Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 82 Posts

·
Fomer Admins are Kewl!
Joined
·
15,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been thinking about this for awhile. With all of the all-star hoopla and everything else. I see efficiency ratings thrown into arguments as to how that particular reason a player should be in the all star game or not or a better player than such and such player. To me its a nice tool, but I think to many people take to much stock into it. Thats like saying because Carlos Boozer is more efficient than Kobe Bryant, Carlos Boozer is better. Thats just plain ridiculous. I am just wanting to know why so many of you use that as a reason one player is better than another or why one shoould or should not be an all star?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Efficiency rating is a numerical value derived by the addition of the major statistical categories(ppg+bpg+spg+apg+rpg), which is then subtracted by turnovers and missed shots...(per game) Any number over 20 is all-star worthy and any over 25 deserves MVP consideration. Last year KG was the only one to receive over 30 (32...) and this year he remains the only one over 30 (33...). It is a good stat, because it takes in to account everyting the player contributes...so its a better indicator than simply using ppg...but it has its flaws too. It seems like it is a favorable stat for PFs and Cs because they shoot a higher FG% and hence, they get less deductions...So it is a good stat to compare players who play in the same position...i.e KG vs. Duncan, or T-Mac vs. Iverson.
There are other, "better", stats if you want to compare players who play in different positions...like the roland ratings, also called +/- stats...and I guess that is another discussion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Here is the top 10...
EFF
1. Kevin Garnett 33.11
2. Elton Brand 27.64
3. Tim Duncan 27.22
4. Brad Miller 24.30
5. Tracy McGrady 23.65
6. Predrag Stojakovic 23.42
7. Dirk Nowitzki 22.49
8. Andrei Kirilenko 22.25
9. Zach Randolph 22.22
10. Shawn Marion 22.13

hmm...9 forwards/centers vs. 1 guard...if this shows anything it proves how good T-mac is...and the next 10...
11. Jason Kidd 21.91
12. Sam Cassell 21.89
13. Jermaine O'Neal 21.81
14. Shareef Abdur-Rahim 21.71
15. Carlos Boozer 21.37
16. Kenyon Martin 21.05
17. Paul Pierce 20.98
17. Ben Wallace 20.98
19. Stephon Marbury 20.45
20. Yao Ming 19.85

This stat will be used frequently by people to justify why their favorite player should have been an at the ASG...i.e, Brand, Randolph, and Marion...
 

·
Fomer Admins are Kewl!
Joined
·
15,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Originally posted by <b>panthera_pardus</b>!
Here is the top 10...
EFF
1. Kevin Garnett 33.11
2. Elton Brand 27.64
3. Tim Duncan 27.22
4. Brad Miller 24.30
5. Tracy McGrady 23.65
6. Predrag Stojakovic 23.42
7. Dirk Nowitzki 22.49
8. Andrei Kirilenko 22.25
9. Zach Randolph 22.22
10. Shawn Marion 22.13

hmm...9 forwards/centers vs. 1 guard...if this shows anything it proves how good T-mac is...and the next 10...
11. Jason Kidd 21.91
12. Sam Cassell 21.89
13. Jermaine O'Neal 21.81
14. Shareef Abdur-Rahim 21.71
15. Carlos Boozer 21.37
16. Kenyon Martin 21.05
17. Paul Pierce 20.98
17. Ben Wallace 20.98
19. Stephon Marbury 20.45
20. Yao Ming 19.85

This stat will be used frequently by people to justify why their favorite player should have been an at the ASG...i.e, Brand, Randolph, and Marion...
THis is my point. Allen Iverson is no where on this list, Kobe Bryant is no where on this list yet all of the players on this list are not better than those 2 individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!


THis is my point. Allen Iverson is no where on this list, Kobe Bryant is no where on this list yet all of the players on this list are not better than those 2 individuals.
Or those two individuals are overrated. Yes they are both
really good players but maybe they are not as good as many
people believe.

To be honest I am suprised that Kobe is not on there but
Iverson has so many 8-24 nights that it does not suprise me
that he is not on the list.
 

·
just foul
Joined
·
6,913 Posts
Although the efficiency rating is an interesting formula to measure a player's statistical contribution, it doesn't account for many things that don't show up in the stat column.

I really hope the NBA will adopt the +/- ratings for each player as an offical statistic. I think that would be the best way to determine a player's impact to a team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>RebelSun</b>!
Although the efficiency rating is an interesting formula to measure a player's statistical contribution, it doesn't account for many things that don't show up in the stat column.

I really hope the NBA will adopt the +/- ratings for each player as an offical statistic. I think that would be the best way to determine a player's impact to a team.
I dont think thats a good way either. Like in Mike Bibbys case, hes coming off the floor and being replaced by a guy almost as good and will do a fine job. If he was on another team and his replacement sucked, then his +/- would be a lot better. It shows impact on a team, but it doesnt show impact compared to other players in the league. Some guys are more important to their team, but not as good as players who arent as important to their team.

Efficiency isnt 100% accurate, but the two best players in the league are in the top 3, so it has to be somewhat accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
I really hope the NBA will adopt the +/- ratings for each player as an offical statistic. I think that would be the best way to determine a player's impact to a team.
I wish I could explain to you why this doesnt work. I spoke to a statistics professor about this and they laughed at this as a measurement. There are too many confounding variables. When I figure out how to explain this to someone who doesnt know stats, I'll make a thread. It's a really bad misconception.


Efficiency is DUMB!!!

You know why???

It places way too much emphasis on rebounding numbers.

