Kind of funny seeing CP3s stats in game 1 against the Warriors last year. Dude was efficient, he only had 17 and 4 but man...that was an efficient 17 and 4...we lost but damn, that efficiency! So sexy. You guys remember game 1 in which CP3 carried us with his efficiency? Ignore Harden's efforts in that game, CP3 was the more efficient player and leader of the team that game. I mean, yeah, we did lose the game and maybe could have used more aggression from CP3 but...hey, he was efficient!
Further proof of your complete misunderstanding of what numbers are relevant to what you are trying to prove. Paul’s net rating was -12.2 in that game. He wasn’t efficient. He scored efficiently, but his overall possessions weren’t. https://stats.nba.com/game/0041800221/advanced/?sort=NET_RATING&dir=1 Westbrook has a lot of these. Well not efficient scoring games, but terrible net rating games.
Your arguments are intellectually dishonest. You just switch from anecdote to anecdote hoping to string together a coherent argument. There isn't one in this case.
More like you have this big vague tent of what efficiency is and what it isn't. A term that you think is judged by every stat but we literally have stats dedicated to efficiency. Also, I remember you telling me that you take a combination of stats but really, you just look at net rating to tell how good or bad a player played.
Not an argument. Your point about Westbrook's shooting though isn't a good one, no one watches that game and goes "Yeah, CP3 should have settled for his 9 shots..." he needed to be more aggressive as he's the 2nd best player on the team, not less so, because again, he's the 2nd best player on the team, who else is going to take the shots or create the opportunities? You get on Westbrook for taking a lot of shots but what is the situation?
Nah it’s pretty clear you just don’t have a firm grasp on everything. I can see how it can be confusing. Possession efficiency and scoring efficiency are different. Scoring efficiency plays into your overall possession efficiency but they are not the same. It’s possible to score efficiently, but overall be bad. It’s also possible to score inefficiently, but overall be good. Think Westbrook 3-4 years ago. Horribly inefficient scorer, but still overall positive when counting all his possessions. Those days are gone. His scoring efficiency is still awful AND his overall possession efficiency just isn’t what it used to be. The fact that he shoots so much, so poorly only exacerbates how bad his overall possession efficiency currently is. He could EASILY improve his possession efficiency by just not shooting as much.
Sounds like a you problem then. Looks like you have issues reading. I guess I'll dumb it down for you then. SHOULD. YOUR. 2ND. BEST. PLAYER. SETTLE. FOR. NINE. SHOTS? Is that better?
basketball is about the score which is a function shots taken multiplied by efficiency. Efficiency is worthless if you don't take shots. CP3 other than his first season with us, normally dribbles the air out of the ball without taking a shot. With elite finishers like he had in LA, it worked. However in Houston where Harden doesn't need anyone to set him up, we need someone that is willing to take shots to offload the burden from Harden. Westbrook can also take advantage of 4 on 4 and 4 on 3 situations that Harden creates. CP3 can not. That being said, although I think current westbrook is better than current CP3 for Harden. The ideal running mate for Harden is a shooting guard that can create for himself like Beal . I would pretty much trade anyone on our team for Beal
Thanks. My second best player should make the right plays, which Paul always did, whether it is take the shots himself or get into the hands of the player with the best chance to score.
No, I mean we literally have stats dedicated to 'efficiency' I was really asking what you define as efficiency, I shouldn't have been so snarky I just think you define it as basically everything and I think in the end the argument around efficiency is pointless and because of the bolded. You are right, Russ could improve his efficiency by just not shooting as much, of course...but is that always best for the team? I don't think it is, I think you win or lose by your star players and I'd rather my star player going out shooting and being aggressive than trying to blend in with the rest of the team and be efficient.
Ben Simmons is the 2nd best player on his team. Is better than Westbrook and he only shoots it 10 times a game. IF. YOUR. 2ND. BEST. PLAYER. SHOOTS. LIKE. A. BLIND. BRAINDEAD. IDIOT. THE. ANSWER. IS..... YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
Thank you. And yes, I said that a while ago about Beal, he'd be the perfect running mate and was on the trading block for a while before the Wiz surprisingly re-signed him. We just disagree. I think when you are the 2nd best player on the team you need to be a lot more aggressive especially when your best player is doing all he can to keep his team in the game...he needs a little help.
Completely different teams and completely different players... Also, everyone on the sixers, sixers fans, sixers media...wants Simmons to shoot more lol. The coach wants him to shoot more. Embiid comes out in the media asking him to shoot more. Not a great example there.
It is an absolutely perfect example. He is the 2nd best player on his team. They are a good team. He only shoots it 10 times per game. But Sixers fans, coaches and the like are actually right. Because Simmons to my surprise is actually WAY more efficient than Westbrook. Probably has to do with his superior shot selection, but this is exactly what we are trying to say. Simmons has boosted efficiency because he isn’t dumb. He takes smart shots. Westbrook is the opposite. Simmons : .565 eFG and .582 TS% Westbrook : .453 eFG and .503 TS%
No doubt, Beal looks to be a good running mate but we can't be choosers as we are not LA. Additionally the Bucks team construction showed that role players are as important as the star players. If you sell the farm for Beal to team up with Harden, rest of the team still would look shyte.
It was a horrible example and now you are backtracking all over the place. First you said Simmons should not take more shots and I corrected you about how the entire organization disagrees. I can find a bevy of quotes from the coach, embiid, media, all BEGGING him to shoot more. And now you bring out efficiency shooting for a player that...hates to shoot? Again, you playing math, these guys playing ball. I'll just let Embiid say it... Some months ago... “For us to win, we are going to need him to shoot.” Last month or so... “We just got to look at ourselves and see what we can do individually, we’ve got to help each other even if it means being outside of your comfort zone for the greater [good] to help the team win...Meaning that, if you’ve got to space and shoot it, you’ve got to do it. We need everybody to buy into that and we’ll be fine, we’re going to be fine. We’re still finding our groove, we haven’t been totally healthy, the whole starting lineup. Like I said, we’ll be fine.” Brett Brown also said he needs to shoot at least one THREE a game. They are begging him to shoot it more, they mention nothing about his efficiency, they just want him to shoot it more. Those stats you bring up are BS on Simmons, the guy doesn't shoot. Like...this isn't hyperbole...He has shot FIVE 3PA this season. FIVE. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS %s WOULD BE IF HE TOOK MORE SHOTS. 0 IDEA. Sixers don't know that either...yet they still want him to shoot...
I think he should. I think the best player on the team should help others out. I think Harden should pull Russ aside sometimes and go "Hey...chill for a moment..." and Russ should also be able to criticize him. Everyone should be open to being criticized, Embiid too. I don't think it is a one way street. I know the Spurs culture at its best thrives on everyone being held accountable. Maybe it should not be done in public though.
