Answered: Who do you prefer, Player A or Player B?

[zimpy27]

For those interested in a few more per 36 minutes stats.




I find it interesting that FGA and FTA was so consistent between NBA and FIBA for these 2 and their TS% was pretty consistent as well.

[Mavrelous]

For those interested in a few more per 36 minutes stats.




I find it interesting that FGA and FTA was so consistent between NBA and FIBA for these 2 and their TS% was pretty consistent as well.

Wow!
Even with all the hype, Reaves run is still underrated...

[Wagonband]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

[zimpy27]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

5 minutes difference.

Actually point of the thread was to highlight the extreme difference between eye test and box score.

I think it is interesting how we as a group have perceived these 2 players in FIBA just now as totally opposite based on eye test vs box score.

Now I'm interested in how people are rationalizing the difference.

So far it seems like people are irritated at me for highlighting the difference. I'd much rather see people focus on what this really means.

Do we overrate eye test?
Do we overrate box score?
Do we look at the wrong things entirely?

[hippesthippo]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

5 minutes difference.

Actually point of the thread was to highlight the extreme difference between eye test and box score.

I think it is interesting how we as a group have perceived these 2 players in FIBA just now as totally opposite based on eye test vs box score.

Now I'm interested in how people are rationalizing the difference.

So far it seems like people are irritated at me for highlighting the difference. I'd much rather see people focus on what this really means.

Do we overrate eye test?
Do we overrate box score?
Do we look at the wrong things entirely?

I'll take answers D and E:

Do we over-use per36? Yes.
Do we misuse per36? Yes.

[TheCage4]

I'll take the guy that will play to win, sacrifice for his team, and be a role model for younger fans and players.

Oh wait, those don't exist anymore

[tsherkin]

For those interested in a few more per 36 minutes stats.




I find it interesting that FGA and FTA was so consistent between NBA and FIBA for these 2 and their TS% was pretty consistent as well.

So Reaves is an interesting one. His was quite efficient this year, wildly so. He's also shooting like Shaq inside the arc, and rocking a .541 FTr and shooting 39.8% on his 3.4 3PA/g in 28.8 mpg.

But being as we know who this is, we can also look at the fact that he was a bench player who was the 4th or 5th option on the team by volume. We also know he was assisted on 40.5% of his 2PA and 86% of his 3s (of which 26.4% came from the corners, where he surprisingly shot only 36.8%). He shot 83.3% inside 3 feet, 55.8% from 3-10 and 54.0% from 10-16 feet. He also shot 42.1% from 16-23 feet, a major change from the previous year.

It will be interesting to see if he gets 2,000+ minutes next year and if he starts more than 22 games. It will be similarly interesting to see how defenses adapt to him if he continues shooting like this.

[zimpy27]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

5 minutes difference.

Actually point of the thread was to highlight the extreme difference between eye test and box score.

I think it is interesting how we as a group have perceived these 2 players in FIBA just now as totally opposite based on eye test vs box score.

Now I'm interested in how people are rationalizing the difference.

So far it seems like people are irritated at me for highlighting the difference. I'd much rather see people focus on what this really means.

Do we overrate eye test?
Do we overrate box score?
Do we look at the wrong things entirely?

I'll take answers D and E:

Do we over-use per36? Yes.
Do we misuse per36? Yes.

You don't like equilibrating for time on court?

What about TS%? That's the best scoring efficiency stat we have, not a fan of that i suppose?

[God Squad]

I'll take the guy that will play to win, sacrifice for his team, and be a role model for younger fans and players.

Oh wait, those don't exist anymore

I still think Steph is the epitome of this.

[God Squad]

5 minutes difference.

Actually point of the thread was to highlight the extreme difference between eye test and box score.

I think it is interesting how we as a group have perceived these 2 players in FIBA just now as totally opposite based on eye test vs box score.

Now I'm interested in how people are rationalizing the difference.

So far it seems like people are irritated at me for highlighting the difference. I'd much rather see people focus on what this really means.

Do we overrate eye test?
Do we overrate box score?
Do we look at the wrong things entirely?

I'll take answers D and E:

Do we over-use per36? Yes.
Do we misuse per36? Yes.

You don't like equilibrating for time on court?

What about TS%? That's the best scoring efficiency stat we have, not a fan of that i suppose?

