If what you said was actually true, that means every good NBA coach would distribute minutes for players on his roster the same. For if one good coach decides that one player should play more than another, the reason is because he's better. Therefore, every other good coach should do the same. Obviously, this is completely ridiculous. There are pros and cons to starting one player over another or giving more minutes to one player over another. You can have two very good, seasoned coaches, and they can have two different opinions on it. Further, I asked you to define "Efficiency", and you've yet to do so. As best as I can tell, you see "efficiency" as some abstract concept that defines one player to be better than another. And there's no way to actually know how efficient a player is -- it can only be indirectly known based on how many minutes the coach gives. ... Ok, let me guess: "Scola plays more minutes because he's better (and I know he's better because he plays more minutes)." Excellent point. (I'm being sarcastic) What have you seen on the court that makes you think Landry is less efficient? Evidently nothing, since you haven't been able to point to a single thing he's done worse on the court this whole time. What you "see" is that Adelman has played him less than Scola, and therefore Adelman must be seeing something. But what exactly is he seeing? You haven't been able to answer that simple question. And let's be clear here. I think Scola will start for the rest of the year, and as long as he plays well and the team is thriving I have no problems with that. My only dispute is your claim that Scola has been more consistently efficient than Landry. Is Scola a better player? Maybe. If Landry was put in the starting lineup, would he perform much worse than Scola? Perhaps. But has Scola been more efficient in his role up to this point than Landry has in his role? Absolutely not.
Stoke, I agree that people are overrating Landry. He has not proven that he could sustain his high efficiency if he played heavy minutes. the problem with most efficiency calculations is that they don't count for volume. Minute Bol had a higher bpg than Hakeem Olajuwon. does that mean he was a more efficient shot-blocker? But I think you are going the other extreme by asserting that he is definitely not going to take Scola's starting job. These two guys bring different things to the table. Landry is more athletic, more aggressive, better finishing, and better midrange shooting. Scola is a better low post scorer (that in itself might make him the better PF), craftier, better passing. If Landry's midrange game continues to improve, Adelman might decide to start him.
But Stoke is going much further than that. He's saying that Landry has not played as efficiently as Scola, even in his limited ("actual") minutes. It's one thing to project Landry would be a less efficient starter. That could be the case, who knows. But saying he'll be a less efficient starter because thus far he's been less efficient as a bench player is very strange. It's hard to dispute that in his limited minutes as a player off the bench, Landry has been very, very efficient. I do think it's important to separate efficiency from volume. You need to look at both, but trying to combine them into a single number can obscure the measure. For instance, I think it's more helpful to have FT% and FTA/min, then to try to combine the two into some kind of adjusted_FT% where it's difficult to even know what it's measuring. For a similar reason, I like looking at MPG, PTS/min rather than just PPG. Those two numbers tell me much more about the player than PPG by itself does. Edit: And I think you got your Bol/Olajuwon example backwards. Hakeem had a higher blocks/game, and Bol blocked a higher percentage of shots while on the court. I think Bol is a more "efficient" shot blocker, if that means anything. But maybe Olajuwon, if he really asserted himself on a given possession, would have greater shot-blocking ability. It's hard to say.
Very good points Easy. I think if Scola gets pulled from the starting line up it is because of our need for a backup center. Scola is our tallest player behind Yao.
I completely agree with Durvasa. Sorry Texas Stoke, your reasoning makes no sense to me. Landry has been unbelievably efficient in his limited playing time, more so than Scola based on a pure offensive efficiency standpoint. However, Scola is the more polished complete player at this time and that is why I believe he currently starts over Landry. This could easily change however. I'm sure then Stoke will reverse his opinion.
