Is Efficiency Overrated?

[Black and White]

I feel like there is too much stock put into this stat (this era specifically), basically what I'm asking is that how much of a correlation is there between winning and high efficiency??

[J Shuttlesworth]

I dunno.

Let's ask the 2014 Spurs

[navy]

The Spurs were definitely more efficient than the Heat.

[navy]

There is a really strong correlation between field goal percentage and three point percentage and winning in the nba these days.

Makes no sense really.

[Warfan]

No it isn't, it is a good measure of how consistently effective you are. Now it is always good to watch the games as well but people that just ignore efficiency are morons. I'd say it has a pretty good correlation with winning since you make the most out of your possessions.

[Black and White]

Sorry let me re-phrase, I'm talking about an individual level, not team level.

[Milbuck]

I don't know if overrated is the correct term, but you could argue that it is a bit overvalued in basketball discussion. It's incredibly important and it'd be dumb to completely dismiss it, but it's also dumb to base your entire analysis around it and use it to overshadow context.

The 2004 Pistons were 19th in the league in FG%, 16th in 3PT%, 13th in FT%, 20th in eFG%, 20th in TOV%, 18th in ORTG, 15th in assists. Every single one of those categories below league average except for FT%, and even then it was only 0.001 above the league average. And yet they destroyed the league.

Again, efficiency is highly important for basketball analysis. But there are definitely other things to consider that are undervalued because of efficiency itself.

[navy]

Sorry let me re-phrase, I'm talking about an individual level, not team level.

Indviduals make up teams. The more efficient the individuals on the team the more likely they are to win.

Only on ISH is this discussion being had.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Sorry let me re-phrase, I'm talking about an individual level, not team level.
How would it be overrated? Would you rather have a guy who scores 27 points on 15 shots, or the guy who scores 27 points on 20 shots?

Higher efficiency leads to:
-More shot opportunities for your teammates
-Less transition opportunities for your opponents
-Less defensive gambles from your opponents
-Less need to get offensive rebounds

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Depends on your approach.

Passing up shots that defenses give you (within your range) so you can get an even better shot, to some degree, is overrated..can also be considered selfish/statpadding

Taking the shots defenses give you (within your range) is NOT overrated and what you generally do in team basketball

[dubeta]

LeBron 57% scorer > Kobe 45% scorer

[J Shuttlesworth]

I don't know if overrated is the correct term, but you could argue that it is a bit overvalued in basketball discussion. It's incredibly important and it'd be dumb to completely dismiss it, but it's also dumb to base your entire analysis around it and use it to overshadow context.

The 2004 Pistons were 19th in the league in FG%, 16th in 3PT%, 13th in FT%, 20th in eFG%, 20th in TOV%, 18th in ORTG, 15th in assists. Every single one of those categories below league average except for FT%, and even then it was only 0.001 above the league average. And yet they destroyed the league.

Again, efficiency is highly important for basketball analysis. But there are definitely other things to consider that are overshadowed because of efficiency itself.
If you have good rebounding and defensive presence, you don't need to rely on higher FG%. That doesn't mean you should take bad shots though

[navy]

I don't know if overrated is the correct term, but you could argue that it is a bit overvalued in basketball discussion. It's incredibly important and it'd be dumb to completely dismiss it, but it's also dumb to base your entire analysis around it and use it to overshadow context.

The 2004 Pistons were 19th in the league in FG%, 16th in 3PT%, 13th in FT%, 20th in eFG%, 20th in TOV%, 18th in ORTG, 15th in assists. Every single one of those categories below league average except for FT%, and even then it was only 0.001 above the league average. And yet they destroyed the league.

Again, efficiency is highly important for basketball analysis. But there are definitely other things to consider that are overshadowed because of efficiency itself.

That's because when they played other teams they managed to make them less "efficient" than they were. If everyone played defense like the Pistons they would probably lead the league in some of those categories.

[MellowYellow]

It is only overrated when people don't apply context. Anyone can be efficient if all they do is take easy shots, but getting easy shots is not always possible. Sometimes being dominant is more important than being efficient.

[Black and White]

Indviduals make up teams. The more efficient the individuals on the team the more likely they are to win.

Only on ISH is this discussion being had.

Maybe I used the wrong word, over-valued (like Milbuck said) is probably a better word, I agree its wrong to ignore it, but I feel like context needs to be applied when using it in basketball discussions (as it should be with every stat).

[J Shuttlesworth]

It is only overrated when people don't apply context. Anyone can be efficient if all they do is take easy shots, but getting easy shots is not always possible. Sometimes being dominant is more important than being efficient.
See i'll never understand this distinction people make between efficient and dominant. Look at a team like the Spurs. Their efficiency was what made them a dominant team, not being shot chuckers. They weren't fearless... they were smart, calculated, and efficient. If they didn't have a good look, they wouldn't take a hero shot. They would swing it around until they have a high % look

[navy]

Maybe I used the wrong word, over-valued (like Milbuck said) is probably a better word, I agree its wrong to ignore it, but I feel like context needs to be applied when using it in basketball discussions (as it should be with every stat).

Context needs to be applied with every stat.

It isnt over valued at all.

[MellowYellow]

See i'll never understand this distinction people make between efficient and dominant. Look at a team like the Spurs. Their efficiency was what made them a dominant team, not being shot chuckers. They weren't fearless... they were smart, calculated, and efficient. If they didn't have a good look, they wouldn't take a hero shot. They would swing it around until they have a high % look

Yes and this is based off an entire team, not every team has offensive talent at every single position 10 people deep like the Spurs to go along with an offensive system that Pop puts out there. Dominance makes up for lack of talent.

[Marchesk]

LeBron 57% scorer > Kobe 45% scorer

Dantley 54% career scorer > Lebron 49.7% career scorer :confusedshrug:

[Black and White]

Context needs to be applied with every stat.

It isnt over valued at all.

I don't feel like context is always applied with this stat in particular on an individual level though.

[Black and White]

LeBron 57% scorer > Kobe 45% scorer

This is an example (I know he's a troll) but for arguments sake,


the lower efficiency player has won 5 rings and the higher efficiency player is 2/5

[J Shuttlesworth]

Yes and this is based off an entire team, not every team has offensive talent at every single position 10 people deep like the Spurs to go along with an offensive system that Pop puts out there. Dominance makes up for lack of talent.
So when you talk about dominance, I guess you mean someone like Shaq, right? He's arguably the most dominant player since Jordan, maybe even more dominant in his prime. If Shaq only shot 45% over his prime, he'd have a much lower PPG. He'd still be dominant, but not as dominant as the 50+% FG player Shaq was

[Marchesk]

See i'll never understand this distinction people make between efficient and dominant.

Lebron was dominant in one quarter of the each of the last three games, and efficient the rest of the time?

[J Shuttlesworth]

This is an example (I know he's a troll) but for arguments sake,


the lower efficiency player has won 5 rings and the higher efficiency player is 2/5
One of those players had the most dominant player of the modern era on his team with him for 3 of those rings... who shot like 59% from the field in his prime. There's a huge difference

[Marchesk]

Bill Russell 44%, 11 rings
Wilt, Barkley and Dantley 54% 2 rings

54% > 44% :confusedshrug:

[J Shuttlesworth]

Lebron was dominant in one quarter of the each of the last three games, and efficient the rest of the time?
What? He wasn't even efficient in the quarters where his playing was lacking. In those quarters you are talking about, he was missing shots... not being efficient.

In the quarters he was dominant, he was shooting an insanely high FG%

[navy]

Lebron was dominant in one quarter of the each of the last three games, and efficient the rest of the time?
Probably the exact opposite. He was hyper efficient in the quarters he was dominant in, and less efficient in the others.

[TheMarkMadsen]

One of those players had the most dominant player of the modern era on his team with him for 3 of those rings... who shot like 59% from the field in his prime. There's a huge difference

2/3 without the big guy while the big guy is 1/2 withitout him.

That argument died long ago

[J Shuttlesworth]

2/3 without the big guy while the big guy is 1/2 withitout him.

That argument died long ago
But this is ignoring the years where he missed the playoffs, or got knocked out before the finals.

That argument died a long time ago too

And you must have missed the part where OP is talking about efficiency as an individual player, not as a team. Rings are the result of a team, not just 1 individual player.

[navy]

This is an example (I know he's a troll) but for arguments sake,


the lower efficiency player has won 5 rings and the higher efficiency player is 2/5

:facepalm

Now take into account the efficiency of teammates and other teams. :oldlol:

It would be interesting to see how many finals/games are won by the less efficient team.

[BoutPractice]

LeBron 57% scorer > Kobe 45% scorer
Some read "is efficiency overrated" and understand "is efficiency overrated".

Others read "is efficiency overrated" and understand "is LeBron James overrated".

[riseagainst]

lebron 57%FG in the finals, but 40% (2/5) in the finals. efficient but not dominant.

