Re: Dominique's efficiency and Reggie's riseThe way we judge scoring efficiency has always bugged me...and I've never been able to put my finger on why. This Dominique vs Reggie debate is kind of helping me put it in perspective a bit, though. True Shooting Percentage, which is kind of our shooting efficiency gold standard, puts way too much emphasis on the ability to make 3s. I mean, WAY too much emphasis. The ability to make 3s and stretch defenses is definitely a positive, but the effect that it has on TS% is way out of proportion to its benefit.
Consider: I ran a player comparison on B-R for Miller, Nique and Ray Allen through age 35 (
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2001 ). Over that period Miller's TS% is a whopping 62%, compared to Nique's 54%. To me, I see that number and I can understand why so many people are praising Reggie as a paragon of efficiency and downtalking Nique as inefficient.
But then, I take a step back.
And when I do, I notice that when you look at actual shot attempts/makes (including FTs*.44 as 1 shot attempt), I see that Nique took 23.8 shot attempts per game and made 12.1 of them. Reggie, meanwhile, had 15.8 shot attempts per game and made 8.5 of them. In other words, when Nique attempted a shot he scored 51% of the time, while when Reggie attempted a shot he scored 54% of the time. This would suggest that Reggie scored at a slightly more efficient pace, but well within reason considering that Nique had the larger volume. That the extra 1.3 3-pointers that Reggie made per game, then, gives him such a HUGE boost in the efficiency stats we have is an indication to me that we are over-valuing the trey.
Especially when I take a further step back and look at other small forwards that scored at around Nique's volume but that also don't rely as heavily on the 3-pointer.
Nique: 25 ppg on 54% TS
English: 22 ppg on 55% TS
Bird: 24 ppg on 56% TS
Melo: 25 ppg on 55% TS
None of these other players are ever criticized as being inefficient or gunners...not that I've ever heard of. And the main differences between them and someone like Reggie is that Reggie was taking and making more 3s than them. Again, the 3-pointer is valuable and I have no issue with giving it a statistical boost. But at the same time, the 3-pointer is something that happens relatively rarely. Even Reggie Miller, very arguably the best 3-point shooter in NBA history, on average made fewer than two treys per game. I just think focusing on TS% and even offensive win shares (and by extension offensive rating) puts WAY too much emphasis on such a small part of the game.
With Nique, you get a wing player that you can put the ball in his hands to score 24 times a game and he will produce a bucket more than half the time. Some have pointed out that inefficient volume scoring may not be irreplaceable, and in many cases I might agree. But what Nique was giving you, I'd argue, was valuable indeed. Go back up and look at the list of his scoring/non-3-point-shooting peers...Nique was right there in both volume and efficiency. Excellent posts by TMac4MVP and my own contributions over the course of this project have demonstrated at the very least a positive correlation between Nique's scoring and corresponding good team results for the Hawks offense. He was generally the only player that could create his own shot effectively on teams finishing with top-5 offenses in the league...the Hawks finished top-5 in team ORTG every year from 1987 - 1990, 8th in '91, then 16th in the '92 season where Nique missed 40 games. I don't think that's a coincidence.
I think Reggie was a great player. I like that he is able to ramp up his volume in the playoffs without sacrificing his efficiency. I like that he was a clutch killer as a shooter. I like that he creates spacing. But he was never an offense initiator. He could not contribute positively in any aspect of the game outside of scoring. As DavidStern has pointed out, the Pacers' team offense successes through the years seem to correlate strongly with the comings and goings of secondary contributors like Jackson and Schrempf...which isn't to say that Reggie wasn't the most important piece, but does argue against him being the ONLY or even necessarily a strong enough piece to lead it on his own.
I think Reggie's elevation, as DocMJ pointed out, IS a product of the climate in the project. But not necessarily in the way he suggested...I think it epitomizes that we no longer have a full quorum of voters. We're down to about 10 folks consistently contributing and maybe an additional 5 - 8 who might check in and vote. As such, whoever leads the debate can generate momentum. Doc and ElGee both really like Reggie's efficiency, and because of the glittering efficiency stats and a good playoff history can build a really nice narrative that can sway others. With a voting block this small, all it takes is a persistent group of 2 or 3 and a couple of others to be convinced to win a vote. I think Miller is just the latest example of this. Which is, as they say, what it is. And I'm not even necessarily saying it's a bad thing...it is at the very least a conclusion built upon a) independent analysis, b) a well-researched premise and c) fresh thinking. Definitely could (and I often see) worse when it comes to rankings or discussions on here.
, I hope you can undestand all I try to said, hehe ( I from Argentina and English its hard for me some times )
