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

[jbk1234]

Player B's FTA/game would worry me because it's hard to sustain that rate, especially in the playoffs. If player B isn't getting 8 free throws, can he still get to 20ppg, can he create his own shot. or does he sacrifice his efficiency by shooting more?

[gavran]

Depends, which one has the bigger boobs? Hey, you didn't say I have to assume both are men.

[mcmurphy]

Interested in hearing which players people would prefer on their team.

It's based purely on box score stats and both players play similar minutes but they are scaled to 36 mins here.
This is box score only so offense leaning, can't take into account defense other steals+blocks but they are similar there.
These are 2 real players that play a similar position. I will reveal them later.


Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to

Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to

Who would you prefer?

Bonus questions:
Who is more likely to be an all-star?
Which position do these 2 play?

yeahhh, I prefere Robert Williams III over Embiid... no, I'm wrong, it's not them

[Edrees]

Hard to say definitvely without context and also without defensive impact, but I'd be more likely to prefer Player B.

[Lalouie]

Interested in hearing which players people would prefer on their team.

It's based purely on box score stats and both players play similar minutes but they are scaled to 36 mins here.
This is box score only so offense leaning, can't take into account defense other steals+blocks but they are similar there.
These are 2 real players that play a similar position. I will reveal them later.


Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to

Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to

Who would you prefer?

Bonus questions:
Who is more likely to be an all-star?
Which position do these 2 play?

if bball is a game of chemistry and synergy, then hard stats aren't enough

what's the player position,
what's his team's record,
what his team's record w/o him

[ShootersShoot]

I'd take the guy with 78% TS. Basically his teammates would have 10 FG attempts to make up the 3.5 point difference between him and player A.

The 2 rebound advantage and .7 TO difference is negligible imo

They both seem like wings, maybe one is a SF and one is a SG.

That is just with the knowledge provided. Now, if other variables appear such as player A was an elite defender while player B is one of the worst, or if player A plays way less minutes than player B, etc., then I might rethink it. There may also be a chance they are both around the same caliber of player, but one could a first option on a bad team and the other is a second on a stacked team.

[JazzP]

Player A is Michael Jordan, Player B has to be Larry Bird. It seems like Player A is a superstar, & OP wants to make a case that Player B is better.

There is no season Larry Bird had even CLOSE to that TS%, his career high per BBRef is 61.2%.

Also that FG attempts per game seems low

[tsherkin]

Oooh, interesting!

Obviously, only so much context, so only so much to be drawn, but others have discussed this already.

Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to

Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to

Unless you're Jokic, being anywhere near that level of efficiency seems unsustainable as others have said. Somewhat limp playmaking from both, but you said Player B was a second option, so that makes some sense. Not knowing if they gamble, are just really good at timing and positioning for steals, or if it's just sample size, hard to evaluate the steals. Turnovers are high, especially for an 11 FGA/g second option. .727 FTr isn't going to last, so that efficiency is going to drop over a larger sample. That level of draw rate is unprecedented over an NBA season, so it's basically not even worth considering.

10+ FGA/g, 60+ GP and .600+ FTr has happened 5 times. Giannis (2022 at 29.9 ppg and 2023 at 31.1 ppg), Wilt (1968, 24.3 ppg), Dantley (1984, 30.6 ppg) and Shaq (2001, 28.7 ppg) have done it. That's it.

Top FTr was .684 from Shaq, then .677 from Wilt, then .658 from Dantley, then .615 and .604 from 2022 and 2023 Giannis.

So that's an immense red flag.

No mention of RS or PS performance, no mention of their shooting percentages, nor assisted proportion, nor position, nor shooting distribution (like range-based zones), nor MPG, so it's hard to even envision what's going on besides a short-sample shooting streak and some really, really lucky officiating for player B. We can infer from 21 FGA and .248 FTr that Player A isn't shooting terribly well, though, and probably not spamming 3s.

