What Stats or Advanced Stats Do You Find Useful

[spurraider21]

I don't think anybody just goes to 1 advanced stat as "the" advanced stat to get a picture of a player's effectiveness, and surely people look through a few to come up with a picture.

Curious what people think are more or less useful ones. We've come a long way since the days of PER being the one "advanced stat."

Just due to ease of access, the ones I find myself looking at are those available of basketball reference (defensive/offensive rating on-off figures, win shares/48, BPM, VORP), and the RPM stats published on ESPN. the RAPTOR numbers on 538 are another one i can think of that i generally look through

to be frank, i have no clue which of these are thought to be more credible or meaningful than the other

[exstatic]

O/D WS/48, O/D BPM

[TrainOfThought5]

VORP/RAPTOR

[TrainOfThought5]

Also Win Shares has never lied to me.

[exstatic]

Also Win Shares has never lied to me.

WS is a quick and dirty, but if you want to compare players, WS/48 is more useful.

[scott]

Thanks for this thread - would love to understand advanced stats better. Can ya'll explain why you like the ones you do?

[jesterbobman]

From the early Box score variations, we've generally moved into using variations of lineup adjusted on-off (RAPM, RPM, etc), often with a box score informed prior (essentially, assumes that if two guys share the court all the time, the one driving the good performance is the one putting up 20, 5 and 5 rather than the 6ppg role player) to minimise the error. RAPM does a decent job of that. RAPTOR was good, though 538 is stopping updating it. I generally use the ESPN RPM first for ease of finding things.

After those catch all totals, you get into looking at particular skills that are valuable. For rim protection / centres, look at number of shots contested and field goal percentage allowed at the rim. For off ball players, look at 3pt %, and break it down by standstill / catch and shoot, off the dribble, and off screens. PGs, Assist to TO% etc, points per possession on the pick and rolls they run, etc. Varies by role.

Overall, generally go through a progression of RPM / Raptor etc for "Is this player good" then to the eye test / more detailed stats on why.

E.g, If a big with pedestrian numbers pops in +/- stats:


Are they good at boxing out for teammates (Lopez special), or
do they set awesome, intelligent screens (flipping the angle, good timing, etc - I think this is why Nick Collison always looked awesome) or
Is their floor spacing really valuable for the space it opens up (Matt Bonner - who was a huge + by RPM type stats).


You can do similar things on the value of off ball movement / cutting, defense (on ball, and how well people roam off ball to help), etc.

For scouting / draft evaluation, you're trying to guess development - how good is a player likely be be, rather than how good are they now.
Generally, use FT% as a proxy for eventual 3pt% development, as you have a high rate of attempts and that's less prone to statistical noise. Steal % works well as a proxy for athleticism / feel for using it (There'll be gamblers, so it's imperfect). Rebounding translates. Then, often assume an aging curve, so 19 year olds with decent numbers are likely to become better than 23 year olds with slightly better numbers now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think anybody just goes to 1 advanced stat as "the" advanced stat to get a picture of a player's effectiveness, and surely people look through a few to come up with a picture.

Curious what people think are more or less useful ones. We've come a long way since the days of PER being the one "advanced stat."

Just due to ease of access, the ones I find myself looking at are those available of basketball reference (defensive/offensive rating on-off figures, win shares/48, BPM, VORP), and the RPM stats published on ESPN. the RAPTOR numbers on 538 are another one i can think of that i generally look through

to be frank, i have no clue which of these are thought to be more credible or meaningful than the other

the NBA is cool because they do a lot of geometric vectoring and plotting. A big part of a players offensive game is based on a player finding his spots so he can practice. Those gradient charts metered on shooting percentage are useful.

I also imagine that vector analysis would be very helpful for finding angles of attack and where to defend.

I found timvp and his use of analyzing players by lineup to be interesting in finding best lineup.

winshares and similar stats that come from the approach of correlating to wins are useful for ranking players over an interval based on wins, I don't see them as fungible from interval to interval so they are not very useful in roster building or predictions. player contract efficiency and rankings are what they are good for.

[MultiTroll]

New Silver Spurs Dance Team vitals.

