Jmpasq wrote:This is obviously another thread to swipe at Melo so im going to ask a ?. If Melo is such an inefficient Basketball player why is his PLAYER EFFICIENCY RATING the 4th Highest in the NBA behind Lebron James,Kevin Durant and Chris Paul . Those 3 players I have no problem saying Melo isnt as good as. I just dont get how Melo is so slandered by some to make it seem like he isnt good enough to be 1 of a 2 headed max player team.Is Melo good enough enough to be a lead player im not sure maybe if we put a Russel Westbrook next to him or even a healthy Amare for 82 games we could find out.

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Wrong. Pierce has missed the playoffs 5 times in his career, Melo 0.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Wrong. Pierce has missed the playoffs 5 times in his career, Melo 0.

Where are you finding those #s? They appear to be very far off.
Here is Pierce's playoff record.
2001-2: Advanced to conference finals
2002-3: Advanced to 2nd round
2003-4: Lost in 1st round
2004-5: Lost in 1st round
2005-6: Lottery
2006-7: Lottery (Pierce missed almost half the season, though)
2007-8: NBA championship
2008-9: Advanced to 2nd round
2009-10: Advanced to NBA finals
2010-11: Advanced to 2nd round
2011-12: Advanced to conference finals
2012-13: Lost in 1st round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boston_Celtics_seasons

He missed the playoffs in 99,00,01,06,07. 5 times. So how is that wrong? Can we not judge him on early years? We judge Melo on those years.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Wrong. Pierce has missed the playoffs 5 times in his career, Melo 0.

Where are you finding those #s? They appear to be very far off.
Here is Pierce's playoff record.
2001-2: Advanced to conference finals
2002-3: Advanced to 2nd round
2003-4: Lost in 1st round
2004-5: Lost in 1st round
2005-6: Lottery
2006-7: Lottery (Pierce missed almost half the season, though)
2007-8: NBA championship
2008-9: Advanced to 2nd round
2009-10: Advanced to NBA finals
2010-11: Advanced to 2nd round
2011-12: Advanced to conference finals
2012-13: Lost in 1st round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boston_Celtics_seasons

He missed the playoffs in 99,00,01,06,07. 5 times. So how is that wrong? Can we not judge him on early years? We judge Melo on those years.

I said the #s appear to be way off and since I misread his profile on basketballreference.com, your #s did appear to me to be way off! My bad.
While evaluating a player by looking at his team's performance probably has a little value, I've commented before on reasons not to place much weight on that.

I would agree with you. Only reason I don't to a degree is I believe a handful of guys can get you to the playoffs regardless of supporting cast (playoff success is different.) I don't believe pierce ever was that guy but Melo is. Just making a point of how much better pierce looks now. It's easy to forget his success or lack of prior.

But yet tkf says comparing Melo to pierce is like comparing shumpert to wade or chandler to Russell haha.

Melo's had 2 Olympian, 5 all-star, and many more solid teammates. I don't think he's ever had a situation that would justify that comment.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Wrong. Pierce has missed the playoffs 5 times in his career, Melo 0.

Where are you finding those #s? They appear to be very far off.
Here is Pierce's playoff record.
2001-2: Advanced to conference finals
2002-3: Advanced to 2nd round
2003-4: Lost in 1st round
2004-5: Lost in 1st round
2005-6: Lottery
2006-7: Lottery (Pierce missed almost half the season, though)
2007-8: NBA championship
2008-9: Advanced to 2nd round
2009-10: Advanced to NBA finals
2010-11: Advanced to 2nd round
2011-12: Advanced to conference finals
2012-13: Lost in 1st round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boston_Celtics_seasons

He missed the playoffs in 99,00,01,06,07. 5 times. So how is that wrong? Can we not judge him on early years? We judge Melo on those years.

I said the #s appear to be way off and since I misread his profile on basketballreference.com, your #s did appear to me to be way off! My bad.
While evaluating a player by looking at his team's performance probably has a little value, I've commented before on reasons not to place much weight on that.

I would agree with you. Only reason I don't to a degree is I believe a handful of guys can get you to the playoffs regardless of supporting cast (playoff success is different.) I don't believe pierce ever was that guy but Melo is. Just making a point of how much better pierce looks now. It's easy to forget his success or lack of prior.

