James Harden is a superstar

[fallacy]

eFg% and ts% are better than fg%, but that's not what you said originally. You said that fg% is worthless, it is not. The percentage of actual shots that are made in the run of play is a valuable statistic.

Harden's eFg% is terrible too, like i mentioned. The only thing that's saving him from being a bust right now is his free throws. That's not a knock on Harden, that's just the only thing he's really effective at right now.

Since we have eFG and TS that does in fact make FG% worthless. Please explain how it is a valuable statistic.

I just told you in my post. Having a raw, unadjusted, percentage of shots made is valuable. That would be like saying that raw assists and raw rebounds are worthless stats because we have ast% and reb%

Advanced stats are great, but that doesn't make raw statistics worthless. Now I'm done with this conversation, let's please get back on topic of James Harden. If you want to talk statistics make another thread and I'll join you there.

[tsherkin]

You said that fg% is worthless, it is not. The percentage of actual shots that are made in the run of play is a valuable statistic.

Nah, raw FG% IS useless. Most especially over a short sample like this.

Now, locational FG% is useful, especially compared to league average (overall and for his position) as well as his peers.

But raw FG% doesn't tell you much of value. If the player takes a ton of threes (like Harden), then FG% will be depressed even though efficiency is there. If the guy draws fouls effectively, then the FG% isn't going to be all that valuable in describing efficiency.

Harden's eFg% is terrible too, like i mentioned. The only thing that's saving him from being a bust right now is his free throws. That's not a knock on Harden, that's just the only thing he's really effective at right now.

That's actually wrong.

Harden is still shooting over 65% on shots at the rim, where he's getting 8.0 times per game. So right off of the bat, that's about 4% above league average at the rim for guards so far this season... which means it's not just the free throws that are driving his efficiency.

It's that he's getting to the rim more than anyone else in the league except for Greg Monroe (they are the only two players currently above 7.7 FGA/g at the rim). Harden's also shooting 50% on shots from 3-9 feet (just under 1 per game), so he's been effective there.

What FG% is telling us is that he's shooting 38% on 3 attempts from 16-23 feet and 28.6% on 5.4 3PA/g.

So turn around and think about this again.

James Harden is shooting 65/131 inside of the three-point line, or 49.6% FG.

This is why raw FG% is useless, and why you need to understand WHY the raw FG% is what it is. You need to look at shot locations, and you need to understand what efficiency actually is and how it is generated.

Raw FG% is useless, unless it's raw field goal percentage in a specific distance range, and even then you still need context, like assisted percentage, teammates, etc. Analysis is rarely effective when you just look at a single facet of a player. But there it is, raw FG% as described in the box score is not very valuable at all.

[Rapcity_11]

I just told you in my post. Having a raw, unadjusted, percentage of shots made is valuable. That would be like saying that raw assists and raw rebounds are worthless stats because we have ast% and reb%

Advanced stats are great, but that doesn't make raw statistics worthless. Now I'm done with this conversation, let's please get back on topic of James Harden. If you want to talk statistics make another thread and I'll join you there.

Alright go the the FG vs TS thread in the stat board.

Back to Harden, if he was shooting the 3 at a more realistic clip, (33-36%) his efficiency would still be elite. It's still quite good as it stands.

He really needs to smarten up his 3 point shot selection as well though.

[tsherkin]

I just told you in my post. Having a raw, unadjusted, percentage of shots made is valuable. That would be like saying that raw assists and raw rebounds are worthless stats because we have ast% and reb%

Raw assists and raw rebounds aren't all that enlightening. As a first-pass look to see if a player was productive, sure, but there have been plenty of games when someone has spammed assists. Maggette's had some high-assist games where he was getting lucky, dumping the ball to teammates with 3 seconds left and having them hit prayer 3s, you know what I'm saying? Rebounds, well, it still helps if you watch how the player got them to see if he was ignoring perimeter defense, fighting with teammates to get the board, what his positioning was like, etc. TRB% is more valuable than RPG, that's generally true. But there is limited value to the raw box score stats, which is the whole point of further analysis.

Advanced stats are great, but that doesn't make raw statistics worthless. Now I'm done with this conversation, let's please get back on topic of James Harden. If you want to talk statistics make another thread and I'll join you there.

Nah, you're not done with this conversation, because it's directly related to analysis of Harden. You're making a case that his scoring value is overly diminished by his raw FG%, which isn't true. What IS true is that he's not performing in his new role as well as in his old role. He's still at +3.5% TS over league average, though, and as I mentioned in my above post, is playing very well inside of 10 feet. He's also getting to the rim at a rate typically reserved for big men.

In fact, of the players in the NBA right now averaging 6+ FGA/g at the rim, the only other guards are Monta Ellis, Kemba Walker, Ramon Sessions and Kobe Bryant. There are 17 such players. There are only 7 guys averaging 7+ FGA/g at the rim, all of whom are forwards or centers (only one SF, Melo) besides Harden.