[tbdog]

Win/loss column

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

PPG

[Gagnrath]

From the early Box score variations, we've generally moved into using variations of lineup adjusted on-off (RAPM, RPM, etc), often with a box score informed prior (essentially, assumes that if two guys share the court all the time, the one driving the good performance is the one putting up 20, 5 and 5 rather than the 6ppg role player) to minimise the error. RAPM does a decent job of that. RAPTOR was good, though 538 is stopping updating it. I generally use the ESPN RPM first for ease of finding things.

After those catch all totals, you get into looking at particular skills that are valuable. For rim protection / centres, look at number of shots contested and field goal percentage allowed at the rim. For off ball players, look at 3pt %, and break it down by standstill / catch and shoot, off the dribble, and off screens. PGs, Assist to TO% etc, points per possession on the pick and rolls they run, etc. Varies by role.

Overall, generally go through a progression of RPM / Raptor etc for "Is this player good" then to the eye test / more detailed stats on why.

E.g, If a big with pedestrian numbers pops in +/- stats:


Are they good at boxing out for teammates (Lopez special), or
do they set awesome, intelligent screens (flipping the angle, good timing, etc - I think this is why Nick Collison always looked awesome) or
Is their floor spacing really valuable for the space it opens up (Matt Bonner - who was a huge + by RPM type stats).


You can do similar things on the value of off ball movement / cutting, defense (on ball, and how well people roam off ball to help), etc.

For scouting / draft evaluation, you're trying to guess development - how good is a player likely be be, rather than how good are they now.
Generally, use FT% as a proxy for eventual 3pt% development, as you have a high rate of attempts and that's less prone to statistical noise. Steal % works well as a proxy for athleticism / feel for using it (There'll be gamblers, so it's imperfect). Rebounding translates. Then, often assume an aging curve, so 19 year olds with decent numbers are likely to become better than 23 year olds with slightly better numbers now.

Another thing with Bonner is that he took pretty good care of the ball he knew he wasn't a guy who was beating people off the dribble so you didn't see him put it on the floor in traffic and he knew to hit an open teammate when the defense closed out on him.


Hitting your teammates in their spots and passing to an open man or the space your teammate is cutting to is underrated.

[mookie2001]

PPG
Exactly. No crap players ever averaged 27 ppg

[Ef-man]

Exactly. No crap players ever averaged 27 ppg

Two words: Carmelo Anthony

[ambchang]

Purvis short.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Two words: Carmelo Anthony

11 time all star, 19 seasons

yeah dude sucked

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Purvis short.

12 seasons in the league. yep horrible

[Ef-man]

11 time all star, 19 seasons

yeah dude sucked

He is cancer personified that made Iverson look like a team player.

Sure, he was popular but he was a crap player.

[ismael-robert]

Height, weight, bust, waist, hips, cup

[ambchang]

12 seasons in the league. yep horrible

Definitely better than magic and Pippen. Who never averaged 27 ppg. Definitely ppg is the way to use to judge players. Youve convinced me.

[KobesAchilles]

Arm length

[tonight...you]

Arm length
Pit strength.

It's underrated!

[CGD]

11 time all star, 19 seasons

yeah dude sucked

Dude was empty calories, and rarely made his team better unfortunately. Others I’d put in this group are LaMarcus, Amare, and possibly Harden when it’s all said and done.

[ambchang]

All stats generally have some sort of weaknesses and advanced stats are no exception. In general, advanced stats such as WS, WS/48, RAPTOR, VORP are all affected by the quality of your teammates. If you have a system that you fit well in, then your advanced stats will shine. Case in point being Chauncey Billups, was he really the 4th best player in the NBA in 07-08 season, better than Lebron, Duncan? Was Manu really better than Duncan that year? I wouldn't say so but WS/48, VORP and BPM, when taken together as a whole, does point in the right direction.

BPM, aside from the quality of your teammates and how well you fit within the team, also depends on your sub and again how the team was built. Let's say Curry, the Warriors built their offence around his and Thompson's ungodly outside shooting, and when one of them sits, it is hard to get another player to duplicate that effect, which gives them a large BPM (OBPM in this case). if a team splurges on a strong starting lineup and got a crap bench, naturally your BPM is going to be huge as well as your replacement is crap, so these are factors that are outside of the player's control and doesn't say one player is better than the other.

