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 10:41 PM
I have a feeling Andrew32 is going to end up making Laker/Kobe fans actually like me. I am having a hard time not biting.

You've become such a Kobe homer. ;)

Greedy22
10-20-2012, 10:43 PM
I have a feeling Andrew32 is going to end up making Laker/Kobe fans actually like me. I am having a hard time not biting.

:laugh:

Vampirate
10-20-2012, 10:45 PM
Not neccesarily true. A player taking 11 shots a game might not able to maintain their efficiency if they upped it to 20 shot a game. That's why volume stats need to be looked at in conjunction with efficiciency stats IMO.

A 25 PPG scorer at 45% is probably more valuable than a 12 PPG scorer at 50%.

I can see what you are saying. But then again if you have someone who's insanely efficiant, that 12 ppg might just be because of selflessness.

There are also facctors like being the 1st option of a team as well, how many easy looks a player gets etc.

b@llhog24
10-20-2012, 11:00 PM
Usage rates in conjunction with efficiency.

tp13baby
10-20-2012, 11:13 PM
I love you mentioned Afflalo. Mad love for him. He is one of the most efficient players out there. He is extremely underrated.

Efficiency>>>>>>>>>>>PPG

Chronz
10-20-2012, 11:34 PM
Eh... I think the sample - size argument is better then this one.
LOL who says the sample size argument doesnt apply in my argument as well? Im just saying if your going to compare production levels in the playoffs, you need to account for the competition they faced. Its basically your argument on steroids turned against you.


The East had many playoff teams with elite perimeter defenses (Detroit, NJ) and the West had some teams with truly putrid perimeter defenses.
For example the 01 Spurs might have had the worst perimeter defense ever for a playoff team.
I dont buy it, having a guy like Doug Christie and a solid team defense isn't more valuable than having anchors like the Twin Towers, and certainly alot more impressive than the inferior squads AI faced.

Besides Kobe was still blasting the Spurs with Bowen on him at a more impressive rate than AI did to ANYONE in his run to the Finals.



#2. Iverson was the one attracting the brunt of the opposing teams defensive attention and he had to face constant double/triple teams.
By virtue of who they played with Kobe did not have to face those same obstacles as a scorer which makes a HUGE difference.
Kobe doesnt need those excuses, his efficiency isnt as dependent on his usage as AI is. Shaq didn't change anything substantial about Kobes production.


#1. 1-3% is not that large of a difference to call it an absurd degree.
I know your using some sort of fg% but Im thinking from a Per Possession standpoint. The point Im making is that your argument is inconsequential, Kobe is noticeably above Iverson, and your excuses dont overcome the fact that Kobe faced superior defenses and still outproduced AI.


#2. I disagree.
With what?



He was an inefficient volume scorer in his younger years who didn't pass very well and he played inconsistent defense.
He played inconsistent defense as he got older and primarily in the regular season, even Phil admits as much. In the playoffs however (which is what we are focusing on), he played stellar defense and though he wasn't a natural passer, his passing stats were perfectly suitable. And there are various degrees of efficiency, you dont just lump players into 2 categories. Whatever the gap you feel is between Kobe and MJ, thats about the gap between Iverson and Kobe.



His offensive numbers in the playoffs compared to the regular season are staggeringly worse which was my main point anyway I don't feel like discussing his worth as an overall playoff performer.
Too simplistic, you remind of a certain poster who will remain nameless. When dissecting playoff production you dont just blindly glance at his regular season production vs the regular season, defensive strength matters. And the facts are, Kobe facing the highest Defensive RTG in the aggregate is definitely going to reduce his offensive numbers. When you account for the strength of the defense, Kobes production isn't that different. AI has no such argument in his favor, but I will gladly go over their playoff careers if you wish.

Andrew32
10-20-2012, 11:38 PM
I was talking about Wilt (not Kobe) in reference to the drop in offensive performance in the playoffs and his inconsistent defense in his younger years.