55.8% TS sucks in today's game, as that would be -2.3% rTS, and even -0.8% relative to postseason league average this past season.

So player A is an inefficient focal player who doesn't provide a lot of playmaking to offset their weak scoring contributions, and that makes them unappealing.

Player B, then, is a short-sample star in a secondary role posting unsustainable stats, and it's hard to evaluate their overall utility. We know they turn the ball over a lot in this sample, but not if that's normal or what they were doing. Maybe relentlessly Corey Maggette'g their way to the rim and being rewarded, but coughing it up a lot?

Player A feels like he's probably a SF or an undersized 4. Player B feels like he's probably more of a SG or something similar.



TL;DR, not enough information except that Player A isn't showcasing strong focal scoring and Player B can't possibly sustain that performance over an extended sample.

EDIT: Obviously, my remarks about scoring efficiency have to change at least a little if you are envisioning this players in earlier eras.

[JazzP]

I think these are fundamentally different players.
Player A has a much higher usage rate, they are the main source of offense for their team when they're playing, and perhaps even the only source of offense. With that many FG attempts, FT attempts, assists and turnovers, their Usage Rate must be really high, no matter how many possessions that team plays at.

Meanwhile Player B is only attempting 11 shots per game, almost half. Their scoring efficiency is absurd, and they're even averaging almost as many PPG because of their ability to get to the line (seriously, 8 FT per game on only 11 FG per game??).
But they AREN'T the main source of offense on this team, there's no doubt about it. Their turnover rate being so high seems to indicate that they probably aren't someone that you want to have the ball in their hands a ton, though they're clearly a very, very strong finisher.

To be honest, they seem like they'd be best serves as complimentary players. It's also cool that they both seem good defensively, I'm not sure which style I'd prefer more, I suppose it depends on the position. Which you did also ask us to guess, right?

Probably both SGs, maybe the first can flex SF.

Also-
Player A's stats seem far more normalized than Player B's, so I'm assuming that Player A actually gets like 18+ minutes a game. If they were to play 36 minutes per game, it would be rather similar to Paul George (as I think someone else said), but nowhere is it identical, I don't think.

Player B's stats are almost certainly at under 10 minutes a game, I would think. I would believe that the TS% is getting a lot of benefit from the absurd FT rate, I wonder how efficient player B actually is from the field, and if they are forcing these fouls or if they are just the designated FT shooter in garbage time situations or something (though I think that's an exaggeration, at least they do have 11 FG attempts per 36).

I voted player B, because I like high efficiency role guys, if this person gets regular minutes. If it can be assumed that they might be able to replicate that over 36 minutes, that's definitely what I'd take. Either way, I think they're probably due for a bigger role.

But Player A is almost certainly the player who's proven more at this point.

[JJ_PR]

Player B has 0 blocks, so it's probably a guard. Donovan Mitchell?

[clippertown]

Any player shooting 21 times per game is likely to be the main offensive force on the team, thus more likely to be a star.

[MavsDirk41]

Player B is way more efficient and gets to the line more, although he turns the ball over a little more.

[CDM_Stats]

Player B has 0 blocks, so it's probably a guard. Donovan Mitchell?

Likely, but that said, we aren't given a timeframe here.. so it could be a non-shot-blocking big as well who's not getting much time. The extremely high TS% means we're looking at a series or a seldom used player, likely a specialist

[Up-And-Coming]

Taken at face value Player B is much more impressive. However once it's confirmed who it is opinions will change Context does matter though and it's not as simple as translating efficiency with increased time and shots but the same criticism should be applied to Player A. Player B's efficiency probably dips with increased shots but he should still be more efficient than almost every player at his position.

[zimpy27]

Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to


Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to



These were the stats of Edwards and Reaves taken from the 8 FIBA world cup games played and scaled to per 36 minutes.
In reality, Edwards played 26mpg and Reaves played 22mpg.

Both are SGs that rebound well for their position and scan score/pass.