10 rebounds doesnt equal 10 assists, basically numbers arent equal

There needs to be some way to WEIGHT each statistical category by seeing how much it helps a team win. This, however, could only be done through scientific research.

This is an example, for rebounds:
Who is to say how much a rebound is worth to a win? A rebound, is often the result of one player getting the rebound over his teammate, since offensive boards dont occur nearly as frequently. I bet that if I took Kevin Garnett off the Wolves, the rebounding numbers would not change much. The exception to this is offenssive boards, but those dont occur much (they should be weighted more than defensive though).

Efficiency is a crappy stat.

There needs to be some way to compile many statistics in order to rank players. The best way would be to examine how much a particular stat contributes to the win. Also, it would be more favorable to have more a lot more stats to do this with (close assists, second hand assists, charges taken, and on and on and on). This would require some serious statistical duties, BUT it would help end myths all across the league. It would open people's eyes to examining a player's contribution instead of his TEAM'S record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
Efficiency isnt 100% accurate, but the two best players in the league are in the top 3, so it has to be somewhat accurate.
you're being fooled by seeing them there. just because it may have the top 3, DOESNT IMPLY that it is close to accurate. Then untrained human eye implies causations all of the time. It is wrong. It is the #1 flaw in the average sports fan who is taking the game seriously.

Think outside the box.
 

·
just foul
Joined
·
6,913 Posts
Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
I dont think thats a good way either. Like in Mike Bibbys case, hes coming off the floor and being replaced by a guy almost as good and will do a fine job. If he was on another team and his replacement sucked, then his +/- would be a lot better. It shows impact on a team, but it doesnt show impact compared to other players in the league. Some guys are more important to their team, but not as good as players who arent as important to their team.

Efficiency isnt 100% accurate, but the two best players in the league are in the top 3, so it has to be somewhat accurate.
The efficiency may be better for rating a person's individual contribution, but I like the +/- because it shows how an individual has impacted the game itself.

Yeah, I see where you're saying how it compares w/ other players in the league. I agree w/ that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>tpb2</b>!
you're being fooled by seeing them there. just because it may have the top 3, DOESNT IMPLY that it is close to accurate. Then untrained human eye implies causations all of the time. It is wrong. It is the #1 flaw in the average sports fan who is taking the game seriously.

Think outside the box.
haha I'm being fooled? Think outside the box? You need to give that nonsense a rest.

Anyways, find another stat that is BETTER than efficiency and you'll have a point. I said it is SOMEWHAT accurate, not 100%. The fact that Tmac, Duncan, KG, Peja and Dirk are in the top 10 makes it somewhat accurate no matter how you try to twist it as decieving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
Originally posted by <b>tpb2</b>!

It places way too much emphasis on rebounding numbers.

10 rebounds doesnt equal 10 assists, basically numbers arent equal
This is true and does not take a statistics professor to see it. The
efficiency rating favors big men because rebounds are easier to
get than assists. That is why there are 10 guys averaging double
figure rebounds and not a single guy in the league averaging
double figure assists ( I know Kidd is close).

Since rebounds are counted equally to assists it gives the
rebounding guy an advantage over the passing guy.

I think what it means is that you can compare guys of the same
position using efficiency but you can not compare a center to say
a point guard using efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
You need to give that nonsense a rest.

nonsense???

WHY is it nonsense????

Your just denying it because you dont understand it. You dont understand the amount of reasearch proven minds are putting out in order to address this "nonsense" of sports statistics. You dont accept it because you dont know about it. Instead you lash out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>tpb2</b>!
nonsense???

WHY is it nonsense????

Your just denying it because you dont understand it. You dont understand the amount of reasearch proven minds are putting out in order to address this "nonsense" of sports statistics. You dont accept it because you dont know about it. Instead you lash out.
Okay buddy. I doubt you know what I do and dont understand based on me saying the FACT that efficiency is SOMEWHAT accurate.

You're the one lashing out because you think your understanding of things is incredible or something.

PROVE TO ME that efficiency ratings arent SOMEWHAT accurate, and you'll have a point, until then, what you're saying IS nonsense. NONSENSE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
i think the nba should adopt the +/- system because dirk nowitzki would have lead that category last year. he lead all players by 200 points. he said 700 something and duncan was the closest with 500 something. i saw it on nba.com a few weeks back. they were showing who would be the leader if they had a +/- system. i say we drop efficiency and go plus/minus.
 

·
just foul
Joined
·
6,913 Posts
I don't think there will ever be one flawless stat to determine who is a better player. That's why we still have human scouts to evaluate and assess basketball talent and not formulas to choose prospects for us.

I just like the +/- better because it's all about winning or losing - although there are circumstances that could make the results unreasonable; i.e. Bobby Jackson having a slightly negative net number because he's subbing for an All-Star. However, over the course of the entire league, I think they are a good indicator of whether a player helps his team win basketball games, and isn't that what it's all about?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
efficiency is SOMEWHAT accurate
yes they are


but there are people here that just think those are final. They think those are the best, most scientific and accurate stats (or they use the team record argument, which is twice as bad)

obviously, you are not one of them. they do improve slightly if you go by position so I can accept "somewhat"

I will now go searching for a more developed individual stat. I found some, but they are not made public. Maybe I shoudl create my own with stats assistance?


tpb2, I did not understand your statement here. What are you
plus/minus flaws are hard to see unless you really know stats; the basic flaw of confounding variables is easy to see if you know basic, college stats, which not everyone has been exposed to
 
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top