Re: one last word on the current Antoine thread (maybe)

[Josh Ozersky <joshozersky@xxxxxxxxx>]

Like all statistics, efficiency can be a useful tool to illustrate aspects
of on-court production; but like all statistics, it doesn't begin to tell 
the whole story.  Stats are probably most meaningful in baseball, which
centers on individual performance (pitchers, hitters) and has a sample
pool twice as numerous as basketball's.  A player can bring a lot 
of intangibles and not-so-intangibles (hard fouls, competitiveness,
clutch play, leadership) that never show up in the stat line.  That's why
Red Auerbach refused to let stats dictate contract terms.  Wins were
the only stat that meant anything to him.  That said, efficiency does 
help winning -- a lot.  But it's not everything, and can't be treated as
if it alone could settle an argument.  Especially this argument, which
will never be settled as long as men walk the earth.
 
Josh

GuyClinch@xxxxxxx wrote:
Hmm?

I think that last poster is confused about the stats..
Tony Delk and Battie didn't score a higher efficency rating then Walker..at 
least not on the NBA site they didn't. Your confusing PPA with efficency I 
think. They are different stats.

No stat is perfect...but efficency strikes me as one of the best.

Paul Pierce is the highest rated at 11th..and the next Celtic is Walker at 
46. There are no other Celtics in the top fifty. Most people would consider 
Walker and Pierce the best Celtics. So AGAIN what is the real problem with the 
statistic? That some people think a guy who can't shoot straight should be a top 
25 player? 

Pete
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software