Grantland Stat - Monroe #2 on NBA's worst scorer list

[russkopp]

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... -shotscore

If you believe in the "new school statistics", Greg Monroe is only behind Monta Ellis for worst scorer when compared to the average NBA player.

[Notanoob]

This is pretty simple. He finishes below average as a shooter near the basket, but not by a lot, because most of the time, he's the only real offensive option on the floor, with little space to operate. So he basically has to take shots, but he's very often contested. By sheer volume, he ends up with a terrible shot score.

If he plays with more spacing, or fewer teams keying on him, along with natural improvements, he should up his efficiency and lower his attempts, which will quickly drop him off of this list.

Also, hey! Jennnings isn't on there!

[DetroitPistons]

A good example of how stats lie. Monroe was easily our best player last year. We would've won like 10 games total without him. BTW, Westbrook is #4 and people think he's a superstar. This is why I rely on the eye test for nearly all of my assessments about teams and players. Westbrook and Monroe have their flaws, no doubt, but you would have be a moron to think they are 2 of the bottom 4 scorers in the league.

[Q00]

Advanced stats are worthless.

[pistontr]

last year he was not as good as two year before

[RTM]

He finished at below average rates because he was the sole focus of opposing defenses, and he took a ton of shots because he had so little support.

Monroe's history shows he's usually more efficient than not, so I'm not overly concerned. He's not the strongest player around the hoop, but he's fine.

[ajaX82]

Advanced stats are worthless.

No. That's a ridiculous statement.

Sometimes context is extremely important and as the article noted, this doesn't make them bad players. Moose was the main option on a crap team (though you could make similar excuses for Monta). But Monroe was crazy inefficient last year and he needs to really improve that.

[MrBigShot]

#2 worst scorer? That's flat out stupid. Are we also suppose to believe that Westbrook is the #4 worst compared to average nba players? This is silly.

[E-Z]

A good example of how stats lie. Monroe was easily our best player last year. We would've won like 10 games total without him. BTW, Westbrook is #4 and people think he's a superstar. This is why I rely on the eye test for nearly all of my assessments about teams and players. Westbrook and Monroe have their flaws, no doubt, but you would have be a moron to think they are 2 of the bottom 4 scorers in the league.

You didn't explain much reasoning as to how "stats lie" here. Monroe failed the eye test last season imo. He draws plenty of fouls, but he's not great of a FT shooter. 13 shots for 16 points per game is nothing spectacular no matter how you eyeball it on the court.

Also the comparison to Westbrook is odd. Westbrook is a superstar because he's constant pressure on the defense whenever the ball is in his hands. Unlike Monroe, he's not limited to the paint.

[sc8581]

This is pretty simple. He finishes below average as a shooter near the basket, but not by a lot, because most of the time, he's the only real offensive option on the floor, with little space to operate. So he basically has to take shots, but he's very often contested. By sheer volume, he ends up with a terrible shot score.

If he plays with more spacing, or fewer teams keying on him, along with natural improvements, he should up his efficiency and lower his attempts, which will quickly drop him off of this list.

Also, hey! Jennnings isn't on there!

This won't change unless he is traded or comes off the bench.

[Minas]

Advanced stats aren't useless just like they aren't the 'be all, end all'. They require context.

Goldsberry wrote this in the piece (I doubt many of you even read it)

Despite his troubles last season, Monroe remains a very strong NBA prospect. With Monroe, Andre Drummond, and Josh Smith the Pistons seem well positioned to dominate the interior for years to come. There is little doubt that Monroe will improve both close to the basket and away from it as his game matures, but as it stands, he is notable for his inefficiency.

How can you disagree with any of that?

[Billl]

"Advanced stats aren't useless just like they aren't the 'be all, end all'. "

Well, this particular advanced stat is all but useless. Trying to compare how often the average player might make a shot is pretty silly. The average player is never going to get the type of looks that Monroe got. Sure, they might shoot a higher percentage on their paint shots, but that is generally because someone else is creating open looks for them. If they had to back a guy down, make a move, and try to finish, (like monroe) they probably wouldn't even get a shot off and if they did it would be really low percentage.

There are some star player that create their own shots and then manage to make a high percentage of them. Those are the elite players in the league. Monroe is obviously a step (or more) below that, but he isn't the bottom rung. If you compare him to the stars of other teams, sure, he's near the bottom... but that still means hes better than 90% of the league.

