WHATS MORE IMPORTANT...EFFICIENCY RATING OR SEEING A PLAYER PLAY
It's obvious the answer to this question is seeing them play, but per 48 min stats are extremely important and shouldn't be overlooked. Efficiency tells you a lot about a player that the eye can't see and is extremely valuable when it comes to putting a team together.
quincey, i'm also reading this article about shane battier's value... really interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=2&pagewan...
I think that's the same Michael Lewis that has written a couple books.... he's a good writer, if it's the same michael lewis.
direct quote from the michael lewis article:
Battier’s game is a weird combination of obvious weaknesses and nearly invisible strengths. When he is on the court, his teammates get better, often a lot better, and his opponents get worse — often a lot worse. He may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding. He doesn’t shoot much, but when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots. He also has a knack for getting the ball to teammates who are in a position to do the same, and he commits few turnovers. On defense, although he routinely guards the N.B.A.’s most prolific scorers, he significantly reduces their shooting percentages. At the same time he somehow improves the defensive efficiency of his teammates — probably, Morey surmises, by helping them out in all sorts of subtle ways. “I call him Lego,” Morey says. “When he’s on the court, all the pieces start to fit together. And everything that leads to winning that you can get to through intellect instead of innate ability, Shane excels in. I’ll bet he’s in the hundredth percentile of every category.”
Efficiency tells you a lot about a player that the eye can't see and is extremely valuable when it comes to putting a team together.
i dont think it does. it justs puts it into numbers,
anybody can tell u that if u play defense and take
(& make) good shots then u give your team a chance to win
where the "eye test" comes in is you look at the position the player will be defending, if they can't defend that
player then they better be able to outscore them (Dirk Nowitzki) or be very good at drawing fouls (Dwight Howard) and sending opposing players to the bench
at the NCAA level someone like JJ Reddick can knock down 20 footers all day and light u up or 50
and on the other side pack in the defense to make it hard for someone with limited range or a slower release
to score (see Andre Iguodala 12 ppg)
but at the NBA level well u see what happens, size gets bigger people move up positions and
mismatches are formed
im not trying to tell yall how to view a player im just saying i dont view it as important..to me its just how a player performs thats how i judge a player..i never judge a player by eff and never by per since a bench player can look like a allstar by going by per48min
Lol obviously you should know when to take per 48 minutes stats seriously and when not to... For example... Kousta Koufos, Paul Davis and Rasho Nesterovic are ranked 1, 2 and 8 in terms of centers with the highest efficiency per 48 minutes. I mean, duh. Neither of them have a played a lot of games or gotten consistent minutes.
However, Dwight Howard is ranked 3 and is putting up monster efficiency per 48 minute numbers for centers. He's playing less than 31 minutes per game, but is averaging 18.1 points, 10.7 rebounds and 1.75 blocks. You know to take that serious.
exactly which is why i dont look at it..because a bench guy could look like star ....plus all it is is guess work..saying someone could average a certain amount of points because of what they do with the min they already have is just guessing that they could keep up what they do at the same rate per48?. so of course im not gonna take that seriously. then you have to take into account that they would have to play 48min for 82 games plus playoffs and average that....which is why i pay no attention to it
that's being very naive. and it's not guess work... lol. it's pure, raw data that eliminates the variable of how much someone plays (per 48).
Iguodala: i can understand disregarding it because you don't understand it, but would you agree that if you did understand it, it could be useful in judging/analyzing a player?
in youre OPINION its naive. because i know when i like a team or player and im guessing most people who like a player or team dont go look at the teams eff first or a players eff first...im willing to bet most people (99percent) dont even know how eff there favorite player or team is. all they care about is if they win or if there player plays well...most iverson fans didnt care if iversons eff rating was low or even if his percentage was low as long as his team won more then they lost and competed and how exciting he was to watch. the nba didnt care either since they gave him the mvp award and im sure the hall of fame voters wont either. all they will care about is how good he played when they watched him...and most people i know who miss games dont go and see how eff there player was they go to see how many points,reb they had and if they won or not
you just proved my point... basically just defined naive.
also, stats like points, reb, ass, are kept because they are easy to measure, not just because they are overly insightful into the game. And, whether or not 99 percent of fans care about efficiency does not mean anything to me... lol
Yea it carries weight just like any other basketball stat, but if a player isn't efficient, it's obvious to me whether I look at field goal percentage or turnovers, or not. But yea, it holds some merit, because it provides proof of exactly how efficient or inefficient a player is.
no.... it's not guess work. if a player plays 8 mins and scores 6 pts... you take 48/8 and multiply by 6 and that's how many points/48 they average.
thats not saying that you'd guess they would score that many points in 48 minutes... it's just saying that in the minutes they had they scored this many points... (efficiency)
it's MORE useful when you're comparing someone who plays 24 minutes to someone who plays 36 minutes... that way you can see how many points they are scoring per minute, rather than per game... (since players play different amount of minutes per game)
EXACTLY xbadgerhustler! You said that perfectly. I was trying to figure out a way to say that, but couldn't.