But yet tkf says comparing Melo to pierce is like comparing shumpert to wade or chandler to Russell haha.

Melo's had 2 Olympian, 5 all-star, and many more solid teammates. I don't think he's ever had a situation that would justify that comment.

We didn't make the playoffs for many years prior to him. If you think we make the playoffs the last 2 seasons without him then that's crazy. But I get there is no way to prove any of this so no point in talking about it further.

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Wrong. Pierce has missed the playoffs 5 times in his career, Melo 0.

Where are you finding those #s? They appear to be very far off.
Here is Pierce's playoff record.
2001-2: Advanced to conference finals
2002-3: Advanced to 2nd round
2003-4: Lost in 1st round
2004-5: Lost in 1st round
2005-6: Lottery
2006-7: Lottery (Pierce missed almost half the season, though)
2007-8: NBA championship
2008-9: Advanced to 2nd round
2009-10: Advanced to NBA finals
2010-11: Advanced to 2nd round
2011-12: Advanced to conference finals
2012-13: Lost in 1st round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boston_Celtics_seasons

He missed the playoffs in 99,00,01,06,07. 5 times. So how is that wrong? Can we not judge him on early years? We judge Melo on those years.

I said the #s appear to be way off and since I misread his profile on basketballreference.com, your #s did appear to me to be way off! My bad.
While evaluating a player by looking at his team's performance probably has a little value, I've commented before on reasons not to place much weight on that.

I would agree with you. Only reason I don't to a degree is I believe a handful of guys can get you to the playoffs regardless of supporting cast (playoff success is different.) I don't believe pierce ever was that guy but Melo is. Just making a point of how much better pierce looks now. It's easy to forget his success or lack of prior.

But yet tkf says comparing Melo to pierce is like comparing shumpert to wade or chandler to Russell haha.

Melo's had 2 Olympian, 5 all-star, and many more solid teammates. I don't think he's ever had a situation that would justify that comment.

We didn't make the playoffs for many years prior to him. If you think we make the playoffs the last 2 seasons without him then that's crazy. But I get there is no way to prove any of this so no point in talking about it further.

the year the knicks traded for carmelo they were on pace to make the playoffs.. they were 28-26 , after they got carmelo they went 14-14, you would have to assume that the team before the trade that was playing abovee .500 would have also made the playoffs , considering the team after the trade made it playing .500 ball..

you are putting a lot of weight on "making the playoffs every year" how about advancing and winning... that is what pierce has done... your defense is that carmelo "carries them to the playoffs" yet once the playoffs come and he flops, then it falls on his teamates.. LOL..

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Is there a fundamental difference between an efficient and an effective player? We seem to use both terms interchangeably when discussing the merits of a player but I don't know if they articulate the point we intend to convey. From what I've seen, efficient players are generally ineffective and effective players are generally inefficient.

As an example, Steve Kerr was a very efficient shooter but even at his best, he was worth only +/- three, 3 pointers a game. I don't think he was particularly effective though because the sum of his contribution does not win games or could allow a roster to be built around it. Paul Pierce on the other hand has been an indisputable talent throughout his career but has routinely shot below 45% from the floor and routinely averaged more than 3 turnovers per game. He might be particularly effective but by the standards of this board, was an inefficient ball player. On occasion, you get ball players that are both efficient and effective but they are often surrounded by a capable supporting cast that relieves them of a nightly double/triple teaming. The only exception I can think of to this rule over the past two decades has been Kevin Garnett, which I think speaks volumes about the value of a big man and where Garnett's game ranks in the spectrum of NBA greats.

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is? The detractors overwhelming site his lack of efficiency as a reason why we should not build around him. The supporters, generally counter with the fact that he is an effective player as a reason why we should. After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

why does every player have to be "built around" why not build around a philosophy with players that fit? steve kerr was HUGE for the spurs with speedy claxton in one of the spurs championship years.. he was efficient and effective..

