Efficiency: Kobe vs Duncan

[Deuce Bigalow]

Spurfan seem to think Duncan is much more efficient than Kobe. I don't know where that came from but I don't expect them to be accurate. Let's look at the facts.

Efficiency from the field
-Includes 2-point field goals and 3-point field goals
-Effective field goal percentage factors in the 3-point shot which is worth more than the 2-point shot

Kobe's career season eFG%: 48.7
Duncan's career season eFG%: 50.7

Kobe's career playoff eFG%: 48.0
Duncan's career playoff eFG%: 49.9

Advantage - Duncan


There is another part of scoring that is not included from the field, and that is free-throw shooting.

Efficiency from the free-throw line
-Only one way to measure this is Free-throw percentage since every free-throw is worth 1-point

Kobe's career season FT%: 83.8
Duncan's career season FT%: 69.3

Kobe career playoff FT%: 81.6
Duncan career playoff FT%: 68.7

Advantage - Kobe


Now to tie everything together.

Conclusion
-To find out who is more efficient, you need to figure out the amount of attempts each player takes from the field and from the line. Once you get those numbers you multiply FGA by the eFG% and FTA by the FT%, then you divide by the FGA plus FTA.

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)

Kobe's regular season career: ((24301*.487) + (9468*.838)) / (24301+9468) = 58.54
Duncan regular season career: ((18295*.507) + (7747*.693)) / (18295+7747) = 56.23

Kobe's playoff career: ((4499*.480) + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = 56.88
Duncan's playoff career: ((3512*.499) + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = 55.81

Multiplying the FGA x 2 since they are worth 2x more points if made than a FTA

Formula: [2(FGA * eFG%)]+ (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)

KOBE regular season: [2(24301*.487)] + (9468*.838)) / (24301+9468) = .936
DUNCAN regular season: [2(18295*.507)] + (7747*.693)) / (18295+7747) = .919

KOBE playoffs [2(4499*.480)] + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = .922
DUNCAN playoffs: [2(3512*.499)] + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = .900

More efficient player: Kobe

[spurraider21]

thanks for making a simple stat like TS% into a fucking dissertation. TS% is known to be advantageous to perimeter players

[HarlemHeat37]

Kobe is a better scorer than Duncan, I don't think anybody would deny that, tbh..

It would be interesting to compare Duncan's efficiency vs. the efficiency of similar bigs from 1999 to 2003 and Kobe's efficiency vs. similar perimeter players from 2006 to 2010(primes of both players IMO)..

[ElNono]

Wow, that .500 thread really got Kirbystan nervous :lmao

[ElNono]

:lol having to crowbar in there FTA to make up the dismal shooting %
:lol 1500 more FTA than dominant big man
:lol foodstamps kirby living off freebies
:lol 6000+ more shooting attempts than Duncan (:lmao)
:lol having to make up stats to prop up fallen hero
:lol sad state of kirbystan
:lol zero seasons shooting over .500

[whitemamba]

:lol having to crowbar in there FTA to make up the dismal shooting %
:lol 1500 more FTA than dominant big man
:lol foodstamps kirby living off freebies
:lol 6000+ more shooting attempts than Duncan (:lmao)
:lol having to make up stats to prop up fallen hero
:lol sad state of kirbystan
:lol zero seasons shooting over .500

Melt down...

[ElNono]

sup mamba... you've been pretty quiet this season, tbh :lol

[whitemamba]

sup mamba... you've been pretty quiet this season, tbh :lol

Well, it's not lookin to promising atm... :lol

[Killakobe81]

Wgaf even if that stat favors Kobe. I hate stat based conclusion s

[Deuce Bigalow]

Melt down...
"He can dish it but he cant take it"

Wants to ignore freethrow shooting when it's part of efficiency is great logic...

[whitemamba]

"He can dish it but he cant take it"

Wants to ignore freethrow shooting when it's part of efficiency is great logic...

Deuce u always bring the heat tbh..

[RD2191]

:lmao

[ElNono]

:lmao pulling the "logic" card after cherry-picking/making-up/contorting stats to fit a narrative... talk about "dishing it but not taking it"

[Deuce Bigalow]

:lmao pulling the "logic" card after cherry-picking/making-up/contorting stats to fit a narrative... talk about "dishing it but not taking it"
What did I cherry pick you clown

Efficiency from the field - eFG% (factors in 3-pointers)
Efficiency from the line - FT%

Efficiency from the field + Efficiency from the line = Overall Efficiency

Not that hard to grasp

Duncan's more efficient from the field, Kobe is more efficient from the line, and when you factor in BOTH, Kobe is the more efficient player overall

[ElNono]

What did I cherry pick you clown



career season eFG%
career playoff eFG%

career season FT%
career season FT%

career playoff FT%
career playoff FT%

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)


:lmao

[Deuce Bigalow]

:lmao
Ok?

What did I cherrypick?

[ElNono]

Ok?

What did I cherrypick?



career season eFG%
career playoff eFG%

career season FT%
career season FT%

career playoff FT%
career playoff FT%

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)


Let me repeat, in case you're still haven't noticed...



career season eFG%
career playoff eFG%

career season FT%
career season FT%

career playoff FT%
career playoff FT%

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)


One more time...



career season eFG%
career playoff eFG%

career season FT%
career season FT%

career playoff FT%
career playoff FT%

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)



:lmao

[ElNono]

It would be interesting to compare Duncan's efficiency vs. the efficiency of similar bigs from 1999 to 2003 and Kobe's efficiency vs. similar perimeter players from 2006 to 2010(primes of both players IMO)..

:lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Let me repeat, in case you're still haven't noticed...



One more time...




:lmao
You measure effiency with efficiency stats

So again I ask, what am I cherrypicking?

[ElNono]

You measure effiency with efficiency stats

How are FT% and FTA "efficiency" stats? :lmao

lmao making shit up. If anything, they're shooting stats. But you won't go to raw FG% stats because Duncan demolishes Kirby with 9 seasons shooting 50%+ from the field vs zero (which makes sense comparing a big to a perimeter chucker, tbh)...

Also interesting you bring up "efficiency" but don't include defensive efficiency numbers... well, not really interesting when you're cherry picking, tbh...