[TheMarkMadsen]

But this is ignoring the years where he missed the playoffs, or got knocked out before the finals.

That argument died a long time ago too

And you must have missed the part where OP is talking about efficiency as an individual player, not as a team. Rings are the result of a team, not just 1 individual player.

Kobe has made more finals than Shaq, and has missed the playoffs one time, as many times as Shaq

Anyways

The best player on the 2011 Mavs team shot 41.6% in the finals

Terriblely "inefficient" for a big man, or any star but anybody and everybody watching that series will tell you Dirk played extremely well

Effeciency on an individual level is over valued, especially if that player is the main reason his team won

Aka Dirk in the 2011 finals

[Cocaine80s]

Op is just trying to sneak diss lebron as usual

[J Shuttlesworth]

Some read "is efficiency overrated" and understand "is efficiency overrated".

Others read "is efficiency overrated" and understand "is LeBron James overrated".
Well to his credit, when you see who the OP, it's obvious that it's an agenda thread about LeBron. Almost all of OP's threads area bout LeBron. You'd even say he's efficient at making threads about Bron

[J Shuttlesworth]

Kobe has made more finals than Shaq, and has missed the playoffs one time, as many times as Shaq

Anyways

The best player on the 2011 Mavs team shot 41.6% in the finals

Terriblely "inefficient" for a big man, or any star but anybody and everybody watching that series will tell you Dirk played extremely well

Effeciency on an individual level is over valued, especially if that player is the main reason his team won

Aka Dirk in the 2011 finals
Again... you're talking about team effort of making it to the finals and equating it to one player's work. Did Kobe not have an easier time making it to the finals when he played with Shaq, who was a 58-59% shooter? Did the Spurs not dominate the finals this year w/ efficiency?

Sure Dirk had a great finals performance, but was he not efficient in the 4th quarter? And he's not your typical big man obviously, so expect 50+% from a jump shooter is asking a lot. If LeBron was taking more shots and shooting more efficiently in the 4th, would the Heat not have that ring? Everyone acknowledges that LeBron choked away that ring more than the Mavs won it.

[navy]

Kobe has made more finals than Shaq, and has missed the playoffs one time, as many times as Shaq

Anyways

The best player on the 2011 Mavs team shot 41.6% in the finals

Terriblely "inefficient" for a big man, or any star but anybody and everybody watching that series will tell you Dirk played extremely well

Effeciency on an individual level is over valued, especially if that player is the main reason his team won

Aka Dirk in the 2011 finals
That Mavs team had a overall higher FG% than the Heat, shot over 40% from three as a team for the series, and a higher ft%.

It was obvious in that Finals that the Mavs three point shooting and supporting cast allowed Dirk to have the "41%" games that he had. Otherwise they would have just been blownout.

[J Shuttlesworth]

That Mavs team had a overall higher FG% than the Heat, shot over 40% from three as a team for the series, and a higher ft%.

It was obvious in that Finals that the Mavs three point shooting and supporting cast allowed Dirk to have the "41%" games that he had. Otherwise they would have just been blownout.
I don't think he'll ever get it through his head that it was Mavs vs. Heat, and not just Dirk vs. LeBron

[TheMarkMadsen]

:facepalm
Well I doubt lebrons fg% is high in the finals anyway. But Kobe has had 1 finals series where he has scored over 30ppg (on something like 43%) and has had one finals where he has shot over 45% (02 I believe) and this is in 7 finals series. So he didn't dominate nor was he efficient, but somehow only managed to lose twice. It just speaks to the calibre of teams he has had with him.

I don't wanna make this into a kobe vs bran debate but let's just say kobe isn't making the finals 5 times and might even only have one championship if he played on the same teams as bran.


Do you honestly believe that 06-10 Kobe with the 11-14 HEAT aren't makin the finals 4 times :facepalm

Kobe while exciting his prime to a team comprised of Pau Gasol, Vlad Ramonovic, Luke Walton & Lamar odom to the finals in 2008

Kobe with the 2010 Cavs with a front court of Andy V, Big Z, Jaminson, Shaq, JJ Hickson & Leone Powe and we would be hearing how its the deepest front court of all time.

[Lebron23]

Op is just trying to sneak diss lebron as usual


The guy is a double face F@ggot. He already admitted that he is a huge Kobe fan, and not a Celtics fan.

[navy]

Some read "is efficiency overrated" and understand "is efficiency overrated".

Others read "is efficiency overrated" and understand "is LeBron James overrated".

The thread is definitely about Lebron. Dont get it twisted.

[Lebron23]

Do you honestly believe that 06-10 Kobe with the 11-14 HEAT aren't makin the finals 4 times :facepalm

Kobe while exciting his prime to a team comprised of Pau Gasol, Vlad Ramonovic, Luke Walton & Lamar odom to the finals in 2008

Kobe with the 2010 Cavs with a front court of Andy V, Big Z, Jaminson, Shaq, JJ Hickson & Leone Powe and we would be hearing how its the deepest front court of all time.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-viVBZX2diBo/UOBWQoZsufI/AAAAAAAAOag/qfyE9HEmYzE/s1600/la+lakers+andrew+d+bernstein+getty+123012.jpg

[TheMarkMadsen]

I don't think he'll ever get it through his head that it was Mavs vs. Heat, and not just Dirk vs. LeBron

If you wanna look at it like that it was Dirk vs Wade, lebron didnt show up.

Let me ask you something, was Dirk ineffecient in the 2011 finals??

[navy]

Do you honestly believe that 06-10 Kobe with the 11-14 HEAT aren't makin the finals 4 times :facepalm

Kobe while exciting his prime to a team comprised of Pau Gasol, Vlad Ramonovic, Luke Walton & Lamar odom to the finals in 2008

Kobe with the 2010 Cavs with a front court of Andy V, Big Z, Jaminson, Shaq, JJ Hickson & Leone Powe and we would be hearing how its the deepest front court of all time.
This is just wasting time and is off topic.

Kobe would have made the Finals in 2011 and 2012. Probably. Wade had declined way too much after that. Just like Kobe failed to make the Finals when Pau declined in 2011. And dont get me started on the years after.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Championship efficiency is important.

championships/years played (Kobe: 27.8%. Lebron: 18.2%)
championships/finals appearances (Kobe: 71.4%. Lebron: 40%)

[Black and White]

The guy is a double face F@ggot. He already admitted that he is a huge Kobe fan, and not a Celtics fan.

Lol I haven't said one word about LeBron, and also who are you to call someone else two-faced???

You are wearing a Heat avy but weren't you a Cavs fan?

[TheMarkMadsen]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-viVBZX2diBo/UOBWQoZsufI/AAAAAAAAOag/qfyE9HEmYzE/s1600/la+lakers+andrew+d+bernstein+getty+123012.jpg

Nash & Pau missed 60 games combined

Kobe & Nash missed the playoffs..

:confusedshrug:

[Lebron23]

Lol I haven't said one word about LeBron, and also who are you to call someone else two-faced???

You are wearing a Heat avy but weren't you a Cavs fan?


If you are playing organize basketball efficiency is important. That's why Lebron has the same numbers of finals MVP as 18 yrs. veteran Kobe Bryant. That's why Kobe failed to win the finals MVP in 2000 to 2002 because Shaq was efficient and dominant at the same time.

[J Shuttlesworth]

If you wanna look at it like that it was Dirk vs Wade, lebron don't show up.

Let me ask you something, was Dirk ineffecient in the 2011 finals??
Not completely. 37% from 3, and near 98% free throw shooting. Again, it's a team sport, not a 1 man game. If Dirk shot higher %, every game would probably be a blowout. I'm still not sure why you are trying to rest a team's accomplishment on 1 guy.

The Mavs won the finals. Were they not more efficient than the Heat?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Team offensive and defensive efficiency is underrated
Individual offensive and defensive efficiency is overrated

[Young X]

The more efficient team always wins...

[Jameerthefear]

This is an example (I know he's a troll) but for arguments sake,


the lower efficiency player has won 5 rings and the higher efficiency player is 2/5
op tries so hard to look smart but he just ends up saying stupid shit like this

[Black and White]

Well to his credit, when you see who the OP, it's obvious that it's an agenda thread about LeBron. Almost all of OP's threads area bout LeBron. You'd even say he's efficient at making threads about Bron

Ok, just to clear this up (before it gets out of control) what I mean by this thread is that in this current era, we seem to have a higher focus on individual efficiency rather than impact on court (LeBron and Durant would be considered flagbearers of this), but if you can remember, back in the early to mid 2000s, there wasn't as much emphasis on it as there is now, I'm just debating whether or not this is the direction that we are heading in.

[Black and White]

If you are playing organize basketball efficiency is important. That's why Lebron has the same numbers of finals MVP as 18 yrs. veteran Kobe Bryant. That's why Kobe failed to win the finals MVP in 2000 to 2002 because Shaq was efficient and dominant at the same time.

Answer my question, weren't you a Cavs fan?