I'm one of the few people who went with player A, simple because I knew the TS wouldn't be sustainable. Now that I know who the players are I feel even more validated. With that said I think AR amazing at his role, but you can't look at per 36 and extrapolate that thinking he's the better/more valuable. Austin defense was one of the worst on the whole team, easily. But I'd agree that Austin was quite frankly more efficient in his role, compared to ANT. Plenty of times ANT shot the ball without consideration for ball movement or the team. But at times he was also the reason US fought back into the game.

TBH I think ANT was ill-suited for the go-to role on team USA, regardless if he felt he was the best player. Now with hindsight (US loss) it looks even worse that he refused to sacrifice for the greater good of the team.

On Thursday, Edwards said Kerr had called him before the start of camp and “he was telling me about coming off the bench.

“I mean, of course I wasn’t cool with it,” Edwards said. “If that’s what it takes, I mean, I am willing to do it, but nah, I’m never cool with that. … He said Dwyane Wade came off the bench when Kobe played. I was like, all right, we don’t have a Kobe, but all right. But it was cool.”

[tsherkin]

You don't like equilibrating for time on court?

What about TS%? That's the best scoring efficiency stat we have, not a fan of that i suppose?

Per 75 possessions tends to be better than per36, but neither of them account for role, impact of minutes on stamina, etc, etc. They are best used for comparisons between players who fill similar roles.

[zimpy27]

You don't like equilibrating for time on court?

What about TS%? That's the best scoring efficiency stat we have, not a fan of that i suppose?

Per 75 possessions tends to be better than per36, but neither of them account for role, impact of minutes on stamina, etc, etc. They are best used for comparisons between players who fill similar roles.

Do you have a site where per 100 or per 75 are available for splits and FIBA?

Couldn't find it on bbref

[zimpy27]

You don't like equilibrating for time on court?

What about TS%? That's the best scoring efficiency stat we have, not a fan of that i suppose?

Per 75 possessions tends to be better than per36, but neither of them account for role, impact of minutes on stamina, etc, etc. They are best used for comparisons between players who fill similar roles.

Do you have a site where per 100 or per 75 are available for splits and FIBA?

Couldn't find it on bbref

I'd use them over per36 if available but I prefer per 36 over per game stats when minutes played are within 25% of each other

[tsherkin]

You don't like equilibrating for time on court?

What about TS%? That's the best scoring efficiency stat we have, not a fan of that i suppose?

Per 75 possessions tends to be better than per36, but neither of them account for role, impact of minutes on stamina, etc, etc. They are best used for comparisons between players who fill similar roles.

Do you have a site where per 100 or per 75 are available for splits and FIBA?

Couldn't find it on bbref

Stathead can be used to find per75 stuff over given stretches. FIBA, I have on resources for because I don't really attention to FIBA ball. Only so much sports time in my life these days, heh.

[Profound23]

I'll take the guy that will play to win, sacrifice for his team, and be a role model for younger fans and players.

Oh wait, those don't exist anymore

Are you talking about Jokic, Giannis, Curry?

[ellobo]

Apart from the specific statistical comparison of these two players, Team USA failed to medal because they didn't defend and didn't rebound (against Lithuania and Germany; they outrebounded Canada). Offense was not a problem in any of their losses. The US led the tournament in points per game and scored above their tournament average in all their losses. They didn't get stopped, they got outscored.

Edwards was fine. A team needs an alpha scorer, and although he wasn't super efficient individually, he was productive and the team's offense overall was very good. Edwards was also the team's best on-ball defender. He was the one guy who was consistently effective pressuring opposing ballhandlers, much more so than the players with defensive reputations like Bridges and Hart.

I don't think the OP comparison was necessarily eye test vs. box score, but it was obviously set up to make player B (Reeves) look more statistically attractive.

[zero rings]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

Most fans in the mid-2000s would have picked guys like AI, Tmac, and Vince over Manu for the same reasons. And they would have all been wrong.

The truth is you don’t get extra points for playing the “star” role and being mediocre at it. The point of a basketball player is to have a positive impact on the scoreboard. If Reaves is better at that than Edwards, then he is the better player regardless of how many shots he takes.