Shaq didn't change anything substantial about Kobes production.
I disagree strongly.
He (imo) noticeably inflated Kobe's offensive efficiency in the early 00's.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:08 AM
I was talking about Wilt (not Kobe) in reference to the drop in offensive performance in the playoffs and his inconsistent defense in his younger years.


I disagree strongly.
He (imo) noticeably inflated Kobe's offensive efficiency in the early 00's.
Sounds like a fallible stance that succumbs to any scientific approach. Why has Kobes efficiency levels not differ the year without Shaq? Why was he more efficient (going by raw FG% so I could be wrong) in the games Shaq missed?

And while I dont have any advanced numbers on Wilt yet, the basic principles hold true for him as well. He was one of the big game greats, getting more out of his teams than reasonably expected even with inconsistent defense.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 12:21 AM
Sounds like a fallible stance that succumbs to any scientific approach. Why has Kobes efficiency levels not differ the year without Shaq? Why was he more efficient (going by raw FG% so I could be wrong) in the games Shaq missed?

I forgot if the numbers I am thinking of were only from 02 or from 00-02 but it showed that when Shaq was out Kobe's PPG / APG rose "slightly" while his efficiency plummeted to 48%TS.

In regards to the bolded :
That is due to primarily to the 05 rule changes which greatly boosted the efficacy of all perimeter oriented players especially ones skilled at drawing fouls and due to his natural improvement as a player.

In terms of raw regular season FG% 09 was the only year he equaled / surpassed his efficiency from 99-02 playing next to O'neal.

The fact is that O'neal being the primary focus of opposing defenses and keeping opposing teams from double/triple teaming Kobe is a tangible/visual effect.
It isn't something you can deny and it obviously helped Kobe.

Very few players in the history of the game kept opposing defenses off balance the way Prime O'neal did.

In regards to Wilt I always felt he was a disappointment as a playoff performer.
Someone who tended to choke rather then play his best in big games and when the pressure was on.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-21-2012, 12:36 AM
In regards to the bolded :
That is due to primarily to the 05 rule changes which greatly boosted the efficacy of all perimeter oriented players especially ones skilled at drawing fouls and due to his natural improvement as a player.



What 05 rule change?


Anyways, what many don't realize is that Shaq (much like Bynum) would camp his *** in the paint. As great as Shaq was, centers like him and Bynum clog the paint.

Playing with Shaq actually limited the diversity in Kobe Bryant's offense. He had lack of room to operate, limited amount of dribble drives to the rim (most of them would be breaking down defense and easily laying it off to Shaq for dunks and 1's since he would never get called for 3 seconds for laying in butt in the paint).


After Shaq left, Kobe's efficiency (starting in the 05-06 season) went up as a result of having those dribble drives and actually scoring himself without a big behemoth taking up all that space. Kobe has got deep low post scoring opportunities with no big lug like Shaq always hovering and taking space up in the paint.


Kobe was decently efficient when you had Lamar and Pau (who was a 7 foot center but had the athletic IQ of not just camping his butt in the paint like a Shaq or Bynum), but once Bynum got the majority of the minutes at that starting Center with Pau at PF, the paint became too clogged up for Kobe the last 2 yrs.


Bynum was so bad the last 2 seasons in camping his butt in the paint (ala Shaq for 8 yrs) that a guy like Pau, who spent most of his time in the post and working from 15 feet and beyond as a scorer and assist guy, was led to become just a standstill jump shooter for all of last yr and most of the yr before in Phil's last season.

dh144498
10-21-2012, 12:43 AM
when you win, no one, except for people with negativity who find every chance to discredit those they don't like, cares about the low fg% and ft%.

when you lose, everyone jumps on dat low fg% and talks smack.

Andrew32
10-21-2012, 12:44 AM
Saying Shaq limited Kobe offensively is just idiotic.

He kept the lanes clear for Kobe due to all the double/triple teams he demanded and he made it extremely hard for opposing teams to send help defense at him when he attacked the basket.

O'neal constantly had 3-4 sets of eyes on him when the Lakers were on offense and he constantly drew double/triple teams.
He kept opposing defenses off balance and prevented teams from double/triple teaming Kobe.