[Deuce Bigalow]

How are FT% and FTA "efficiency" stats? :lmao

lmao making shit up. If anything, they're shooting stats. But you won't go to raw FG% stats because Duncan demolishes Kirby with 9 seasons shooting 50%+ from the field vs zero (which makes sense comparing a big to a perimeter chucker, tbh)...

Also interesting you bring up "efficiency" but don't include defensive efficiency numbers... well, not really interesting when you're cherry picking, tbh...
Kobe's FGA's are not the same as Duncan's. Kobe's made at least a thousand more 3 pointers. Meaning that Kobe has at least a thousand field goals made that were worth 3 points instead of 2. Duncan has the edge on efficiency from the field by 3% in the regular season and 1.9% in the playoffs when you look at eFG%. But Kobe has a huge advantage on efficiency from the line, which gives him the edge when you factor in both the field and the line. Why do you need to factor in both? Because you can score from both the line and from the field.

FT% and FTA are efficiency numbers because it is their efficiency from the line. Are you a retard?

[spurraider21]

thanks for making a simple stat like TS% into a fucking dissertation. TS% is known to be advantageous to perimeter players

[elmanutres]

Melt down...

faggot

[ElNono]

Kobe's FGA's are not the same as Duncan's. Kobe's made at least a thousand more 3 pointers. Meaning that Kobe has at least a thousand field goals made that were worth 3 points instead of 2. Duncan has the edge on efficiency from the field by 3% in the regular season and 1.9% in the playoffs when you look at eFG%. But Kobe has a huge advantage on efficiency from the line, which gives him the edge when you factor in both the field and the line. Why do you need to factor in both? Because you can score from both the line and from the field.

FT% and FTA are efficiency numbers because it is their efficiency from the line. Are you a retard?

:lol so why are you cherry picking stats that weight better on perimeter players (3pt shooting) when you're comparing a perimeter player and a center/power-forward? Rhetorical question, tbh...

Nothing on defensive efficiency? No surprises there...

There's no need to cherry pick, tbh... As Harlem said, Kirby is the better scorer and much worse defender. Duncan is the superior player. There's already stats for that, tbh...

Career OWS
- KB: 123.8
- TD: 90.7

Career DWS
- TD: 94.2
- KB: 49.5

Career WS:
- TD: 184.9
- KB: 173.3

[Clipper Nation]

http://fourfivetwodotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/7cd9e5060124ff9e917c2a1a01240777.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

:lol so why are you cherry picking stats that weight better on perimeter players (3pt shooting) when you're comparing a perimeter player and a center/power-forward? Rhetorical question, tbh...

Nothing on defensive efficiency? No surprises there...

There's no need to cherry pick, tbh... As Harlem said, Kirby is the better scorer and much worse defender. Duncan is the superior player. There's already stats for that, tbh...

Career OWS
- KB: 123.8
- TD: 90.7

Career DWS
- TD: 94.2
- KB: 49.5

Career WS:
- TD: 184.9
- KB: 173.3
Why do you completely ignore 3pt shooting? And why do you want to ignore FT shooting? I want everything to be factored in.

eFG% doesn't benefit any player really. If you didn't take any 3s, your eFG% will be the same as your FG%, it doesn't penalize you for not making 3s, it only benefits you if you make them because they are like I mentioned a million times worth more than 2s.

What is a win-share? If you don't know what that stat is, then you shouldn't use it. Plus it's been shown to not be accurate, for example Drexler had a higher WS than Hakeem in the '95 playoffs and Gasol had a higher WS than Kobe in the '10 playoffs.

[hater]

sure Kobe is more efficient offensively.

but when you factor in Defense, Duncan completely surpasses Kobe and puts him pretty much on a different planet.

[Deuce Bigalow]

thanks for making a simple stat like TS% into a fucking dissertation. TS% is known to be advantageous to perimeter players
How is this being advantageous to perimeter players? Free-throws are part of the game, period.

Edit: I think Spurfan should definitely know this by now, remember 6? Come back and tell me freethrows don't matter...

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe is a better scorer than Duncan, I don't think anybody would deny that, tbh..

It would be interesting to compare Duncan's efficiency vs. the efficiency of similar bigs from 1999 to 2003 and Kobe's efficiency vs. similar perimeter players from 2006 to 2010(primes of both players IMO)..
Name the players to compare

[ElNono]

Why do you completely ignore 3pt shooting? And why do you want to ignore FT shooting? I want everything to be factored in.

No you do not. That's why you cherry pick. You cherry pick eFG% vs FG%. You cherry pick offensive efficiency over defensive efficiency.

Next time you start a butthurt thread to defend Kirby, put a little more thought into it... ie: name it "Offensive Efficiency" vs "Efficiency", etc.

[Deuce Bigalow]

No you do not. That's why you cherry pick. You cherry pick eFG% vs FG%. You cherry pick offensive efficiency over defensive efficiency.

Next time you start a butthurt thread to defend Kirby, put a little more thought into it... ie: name it "Offensive Efficiency" vs "Efficiency", etc.
Wow. Did everything I write go through your head? FG% doesn't factor in the 3-pt shot. eFG% does. Jesus...

[ElNono]

Wow. Did everything I write go through your head? FG% doesn't factor in the 3-pt shot. eFG% does. Jesus...

Does FG% doesn't include the 3-pt shot? Of course it does... You rather have eFG% because you want the 3 point shot (read: perimeter guy) to weight more.

lol logic

[Deuce Bigalow]

Does FG% doesn't include the 3-pt shot? Of course it does... You rather have eFG% because you want the 3 point shot (read: perimeter guy) to weight more.

lol logic
FG% obviously uses 3pointers, BUT it doesn't factor that a 3pt made is MORE than a 2pt made shot.

Do I need to gve you an example?

Player A: 3/6 FG, 0/0 3PT = 6 points, FG%=50
Player B: 2/6 FG, 2/6 3PT = 6 points, FG%=33.3

Player A is more efficient right? Wrong.

eFG% = (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA

Player A: (3 + 0.5 * 0) / 6 = .5 = 50%eFG
Player B: (2 + 0.5 * 2) / 6 = .5 = 50%eFG

Their efficiency was the same despite Player B's FG% being much lower.