[CDM_Stats]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

Most fans in the mid-2000s would have picked guys like AI, Tmac, and Vince over Manu for the same reasons. And they would have all been wrong.

The truth is you don’t get extra points for playing the “star” role and being mediocre at it. The point of a basketball player is to have a positive impact on the scoreboard. If Reaves is better at that than Edwards, then he is the better player regardless of how many shots he takes.

Steve Novak was routinely a top 10 player in RAPM during his career, because he was a 3pt shooting specialist that played very limited and very specialized minutes. Was he a top 10 NBA player, better than the 500+ players below him?

You absolutely *do* get credit for being the higher volume player because you're being asked to play a different role, hell a different game, than the others. Put Reaves in Ant's position and his efficiency would tumble. Put Ant in Reaves' position and he would be more efficient. To what degree for both, we don't know.. but this is why I roll my eyes every time I see bare metrics put into arguments as some sort of proof. Public-facing metrics serve one actual purpose - trying to win online arguments

If it creates a conversation, that's good.. if people believe it creates an answer, that's not good

[zero rings]

Nobody in their right mind would take Reaves over Edwards. Even if ignore defense, which we cant, they have completely different roles on their teams. Edwards is always being guarded by the best defender on the opposing team, and teams gameplan to stop him. That is clearly not the case with Reaves when he plays with LeBron and AD.

Also the 8 minute playing difference is actually huge in this context. I mean i get the point of the thread, you wanted to show stats show that "surprisingly" Reaves is better than Edwards. But you can't seriously believe that can you?

Most fans in the mid-2000s would have picked guys like AI, Tmac, and Vince over Manu for the same reasons. And they would have all been wrong.

The truth is you don’t get extra points for playing the “star” role and being mediocre at it. The point of a basketball player is to have a positive impact on the scoreboard. If Reaves is better at that than Edwards, then he is the better player regardless of how many shots he takes.

Steve Novak was routinely a top 10 player in RAPM during his career, because he was a 3pt shooting specialist that played very limited and very specialized minutes. Was he a top 10 NBA player, better than the 500+ players below him?

You absolutely *do* get credit for being the higher volume player because you're being asked to play a different role, hell a different game, than the others. Put Reaves in Ant's position and his efficiency would tumble. Put Ant in Reaves' position and he would be more efficient. To what degree for both, we don't know.. but this is why I roll my eyes every time I see bare metrics put into arguments as some sort of proof. Public-facing metrics serve one actual purpose - trying to win online arguments

Why are you assuming Ant would be more efficient in Reaves’ role? He’s plainly not as good of a shooter and doesn’t have anywhere near the talent for drawing fouls. Those are skills that don’t fluctuate with usage or minutes per game.

[CDM_Stats]

Most fans in the mid-2000s would have picked guys like AI, Tmac, and Vince over Manu for the same reasons. And they would have all been wrong.

The truth is you don’t get extra points for playing the “star” role and being mediocre at it. The point of a basketball player is to have a positive impact on the scoreboard. If Reaves is better at that than Edwards, then he is the better player regardless of how many shots he takes.

Steve Novak was routinely a top 10 player in RAPM during his career, because he was a 3pt shooting specialist that played very limited and very specialized minutes. Was he a top 10 NBA player, better than the 500+ players below him?

You absolutely *do* get credit for being the higher volume player because you're being asked to play a different role, hell a different game, than the others. Put Reaves in Ant's position and his efficiency would tumble. Put Ant in Reaves' position and he would be more efficient. To what degree for both, we don't know.. but this is why I roll my eyes every time I see bare metrics put into arguments as some sort of proof. Public-facing metrics serve one actual purpose - trying to win online arguments

Why are you assuming Ant would be more efficient in Reaves’ role? He’s plainly not as good of a shooter and doesn’t have anywhere near the talent for drawing fouls. Those are skills that don’t fluctuate with usage or minutes per game.

Because of scores and scores of historical data that show that with higher usage, you get the tougher defensive assignments, you take the tougher shots (to include the bailout shots)

And yes, shooting and FTA absolutely tie in with usage and minutes. Because of fatigue, defensive attention, and a host of other contextual variables. I dunno about this argument you're making.. I get if you don't want to go to an extreme and immediately say Ant is better, but the one part you didn't quote I think is most important: this data starts a conversation, good. This data provides an answer, bad.