Your NBA confessions, what don't you know?

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

Damn I have been looking into the PER and **** is it complex.

But what I have noticed is it of course is offense oriented. How cool would it be if a defensive stat was created like PPG against.

already answered but Drtg is a good basis point stat as well as it shows what opponents do head to head (per 100 shots)

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Well damn it. I took the time to read Munros post and now I know what eFG% is. Now when people quote it in response to me I have to acknowledge it.

How can you quickly decide "you have to acknowledge it when people quote it" if you don't fully understand efg%, nor if it is valid? An intelligent thinker would never take efg% seriously because it's an invalid stat. lol There are too many variables in basketball to take such a stat seriously when it comes to comparing which player is better.

Now, I'll give you a really easy scenario to show you the stupidity of the efg% stat:

Say Kobe Bryant hits a shot worth two points and takes no more shots. Now say Ray Allen hits a three-pointer and takes no more shots. Kobe is 1 for 1, and Ray is 1 for 1. Based on efg%, Kobe efg% is 100%, and Ray's is 150%.

Does this really mean Ray played a better game than Kobe? Lets say that Kobe was double-teamed and hit an extremely tough shot to make his two points. However, Ray Allen had the luxury of being wide open because Lebron James was double teamed in the paint. Therefore Ray got an easy three points.

The Kobe/Ray Allen example is only one scenario, but in four quarters of basketball, hundreds of different scenarios occur to explain why a player efg% is lower than another's. Player A and Player B can be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates have sloppy ballhandling that leads to easy fastbreak baskets for Player B, then Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A even if Player A played a perfect game. Player A could have very well played a far better game than Player B even though Player A had a lower efg%.

The stat is not valid in comparing which player is better. It's basically a meaningless stat. Here's another meaningless stat that I'm making up off the top of my head:

(Points + rebounds + steals) / (Fouls + minutes played*dunks)

Ok, I made a stat that can easily be calculated, but what does it mean? Nothing! Just like the efg%.

[King Joseus]

[TucsonClip]

Originally Posted by JBKB

How can you quickly decide "you have to acknowledge it when people quote it" if you don't fully understand efg%, nor if it is valid? An intelligent thinker would never take efg% seriously because it's an invalid stat. lol There are too many variables in basketball to take such a stat seriously when it comes to comparing which player is better.

Now, I'll give you a really easy scenario to show you the stupidity of the efg% stat:

Say Kobe Bryant hits a shot worth two points and takes no more shots. Now say Ray Allen hits a three-pointer and takes no more shots. Kobe is 1 for 1, and Ray is 1 for 1. Based on efg%, Kobe efg% is 100%, and Ray's is 150%.

Does this really mean Ray played a better game than Kobe? Lets say that Kobe was double-teamed and hit an extremely tough shot to make his two points. However, Ray Allen had the luxury of being wide open because Lebron James was double teamed in the paint. Therefore Ray got an easy three points.

The Kobe/Ray Allen example is only one scenario, but in four quarters of basketball, hundreds of different scenarios occur to explain why a player efg% is lower than another's. Player A and Player B can be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates have sloppy ballhandling that leads to easy fastbreak baskets for Player B, then Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A even if Player A played a perfect game. Player A could have very well played a far better game than Player B even though Player A had a lower efg%.

The stat is not valid in comparing which player is better. It's basically a meaningless stat. Here's another meaningless stat that I'm making up off the top of my head:

(Points + rebounds + steals) / (Fouls + minutes played*dunks)

Ok, I made a stat that can easily be calculated, but what does it mean? Nothing! Just like the efg%.

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by JBKB

How can you quickly decide "you have to acknowledge it when people quote it" if you don't fully understand efg%, nor if it is valid? An intelligent thinker would never take efg% seriously because it's an invalid stat. lol There are too many variables in basketball to take such a stat seriously when it comes to comparing which player is better.

Now, I'll give you a really easy scenario to show you the stupidity of the efg% stat:

Say Kobe Bryant hits a shot worth two points and takes no more shots. Now say Ray Allen hits a three-pointer and takes no more shots. Kobe is 1 for 1, and Ray is 1 for 1. Based on efg%, Kobe efg% is 100%, and Ray's is 150%.

Does this really mean Ray played a better game than Kobe? Lets say that Kobe was double-teamed and hit an extremely tough shot to make his two points. However, Ray Allen had the luxury of being wide open because Lebron James was double teamed in the paint. Therefore Ray got an easy three points.

The Kobe/Ray Allen example is only one scenario, but in four quarters of basketball, hundreds of different scenarios occur to explain why a player efg% is lower than another's. Player A and Player B can be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates have sloppy ballhandling that leads to easy fastbreak baskets for Player B, then Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A even if Player A played a perfect game. Player A could have very well played a far better game than Player B even though Player A had a lower efg%.

The stat is not valid in comparing which player is better. It's basically a meaningless stat. Here's another meaningless stat that I'm making up off the top of my head:

(Points + rebounds + steals) / (Fouls + minutes played*dunks)

Ok, I made a stat that can easily be calculated, but what does it mean? Nothing! Just like the efg%.