All C's play around the paint area where did you expect him to play on the 3pt line?
Shaq rarely "camped in the paint" he was usually in the high post when Kobe drove to the basket.

Did you even watch the Lakers in the early 00's?
Did you watch Wade in the 2005 / 2006 playoffs.

There is nothing to support your claims that Shaq made it harder for Kobe to drive when infact its the exact opposite.

:facepalm:

Raph12
10-21-2012, 02:11 AM
It depends on the context; I'll take 22ppg on 60% shooting over 25ppg on 50% shooting; but I'll take 25ppg on 45% shooting over 10ppg on 50% shooting... If the numbers are anywhere close, efficiency is more important.

JLynn943
10-21-2012, 02:33 AM
Oh god, then efficiency all day. The only hitch is, does the less efficient scorer have anything around him that can contribute in that area.

Exactly. If you have a bunch of players who don't score much but are efficient, then you still need points from somewhere. In that case I think you live with the one less efficient player who scores. Efficiency isn't always the supreme quality people make it up to be.

JasonJohnHorn
10-21-2012, 11:11 AM
Efficiency ranks high with me. I mean, looking at Stockton as an ecample, the dude maybe only averaged in the mid-teens (14-17 points per game), but his FG% was higher than some centers, and he also got the ball to other players in positions where they shot high percentages (Hornacek for exmaple shot almost 50% as well, which is not only impressive for a guard, but especially impressive for a guard who shot a lot of 3's, and also Malone who shot over 50% from the floor). Coupled with that he had an amazing assist-to-turnover ratio. But that said, he shot the ball when he had the shot. He didn't force shots, and sometimes, at the end of the game, there just isn't a shot and you have to force one. In that case a guy like Jordan or Bird comes in handly.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 01:03 PM
I forgot if the numbers I am thinking of were only from 02 or from 00-02 but it showed that when Shaq was out Kobe's PPG / APG rose "slightly" while his efficiency plummeted to 48%TS.
I will look into that claim but IIRC, those numbers rose more than just "slightly".


In regards to the bolded :
That is due to primarily to the 05 rule changes which greatly boosted the efficacy of all perimeter oriented players especially ones skilled at drawing fouls and due to his natural improvement as a player.
Yea but when you look at stats that account for league averages, Kobes jump in efficiency was no different than the rest of the league, meaning he was the same player. I would get this excuse if Kobes efficiency dropped without O'neal but jumped up due to rule changes essentially showing a player who remained stagnant instead we saw him increase on his regular levels.

Besides the truth is that Kobes efficiency was horrid for the first half of the year and jumped back up when he returned to the triangle.


In terms of raw regular season FG% 09 was the only year he equaled / surpassed his efficiency from 99-02 playing next to O'neal.
Yea but in terms of the more important possession based analysis, he surpassed that several times. Shaq was at his most productive alongside Kobe, should we credit him for that as well?



The fact is that O'neal being the primary focus of opposing defenses and keeping opposing teams from double/triple teaming Kobe is a tangible/visual effect.
It isn't something you can deny and it obviously helped Kobe.
Ive seen nothing tangible, that would help a great deal tho.


Very few players in the history of the game kept opposing defenses off balance the way Prime O'neal did.
True, but I would like to see some evidence that it helped Kobe's game because from what I saw it was a mutually benefitial relationship.


In regards to Wilt I always felt he was a disappointment as a playoff performer.
Someone who tended to choke rather then play his best in big games and when the pressure was on.
Couldn't be further from the truth, his teams had a tendency to greatly overachieve, if you feel he choked its only because they should have never gotten as far as they did in the first place.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 01:28 PM
Saying Shaq limited Kobe offensively is just idiotic.

It would take a great deal and only supply a short sample size but I would love to see the on/off court numbers for both players. You seem to have the stats handy from those 20+ games Kobe played without Shaq, could you post them?




Did you even watch the Lakers in the early 00's?
Did you watch Wade in the 2005 / 2006 playoffs.

