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

[Hoppy1]

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.

But there is a MAJOR BUT here. In the NBA you would take Edwards 99.9% of the time. He will get the calls that FIBA officials do not provide to the "name" players.

[zimpy27]

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.

Yeah I highly doubt Ant would be more efficient than Reaves. I also dont think Reaves could generate as many shots for himself as Ant.

But you have to decide if you want shots taken or shots made, sometimes one is good and sometimes the other is good.

[ellobo]

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.

It works both ways though. There are a lot of players whose game only functions in a "star" role (ball-dominant/high usage). Some are really good at it and are actual stars. Some are mediocre at it and are too inefficient (empty stat players) or unproductive (even in a prominent role the raw production is lacking) to deserve the role or to contribute to winning. Many have been good at it at lower levels of competition, but not good enough for the NBA.

Some can adapt to be efficient and effective role players, but many can't, just like role players who star in their roles can't necessarily scale their efficiency or production to an expanded role.

[zimpy27]

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.

But there is a MAJOR BUT here. In the NBA you would take Edwards 99.9% of the time. He will get the calls that FIBA officials do not provide to the "name" players.

Ant is better in NBA agree, if nothing for the fact that he's younger and has higher upside still.

Point of this was to highlight the different perception of eye test and box score collectively.

People are ignoring this but I think it's important to discuss it.

[Hoppy1]

.

Yeah I highly doubt Ant would be more efficient than Reaves. I also dont think Reaves could generate as many shots for himself as Ant.

But you have to decide if you want shots taken or shots made, sometimes one is good and sometimes the other is good.

That is a good point as well. Edwards is going to have the ball much more. He is also expected to take the shot when the clock is winding down. He is the offensive star of his team. He is 1A, 1B on the team.
Reaves can defer to Anthony/James. He is there for the kickout and not really the primary gun. He is third at best.

[CDM_Stats]

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.

Yeah I highly doubt Ant would be more efficient than Reaves. I also dont think Reaves could generate as many shots for himself as Ant.

But you have to decide if you want shots taken or shots made, sometimes one is good and sometimes the other is good.

Its symbiotic in most cases. Reaves can take better shots if someone else is taking more of the bad ones, and eventually Ant can take better shots as Reaves is scaled up due to his efficiency, until there's some diminishing returns and they find the sweet spot. If they were actual teammates anyways.. which is why with numbers like these, I dont put a ton of stock into them. For situations like international play, smarter/adaptable players thrive while ones who get by on talent struggle, relative to what they can normally do

Neither Ant nor Reaves would be as good as the other if they switched roles, I was arguing against the idea that Reaves is a better player simply because his shooting efficiency numbers in an 8 game stretch were elite

EDIT: Oh I see whats happening... when I said Ant would be more efficient, I meant relative to himself and his numbers that he put up, not to Reaves.

[zero rings]

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.

The data shows quite clearly that Player B is dominant in his role and Player A is mediocre in his.

Taking a bunch of tough shots only matters if you make enough of them to add value. You don’t get partial credit for trying.

The is is my problem with players like Ant. They play the star role and they don’t bring the star impact. KD also takes a lot of tough shots, but we give him credit because the ball actually goes in the basket.

If Ant being a 70 TS% guy is just a matter of role reduction, then he should dial it back and help his team win more games. But of course it’s more about his lack of elite skill. Reducing his role won’t make him the shooter, ball handler, and foul drawer that Reaves is.

[nikster]

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.

But there is a MAJOR BUT here. In the NBA you would take Edwards 99.9% of the time. He will get the calls that FIBA officials do not provide to the "name" players.

Ant is better in NBA agree, if nothing for the fact that he's younger and has higher upside still.

Point of this was to highlight the different perception of eye test and box score collectively.

People are ignoring this but I think it's important to discuss it.

it was a good comparison, think these box scores show how they performed in their roles. The box score favours Reaves but people tend to prefer the player in the star role. Also one of few times people couldnt' identify who OP is talking about in a player A vs B thread, possibly because its using FIBA stats

If Reaves is a better role player, I wonder how talented a team you would have to have for a team to prefer Reaves over ANT.

[Hoppy1]

What is needed to make this trade fair? How many FRPs to make it even?

Minnesota sends Edwards to the Lakers
Lakers send Reaves to the Wolves

[zimpy27]

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.