There also is the sense of whether you ARE the system, and how easy it is to build that system around you? Players like Duncan, Jokic, Shaq, Lebron, Hakeem and Giannis are relatively easy to build around as the complementary pieces to help them win lots of game are comparatively easy to find, whereas guys like Dirk, the Admiral, and Barkley are tougher to build around because of the weaknesses you have to cover. I really haven't found a stat that measures this yet.

I find PER to be just like a weighted system for traditional stats and isn't overly insightful, especially when comparing across different seasons. Differences in pace and styles of different eras produce different results. I felt the low scoring 90s and early-mid 00s have generally deflated PERs, and today's league and those in the 60's have inflated PERs due to the pace and also the heliocentric style of play. You take a look at the best PER seasons ever, and of the top 20 seasons, 13 of them were either in the 60s or over the last 10 years, the other 7 were all Jordan and Lebron's who are widely known as the two best players ever. Whereas when you look at WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM stats, the best seasons tend to spread across multiple eras (still favouring recent era and those in the 60s, just not as prominently).

To answer the question, you just really have to look at them all, and I find that WS/48 and BPM compliments each other quite well, while RAPTOR and VORP have some level of overlap. You take 3 of these together and it tells the story pretty consistently, I would say. For example, last year, Jokic, Embiid were in the top 3 in WS/48, VORP and BPM, while Luka was top 3 in VORP and BPM (Luka was 11th in WS/48 because the Mavs sucked).

[DAF86]

All stats generally have some sort of weaknesses and advanced stats are no exception. In general, advanced stats such as WS, WS/48, RAPTOR, VORP are all affected by the quality of your teammates. If you have a system that you fit well in, then your advanced stats will shine. Case in point being Chauncey Billups, was he really the 4th best player in the NBA in 07-08 season, better than Lebron, Duncan? Was Manu really better than Duncan that year? I wouldn't say so but WS/48, VORP and BPM, when taken together as a whole, does point in the right direction.

BPM, aside from the quality of your teammates and how well you fit within the team, also depends on your sub and again how the team was built. Let's say Curry, the Warriors built their offence around his and Thompson's ungodly outside shooting, and when one of them sits, it is hard to get another player to duplicate that effect, which gives them a large BPM (OBPM in this case). if a team splurges on a strong starting lineup and got a crap bench, naturally your BPM is going to be huge as well as your replacement is crap, so these are factors that are outside of the player's control and doesn't say one player is better than the other.

There also is the sense of whether you ARE the system, and how easy it is to build that system around you? Players like Duncan, Jokic, Shaq, Lebron, Hakeem and Giannis are relatively easy to build around as the complementary pieces to help them win lots of game are comparatively easy to find, whereas guys like Dirk, the Admiral, and Barkley are tougher to build around because of the weaknesses you have to cover. I really haven't found a stat that measures this yet.

I find PER to be just like a weighted system for traditional stats and isn't overly insightful, especially when comparing across different seasons. Differences in pace and styles of different eras produce different results. I felt the low scoring 90s and early-mid 00s have generally deflated PERs, and today's league and those in the 60's have inflated PERs due to the pace and also the heliocentric style of play. You take a look at the best PER seasons ever, and of the top 20 seasons, 13 of them were either in the 60s or over the last 10 years, the other 7 were all Jordan and Lebron's who are widely known as the two best players ever. Whereas when you look at WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM stats, the best seasons tend to spread across multiple eras (still favouring recent era and those in the 60s, just not as prominently).

To answer the question, you just really have to look at them all, and I find that WS/48 and BPM compliments each other quite well, while RAPTOR and VORP have some level of overlap. You take 3 of these together and it tells the story pretty consistently, I would say. For example, last year, Jokic, Embiid were in the top 3 in WS/48, VORP and BPM, while Luka was top 3 in VORP and BPM (Luka was 11th in WS/48 because the Mavs sucked).

Yes.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Definitely better than magic and Pippen. Who never averaged 27 ppg. Definitely ppg is the way to use to judge players. Youve convinced me.

me: ppg good metric
another poster: crap players never average 27 ppg
you: how bout purvis short?
me: purvis short not crap player
you: oh so purvis is better than magic and pippen?

who's the best player never to average more than 10 ppg?

[ambchang]

me: ppg good metric
another poster: crap players never average 27 ppg
you: how bout purvis short?
me: purvis short not crap player
you: oh so purvis is better than magic and pippen?

who's the best player never to average more than 10 ppg?

