Yao is in some elite company when it comes to efficiency, albeit Shawn Bradley is number 11. http://www.nba.com/statistics/default_48_minute_leaders/LeagueLeadersEFF8Query.html
It also has guys like Donyell Marshall and Andrei Kirilenko in the top ten, and Kevin Willis in the top twenty. No knock on any of these guys, but I'm not sure that inclusion in this list means you're an elite player.
I guess in Kevin Willis' case it has to do with the very few minutes Willis plays, if you look at that per 48 min., you will have a distorted image. Kirilenko, however, is a really efficient player, I think.
Same is true for Bradley. He's a very efficient player; look at his line: MPG FG% FT% RPG BPG TO PPG 25.5 .549 .809 7.70 2.59 .95 8.6 That's impressive. If he could play 37 minutes a game, he'd be at 14 ppg, 12 rpg and shooting a high percentage while doing it. What this doesn't show is the foul trouble he often gets himself in. Bradley'll never get anywhere close to 30+ mpg. Yao Ming, on the other hand, is efficient... AND it's only a matter of time until he's playing 35+ mpg on a regular basis.
See, that's the problem I have with this stat. If a guy gets a certain set of numbers playing limited minutes, that doesn't mean he gets proportional numbers with more minutes. Besides the foul trouble issue, there's a host of factors that could influence the ER/48 minutes rating. Like whether a scrub gets a lot of his minutes playing with or against other scrubs. Or physical and mental stamina. Or whether a guy is looked to for instant offense off the bench. Etc. Bottom line, it's a fallacy to try to compare outstanding role players to Allstars. Also, I'm not sure the formula itself makes a lot of sense. For example, why should a missed free throw count the same as a missed field goal or turnover?
My take Turnover - On average leads to the other team scoring 1 point Missed field goal - You lost two points, and this formula rewards efficient shooters. Also, there is an average chance of getting an offensive board from a field goal miss than from a missed free throw. Missed free throw - You lost one free point, and the other team has a better chance for the offensive rebound B
Yo B and Lobo...see if this formula makes more sense. It was used by Sports Illustrated before and it looks at a player's efficiency on the floor (so it bases everything on a per minute basis): (2*FGM + 2*3PM + 2*AST + 2*BLK + 2*OREB) + (1.5*DREB + 1.5*STL) + PTS + FTM - 2*TO - FG,missed + FT,missed + 3PT missed = subtotal / min = efficiency I like this because puts more weight on assists, blocks, offensive rebounds, and turnovers. So, comparing only the top centers in the game (I took sportsline's player rankings), this is what I got: O'Neal 1.764 Yao 1.432 DRobinson 1.284 Bradley 1.270 Ilgauskas 1.264 Dampier 1.242 BMiller 1.225 Battie 1.106 Divac 1.080 Nesterovic 1.017 Magloire 1.001 Ratliff 0.946 Olowokandi 0.931 ADavis 0.931 CRobinson 0.837 As we all though, Yao is the 2nd best center in the NBA. Right between the expected Shaq-daddy (who should be the most efficient player in the NBA with the formula) and a surprising David Robinson. So how can admiral be 3rd and Bradley 4th while so bigger names like Olowakandi and ADavis are 13th and 14th?? Check out Bradley's vs. Olowakandi's stats per 48 min: Olowokandi 48FG% 65FT% 10rpg 2apg 0.36spg 2.6bpg 4.1tpg 17.4ppg Bradley 55FG% 81FT% 14.4rpg 1.3apg 1.4spg 4.9bpg 1.8tpg 16.1ppg except for point and assist per 48 min, Kandi-man is not really close to Bradley. Interesting, eh? Not saying Shawn is better but you get more out of him for his time on the floor. What about Mr. Cato? His efficiency comes out to: Cato 1.187 That's good enough for 8th on the above list!! And looking at Cato's per 48 minutes, we can see why he's in the top ten: Cato 54FG% 66FT% 18rpg 1.2apg 1.4spg 3.7bpg 2.5tpg 13ppg Finally, if you throw out Yao's 5 games, his rating his: Yao 1.60 What can I say that we don't already know...Yao has been the man but at least now, the proof is in the pudding.
Derrock, that formula makes a little more sense than ER, although it appears to count points twice. It still has the same problem as ER/48 minutes: role players are evaluated on the same basis as Allstars. I'm just not sure that makes sense. Talk about apples and oranges. I'm sure I could invent a stat to compare Sammy Sosa to Brian Urlacher ("tackles plus home runs plus interceptions *2 minus missed tackles and fielding errors" or something like that), but what's the point?
Of course every statistic can be fallible if you really want it to be. You can argue all day on how this should count more or that should count less but in the end people will come counter that. However, Stats may not tell you the whole story, but it does give you a good perspective. With that said, I pretty much posted the website cause I like seeing Yao's name with all the elite players
I don't know Lobo...it does a pretty good job with the stars: McGrady 1.631 Bryant 1.552 Garnett 1.592 Kidd 1.507 Duncan 1.435 I think it provides a way to compare stars with stars and role players with role players. There is no formula to assess the intangibles that a star brings. But this formula allows one to see if a star is really a star (relative to others). For example, in my mind, Olowakandi is overrated and according to his efficiency, that's true. Would I choose Bradley over Kandi, no...but the discrepency between the two is not as large as you may think. The formula does count points twice but I think it places emphasis on the most important aspect of the game -- scoring points. P.S. I only got one stat that compares Sosa to Urlacher and its a tie: Final season standings in division: last