Yeah I highly doubt Ant would be more efficient than Reaves. I also dont think Reaves could generate as many shots for himself as Ant.

But you have to decide if you want shots taken or shots made, sometimes one is good and sometimes the other is good.

Its symbiotic in most cases. Reaves can take better shots if someone else is taking more of the bad ones, and eventually Ant can take better shots as Reaves is scaled up due to his efficiency, until there's some diminishing returns and they find the sweet spot. If they were actual teammates anyways.. which is why with numbers like these, I dont put a ton of stock into them. For situations like international play, smarter/adaptable players thrive while ones who get by on talent struggle, relative to what they can normally do

Neither Ant nor Reaves would be as good as the other if they switched roles, I was arguing against the idea that Reaves is a better player simply because his shooting efficiency numbers in an 8 game stretch were elite

EDIT: Oh I see whats happening... when I said Ant would be more efficient, I meant relative to himself and his numbers that he put up, not to Reaves.

Yeah I think I understood you but just clarified. And I agree.

Reaves would be a pretty interesting to pair with Ant and McDaniels I think.

Yeah I don't think Reaves is better at playing Ants role than Ant.

I think Reaves is elite at being a 3rd offensive option but couldn't generate the shots of a 1st option.
Ant is not elite yet as a 1st option but he is growing in that direction and younger than Reaves.

I think this experiment was more to highlight a "star in their role" mentality and also to see how we regulate what we see with box score stats and vice versa.

[CDM_Stats]

The data shows quite clearly that Player B is dominant in his role and Player A is mediocre in his.

Taking a bunch of tough shots only matters if you make enough of them to add value. You don’t get partial credit for trying.

The is is my problem with players like Ant. They play the star role and they don’t bring the star impact. KD also takes a lot of tough shots, but we give him credit because the ball actually goes in the basket.

If Ant being a 70 TS% guy is just a matter of role reduction, then he should dial it back and help his team win more games. But of course it’s more about his lack of elite skill. Reducing his role won’t make him the shooter, ball handler, and foul drawer that Reaves is.

Never said Ant was a 70% TS guy, I said he'd be more efficient if his role is reduced. Reducing his role to what Reeves does would make him take better shots at lower volume, which increases efficiency. Similarly if Reeves had to take up the #1 mantle, his efficiency would tumble considerably. Are these points not well-accepted by everyone? I assumed they were at this point

Edwards is more tailored to be a #1, Reaves is tailored to be a complementary piece. The great majority of teams would prefer Edwards because getting a #1 is infinitely harder than getting a complementary piece, even an elite one. That Edwards isn't an elite #1 at 22 years old doesn't make him less valuable than a more polished role player thats 3 years his senior

Yes, you get credit for taking the tough shots when the offense stagnates. Because someone has to. Because they always happen, to even the best teams, and you want to give the ball to your best tough-shot maker. So someone is always going to absorb that and the lower efficiency that brings, which also elevates the efficiency of others because they arent taking those shots

[zimpy27]

What is needed to make this trade fair? How many FRPs to make it even?

Minnesota sends Edwards to the Lakers
Lakers send Reaves to the Wolves

Minnesota need a first option and Lakers don't, the trade doesn't fit.

I'd be more interested in a McDaniels for Reaves or a KAT for Reaves trade.

[iggymcfrack]

Damn, I knew Reaves was really good and played great in the World Cup, but I didn’t realize what a menace he is. He’s going to be all-NBA in like 2 years, watch.

[One Last Shot]

What is needed to make this trade fair? How many FRPs to make it even?

Minnesota sends Edwards to the Lakers
Lakers send Reaves to the Wolves

I think adding Vanderbilt + JHS + 2029 frp should do it and Wolves need to hurry up and offer this trade as Austin Reaves will be sensational next season, his value will almost certainly skyrocket. He will have a heavy load and carry the Lakers as LeBron and AD will both miss atleast 30 games. If they wait until next offseason, they are the one who need to add draft picks just to get AR.

[zero rings]

The data shows quite clearly that Player B is dominant in his role and Player A is mediocre in his.

Taking a bunch of tough shots only matters if you make enough of them to add value. You don’t get partial credit for trying.

The is is my problem with players like Ant. They play the star role and they don’t bring the star impact. KD also takes a lot of tough shots, but we give him credit because the ball actually goes in the basket.

