PDA

View Full Version : What Matters More to You When Evaluating a Player?



Rivera
10-22-2018, 08:57 AM
When your trying to determine how to rank x player over y player what do you use? what matters more to you? Offense? Defense? 50/50? Team player plays on? A players skill set? etc

WaDe03
10-22-2018, 10:02 AM
RPM and only RPM.

ewing
10-22-2018, 11:19 AM
Fundamentals! Donít give me any of that playground stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heediot
10-22-2018, 11:35 AM
How well can someone control a game and dictate his terms. I like players who can think two steps ahead.

I like guys who can break down PLAYOFF defenses vs. regular season. Lots of guys out up big numbers in this day and age in the regular season, especially wings and guards but some get exposed when the dynamics change. Can the guy who can dictate terms in the regular season also do it in the playoffs when things amp up?

Prefer offense first, but a defensive stud that can be adequate on offense is nice too. Gobert is sweet but guys like Hakeem and Timmy are rare, especially in this day and age. Anthony Davis has grown on me with his evolving game especially on defense. After James and probably Curry, I'd take him as my guy at this point.

Jamiecballer
10-22-2018, 11:39 AM
When your trying to determine how to rank x player over y player what do you use? what matters more to you? Offense? Defense? 50/50? Team player plays on? A players skill set? etcComplete package of skills

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

IKnowHoops
10-22-2018, 12:15 PM
RPM and only RPM.
/thread

IKnowHoops
10-22-2018, 12:18 PM
I like a few advanced stats with eye test. Both defense and offense is important. But overall game impact is most important. Why James Harden >>>>Robert Covington

goingfor28
10-22-2018, 10:07 PM
Eye test for the win

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
10-22-2018, 10:18 PM
RPM and only RPM.Hey there friend. How you liking Lowry's start to the season?

21.5 ppg
10.0 apg

And a TS% of almost .750


Fyi TS = true shooting.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

More-Than-Most
10-22-2018, 10:26 PM
RPM and only RPM.

PPG and eye test... I played the game in grade school and have an In with D-league players now because a cousin of a cousin in grade school ended up meeting the brother of the mother of the sister of lebrons agent who had lunch 4 tables away from the waterboy of fort wayne mad ants... my expertise is solidified and though i never took the time to look at other statistical avenues to help evaluate players in a deeper manner i feel as though playing ball at the age of 8 gives me a 1 up on everyone else when watching the game.

WaDe03
10-22-2018, 10:29 PM
PPG and eye test... I played the game in grade school and have an In with D-league players now because a cousin of a cousin in grade school ended up meeting the brother of the mother of the sister of lebrons agent who had lunch 4 tables away from the waterboy of fort wayne mad ants... my expertise is solidified and though i never took the time to look at other statistical avenues to help evaluate players in a deeper manner i feel as though playing ball at the age of 8 gives me a 1 up on everyone else when watching the game.

If only you knew brother!

WaDe03
10-22-2018, 10:30 PM
Hey there friend. How you liking Lowry's start to the season?

21.5 ppg
10.0 apg

And a TS% of almost .750


Fyi TS = true shooting.


Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Heís easily the best PG in the league, possibly ever and the Raptors best player. His TS makes him better than Kawhi.

Jamiecballer
10-22-2018, 10:34 PM
Love it

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

More-Than-Most
10-22-2018, 10:58 PM
Defense is as important as Offense period esp in a league now that favors offense and makes it much harder to defend. Vorp/PPG is utterly flawed and dumb... turnovers are underlooked but are and should be a massive massive negative along with Personal fouls. Logic along with RPM and the general numbers across the board are probably the best way of understanding the overall value of a player and what said player brings to the table when compared with other players. The eye test is dumb

Jamiecballer
10-22-2018, 11:35 PM
The eye test is dumb

Beyond dumb. It's like telling everyone how good a movie is, even putting it's goodness in historical context about other great movies - and then acknowledging you only saw 20 mins of it. I love watching the game, but I know better than to put too much stock in what little I actually saw of what's going on on the court.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 12:03 AM
Beyond dumb. It's like telling everyone how good a movie is, even putting it's goodness in historical context about other great movies - and then acknowledging you only saw 20 mins of it. I love watching the game, but I know better than to put too much stock in what little I actually saw of what's going on on the court.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Thereís a place for both. People who think the eye test is dumb are people who didnít play and therefore donít understand the game fully. I can watch a game and tell a lot from what Iím watching, itís not that hard.