[DMC]

While you're factoring in, factor in the fact the Kobe rode nuts for the 3peat and need another franchise's best player to move on from there, and betwixt he was nary past the 1st. Then factor in how his team once again turned to pure shit after that other team's franchise player said fuck it. You might consider the rape and how Kobe ran off the best players and coaches as well.

Just a thought. But go on with your 3pt comparison between a PF/C and a SG. It makes more sense.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Player A: 10-20 FG, 0-0 3P, 20 points
Player B: 9-20 FG, 2-6 3P, 20 points

Player A: 50%FG
Player B: 45%FG

eFG = (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA

Player A: (10 + 0.5 * 0) / 20 = .5 = 50 eFG%
Player B: (9 + 0.5 * 2) / 20 = .5 = 50 eFG%

eFG% is clearly the better stat

[Deuce Bigalow]

While you're factoring in, factor in the fact the Kobe rode nuts for the 3peat and need another franchise's best player to move on from there, and betwixt he was nary past the 1st. Then factor in how his team once again turned to pure shit after that other team's franchise player said fuck it. You might consider the rape and how Kobe ran off the best players and coaches as well.

Just a thought. But go on with your 3pt comparison between a PF/C and a SG. It makes more sense.
How did Kobe ride Shaq's nuts when he put up the numbers he did? And then when Kobe got a decent team, he won back to back rings without Shaq?
Kareem missed the playoffs twice and lost in the first round in his prime shows you that you need a team to have playoff success. Duncan is averaging the same amount of points as FGA/game and his team is 12-1, while last year Kobe was busting his ass averaging 27-6-6 on 57%TS and 29-6-7 post all-star break to barely get his team in the playoffs. Was that because Duncan was better? Lol. Kobe just had an awful team and Duncan is part of Pop's great system. You got to put things into context before just saying player A lost in the first round.

[spurraider21]

Yeah I forgot teams were doubling Kobe off of Shaq

[DMC]

How did Kobe ride Shaq's nuts when he put up the numbers he did? And then when Kobe got a decent team, he won back to back rings without Shaq?
Kareem missed the playoffs twice and lost in thr first round in his prime shows you that you need a team to have playoff success. Duncan is averaging the same amount of points as FGA/game and his team is 12-1, while last year Kobe was busting his ass averaging 27-6-6 on 57%TS and 29-6-7 post all-star break to barely get his team in the playoffs. Was that because Duncan was better? Lol no. Kobe just had an awful team and Duncan is part of Pop's great system.

That's been explained already.

But here's a refresher:

2000 NBA Finals

Shaq- 38 PPG, 17 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.7 BPG, 61% FG 96/157----6 games
Kobe-16 PPG, 5 RPG, 4 APG, 1.4 BPG, 36% FG%, 33/90----5 games


2001 NBA Finals

Shaq- 33 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 BPG, 63/110 57% FG-----5 games
Kobe- 24 PPG, 8 RPG, 6 APG, 1.4 BPG, 44/106 41% FG------5 games



2002 NBA Finals

Shaq- 37 PPG, 12.25 RPG, 4 APG, 2.75 BPG, 50/84 60% FG----4 games
Kobe-26 PPG, 5.75 RPG, 5 APG, .75 BPG, 36/70 51% FG-------4 games



Total average stats for 3 championships (15 games)=

Shaq=36 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 3 BPG, 209/351 60% FG, Double coverage
Kobe=20 PPG, 6 RPG, 4.6 APG, 1 BPG, 113/266 42% FG, Single coverage



2004 NBA finals 5 games loss
Shaq= 27 PPG, 11 RPG, 2 APG, .6 BPG, 53/84 63% FG
Kobe=23 PPG, 3 RPG, 4 APG, .6 BPG, 43/113 38% FG


Nuts = ridden

By the way, you can clearly see what Shaq was referring to when he called out Kobe for not passing him the ball in the 2004 Finals. Look at every other Finals where Shaq had the most shot attempts, but 2004 had Kobe taking almost 20 more shot attempts at 38% shooting while Shaq was shooting 63%. That cost them the ring.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yeah I forgot teams were doubling Kobe off of Shaq
Kobe's best offensive years came post Shaq. Career high in PPG in 2005-06, career high in eFG% in 2012-13, and a career high in TS% in 2006-07. Most of his 60pt, 50pt, 40pt games came post Shaq too.

[spurraider21]

How many of his top fg% years came in the shaq era?

[Deuce Bigalow]

That's been explained already.

But here's a refresher:

2000 NBA Finals

Shaq- 38 PPG, 17 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.7 BPG, 61% FG 96/157----6 games
Kobe-16 PPG, 5 RPG, 4 APG, 1.4 BPG, 36% FG%, 33/90----5 games


2001 NBA Finals

Shaq- 33 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 BPG, 63/110 57% FG-----5 games
Kobe- 24 PPG, 8 RPG, 6 APG, 1.4 BPG, 44/106 41% FG------5 games



2002 NBA Finals

Shaq- 37 PPG, 12.25 RPG, 4 APG, 2.75 BPG, 50/84 60% FG----4 games
Kobe-26 PPG, 5.75 RPG, 5 APG, .75 BPG, 36/70 51% FG-------4 games



Total average stats for 3 championships (15 games)=

Shaq=36 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 3 BPG, 209/351 60% FG, Double coverage
Kobe=20 PPG, 6 RPG, 4.6 APG, 1 BPG, 113/266 42% FG, Single coverage



2004 NBA finals 5 games loss
Shaq= 27 PPG, 11 RPG, 2 APG, .6 BPG, 53/84 63% FG
Kobe=23 PPG, 3 RPG, 4 APG, .6 BPG, 43/113 38% FG


Nuts = ridden
Those are single series though. What about the first round? The conference semifinals? Conference finals? What about against your very own Spurs? Against the Kings in '02?

[DMC]

Kobe's best offensive years came post Shaq. Career high in PPG in 2005-06, career high in eFG% in 2012-13, and a career high in TS% in 2006-07. Most of his 60pt, 50pt, 40pt games came post Shaq too.

Sure. In 2012-2013, Kobe had Howard and Gasol demanding coverage.

In 2006-2007. Kobe shot the ball every possession. Neither of those examples equated to bettering his team, thus neither equated to him being a better player. Better players make better teams.