With all of this being said, should we judge Melo's merit as a franchise player by how efficient his game is or by how effective it is?

the key is, his game is neither efficient or effective if you want to build cohesiveness and a team that can actually contend for a title. He is a black hole, a gunner. if you want someone to take 27 shots to score 27 points, then he is effective I guess... but if you want a player who makes others better, then his game is not effective...

After all, it seems that inefficient/effective players become efficient/effective players with the more help they get (see Paul Pierce and Kobe). I personally identify with the later but I think its an interesting point to discuss to see if we find some common ground in this back and forth.

I mean come on man... pierce and kobe are both, and without help.. the help may determine how far both can go, but the key is, both guys are the HELP...this is what you seem to miss... I know this was another defend carmelo thread, but the key is, carmelo has had help, the problem is, he hasn't provided the elite, star type performances needed to elevate those that are helping him.. pierce has done it, kobe has, etc.. that is the difference....

Are you taking about a different Pierce? Paul pierce was a perennial lottery player until KG and Allen arrived. That was in the east too. How do you determine pierce to be the help when he can't help himself to the playoffs yet Melo gets there every year as his teams best player? Pierce is help but Melo isn't? Makes zero sense.

do you actually believe what you type... perennial lottery player? before garnett came to boston, pierce had missed the playoffs two years in a row.. before that he was in the playoffs the previous 4 years and two of those years he made it out of the first round. something carmelo has had a problem doing 9 out of his 11 seasons in this league....

so please just stop it... pierce is the help because for the most part he has been a pretty clutch playoff performer and he is also finals MVP, and that is not because of "help" that is because he performed and his defense on kobe was HUGE.. defense, another aspect of the game you guys always forget when it comes to carmelo, and I can understand why...

Wrong. Pierce has missed the playoffs 5 times in his career, Melo 0.

Where are you finding those #s? They appear to be very far off.
Here is Pierce's playoff record.
2001-2: Advanced to conference finals
2002-3: Advanced to 2nd round
2003-4: Lost in 1st round
2004-5: Lost in 1st round
2005-6: Lottery
2006-7: Lottery (Pierce missed almost half the season, though)
2007-8: NBA championship
2008-9: Advanced to 2nd round
2009-10: Advanced to NBA finals
2010-11: Advanced to 2nd round
2011-12: Advanced to conference finals
2012-13: Lost in 1st round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boston_Celtics_seasons

He missed the playoffs in 99,00,01,06,07. 5 times. So how is that wrong? Can we not judge him on early years? We judge Melo on those years.

I said the #s appear to be way off and since I misread his profile on basketballreference.com, your #s did appear to me to be way off! My bad.
While evaluating a player by looking at his team's performance probably has a little value, I've commented before on reasons not to place much weight on that.

I would agree with you. Only reason I don't to a degree is I believe a handful of guys can get you to the playoffs regardless of supporting cast (playoff success is different.) I don't believe pierce ever was that guy but Melo is. Just making a point of how much better pierce looks now. It's easy to forget his success or lack of prior.

But yet tkf says comparing Melo to pierce is like comparing shumpert to wade or chandler to Russell haha.

Melo's had 2 Olympian, 5 all-star, and many more solid teammates. I don't think he's ever had a situation that would justify that comment.

We didn't make the playoffs for many years prior to him. If you think we make the playoffs the last 2 seasons without him then that's crazy. But I get there is no way to prove any of this so no point in talking about it further.

the year the knicks traded for carmelo they were on pace to make the playoffs.. they were 28-26 , after they got carmelo they went 14-14, you would have to assume that the team before the trade that was playing abovee .500 would have also made the playoffs , considering the team after the trade made it playing .500 ball..

you are putting a lot of weight on "making the playoffs every year" how about advancing and winning... that is what pierce has done... your defense is that carmelo "carries them to the playoffs" yet once the playoffs come and he flops, then it falls on his teamates.. LOL..

the issue for any player if he is going to be successful in the playoffs especially beyond the first round is two-fold in my opinion:

1) his floor impact

and

2) his ability to remain a positive-sum contributor

nobody wants to admit that melo was pretty much invisible against the pacers. floor impact negligible. but yeah it's his "supporting cast" who "didn't step up" while melo "did his job."

he is a decent regular-season player but that's about it. his game has not, does not, and will not translate to playoff competition. too many holes.