More-Than-Most
10-23-2018, 12:06 AM
Thereís a place for both. People who think the eye test is dumb are people who didnít play and therefore donít understand the game fully. I can watch a game and tell a lot from what Iím watching, itís not that hard.

but i played... in grade school and some in highschool and i still think its dumb... the guys that play the sport are the ones who think melo and rose are still good players... you cant use eye test and compare players because no 1 person watches every second of every game every year.

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 12:41 AM
but i played... in grade school and some in highschool and i still think its dumb... the guys that play the sport are the ones who think melo and rose are still good players... you cant use eye test and compare players because no 1 person watches every second of every game every year.

Can you watch a Sixers game and tell Fultz and Simmons are uncomfortable with the jump shot and that Covington and Redick are much better shooters or do you need to see the advanced stats to tell that?

More-Than-Most
10-23-2018, 01:45 AM
Can you watch a Sixers game and tell Fultz and Simmons are uncomfortable with the jump shot and that Covington and Redick are much better shooters or do you need to see the advanced stats to tell that?

after 900 articles and 2 years calling it a weakness sure. we also know dragic and richardson can shoot but if you went by the eye test after the first 3 games youd call them trash shooters right?? You cant have it both ways... after these heat games by the eye test dragic and richardson are utter garbage shooters right? Esp richardson

Jamiecballer
10-23-2018, 09:23 AM
Thereís a place for both. People who think the eye test is dumb are people who didnít play and therefore donít understand the game fully. I can watch a game and tell a lot from what Iím watching, itís not that hard.Of course you can. You can also watch and evaluate what 10 different individuals are doing on the court at the same time so I'm not surprised.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Heediot
10-23-2018, 09:40 AM
Of course you can. You can also watch and evaluate what 10 different individuals are doing on the court at the same time so I'm not surprised.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

So every eye ball test person gets disregarded? So no eye ball ball person gets credibility, where do we draw the line between a good eye ball viewer versus a flawed one?

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 09:45 AM
Of course you can. You can also watch and evaluate what 10 different individuals are doing on the court at the same time so I'm not surprised.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Itís not my fault you donít understand the game enough to know what youíre watching.

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 09:49 AM
after 900 articles and 2 years calling it a weakness sure. we also know dragic and richardson can shoot but if you went by the eye test after the first 3 games youd call them trash shooters right?? You cant have it both ways... after these heat games by the eye test dragic and richardson are utter garbage shooters right? Esp richardson

I didnít say anything about articles. I asked if you can tell those things by watching. So youíre supposed to draw toy conclusion on a player after a game or so if you use the eye test? It comes with understanding the game and if you do you know people go hot and cold. I shouldíve known you would get offensive but I wanted to use your team as an example since you watch them. I can tel from watching them Fultz and Simmons canít shoot and arenít confident. I can tell by watching Dragic and JRich that they are solid shooters and are confident in their shots and thatís why theyíre taking so much and Spo wants them to.

Jamiecballer
10-23-2018, 10:41 AM
So every eye ball test person gets disregarded? So no eye ball ball person gets credibility, where do we draw the line between a good eye ball viewer versus a flawed one?No, of course not. In my opinion the only bad eye test viewer is the one who disregards the stats because it contradicts what they believe because of what they see.

The problem with the eye test fundamentally comes down to 2 things.

First, people focus their eyeballs mostly on the person with the ball. Shouldn't be hard to see the problems this can cause.

The eye test also frequently tricks people because it's natural to give greater value to what impresses us even though shiny isnt necessarily better or more effective. A guy can get better and better at making tougher and tougher shots, for example, but how is he making the team better if he's making tougher 2 point shots at basically the same rate as he did when he kept it simple. Making Kobe moves impresses the eyes though. Highlights impress us more than the simple, fundamentally sound moves.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
10-23-2018, 10:42 AM
Itís not my fault you donít understand the game enough to know what youíre watching.See what I mean, this guy doesn't even have the humility to acknowledge a simple scientific fact, that his eyes can only focus on one thing at a time.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 10:49 AM
See what I mean, this guy doesn't even have the humility to acknowledge a simple scientific fact, that his eyes can only focus on one thing at a time.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Yea they are focused on one thing, the game. I said thereís a place for both, get your panties out of a wad. The advanced stats guys just crack me up because chances are, theyíre below 6 foot and weíre never good enough to play the game themselves but think they know more than someone who did. If I need a play to win a game am I going to have an advanced stats guy draw it up or am I going to have LeBron draw it up? I bet the opinion of advanced stats guys is very different than LeBrons when it comes to the game.

