Efficient players / teams win much more frequently than inefficient ones. If you have a inefficient player who takes a lot of shots, then you are going to lose more games because of it. It is no coincidence that the Rockets did a lot better when the inefficient TMac shut it down for the season and Airballston got traded.
There is a myth about the efficiency of T-mac. Some guys here will tell you that players like Corey Maggette and more "efficient" then T-mac. Do not believe this. In fact, T-mac is one of only 7 or 8 players to ever get a PER (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html) above 30 for a season. Despite his injury -plagued season last year, t-mac still ranks 20 all time on PER. That's ahead of Yao Ming. And right behind Kobe. Corey Magette? He has an 18 PER for 122nd place on the list, over 100 spots below t-mac. Do not believe the junk being pushed out there folks. T-mac is not an inefficient player. He's one of the most efficient in NBA history:
PER is so overrated, it doesn't even count when you get the points, for example. Tmac may be a hell of player in his prime, but he's only a shell of himself now.
His PER for the Utah Playoffs was 24.4 - higher than his career average. I don't think PER is the end all to be all, but if we are going to discuss efficiency and if people are going to say T-mac isn't efficient, well, it flies in face of what the data says. That's all I am trying to say.
When you are the only gun in your team, it didn't really matter you got decent stats. The opposing team often has a comfortable lead in this first round match and don't bother to shut you down. This applied to MJ in his first 3 seasons, Kobe in his 2 series vs. Phoenix, Wade this year. A competitive team that can play deep into playoff is usually more balanced, have at least 2 scoring threats, and no single guy has the dominant stats. I bet MJ had worse PER in his 6 finals than his 3 first round exits. Does that ring a bell?
Artest kind of sucks in the low post. He's strong and all, but that just gets him under the rim where he usually throws up a sympathy inducing hook shot or he takes a low percentage one legged fadeaway. The man has no moves down there. He's best as a catch and shoot guy, and that's only when his feet are set. Oh, and of course his much hyped pull up J going left. His offensive game has not really impressed me. I really hope all this training McGrady is getting gets him close to his old self, because it's just sad watching Artest try to create.
That's exactly a prime example of why PER is overrated. How many points TMac scored in 4th quarter of that series? I remembered one he got 40 through 3 quarters, and none in 4th? TMac would never got that kind of PER had YM played. When every ball went through your hands, your stats would be inflated. At the end of the day, whoever getting 4 wins in a series is the only number that matters.
Artest is great in the midpost. Between 10 and 17 feet away, without using a dribble to get there. Unfortunately, we did not have someone to create on the perimeter, so he was forced into a "different" role. (+)He plays fantastic defense with 100% effort very night...
Man, he sucks way more in PER in the Playoffs, with a 24.66 awarding him a ranking of 7 all time. Ineffecient bum!
Ok, fine. But then let's agree to drop the "T-mac is inefficient let's get Corey Maggette" line of attack? I mean, if we are going to say it's all about efficiency, shouldn't we look at PER?
PER doesn't really measure efficiency, though. I know its stands for "Player Efficiency Rating", but that is sort of a misnomer. It would make more sense to call it "Player Effectiveness Rating". You can see how PER is calculated right here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html The idea is to add up the good stats and subtracts the bad ones, with some appropriate weights, then multiply by a pace factor, divide by the league average, and multiply the whole thing by 15 (so "average" PER is always set to 15). All else being equal, the more efficient you are the better your PER will be because you're not missing as many shots. But it's not purely an efficiency metric. One of the criticisms some people have of PER is that it overrates high-usage players, which is what Tracy McGrady has been particularly in the playoffs: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mcgratr01.html#div_playoffs_advanced A pure efficiency metric would be Ortg. According to that, McGrady was very efficient in the Dallas series, and fairly inefficient (not horrible necessarily, but fairly below average) in the two Utah series. But his Usage was so high (35.9, 36.0) that he did enough good things to make up for the bad.
What was his PER in the 2nd round What was his PER in the Conference finals What was his PER in the Finals? PER for Tmac = Pretty Exaggerated Reasons
I don't think comparing efficiency for players in different caliber teams is fair. Fewer quality players => PER up, wins down, borderline playoff or first rounder More quality players => PER down, wins up, deep in the playoff TM never had an impressive PER or fg% since he's in Rockets. His points was down that's expected, but his fg% was down too. That implied he couldn't be efficient with a big man clogging the paint. Compared to Kobe, he kept a respectable fg% with/without Shaq/Gasol.
