-> I even stated that it's not about your list, since it's an opinion of both of us, but in general. You just used your style to brush off criticism by everyone.
You deliberately leaving out my followup statement is again your "style".
Or you wrote it while I was writing my post so I hadn't seen it yet. Either or.
Not sure why this topic has come up outside of that list unless you just decided you wanted to pick a bone with me. I'm not entirely certain who you are really so I have no bones to pick.
->Of course you need to handle different situations differently but FG% is a bad measure in EVERY situation. And every statistician knows it. Take eFG% at all times when you say something about a players overall offense from the field.
Here's the deal: I was trying to make a general point that isn't disproven by use of EFG% instead of FG%. But if I just give you an EFG number, those numbers aren't as immediately understandable.
Example: If I say player X is a shooting specialist but only makes 42% of his shots, that number intuitively feels low and that's because readers have more experience with what constitutes bad, average, and good FG% numbers, especially if you're a shooter.
If say player X is a shooting specialist but has en EFG% of 49.5% that's not particularly helpful to a large portion of the audience because that number isn't contextualized by years of reading experience. In fact it might be actively misleading because 49.5% will "feel" high. That means I've made the argument more digestible by saying it in a simpler, more easy to understand way for the majority of the board. (For those that don't know 49.5% EFG is very mediocre. It ranks Gallinari 201st in the league).
I'm not at a stats conference, I'm on a message board with people who think Monta Ellis and Demar Derozan are very good NBA players. You use the tools that you need at the time you need them. Big universal statements like ALWAYS use this stat and NEVER use that stat are their own form of fooling yourself. If the stats told different stories I'd have taken that into account.
