It used to be on the site. This was before the reset a couple years ago.

I see that nobody has bothered to mention post #31. This is exactly what Berri is saying. This is an issue of semantics, like in the following example:

I support cutting off foreign aid to Israel.

vs

The US should not dictate Israel's border decisions for Israel; the outcome should be negotiated between Israel and its neighbor.

While those may seem like opposing statements, both are non-interventionist.

How does 25-30% of teams improving because they lost their leading scorer show that scoring is overrated? It may show that those particular teams overrate it, but the majority of the league still doesn't.

Also, he's only saying that his method shows that without actually giving any proof of it through looking at whether those teams actually improved without those example players he uses. Philly and Denver both added players. Memphis didn't really win that much more without Gay and really could have used him against the Thunder for shot creation.

That 25% of the league has a high volume low-efficiency scorer leading their team in ppg, just goes to show valuable a skill efficient scoring really is. If those teams had someone who could create their own shot and score efficiently, they would be doing it, or so one assumes.

That's a pretty bizarre reading of the post, especially "in general" and "usually."

I think what he is saying is that some percentage of the time, maybe 25%-30% of the time, if you replaced a team's leading socrer with an average player the team would improve. That's because scoring is overrated.

Honestly, this isn't even controversial is it?

What happens to the Bulls if Kyle Lowry replaces Derrick Rose? Would love to see what happens there.....

Now, I see where you are coming from more clearly.

* Are scorers overrated offensively? (i.e., is high-volume shooting easy to replace on offense?)

* Are scorers overrated as all-around players? (i.e., are they so bad at defense, passing, etc. that the impact of their scoring is offset?)

The first question is what I was driving at, and it's strictly an offensive one. However, plus/minus regressions have shown that volume shooters do tend to be worse defensively than low-usage players, all else being equal. This could be because players who don't create shots must be doing something else to justify being on the floor, but it could also imply that scorers tend to be bad defenders, in which case #2 might be true even if #1 isn't.

#44 - Now that's a great idea. Might have to use win score instead of WP. Replicate the (pending) study of MPG vs PPG by looking at winscore/G vs PPG.

I thought it was understood that maximizing efficiency differential was the goal.

"Top scorer" seems to be primarily an offensive designation, no?