This flies directly in the face of the notion you raised that his efficiency is primarily a product of his ability to draw fouls, and is a further point driven home regarding the idea that raw FG% is of any real value. You're making a judgmental leap when the facts at hand clearly prove otherwise... and you're doing it because you're trying to extract value from raw box score FG%.

[tsherkin]

Back to Harden, if he was shooting the 3 at a most realistic clip, (33-36%) his efficiency would still be elite. It's still quite good as it stands.

He's at +3.5% over league average TS%; his efficiency still IS elite. Not AS elite as it was last season, but that's still VERY good. Kobe has only four seasons in his career where he matched or exceeded +3.5%.

[Rapcity_11]

Back to Harden, if he was shooting the 3 at a most realistic clip, (33-36%) his efficiency would still be elite. It's still quite good as it stands.

He's at +3.5% over league average TS%; his efficiency still IS elite. Not AS elite as it was last season, but that's still VERY good. Kobe has only four seasons in his career where he matched or exceeded +3.5%.

I'd prefer to have a distinction between very good and elite. I'd argue something like +5% would fall into elite.

[tsherkin]

I'd prefer to have a distinction between very good and elite. I'd argue something like +5% would fall into elite.

True enough. LBJ, Durant, Wade, Dirk and Kevin Martin are typically in the +4 or better range.

[lorak]

+3.5 it's ok result, it's basically what Kobe was doing most of his career (but on higher volume than Harden). But LeBron, since he made big leap during summer 2008 is: +4.6, +6.1, +5.3 and +7.8 last year (that's as good as Jordan's scoring efficiency)

[tsherkin]

+3.5 it's ok result, it's basically what Kobe was doing most of his career (but on higher volume than Harden).

Kobe managed +3.5% only 4 times in his career.

He went for +0.8, +2.4, +3.8, +2.3, +3.4, +2.4, +3.1, +3.5, +3.3, +2.4, +3.9, +3.6, +1.6, +0.2, +0.6 and +0.0.

His career average is +2.3, he was at or over +3.0 7 times.

+3.5 is more like what Kobe was doing in his best seasons, not what he was doing for most of his career.

EDIT:

In any case, I call that a lot better than merely "ok," since it's better than what we typically got from McGrady, what we typically get from Melo, etc, etc.

[lorak]

+3.5 it's ok result, it's basically what Kobe was doing most of his career (but on higher volume than Harden).

Kobe managed +3.5% only 4 times in his career.

He went for +0.8, +2.4, +3.8, +2.3, +3.4, +2.4, +3.1, +3.5, +3.3, +2.4, +3.9, +3.6, +1.6, +0.2, +0.6 and +0.0.

So he's +3 most of his career with higher volume than Harden.

In any case, I call that a lot better than merely "ok," since it's better than what we typically got from McGrady, what we typically get from Melo, etc, etc.

A lot better? For sure it's not elite. And Melo with TMac never were efficient scores so I don't know why you use them as point of reference. (Well, TMac was once, in 2003 he had +4.5 TS with 32 ppg.)

[tsherkin]

So he's +3 most of his career with higher volume than Harden.

Right, but +3 and +3.5 are still different animals. I'm not saying Harden >= Kobe as a scorer, I'm saying that what he's doing is still impressive and a lot better than the "ok" you allowed earlier.

A lot better? For sure it's not elite.

It's not upper-most tier, I agree. Of course, we're seeing a shooting slump, piss-poor passing support and a crap team, so that's also not super-surprising.

And Melo with TMac never were efficient scores so I don't know why you use them as point of reference. (Well, TMac was once, in 2003 he had +4.5 TS with 32 ppg.)

They're high-profile volume scorers who weren't as inefficient as Iverson in a #1 scoring role, that's all. I mean, perhaps a more appropriate indicator might be pre-08 Pierce, Vince Carter and so forth. Most high-volume scorers don't end up in the +3% or better range very often. Some guys do. Dirk, Wade, Lebron, Durant, the elite tier. But Harden is a lot better than OK. He's rocking 56% TS, which is nice as a raw marker, but his deviation from league average is still impressive. Is it among the very best in the league? No, but we've been discussing for a while now that there are some mitigating elements (nevermind a short sample) that permit one to reasonably infer the possibility that he'll continue to improve his efficiency over the course of the season.

Denigrating his current place by saying it's "ok" when it's comparable to prime Bryant is a little disingenuous. Or perhaps sloppy wording, in any case.

[lorak]

[
Denigrating his current place by saying it's "ok" when it's comparable to prime Bryant is a little disingenuous. Or perhaps sloppy wording, in any case.

Prime Bryant was scoring on higher volume...
And if my "ok" is disingenuous, then you "elite" is uber disingenuous ;]

[tsherkin]

Prime Bryant was scoring on higher volume...
And if my "ok" is disingenuous, then you "elite" is uber disingenuous ;]

That's why I snuck in "sloppy," because I didn't think "disingenuous" was quite accurate. And "elite" was also sloppy, agreed.

Bryant's volume, though, is irrelevant, since the trend carried through into his lower-scoring seasons as well. In any case, remember, it's still matching Bryant's peak efficiency and he's still the #1 option on the team. He's not tossing up shots at the same rate as Kobe, this is true...