[Lebron23]

Nash & Pau missed 60 games combined

Kobe & Nash missed the playoffs..

:confusedshrug:

The Lakers still sucked when all of them were healthy.

[Mr Feeny]

I feel like there is too much stock put into this stat (this era specifically), basically what I'm asking is that how much of a correlation is there between winning and high efficiency??Absolutely! It's all about being alpha u see. Stars should be going for 50+ on 10% fg. "Alpha" mentality like that leads to championships:applause:

You Sir, really, understand basketball. You've stumbled upon an interesting concept. Teams that make less baskets from the shots they take have a better chance of winninv than If they focused on "efficiency" or maximizing the percentage of shots they make throughout a game.:applause:

[Lebron23]

Answer my question, weren't you a Cavs fan?


I am still watching some games.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Not completely. 37% from 3, and near 98% free throw shooting. Again, it's a team sport, not a 1 man game. If Dirk shot higher %, every game would probably be a blowout. I'm still not sure why you are trying to rest a team's accomplishment on 1 guy.

The Mavs won the finals. Were they not more efficient than the Heat?

The OP is about wether or not individual efficiency is overrated NOT TEAM efficiency

He clearly stated this 3 pages back

...

Dirk by your standard wasn't efficient

Dirk was the best player in the series

Individual efficiency is overvalued

[Black and White]

I am still watching some games.

So you are a Cavs and Heat fan?

[navy]

The more efficient team always wins...
Usually. Not sure why people think low efficiency shot jacking wins games.
If your star isn't being efficient than its likely your role players are. Or the other team happens to less efficient than you.

[Black and White]

Absolutely! It's all about being alpha u see. Stars should be going for 50+ on 10% fg. "Alpha" mentality like that leads to championships:applause:

You Sir, really, understand basketball. You've stumbled upon an interesting concept. Teams that make less baskets from the shots they take have a better chance of winninv than If they focused on "efficiency" or maximizing the percentage of shots they make throughout a game.:applause:

I clarified, I was talking about at an individual level.

[Mr Feeny]

op tries so hard to look smart but he just ends up saying stupid shit like this

It's baffling. Some of the stuff you read on this board is too stupid to even wrap your head around.

[Marchesk]

The more efficient team always wins...

Didn't have to look too long:

1963 NBA finals

Lakers 44% to Celtics 40%

Baylor: 46.6% (33.8)
West: 49% (29.5)

West was more efficient than any of the Celtic while scoring 4.8 more than Boston's top scorer (Sam Jones). Russell shot 46.7%. The Celtics won in 6 (and were outscored).

[TheMarkMadsen]

I am still watching some games.

The 3-4 times miami plays the cavs doesn't count

[J Shuttlesworth]

Ok, just to clear this up (before it gets out of control) what I mean by this thread is that in this current era, we seem to have a higher focus on individual efficiency rather than impact on court (LeBron and Durant would be considered flagbearers of this), but if you can remember, back in the early to mid 2000s, there wasn't as much emphasis on it as there is now, I'm just debating whether or not this is the direction that we are heading in.
I think you're overstating it. If FG% was as focused on as you say, Durant wouldn't have won MVP this year. It will still be a game of PPG/Reb/Ast/Team record unless you are like sub 45%.

Team efficiency is going to be the big thing going forward, as the Spurs have proved, and that does require individuals to play efficiently. One of the reasons why the Heat are efficient is because of LeBron's ability to get shots at the rim, and the ability to get Chris Bosh/Wade open/easy looks. The second that a team covered them well, the team efficiency took a huge drop in this years finals.

Popovich picked up players like Belinelli who shoot a high 3P% because it will fit great in his system.

[Black and White]

It's baffling. Some of the stuff you read on this board is too stupid to even wrap your head around.

Its baffling that you can't even read a few posts down on the 1st page.

[J Shuttlesworth]

I clarified, I was talking about at an individual level.
If you were talking about an individual level, why would you bring up LeBron/Kobe's championship count? Those are team accomplishments, not invidual accomplishments. You could bring up FMVP/MVP if you want to compare individual accomplishments and see how efficiency correlates.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Didn't have to look too long:

1963 NBA finals

Lakers 44% to Celtics 40%

Baylor: 46.6% (33.8)
West: 49% (29.5)

West was more efficient than any of the Celtics. Russell shot 46.7%
2010 Finals

Lakers 41.8 fg%, 28.0 3p%, 76.5 ft%
Celtics 43.3 fg%, 30.8 3p%, 77.2 ft%

The team that grabbed the most rebounds won every game of the series.

[Black and White]

I think you're overstating it. If FG% was as focused on as you say, Durant wouldn't have won MVP this year. It will still be a game of PPG/Reb/Ast/Team record unless you are like sub 45%.

Team efficiency is going to be the big thing going forward, as the Spurs have proved, and that does require individuals to play efficiently. One of the reasons why the Heat are efficient is because of LeBron's ability to get shots at the rim, and the ability to get Chris Bosh/Wade open/easy looks. The second that a team covered them well, the team efficiency took a huge drop in this years finals.

Popovich picked up players like Belinelli who shoot a high 3P% because it will fit great in his system.

Team efficieny is underrated IMO, and I agree that it should be the focus going forward,

In this debate however, in regards to efficient shot selection etc I feel like its a new trend developing in the players of this era, but do you think its going to be a good and bad thing?

[navy]

Didn't have to look too long:

1963 NBA finals

Lakers 44% to Celtics 40%

Baylor: 46.6% (33.8)
West: 49% (29.5)

West was more efficient than any of the Celtic while scoring 4.8 more than Boston's top scorer (Sam Jones). Russell shot 46.7%. The Celtics won in 6 (and were outscored).

Mind posting the 1963 stats on a per game basis? Im sure there are outliers were the less efficient team does win, but I highly doubt it is the trend.

[Black and White]

If you were talking about an individual level, why would you bring up LeBron/Kobe's championship count? Those are team accomplishments, not invidual accomplishments. You could bring up FMVP/MVP if you want to compare individual accomplishments and see how efficiency correlates.

I don't think the MVP award is an efficiency based award (as you stated above) its still based on stats/team record, neither is the FMVP, point is, both players have 2 FMVP but won them in different ways, Kobe had the 6 for 24 game, but still ended up with the FMVP, see my point? I don't know if efficiency on an individual level is as important as some of us like to think, team level, sure.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Team efficieny is underrated IMO, and I agree that it should be the focus going forward,

In this debate however, in regards to efficient shot selection etc I feel like its a new trend developing in the players of this era, but do you think its going to be a good and bad thing?
It's only bad if it leads to a player not taking enough shots. LeBron has more FGA per game in his career than Kobe, so it's not as if he's not taking enough.

But the examples people are listing above where a team shot lower EFG% and won... that can be overshadowed by having a dominant paint presence to protect the boards. More offensive rebounds means more possessions which would actually = higher efficiency, even though the FG% is lower. More possessions means you're more efficient at getting shots, even though the FG% is lower.

If you have a team that can't get offensive boards like the Heat, you need high FG%

[J Shuttlesworth]

I don't think the MVP award is an efficiency based award (as you stated above) its still based on stats/team record, neither is the FMVP, point is, both players have 2 FMVP but won them in different ways, Kobe had the 6 for 24 game, but still ended up with the FMVP, see my point? I don't know if efficiency on an individual level is as important as some of us like to think, team level, sure.
I didn't say those awards are necessarily based on efficiency, but you seemed to imply that the NBA these days, FG% gets hyped up more than it used to. If that were really the case, I think Durant would have lost the award since LeBron was a 56.7% scorer. At the end of the day, both of those awards will be based on PPG/APG/RPG more than anything.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Mind posting the 1963 stats on a per game basis? Im sure there are outliers were the less efficient team does win, but I highly doubt it is the trend.

98 finals

Jazz: 44%

Bulls: 43%

[Black and White]

It's only bad if it leads to a player not taking enough shots. LeBron has more FGA per game in his career than Kobe, so it's not as if he's not taking enough.

But the examples people are listing above where a team shot lower EFG% and won... that can be overshadowed by having a dominant paint presence to protect the boards. More offensive rebounds means more possessions which would actually = higher efficiency, even though the FG% is lower. More possessions means you're more efficient at getting shots, even though the FG% is lower.

If you have a team that can't get offensive boards like the Heat, you need high FG%

Yea, context is important.

A good example right now is Westbrook v Durant, now most people would agree that Westbrook was better/more important to the Thunders run during these playoffs, however they play different styles, and Westbrook isn't looking for the high percentage shots all the time, hes incredibly aggressive, and thats his play style, so maybe its a matter of mindset/approach??