[ElNono]

FG% obviously uses 3pointers, BUT it doesn't factor that a 3pt made is MORE than a 2pt made shot.

Do I need to gve you an example?

Player A: 3/6 FG, 0/0 3PT = 6 points, FG%=50
Player B: 2/6 FG, 2/6 3PT = 6 points, FG%=33.3

Player A is more efficient right? Wrong.

eFG% = (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA

Player A: (3 + 0.5 * 0) / 6 = .5 = 50%eFG
Player B: (2 + 0.5 * 2) / 6 = .5 = 50%eFG

Their efficiency was the same despite Player B's FG% being much lower.

I know how eFG% works, that's why I'm calling you out on cherry-picking it.

Made/non-made shouldn't enter the equation at all. Why would you want to reward a player that takes the harder shot when an easier shot can be taken? Well, unless you're a Kobestan.

A layup/dunk is a much more efficient shot than a jumper. This isn't any new discovery. This is why Kirby shooting bricks in '04 when you had a big shooting well over 50% cost him a championship.

[Deuce Bigalow]

How many of his top fg% years came in the shaq era?
His best stretch of FG% was '99-'02. That was because he took very few threes, between 1.7-2.9 3s/game. Since '03 he took over 4 3s/gm with the exception of '04.

[ElNono]

His best stretch of FG% was '99-'02.


Nuts = ridden

[spurraider21]

Oh so he was more effective at putting the ball in the basket when shaq was there? Cool

[Deuce Bigalow]

Sure. In 2012-2013, Kobe had Howard and Gasol demanding coverage.

In 2006-2007. Kobe shot the ball every possession. Neither of those examples equated to bettering his team, thus neither equated to him being a better player. Better players make better teams.
Dwert and Gawful sucked :lol I don't know what you were watching

[ElNono]

Oh so he was more effective at putting the ball in the basket when shaq was there? Cool

:lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Oh so he was more effective at putting the ball in the basket when shaq was there? Cool
No he wasn't. His 06-07 season was his most efficient season.

[DMC]

Kobe's best offensive years came post Shaq. Career high in PPG in 2005-06, career high in eFG% in 2012-13, and a career high in TS% in 2006-07. Most of his 60pt, 50pt, 40pt games came post Shaq too.
So then you agree that Kobe rode Shaq's nuts during the 3peat.

[DMC]

Dwert and Gawful sucked :lol I don't know what you were watching

They still pulled double coverage. Kobe was rarely if ever doubled and played no defense.

[Deuce Bigalow]

So then you agree that Kobe rode Shaq's nuts during the 3peat.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTCxcNICYAArJv9.jpg

Post their playoff numbers. Also their series vs the Spurs and Kings. Then I will decide if he rode Shaq's nuts, ok.

[Deuce Bigalow]

They still pulled double coverage. Kobe was rarely if ever doubled and played no defense.
No, they really didn't.

[spurraider21]

No he wasn't. His 06-07 season was his most efficient season.
He had his best FG% (how often you put the ball in the basket relative to how often you attempt to do so) during shaqs tenure

[Arcadian]

Meh, "efficiency" is a vague word that could mean different things.

I agree with those who say that defense should be a factor in any equation of overall efficiency. After all, a player who scores efficiently but also allows his opponent to score efficiently isn't very efficient in the overall balance of helping his team win.

With regard to pure offensive efficiency - it is true that big players have a natural advantage over perimeter players, as they play closer to the basket - but that advantage isn't just an arbitrary statistical artifact. That advantage is there for a reason - namely, big players really are more valuable than perimeter players - and should not be washed out with statistical manipulations.

[Deuce Bigalow]

He had his best FG% (how often you put the ball in the basket relative to how often you attempt to do so) during shaqs tenure
01-02: 46.9 FG%, 25.0 3P%, 82.9 FT%, 48.9 2P%
06-07: 46.3 FG%, 34.4 3P%, 86.8 FT%, 49.7 2P%

[Deuce Bigalow]

Post their playoff numbers. Also their series vs the Spurs and Kings. Then I will decide if he rode Shaq's nuts, ok.
....

[DMC]

3 peat championship years, playoffs only
Shaq 29.9ppg, 55.2%fg, 14.5reb, 3.0ast, 2.4blk, 12.2 win shares, 3.7 defensive win shares, 8.5 offensive win shares, and only 553 missed shots....
Kobe Bryant 25.3ppg, 44.7%fg, 5.7reb, 4.9ast, 1.1blk, 8.5 win shares, 2.5 defensive win shares, 5.8 offensive win shares, and a whopping 654 missed shots.
Kobe missed 101 more shots than Shaq during the 3 peat championship years

In 99-2000, Kobe missed 14 games, the Lakers went 12-4 without him.
In 2000-2001 Kobe missed 14 games, the Lakers went 11-3 without him.
In 2001-2002 Kobe missed 2 games, the Lakers went 2-0 without him.
The championship Lakers teams seemed barely affected by the absence of Kobe.


Percentage of team's points scored in the NBA Finals
Kobe
2000: 14.5% (not even including the game he missed) (W)
2001: 24.4% (W)
2002: 25.2% (W)
2004: 27.6% (L)

Shaq
2000: 36.3% (W)
2001: 32.8% (W)
2002: 34.5% (W)
2004: 32.5% (L)


2000:
Shaq 38.0ppg 2.3apg 16.7 reb 61.1% shooting
Kobe 15.6ppg 4.2 apg 4.6 reb 36.7% shooting

2001:
Shaq 33.0ppg 15.8 rpg 4.4 apg 57.3% shooting
Kobe 24.6ppg 5.8 apg 7.8 reb 41.5% shooting

2002:
Shaq 36.3ppg 12.3 rpg 3.8 apg 59.5% shooting
Kobe 26.7ppg 5.2 apg 5.8 reb 51.4% shooting

2004:
Shaq 26.6ppg 10.8 rpg 1.6 apg 63.1% shooting
Kobe 22.6ppg 4.4 apg 2.8 reb 38% shooting

2004: Kobe Bryant... 70 missed shots, 43 made shots
2004: Shaq O'Neal... 31 missed shots, 53 made shots

2002: Kobe Bryant... 34 missed shots, 36 made shots
2002: Shaq O'Neal... 34 missed shots, 50 made shots

2001: Kobe Bryant... 62 missed shots, 44 made shots
2001: Shaq O'Neal... 47 missed shots, 63 made shots

2000: Kobe Bryant... 57 missed shots, 33 made shots
2000: Shaq O'Neal... 61 missed shots, 96 made shots

[Deuce Bigalow]

2001 playoffs?
2001 series vs Spurs?
2001 series vs Kings?
2002 playoffs?
2002 series vs Spurs?
2002 series vs Kings?

miss shots and made shots of Shaq and Kobe is great logic btw...

