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

[zero rings]

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

The difference in efficiency between Reaves and Edwards is far more than a couple of bailout shots per game.

Reaves leads Edwards by a whopping +12 TS% and +9 eFG%. He shoots the ball better from 0-3, 3-10, 10-16, 16-3P, and 3P. He gets to the line at double the rate.

He's better at making tough shots too. According to NBA.com, Reaves has a .648 eFG% on contested shots and a .586 eFG% on tightly contested shots. Which is completely insane. Ant is at .519 and .426 respectively.

Reaves is assisted on 55.6% of his shots, while Ant is assisted on 60% of his.

When it comes to putting the ball in the basket Reaves looks like the better scorer in every way imaginable. Upping his usage would hurt his efficiency but not enough to bridge the gap between him and Ant. Not even close.

[Up-And-Coming]

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

Yes, not having to take bailout shots should help efficiency. However, when a player is demoted from the #1 option to the #2 or #3 option that also means the player will have the ball less. #1 options are accustomed to having the most usage and utilize that to pace the game, get in a rhythm and pick his spots to create. We have seen several #1 options who get traded to a better team and get assigned to a lesser role dip in efficiency as well simply because they're not as good off the ball as they are with the ball. It can go both ways.

[zero rings]

It's going to be fun watching people jump through hoops these next few years as they try to explain why Reaves isn't better than their favorite player.

[tsherkin]

It's going to be fun watching people jump through hoops these next few years as they try to explain why Reaves isn't better than their favorite player.

He has played very well to this point. If he continues to do this over a longer sample, that will be quite remarkable and worthy of more praise. We'll see what happens as he draws more attention from defenses and maybe as he draws more offensive responsibility, but so far? Damn.

[prophet_of_rage]

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?

Player A rather easily. I would assume A is a small forward and b is a power forward

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[TimberKat]

The poll basically saying we prefer player with higher efficiency over a player who scores a few more points when all things are equal. However, as many posters had pointed out most things aren’t equal (there is a lot more context, dimensions, and vector to a player that those stats). If you are the GM of the Lakers and David Khan offers to trade you Ant for Reaves + a future #1, how many people would say “No” to that? Is Ant or Reaves going to give Lakers a better chance to win a title?

Reaves is a good player and I don’t know if he ever going to be an NBA all star. I think he is going to be somewhere between Buddy Hield and Steve Nash (not using Klay Thompson as ceiling as I don’t think Reaves will ever be a good defender).

Ant is not an efficient player right now (he is also only 21, two years younger than Reaves). He definitely needs to improve in efficiency, see the floor at the macro level, and contribute without the ball on offense. He is operating at a level higher than Reaves right now.

The FIBA stats is misleading when used to conclude one player is better than another. There is a reason why Ant plays 36 mins per game vs Reaves’ 28.8, why Ant is selected to all star team, and why Ant avg 24.6 vs Reaves 13.0 besides taking more shots.
Using the same “extrapolation” and assumption method, looking at Craig Hodges’ stats from 1984-1989, you can conclude he is a better player than Michael Jordan when scale up his minute to Jordan’s level (don’t take this one literally, I didn’t bother to do the math). Using Derrick Williams’ college stats vs Ant’s college stats, you can conclude Williams will be a better NBA Pro than Ant. So, eye test is important in basketball to ensure we don’t miss use stats. While Reaves is a good and efficient player, he still has a long way to go to be able to carry a team.

[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

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.

That is not what I am asking.
If Lakers and Wolves agreed to trade Edwards for Reaves, what else would need to be included to make the trade fair?
Who owes the other team and what?

[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

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.

So today the Lakers have to give 2 FRPs (considering JHS was a first rounder this off-season) and a sometime starting PF.
But next year, Reaves will be so much better that Wolves would have to add to get Reaves?

[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.

That is not what I am asking.
If Lakers and Wolves agreed to trade Edwards for Reaves, what else would need to be included to make the trade fair?
Who owes the other team and what?

The trade being fair is tough if the fit isn't right..

But my guess is that Reaves+LAL29FRP for Edwards would be the deal that is close to the middle ground between both teams.

[Hoppy1]

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.

That is not what I am asking.
If Lakers and Wolves agreed to trade Edwards for Reaves, what else would need to be included to make the trade fair?
Who owes the other team and what?

The trade being fair is tough if the fit isn't right..

But my guess is that Reaves+LAL29FRP for Edwards would be the deal that is close to the middle ground between both teams.

That is where the eye test vs stats falls apart. I don't think you could pry Edwards away from Minnesota with Reaves and 1 FRP.
In fact I think if you asked Reaves himself, he would say the same.

If Austin Reaves was as sure of himself as posters claim to be, he would not have signed a $12MM contract or a contract that would give him $39MM over the next 3 years. He would have signed the maximum allowable for a year and resigned the big contract next year.

The FIBA sample is off because of a few issues.
While the games played are the same, the sample size is small.
Different style of play in FIBA vs NBA. Superstars are protected in the NBA, not so much in International games.
Usage by the coach. Roles were not the same as Edwards was playing downhill while Reaves was perimeter focused.

[zimpy27]

That is not what I am asking.
If Lakers and Wolves agreed to trade Edwards for Reaves, what else would need to be included to make the trade fair?
Who owes the other team and what?

The trade being fair is tough if the fit isn't right..

But my guess is that Reaves+LAL29FRP for Edwards would be the deal that is close to the middle ground between both teams.

That is where the eye test vs stats falls apart. I don't think you could pry Edwards away from Minnesota with Reaves and 1 FRP.
In fact I think if you asked Reaves himself, he would say the same.

If Austin Reaves was as sure of himself as posters claim to be, he would not have signed a $12MM contract or a contract that would give him $39MM over the next 3 years. He would have signed the maximum allowable for a year and resigned the big contract next year.

The FIBA sample is off because of a few issues.
While the games played are the same, the sample size is small.
Different style of play in FIBA vs NBA. Superstars are protected in the NBA, not so much in International games.
Usage by the coach. Roles were not the same as Edwards was playing downhill while Reaves was perimeter focused.

I don't think you could pry Edwards away from Minnesota for Reaves+FRP and I don't think that you could pry more than Reaves+FRP from Lakers for Edwards.

That's why I had it as the middle value. My initial point is that the fit isn't there so the trade wouldn't have either team meeting expectations of the other.

[ShootersShoot]

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?

Context matters more. Deandre jordan has an incredible TS%, but that doesnt mean he can be relied upon as a go to scorer.

[TimberKat]

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?

Context matters more. Deandre jordan has an incredible TS%, but that doesnt mean he can be relied upon as a go to scorer.

We overrate stats and take it out of context way more than bad eye test. If we just look at the triple double stats, Westbrook is awesome. Watch the games and dig deeper into other stats, a lot of the triple double values gets cancelled out.

[Deshaun Taden]

We should just hand Reaves the MVP already, and boot ANT out of the league for being a scrub.

[naabzor]

What OP really did demonstrate is that stats mean nothing without context. That's it, nothing else. If it's aim was to try to say that Reaves is equally good or better than Ant it failed miserably.