So let's say this. I am honestly asking because you are Mr stats man.
If team A has a lot of motion and gets wide open layups, only to brick them, and team B shoots a lot of off ballanced shots that all clank off the rim, but that team gets the rebound and puts it back in, who has the more efficient offense?
If the goal is to score points - the one that manages the score the ball more thanks to the offensive rebounds will be more efficient.
Efficiency is not hard to describe - how many points do you get per possession. What you are trying to argue is that the style is more important, which is not true.
On paper the piss poor offensive team does, but in reality, the team that gets layups has the more efficient offense. Isn't that right?
No, if you have open layups and consistently brick them - that's not an efficient use of your players. When you have a large sample size (which we do, at this point in the year) - if your players can make layups and you get them these layups consistently - it will be reflected in the offensive efficiency. If they consistently can not make a layup - then getting them these open layups is not efficient.
A team that gets tons of open 3s for 5 Andre Millers is not going to be efficient, a team that gets tons of open 3s for Reggie Miller is.
I think the most important stat out there is point differential.
That's the same thing as saying that offensive and defensive efficiency are the important things - which is exactly what I have been arguing. I will point however, that I think you lose some resolution with this. I will show you why:
This team, before Greg went down - was a contender in my opinion, because they had the
"around 10th overall" combined offensive-defensive efficiency (which is a crude way to combine them).
For example, let's look at the last 5 championship teams:
Lakers O: 3rd, D: 6th - Combined - 9
Boston O: 10th, D:1st - Combined - 11
Spurs: O: 5th, D:2nd - Combined - 7
Heat: O:7th, D:9th - Combined - 16
Spurs: O:8th, D:1st - Combined - 9
Before Greg went down - the Blazers were 10th in offensive efficiency and 2nd in defensive - combined 12 - and it was clear that the team was adjusting offensively - Miller was not yet ready to buy into the philosophy of protecting the ball as much as Nate emphasizes, Roy was having problems adjusting to play off the ball, LMA had his usual slow start of the year. My gut feeling is - that if this team stayed healthy - you would see the offensive efficiency go up with the defensive efficiency staying low.
But, since we lost Greg and Joel - we are down to 15th in the league in defensive efficiency (we were down to 17th, but Camby's arrival is starting to pay a bit) - so 6 + 15 = Combined 22 - not a contender.
Let's take a look at the contenders this year:
LAL = O: 11, D - 1 - Combined = 12
Cavs: O: 2, D - 6 - Combined = 8
ORL: O: 7, D - 4 - combined = 11
DAL - O:10, D - 12 - Combined = 22 - but, of course, I do not think we have seen them enough after the trade - they were not contenders before, but the trade seems to have done great for them on both sides of the floor
Boston : O- 14, D - 2, Combined - 16 - good team, but clearly not a contender unless they catch fire.
SAS - O - 9, D - 11 - Combined - 20, not a contender.
DEN - O - 3, D = 17. Combined - 20, not a contender - they are a good team and clearly can catch fire - but I think their defense shows you that they will not go all the way in the playoffs.
Utah - O: 8, D - 10, Combined - 18, good team, but not a real contender based on what we have seen so far, and the trades have not really changed the outlook.
so,
Of course, we do not have the entire year - and some of the trades are more significant than others - but overall, it seems that the real contenders this year are the Lakers from the west, Cavs and ORL in the east, with Dallas gaining ground after the trade.
It will be nice to see what the data tells us after the extra 20-25 games after the trades - but overall, these are your real contenders there.
Have to remember that a team can catch fire at the right time (as happened to Miami in the year they won it all) - but overall, Offensive and Defensive efficiency are the best way to really get a handle on what teams do, and if you want, you can compress this to "point differential" - but I think you lose some resolution there - the Suns always had great point differential, but because they had mid-pack defense, the resolution was lost and they were not real contenders (no wonders they have not made the finals) . The two years they made the conference finals, their point differential was among the best in the league, but if you used their "Combined" offensive/defensive rating - you would see them in the 18-19 range, which is just not where most championship teams seem to live.