there were 3 years where he shoot around 43-45% overall and 40% from 3s. those years he was pretty darn efficient considering his ft% is always high. and considering he is a jumpshooter for the most part, 44-45% shooting is elite to me, considering the best shooters in the L (kmart 44%, kobe 45%, durant 46%). so those years, i thought billups was very efficient. however, 2 other years in detroit he shot 39.4% and 41% so i don't think he was very efficient in those years. fg% plays a huge role for me in efficiency. but you also have to consider the makeup of a player. if you are primarily a penetrator (rose, wade, lebron, westbrook), a sub 45% fg is inefficient, regardless of what you do. that's why westbrook and rose are NOT considered efficient players in the L. for instance, take gilbert arena's prime years. he was a 41% shooter. but he scores 29 points on just 20 shots and he averaged 6-7 assists per game. he made 3s and took a ton of fts. nobody in their right mind thought arenas was efficient. 40-41% shooting is not efficient no matter how you slice it.
also, how many player of week and player of the month has rose won this year? that is usually an indication of how dominant a player is over the course of the year. well to answer my own question: rose has won TWO player of the week. so he has been voted as the east's best player TWO weeks out of the year. dwight howard leads the league with SIX. james has 5. westbrook has 4. wade has 3. player of the month: lebron was won twice. howard once. march will either go down to howard or james (most likely howard). rose was never a top candidate in any of those month. EDIT: http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/ a great article on how ridiculously dominant the bulls are defensively and on the boards (both offensive and defensive) just another food for thought.
According to who? That sounds very arbitrary to me. What if the player gets to the free throw line a ton and rarely turns it over? Its a simple question -- what is the definition of efficiency -- and you don't seem to have a very clear idea of what it means.
Yeah, I agree. Kevin Martin is considered a very efficient scorer; but his FG% this year is ****. FG% is not what you should factor in though... it should be PPWS (Points Per Weighted Shot).
so would you say derrick rose is an efficient player? b/c i have not heard one person in the media says he is or portrays him as one. kevin martin is a career 44% shooter; he is shooting just a little bit below that this year at 43.6%. and he's primarily a perimeter oriented shooter. so no, his fg% is not messed up at all. add onto that fact that he is a 40% 3pt shooter, and he takes 6 a game. his fg% is fine considering the types of shots he takes. again, fg% expectations vary between the types of players for instance, if your'e dwight howard or a big man and you shoot sub 50%, that's TERRIBLE. but if you're a shooting guard like kobe bryant or durant, 45-46% is GREAT. it depends on the types of shots you get and how you play your game.
On the whole yes, and especially over the last 3 weeks despite what you've been arguing in this thread. Offensive Rating is a meticulous and well-reasoned measure of individual efficiency on the offensive end -- at least for what can be determined based on the boxscore. If you want to look at a number to get a sense of how efficient a player is, look at that instead of FG%. Efficiency in basketball has a very clear meaning, especially at the team level. Given X number of possessions, how much is the team able to score? Individually, efficiency should be understood in the same terms. Every player on the floor "uses" some fraction of the total team possessions, and every player is responsible for some fraction of the total points scored. To understand efficiency, you should come up with a consistent and systematic method for determining the points and possessions a player is responsible for, and then just take the ratio. This is what Offensive Rating does. Understood in that way, FG% is obviously inadequate. You're essentially saying that FGA is a proxy for possessions used, and FGs made is a proxy for points a player is responsible for. Obviously field goals and field goal attempts are part of what goes into efficiency, but that's not enough. TS% does the job better, but even it doesn't take into account things like possession-usage via ball-handling and passing or contributing to a points scored via getting offensive rebounds.
since the all-star break, rose scores 25 points on 20 shots, averages 3 turnovers, shoots 40% overall, 28% from 3s. this has been brought up in hollinger chats before (and he's a stat freak) and he has confirmed adamantly that rose has been an inefficient player. and for the year, he's way below other top tier guys in terms of efficiency going by the offensive rating that you use. i'll give you an example: here's a player's statline from a certain year 31.1ppg, on 25 shots, 42%fg, 32% 3, 81% ft on 10 attempts per game, 3.3 turnover he's considered one of the most inefficient stars of all time.
Interesting read... but is from Miami Herald...so..... http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_...-as-mvp-doesnt-add-up?eref=fromSI&eref=fromSI Rose as MVP doesn't add up Statistically speaking, Russell Westbrook may be every bit the equal of Derrick Rose. The Bulls' offense is statistically mediocre; Rose is that offense's best player. The Bulls' defense is best in the league; Rose might be that defense's least important piece. But throw all the ingredients together in the Winning Pot, make a stew with a flavor that surprises us and you, too, can taste like MVP. Rose benefits from the greatness of his teammates, but Westbrook is harmed by the greatness of his more famous one (Kevin Durant). Would Westbrook be MVP if he simply had Chicago's defense? Would he be a bigger scorer than Rose if he didn't have to share with Durant? The only reason Rose scores 2.7 points more than Westbrook per game? He has taken 200 more shots. Read more: http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_...-add-up?eref=fromSI&eref=fromSI#ixzz1Hx4Pjy9r
he already won. he pretty much can suck from here on out but the bulls' D and rebounding will win enough games for them to get the #1 seed. rose wasn't the reason why they lost. philly shot 45% and outrebounded the bulls. and this is the first time their defense faltered in the 4th as they allowed philly to score 28 points. just a cool stat for you guys: the bulls outscore their opponents by 200+ points in the 4th this year. NO OTHER TEAM outscores their opponents by more than 100 this year. defense let them down tonight. they have won plenty of games before scoring 85 points.
I'd need a quote from Hollinger. Rose's ORTG this season is 112. That's very efficient. Only a couple teams have an efficiency at 112+.
4 of the 5 starters in Chicago are better basketball players at their positions than all but 1 player in Orlando When player put up season lines like Rose and Howard have, this is your tie breaker. Who does more with less?
dwight howard ORTG this year is 113. this is a guy who scores 23 points on just 13 shots and shoots 60% for the year. i don't think anyone can say with a straight face that derrick rose is just about as efficient as dwight howard.
I still don't get it, he said 4 of the 5 starters from the Bulls are > than the Magic So according to him Rose>Nelson true Bogans>Richardson false Deng>Turk true Boozer>Bass true Howard>Noah true
That's because most people don't take into account shot creation for others when considering efficiency, and they often gloss over turnover-rate as well.