This is why I still think this might be a troll account. Does anybody notice R-Star's conspicuous absence these last few days?

[King Joseus]

R-Star's better than that. His posting goes down when he's not at work.

[ChrisWoj]

Carlos Boozer just played in 123 consecutive games. What world is this? I did not know that was possible.

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by JBKB

How can you quickly decide "you have to acknowledge it when people quote it" if you don't fully understand efg%, nor if it is valid? An intelligent thinker would never take efg% seriously because it's an invalid stat. lol There are too many variables in basketball to take such a stat seriously when it comes to comparing which player is better.

Now, I'll give you a really easy scenario to show you the stupidity of the efg% stat:

Say Kobe Bryant hits a shot worth two points and takes no more shots. Now say Ray Allen hits a three-pointer and takes no more shots. Kobe is 1 for 1, and Ray is 1 for 1. Based on efg%, Kobe efg% is 100%, and Ray's is 150%.

Does this really mean Ray played a better game than Kobe? Lets say that Kobe was double-teamed and hit an extremely tough shot to make his two points. However, Ray Allen had the luxury of being wide open because Lebron James was double teamed in the paint. Therefore Ray got an easy three points.

Ray Allen's shot was worth 3 points. Kobe Bryant's shot was worth 2 points. Kobe made a tough shot, yeah. But who cares if it was a difficult shot or an easy shot? Kobe's was more impressive. But he was double teamed. Had he passed off to a wide open shooter for a made 3 point shot - the possession would have been worth 1 more point. Ray Allen culminated a more valuable possession for his team than Kobe Bryant did in that situation. That is what eFG% is referencing. It isn't necessarily a player's personal value to his team - but the value his points have provided to his team per attempt. If you can't understand statistics within context don't discuss them.

The Kobe/Ray Allen example is only one scenario, but in four quarters of basketball, hundreds of different scenarios occur to explain why a player efg% is lower than another's. Player A and Player B can be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates have sloppy ballhandling that leads to easy fastbreak baskets for Player B, then Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A even if Player A played a perfect game. Player A could have very well played a far better game than Player B even though Player A had a lower efg%.

The stat is not valid in comparing which player is better. It's basically a meaningless stat. Here's another meaningless stat that I'm making up off the top of my head:

(Points + rebounds + steals) / (Fouls + minutes played*dunks)

Ok, I made a stat that can easily be calculated, but what does it mean? Nothing! Just like the efg%.

Your statistic is nonsense because it makes no sense within any context. Again: learn to understand context. Take a class on logic. It'll help - I promise. Logic applies across disciplines. And may even help you become a functional human being. (I feel like I should have phrased that "And may help even you ... ")

[Cajon]

Originally Posted by ChrisWoj

Carlos Boozer just played in 123 consecutive games. What world is this? I did not know that was possible.

At a rather advanced age too. Truly surprising.

[The Big Dipper]

Originally Posted by JBKB

How can you quickly decide "you have to acknowledge it when people quote it" if you don't fully understand efg%, nor if it is valid? An intelligent thinker would never take efg% seriously because it's an invalid stat. lol There are too many variables in basketball to take such a stat seriously when it comes to comparing which player is better.

Now, I'll give you a really easy scenario to show you the stupidity of the efg% stat:

Say Kobe Bryant hits a shot worth two points and takes no more shots. Now say Ray Allen hits a three-pointer and takes no more shots. Kobe is 1 for 1, and Ray is 1 for 1. Based on efg%, Kobe efg% is 100%, and Ray's is 150%.

Does this really mean Ray played a better game than Kobe? Lets say that Kobe was double-teamed and hit an extremely tough shot to make his two points. However, Ray Allen had the luxury of being wide open because Lebron James was double teamed in the paint. Therefore Ray got an easy three points.

The Kobe/Ray Allen example is only one scenario, but in four quarters of basketball, hundreds of different scenarios occur to explain why a player efg% is lower than another's. Player A and Player B can be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates have sloppy ballhandling that leads to easy fastbreak baskets for Player B, then Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A even if Player A played a perfect game. Player A could have very well played a far better game than Player B even though Player A had a lower efg%.

The stat is not valid in comparing which player is better. It's basically a meaningless stat. Here's another meaningless stat that I'm making up off the top of my head:

(Points + rebounds + steals) / (Fouls + minutes played*dunks)

Ok, I made a stat that can easily be calculated, but what does it mean? Nothing! Just like the efg%.

Mods please find picture for this - :wtfisthisidonteven....W.T.F?!is this?!:

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by ChrisWoj

Ray Allen's shot was worth 3 points. Kobe Bryant's shot was worth 2 points. Kobe made a tough shot, yeah. But who cares if it was a difficult shot or an easy shot? Kobe's was more impressive. But he was double teamed. Had he passed off to a wide open shooter for a made 3 point shot - the possession would have been worth 1 more point. Ray Allen culminated a more valuable possession for his team than Kobe Bryant did in that situation. That is what eFG% is referencing. It isn't necessarily a player's personal value to his team - but the value his points have provided to his team per attempt. If you can't understand statistics within context don't discuss them.

