Then you know I will continue to hand you the shovel so you can bury yourself. I saw a funny blurb in the sports section today: "Paul Pierce BATTLES through another tough shooting night to score 36....Celtic win....without Rajon Rondo." So using your stupid little equation he should have stopped shooting because he wasn't EFFICIENT. But your equation doesn't account for the fact that a scorer will SHOOT THIER WAY OUTTA A SLUMP. Pierce only went 12-26 from the field, but managed to get to the free-throw line 13 times, of which he made 11. I would call that efficient and it was because he KEPT shooting. That is what is known in Boxing as "effective aggressiveness" or what Teddy Atlas would call:"a perponderance of punches." Scorers win by VOLUMES of shots like good BOXERS win by volumes of punches. %'s are irrelevant as long as the shots are in THE FLOW OF THE OFFENSE.
It's also funny you bring up the same sportswriters who regard MELO as a top five player and just VOTED MELO NBA PLAYER OF THE MONTH. But i guess as the song goes: HATERS GONNA HATE(kb black), BALLERS GONNA BALL(Melo). You sure this isn't PERSONAL like Melo didn't sign an autograph for ya, or were you one of those ****LOVERS that hated to see Gallinari go???
That whole rant you gave does factor into the equation. Its points over fga - so getting to the line counts. Pierce was more efficient than Melo was. But continue to build a straw man and make no sense.