Jamiecballer
10-23-2018, 12:19 PM
Yea they are focused on one thing, the game. I said thereís a place for both, get your panties out of a wad. The advanced stats guys just crack me up because chances are, theyíre below 6 foot and weíre never good enough to play the game themselves but think they know more than someone who did. If I need a play to win a game am I going to have an advanced stats guy draw it up or am I going to have LeBron draw it up? I bet the opinion of advanced stats guys is very different than LeBrons when it comes to the game.I'm not worked up, I'm laughing at your ignorance

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 12:22 PM
I'm not worked up, I'm laughing at your ignorance

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

I know more about the game than you and TS% isnít going to change that.

Rivera
10-23-2018, 12:27 PM
No, of course not. In my opinion the only bad eye test viewer is the one who disregards the stats because it contradicts what they believe because of what they see.

The problem with the eye test fundamentally comes down to 2 things.

First, people focus their eyeballs mostly on the person with the ball. Shouldn't be hard to see the problems this can cause.

The eye test also frequently tricks people because it's natural to give greater value to what impresses us even though shiny isnt necessarily better or more effective. A guy can get better and better at making tougher and tougher shots, for example, but how is he making the team better if he's making tougher 2 point shots at basically the same rate as he did when he kept it simple. Making Kobe moves impresses the eyes though. Highlights impress us more than the simple, fundamentally sound moves.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

i use both to evaluate, i value stats a lot, but i also value what I see when they play to back up the stats

i wanted to say that and get that out of the way before I get labeled an "eye test" guy only

but the part that I bolded, I could say the same about stats. Depending on which stats you use for your argument, stats can also trick us and decivie us into thinking a players is better than what they are

see Robert Covington as the 8th best RPM in the league, vorp will tell you AD is only the 10th best player in the league, PER will tell me Kanter is better than Embiid, winshares will tell me Capella is better than RWB

JAZZNC
10-23-2018, 01:04 PM
I know more about the game than you and TS% isnít going to change that.

MJ played the game better than anyone in the history of the game. Why is he such a terrible talent evaluator and team builder compared to a stat nerd like the GM in Houston?

Being under 6' tall has no bearing on how well you know the game. That comment in and of itself shows your ignorance. Also statements like Wade being the best defender in the league based off of 1 stat with 3 games of "evidence" to back your stat.....but please, tell us again how great your basketball knowledge is because you "played the game".

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:16 PM
MJ played the game better than anyone in the history of the game. Why is he such a terrible talent evaluator and team builder compared to a stat nerd like the GM in Houston?

Being under 6' tall has no bearing on how well you know the game. That comment in and of itself shows your ignorance. Also statements like Wade being the best defender in the league based off of 1 stat with 3 games of "evidence" to back your stat.....but please, tell us again how great your basketball knowledge is because you "played the game".

If you need to draw up a play are you asking Jordan or Morey?

But the stat says heís the best so he must be the best right?! Isnt that how the numbers guys do it?! Playing the game has a huge bearing on how well you know the game though.

Rivera
10-23-2018, 01:19 PM
If you need to draw up a play are you asking Jordan or Morey?

But the stat says heís the best so he must be the best right?! Isnt that how the numbers guys do it?! Playing the game has a huge bearing on how well you know the game though.

im taking brad stevens or nick nurse (analytic guys) over MJ 10 times out of 10

morey doesnt draw up plays, he acquires them, DAntoni would draw up the play (maybe lol)

Heediot
10-23-2018, 01:20 PM
No, of course not. In my opinion the only bad eye test viewer is the one who disregards the stats because it contradicts what they believe because of what they see.

The problem with the eye test fundamentally comes down to 2 things.

First, people focus their eyeballs mostly on the person with the ball. Shouldn't be hard to see the problems this can cause.

