LeBron? I'll go with LeBron. The question stands. Assuming same scoring efficiency and shots taken, why might it be better to use less shot clock than more shot clock? Does anyone have an answer? Oops, missed this. How does LeBron taking more shots at the end of the shot clock hurt his team?
Less shot clock and more ball movement? More production in fewer time needed, that's always a part of efficiency. Second, maybe the Cavs have no other options and they need him to play in that fashion? Or maybe he could defer a bit more and sacrifice some touches for the team, who knows really? I certainly don't care, I just know he requires more time per possession and his style is not seamless.
I get it. Less shot clock usage, means more "teamwork", more players are involved. That may or may not help team efficiency, given the makeup of the team. A team is no less efficient on a possession where one guy held the ball for 20 seconds and scored 2 points, than they are if everybody touches the ball and one guy is scores 2 points it in while only holding the ball for 2 seconds. It's definitely prettier basketball. More aesthetically pleasing. But both outcomes were equally efficient. Again, if there are enough skilled players on the floor, then a more egalitarian style can be lead to better team efficiency. On other teams, you could be better off relying on one great player to do most of the shot creation. Another way of looking at it, and maybe this is what you were getting at, is that Kobe puts up very good numbers while not having the ball in his hands nearly as much. If LeBron played in Kobe's place in the triangle, where he's not creating shots every possession for his teammates, wouldn't his PER dip? Very true. But the circumstances are what they are. LeBron is asked to do a lot more for his team than Kobe is.
This is just one way of circumnavigating how truly efficient one is per possession. It ignores "true" pace as I refer to. Reminds me of Quarterback rating. You reward Completion Percentage and penalize Yards per completion type of offenses. Similarly you use LA's pace against Kobe, but ignore how much more time per possession Bron uses per possession.
No, its getting to the crux of what matters -- outscoring your opponent. Let's say you have Marvin who averages 1.25 points per used possessions, and you have Toby who averaged 1.15 points per used possession. Let's say they both use 30% of their teams possessions. Let's say Marvin holds on to the ball an averaged of 8 seconds per used possession, and Toby holds on to it an average of 4 seconds per used possession. According to your concept of "true" efficiency, Toby is more efficient (0.29 to 0.16). But that's only in some abstract sense that doesn't correspond to the reality of how basketball is played and won. The basic unit of basketball with which you produce points is not time, its possession. Whether I score a basket in 10 seconds or 4 seconds, either way the other team gets the ball. If what we care about is which player's efficiency translates more to improving the team's efficiency, Marvin is the more efficient player.
Also ... Scoring your points faster does not give you an extra edge in winning. Pace does not really correlate to offensive efficiency or winning% (tons and tons of historical data to back that up). Obviously a high completion% and high yardage/completion does. Don't really understand the analogy.
PER ignores a component of pace, just like QB rating ignores yards per completion. No dude, Adjusted Yards per attempt is better than Quarterback rating. Tons and tons of history to back that up. Might want to check that out with your statboy Neil.
You don't care how much time is needed to score points? Sounds like a backwards view of the world. Why don't we stop taking track of minutes per game as well? Wow what a superfluous amount of words, breaking down such a pointless concept we even agreed upon I thought. Fall back already, this is so boring. So why does PER measure pace? It does care about how quickly you score points, and how much time is used. Basketball-reference is simply not as exact as 82games. B-r assumes time per possession is equal, it is more vague. What you're referring to is closer to PER value. Per value is minutes multiplied by PER, you need to have a certain appreciation for Volume. Bron's stats are overrated regardless, his pace is not measured correctly. He needs the ball in his hands, that would affect his ability to assimilate on certain rosters. And the Cavs have had no success against elite teams. Normally it is awkward for a 65+ win team to lose a title as well.
Pace does not correlate to winning%. Fast paced teams don't win any more than slow paced teams. Yards/completion, on the other hand, does correlate to winning%. Your analogy doesn't work. PER does not measure pace. It measures statistical productivity per team possession, relative to league average player. "Time used per possession" does not factor in at all, nor should it.
Actually my analogy is that PER tries to take into account pace, but fails. Just like Qb rating tries to measure efficiency with completion percentage but fails. Try to get it right brah. Oh and no High completion percentage doesn't mean jack compared to other sophisticated factors. Only yards per pass while taking into account TDs and interceptions. Lol get out of here already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating Yes, your less precise measure of pace is superior? I have no clue what you're talking about. Fact is, LeBron's per depends on a certain system. A system that would benefit other players if they had as much time per possession.
It takes into account pace in order to determine number of possessions the player played. The goal, as I said, is to summarize statistical productivity per possession. Not to "measure pace". Code: pace = team possessions / minute PER = (1/pace) * [statistical productivity ] / minute = [statistical productivity] / team possession To win a game, you need to score more points per possession than your opponent. That is the goal. Your idea (true efficiency) presumes that the goal is score more points per time with the ball. A simple example should illustrate why this is flawed thinking. In basketball, we know that both teams alternate possessions. Generally, both teams get roughly the same number of possessions. So lets say Team A and Team B both get 100 possessions in a game. There's a total of 48 minutes or 2880 seconds in the game. Suppose 26 of those minutes Team A has the ball (or 15.6 seconds per possession), and 22 of those minutes Team B has the ball (or 13.2 seconds per possession). Suppose the final score is 100-96, Team A wins. Per possession, Team A was more efficient than Team B. Hence Team A wins. Pretty simple. But based on points scored per time with the ball ("true efficiency"), Team B was more efficient. Team B scores 0.72 points per second with the ball, and Team A scores 0.64 points per second with the ball). That, despite Team A winning. I don't know how to make it any more clear. How long you have the ball per possession, ultimately, does not matter. Its how much you score with those possessions.