[J Shuttlesworth]

2010 Finals

Lakers 41.8 fg%, 28.0 3p%, 76.5 ft%
Celtics 43.3 fg%, 30.8 3p%, 77.2 ft%

The team that grabbed the most rebounds won every game of the series.
Lakers took 200 FTA opposed to 140 by the Celtics

notice how the winning team took more of the most efficient shot in the game

[Cocaine80s]

Love it when everyone of these types of threads by OP backfires :oldlol:

[Young X]

Didn't have to look too long:

1963 NBA finals

Lakers 44% to Celtics 40%

Baylor: 46.6% (33.8)
West: 49% (29.5)

West was more efficient than any of the Celtic while scoring 4.8 more than Boston's top scorer (Sam Jones). Russell shot 46.7%. The Celtics won in 6 (and were outscored).Efficiency isn't FG% it's points per possession (ORTG).

FG% doesn't include offensive rebounds, turnovers and free throws. I guarantee you that the Celtics were more efficient in every win.

The team that scores more points per possession is the better team and will always win the game. It's impossible to have a lower ORTG and win.

[navy]

Lakers took 200 FTA opposed to 140 by the Celtics

notice how the winning team took more of the most efficient shot in the game
20+ free throws in the fourth quarter of a close game 7. Joey Crawford. :bowdown:

[Black and White]

I didn't say those awards are necessarily based on efficiency, but you seemed to imply that the NBA these days, FG% gets hyped up more than it used to. If that were really the case, I think Durant would have lost the award since LeBron was a 56.7% scorer. At the end of the day, both of those awards will be based on PPG/APG/RPG more than anything.

I'm talking about when we compare players these days, FG%/TS% seems to be a commonly used stat, back in the day PPG/RPG/APG weighed more heavily (I'm not saying FG % was ignored though, just not weighed as heavily).

[ArbitraryWater]

Sorry let me re-phrase, I'm talking about an individual level, not team level.


It's the same thing what are you talking about http://hoops-nation.com/community/public/style_emoticons/dark/mindblown.png

So you can use it for teams (just all individuals combined) but not for individuals alone?

Dude you're still not making any sense... Take it for what it is, a measure of how consistently effective you are.

[Carbine]

Yes, overrated.

[ArbitraryWater]

This shit is literally too stupid to get into.... the desperateness ohh weeeeee


If Mods would have ban powers, consider yourself gone, black and white trash.

[Black and White]

It's the same thing what are you talking about http://hoops-nation.com/community/public/style_emoticons/dark/mindblown.png

So you can use it for teams (just all individuals combined) but not for individuals alone?

Dude you're still not making any sense... Take it for what it is, a measure of how consistently effective you are.

I don't think you understand what I mean by this thread, read through it.

[tpols]

Yea, context is important.

A good example right now is Westbrook v Durant, now most people would agree that Westbrook was better/more important to the Thunders run during these playoffs, however they play different styles, and Westbrook isn't looking for the high percentage shots all the time, hes incredibly aggressive, and thats his play style, so maybe its a matter of mindset/approach??

I think WB perfectly highlights why individual cherrypicked FG doesnt matter.. Even when he's missing, he's making the whole defense shift, putting his guys in better rebounding position and freeing up space for perimeter shooters.

WB missing shots in that manner certainly does more damage to the defense than if he were to stand around passively and only take wide open opportunities as they present themselves. Hell, Wb's aggressiveness has completely taken teams like the spurs off their games.. hes made parker go into a shell

[J Shuttlesworth]

I'm talking about when we compare players these days, FG%/TS% seems to be a commonly used stat, back in the day PPG/RPG/APG weighed more heavily (I'm not saying FG % was ignored though, just not weighed as heavily).
That's only because we're in the days of advanced stats. I don't know why you think efficiency didn't matter back then. If a player is missing a ton of shots, his ass will get benched regardless of the era. Like someone mentioned above, the team who gets most points per possession will win. That goes beyond FG%, but it's the truest measure of efficiency.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I think WB perfectly highlights why individual cherrypicked FG doesnt matter.. Even when he's missing, he's making the whole defense shift, putting his guys in better rebounding position and freeing up space for perimeter shooters.

WB missing shots in that manner certainly does more damage to the defense than if he were to stand around passively and only take wide open opportunities as they present themselves. Hell, Wb's aggressiveness has completely taken teams like the spurs off their games.. hes made parker go into a shell

Excellent point

[Marchesk]

If a player is missing a ton of shots, his ass will get benched regardless of the era.

Iverson?

[Black and White]

That's only because we're in the days of advanced stats. I don't know why you think efficiency didn't matter back then. If a player is missing a ton of shots, his ass will get benched regardless of the era. Like someone mentioned above, the team who gets most points per possession will win. That goes beyond FG%, but it's the truest measure of efficiency.

I didn't say it didn't matter :wtf: I said it wasn't taken as seriously as it is now, maybe the advanced stats are to blame for this?? Maybe players are focusing too much on the FG% than just playing whats in front of them? I remember reading a report that certain teams hired stat analysts to monitor stats game to game.

[J Shuttlesworth]

I didn't say it didn't matter :wtf: I said it wasn't taken as seriously as it is now, maybe the advanced stats are to blame for this?? Maybe players are focusing too much on the FG% than just playing whats in front of them? I remember reading a report that certain teams hired stat analysts to monitor stats game to game.
Give me an example of a player focusing too much on FG%

[navy]

I think WB perfectly highlights why individual cherrypicked FG doesnt matter.. Even when he's missing, he's making the whole defense shift, putting his guys in better rebounding position and freeing up space for perimeter shooters.

WB missing shots in that manner certainly does more damage to the defense than if he were to stand around passively and only take wide open opportunities as they present themselves. Hell, Wb's aggressiveness has completely taken teams like the spurs off their games.. hes made parker go into a shell

Except Westbrooks best games are usually when he is efficiently scoring from his aggressiveness. Whether it be freethrows(highly efficient) or field goals.


I dont think there are alot of games where Westbrook was straight chucking and the Thunder managed to win.


Which is why they were so terrible in overtimes. Westbrook was 1-21.

[K Xerxes]

I think WB perfectly highlights why individual cherrypicked FG doesnt matter.. Even when he's missing, he's making the whole defense shift, putting his guys in better rebounding position and freeing up space for perimeter shooters.

WB missing shots in that manner certainly does more damage to the defense than if he were to stand around passively and only take wide open opportunities as they present themselves. Hell, Wb's aggressiveness has completely taken teams like the spurs off their games.. hes made parker go into a shell

His aggressiveness is very important for keeping defenses honest, but you can't tell me that some of those contested jumpers he hoists up with no ball movement helps his team. Westbrook has some TERRIBLE shot selection which hurts his team - he should only really be driving to the basket, taking those open mid range shots or threes. He makes up for it though with his incredible hustle and rebounding.

[J Shuttlesworth]

His aggressiveness is very important for keeping defenses honest, but you can't tell me that some of those contested jumpers he hoists up with no ball movement helps his team. Westbrook has some TERRIBLE shot selection which hurts his team - he should only really be driving to the basket, taking those open mid range shots or threes. He makes up for it though with his incredible hustle and rebounding.
Exactly. People act as if his low FG% helps the team, but his low FG% is from taking stupid shots which most ignore because they just watch the highlight reel. If he didn't take those stupid shots, the Thunder would be a much better team. You don't have to take stupid shots to be fearless, or keep the defense guessing. If he moved the ball or took it to the paint instead of jacking up contested threes, the Thunder would be in a much better position.

[Black and White]

Give me an example of a player focusing too much on FG%

I don't think its applicable to a player for his entire career, but certain cases for games in particular can be made for most players, you can see when a player is focusing on only taking high percentage shots (keep in mind that I don't think this is a bad thing) but I feel like coaches/team analysts have told them to focus on shot selection for that game, if you follow, i'm not accusing anyone in particular of this, maybe blaming the way things have changed?

[J Shuttlesworth]

I don't think its applicable to a player for his entire career, but certain cases for games in particular can be made for most players, you can see when a player is focusing on only taking high percentage shots (keep in mind that I don't think this is a bad thing) but I feel like coaches/team analysts have told them to focus on shot selection for that game, if you follow, i'm not accusing anyone in particular of this, maybe blaming the way things have changed?
Players only taking high % shots is precisely why the Spurs won this year. It's a smart coaching strategy because it leads to more ball movement and gives everyone on the team more touches/shots which leads to your teammates getting into it instead of watching you play hero ball.

[navy]

I don't think its applicable to a player for his entire career, but certain cases for games in particular can be made for most players, you can see when a player is focusing on only taking high percentage shots (keep in mind that I don't think this is a bad thing) but I feel like coaches/team analysts have told them to focus on shot selection for that game, if you follow, i'm not accusing anyone in particular of this, maybe blaming the way things have changed?

Not a bad thing. If you are losing because your star isnt taking enough bad shots, it just means you need to get him more good shots.

[Black and White]

Players only taking high % shots is precisely why the Spurs won this year. It's a smart coaching strategy because it leads to more ball movement and gives everyone on the team more touches/shots which leads to your teammates getting into it instead of watching you play hero ball.

