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

[zimpy27]

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.

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

[tsherkin]

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.

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

What. That doesnt make sense.

[fuller4379]

C - Luka Doncic.

[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.

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

So you're looking at his FIBA stats and extrapolating to 36 minutes?

This is fuzzy math.

[kds92]

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

All of them. All the first round picks for one draft.

[Up-And-Coming]

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.

Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture but not for some of the reasons you listed. It doesn't take into account defense although I'm confident Reaves' defensive criticisms have been overblown; he's not a defensive specialist like Caruso but also not as bad as Herro or D'Angelo and his NBA metrics prove it. Also, what players are truly switchable on defense for all positions 1-5? If Reaves wasn't on the floor Haliburton would certainly get targeted and with all likelihood similar results and the list goes on. The reality is Reaves only played 4 less minutes per game so per 36 is not that far a stretch.

Both players were compared using the same metrics. Also why would you only take those 3 games (Ant's best) and not the rest? Your metrics paint even less of the picture than the original OP. Because it might show Edwards can't score efficiently against lesser competition? Or he's a more streaky shooter?

Yes, we'd choose Edwards over Reaves taking into consideration age, athleticism and defensive potential but Reaves certainly had a helluva FIBA run and is young himself and improving.

[markjay]

Anthony Edwards and Austin Reaves in FIBA?

[GreatWhiteStiff]

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.

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

What. That doesnt make sense.

I mean I don't know about his FIBA stats but his 40% three point shot hurt his TS% last nba season too, and he was among the league leaders there.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

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.

Prime Bird was like 59% TS in regular sesasons and I think it dropped off big time in the playoffs. And that is just a 4 year prime period. Rest of his career was like 55ish.

Of course if he played today he'd average 35/12/8 with like 70% TS because of some reasons.

[dk1115]

I didn't read any other replies before posting, but it looks like player B only shoots the best shots which can actually hinder an offense. I think my answer is A, even though B looks like a superstar.

[Deshaun Taden]

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..

I mean if I had 1000 games worth of stats I'd probably concede my eyes probably aren't correct if I thought drastically different from those stats. But 8 games of international play at a C level tournament at that, eeeeh...I mean there's a reason why you refused to list the sample size and all that stuff.

Just because a mod does something doesn't change that it's trolling. It just means nobody is going to argue and risk getting banned for it. It's really not the thought provoking, brilliant thing you are telling yourself it is.

[zimpy27]

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

What. That doesnt make sense.

So you're looking at his FIBA stats and extrapolating to 36 minutes?

This is fuzzy math.

TS% isn't impacted by extrapolating to 36 minutes. Only the integers (point, assists, blocks, etc) are impacted.


Reaves went 50% from 3 in FIBA but that has a TS% of 75% (maximum TS from 3 is 150%)
He went 63% from 2 but that has a TS% of 63% (maximum TS from 2 is 100%)
He gets his main boost from FT, he went to line 8 times per 36 at 95%.. that has a TS% of 107.8% (maximum TS from FT is 113.6%)

[zimpy27]

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..

I mean if I had 1000 games worth of stats I'd probably concede my eyes probably aren't correct if I thought drastically different from those stats. But 8 games of international play at a C level tournament at that, eeeeh...I mean there's a reason why you refused to list the sample size and all that stuff.

Just because a mod does something doesn't change that it's trolling. It just means nobody is going to argue and risk getting banned for it. It's really not the thought provoking, brilliant thing you are telling yourself it is.

Well actually both players played the same amount of games in the FIBA tournament and people came away saying Ant was by far the best player, some were saying Reaves was unplayable. This is the same 8 games I list here.

Secondly, Ant was just voted 17th best player in our player ranking poll on here and a lot of that comes from the 5 games he just played in the playoffs last season (against same opponent too). People use eye test to push narratives from very few games all the time.

Thirdly, there is a pattern beyond the 8 games


No one thinks this is trolling, only feeling insecure about one's own evaluation of players would bring them to attack the messenger rather than be introspective and think about why they think the things they do. I'm not asking you to change your mind, just asking you to think about how you evaluate players (eye test or box score, and in what proportion).