"It's MORE useful when you're comparing someone who plays 24 minutes to someone who plays 36 minutes... that way you can see how many points they are scoring per minute, rather than per game... (since players play different amount of minutes per game)".
The purpose of the 48 min stat isn't to say, "Player A would average exactly this much if he played 48 mins".... It's just so substitutes can be compared to starters in playing time debates.
i get what youre saying..but its not completely accurate because its saying IF they played that many mintues thats how much they would average but even with doing math no one can no that. its not like being a work where u make 10dollars a hr and work 5 hrs you make 50 but if you work 10hrs you make 100. because you know for certain you will still get that 10 a hr. its not certain that a player who scored 6pts in 8min will score 12 in 16. theres alot of unknown factors such as, a different defender checking him, a defense changes, the person gets more tired with more minutes, the person starts to miss the shots that they mad before. it only isnt a guessing game if they know for sure the player will continue to shoot the same, have the exact same defense is played against them with the same player
and its the same if someone plays more minutes. the per48 only works if everything stays the same but in sports it doesnt. just because you scored on a move a couple times in the first 5min doesnt mean youre gonna score on that same move the next 5min or that the team isnt gonna double team you....a good example would be a guy who runs the 40 in track..say he runs it in 9sec..does that mean per80 yards hes gonna run it in 18sec?..per 120 hes gonna run it in 27sec
the point is that no one is trying to guess... they're trying to measure the efficiency with which they score, or they rebound, etc...
for your money example:
it's like saying: A made $200, while B only made $100... A must be better, right? but that doesn't factor in how many hours they spent. what if it took A 20 hours to make that, but B made that in an hour because he's a lawyer? which is better? i donno, but i'd much rather be B, because I made half as much as A, but still have 19 hours to do whatever I want!
Another example: that's like comparing how many hits/game the lead-off man gets to the number of hits/game the 9-hitter gets... obviously you'd expect the lead-off man to get way more hits per game, but what matters is how many hits they got per at bat!
if u looked at the "PER 48 minute stat" you would have known when Speights got the minutes he would have been a manchild like he has been (until injury)....
article from 08-09 season...
a great example would be to view speights efficiency rating from last yr (he was #1 out of all rookies)... (given minutes it has shown to be factual)... Im not saying every case is this way, but this happens to be great example of where efficiency matters...
but microwave..yes speight would have put up better numbers but if he played 24min a game and averaged say 20ppg that doesnt mean if he played 48min a game he would average 40ppg..you can say mathmatically he would but it reality it he wouldnt
as far as eff badger i see what you are saying and if you factor in how good a player is by adding that then thats cool. im just saying that i dont and people i know dont factor in that when deciding how good a team or player is....a good example that could work for youre opinion and my opinion is the patriots coach going for it on 4th and 2...percentage wise it was a good decision because he had something like a 65 percent success rate but from just watching it, it was a bad decision...
im just giving you one example of where efficiency was correct. SPeights wasnt one of the top rookies last yr, but was productive when he got on the court, whether it be for 3,5,7 or 20 minutes... I also think both are very important.. Your pts and badgers.. Im sure i can come up with other scenarios where it would prove in your arguments favor, no doubt... I just think that in this case efficiency matters most. (its a case by case basis).. Because speights productivity is better than Rose of last yr does not make me want to draft Speights over Rose, but when comparing players of comparable #'s effiency plays a big part in who is the better player IMO.
not being stubborn im just letting you know why i dont pay attention to the per48...i dont say you are wrong or being stubborn because you do pay attention to it or follow it...if someone does that doesnt ake them wrong if they dont that doesnt make them wrong..
WOULD YA'LL RATHER never see a player play but have a paper with there eff rating for a season or see a player play for a season but not see there eff rating ..when deciding if you are gonna draft him or trade for him....which do you think is more important