"PER does not measure pace." How can something be pace adjusted, if pace is not measured? What are you talking about? Everyone says it does. Really, it couldn't be any more clearer. You're wording it in a way to try to sass me almost. Don't get cute with the definition. Where do you get these random final scores? Suppose Team B outscores Team A 110-105, your analogy fails incredibly, lol. Akin to how the highest TS% in a game does not ensure victory. Players on fast-paced offenses don't always have inferior PER, and? That's one of many possible outcomes. That is one "massaged" example to highlight your point. Everything about PER is per minute-pace adjusted. It does indeed care about how much time is required for output. You even now started to refuse it "measures pace". Completely pointless, so verbose as well, when really you're presenting just one random outcome. "true" pace, is just one component of the game. Oh hey I got an idea. Suppose I dribble the ball 20 seconds a possession, I pound cupcakes but get the crap beaten out of me by all the elite teams in the league. Yeah I got the highest PER though!
My PER increases depending on what style of offense my coach installs, but somehow this is irrelevant and not a big deal. You can say those type of offenses are effective in the NBA if you want to jump that far, not like the Cavs have done jack, but you really need to re-read your previous post. Even if what you said is true, that just means a player is told to play in a way that is rewarded with extra PER. When PER is not supposed to be biased towards any style of play.
PPG is "games-adjusted" in the same sense. GP = games played/season PPG = point scored / GP. But it would only be confusing matters for someone to argue that PPG measures games played. A guy who plays 1 game, and a guy who plays all 82 games could have the same PPG. So how exactly is PPG measuring games played? Similarly: Pace*min = Possessions / season PER = [statistical productivity] / Pace. In the same way, it is confusing matters to say that PER "measures" pace. No, it "measures" statistical productivity per possession. No, it doesn't. If Team B outscores Team A, then that means, per possession, Team B was more efficient (1.10 points/poss vs 1.05 points/poss). The constant, here, is that per-possession efficiency indicates the winner. "True efficiency" may or may not get the winner right -- it is, in fact, pretty close to 50/50. That means no correlation. If you really want to show my analogy fails (with the snide "lol"), then provide an example where "true efficiency" correctly indicates the winner, but per-possession efficiency does not. No. How much you're helping your team win depends on the style of offense the coach installs. LeBron does more for his team because he's asked to. If Kobe Bryant went to a team where he was playing exclusively with all-stars, he'd be asked to do a lot less. And, consequentially, how much he does is less. This entire Kobe vs. LeBron tangent, by the way, is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier: "Kobe's peaking in individual accomplishments right when a new crop of superstars like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are around to challenge him for league's best player. And unlike with Jordan, most statistical arguments aren't really in his favor. I mean, you can get really creative/selective and massage the stats to favor Kobe, but most everyone will agree that Kobe's numbers don't put him clearly ahead of the competition." You have to do stuff like "PER adjusted for time used per possession" to make Kobe look better. Instead of asking how much more did Kobe do in this universe, the argument has to be something like "yeah, well, if Kobe played under a that system, I *think* he could have done as much or more." That's what is separating Kobe and MJ in the GOAT conversation. With Jordan, its not about hypotheticals. He was the greatest, because he did the most for his team.
LOL at all these stats... ive got a question for everyone... Do you think a professional basketball player (NBA, Euroleage, etc) would understand or even know these stats? let alone give importance to them? (just wondering) and if there is... who? and is he any good? bec. thinking of this "during" a game would just blow your mind.
Players and coaches, alike, understand that what wins games is how efficiently you use your possessions. That's basketball 101. And I believe they also understand, ultimately, its about how many points you're able to score with those possessions. That's the key to winning. Not how long you had the ball in your hands. What do you think, kobe23? Let's say we're playing 1 on 1, alternating possessions (so basically identical number of possessions). We play for 12 minutes. At the end of those 12 minutes, suppose you score 10 baskets, and I score 8 baskets. You won, right? Now, what would you say if I argued that I was actually more efficient because, in terms of seconds, I had the ball half as much as you? Does that mean I actually outplayed you, because I had a higher "true efficiency" (to use huevonkiller's term)? I think you'd be right to laugh in my face if I made that argument.
I'd argue Kobe was the clear #1 player in the league. Who else would you include? Kobe was the face of the NBA until he cheated on his wife and was accused of rape. Majority of his peers have hailed him as the best player in the league for the past decade. Statistically maybe he's not the most efficient player and he doesn't dominate in PER, but how do you measure a player's will to win and deliver in the moment?
Absolutely they understand these stats. Coaches translate these stats in practice to demonstrate where a player needs to improve and what they are doing well. If you hear it enough times you are eventually going to understand it.
Over which seasons do you think Kobe was the clear #1 player? And statistically he wasn't dominant. That's the problem. You can't expect people to elect a guy as the GOAT if he didn't tangibly dominate his peers. Jordan had that will to win and deliver in the moment, but he had also had the hard data to back it up.