I think the Spurs offense leads to the high FG% because you can tell they focus on extra passes/selfless ball and making the defense move, I don't think that Pop was entirely focused on insanely high FG%, even he admitted he didnt expect it, its a just a function of how they play, which is what I think a few teams in particular need to try doing more in the next season.

[J Shuttlesworth]

I think the Spurs offense leads to the high FG% because you can tell they focus on extra passes/selfless ball and making the defense move, I don't think that Pop was entirely focused on insanely high FG%, even he admitted he didnt expect it, its a just a function of how they play, which is what I think a few teams in particular need to try doing more in the next season.
I don't get what you mean by "focused on insanely high FG%"

That's like when players/coaches say "We need to make more shots and get more stops on defense"... I mean every play a coach calls is designed to get a high % shot. Getting good looks is what every coach wants, which leads to high FG%.

It's not like the coach says "OK guys, we gotta keep high FG% over the game" because it's implied that you want get the highest quality looks possible.

[Young X]

I think WB perfectly highlights why individual cherrypicked FG doesnt matter.. Even when he's missing, he's making the whole defense shift, putting his guys in better rebounding position and freeing up space for perimeter shooters.

WB missing shots in that manner certainly does more damage to the defense than if he were to stand around passively and only take wide open opportunities as they present themselves. Hell, Wb's aggressiveness has completely taken teams like the spurs off their games.. hes made parker go into a shellWhat about those transition jumpers he takes with no other offensive rebounder near the rim?

So you would prefer Westbrook to keep playing the way he's playing over him taking smarter shots, making better decisions, and wasting less possessions? "Putting guys in better rebounding position" doesn't make up for all the possessions he wastes.

[Black and White]

I don't get what you mean by "focused on insanely high FG%"

That's like when players/coaches say "We need to make more shots and get more stops on defense"... I mean every play a coach calls is designed to get a high % shot. Getting good looks is what every coach wants, which leads to high FG%.

It's not like the coach says "OK guys, we gotta keep high FG% over the game" because it's implied that you want get the highest quality looks possible.

What I'm saying is their high FG% is a function of the type of system that they run which is predicated on ball movement.

Its not like they are out there consistently monitoring their FG%

[Cocaine80s]

Maybe we should blame the media for putting such a high emphasis on FG%?

Ever since Lebron shot over 50% its been the gold standard for other players. Specially KD who checks his FG % all the time

[J Shuttlesworth]

What I'm saying is their high FG% is a function of the type of system that they run which is predicated on ball movement.

Its not like they are out there consistently monitoring their FG%
That's exactly what I just said... and that's why it's a good thing that players are actively trying to get better shots. You'll call it stat padding or whatever, but it's simply smart. Don't take a dumb shot, and pass it instead... It's called smart basketball and leads to better offensive flow. The Heat played like this in 2012-13. In fact one of the reasons LeBron's FG% is so much higher than it used to be is because of Miami's system.

[Blue&Orange]

One thing is playing efficiently (spurs 2014) other is playing to be efficient even if it hurts your team (Lebron)

\End thread.

[Black and White]

Maybe we should blame the media for putting such a high emphasis on FG%?

Ever since Lebron shot over 50% its been the gold standard for other players. Specially KD who checks his FG % all the time

This is what I mean, advanced stats and analysts I feel have placed too much emphasis on this and maybe players hold back a little? I dunno, its just a theory.

[J Shuttlesworth]

This is what I mean, advanced stats and analysts I feel have placed too much emphasis on this and maybe players hold back a little? I dunno, its just a theory.
It depends on what you mean by holding back. If you're saying a player dribbles for too long and then takes a shot at the buzzer because of a lack of an open shot, that's hurting your team. Passing the ball early in the clock because you don't have anything is a smart move, and is what the Spurs offense is predicated on. That's why they start the passes as soon as they get across court

[Black and White]

That's exactly what I just said... and that's why it's a good thing that players are actively trying to get better shots. You'll call it stat padding or whatever, but it's simply smart. Don't take a dumb shot, and pass it instead... It's called smart basketball and leads to better offensive flow. The Heat played like this in 2012-13. In fact one of the reasons LeBron's FG% is so much higher than it used to be is because of Miami's system.

Exactly, so its not like they are monitoring it in game, its just happens because of the system they run, I feel like if Indiana/Portland/Golden State ran similar offenses next season, we could see the same result.

[Black and White]

It depends on what you mean by holding back. If you're saying a player dribbles for too long and then takes a shot at the buzzer because of a lack of an open shot, that's hurting your team. Passing the ball early in the clock because you don't have anything is a smart move, and is what the Spurs offense is predicated on. That's why they start the passes as soon as they get across court

For example, a players mindset is to constantly play aggressive, take shots, etc, if they are told to focus on smart shots, it may put them off their game/they might regress a little because its forcing them to do something that they aren't used to, Iverson is a good example of this.

[J Shuttlesworth]

For example, a players mindset is to constantly play aggressive, take shots, etc, if they are told to focus on smart shots, it may put them off their game/they might regress a little because its forcing them to do something that they aren't used to, Iverson is a good example of this.
The thing is you can be aggressive and still only take smart shots. This is exactly how the Spurs played, and generally how LeBron plays. LeBron being agressive doesn't necessarily mean shooting a lot, but taking it to the paint. In game 2, he was like 1/4 in the first quarter, but was taking it to the paint every possession and it set the tone of the game and that was the one game they won. If your mindset is to be agressive, that doesn't mean to take hero shots. That's where Westbrook fails and hurts his team. He can still be aggressive without taking low percentage shots.

[navy]

Maybe we should blame the media for putting such a high emphasis on FG%?

Ever since Lebron shot over 50% its been the gold standard for other players. Specially KD who checks his FG % all the time
Except Lebron should be the standard if he is the best in the world.

[Black and White]

The thing is you can be aggressive and still only take smart shots. This is exactly how the Spurs played, and generally how LeBron plays. LeBron being agressive doesn't necessarily mean shooting a lot, but taking it to the paint. In game 2, he was like 1/4 in the first quarter, but was taking it to the paint every possession and it set the tone of the game and that was the one game they won. If your mindset is to be agressive, that doesn't mean to take hero shots. That's where Westbrook fails and hurts his team. He can still be aggressive without taking low percentage shots.

Its just that players aren't all wired the same way, not all of them worry about their FG%, if they are feeling it, they are taking the shot regardless, thats just the way it is sometimes.

[Sarcastic]

Yes it has become overrated because context is rarely used. The only sure way to win a game is by scoring more points than the other team. Being highly efficient is one way to do it. Other ways are through rebounding, and turnovers.


It baffles me when I see people say that "the more efficient team always wins", since it is completely not true.

[plowking]

Sorry let me re-phrase, I'm talking about an individual level, not team level.

OP thinks people don't get the obvious agenda behind the thread already and throws this out, as if we needed anymore clarification. :oldlol:

[J Shuttlesworth]

Its just that players aren't all wired the same way, not all of them worry about their FG%, if they are feeling it, they are taking the shot regardless, thats just the way it is sometimes.
I don't think LeBron worries about his FG% like you think, or many other players for that matter... even KD. They're still taking a ton of shots a game... they're just damn good at it. I don't think KD taking high % shots hurts the team at all. It's his defense that needs to improve for him to be the best in the world

[Black and White]

OP thinks people don't get the obvious agenda behind the thread already and throws this out, as if we needed anymore clarification. :oldlol:

What agenda are you talking about? Read through the thread and come back to me.

[rlsmooth775]

What agenda are you talking about? Read through the thread and come back to me.

Lebron >>>> Kobe get over it

[Black and White]

I don't think LeBron worries about his FG% like you think, or many other players for that matter... even KD. They're still taking a ton of shots a game... they're just damn good at it. I don't think KD taking high % shots hurts the team at all. It's his defense that needs to improve for him to be the best in the world

KD is an example of a player that needs to get more aggressive, and most people have admitted this, when Westbrook was out, that was the type of player that we thought he was, Westbrook comes back (a more aggressive player) and KD settles back into a 2nd option type role, as I said, people are wired differently, LeBron, for the most part, is an example of a player that plays for high percentage shots (in the paint), which is a great and works for him, it just won't work for everybody.

[plowking]

What agenda are you talking about? Read through the thread and come back to me.

I did, just to laugh.

Answer this.

All things being equal, which team wins the game. The team with their superstar shooting 12/20, no 3 pointers, no free throws, or the one with the superstar that goes 9/20, no 3 pointers, no free throws?

[navy]

Durant (and Westbrook) doesnt shoot efficient shots at the end of games. And it hurts considerably. .

