The "ORtg" advanced stat is absurd

[BankShot]

In 93 regular season Horace grant had a 118 ORtg to MJ's 119 while Mj put up 20 more ppg on a 1% FG% difference.

This means that in the 1993 regular season, Horace Grant produced more points-per-100-possessions than Michael Jordan.

He didn't score more points; he didn't do it more efficiently; he simply produced 1 more point per 100 possessions used.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?? Damn, son.

[knickscity]

In 93 regular season Horace grant had a 118 ORtg to MJ's 119 while Mj put up 20 more ppg on a 1% FG% difference.

That same year Scottie Pippen had a ORtg of 108, 10 less than Grant..

Scottie that year only took 5 more shots per game, averaged 19ppg to Grants 13 ..not to mention he averaged 4 more assist per game..yet is 10pts behind Grants ORtg...

I havent looked at the formula in a while, but I'm sure assists are not heavily favored, so I'm sure Pippens assists dont negate the more shots he took on less effiiency.

[Inactive]

Actually I think you're trolling now. Efficiency is a pretty important stat.

My post regarding the illegitimacy of FG% was an ironic parody of the OP. My intent was to highlight the problem with thread by applying his reasoning to a simpler, more familiar analog.

It only matters when you compare players who are on the same tier though. For instance, you can't say Chandler > Kobe because he has a higher FG% and not look like a complete retard.

Any division of players into separate tiers is entirely subjective. By looking at FG% you can say Chandler hit a higher percentage of his FGA than Kobe. There's no reason why they can't compared.

If Chandler had a higher TS% than Kobe, you can say C scored more efficiently than K. This is true for any two players. To say C is a more efficient scorer than K is slightly different, since it implies that C will continue to score more efficiently. Your ability to predict with confidence that C will continue to be more efficient depends on a lot of contextual factors, sample size, etc. and you can never reach 100% confidence.

Even if you get to the point where everyone agrees that C is more efficient than K, it's far from clear that C is contributes more to winning basketball games than K. It would in fact be very easy to disprove that scoring efficiency absolutely determines success.

Individual stats tell you specific things, not who is better than whom in general. If one does not understand what a stat is meant to tell them, it does not necessarily mean that the stat is absurd, or meaningless.

[Marchesk]

GOAT Offensive Rating:

1. CP3
7. Chuck
14. MJ
20. Dirk
29. Lebron
81. Shaq
108. Kobe
248. Carmelo

CP3 is a better scorer than Kobe.

[BankShot]

GOAT Offensive Rating:

1. CP3
7. Chuck
14. MJ
20. Dirk
29. Lebron
81. Shaq
108. Kobe
248. Carmelo

CP3 is a better scorer than Kobe.

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

[G-train]

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

What's the practical point of the stat then?

[chips93]

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

what else would you want from an offensive player?

[branslowski]

If this is actually this list of ORtg, then the stats would suggest that CP3 produces more points per 100 possessions given the formula. That is all.

But the "given formula" is called Offensive rating. So if you follow this formula and use it as your main argument when it has Barkley as a better offensive player than Jordan, then you my friend are a dumbass.

[branslowski]

What's the practical point of the stat then?

I hope it isn't saying players ranked the highest on this list means their the best offensive player in the league. Because if it is, then it should be abolished and used by no one. Especially once you view the actual rankings of the list.

[BankShot]

What's the practical point of the stat then?

Relax... I'm not a proponent of the stat. I haven't really looked into how exactly its formulated, how that formulation came to be, nor have I ever heard anyone use it as a basis for an argument.

I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.

[BankShot]

But the "given formula" is called Offensive rating. So if you follow this formula and use it as your main argument when it has Barkley as a better offensive player than Jordan, then you my friend are a dumbass.

Sure, if I were to "use it as [my] main argument" I could in fact be a dumbass.

However, I'm not using it as an argument, nor have I ever heard anyone using it as a primary source towards furthering an argument.... so at this point it just kinda makes you sound silly for getting so worked up about an equation and the metric it produces.

[BankShot]

I hope it isn't saying players ranked the highest on this list means their the best offensive player in the league. Because if it is, then it should be abolished and used by no one. Especially once you view the actual rankings of the list.

Nobody has used it as an end-all-be-all ranking of all that is basketball.

Anyone that understands what a statistic is, understands that its simply part of a conversation, not the answer.

[Marchesk]

I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.I am however a proponent of understanding advanced metrics before you either use them in argument, or completely trash their relevance.

Sure, I just found the all-time ranking interesting. Was not expecting to see Chris Paul at the top. Now Charles Barkley and Adrian Dantley in the top 10 doesn't surprise me. But then it has Sydney Moncrief ahead of both of them. I would like to know exactly what the formula is trying to measure. Or what it means and how you can apply it. Nobody is going to say Moncrief was a superior scorer to Jordan. You wouldn't even troll that. So what does it mean to have him 8 spots ahead of MJ? If they both had 100 possessions, are we really going to say that Sid the Squid would score (or facilitate) more points?

All that being said,

El Sid > the King > Black Mamba

... and it isn't even close.

[Nuff Said]

what else would you want from an offensive player?

To do it at a high volume?

[Marchesk]

Oh look, Chris Paul is 4th all-time in win shares per 48 minutes. Lebron is 6th and Kobe is 31. Advanced stats like Chris Paul apparently. It's clearly a conspiracy to keep Kobe out of the top 10.