NBA: Efficiency: Kobe vs Duncan

[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-PHI	257
2.	Shaquille O'Neal-LAL	191
3.	Kobe Bryant-LAL	168
4.	Ray Allen-MIL	158
5.	Glenn Robinson-MIL	138

Field Goal Attempts

1.	Allen Iverson-PHI	661
2.	Kobe Bryant-LAL	358
3.	Shaquille O'Neal-LAL	344
4.	Ray Allen-MIL	331
5.	Glenn Robinson-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 s....as long as it's

Kobe 5
Gay TOSB 4

I really don't give a bout nothing else

[ElNono]

[Koolaid_Man]

^ don't care bout it

[ElNono]

^ yeah, I can tell...

[Splits]

Durant is so efficient 19pts on 3 made FG tonight

[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 got 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 got 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 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.

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/..._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 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