[J Shuttlesworth]

KD is an example of a player that needs to get more aggressive, and most people have admitted this, when Westbrook was out, that was the type of player that we thought he was, Westbrook comes back (a more aggressive player) and KD settles back into a 2nd option type role, as I said, people are wired differently, LeBron, for the most part, is an example of a player that plays for high percentage shots (in the paint), which is a great and works for him, it just won't work for everybody.
What KD did in the season was great, but the playoffs I would agree... but that doesn't necessarily just mean taking more shots. He needs to play off the ball more and work on his play making abilities on the ball. Sometimes he is standing on the perimeter letting westbrook do his thing, but that doesn't mean he's protecting his FG%... just that he isn't effective unless he is shooting, which is what he needs to work on. More ways to be effective besides scoring

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I did, just to laugh.

Answer this.

All things being equal, which team wins the game. The team with their superstar shooting 12/20, no 3 pointers, no free throws, or the one with the superstar that goes 9/20, no 3 pointers, no free throws?

I think that is OP's point. In a game, there are rarely things equal, hence efficiency being "overrated".

[Black and White]

I did, just to laugh.

Answer this.

All things being equal, which team wins the game. The team with their superstar shooting 12/20, no 3 pointers, no free throws, or the one with the superstar that goes 9/20, no 3 pointers, no free throws?

Depends on context, hypotheticals are cool, in theory, you clearly haven't read through the thread otherwise you would understand the point I am trying to make.

But if everything is equal in your hypothetical situation, the first team wins, it is just an example though, there is no context.

[Black and White]

What KD did in the season was great, but the playoffs I would agree... but that doesn't necessarily just mean taking more shots. He needs to play off the ball more and work on his play making abilities on the ball. Sometimes he is standing on the perimeter letting westbrook do his thing, but that doesn't mean he's protecting his FG%... just that he isn't effective unless he is shooting, which is what he needs to work on. More ways to be effective besides scoring

From KDs perspective, that falls on the coach, they need to establish some off the ball play to get him open, Westbrook is clearly wired to stay aggressive, they need to understand how to work KD in with a player like that.

[Blue&Orange]

One thing is playing efficiently (spurs 2014) other is playing to be efficient even if it hurts your team (Lebron)

\End thread.
\end thread.

[comerb]

Is Efficiency Overrated?
No.


how much of a correlation is there between winning and high efficiency

A significant correlation.

[Rose'sACL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YP6ydCCKYU
this is what OP means.

[TheMarkMadsen]

96 nba finals

Bulls: 41.6% FG; 26% 3pt; 76% FT

Sonics: 44.5% FG; 31% 3pt; 85% FT (sonics made more FT)

Effeciency is overrated

[plowking]

Depends on context, hypotheticals are cool, in theory, you clearly haven't read through the thread otherwise you would understand the point I am trying to make.

But if everything is equal in your hypothetical situation, the first team wins, it is just an example though, there is no context.

I gave you the context. Everything else being equal. Who wins?

So... Everything else equal the more efficient player wins. So... I guess that would make it important, would it not?
And if it isn't equal, why would the efficient shooting be the problem? In what circumstance is it ever going to be better to shoot 9/24, then 13/25? Other things not being equal, that means you need to rebound the ball better, play some better defense, etc.

Shooting the ball 9/10 and scoring 25 points is never worse than shooting 10/22 and scoring 28 points. Never.
You need to look elsewhere if your team didn't win with the 9/10 shooting, but you can look at shot selection if you lose with the second shooting line.

How simple is this thread? The fact something like this can go 100+ replies shows you made a good troll thread. Congrats.

[Young X]

96 nba finals

Bulls: 41.6% FG; 26% 3pt; 76% FT

Sonics: 44.5% FG; 31% 3pt; 85% FT (sonics only took 15 less FTA)

Effeciency is overratedBulls: 80 turnovers
Sonics: 96 turnovers

Bulls: 101 off rebs
Sonics: 67 off rebs

Bulls made better use of their possessions = more efficient

Bulls: 111 ORTG
Sonics: 107 ORTG

:confusedshrug:

[plowking]

96 nba finals

Bulls: 41.6% FG; 26% 3pt; 76% FT

Sonics: 44.5% FG; 31% 3pt; 85% FT (sonics made more FT)

Effeciency is overrated

They got out-rebounded, committed 3 more turnovers a game, got 2 less steals, and blocked 2 less shots a game.

Their shooting kept the games closer if anything.

[plowking]

Bulls: 80 turnovers
Sonics: 96 turnovers

Bulls: 101 off rebs
Sonics: 67 off rebs

Bulls: 111 ORTG
Sonics: 107 ORTG

:confusedshrug:

:oldlol:

Exactly. Dude acting like a 6 offensive rebounds per game difference isn't going to change the scope of a game. Add in the turnovers, steals and blocks, and they're getting 10+ more possessions a game.

[TheMarkMadsen]

:oldlol:

Exactly. Dude acting like a 6 offensive rebounds per game difference isn't going to change the scope of a game. Add in the turnovers, steals and blocks, and they're getting 10+ more possessions a game.


Op is clearly talking about FG%

If you factor in turnovers then how can you look at Lebrons 14 finals and label it as effecient?

[Black and White]

I gave you the context. Everything else being equal. Who wins?

So... Everything else equal the more efficient player wins. So... I guess that would make it important, would it not?
And if it isn't equal, why would the efficient shooting be the problem? In what circumstance is it ever going to be better to shoot 9/24, then 13/25? Other things not being equal, that means you need to rebound the ball better, play some better defense, etc.

Shooting the ball 9/10 and scoring 25 points is never worse than shooting 10/22 and scoring 28 points. Never.
You need to look elsewhere if your team didn't win with the 9/10 shooting, but you can look at shot selection if you lose with the second shooting line.

How simple is this thread? The fact something like this can go 100+ replies shows you made a good troll thread. Congrats.

Is that not context??? Does that not prove the point I am trying to make?

For example, would you knock LeBron if he went beast mode during this Finals and went 15 of 35 or something in games to try and bring the team back??

[Legends66NBA7]

96 nba finals

Bulls: 41.6% FG; 26% 3pt; 76% FT

Sonics: 44.5% FG; 31% 3pt; 85% FT (sonics made more FT)

Effeciency is overrated

Lacks context. Basically what plowking and Young X said in a shorter version. I would have gone to detail on each game, but I think both posts bring better perspective and I would have just been redundant.

And...


Op is clearly talking about FG%

Then that's a very simplistic way of looking at efficiency. When discussing TEAMS, you have to include the overall basic statistics and advanced statistics (because they ARE team stats) to gauge overall efficiency.

Better offensive rebounding (about 7.5% more !) and a low turnover rate (about 3.8% less) helps the Bulls overall ORTG being better than the Sonics.

[ArbitraryWater]

Lacks context. Basically what plowking and Young X said in a shorter version. I would have gone to detail on each game, but I think both posts bring better perspective.

And...



Then that's a very simplistic way of looking at efficiency. When discussing TEAMS, you have to include the overall basic statistics and advanced statistics (because they ARE team stats) to gauge overall efficiency.

Better offensive rebounding (about 7.5% more !) and a low turnover rate (about 3.8% less) helps the Bulls overall ORTG.

Morons with a clear agenda will try to discredit EFFICIENCY... it makes zero sense. Given no TO's and same shots, more efficient team will always win.

[Young X]

FG% isn't efficiency. :facepalm

FG% is just makes/misses. Doesn't include turnovers, 3 pointers, FT's, and offensive rebounds which all affect how well teams use their possessions.

ORTG = efficiency. The '87 Lakers and '92 Bulls have the two highest ORTG in league history, coincidence? No, the reason why they were that good offensively was because of their EFFICIENCY.

The winning team is always the more efficient team. Always.

This thread should be "Is FG% is overrated?".

[tgan3]

Efficiency is overrated. Demarcus cousins and Isiah Thomas EFF combined should
have a much higher win rate then what the Kings have.

[tpols]

You know what's underrated? Momentum at the cost of efficiency.. Nobody wants to force the issue.

[SpecialQue]

Yes.

[coin24]

Definitely overrated

[DMAVS41]

Nope. Probably the single most important aspect of the game.

[Marchesk]

For clarification, is this thread about shooting percentage or overall offensive efficiency? Because the first one can be overrated, and sometimes teams with better shooting percentages lose. And sometimes it's apparent from watching a game that a player too caught up in shooting well would serve his team better by taking more shots.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Nope. It's underrated, if anything.

[Marchesk]

ORTG = efficiency. The '87 Lakers and '92 Bulls have the two highest ORTG in league history, coincidence? No, the reason why they were that good offensively was because of their EFFICIENCY.

Circular definition. Instead, you need to expound upon what made those two teams so efficient.

[moe94]

All Kobe stans said it's overrated. lol

[Marchesk]

Is there a stat which shows that offensive rating is more conducive to winning than defensive rating? Your team might not be the top in the league in ORTG, but if you have a great defense, you can make up for it.

Such as the 60s Celtics.

[Black and White]

For clarification, is this thread about shooting percentage or overall offensive efficiency? Because the first one can be overrated, and sometimes teams with better shooting percentages lose. And sometimes it's apparent from watching a game that a player too caught up in shooting well would serve his team better by taking more shots.