[LoboGuerrero]

"Advanced stats aren't useless just like they aren't the 'be all, end all'. "

Well, this particular advanced stat is all but useless. Trying to compare how often the average player might make a shot is pretty silly. The average player is never going to get the type of looks that Monroe got. Sure, they might shoot a higher percentage on their paint shots, but that is generally because someone else is creating open looks for them. If they had to back a guy down, make a move, and try to finish, (like monroe) they probably wouldn't even get a shot off and if they did it would be really low percentage.

Obviously this is true. But that still doesn't mean the stat is useless. It means it needs to be used with context (just like every other statistic). The author mentions this in passing in this article:

On the other hand, Ellis is a very creative player with a knack for getting a shot pretty much whenever he wants. This is an overlooked skill in most player evaluations.

but does a better job in the article linked in the beginning, which introduces the statistic and explains the thinking behind it:

So does this mean that Jose Calderon is the best shooter in the NBA? No, it means that when Calderon shoots it's a beautiful thing. We all know that the NBA isn't just a catch-and-shoot league; it's also very much a create-your-own shot league. Some NBA players, like Novak, only thrive in those catch-and-shoot scenarios, while others, like Stephen Curry, Dirk Nowitzki, and Kevin Durant, constantly create their own chances off the dribble or in the post.

and

We have to consider more than just field goals made versus field goals missed. The ShotScore approach begins that process by introducing the fundamental role of court space into the equation, but it by no means ends it. I am not suggesting that this is the most important new statistic in the NBA, but I do believe it clarifies which players regularly make or miss baskets at higher rates in their native scoring zones. Emerging data sets will enable this process further. For example, the SportVU data set allows us to additionally consider the openness of a particular shot attempt; after all, a wide-open 15-foot jump shot is a lot easier than that identical shot with Larry Sanders lunging at you.

tl;dr This is stat isn't useless, it just requires context, like all others.

[Billl]

The value of a "stat" is that it is a semi-meaningful way to rank and compare players. If the ranking that the stat produces is absurd, then that stat is pretty useless. eg If they come up with an advanced stat that says CV is the best defending big in the NBA, that would be a useless stat.

[E-Z]

Stats without context are "useless".

[Billl]

Actually, the converse is true. Advanced Stats requiring "context" makes them useless. That's kinda the whole point of "advanced stats". They are supposed to weigh those "context" factors and have mathematical adjustments that compensate in a way that produces a meaningful comparison of players. If you still need to look at a whole bunch of other factors and reinterpret the statistical ranking, then you are defeating the whole purpose of "advanced stats".

[Invictus88]

I know I'm not going to win any popularity contests with this post.

As much as I want to love Greg Monroe, watching his post game last year was often a painful exercise for me. A lot of the moves / shots he put up were off-balance and forced. Never once did I find myself feeling confident that he would score when he got the ball in a post up position. He lacks a surefire go-to move and seems easier to defend then maybe he should be.

I want to believe that he will get better in this area but I would have figured he would be more polished than he is at this stage. I'm worried that maybe he has reached his ceiling. Maybe motivation is an issue?

This has to be a big year for him but I haven't really seen or heard of any indications that he is going to take a step beyond 'average power forward with good size and passing but mediocre defense and average/below average ability to create his own scoring opportunities'.

That description is an okay complimentary player but I question if it's worth the numbers that people are throwing out for him...

[Uncle Mxy]

sh*tscore

[E-Z]

Actually, the converse is true. Advanced Stats requiring "context" makes them useless. That's kinda the whole point of "advanced stats". They are supposed to weigh those "context" factors and have mathematical adjustments that compensate in a way that produces a meaningful comparison of players. If you still need to look at a whole bunch of other factors and reinterpret the statistical ranking, then you are defeating the whole purpose of "advanced stats".

I disagree. For example, allow me to ask; is FG percentage an advanced stat?

It's the purpose of the entire article. Because without context, DeAndre Jordan is a better shooter than Kevin Durant, and we all know this statement is not true. New statistics such as this are supposed to include all of the context required to better differentiate players. Even then, someone can misunderstand the statistics. Some of the responses in this thread are case in point.

All statistics require context to some degree. The extent of which will always be a topic of discussion.

[LoboGuerrero]

Actually, the converse is true. Advanced Stats requiring "context" makes them useless. That's kinda the whole point of "advanced stats". They are supposed to weigh those "context" factors and have mathematical adjustments that compensate in a way that produces a meaningful comparison of players. If you still need to look at a whole bunch of other factors and reinterpret the statistical ranking, then you are defeating the whole purpose of "advanced stats".

Yeah...no.

You're never going to find a stat that requires no context. But that doesn't mean all stats should be thrown out the window. Stats (advanced or otherwise) are just a tool to help with evaluating players.