The eye test also frequently tricks people because it's natural to give greater value to what impresses us even though shiny isnt necessarily better or more effective. A guy can get better and better at making tougher and tougher shots, for example, but how is he making the team better if he's making tougher 2 point shots at basically the same rate as he did when he kept it simple. Making Kobe moves impresses the eyes though. Highlights impress us more than the simple, fundamentally sound moves.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Some valid points.

Just in general though, don't you think one guy can watch the game better vs. another viewer? No eye test guy will be perfect, but some guys can see things and subtleties better vs., others no? Do we not give respect to the better/sharper eye test viewers. In general though, there are guys who watch with too much bias/emotion invested.

Rivera
10-23-2018, 01:21 PM
If you need to draw up a play are you asking Jordan or Morey?

But the stat says heís the best so he must be the best right?! Isnt that how the numbers guys do it?! Playing the game has a huge bearing on how well you know the game though.

also by your logic, Jordan is the GOAT, he should be the GOAT evaluator because he would know what a GOAT player would look like

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:32 PM
im taking brad stevens or nick nurse (analytic guys) over MJ 10 times out of 10

morey doesnt draw up plays, he acquires them, DAntoni would draw up the play (maybe lol)

Brad Stevens and Nick Nurse player college ball.

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:35 PM
also by your logic, Jordan is the GOAT, he should be the GOAT evaluator because he would know what a GOAT player would look like

I didnít say your knowledge equals how good you are. Iím saying guys that played have a better understanding than those who didnít. If you played ball at a high level you have a great understanding of the game. Both Rondo and Jordan played at a very high level but if Rondo built s better team no one would be surprised because we all know he has a high IQ.

Heediot
10-23-2018, 01:36 PM
I didnít say your knowledge equals how good you are. Iím saying guys that played have a better understanding than those who didnít. If you played ball at a high level you have a great understanding of the game. Both Rondo and Jordan played at a very high level but if Rondo built s better team no one would be surprised because we all know he has a high IQ.

Javelle Mcgee or the causal psd poster? hmmmm....

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:39 PM
Javelle Mcgee or the causal psd poster? hmmmm....

Easily McGee.

Rivera
10-23-2018, 01:41 PM
I didnít say your knowledge equals how good you are. Iím saying guys that played have a better understanding than those who didnít. If you played ball at a high level you have a great understanding of the game. Both Rondo and Jordan played at a very high level but if Rondo built s better team no one would be surprised because we all know he has a high IQ.

couldnt disagree more. most of the execs who build teams never played college ball. using your example, Morey. I dont think he played college ball, your going to tell me he doesnt have a high basketball IQ? Youre going to tell me he doesnt understand the game because he never played?

Rivera
10-23-2018, 01:41 PM
Brad Stevens and Nick Nurse player college ball.

but not at a high level, and those guys are considered "numbers" guys

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:43 PM
couldnt disagree more. most of the execs who build teams never played college ball. using your example, Morey. I dont think he played college ball, your going to tell me he doesnt have a high basketball IQ? Youre going to tell me he doesnt understand the game because he never played?

He has a lot of guys around him, letís not act like heís the only one giving any kind of input on things.

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:45 PM
but not at a high level, and those guys are considered "numbers" guys

College is a high level, especially Nick Nurse who played D1.

Rivera
10-23-2018, 01:47 PM
He has a lot of guys around him, letís not act like heís the only one giving any kind of input on things.

so Morey deserves 0 credit and has 0 BBall IQ? The guys around him are telling him what to do?

you never answered the question, your going to tell me Morey doesnt know the game or he doesnt have a high basketball IQ because he never played?

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 01:53 PM
so Morey deserves 0 credit and has 0 BBall IQ? The guys around him are telling him what to do?

you never answered the question, your going to tell me Morey doesnt know the game or he doesnt have a high basketball IQ because he never played?

Morey doesnít have a high basketball IQ. You arenít going to ask him for advice on your game.

Heís a smart guy who took a gamble on building a team around shooting and it paid off.

Rivera
10-23-2018, 02:02 PM
Morey doesnít have a high basketball IQ. You arenít going to ask him for advice on your game.