Read title.

[Ef-man]

All stats generally have some sort of weaknesses and advanced stats are no exception. In general, advanced stats such as WS, WS/48, RAPTOR, VORP are all affected by the quality of your teammates. If you have a system that you fit well in, then your advanced stats will shine. Case in point being Chauncey Billups, was he really the 4th best player in the NBA in 07-08 season, better than Lebron, Duncan? Was Manu really better than Duncan that year? I wouldn't say so but WS/48, VORP and BPM, when taken together as a whole, does point in the right direction.

BPM, aside from the quality of your teammates and how well you fit within the team, also depends on your sub and again how the team was built. Let's say Curry, the Warriors built their offence around his and Thompson's ungodly outside shooting, and when one of them sits, it is hard to get another player to duplicate that effect, which gives them a large BPM (OBPM in this case). if a team splurges on a strong starting lineup and got a crap bench, naturally your BPM is going to be huge as well as your replacement is crap, so these are factors that are outside of the player's control and doesn't say one player is better than the other.

There also is the sense of whether you ARE the system, and how easy it is to build that system around you? Players like Duncan, Jokic, Shaq, Lebron, Hakeem and Giannis are relatively easy to build around as the complementary pieces to help them win lots of game are comparatively easy to find, whereas guys like Dirk, the Admiral, and Barkley are tougher to build around because of the weaknesses you have to cover. I really haven't found a stat that measures this yet.

I find PER to be just like a weighted system for traditional stats and isn't overly insightful, especially when comparing across different seasons. Differences in pace and styles of different eras produce different results. I felt the low scoring 90s and early-mid 00s have generally deflated PERs, and today's league and those in the 60's have inflated PERs due to the pace and also the heliocentric style of play. You take a look at the best PER seasons ever, and of the top 20 seasons, 13 of them were either in the 60s or over the last 10 years, the other 7 were all Jordan and Lebron's who are widely known as the two best players ever. Whereas when you look at WS, WS/48, VORP and BPM stats, the best seasons tend to spread across multiple eras (still favouring recent era and those in the 60s, just not as prominently).

To answer the question, you just really have to look at them all, and I find that WS/48 and BPM compliments each other quite well, while RAPTOR and VORP have some level of overlap. You take 3 of these together and it tells the story pretty consistently, I would say. For example, last year, Jokic, Embiid were in the top 3 in WS/48, VORP and BPM, while Luka was top 3 in VORP and BPM (Luka was 11th in WS/48 because the Mavs sucked).

Agreed, ppg alone is a crap stat.

[TD 21]

Yes.

Only because Duncan was physically declining in '08 (hobbled from '09-'11). When healthy or as close as he could get in his latter years, he was still the best player on the team until '16.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Read title.

who's the best player never to average more than 10 ppg?

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Agreed, Any stat alone is a crap stat.

Agreed

[ambchang]

who's the best player never to average more than 10 ppg?

It shows you still don’t know what the point of stats are but to answer your question Probably Ben Wallace. But I’m sure you’d take purvis short over him.m
I’m also not so sure about what you are arguing. Ppg is a good stat. So let’s compare players who never averaged 10ppg to those who averaged 27ppg.

Like, let’s compare players who had 10 VORP to those who never had a VORP of 3.5.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

It shows you still don’t know what the point of stats are but to answer your question Probably Ben Wallace. But I’m sure you’d take purvis short over him.m
I’m also not so sure about what you are arguing. Ppg is a good stat. So let’s compare players who never averaged 10ppg to those who averaged 27ppg.

Like, let’s compare players who had 10 VORP to those who never had a VORP of 3.5.

kk do that I would like to see that. good idea!

[ambchang]

kk do that I would like to see that. good idea!

I believe the point of the exercise is for you to do it.

[Drom John]

me: ppg good metric
another poster: crap players never average 27 ppg
you: how bout purvis short?
me: purvis short not crap player
you: oh so purvis is better than magic and pippen?

who's the best player never to average more than 10 ppg?

B-R career VORP combined regular and post season, only two of the top 250 came close. Of course, both were Spurs.

#110 Dennis Rodman, career 7.3 PPG, but 11.6 PPG for only season above 10 PPG.