I know. I think he has gone overboard. I don't know how to put volume into the picture when measuring efficiency. But I am pretty sure volume is part of efficiency. Let me give an analogy. Say in a factory, Worker A can produce a piece of product in 30 min. Worker B can produce a piece in 20 min. You would think B is more efficient than A. But what if: Worker A needs to rest 15 min. after producing each piece. Worker B needs to rest 30 min. after producing each piece. A lot of efficiency calculations does not tell what the player does in between (the resting time in our analogy). If you only focus on what they do WHEN THEY ARE DOING WHAT IS MEASURED, then you may miss something important. For my point, if Bol did nothing but waiting for shot-blocking opportunities, while Hakeem did all the other defensive stuff AND blocked a ton of shots, then Hakeem might be the more efficient blocker even though he blocked fewer shots per minutes. Same thing with shooting. If a guy does nothing but standing there and wait for some occasional open shots, while the other guy constantly creates shots for himself and teammates, then even though the first guy might have a higher efficiency shooting rate, he might not be very efficient in the grand picture.
Scola should start for exactly the same reason Battier should start: Both Artest and Landry are more valuable coming off the bench. The real debate is who plays during crunch time. Starting lineups are irrelevant.
This is an interesting analogy. I think there is one key difference. In the factory, when a worker is resting that represents lost productivity for the factory. So, to properly evaluate what each worker does efficiency-wise, you need to take into account both minutes while he's working AND minutes while he isn't working. In doing so, Worker A actually requires 45 minutes to complete a piece, while Worker B requires 50 minutes. So, net result, Worker A can complete 1.3 pieces/hour and Worker B can complete 1.2 pieces/hour. But in basketball, when a player is resting that does not represent lost productivity for the team since another player will always replace him. A team with two super-star caliber centers that splits playing time 50/50 could be getting just as much production from them as another team with only one super-star caliber center who plays the entire game. In a factory, if there were two workers that only worked half a day, they'd probably be collectively hurting the overall efficiency; while one worker who produces the same number of pieces by himself, working the entire day, would help the factory's overall efficiency. But in basketball, the impact on team efficiency for the center-tandem on one team could be the same as for the other team with one center doing twice the work. This leads to a question: should the "efficiency" of a player include how he impacts the efficiency of others? Or should we consider that separately? I think it makes the analysis cleaner if we consider both, but do so separately.
yeah I think Landry and Hayes should share more time. Don't put Yao on the field all the time. the faster rhythm the better.
My resting analogy refers not to resting on the bench, but "resting" on the floor. Some players does more than others on the floor. Maybe I should change the analogy to: Worker A produces the product in 30 min. while sweeping the floor, fixing the A/C, and making coffee for everybody. Worker B produces the same thing in 20 min but does nothing else. I am not even talking about making teammates more efficient. I am just saying that if one player is doing more than the other, that should be a factor in considering efficiency.
- scola seems to perform better when he starts, while Landry seems to perform better of the bench. (i beleive Morey said this during one of his interviews, when the question was asked) - scola generated his "efficiency" last year at starting 4 (against the opponents best 4) or at backup 5 (against people usually much bigger then him). landry's numbers are based on being the backup 4. - landry really excelled in the role of a finisher, whereas scola was passed the ball on the low block to create for himself or others. i don't recall landry having to work in the post all that often. role definitely affects statistical contribution. - opponents usually gameplan for a team's starting unit, because that is the only player combination they know for certain will be on the floor together. - how would increasing Landry's minutes affect his knees/legs/explosiveness over the course of a season? - why would you screw up something that's working just fine in the first place? if we had a bad starting 4, then I can understand this conversation, but we don't.
Watch Landry and how he plays. He scores in spurts. He's a matchup player, meaning he usually gets his points in bunches when theres a mismatch. The next game or two, with a different matchup, Landry usually struggles, and will play sporadic minutes which makes his PER minute stat calculation or whatver it's called one the idea that he is the more efficient player than Scola and should recieve more minutes. Scola on the other hand, he is able to matchup against any opponent for a greater sustained period of time which is why he recieves more mintues. Thats what I mean when I say Scola is more consistently efficient(or maybe I should say productive) and this is what Adelman is seeing and is the reason why Scola over the long haul of the season, plays more mintues than Landry, and what basically makes Scola our every-down back at the PF position. Don't get me wrong, I love Landry's game but what I saw last year was a player who was able to take advantage of certain mistmatches every third game and when he did, score in bunches, which created inflated stats that made it seem like Adelman should of played him more and Scola less. Landry has the potential to be the better player but right now I just aint seeing it.