[DMC]

2001 playoffs?
2001 series vs Spurs?
2001 series vs Kings?
2002 playoffs?
2002 series vs Spurs?
2002 series vs Kings?

miss shots and made shots of Shaq and Kobe is great logic btw...

Really? The thread title is about efficiency. You equate offensive efficiency with being the better player. I showed you Shaq destroyed Kobe in offensive efficiency, and highlighted the anomaly of Kobe taking and missing more shots than Shaq, and how that cost them the ring.

I'd say a player who selfishly ball hogged and cost you a ring when your team was historically the most stacked team of all time, right after coming off his rape allegation, that's not a great player. That's a shitty player, but one you and your ilk deserve.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Posted this before on a different forum, so I'm going to save myself time

Kobe's playoff stats during the 3peat


pts-reb-ast-stl-blk fgm/fga
bold indicates leader on the team


2000 WCQF
1: 23-7-5-0-0 11/22
2: 32-4-1-2-0 12/20
3: 35-3-2-2-0 13/25
4: 34-6-4-2-0 13/30
5: 17-2-6-0-3 7/16
2000 WCSF
1: 25-6-1-3-3 8/17
2: 15-4-6-2-2 6/11
3: 25-5-2-2-2 8/20
4: 23-3-5-2-0 10/20
5: 17-1-3-1-0 6/16
2000 WCF
1: 13-3-6-1-1 4/9
2: 12-2-4-1-2 2/9
3: 25-7-7-2-1 11/18
4: 18-4-7-2-3 5/15
5: 17-5-4-0-2 4/13
6: 33-2-6-4-3 12/24
7: 25-11-7-0-4 9/19
2000 Finals
1: 14-3-5-1-2 6/13
2: 2-1-4-0-1 1/3
3: DNP
4: 28-4-5-1-2 14/27
5: 8-5-3-2-0 4/20
6: 26-10-4-1-2 8/27


2001 WCQF
1: 28-6-7-0-0 9/20
2: 25-3-7-3-0 8/11
3: 22-4-9-2-0 9/23
2001 WCSF
1: 29-4-5-0-0 10/23
2: 27-9-5-1-1 9/19
3: 36-7-4-2-0 10/22
4: 48-16-3-2-1 15/29
2001 WCF
1: 45-10-3-1-1 19/35
2: 28-7-6-2-1 11/24
3: 36-9-8-1-0 14/27
4: 24-2-11-2-1 10/19
2001 Finals
1: 15-3-5-1-3 7/22
2: 31-8-6-2-2 11/23
3: 32-6-3-2-0 13/30
4: 19-10-9-1-1 6/13
5: 26-12-6-1-1 7/18


2002 WCQF
1: 34-7-3-2-3 10/28
2: 19-6-5-2-0 5/21
3: 25-4-7-2-2 9/19
2002 WCSF
1: 20-2-4-0-0 8/18
2: 26-4-6-3-0 12/25
3: 31-6-6-0-1 15/31
4: 28-7-3-1-0 10/27
5: 26-8-5-1-0 10/20
2002 WCF
1: 30-6-5-2-2 12/26
2: 22-6-2-1-1 9/21
3: 22-2-3-2-2 8/24
4: 25-4-2-2-3 12/26
5: 30-5-3-1-0 11/29
6: 31-11-5-0-0 10/20
7: 30-10-7-2-0 10/26
2002 Finals
1: 22-3-6-1-0 6/16
2: 24-8-3-2-1 9/15
3: 36-6-4-1-2 14/23
4: 25-6-8-2-0 7/16


2002 Playoffs - 2nd Half Scoring
97 Field Goals, 17 3PT Field Goals


2002 Playoffs - 4th Quarter Scoring
52 Field Goals, 12 3PT Field Goals


Kobe also led the Lakers in second half and 4th quarter scoring in the 2001 Playoffs, but most of those games were not close so I didn't include them.


Kobe was the leading scorer in 8/16 games in the 2001 Playoffs and 10/19 games in the 2002 Playoffs.

[DMC]

None of that does anything to recuse Kobe of riding Shaq's nuts. I've shown the evidence that, when Kobe tried to be the alpha, he cost the Lakers a ring. I've showed that Shaq's efficiency dwarfed Kobe's. I've shown that Kobe wasn't the main guy, and basically wasn't a main guy on a contender at all before Pau was acquired, and even then it was about 50/50 with only Kobe's shot attempts garnering him the MVP while Pau did the real work and made the real difference.

No way then can you compare Kobe and Duncan. Duncan dragged a retiring DR to his 2nd ring, and then rung again with Manu and Tony, and then again. Duncan was the focal point every time. He didn't get the last MVP because the Cavs didn't fight hard enough to make his defense stand out, and his offense wasn't that great but didn't need to be.

Duncan has been alpha since he's been in the league. Kobe has ridden nuts and threatened to quit and then bailed on his team during the hard times. Spurs never missed the playoffs since Tim. 14 consecutive 50 win seasons (would be more if the lockout didn't happen). That's an NBA record. What can Kobe claim, somewhere on the scoring list? Popularity? China?

