Can somebody explain the big deal about efficiency in the NBA?

[The War Report]

True. I'm looking at the current rankings now an Melo is like 8th while avg the most min per game of all starters in the league yet all stat geeks and some fans like to scream is he's not an efficient player or he's a black hole. He has to do more for his team than anyone in the top 10 per rankings yet there he is. Funny how that's omitted when they shyt on him

Melo is top 5 in usage, so the ball does tend to stick when he's on the court. :melo:

 

[gho3st]

It seems like that is the new thing to use when trying to shyt on a player. The way I see it not everybody is gonna shoot 50-60% from the field and if you getting points does it really honestly matter the FG%? I see people use that to knock players like Lillard, Monta, Kemba, etc.

Allen Iverson won MVP and took a team to a Finals averaging 31 points on 42% shooting. If you got a player averaging let's say 25-28 ppg but he's shooting in the low 40's is that really a problem? I know that its a big deal how well you shoot from the floor but fukk efficiency. I could live with a player shooting a percentage like that as long as he's highly productive.

10-15 years ago nobody gave a fukk about a player being efficient

That is why Iverson is overrated as fukk but Coli dudes refuse to admit it because according to them Iverson is a real nikka

To them Iverson is one of the 20 greatest players to ever play this game

 

[gho3st]

It seems like that is the new thing to use when trying to shyt on a player. The way I see it not everybody is gonna shoot 50-60% from the field and if you getting points does it really honestly matter the FG%? I see people use that to knock players like Lillard, Monta, Kemba, etc.

Allen Iverson won MVP and took a team to a Finals averaging 31 points on 42% shooting. If you got a player averaging let's say 25-28 ppg but he's shooting in the low 40's is that really a problem? I know that its a big deal how well you shoot from the floor but fukk efficiency. I could live with a player shooting a percentage like that as long as he's highly productive.

10-15 years ago nobody gave a fukk about a player being efficient

That is why Iverson is overrated as fukk but Coli dudes refuse to admit it because according to them Iverson is a real nikka

To them Iverson is one of the 20 greatest players to ever play this game

 

[AlbertPullhoez]

I can't believe you're a fan of The Spurs. Dumb muthafukka.

You a Knicks fan. The fukk you know about what good basketball looks like? Hop off my dikk

 

[HHR]

It seems like that is the new thing to use when trying to shyt on a player. The way I see it not everybody is gonna shoot 50-60% from the field and if you getting points does it really honestly matter the FG%? I see people use that to knock players like Lillard, Monta, Kemba, etc.

Allen Iverson won MVP and took a team to a Finals averaging 31 points on 42% shooting. If you got a player averaging let's say 25-28 ppg but he's shooting in the low 40's is that really a problem? I know that its a big deal how well you shoot from the floor but fukk efficiency. I could live with a player shooting a percentage like that as long as he's highly productive.

10-15 years ago nobody gave a fukk about a player being efficient

I refuse to believe you're actually this stupid.

 

[Absolut]

PER isn't a bad stat. It just has to be put into context like every other stat. It's an easy stat to manipulate.

thats the problem. you have to use every stat/metric at your disposal. you have those who dont like the "nerdy stats" and disregard everything else and you have the other end that strictly use the nerdy stats and disregard everything else. you have the strictly stat nerds, that cant draw up a play and disregard everything of that ilk. they are idiots. you have the "i WATCH games i dont just read box scores i know what im watching" guys that disregard the more advanced stats. they are idiots. these "i go by the eye test i KNOW what im watching" guys are gonna be mad as fukk when brad stevens types flood the nba front offices in the next decade. you know why those types will be successful? because they look at the whole spectrum. they dont disregard anything, because they know they might pick out something useful from anywhere about a player

 

[nineteeneightysix]

So you want an efficient player on a losing team to stop being efficient?
You do realize that basketball is a team sport right?
If an efficient players team is always losing then HE ISN'T THE PROBLEM. His TEAM needs become more efficient.
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats
^^ notice how the most effeciant teams are all around the top of thier conference and have winning records^^^^
Y'all gotta realize this basketball shyt is bigger than Hero ball and the players y'all love to Stan....I blame the NBA for marketing as such though.