Heís a smart guy who took a gamble on building a team around shooting and it paid off.

hes the one that said its better/more efficient to take a 3 than a long 2. for a guy that doesnt know basketball, it seems like the entire league listened to his advice and took that in their games

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 02:03 PM
Since weíre singling out GMs, Last 10 championships:

2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavs
2012:Heat
2013: Heat
2014: Spurs
2015: Warriors
2016: Cavs
2017: Warriors
2018: Warriors

Out of those 10, the only GM that didnít play basketball was David Griffin and he just so happened to have the best player in the world on his team.

ewing
10-23-2018, 02:04 PM
hes the one that said its better/more efficient to take a 3 than a long 2. for a guy that doesnt know basketball, it seems like the entire league listened to his advice and took that in their games

Rick Pitno was preaching the efficiency of 3s vs 2s in the 80s. The evolution of skill and the changes in rules had a lot to do with the 3 point explosion. It not just that some genius realized 3 was worth more then 2

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 02:06 PM
hes the one that said its better/more efficient to take a 3 than a long 2. for a guy that doesnt know basketball, it seems like the entire league listened to his advice and took that in their games

Heís a pretty big guy, shouldíve taken that great basketball knowledge and been a great player then.

GREATNESS ONE
10-23-2018, 02:08 PM
Since weíre singling out GMs, Last 10 championships:

2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavs
2012:Heat
2013: Heat
2014: Spurs
2015: Warriors
2016: Cavs
2017: Warriors
2018: Warriors

Out of those 10, the only GM that didnít play basketball was David Griffin and he just so happened to have the best player in the world on his team.

Dwayne Wade, played for Griffin?

Rivera
10-23-2018, 02:12 PM
Since weíre singling out GMs, Last 10 championships:

2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavs
2012:Heat
2013: Heat
2014: Spurs
2015: Warriors
2016: Cavs
2017: Warriors
2018: Warriors

Out of those 10, the only GM that didnít play basketball was David Griffin and he just so happened to have the best player in the world on his team.

i didnt know dwayne wade played for griffin

and what a way to change the subject

Rivera
10-23-2018, 02:13 PM
Rick Pitno was preaching the efficiency of 3s vs 2s in the 80s. The evolution of skill and the changes in rules had a lot to do with the 3 point explosion. It not just that some genius realized 3 was worth more then 2

absolutely, but it took off in the NBA with Morey. Jim O Brien and Don Nelson were big 3 instead of 2 guys, but Morey gets the credit for the revolution

Nelson was so ahead of his time

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 02:14 PM
Idk who Dwayne Wade is fellas and how did I change the subject?

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 02:16 PM
absolutely, but it took off in the NBA with Morey. Jim O Brien and Don Nelson were big 3 instead of 2 guys, but Morey gets the credit for the revolution

Nelson was so ahead of his time

Jim OíBrien and Don Nelson as in the professional basketball players?

Rivera
10-23-2018, 02:29 PM
Idk who Dwayne Wade is fellas and how did I change the subject?

were talking about bball iq for people who dont play, and you list people who win , which has nothing to do with does someone have a high bball iq, you can have a high bball iq and never win a championship.


but shout out to that extra high bball iq for stevens because DIII is such a great place to get high basketball IQ!

because video, textbooks, and talking with other coaches cant help increase someones IQ! You must play the game!

IKnowHoops
10-23-2018, 02:36 PM
hes the one that said its better/more efficient to take a 3 than a long 2. for a guy that doesnt know basketball, it seems like the entire league listened to his advice and took that in their games

Thatís math though. You could of never watched a single game in your life and if you apply 7th grade level math you would know that.

WaDe03
10-23-2018, 02:37 PM
were talking about bball iq for people who dont play, and you list people who win , which has nothing to do with does someone have a high bball iq, you can have a high bball iq and never win a championship.


but shout out to that extra high bball iq for stevens because DIII is such a great place to get high basketball IQ!

because video, textbooks, and talking with other coaches cant help increase someones IQ! You must play the game!


You definitely can have a high IQ and not win. Was just letting you know the winners played the game. I donít see any advanced stats guys on that list of winners that didnít have LeBron James to carry them to victory.

Stevens mustíve been a very smart player and itís showing now.

If you didnít play you donít fully understand the situations during a game. You donít understand the feelings and the emotion of needing to get a bucket to win a game at the buzzer. Thereís just so many things you donít understand if you didnít play. Those GMs obviously do though with their championships and all.

