I'm not an NBA head coach. So on that alone maybe I don't have any footing to stand on to question the brilliance of Tyrone Corbin, Sidney Lowe, Mike Sanders, et al. I'm also not a movie director but I can tell when I don't like something I see on the screen. Regardless of all the things I am not, one thing I am is a consumer. I buy the league pass stuff from the NBA every year. I order online at Fanzz. I go to the games in my area. I take an interest in what I am seeing, and because of a hard science background, I try to quantify what I see.
And this is one of the things I'm seeing -- one player is playing more than two other players, but in my mind, is playing worse than both. I'll put the important numbers out here, and let you decide.
[NB. RED FONT = PLAYER A IS WORSE THAN THE COMPARISON PLAYER]
Player A vs Player B:
Both of these players can be used at the same spots on the floor. They have vastly different games, but the on court production tells a tale the eye often misses.
So Player A plays nearly 10 minutes more a game, scores almost 1.5 more points per game, and handles the ball a little more (more APG more TOPG) -- yet somehow has a lower USG% and lower AST%. Player B beats him all over the court on everything else.
Player A vs. Player C:
These two players are more similarly matched in terms of expected play style, but differences clearly exist.
In this case player A only plays 1.9 more minutes a game, and does nothing better. Nothing. Better. Of course if you break things down and look at other details like shot locations you can tell who is who, but I want people to be objective here and not let names or ideas of players skew the info.
So from the quantitative data, is Player A really the guy who should be playing more than Player B and C?