(1) To answer your first question, NO...Where did I even suggest that...?
(2) To answer your second question...The goal of the game is to win, so if you are efficient and you are the LEADER, and your team is losing, then it is on you...There is NO point in being efficient if your team is losing...
In fact, I will argue that if you are the leader, and your numbers look nice, but the team is losing, then you are NOT efficient...Regardless of what the numbers say...

That is why it is important to compare any number/stat to win/loss ratios and figure out which numbers help the team win and which don't...
(3) I completely agree with the bold statement...An efficient team is more significant than an efficient player...
(4) I agree...I get annoyed by the way Americans have been indoctrinated with the belief that one person can get it all done...There is NO proof of this in real life...

That's why kind of agree with OP...Saying that one player is efficient doesn't mean shyt if the team is NOT winning...The most efficient player is the one who helps the team win more often than not...

 

[brick james]

(1) To answer your first question, NO...Where did I even suggest that...?
(2) To answer your second question...The goal of the game is to win, so if you are efficient and you are the LEADER, and your team is losing, then it is on you...There is NO point in being efficient if your team is losing...
In fact, I will argue that if you are the leader, and your numbers look nice, but the team is losing, then you are NOT efficient...Regardless of what the numbers say...

That is why it is important to compare any number/stat to win/loss ratios and figure out which numbers help the team win and which don't...
(3) I completely agree with the bold statement...An efficient team is more significant than an efficient player...
(4) I agree...I get annoyed by the way Americans have been indoctrinated with the belief that one person can get it all done...There is NO proof of this in real life...

That's why kind of agree with OP...Saying that one player is efficient doesn't mean shyt if the team is NOT winning...The most efficient player is the one who helps the team win more often than not...

Breh these statements just do not make very much sense. If an inefficient players scores 25 pts on 30% shooting, and has a team with great defensive efficiency, and other very efficient players so that they get their 8-12 pts on 100% shooting, does that make the inefficient player efficient because the team won?

I'm not understanding your argument, an efficient player is always better than an inefficient one. If Iverson was more efficient his team would obviously have done better.

There are also lots and lots of measures of efficiency as well friend, so a good measure would be a mix of simple + advanced stats + eye test to get good context.

 

[Majestic Pape]

First off, AI shouldn't have won that MVP.

Theres only so many shots in the game and efficiency tells you a lot about what type of shots are being taken

Bullshyt. Iverson deserved that MVP.

 

[Majestic Pape]

That is why what Lebron is doing is amazing.

The nikka will finish shooting in the mid to high 50%.

I am not impressed with nikkaz that need 30 shots to score 30 pts. Their game is unwatchable as fukk.

If Iverson passed it to Matt Geysers or ugleh ass Tyrone Hill a couple times, maybe they give the Lakers a series.

Clearly spoken by somebody who didn't actually WATCH that series.

 

[AAKing23]

Clearly spoken by somebody who didn't actually WATCH that series.

I'm not even gonna get into that argument, these nikkas would have me on here all night

 

[Goat poster]

If the best player is too overly concerned with being efficient and not taking more shots to pass to a less talented player then he is definitely hurting his team. Part of the burden of being a star is taking the tougher shots to bail your team out of bad situations.

No part of the burden of being a great player is helping to put your teammates in the position to get easy/high percentage shots . Not shooting with 2 or 3 hands in your face.

The best player on the floor should be great at passing out of double and triple teams and making the defense collapse on him when he drives to the cup leaving a player behind the 3 point line or close to the rim(which is the best option) WIDE OPEN.

Chris freakin "Birdman" Anderson went damn near 2 games in a row in the playoffs last year PERFECT from the field. That has a lot to do with what you are complaining about LeBron and DWade doing, they make the extra pass or pass out the double team.

They are both a huge reason Miami was #1 in effenciancy last year and are #2 this year ( I love the way Portland is playing ball this year and they are #1)

Y'all gotta realize basketball is chess not checkers brehs

 

[Urahara_Kisuke]

Can somebody explain the big deal about efficiency in the NBA?

 

[Goatpoacher]

I like how some idiots have invented a fake boogeyman known as "Advanced Stat White Nerd" just to compensate for the fact they suck at math.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Bullshyt. Iverson deserved that MVP.

Over Shaq?