Yea the first, on an individual level, I can't imagine a team shooting at a high percentage being an overly bad thing.

[Marchesk]

Yea the first, on an individual level, I can't imagine a team shooting at a high percentage being an overly bad thing.

It's not (obviously), but I think the question is whether putting an emphasis on shooting well is overrated.

[Dave3]

FG% isn't efficiency. :facepalm

FG% is just makes/misses. Doesn't include turnovers, 3 pointers, FT's, and offensive rebounds which all affect how well teams use their possessions.

ORTG = efficiency. The '87 Lakers and '92 Bulls have the two highest ORTG in league history, coincidence? No, the reason why they were that good offensively was because of their EFFICIENCY.

The winning team is always the more efficient team. Always.

This thread should be "Is FG% is overrated?".
Why this isn't clear to everyone is beyond me. Actually more accurately it should be titled "Is (LeBron's) FG% overrated" because it's pretty clear what this is about. People talked about team efficiency the OP steered it more towards individual efficiency (jee I wonder who he's trying to allude to) and when it became about that, others are trying to direct it to FG% and ignore what efficiency actually means.

Like it's been said 100 times, the more efficient team wins, because both teams will have the same number of possessions in a game. Whether that's done by defense (lowering the opposing team's success on their possessions) or by inflating your own (making good use of your possessions and having low turnovers), doesn't matter, but at the end of the day, team efficiency is the most correlated thing with winning.

[Gr]

Kobe fans: YES

Everyone else: NO

I didn't read the thread. That about right?:lol

[Legends66NBA7]

Nope. It's underrated, if anything.

Not at all.

It's neither underrated nor overrated, but that's just me.

[Black and White]

Why this isn't clear to everyone is beyond me. Actually more accurately it should be titled "Is (LeBron's) FG% overrated" because it's pretty clear what this is about. People talked about team efficiency the OP steered it more towards individual efficiency (jee I wonder who he's trying to allude to) and when it became about that, others are trying to direct it to FG% and ignore what efficiency actually means.

Like it's been said 100 times, the more efficient team wins, because both teams will have the same number of possessions in a game. Whether that's done by defense (lowering the opposing team's success on their possessions) or by inflating your own (making good use of your possessions and having low turnovers), doesn't matter, but at the end of the day, team efficiency is the most correlated thing with winning.

I haven't talked about LeBron once, more about Durant tbh, if you read through the thread, I'm talking about the impact that FG% and advanced stats might be having on new generation players and the importance of keeping it high.

[Legends66NBA7]

Old post in another thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9436238&postcount=44

Any stat can really be overrated without context.

[Dave3]

I haven't talked about LeBron once, more about Durant tbh, if you read through the thread, I'm talking about the impact that FG% and advanced stats might be having on new generation players and the importance of keeping it high.
I've read this thread but I've also been reading the board for a few years and am familiar with how things work.

New generation players are more focused on higher efficiency because they realize that's how teams win games, so they're trying to be contributors to that. The best proof right now is the Spurs. They had no superstars but played team ball and kept their turnovers low with great shot selection, which won them the series.

Will teams get an added bonus from a superstar going off? Of course they will, but superstars don't go off every game, so taking 25 shots every game to have a great game every 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 games isn't a good strategy. Instead players like Durant will look for good shots and if they don't have it will move the ball around so that one of their teammates might get a better opportunity. Over the course of the game I'd rather have a role player take an open 18 footer than a superstar take a fadeaway against good defense. There shouldn't be debate about that point in my opinion.

[Sarcastic]

Riley said it best: "No rebounds, no rings". He didn't say: "No high TS%, no rings".

[Legends66NBA7]

Riley said it best: "No rebounds, no rings". He didn't say: "No high TS%, no rings".

Rebounding is a part of efficiency. Thanks Pat.

[Black and White]

I've read this thread but I've also been reading the board for a few years and am familiar with how things work.

New generation players are more focused on higher efficiency because they realize that's how teams win games, so they're trying to be contributors to that. The best proof right now is the Spurs. They had no superstars but played team ball and kept their turnovers low with great shot selection, which won them the series.

Will teams get an added bonus from a superstar going off? Of course they will, but superstars don't go off every game, so taking 25 shots every game to have a great game every 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 games isn't a good strategy. Instead players like Durant will look for good shots and if they don't have it will move the ball around so that one of their teammates might get a better opportunity. Over the course of the game I'd rather have a role player take an open 18 footer than a superstar take a fadeaway against good defense. There shouldn't be debate about that point in my opinion.

You make good points, but as I said earlier, a few teams have signed some statistical analysts to keep track of stats throughout the season, sometimes I feel like it may hurt a players progress if they are not wired in the way of focusing on look for open shots only etc, there are certian players that like to be aggressive, sometimes tampering with it can hurt their growth, I do like the idea of extra passes, high FG% in turn becomes a function of that.

[Dave3]

Rebounding is a part of efficiency. Thanks Pat.
I wouldn't consider it part of efficiency because efficiency is more of "doing more with what you have" - rebounding isn't doing more with the possessions you already have but gaining extra possessions with which you have stuff to do.

[Legends66NBA7]

I wouldn't consider it part of efficiency because efficiency is more of "doing more with what you have" - rebounding isn't doing more with the possessions you already have but gaining extra possessions with which you have stuff to do.

Basically why I stated it's "part of efficiency". Offensive rebounds and gaining extra possessions is a huge boost to a team.

Poster brought up the 96 Finals stats in terms of efficiency and 3 of us said that the offensive rebounds and low turnovers eventually got the Bulls over the hump despite it's lower shooting percentages.

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=343683&page=9

[Dave3]

I feel like it may hurt a players progress if they are not wired in the way of focusing on open shots etc,
Only if you define "aggressiveness" by shot taking and not just playing basketball properly. Being aggressive doesn't mean taking the shot when it's not there, it means making a shot when it's not there. It shouldn't matter whether you're making that shot for yourself or your team, because they should be the same thing to you anyways.



there are certian players that like to be aggressive, sometimes tampering with it can hurt their growth, I do like the idea of extra passes, high FG% in turn becomes a function of that.
Again, efficiency and aggressiveness aren't mutually exclusive. They're only different if you think making plays for your teammates isn't aggressiveness, and that only taking shots should be defined as aggressive.

[Dave3]

Basically why I stated it's "part of efficiency". Offensive rebounds and gaining extra possessions is a huge boost to a team.

Poster brought up the 96 Finals stats in terms of efficiency and 3 of us said that the offensive rebounds and low turnovers eventually got the Bulls over the hump despite it's lower shooting percentages.

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=343683&page=9
I think of efficiency as the numerator. Rebounding is the denominator. Efficiency is what you do with the opportunities you have and rebounding is creating more opportunities. I saw the post (which I found funny because he seemingly had to go back 18 years to find an exception then proceeded to conclude "yes it's overrated") but I only agree with you guys on the turnovers point. On the rebounding front I disagree because it's not making better use of a possession to rebound the ball, it's actually gaining a possession when you rebound the ball.

[Black and White]

Only if you define "aggressiveness" by shot taking and not just playing basketball properly. Being aggressive doesn't mean taking the shot when it's not there, it means making a shot when it's not there. It shouldn't matter whether you're making that shot for yourself or your team, because they should be the same thing to you anyways.


Again, efficiency and aggressiveness aren't mutually exclusive. They're only different if you think making plays for your teammates isn't aggressiveness, and that only taking shots should be defined as aggressive.

Yea I can see your point, thats why context should apply for players that try can carry offensive loads when their teammates can't create/make shots.

Paul George for example has had some terrible games, but lets say his teammates went stagnant, and he tried to make shots to get his team back in, are we really going to knock him for that?

[Sarcastic]

Rebounds are part of efficiency now? What's next? Assists will be part of turnovers because when you steal the ball more you can make an easy pass to get an assist?

[Dave3]

Yea I can see your point, thats why context should apply for players that try can carry offensive loads when their teammates can't create/make shots.

Paul George for example has had some terrible games, but lets say his teammates went stagnant, and he tried to make shots to get his team back in, are we really going to knock him for that?
A "stagnant" teammate should still be expected to make their layups and open jumpers. I wouldn't fault him if he got frustrated and started jacking shots in desperation, but I wouldn't fault him for playing basketball the right way either. If he continues to set them up for very makeable shots, and considering this is the NBA, then it's clear why the team ended up losing.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Rebounds are part of efficiency now? What's next? Assists will be part of turnovers because when you steal the ball more you can make an easy pass to get an assist?
It's not complicated. More rebounds + more steals give you more posessions = more chances to score thus a more efficient team. FG% isn't the only aspect of efficiency

Points per possession = efficiency as well as # of possessions

[Marchesk]

Basically why I stated it's "part of efficiency". Offensive rebounds and gaining extra possessions is a huge boost to a team.

