Glad you agree about efficency.

[GuyClinch@xxxxxxx]

> 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. 
> 

Sure there are numerous valid criticisms of efficency - it doesn't truly 
reflect a players true defense ability for example. Someone like say Curry on the 
Pistons might be slightly undervalued by the stat. And perhaps over values 
centers/PF because they are likely to be able to gather rebounds more 
consistently then an off guard could. None of these faults particularly apply to Walker, 
IMHO. It indicates what many people have said all along. Walker isn't that 
good. He doesn't deserve to be talked about as an equal to Paul Pierce, and he 
isn't a franchise player. He isn't that bad either though and the stat shows 
this as well.

Clearly the stat is  far from "Bullshit" as you claimed it was in your first 
posting.. Its a pretty good statistic. The guys with high efficency are by all 
accounts absolutely unbelievably good ball players. 

Even if you retrofit it to players of the past guys like Oscar Robinson not 
surprisingly had unbelievable efficency ratings. Wilt Chamberlain with his 30.1 
ppg and his 22.9 rebounds per game had a phenomenal rating. And once again 
nearly everyone agrees that he was one of the greatest players of all time. 

Its a good stat and a handy way to look at a players total value.

Pete