[DMC]

Posted this before on a different forum, so I'm going to save myself time

Kobe's playoff stats during the 3peat


pts-reb-ast-stl-blk fgm/fga
bold indicates leader on the team


2000 WCQF
1: 23-7-5-0-0 11/22
2: 32-4-1-2-0 12/20
3: 35-3-2-2-0 13/25
4: 34-6-4-2-0 13/30
5: 17-2-6-0-3 7/16
2000 WCSF
1: 25-6-1-3-3 8/17
2: 15-4-6-2-2 6/11
3: 25-5-2-2-2 8/20
4: 23-3-5-2-0 10/20
5: 17-1-3-1-0 6/16
2000 WCF
1: 13-3-6-1-1 4/9
2: 12-2-4-1-2 2/9
3: 25-7-7-2-1 11/18
4: 18-4-7-2-3 5/15
5: 17-5-4-0-2 4/13
6: 33-2-6-4-3 12/24
7: 25-11-7-0-4 9/19
2000 Finals
1: 14-3-5-1-2 6/13
2: 2-1-4-0-1 1/3
3: DNP
4: 28-4-5-1-2 14/27
5: 8-5-3-2-0 4/20
6: 26-10-4-1-2 8/27


2001 WCQF
1: 28-6-7-0-0 9/20
2: 25-3-7-3-0 8/11
3: 22-4-9-2-0 9/23
2001 WCSF
1: 29-4-5-0-0 10/23
2: 27-9-5-1-1 9/19
3: 36-7-4-2-0 10/22
4: 48-16-3-2-1 15/29
2001 WCF
1: 45-10-3-1-1 19/35
2: 28-7-6-2-1 11/24
3: 36-9-8-1-0 14/27
4: 24-2-11-2-1 10/19
2001 Finals
1: 15-3-5-1-3 7/22
2: 31-8-6-2-2 11/23
3: 32-6-3-2-0 13/30
4: 19-10-9-1-1 6/13
5: 26-12-6-1-1 7/18


2002 WCQF
1: 34-7-3-2-3 10/28
2: 19-6-5-2-0 5/21
3: 25-4-7-2-2 9/19
2002 WCSF
1: 20-2-4-0-0 8/18
2: 26-4-6-3-0 12/25
3: 31-6-6-0-1 15/31
4: 28-7-3-1-0 10/27
5: 26-8-5-1-0 10/20
2002 WCF
1: 30-6-5-2-2 12/26
2: 22-6-2-1-1 9/21
3: 22-2-3-2-2 8/24
4: 25-4-2-2-3 12/26
5: 30-5-3-1-0 11/29
6: 31-11-5-0-0 10/20
7: 30-10-7-2-0 10/26
2002 Finals
1: 22-3-6-1-0 6/16
2: 24-8-3-2-1 9/15
3: 36-6-4-1-2 14/23
4: 25-6-8-2-0 7/16


2002 Playoffs - 2nd Half Scoring
97 Field Goals, 17 3PT Field Goals


2002 Playoffs - 4th Quarter Scoring
52 Field Goals, 12 3PT Field Goals


Kobe also led the Lakers in second half and 4th quarter scoring in the 2001 Playoffs, but most of those games were not close so I didn't include them.


Kobe was the leading scorer in 8/16 games in the 2001 Playoffs and 10/19 games in the 2002 Playoffs.

Now correlate Kobe's highest scorer games vs win/loss of those games.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Now correlate Kobe's highest scorer games vs win/loss of those games.
Look at every game in the 2001 playoffs, Lakers won every single game except the first Finals game when Kobe was awful.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Conference Finals

2000 WCF vs Blazers
Shaq: 25.9 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 4.3 APG, 0.1 SPG, 1.9 BPG, 53.7%FG, 55.0%TS
Kobe: 20.4 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 5.9 APG, 1.6 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 43.9%FG, 55.2%TS


2001 WCF vs Spurs
Shaq: 27 PPG, 13 RPG, 2.5 APG, 0.75 SPG, 1.25 BPG, 54.1%FG, 54.7%TS
Kobe: 33.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 0.75 BPG, 51.4%FG, 57.1%TS


2002 WCF vs Kings
Shaq: 30.3 PPG, 13.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.4 SPG, 2.4 BPG, 53.2%FG, 56.3%TS
Kobe: 27.1 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 41.9%FG, 49.1%TS

[spurraider21]

Meh, "efficiency" is a vague word that could mean different things.

I agree with those who say that defense should be a factor in any equation of overall efficiency. After all, a player who scores efficiently but also allows his opponent to score efficiently isn't very efficient in the overall balance of helping his team win.

With regard to pure offensive efficiency - it is true that big players have a natural advantage over perimeter players, as they play closer to the basket - but that advantage isn't just an arbitrary statistical artifact. That advantage is there for a reason - namely, big players really are more valuable than perimeter players - and should not be washed out with statistical manipulations.
exactly. this is why great guards have generally fed big men. magic fed kareem. greats like west/baylor/goodrich were at their best when they fed wilt. oscar fed kareem. a very select few like MJ have not needed a dominant low post presence to remain effective. whats crazy about MJ was he was also very efficient. taking out his wizards years, he has a 50% shooter for his career.

kobe wanted to be like MJ despite not being in the same tier of ability, which explains his extreme volume with pedestrian efficiency

[DMC]

Conference Finals

2000 WCF vs Blazers
Shaq: 25.9 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 4.3 APG, 0.1 SPG, 1.9 BPG, 53.7%FG, 55.0%TS
Kobe: 20.4 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 5.9 APG, 1.6 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 43.9%FG, 55.2%TS


2001 WCF vs Spurs
Shaq: 27 PPG, 13 RPG, 2.5 APG, 0.75 SPG, 1.25 BPG, 54.1%FG, 54.7%TS
Kobe: 33.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 7 APG, 1.5 SPG, 0.75 BPG, 51.4%FG, 57.1%TS


2002 WCF vs Kings
Shaq: 30.3 PPG, 13.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, 0.4 SPG, 2.4 BPG, 53.2%FG, 56.3%TS
Kobe: 27.1 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 41.9%FG, 49.1%TS

So in all the post seasons during the 3peat and even the 2004 season, you only found 3 series you could cherry pick.

There's a reason Shaq won the MVP 3 times, and a reason why Tim had 3 Finals MVPs and 4 rings before Kobe ever had his own competitive team.