There is nothing to support your claims that Shaq made it harder for Kobe to drive when infact its the exact opposite.
Well.......PER48 Minutes

2005: OVR Wade got 25 PPG on .478% - 7AST/4.3 t.o.
Wade With Shaq: 22.1 on .490% - 6.9AST/3.9 t.o.


2006: Wade averaged 28.3 on .495% - 7AST/3.7 t.o.
Wade W Shaq: 25.6 on .544% - 7.5AST/3.9 t.o.

Wade split his time equally with and without Shaq this year.



Obviously having another scoring option will limit your touches and limiting your touches should enhance your efficiency. But these numbers seem above and beyond the expected return. They arent all encompassing but I do like that they hint at how great of a teammate Shaq was (on the court).

When you have a low post threat and elite finisher who can also pass, it makes sense that he would help a perimeter players game.

O'Neal on the other see no improvement one way or another.

Ill keep digging to see what I can find on Shaq and Kobe but I suppose I could have been wrong about the influence Shaq has on him. Particularly during that stretch of games without Shaq, that should be easily researched.

Im not saying all this proves anything, I doubt Wade's production diminishes that much without Shaq for an entire year but it does hint at what your describing, I admit I may have been too hasty to say Shaq didn't noticeably aid Kobes offensive game. I still dont think he and AI are comparable even with that in mind.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 02:33 PM
Lol I edited my post, I meant with shaq

SugeKnight
10-21-2012, 02:41 PM
Monta Ellis > Aaron Afflalo

b@llhog24
10-21-2012, 02:44 PM
Monta Ellis > Aaron Afflalo

Harden>Monta Ellis.
:eyebrow:

el hidalgo
10-21-2012, 04:11 PM
Oooh ooh ooohh. I know why this thread was made! :)

everything is about kobe right? get real. everything here isn't about kobe despite what you think

abe_froman
10-21-2012, 04:19 PM
How do you compare the two? In essence, what do you think is the more important stat? What would you rather look for in a player. Points are ultimately what wins the game. You have scorers that can average a great ppg but on a lower percentage (AI, Kobe) and you have players that average a lower ppg but on better efficiency (Chris Paul, Afflalo). Those are just examples.


Anyway, what do you value more?

kobe's efficiency isnt that bad,no where near the ai range.but yes, efficiency matters.a chucker can just as easily shoot you out of a game than keep you in one,all those missed shot attempts can be just like handing the ball over to the other team.but one must always look within context when making these kind of judgement calls

Kashmir13579
10-21-2012, 06:34 PM
Reggie Miller > Carmelo Anthony

JordansBulls
10-21-2012, 06:51 PM
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=768850

Supreme LA
10-21-2012, 07:13 PM
How do you compare the two? In essence, what do you think is the more important stat? What would you rather look for in a player. Points are ultimately what wins the game. You have scorers that can average a great ppg but on a lower percentage (AI, Kobe) and you have players that average a lower ppg but on better efficiency (Chris Paul, Afflalo). Those are just examples.


Anyway, what do you value more?

We all know what you're really getting at.

To answer your question, I value Kobe more than I value Tyson Chandler.

bholly
10-21-2012, 07:17 PM
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=768850

Pretty sure this thread is talking about efficiency as a broader concept, rather than PER. It's also about general, rather than leading the league.

jerellh528
10-21-2012, 07:25 PM
Hmm... wouldn't go that far.

Iverson's playoff TS% prior to 05 was 49%
Kobe's playoff TS% prior to 05 was 52%

Kobe was playing next to Prime Shaq who drew the attention of opposing defenses, kept the lanes open and frequently kept opposing defenses from double/triple teaming him.

Iverson never had those luxuries... so perhaps Iverson would have been just an efficient playing next to O'neal.