[Wagonband]

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.

That's not how basketball works though... Someone has to take the tough shots, because you aren't getting a good look every time down the floor. Reaves can avoid those tough shots, because he has LeBron and AD taking them. Who's gonna take them in Minny? Gobert?

Some of the elite players have lower TS% because they have to carry the load and take shots others don't even try because they aren't making them. Some players have to step up and lose TS% because of it.

[SlovenianDragon]

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.

That's not how basketball works though... Someone has to take the tough shots, because you aren't getting a good look every time down the floor. Reaves can avoid those tough shots, because he has LeBron and AD taking them. Who's gonna take them in Minny? Gobert?

Some of the elite players have lower TS% because they have to carry the load and take shots others don't even try because they aren't making them. Some players have to step up and lose TS% because of it.

Watch on YouTube

[JJ_PR]

The Lakers are going to be scary good this season. I wouldn't want to face them in the playoffs at all. They have lots of depth. Darvin Ham will without a doubt have to limit LeBron's minutes this year, & that should be an issue with the Lakers crazy depth.

[Capn'O]

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

What. That doesnt make sense.

So you're looking at his FIBA stats and extrapolating to 36 minutes?

This is fuzzy math.

TS% isn't impacted by extrapolating to 36 minutes. Only the integers (point, assists, blocks, etc) are impacted.


Reaves went 50% from 3 in FIBA but that has a TS% of 75% (maximum TS from 3 is 150%)
He went 63% from 2 but that has a TS% of 63% (maximum TS from 2 is 100%)
He gets his main boost from FT, he went to line 8 times per 36 at 95%.. that has a TS% of 107.8% (maximum TS from FT is 113.6%)

No obviously TS is TS.

The fuzzy part is not only taking a limited sample in FIBA but also extrapolating the raw stats for comparison. You can't just Per36 it and have us do a raw comparison without telling us. The poll was disingenuous.

[tsherkin]

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

What. That doesnt make sense.

I mean I don't know about his FIBA stats but his 40% three point shot hurt his TS% last nba season too, and he was among the league leaders there.

Actually player B (Reaves) had an even higher TS% (80%) when you removed the 3 ball from the TS% equation

What. That doesnt make sense.

So you're looking at his FIBA stats and extrapolating to 36 minutes?

This is fuzzy math.

TS% isn't impacted by extrapolating to 36 minutes. Only the integers (point, assists, blocks, etc) are impacted.


Reaves went 50% from 3 in FIBA but that has a TS% of 75% (maximum TS from 3 is 150%)
He went 63% from 2 but that has a TS% of 63% (maximum TS from 2 is 100%)
He gets his main boost from FT, he went to line 8 times per 36 at 95%.. that has a TS% of 107.8% (maximum TS from FT is 113.6%)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant "excising 3pt shooting from TS% doesn't make sense."

[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.

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.

Correct, however it's a pretty slim chance of happening in most cases, but especially at the NBA level. Reason being is that the player has likely shown some efficiency in order to get the role of being the #1 guy, so odds are that a reduction in role/usage will increase efficiency. At the very least, you'd expect someone who drops from a #1 to #2 or #3 to take less of the bailout shots, which will increase efficiency just by virtue of not having to take the worst efficiency shots

[zimpy27]

What. That doesnt make sense.

So you're looking at his FIBA stats and extrapolating to 36 minutes?

This is fuzzy math.

TS% isn't impacted by extrapolating to 36 minutes. Only the integers (point, assists, blocks, etc) are impacted.


Reaves went 50% from 3 in FIBA but that has a TS% of 75% (maximum TS from 3 is 150%)
He went 63% from 2 but that has a TS% of 63% (maximum TS from 2 is 100%)
He gets his main boost from FT, he went to line 8 times per 36 at 95%.. that has a TS% of 107.8% (maximum TS from FT is 113.6%)

No obviously TS is TS.

The fuzzy part is not only taking a limited sample in FIBA but also extrapolating the raw stats for comparison. You can't just Per36 it and have us do a raw comparison without telling us. The poll was disingenuous.

In OP I did say it was scaled to 36 minutes..