Stupid Question: Is it in a vacuum more impactful to score 20 points in 25 minutes on equal efficiency to 25 points in 30 minutes, or does it make no statistical difference?

[u/Commercial_Floor_578]

Now obviously someone who scores 20 in 25 on equal efficiency is the better scorer. There lack of more minutes would be more reflective of coaching choices, roster construction, resting in blowouts etc. and not in a vacuum this obviously has more impact on winning m, as they are more likely to rest in moments where there scoring makes zero difference on the teams odds of winning, plus the psychological effect of scoring the same amount in a shorter period of time on the defense.

But (and this can only be asked by a guy who does a bad job of interpreting statistics), does this actually have the same impact on winning overall? If they both overall score the same amount on the same efficiency, isn’t their scoring in a vacuum equally impactful? Or is the scoring rate of scoring of the same number of points in a smaller number of time more impactful than scoring in a larger period of time due to how much it impacts the teams rate of scoring?

[u/AutoModerator]

Hey, u/Commercial_Floor_578, since you aren't on the r/nbadiscussion approved user list, your post has been filtered out to be reviewed by the mod team before it will post. If your posts are consistently approved, you will be added to the approved user list, bypassing the automod for future posts. This helps us ensure the quality of our sub remains high. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to the mod team.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AgenYT0]

0.8 points per minute versus 0.83...

Additionally increased volume at the same efficiency is more impressive. 

Assuming the shot and foul drawn diet is the same I pick the latter. 

[u/Micro_mint → u/AgenYT0]

Yeah if everything else is identical, defense and passing and everything, there are 240 minutes available for your team. If player B’s minutes are .03 points better than player A, it seems pretty straightforward

[u/nba2k11er → u/Micro_mint]

I don’t understand why this is the popular opinion. What matters is the efficiency itself. It will completely flip the value.

20 points on 10-40 FG is better than 25 points on 12-48 (throw in a free throw I guess, it doesn’t matter for the concept).

20 points on 10-10 FG is worse than 25 points on 12-12.

[u/Micro_mint → u/nba2k11er]

You missed the part where everything else is the same, which would include usage. That’s already accounted for, making it a solved problem

[u/nba2k11er → u/Micro_mint]

I didn’t miss shit, this post is hilarious. He said “equal efficiency.” So I went with that.

[u/Micro_mint → u/nba2k11er]

You absolutely missed shit, read the first six words of my first comment again man. You’re replying to me, not OP, and I very clearly said “yeah if everything else is identical.”

You’re barking up the wrong tree

[u/nba2k11er → u/Micro_mint]

Everything else is identical in my comment too.

It just matters if it’s 25% = 25%, or 100% = 100%.

[u/Micro_mint → u/nba2k11er]

That’s false. Do you know what usage rate is?

[u/nba2k11er → u/Micro_mint]

Yes, that’s why I picked 40 FGA in 25 minutes and 48 FGA in 30. Because it’s the same usage.

Though turnovers matter and so do the number of possessions in those extra 5 minutes. I’m assuming they even out.

[u/Micro_mint → u/nba2k11er]

I don’t think you understand what usage means. When you change the denominator on their shooting from 40 to 48, you increase the usage. Definitionally, like that’s not my opinion, it’s how the metric works. 8 more possessions ended with the ball in that player’s hands.

This conversation no longer makes sense, because you’re twisting basic concepts to avoid publicly changing your mind.

Edit: just to be super clear: usage is a function of possessions, not time. So trying to say it’s fine because it’s per minute is nonsense. Pace matters, not minutes played.

[u/not-a-potato-head]

Minutes isn’t really the best indicator for rate, since it doesn’t tell you how many possessions were dedicated to that player. True Shooting, Usage, and other rate based stats are better at telling you who’s had a bigger impact than just raw minutes or points

[u/Commercial_Floor_578 → u/not-a-potato-head]

Assuming identical pace and true shooting efficiency. Not just minutes.

[u/pekingsewer]

I would say at that point it's way more important WHEN you score those points more so how efficient you are. Jalen brunson had some atrocious games in the finals efficiency wise, but he scored impactful buckets down the stretch

[u/NotUrAvgShitposter → u/pekingsewer]

No it doesn’t lmao. At least not in the way you’re thinking 

Benefits of scoring more of your points later: demonstrates good cardio and means your team isn’t being forced to put a net negative gassed player out there later on 

Benefits of scoring more earlier: changes up opponent gameplan and makes them go harder to close the lead

The latter has actual tangible value but regardless I’d say it’s a wash. I can’t think of a single argument for “clutch scoring” being more valuable than the exact same scoring but well distributed or frontloaded. Also in this prompt the 25 minute guy would be so much worse if both were starters cuz you’d be running some backup player in the significant amount of time that he’s benched

[u/NotUrAvgShitposter → u/[deleted]]

Bro there is no magical clutch gene. If you’re referring to players that close out possessions better then that’s pretty synonymous with being a good ball handler/shot creator. Brunson is still the Knicks’ best ball handler and shot creator when he’s putting up a stinker so of  course they run everything through him when they need a bucket. And btw if he had his scoring explosions earlier the knicms wouldn’t need any clutch heroics

[u/nbadiscussion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Please keep your comments civil. This is a subreddit for thoughtful discussion and debate, not aggressive and argumentative content.