Based on box score alone it seems like 86% of posters (50 votes to 8) preferred Reaves over Ant on Team USA.
However, it seemed quite the opposite from posts in game threads.

Interesting for sure. Thanks for those who participated.

[whatisacenter]

Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to


Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to



These were the stats of Edwards and Reaves taken from the 8 FIBA world cup games played and scaled to per 36 minutes.
In reality, Edwards played 26mpg and Reaves played 22mpg.

Both are SGs that rebound well for their position and scan score/pass.

Based on box score alone it seems like 86% of posters (50 votes to 8) preferred Reaves over Ant on Team USA.
However, it seemed quite the opposite from posts in game threads.

Interesting for sure. Thanks for those who participated.

You are a Lakers' fan, right? Curious which player you would choose for your team?

[zimpy27]

Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to


Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to



These were the stats of Edwards and Reaves taken from the 8 FIBA world cup games played and scaled to per 36 minutes.
In reality, Edwards played 26mpg and Reaves played 22mpg.

Both are SGs that rebound well for their position and scan score/pass.

Based on box score alone it seems like 86% of posters (50 votes to 8) preferred Reaves over Ant on Team USA.
However, it seemed quite the opposite from posts in game threads.

Interesting for sure. Thanks for those who participated.

You are a Lakers' fan, right? Curious which player you would choose for your team?

For NBA I'd choose Ant, for FIBA I'd choose Reaves

[Sakkreth]

Stats you gave doesn't paint the entire picture. People chose the stats not the players. You can't ask if you prefer 11rpg player or 7rpg player and then when people choose 11rpg player say that they prefer Adams over LeBron.

Another thing is that in WC teams are imbalanced. US had 3 real games in the tournament, not 8. OK, maybe we can consider Montenegro too. Unfortunately for them, they lost all 3 (rather closely). Taking only those 3 games would be much more accurate representation. It doesn't really matter how well you play vs Jordan or New Zealand etc.

Edwards had 35 vs Lithuania, 23 vs Germany and 24 vs Canada.

Besides, scaling up to 36mpg from different minutes amount is not very fair when Reaves literally couldn't be on the floor as he was targeted.

[shrink]

Player A: 26pts on 55.8% TS, 21fga, 5.2fta, 6.4reb, 3.8ast, 1.6stl, 0.7blk, 2.8to


Player B: 22.6pts on 78.4% TS, 11fga, 8 fta, 4.5reb, 3.9ast, 2.1stl, 0blk, 3.5to



These were the stats of Edwards and Reaves taken from the 8 FIBA world cup games played and scaled to per 36 minutes.
In reality, Edwards played 26mpg and Reaves played 22mpg.

Both are SGs that rebound well for their position and scan score/pass.

Based on box score alone it seems like 86% of posters (50 votes to 8) preferred Reaves over Ant on Team USA.
However, it seemed quite the opposite from posts in game threads.

Interesting for sure. Thanks for those who participated.

You are a Lakers' fan, right? Curious which player you would choose for your team?

For NBA I'd choose Ant, for FIBA I'd choose Reaves

Because being hunted defensively didn’t happen in FIBA?

I expect Team USA won’t agree with you. I expect Edwards to be invited back for the Olympics, and Reaves won’t. The Game thread posts preferring Ant aren’t some anti-Laker bias.

[zimpy27]

You are a Lakers' fan, right? Curious which player you would choose for your team?

For NBA I'd choose Ant, for FIBA I'd choose Reaves

Because being hunted defensively didn’t happen in FIBA?

I expect Team USA won’t agree with you. I expect Edwards to be invited back for the Olympics, and Reaves won’t. The Game thread posts preferring Ant aren’t some anti-Laker bias.

Relax, someone asked me a question and I answered who I'd choose.
I think Reaves is the perfect FIBA player for Team USA given that he can be extremely efficient in a smaller role.

Edwards TS% was 55.8%
The rest of Team USA combined had a TS% of 67% (that's even with Ingram and CamJ stinking it up)