But look.

99, 00, 02, 04, 2011.

A cross-section of seasons through Kobe's career where he's managed comparable volume (< 26 ppg). In those seasons, Bryant was +3.8, +2.3, +2.4, +3.5, +0.6.

OK, so we toss 2011 because Kobe's knee was bum and his fingers mangled. You see Bryant fluctuating between playing at below 2.5 and playing right around the same efficiency as Harden.

So again, the volume isn't an issue here, it's irrelevant.

[CKRT]

Fallacy has been doing his best to undermine Harden since the trade happened, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to someone with so clear of an agenda against a player. That tends to get in the way of objective player analysis.

[tsherkin]

Fallacy has been doing his best to undermine Harden since the trade happened, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to someone with so clear of an agenda against a player. That tends to get in the way of objective player analysis.

I think we've effectively dispelled the notion that fallacy's point had any validity, though, what with the whole FG% issue. The motivation isn't altogether incomprehensible, though: right now, Harden is making his bones on the basis of his ability to get to the rim and to draw fouls... he hasn't been any kind of useful with his own offense outside of the paint. That point should not be lost. He needs his mid-range J to not suck (that for overall evolution) and he needs to figure out how to get going from 3.

[fallacy]

Fallacy has been doing his best to undermine Harden since the trade happened, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to someone with so clear of an agenda against a player. That tends to get in the way of objective player analysis.

viewtopic.php?p=33440635#p33440635

He's not super overrated but he's not a max player either, he's in between. I predict he has a 22/5/5 on 44 fg%, 33 3pt%, 55 ts% season.

I'm not trying to undermine him at all, this is what I predicted on October 29th. Guess what he's at now?

24/5/4 on 43 fg%, 29 3pt%, 56 ts%

So yes, I'm predicting him to improve on his percentages. He needs to stop shooting so many threes or finally give in and work on a mid range game (he's shooting more from the long two though). His eFg% is brutal right now



Fun fact: Comparing Harden to the Thunder's 10 man rotation, Harden would finish 9 out of 11 in eFg%

[tsherkin]

I'm not trying to undermine him at all, this is what I predicted on October 29th. Guess what he's at now?

24/5/4 on 43 fg%, 29 3pt%, 56 ts%

This isn't a defense, though: in this thread, you've been harping on FG% and have directly said that all Harden does to stay kind of efficient is get to the line. Then, when that was proved wildly incorrect, you clammed up. Referencing an older post that shows your prediction for Harden's stats doesn't really change that, nor does it overturn CKRT's point.

[fallacy]

I'm not trying to undermine him at all, this is what I predicted on October 29th. Guess what he's at now?

24/5/4 on 43 fg%, 29 3pt%, 56 ts%

This isn't a defense, though: in this thread, you've been harping on FG% and have directly said that all Harden does to stay kind of efficient is get to the line. Then, when that was proved wildly incorrect, you clammed up. Referencing an older post that shows your prediction for Harden's stats doesn't really change that, nor does it overturn CKRT's point.

I just used eFg% to backup my point, or is that some worthless stat as well? Harden is shooting very poorly, that's all my point was and no one will argue that he's shooting well. And I didn't clam up, I have a job where I don't have access to a computer. When I got home I continued our discussion, referencing different stats to prove my point.

[G35]

Fallacy has been doing his best to undermine Harden since the trade happened, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to someone with so clear of an agenda against a player. That tends to get in the way of objective player analysis.

I think we've effectively dispelled the notion that fallacy's point had any validity, though, what with the whole FG% issue. The motivation isn't altogether incomprehensible, though: right now, Harden is making his bones on the basis of his ability to get to the rim and to draw fouls... he hasn't been any kind of useful with his own offense outside of the paint. That point should not be lost. He needs his mid-range J to not suck (that for overall evolution) and he needs to figure out how to get going from 3.

Which I think is your primary motivation when posting is to make any argument that disagree's with your's invalid. I don't see how you can say his point has no validity but the motivation isn't altogether incomprehensible.

We all know that TS% favors those that can draw fouls and shoot well at the FT line. So Hardens game is dependent on the favor of the referee's on any particular night which I think is what fallacy is saying. I'm not really a fan of those players that live on the foul line and become superstars. As we are seeing those players that don't have quality teammates to open up the floor for them it's harder for them to maintain efficiency.

A superstar produces in all situations and environments, which is why there are so few superstars. I don't care if you are injured, sick, bad coach, ref's are out to get you, it doesn't matter. Production is all that matters. Harden's FG% in of itself doesn't paint the whole picture but it is an indication of how he is shooting from the field. If a defense can keep him off the line I would keep Harden in the mid-range area and take my chances.....

[CKRT]

Fun fact: Comparing Harden to the Thunder's 10 man rotation, Harden would finish 9 out of 11 in eFg%

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That kind of analysis just reeks of bias, and has literally no meaning whatsoever. Who led the Thunder in eFG% last year? Context is important man.