#179 Robert Horry, career 7.0 PPG, but three seasons above, topping out at 12.0 PPG.

[Extra Stout]

Jordan Poole averaged 20.4 ppg last year.

Manu Ginóbili’s highest average was 19.5.

I think we all understand that Jordan Poole is a better player than Manu Ginóbili was and the advanced stats that explain why Ginóbili was a first-ballot Hall of Famer are just something nerds made up.

[ambchang]

Jordan Poole averaged 20.4 ppg last year.

Manu Ginóbili’s highest average was 19.5.

I think we all understand that Jordan Poole is a better player than Manu Ginóbili was and the advanced stats that explain why Ginóbili was a first-ballot Hall of Famer are just something nerds made up.

But ginobili averaged 10ppg at least one season!!!!

[spurraider21]

Did anybody claim that ppg directly makes someone better than the other or just that its usually a fairly reliable shorthand to see who is a good/impactful player or who isn’t

[ambchang]

Did anybody claim that ppg directly makes someone better than the other or just that its usually a fairly reliable shorthand to see who is a good/impactful player or who isn’t

Well. Neither is true. I mean, was Michael adams impactful? Was Dana barros impactful? Was Dennis rodman impactful in Detroit? Was Ben Wallace impactful?

[spurraider21]

Well. Neither is true. I mean, was Michael adams impactful? Was Dana barros impactful? Was Dennis rodman impactful in Detroit? Was Ben Wallace impactful?
“Fairly reliable shorthand”

[Extra Stout]

> 27 ppg: good
< 10 ppg: either a role player or they suck
Between 10 and 27 ppg: who knows

fairly reliable

[Ef-man]

K.C. Jones with sub-par ppg: career ppg 7.4; playoff ppg 6.4.

John Stockton with just above sub-par ppg: career ppg 13.1; playoff ppg 13.4.

Bill Russel with just above sub-par ppg: career ppg 15.1; playoff ppg 16.2.

They must have sucked.

[Gagnrath]

Did anybody claim that ppg directly makes someone better than the other or just that its usually a fairly reliable shorthand to see who is a good/impactful player or who isn’t
Bowen was a pretty impactfully player despite never averaging 10 ppg for a season just ask Wally Szerbiack about his impact.

[ambchang]

“Fairly reliable shorthand”

What stat isn’t?

[spurraider21]

What stat isn’t?
ppg more than others imo

if i wanted to get a sense of the top 10 players in the league i could probably look at the top 25 scorers and find 9/10 of them or so. Don’t think you can do that with another raw stat

[stnick2261]

Plus-Minus is easily the most impactful stat. It shows that no matter how much you score/don't score, when you are on the court you're winning.

[Extra Stout]

ppg more than others imo

if i wanted to get a sense of the top 10 players in the league i could probably look at the top 25 scorers and find 9/10 of them or so. Don’t think you can do that with another raw stat
If you wanted to get a sense of the top 10 players in the league, you could look at BPM or VORP or WS/48 and there would be 10 players who are in the top 15 of each one. It takes maybe 2 more minutes than looking at the top scorers, and you get a lot more certainty on who the top 10 actually are.

[spurraider21]

If you wanted to get a sense of the top 10 players in the league, you could look at BPM or VORP or WS/48 and there would be 10 players who are in the top 15 of each one. It takes maybe 2 more minutes than looking at the top scorers, and you get a lot more certainty on who the top 10 actually are.
I never said ppg was the best metric in the world. If you read my OP you’d know that.

one poster said ppg is a solid metric and I’m just pointing out he’s not wrong if you want a quick shorthand glance at top players

[Ef-man]

I never said ppg was the best metric in the world. If you read my OP you’d know that.

one poster said ppg is a solid metric and I’m just pointing out he’s not wrong if you want a quick shorthand glance at top players

Only time I have looked at ppg is to see who are the NBA scoring leaders.

Amazing that as many non-champs were recent scoring leaders, Harden, Westbrick, Iverson, and Carmelo Anthony. Could be that they were main beneficiaries of garbage time teams that sucked?

Otherwise, it is all about team Ws and Ls in conference.

[spurraider21]

Only time I have looked at ppg is to see who are the NBA scoring leaders.

Amazing that as many non-champs were recent scoring leaders, Harden, Westbrick, Iverson, and Carmelo Anthony. Could be that they were main beneficiaries of garbage time teams that sucked?