I believe Kobe is the better and more efficient scorer obviously but maybe saying they are in the same boat isn't unrealistic.

why do you use prior to 05 playoffs? you are the one guy i know who uses any skewed stat to manipulate people into believing you.

d wade has a career 56.6, by these numbers kobe was far more efficient than iverson was then wade is over kobe.

wade 1% more efficient than kobe who is 4% more efficient than iverson and wade has shaq and lebron pretty much his whole career, seasons without shaq or lbj wades ts% drops to 55.1 ts%..
and actually kobes ts% went up in years post shaq.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 07:35 PM
why do you use prior to 05 playoffs? you are the one guy i know who uses any skewed stat to manipulate people into believing you.
Hes trying to separate the eras before and after Hand Checking. Why? Im not totally sure but atleast its not random, my guess is he wants to establish a difference between fro-Kobe and Kobe now.

And like I told him, when looking at playoff stats, because of the small sample size you have to consider the defensive environment.

jerellh528
10-21-2012, 07:38 PM
Hes trying to separate the eras before and after Hand Checking. Why? Im not totally sure but atleast its not random, my guess is he wants to establish a difference between fro-Kobe and Kobe now.

And like I told him, when looking at playoff stats, because of the small sample size you have to consider the defensive environment.

oh, hand checking was only in effect during playoffs?

Chronz
10-21-2012, 07:52 PM
Like I said, I dont know the intent behind his rationale but I do know its not random. Thats all

Meaze_Gibson
10-21-2012, 07:54 PM
If we consider minutes played, both Kobe and Iverson shot the ball at an identical rate throughout the game. Kobe shot a slightly better percentage. Iverson was the better playmaker.

Pretty much, Do you take...
Player A who gives you 30 points 4 rebounds , 6 assists and 2 steals at 41 %
Player B who gives you 25 points 5 rebounds , 5 assists and 1.5 at 45%

b@llhog24
10-21-2012, 09:46 PM
Pretty sure this thread is talking about efficiency as a broader concept, rather than PER. It's also about general, rather than leading the league.

He knows, he just wants someone else to bump his thread instead of him.

AIRMAR72
10-21-2012, 11:37 PM
Kobe's not really that inefficient.

If your knowledge of basketball consists of more than And1 mixtapes and 2k13, you probably know that PPG is a horrible way to evaluate a player.

you got jokes those are the reason why tobe I meant kobe have other star players around HIM kobe has been NEVER efficient

THE MTL
10-22-2012, 03:57 AM
How do you compare the two? In essence, what do you think is the more important stat? What would you rather look for in a player. Points are ultimately what wins the game. You have scorers that can average a great ppg but on a lower percentage (AI, Kobe) and you have players that average a lower ppg but on better efficiency (Chris Paul, Afflalo). Those are just examples.


Anyway, what do you value more?

I value efficiency more. But I also take into account the tough shots that these guys are taking.

Bigs supposed to be >50% FG because they shoot so close to the basket. But guys like Kobe, Melo, take tougher shots so I would consider 45% to be good. And as for small guys like Paul/Nash who still manage to shoot 50% is just incredible.

THE MTL
10-22-2012, 04:00 AM
In Allen Iverson's defense, he was taking some of the hardest shots in the NBA at the time. He was always contested and the guy is small.......and he had no one to pass it to in Philly either way. Now on Denver you see his FG% increase to 45-46%, due to better supporting cast.

Guppyfighter
10-22-2012, 04:12 AM
Use true shooting percentage and you don't need to worry about factoring difficulty of shot.

Lakersfan2483
10-22-2012, 04:34 AM
Obviously you want the more efficient player, but you have to take into account which players we are talking about. If you have a guy that avgs. 15ppg on 60 pct shooting and another guy that avgs. 22ppg on 47 pct. shooting other variables must be taken into consideration. Also, intangibles like leadership, defense, etc.... play an important part. The role of the player must be factored in as well, meaning you wouldn't take a 3rd option guy over a franchise guy that has a much larger responsibility to the team when talking efficiency over ppg avg.

Lakersfan2483
10-22-2012, 04:37 AM
Not neccesarily true. A player taking 11 shots a game might not able to maintain their efficiency if they upped it to 20 shot a game. That's why volume stats need to be looked at in conjunction with efficiciency stats IMO.

A 25 PPG scorer at 45% is probably more valuable than a 12 PPG scorer at 50%.

Good point.