IKnowHoops
10-23-2018, 02:43 PM
Dwayne Wade, played for Griffin?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Hawkeye15
10-23-2018, 03:25 PM
how hot their gf/wife is.

PAOboston
10-23-2018, 04:09 PM
A mix of advanced stats and eye test. Plus mentality/makeup. Whatís the point of looking the part when you donít have ďitĒ? Mental makeup and how you fit is big imo and often gets lost. See Andrew Wiggins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heediot
10-23-2018, 04:20 PM
A mix of advanced stats and eye test. Plus mentality/makeup. Whatís the point of looking the part when you donít have ďitĒ? Mental makeup and how you fit is big imo and often gets lost. See Andrew Wiggins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nice.

Hawkeye15
10-23-2018, 04:22 PM
A mix of advanced stats and eye test. Plus mentality/makeup. Whatís the point of looking the part when you donít have ďitĒ? Mental makeup and how you fit is big imo and often gets lost. See Andrew Wiggins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

advanced stats despise Wiggins. So does my eye

mightybosstone
10-23-2018, 05:15 PM
Honestly, I think it's got to a mix of everything. If you're focusing on primarily the eye test, then you're catching an insanely small sample size of a guy who might be far better or far worse than the small sample of games you're watching. EX: I know CJ McCollum is a damn good player, but I rarely ever watch him play unless he's playing the Rockets. And he was trash against Houston last season (19 points on 19.3 FGA in four games).

If you use primarily basic statistics, then you might be ignoring the player's inefficiency or ignoring how efficient that player is despite modest productivity. EX: Allen Iverson put up some eye-catching numbers, but advanced numbers show just how truly inefficient he was.

And if you're focusing on advanced numbers only, then you could be missing overall productivity. EX: Advanced stats tend to love hyperefficent guys like the Tyson Chandlers, DeAndre Jordans and Clint Capelas of the world, despite the fact that they're essentially 10/10/2 players. Meanwhile, they crap on guys like Iverson without recognizing that volume scorers still absolutely have merit.

You really need all three. And on top of that, you have to consider postseason production and context. Did a guy step up in big moments or completely crumble? Did he play next to superstar players or struggle with team success playing with mediocre teammates? How did injuries impact his career, what were the trends of the league when the guy was playing and how did events outside his control impact his career?

ewing
10-23-2018, 05:19 PM
Honestly, I think it's got to a mix of everything. If you're focusing on primarily the eye test, then you're catching an insanely small sample size of a guy who might be far better or far worse than the small sample of games you're watching. EX: I know CJ McCollum is a damn good player, but I rarely ever watch him play unless he's playing the Rockets. And he was trash against Houston last season (19 points on 19.3 FGA in four games).

If you use primarily basic statistics, then you might be ignoring the player's inefficiency or ignoring how efficient that player is despite modest productivity. EX: Allen Iverson put up some eye-catching numbers, but advanced numbers show just how truly inefficient he was.

And if you're focusing on advanced numbers only, then you could be missing overall productivity. EX: Advanced stats tend to love hyperefficent guys like the Tyson Chandlers, DeAndre Jordans and Clint Capelas of the world, despite the fact that they're essentially 10/10/2 players. Meanwhile, they crap on guys like Iverson without recognizing that volume scorers still absolutely have merit.

You really need all three. And on top of that, you have to consider postseason production and context. Did a guy step up in big moments or completely crumble? Did he play next to superstar players or struggle with team success playing with mediocre teammates? How did injuries impact his career, what were the trends of the league when the guy was playing and how did events outside his control impact his career?

Stop it. its is all or nothing.

valade16
10-23-2018, 05:33 PM
Rick Pitno was preaching the efficiency of 3s vs 2s in the 80s. The evolution of skill and the changes in rules had a lot to do with the 3 point explosion. It not just that some genius realized 3 was worth more then 2

Pitino, Nelson, D'Antoni, Morey, etc. They're all the same guy in that they saw how many 3's were being taken in the league and said "we should shoot more". I think shooting the ball 20 times when the rest of the league was shooting it 10 times is just as revolutionary as shooting it 45 times when the rest of the league is shooting it 30 times.