Xatticus wrote:ezzzp wrote:Xatticus wrote: That is some ridiculously bad math.Spoiler:
Personally, I see little point in giving a large share of offense to average offensive players that bring little else to the team. An Aaron Gordon shot is significantly more valuable than an Evan Fournier shot because it comes along with the defense and versatility that Gordon brings when he is on the floor.
You're correct, not sure how I did that but I totally botched that math.
But giving a player more shots and role in offense because of defense and versatility makes zero sense to me...are you saying that Tony Allen FGA's are more valuable than Ray Allen FGA's?Spoiler:
No… of course not. That would be a silly argument. That's using two players that bear absolutely no resemblance to one another at the offensive end in place of two players that had remarkably similar usage and efficiency metrics this past season. Nor would I make an argument that a PJ Tucker shot has more value than a James Harden shot. These are hyperbolic statements that attempt to distort the entire nature of the argument.
The statistics you provided are almost entirely inconsequential because they are either embedded into the efficiency metrics (which tell more) or they simply don't reflect the present. I could cite the disparity in dunks, but it would add nothing to the argument. Why would I care about points per touch?
The goal is to get as much value as you can out of your distribution of minutes and usage. It's negligent not to consider the totality of a player's production when trying to accomplish this task.
Your argument only makes sense whem you must decide which player to give more minutes. When they are both on the court your whole logic crumbles.