BLKOUT wrote:...no, that really doesn't follow, you can't spend more time to achieve efficiency, either you have it or you don't. A player who plays 10mpg can have 30 PER, because it's a possession-based stat, not game. If two players play at the same level of efficiency, and have a similarly large role within the team's offense (that is, the have the same usage rate), the player who plays more minutes does more to help his team win
But we weren't talking about maintaining offensive efficiency, we were talking about offensive production with the same levels of efficiency. My point was that if a player is giving the same production as another on the same efficiency in less minutes, he is more valuable.
I guess this is a definition of production/efficiency thing then. If two players use the same number of possessions with the same degree of efficiency, then they are equally productive on a per-possession basis. The difference, at that point, would be playing time.
MJ and LeBron use the same number of possessions, so I suppose the question is whether you think their efficiency is equal. Scoring-wise, it is, but you would have to decide whether LeBron's assists are more or less valuable (or "productive") than MJs extra shots. I think they're roughly equivalent.
I can only assume that you are basing your definition of "production" on per-game stats like ppg, but if you don't adjust for pace by using per-possession stats, you're just declaring that players on faster-paced teams are better, which I don't think reflects reality.
BLKOUT wrote:I don't know what point you are trying to make about the 3s though. If on a given number of trips down the floor, they both end up scoring the same number of points, why does it matter what the breakdown of 3s and 2s is?
The point is that LeBron is taking 5 threes per game while shooting at 35%... if he took 5 FG's instead where he shoots over 50%, it would benefit both him and his team because he is far more accurate from inside. So essentially he is wasting 5 shots (or 4 ignoring the one he makes). That to me isn't efficient.
Maybe what you're trying to argue here is that LeBron is slightly more efficient from 2 than from 3,
Slightly? He's a .349 3 point shooter, compared to .503 from inside the three. That's like saying Brandon Jennings is a slightly worse shooter than Steve nash.
...but 3pters are worth 3 points, and 2pters are worth 2. By your standards, every 3pter is a waste, because everyone in the league shoots better from 2 than from 3. That is obviously false, 3pters are 1.5x more valuable than 2s, which is why it doesn't really hurt LeBron's efficiency to take them at a 35% clip... it's the equivalent of 52.5% from 2. You are actually shortchanging yourself, by the way, by forgetting to subtract the 3pt attempts from his FG%, LeBron actually shoots 56% from 2.
The point, though, is that while you can call it "guesswork," it makes perfect sense that LeBron take 3s even if they are, indeed, "slightly" less effective than his attempts from 2. LeBron's ability to shoot 3s punishes defenders who do not attempt to contest his outside shot, which in turn produces better 2pt opportunities. This is why you amalgamate all of them into eFG%, which illustrates that LeBron scores more efficiently than 87-88 MJ (slightly).
It simply doesn't make sense to assume that LeBron could take all of his shots from 2 if he wanted. You may as well demand that all of his shots be dunks, or at least around the rim, because those are the most efficient type of shot of all. The reality is that sometimes you must take the 3, and sometimes you choose to take the 3 because otherwise your defender need never cover you outside the line.
Put it a different way... if a guard is better driving right than left, is he "wasting" every possession that he goes left? I'm sure it's not hard to figure out the answer is "no," if he prevents defenders from completely ignoring the possibility of a left-side drive and clamping down on his better move.
BLKOUT wrote:Pace adjustment is simply necessary to do. It is the reality of the NBA that some teams play 15% more possessions than others, it doesn't make all of the faster team's players 15% more valuable, which is what happens if you trust per game numbers instead of per possession.
To me it seems like you're penalizing guys who play on faster teams by that measure. But still, everyone is into pace adjustment these days, I haven't come around to it yet.
Who's penalizing? You're placing them on an equal playing field... is every player on the Warriors automatically 15% more productive than every player on the Blazers? That's ridiculous, one team just takes shots faster and gets more opportunities to do things like score and rebound. This is why per-game stats are inherently inferior to per-possession stats.
BLKOUT wrote:I'm really not sure why the timing of shots in the shot clock matters for efficiency. Shot locations, perhaps, because then you can account for the likelihood of an offensive rebound, which is lowest on long 2s.
That is silly. Outside shots are good even if they miss because it creates a chance for an offensive rebound?
The timing of the shot clock matters when it comes to efficiency because it is less efficient for a guy to be taking shots in the last few seconds of the clock as they are generally desperation shots to get something up before time expires... it's also less efficient to be taking them within the first 10 seconds, because it takes maybe 3 seconds to get the ball up the floor, so you're giving yourself 7 seconds to get a shot off. That seems rushed.
You brought up shot locations. I tried to guess why that matters whatosever to a player's efficiency that an overall measure of how many of their shots go in (2s and 3s) does not tell us. What does it matter if one player makes more shots from the left side, instead of the right? To me, nothing.
The only thing I could think of is that missed shots from different places have a different chance of becoming offensive rebounds. Shots right at the basket and 3pters are dramatically more likely to be o-boarded than midrange 2s... so if two players are otherwise equal statistically, but one takes more midrange 2s, odds are he isn't quite as valuable because he is hurting his team's chances at o-boards. This is a small point, but it was the best I could do to guess why you thought shot locations are important to efficiency. Otherwise, we know exactly how "efficient" LeBron is on twos: 56%. A made two from 20 feet is just as many points as a made two from 5.
As for shot clock timing... sure, imagine, for a moment, that you have the stats, and do see that Jordan takes a significantly larger amount of shots at the end of the shot clock. This would not make him any more EFFICIENT. It might make you think he's BETTER, but that's not the same thing... "better" is a concept based on theoretical capabilities... i.e., "if MJ didn't have to take so many shot clock beaters, he'd be more efficient than LeBron." Or, "if Kobe were on a worse team, he'd put up just as many stats as LeBron." But that isn't the subject of this discussion, it's whose performance was ACTUALLY more efficient with the possessions they "used" (that is, what PER purports to measure, not theoretical capacity). It also should be said that to some extent, it isn't a player's fault if he manages to find a good shot before the last 5 seconds... shots made in the first 10 seconds are just as good as those made in the last 10.
are you really that insecure?