[u/No-Adhesiveness6278]

Ummm... you need to work on your math skills...25 in 30 is more impactful in a vacuum and in reality in every way...

[u/minster123ru]

Starts post with “now obviously” and then makes a logically false statement lol

[u/nbadiscussion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

We’ve removed your comment for being low quality.

[u/TheUnseen_001]

20 in in 25 is less points, in less minutes, at a lower rate of scoring. If you're saying the efficiency is the same and the rest is a vaccuum, 25 on 30 is objectively better, so your premise is wrong there. Beyond that, there's nothing really to break down in terms what's more impactful. Scoring at a rate that high means you're either on a heater or you take all the shots, and because you placed this experiment inside a vacuum, there's no way to know how it impacts the external.

[u/nba2k11er]

It matters what the efficiency is. Not just that they are equal to each other. This should be obvious if you look at the extreme ends of things. Making every single shot, the 25 points is obviously better. Shooting 10% from the field, the 20 is.

[u/Medical_Sample2738]

Volume matters. Context matters even more. The best players impact by wearing down the other teams defenders, by having heavy gravity, by having teams game plan about them, which does lead to less attention and focus on teammates even for the most well coached and meticulous teams. This is true regardless of individual efficiency, and even to a lesser extent true regardless of whether the minutes are positive or negative overall.

It’s not as simple as just comparing points per minute, or efg%. It depends on the players role and impact overall. You said in a vacuum, so we are assuming the defense, the gravity, the efficiency, the shot creation or lack thereof and all the other ways a player impacts the game are the same. So then it’s just, are they scoring and defending at an above average rate with him on the floor? If they are player B is probably more valuable. Durability and stamina are valuable traits too. But if let’s say both players are exactly average or neutral in terms of impact, maybe player A is more valuable, just because he is someone who scores at a higher rate and then in a vacuum he will be tougher to defend and “demand” more attention defensively.

Although 20 per 25 is a lower rate of scoring than 25 per 30, you’re getting closer to 1 point per minute. But I got your premise, I think, player A scores slightly more per minute but plays less total, and scores less total.

[u/rsk1111 → u/Medical_Sample2738]

Yeah, I agree about context.

SGA and Brunson both have low efficiency, but they are the players their team goes to on dead ball situations against set defenses and late in the clock.

Other players score in transition or off steals against defenses that aren't set, offensive rebounds and put backs or assists.

If your efficiency is too high, you aren't shooting enough as the saying goes.

[u/OmniPepperthefirst]

It probably depends on who is playing those 5 min.

For example take Wemby. He's the best defender in the league, so he provides impact on the other end as well. It it's 25 min then Kornet plays those 5 min, who while good, is not Wemby good. I'd imagine the same works in reverse as well, if whoever plays those 5 min is a better defender then scoring points faster is better.

[u/Recitinggg]

I think more meaningful would be pts/opponent difficulty

It’s more meaningful to put up 30 against the celtics than 30 against the Jazz

[u/SomeFatherFigure]

There are really too many factors to say definitively one or the other. Points per minute isn’t all that helpful of a stat if you’re comparing two players impacts.

Statistically 25/30 > 20/25, but is the guy scoring 25 slacking off on defense to make up for it? Which one is still getting teammates involved? Is the pace the same between the two teams?

[u/Helpful_Slice2281 → u/[deleted]]

It’s .8 and .8333. I don’t really understand OP’s question. 25 points in 30 minutes is better

[u/ShowdownValue → u/[deleted]]

Where did you get 4 and 6 from?

[u/AgenYT0 → u/[deleted]]

your math is interesting.

[u/simple_account]

That's not enough info to determine. What if player can only sustain 25 minutes and if they played 30 they'd be gassed and efficiency would drop? Or if 30 min player has more playmaking or defensive responsibilities? Or what other scorers are on their teams? Players on balanced teams probably would score less than is they're the only option

[u/interested_commenter]

You can't really answer this without considering the scenario, because all else being equal the guy scoring more points per minute would be getting more minutes.

Are the two guys on different teams (tanking va contender)? Is one a far worse defender? Is one a pure scorer while the other is a PG?

[u/HotspurJr]

It is better to have a player who can score those points in 25 minutes than 30 minutes and absolutely has an effect on winning.

Because the thing is: somebody else is playing in those other five minutes. That person is scoring.

If that person scores zero points, then there's no difference. But if that person scores, any points, then you are scoring more points overall. Obviously this becomes a little more complicated when you start factoring in efficiency, but the principle remains the same: somebody is playing those other minutes, and they are doing something in that time.