Otherwise, it is all about team Ws and Ls in conference.
from basic box score type stats, its probably the best one.

not that one should be evaluating players just off basic box score stats

hence this thread i made

iverson is a weird inclusion though. led a weak roster to the finals. his advanced stats compare favorably with tony parker

[ambchang]

ppg more than others imo

if i wanted to get a sense of the top 10 players in the league i could probably look at the top 25 scorers and find 9/10 of them or so. Don’t think you can do that with another raw stat

But why not look at BPM, VORP or WS/48? Those numbers likely can give a better representation.

You look at the top 25 scorers last year, you find players like Lillard at #3, Shai at #4, Irving at #8, Jaylen Brown at #9, Trae at #11, Markkanen at #12, randle at #13, Fox at #14, Lavine at #15, DeRozan at #17, Porzingis at #21, Keldon Johnson at #24 and klay Thompson at #25. That's a pretty weak list.

While you look at VORP, let's say, the only "weird" one is Sabonis at #7, and Randle at #17. While Booker is way down at #27. Everything else looks reasonable.

[spurraider21]

But why not look at BPM, VORP or WS/48? Those numbers likely can give a better representation.

You look at the top 25 scorers last year, you find players like Lillard at #3, Shai at #4, Irving at #8, Jaylen Brown at #9, Trae at #11, Markkanen at #12, randle at #13, Fox at #14, Lavine at #15, DeRozan at #17, Porzingis at #21, Keldon Johnson at #24 and klay Thompson at #25. That's a pretty weak list.

While you look at VORP, let's say, the only "weird" one is Sabonis at #7, and Randle at #17. While Booker is way down at #27. Everything else looks reasonable.
i probably would look at those tbh

somebody in the thread said ppg is a pretty good metric. i think while there are obvious reasons why its not a perfect stat, its also not a terrible one in the scheme of things.

saying "but there are better stats" isnt really a retort to "ppg is a fine stat." both could be true. theres no use pretending ppg is useless or anything. when we look at player growth/improvement, one of the first things people point to is scoring average. look at basically any post here talking about vassell's improvement. a lot of reference to his scoring output. nobody out here is saying "vassell looked better last year, i mean just look at his VORP!"

[TD 21]

theres no use pretending ppg is useless or anything. when we look at player growth/improvement, one of the first things people point to is scoring average. look at basically any post here talking about vassell's improvement. a lot of reference to his scoring output. nobody out here is saying "vassell looked better last year, i mean just look at his VORP!"

Since it's mostly a product of a combination of of mpg/usage + mentality as opposed to ability/skill, it's largely irrelevant and you'd think this fan base of all would know that.

Blame most mainstream basketball analysis, which has conditioned and treats the audience like idiots.

They should be explaining and showing catch all advanced metrics and %'s (effective field goal, true shooting, rebound/assist/block/steal/turnover/3pt/free throw/usage rate) as opposed to counting stats.

Box scores should be changed too, with things like hockey/screen assists, block outs, etc. added.

[exstatic]

Ppg doesn’t tell you anything unless you know how many shots the player took. Two guys score 25 ppg. One takes 21 shots per game. The other takes 17. They’re not the same.

[spurraider21]

Ppg doesn’t tell you anything unless you know how many shots the player took. Two guys score 25 ppg. One takes 21 shots per game. The other takes 17. They’re not the same.
oh, i thought they were

[ambchang]

i probably would look at those tbh

somebody in the thread said ppg is a pretty good metric. i think while there are obvious reasons why its not a perfect stat, its also not a terrible one in the scheme of things.

saying "but there are better stats" isnt really a retort to "ppg is a fine stat." both could be true. theres no use pretending ppg is useless or anything. when we look at player growth/improvement, one of the first things people point to is scoring average. look at basically any post here talking about vassell's improvement. a lot of reference to his scoring output. nobody out here is saying "vassell looked better last year, i mean just look at his VORP!"

Same old he said of almost any stat. If you are a league leader in any stat you are by definition a good player. What makes a good stat vs a misleading stat is whether the ranking of those stats point to how good a player is at helping his team win. Ppg is about as good an indicator as any other stat.

[Ef-man]

For a good team focused comparison stat, I would choose best record against teams above .500 stat.