If Ant being a 70 TS% guy is just a matter of role reduction, then he should dial it back and help his team win more games. But of course it’s more about his lack of elite skill. Reducing his role won’t make him the shooter, ball handler, and foul drawer that Reaves is.

Never said Ant was a 70% TS guy, I said he'd be more efficient if his role is reduced. Reducing his role to what Reeves does would make him take better shots at lower volume, which increases efficiency. Similarly if Reeves had to take up the #1 mantle, his efficiency would tumble considerably. Are these points not well-accepted by everyone? I assumed they were at this point

Edwards is more tailored to be a #1, Reaves is tailored to be a complementary piece. The great majority of teams would prefer Edwards because getting a #1 is infinitely harder than getting a complementary piece, even an elite one. That Edwards isn't an elite #1 at 22 years old doesn't make him less valuable than a more polished role player thats 3 years his senior

Yes, you get credit for taking the tough shots when the offense stagnates. Because someone has to. Because they always happen, to even the best teams, and you want to give the ball to your best tough-shot maker. So someone is always going to absorb that and the lower efficiency that brings, which also elevates the efficiency of others because they arent taking those shots

If Edwards isn’t very good in his role as the #1 option, why does it actually matter?

Guys like Derozan and Lavine can masquerade as #1 options too. But your team is going nowhere so it’s not actually that valuable.

Also, I’m not convinced that Edwards is more tailored to be a #1 than Reaves. The gap in skill level is still going to be there no matter what the role is.

[picc]

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?

The issue is you’re presenting these questions as some kind of breaking thought experiment, when if we knew who the players were from the start, everyone would have applied the appropriate context to make those same questions irrelevant.

[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?

The issue is you’re presenting these questions as some kind of breaking thought experiment, when if we knew who the players were from the start, everyone would have applied the appropriate context to make those same questions irrelevant.

That is actually the point.

I di dit this way to show that the box score numbers present Reaves as better (85% of people voted so) and I think based on eye test 90% of people would have said Ant was better than Reaves in FIBA.

Now I want to see what people think about how we use eye and stats to evaluate players.

[Capn'O]

I don't think this is clear cut.

Player B doesn't feel real. Why aren't they getting more of a role? They must be amazing from 3 but not much else going on? And they're coughing the ball up a lot. So basically we're looking at the GOAT 3 point shooter who is otherwise a bit of a liability.

I'd probably still choose B.



Player A is a SF and B a SG.

They're both all stars.

[picc]

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?

The issue is you’re presenting these questions as some kind of breaking thought experiment, when if we knew who the players were from the start, everyone would have applied the appropriate context to make those same questions irrelevant.

That is actually the point.

I di dit this way to show that the box score numbers present Reaves as better (85% of people voted so) and I think based on eye test 90% of people would have said Ant was better than Reaves in FIBA.

Now I want to see what people think about how we use eye and stats to evaluate players.

But everyone already knows that stats alone dont determine a players worth, and evaluation based 100% on either stats or eye test is flawed. Literally everyone knows this already.

You basically asked “is it possible we need to use context when evaluating players?”, to which the answer is, “no ****.”

[zimpy27]

The issue is you’re presenting these questions as some kind of breaking thought experiment, when if we knew who the players were from the start, everyone would have applied the appropriate context to make those same questions irrelevant.

That is actually the point.

I di dit this way to show that the box score numbers present Reaves as better (85% of people voted so) and I think based on eye test 90% of people would have said Ant was better than Reaves in FIBA.

Now I want to see what people think about how we use eye and stats to evaluate players.

But everyone already knows that stats alone dont determine a players worth, and evaluation based 100% on either stats or eye test is flawed. Literally everyone knows this already.

You basically asked “is it possible we need to use context when evaluating players?”, to which the answer is, “no ****.”

We know stats don't explain everything, I'm actually thinking they might actually mean very little to people here.

If anything I think a lot of people base thoughts 100% on eye test. Then if stats back this up they show stats. As soon as stats disagree they tell stats to pound sand. This means the stats have very little to no basis even if they agree with eye test.

From this experiment most people seem to decide on a player using eye test, if stats don't match eye test then stats get thrown out or explained away, or people get annoyed at the person simply asking the question..