[DMC]

exactly. this is why great guards have generally fed big men. magic fed kareem. greats like west/baylor/goodrich were at their best when they fed wilt. oscar fed kareem. a very select few like MJ have not needed a dominant low post presence to remain effective. whats crazy about MJ was he was also very efficient. taking out his wizards years, he has a 50% shooter for his career.

kobe wanted to be like MJ despite not being in the same tier of ability, which explains his extreme volume with pedestrian efficiency

RJ fed Luke

[Deuce Bigalow]

Other series vs Spurs not already posted

2002 WCSF vs Spurs
Shaq: 21.4 PPG, 12.2 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.6 SPG, 3.0 BPG, 44.7%FG, 48.7%TS
Kobe: 26.2 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 4.8 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.2 BPG, 45.5%FG, 48.6%TS


2004 WCSF vs Spurs
Shaq: 22.5 PPG, 14.5 RPG, 2.0 APG, 0.2 SPG, 4.3 BPG, 63.5%FG, 60.1%TS
Kobe: 26.3 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 5.8 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0.2 BPG, 46.2%FG, 53.4%TS

[Deuce Bigalow]

So in all the post seasons during the 3peat and even the 2004 season, you only found 3 series you could cherry pick.

There's a reason Shaq won the MVP 3 times, and a reason why Tim had 3 Finals MVPs and 4 rings before Kobe ever had his own competitive team.
What did I cherrypick? Those were the all the WCF during the 3peat which you did not post.

[spurraider21]

What did I cherrypick? Those were the all the WCF during the 3peat which you did not post.
during the 3peat they played in 12 different playoff series and you chose 3. get real

[Deuce Bigalow]

Rest of the 2001 run not already posted

2001 WCQF vs Blazers
Shaq: 27 PPG, 15.7 RPG, 2.7 APG, 0 SPG, 1 BPG, 48.4%FG, 52.6%TS
Kobe: 25 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 7.7 APG, 2.3 SPG, 0 BPG, 48.1%FG, 56.5%TS


2001 WCSF vs Kings
Shaq: 33.3 PPG, 17.3 RPG, 2.3 APG, 0.5 SPG, 3.3 BPG, 59.8%FG, 58.9%TS
Kobe: 35 PPG, 9 RPG, 4.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 0.5 BPG, 47.3%FG, 58.8%TS

[Deuce Bigalow]

during the 3peat they played in 12 different playoff series and you chose 3. get real
Lol listen clown, I posted nearly every single series of the 3peat. I'm not a cherrypicking faggot like the rest of them.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Where's your he rode his nuts now faggot?

[DMC]

Lol listen clown, I posted nearly every single series of the 3peat. I'm not a cherrypicking faggot like the rest of them.

Explain then why Kobe's numbers suffered so much in the Finals.

My explanation: Teams doubled Shaq in the playoffs, leaving Kobe wide open. Teams showed more on Kobe in the Finals, relieving at least some pressure from Shaq and thus Kobe's much lower numbers vs Shaq.

The figures don't lie, but liars like you figure. Alphas perform in the Finals. Kobe never got near Shaq's insane numbers.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Explain then why Kobe's numbers suffered so much in the Finals.

My explanation: Teams doubled Shaq in the playoffs, leaving Kobe wide open. Teams showed more on Kobe in the Finals, relieving at least some pressure from Shaq and thus Kobe's much lower numbers vs Shaq.

The figures don't lie, but liars like you figure. Alphas perform in the Finals. Kobe never got near Shaq's insane numbers.
Finals are one series. You got to look at the whole picture. Admit that you have been destroyed with facts.

[DMC]

Field Goals


1.
Allen Iverson (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/iversal01.html)-PHI
257


2.
Shaquille O'Neal (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html)-LAL
191


3.
Kobe Bryant (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html)-LAL
168


4.
Ray Allen (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/allenra02.html)-MIL
158


5.
Glenn Robinson (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robingl01.html)-MIL
138


Field Goal Attempts


1.
Allen Iverson (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/iversal01.html)-PHI
661


2.
Kobe Bryant (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html)-LAL
358


3.
Shaquille O'Neal (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html)-LAL
344


4.
Ray Allen (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/allenra02.html)-MIL
331


5.
Glenn Robinson (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robingl01.html)-MIL
322

[DMC]

Finals are one series. You got to look at the whole picture. Admit that you have been destroyed with facts.

lol Finals are one series....

The Superbowl is only one game.

[Koolaid_Man]

I could give 2 fucks....as long as it's

Kobe 5
Gay TOSB 4

I really don't give a shit bout nothing else

[ElNono]

http://photos.costume-works.com/full/capri-sun-1.jpg

[Koolaid_Man]

^ don't care bout it

[ElNono]

^ yeah, I can tell... :lol

[Splits]

:cry Durant is so efficient 19pts on 3 made FG tonight :cry

[hyhy]

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)

Kobe's regular season career: ((24301*.487) + (9468*.838)) / (24301+9468) = 58.54

Duncan regular season career: ((18295*.507) + (7747*.693)) / (18295+7747) = 56.23

Kobe's playoff career: ((4499*.480) + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = 56.88

Duncan's playoff career: ((3512*.499) + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = 55.81

More efficient player: Kobe

Ok, so your reason that you use eFG is to factor in 3 pointers into your FGAs.
So why would u weigh FTs the same as a FG in your formula, since FTs are 1 point each and FG is 2points each?
At least do a weighted average.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Ok, so your reason that you use eFG is to factor in 3 pointers into your FGAs.
So why would u weigh FTs the same as a FG in your formula, since FTs are 1 point each and FG is 2points each?
At least do a weighted average.
Multplied the FGA x 2

KOBE regular season: [2(24301*.487)] + (9468*.838)) / (24301+9468) = .936
DUNCAN regular season: [2(18295*.507)] + (7747*.693)) / (18295+7747) = .919

KOBE playoffs [2(4499*.480)] + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = .922
DUNCAN playoffs: [2(3512*.499) + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = .900

[Trainwreck2100]

kobe hasn't missed a shot in the last 3 weeks Duncan's missed like 20.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Multplied the FGA by 2

Formula: [2(FGA * eFG%)]+ (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)

KOBE playoffs [2(4499*.480)] + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = .9219280
DUNCAN playoffs: [2(3512*.499) + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = .9002016
Using this formula (using 2-pointers/2pt% and 3-pointers/3pt% instead of FGA/eFG%) -

[2(2PA*2P%)] + [3(3PA*3P%)] + (FTA*FT%) / (2PA+3PA+FTA)

Kobe playoffs [2(3617*.476)] + [3(882*.331)] + (1617*.816)) / (3617+882+1617) = .9219558
Duncan playoffs [2(3480*.502)] + [3(32*.156)] + (1611*.687)) / (3480+32+1611) = .9009668

Really shows the accuracy of eFG%. Numbers are very close but faggot elno was tryin to say I cherrypicked eFG% like it was some kind of irrelavant stat. eFG% is the same as 2P% and 3P% being factored into one %.

