dk7th wrote:CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)
His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.
He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.
thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.
too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.
again, whaddaya got?
Why would you ask him for a percentage if you rely on the 'eye test'?
come on man if you're not going to actually read other peoples' posts then you have no business chiming in.
Didn't you write this?
that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.
whaddaya got, yellowboy?
he claimed melo was efficient: he isn't.
i asked him for a number: he said it didn't matter and that the nba has a standard-- which he did not provide-- and then claimed that my numbers are not like the nba but just an emotion-charged aggregate to suit my agenda.
i said that according to the eye test he is not efficient and explained why: he hasn't responded.
and now you're caught up, but to summarize: he is not efficient... he falls short by around two percentage points over his entire career, and by a point to 1.5 points as a knick.
since yellowboy did not want to engage in a talk on numbers and resorted to personal insult, i switched the measure to the eye test, pointing out that he takes 4-5 ill-advised/dumb/damaging shots per game and if he took 17 well-chosen shots his efficiency would become borderline elite or in fact elite. he has not responded.
feel free to chime in with the other members of the melo blackshirts... as always i await enlightenment.
I claimed he was efficient because he is by nba standards. League avg efficiency changes from year to year and position to position but for the most part it hovers around 54%. So going by numbers set by players in the NBA he is deemed to be an efficient player for his career. He is deemed to be an efficient player for his Knicks tenure. Out of his 13 seasons he has only had 5 below 54%. So, I am not creating a level of efficiency on my own. There is no use for that when the nba does it for me.
DO you want to argue if he is highly efficient or that for the money he is getting paid he should be more efficient. Go head. However, more often than not, as a Knick, Melo is giving you efficient scoring at an incredibly high usage.
BY the way people do step away from the computer/thread/board. Sorry for the late response.
. Unfortunately, teams make it hard to get the ball to the Tyson Chanlders off the world in last shot situations. I know what you are really trying to say though. For that teams have in game data on players and crunch time data specifically for those situation. Although, most teams just go Iso because they fear they can not create a way to get it to their most efficient player at their most efficient spot on the floor..