I'm not disregarding efg% as a stat; I'm only disregarding it as a useful stat.

Like I said before, Player A and Player B could be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates are sloppy ballhandlers, then Player B can rack up easy fastbreak points.

Therefore, Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A. So what exactly does it mean? Nothing! How do you interpret efg% logically? You can't! lol

Who cares if Player B has a higher efg% than Player A. It means nothing! It's not Player A's fault that his teammates lost the ball so many times that allowed Player B to boost his efg%. In no way can that stat be logically used to determine the better of two players. lol

Where is the logic in the efg% stat? The vast majority of people don't even understand the formula, yet they are so sure it's a useful stat. lol : ) I would laugh at anyone trying to use that stat to prove a point about NBA players.

[The Big Dipper]

Originally Posted by JBKB

I'm not disregarding efg% as a stat; I'm only disregarding it as a useful stat.

Like I said before, Player A and Player B could be of equal skill, but if Player A's teammates are sloppy ballhandlers, then Player B can rack up easy fastbreak points.

Therefore, Player B will have a higher efg% than Player A. So what exactly does it mean? Nothing! How do you interpret efg% logically? You can't! lol

Who cares if Player B has a higher efg% than Player A. It means nothing! It's not Player A's fault that his teammates lost the ball so many times that allowed Player B to boost his efg%. In no way can that stat be logically used to determine the better of two players. lol

Where is the logic in the efg% stat? The vast majority of people don't even understand the formula, yet they are so sure it's a useful stat. lol : ) I would laugh at anyone trying to use that stat to prove a point about NBA players.

I'm gonna use JBKB logic with you to try and see if I can confuse the **** out of you too. Maybe when you see what it feels like to read your posts you will stop.

If Player A has a career average of 23 PPG and Player B has an average of 17 PPG than how can you blame Player B for not having as many open looks as Player A who obviously has teammates who can screen better. Also if Player A is on the East Coast and Player B is on the west coast it is unfair as Player A is always 3 hours ahead and therfore in the future.

Damn in a thread asking questions about things we don't know I am surprised the first 4 pages aren't from you.

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by JBKB

Where is the logic in the efg% stat? The vast majority of people don't even understand the formula, yet they are so sure it's a useful stat. lol : ) I would laugh at anyone trying to use that stat to prove a point about NBA players.

The logic is this: If player A has a higher eFG% than player B, player A is the MORE EFFECTIVE SHOOTER. That's the logic.

If player A has a higher FG% than player B, player A has a HIGHER CONVERSION RATE than player B (given equal attempts).

If player A has a higher TS% than player B, player A is a MORE EFFICIENT SHOOTER than is player B.

None of those stats mentions anything about the players' teammates... nor do they imply anything about them. They are all individual stats that say different things about individual shooting prowess.

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by The Big Dipper

If Player A has a career average of 23 PPG and Player B has an average of 17 PPG than how can you blame Player B for not having as many open looks as Player A who obviously has teammates who can screen better.

GREAT EXAMPLE! Thank you! : )

In this case it does not mean Player A with 23 PPG is a better scorer than Player B with 17 PPG. How many times have we heard "stats don't tell everything." If stats told everything, then Robert Horry is better than Michael Jordan, and every other player with less than 7 rings.

Therefore, we have to "interpret" stats. Some stats are easier to interpret than others. efg% is nearly impossible to interpret.

However, your example here can be interpreted given the well defined scenario. If Player A's teammates are great screeners than Player B's teammates, then that will allow Player A to make more shots than Player B.

BUT, over the course of a long NBA career, even comparing the PPG stat between two players is nearly impossible. All you can do is watch the game and enjoy. Don't get bogged down on stats because they are almost always invalid to use for comparing the better of two players.

If Rondo's teammates were poor shooters, wouldn't that make his assists go down? What if Rondo and Paul were at equal skill in assisting. However, Rondo has a team of great shooters, and Chris Paul has a team of poor shooters. In the long run, Rondo would surpass Paul in assists not because he is better, but because his teammates can shoot!

Finally, assists is just "AN OPINION" of a worthy stat. It is theoretically possible to win a game of basketball with zero assists. Don't get bogged down with stats. lol

[JBKB]

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

None of those stats mentions anything about the players' teammates... nor do they imply anything about them. They are all individual stats that say different things about individual shooting prowess.

And that's exactly what makes efg% an invalid stat.

It's not important to know who has the higher efg%; it's more important to know "WHY" a player has a higher efg% than the other. That requires dissecting the many thousands of scenarios that occur throughout a season that allows one player to have a higher efg% than another. This dissection of variables is impossible for a human!

However, once the variables are understood, then you can make a sound conclusion on which player is better. If this is accomplished, you will find many cases in which the person with the higher efg% is worse than the player you are using for comparison. This would only prove that the stat is meaningless.