That's not what I think when I hear "efficiency". I think of it as scoring a high percentage per possession, not gaining extra possessions through rebounding or turnovers.

[Legends66NBA7]

Rebounds are part of efficiency now?

I didn't make the 4 factors that go into ORTG. But are not offensive rebounds part of offense ?

[Legends66NBA7]

That's not what I think when I hear "efficiency". I think of it as scoring a high percentage per possession, not gaining extra possessions through rebounding or turnovers.

We probably just have different terms or standards about efficiency. Maybe rebounding isn't something that's brought up in regards of efficiency, but turnovers is certainly a decider in efficiency.

If a team (or player) gets a high rate of turnovers comparable to his assists or has more turnovers than assists, that's not a very efficient overall offensive game.

[Marchesk]

I didn't make the 4 factors that go into ORTG. But are not offensive rebounds part of offense ?

Of course. But take a team that shoots poorly and yet dominates on the offensive glass. They're not efficient with their possessions, but their offensive rebounding makes up for their FG%.

I didn't know that ORTG was a definition of efficiency. Semantics I guess.

[Dave3]

I didn't make the 4 factors that go into ORTG. But are not offensive rebounds part of offense ?
ORTG =/= efficiency. It's how good an offense is, which is more than just the efficiency of the offense, but also the created opportunities of that offense, which includes offensive rebounds.

[Marchesk]

If a team (or player) gets a high rate of turnovers comparable to his assists or has more turnovers than assists, that's not a very efficient overall offensive game.

Agreed for the team, and as for the player it depends on their role. They might make up for it by being an efficient scorer who isn't a facilitator of the offense.

[Young X]

ORTG =/= efficiency. It's how good an offense is, which is more than just the efficiency of the offense, but also the created opportunities of that offense, which includes offensive rebounds.ORTG is efficiency. It's points per possession.

Offensive rebounds basically negate missed shots. Anything that gives your team a higher chance to score is efficient.

[Sarcastic]

It's not complicated. More rebounds + more steals give you more posessions = more chances to score thus a more efficient team. FG% isn't the only aspect of efficiency

Points per possession = efficiency as well as # of possessions

It's actually the exact opposite. An efficient team to the highest degree won't even have missed shots, and score on every possession.

Rebounding has to do with possessions for yourself, and limiting the possessions of your opponent.

Player A:shoots 1/1 scores 2 points.
Player B: shoots 1/3 grabs 2 offensive rebounds scores 2 points.

Player A is more efficient, but Player B is better at controlling possessions.

[Legends66NBA7]

Of course. But take a team that shoots poorly and yet dominates on the offensive glass. They're not efficient with their possessions, but their offensive rebounding makes up for their FG%.

Which is why teams win titles against strong defensive units. Remember the 2010 Finals ? The offensive rebounding came through huge, especially in game 7 when nobody could buy a shot.

I didn't know that ORTG was a definition of efficiency. Semantics I guess.[/QUOTE]

Well, looking at the OP:


I feel like there is too much stock put into this stat (this era specifically), basically what I'm asking is that how much of a correlation is there between winning and high efficiency??

I thought he was at least talking in regards to this era and what we use as stats. Since this seems to involve advanced stats to some extent, ORTG should be the first factor brought into discussion because does take it's main 4 factors.

[J Shuttlesworth]

It's actually the exact opposite. An efficient team to the highest degree won't even have missed shots, and score on every possession.

Rebounding has to do with possessions for yourself, and limiting the possessions of your opponent.

Player A:shoots 1/1 scores 2 points.
Player B: shoots 1/3 grabs 2 offensive rebounds scores 2 points.

Player A is more efficient, but Player B is better at controlling possessions.
Meh not necessarily.
Player A: 1/1 2 points 4 turnovers
Player B: 2/3, 2 offensive rebounds, 0 turnovers

Just because player B has lower FG%, he isn't less efficient

The thread title is about efficiency, and not necessarily FG%

Just because a player gets more points per possession, you can still gain more efficiency by gaining more possessions through offensive rebounds or steals. Again, this is just semantics as different people have different definitions of efficiency. I don't think FG% or points per possession are the only factors of efficiency.

[Dave3]

ORTG is efficiency. It's points per possession.

Offensive rebounds basically negate missed shots. Anything that gives your team a higher chance to score is efficient.
If it includes offensive rebounds then it's not really efficiency. Efficiency is production/opportunities. What does offensive rebounds really count as here? A production from an opportunity or a gained opportunity?

[Black and White]

If it includes offensive rebounds then it's not really efficiency. Efficiency is production/opportunities. What does offensive rebounds really count as here? A production from an opportunity or a gained opportunity?

It takes a missed shot for an offensive rebound to occur, is that really indicative of efficiency?

[Dave3]

It takes a missed shot for an offensive rebound to occur, is that really indicative of efficiency?
I'm not sure I understand the question. A missed shot is an indication yes, but a rebound is not...

[J Shuttlesworth]

It takes a missed shot for an offensive rebound to occur, is that really indicative of efficiency?
I'd say an offensive board can redeem a missed shot, just like a steal can redeem a turnover

[Sarcastic]

I'd say an offensive board can redeem a missed shot, just like a steal can redeem a turnover

It's gaining a new possession. Its not being efficient with your previous one though.

[Dave3]

I'd say an offensive board can redeem a missed shot, just like a steal can redeem a turnover
And that's true, but that doesn't make them part of efficiency. You guys are starting to mix up offense in general with the concept of efficiency. Efficiency is FG%, 3p% FT% and TO. Everything else like steals/offensive rebounds are part of offensive effectivity, but not efficiency.

[9erempiree]

Not too long ago the term "efficiency" was used for role players. You never hear people say MJ or Kobe was efficient. There were described as "dominant."

Efficiency is a Toyota Prius.

Dominant is like a Ferrari.

[Marchesk]

Team A scores more points per possession due to good shooting.

Team B has more possessions due to rebounding, turnovers and fouls (with a couple technicals) in their favor.

Team B narrowly defeats A.

Now A is more efficient in this scenario, but they lose the game.

[Young X]

Team A scores more points per possession due to good shooting.

Team B has more possessions due to rebounding, turnovers and fouls (with a couple technicals) in their favor.

Team B narrowly defeats A.

Now A is more efficient in this scenario, but they lose the game.Turnovers are a part of efficiency. They're worse than missed shots. Both are wasted possessions.

This thread is confusing me. :biggums:

[Marchesk]

Turnovers are a part of efficiency. They're worse than missed shots. Both are wasted possessions.

This thread is confusing me. :biggums:

Fine, team A shoots the lights out and barely turns the ball over. Very efficient.

Team B shoots like shit and is very sloppy. But they dominate the offensive glass. I mean just destroy team A. Like 5 rebounds per possession.

Team B is very inefficient but they squeak one out because Team B is very efficient on the offensive glass. :coleman:

[MagnumT/A]

Bulls: 80 turnovers
Sonics: 96 turnovers

Bulls: 101 off rebs
Sonics: 67 off rebs

Bulls made better use of their possessions = more efficient

Bulls: 111 ORTG
Sonics: 107 ORTG

:confusedshrug:

That's where the value of Rodman came in. 6.8 ORPG in that series.

[plowking]

Is that not context??? Does that not prove the point I am trying to make?

For example, would you knock LeBron if he went beast mode during this Finals and went 15 of 35 or something in games to try and bring the team back??

Your argument makes no sense.

He'd be better off shooting 15/25.

If the rebounding and turnovers are what is costing them the game, a player being efficient doesn't make it overrated, it means their rebounding and turnovers need to be fixed up. The great shooting is the only thing keeping the game close.

15/35 will never be better than 15/25 given the amount of 3's and stuff are equal.

[plowking]

Yea I can see your point, thats why context should apply for players that try can carry offensive loads when their teammates can't create/make shots.

Paul George for example has had some terrible games, but lets say his teammates went stagnant, and he tried to make shots to get his team back in, are we really going to knock him for that?

You're the one that has a messed up view of "context".

Basically you're arguing that we should blame FG% even if rebounding and turnovers are what is costing you the game. And like another poster pointed out, this is clearly about Lebron.

You ask if FG% is individually overrated, but said yourself as a team it isn't. That alone doesn't make sense. :oldlol:
Individuals make up the team. If they all shoot efficiently, they maximize their chance of winning.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

You're the one that has a messed up view of "context".

Basically you're arguing that we should blame FG% even if rebounding and turnovers are what is costing you the game. And like another poster pointed out, this is clearly about Lebron.

You ask if FG% is individually overrated, but said yourself as a team it isn't. That alone doesn't make sense. :oldlol:
Individuals make up the team. If they all shoot efficiently, they maximize their chance of winning.

Pretty much. There seems to be a narrative that LeBron's efficiency is somehow detrimental to the rest of his team's efficiency but this is 100% false. IIRC, 2013 Heat set a record for best efg% as a team in NBA history.