[hyhy]

Using this formula (using 2-pointers/2pt% and 3-pointers/3pt% instead of FGA/eFG%) -

[2(2PA*2P%)] + [3(3PA*3P%)] + (FTA*FT%) / (2PA+3PA+FTA)

Kobe playoffs [2(3617*.476)] + [3(882*.331)] + (1617*.816)) / (3617+882+1617) = .9219558
Duncan playoffs [2(3480*.502)] + [3(32*.156)] + (1611*.687)) / (3480+32+1611) = .9009668

Really shows the accuracy of eFG%. Numbers are very close but faggot elno was tryin to say I cherrypicked eFG% like it was some kind of irrelavant stat. eFG% is the same as 2P% and 3P% being factored into one %.

Its funny how you multiplied 2P by 2 and 3P by 3 in your numerator, but decide to ignore it in ur denominator.

[Splits]

Its funny how you multiplied 2P by 2 and 3P by 3 in your numerator, but decide to ignore it in ur denominator.

I wouldn't call it "funny". Kirbystan picks and chooses their math like climate change deniers. They hate and disbelieve science and math, so they just make shit up using similar terminology to make it sound real even though it's total crap if you spend 30 seconds thinking about their "facts".

[hyhy]

Dont you find it weird that their fg% is 90% after your calculation?!

[ambchang]

Spurfan seem to think Duncan is much more efficient than Kobe. I don't know where that came from but I don't expect them to be accurate. Let's look at the facts.

Efficiency from the field
-Includes 2-point field goals and 3-point field goals
-Effective field goal percentage factors in the 3-point shot which is worth more than the 2-point shot

Kobe's career season eFG%: 48.7
Duncan's career season eFG%: 50.7

Kobe's career playoff eFG%: 48.0
Duncan's career playoff eFG%: 49.9

Advantage - Duncan


There is another part of scoring that is not included from the field, and that is free-throw shooting.

Efficiency from the free-throw line
-Only one way to measure this is Free-throw percentage since every free-throw is worth 1-point

Kobe's career season FT%: 83.8
Duncan's career season FT%: 69.3

Kobe career playoff FT%: 81.6
Duncan career playoff FT%: 68.7

Advantage - Kobe


Now to tie everything together.

Conclusion
-To find out who is more efficient, you need to figure out the amount of attempts each player takes from the field and from the line. Once you get those numbers you multiply FGA by the eFG% and FTA by the FT%, then you divide by the FGA plus FTA.

Formula: ((FGA * eFG%) + (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)

Kobe's regular season career: ((24301*.487) + (9468*.838)) / (24301+9468) = 58.54
Duncan regular season career: ((18295*.507) + (7747*.693)) / (18295+7747) = 56.23

Kobe's playoff career: ((4499*.480) + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = 56.88
Duncan's playoff career: ((3512*.499) + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = 55.81

Multiplying the FGA x 2 since they are worth 2x more points if made than a FTA

Formula: [2(FGA * eFG%)]+ (FTA * FT%)) / (FGA + FTA)

KOBE regular season: [2(24301*.487)] + (9468*.838)) / (24301+9468) = .936
DUNCAN regular season: [2(18295*.507)] + (7747*.693)) / (18295+7747) = .919

KOBE playoffs [2(4499*.480)] + (1617*.816)) / (4499+1617) = .922
DUNCAN playoffs: [2(3512*.499)] + (1611*.687)) / (3512+1611) = .900

More efficient player: Kobe

Faults:

1) Values 3 point shots 1.5x more than 2 point shots, while the immediate results justifies this stance, things like long rebounds, additional possessions, and fast break opportunities from the opposition is not taken into account. That said, Duncan still came up on top, which really is shocking.

2) Missed FTs do not lead to opposition possession half the time. A missed FT also rarely leads to fast break opportunities.

3) Your "formula" clearly favours players who shoots more as it is biased towards FT shooting (more shots generally leads to more FTs)

[midnightpulp]

Why do you completely ignore 3pt shooting? And why do you want to ignore FT shooting? I want everything to be factored in.



:lol 2 years later, and Deuce is still obsessed with TS%. The stupidest of all advanced stats.

Factoring in FTs is fine. No problem with that. Where TS fails is how it measures points-per-shot in a vacuum. Going 4-12 from the field for 12 points is worse than going 6-12 from the field for 12 points, despite the fact the pps is the same.

Why?

Because a missed 3 point shot (or a long two) is the worst kind of miss in basketball, since it often triggers a fast break. Why do you think jumpshooting teams are always terrible defensively?

Also, I'm not sure how Deuce spun it to give Kirby the higher TS%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_active_p.html

Duncan: 27

Kirby: 31

Yet another advanced stat Duncan leads Kirb in.

[spurraider21]

he went by reg season, not postseason. TS% and EFG% sort of fall flat. it assumes a 33.3% three point percentage is equal to 50% from 2.

points wise, they add up (making 10/30 three pointers for 33.3% adds up to 30 points, as does going 15/30 for 50% from 2 point range), but anybody who follows basketball knows that shooting 50% from 2 is a good figure, and shooting 33.3% from 3 is a shit figure (due to the reasons mentioned by midnightpulp).

[hyhy]

Faults:

1) Values 3 point shots 1.5x more than 2 point shots, while the immediate results justifies this stance, things like long rebounds, additional possessions, and fast break opportunities from the opposition is not taken into account. That said, Duncan still came up on top, which really is shocking.

2) Missed FTs do not lead to opposition possession half the time. A missed FT also rarely leads to fast break opportunities.

3) Your "formula" clearly favours players who shoots more as it is biased towards FT shooting (more shots generally leads to more FTs)

His formula results in both Tim and Kobe having 90%++ shooting percentages. Nice calculations