|
On May 11 2018 07:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 04:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 11 2018 03:53 NonY wrote:On May 11 2018 03:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 11 2018 00:00 JimmiC wrote:
No I'm not, I'm just taking to account that he probably picked GSW on not just the best chance to win but who his coworkers would be, who would the management be, who would his coach be, what city he would live in, so on and so forth. So if all this was better then where he was at, plus he gets a chance to win every year I'd say it was a good choice not a weak one. Going somewhere else where he could be the Alpha and the #1 guy I would think would be super egotistical if they had worse options above. If you don't understand this then I don't think you have played any highly competitive sport, and I don't know you at all but I'd be happy to compare levels of athletic achievement, I might lose but I doubt it. So if LeBron took the minimum this off-season and joined GSW you would have no problem with it? I'd have a problem with it and if I wanted to do something about it, I'd take it up with the Association, not with LeBron. It's like hating Harden because of the way he draws fouls. Okay, hate Harden if you want, but does anyone really think it's reasonable to appeal to Harden or shame him to change his behavior? No, it's just the way things are until the NBA finds a solution. Everyone knows to look to the NBA for a solution, not the player. Similarly, a salary cap creates the opportunity for a shrewd player to use his free agency to gain a competitive advantage when signing with a team by taking a pay cut. An offensive player is supposed to try to score, not draw a foul. A free agent is supposed to sign for the most money, not take a pay cut. Competitive people find a way to gain an advantage. That's what they're supposed to do. The people making the rules are supposed to design the game so that when everyone is doing their best to win, it creates a result that is entertaining to watch. Hold them responsible if you don't like what you're seeing. I don't see how calling out players for their bullshit and trying to get the NBA to do something about it is mutually exclusive. I don't even want to see the NBA make any rule changes for the sake of parity. Besides, the idea that players don't care what fans think is simply untrue. That's literally what a legacy is - how you're viewed by your peers, fans, etc. LeBron and KD aren't chasing titles just to have trophies in their trophy rooms or rings for their fingers, they do it because they want to be seen as the best ever by followers of Basketball. The reason LeBron would never actually take the minimum and join the Warriors to win a bunch of championships isn't because he is afraid of the fans going to the NBA to make a rule change, it's because it would be the ultimate bitch move and destroy his legacy forever. You can say KD made a professional business decision that was the best for him and he doesn't care what the fans think, but that doesn't explain why he's calling up his agent in the middle of the night asking how he could let him fuck his life up by joining the Warriors. But it is not their bullshit that is the whole point. And what kind of ego do you have that you think you understand this mystical BS? A bunch of angry nobodies hating on people who became stars for making the best decision for them. The only thing shitty about Durrant is that he cares what people like you think of him and his choices. His move to GS in no way lessens his BB skill, it in no way makes him a bitch, and he is forsure a first ballot Hall of Famer.
Still waiting for someone to actually claim this. Which no one has
|
|
|
On May 11 2018 11:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On May 11 2018 07:39 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2018 04:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 11 2018 03:53 NonY wrote:On May 11 2018 03:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 11 2018 00:00 JimmiC wrote:
No I'm not, I'm just taking to account that he probably picked GSW on not just the best chance to win but who his coworkers would be, who would the management be, who would his coach be, what city he would live in, so on and so forth. So if all this was better then where he was at, plus he gets a chance to win every year I'd say it was a good choice not a weak one. Going somewhere else where he could be the Alpha and the #1 guy I would think would be super egotistical if they had worse options above. If you don't understand this then I don't think you have played any highly competitive sport, and I don't know you at all but I'd be happy to compare levels of athletic achievement, I might lose but I doubt it. So if LeBron took the minimum this off-season and joined GSW you would have no problem with it? I'd have a problem with it and if I wanted to do something about it, I'd take it up with the Association, not with LeBron. It's like hating Harden because of the way he draws fouls. Okay, hate Harden if you want, but does anyone really think it's reasonable to appeal to Harden or shame him to change his behavior? No, it's just the way things are until the NBA finds a solution. Everyone knows to look to the NBA for a solution, not the player. Similarly, a salary cap creates the opportunity for a shrewd player to use his free agency to gain a competitive advantage when signing with a team by taking a pay cut. An offensive player is supposed to try to score, not draw a foul. A free agent is supposed to sign for the most money, not take a pay cut. Competitive people find a way to gain an advantage. That's what they're supposed to do. The people making the rules are supposed to design the game so that when everyone is doing their best to win, it creates a result that is entertaining to watch. Hold them responsible if you don't like what you're seeing. I don't see how calling out players for their bullshit and trying to get the NBA to do something about it is mutually exclusive. I don't even want to see the NBA make any rule changes for the sake of parity. Besides, the idea that players don't care what fans think is simply untrue. That's literally what a legacy is - how you're viewed by your peers, fans, etc. LeBron and KD aren't chasing titles just to have trophies in their trophy rooms or rings for their fingers, they do it because they want to be seen as the best ever by followers of Basketball. The reason LeBron would never actually take the minimum and join the Warriors to win a bunch of championships isn't because he is afraid of the fans going to the NBA to make a rule change, it's because it would be the ultimate bitch move and destroy his legacy forever. You can say KD made a professional business decision that was the best for him and he doesn't care what the fans think, but that doesn't explain why he's calling up his agent in the middle of the night asking how he could let him fuck his life up by joining the Warriors. But it is not their bullshit that is the whole point. And what kind of ego do you have that you think you understand this mystical BS? A bunch of angry nobodies hating on people who became stars for making the best decision for them. The only thing shitty about Durrant is that he cares what people like you think of him and his choices. His move to GS in no way lessens his BB skill, it in no way makes him a bitch, and he is forsure a first ballot Hall of Famer. Still waiting for someone to actually claim this. Which no one has Didnt I just claim it? Check mate. Also these people (since 2013) http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2731531-hall-of-fame-chances-for-each-of-the-nbas-top-15-playershttps://bleacherreport.com/articles/1538206-friday-march-29-nba-hall-of-fame-why-kevin-durant-is-a-hall-of-famer-right-nowhttps://www.foxsports.com/nba/gallery/nba-basketball-hall-of-fame-tracy-mcgrady-active-players-locks-stephen-curry-russell-westbrook-lebron-james-040117https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.htmlAnd many many more.
No, I mean, of course what you say is true. I meant to say no one in the thread has claimed the opposite: he isn't gonna be a HoF, etc.
And I will raise your assertion by saying that LeBron James will also be a first ballot hall of famer!
|
Might be a little chicken and egg, but in our Dream Team discussion, I don't think rings or teams really came up. I think Stockton is a lot of people's 2nd or 3rd choice for PG, if not 11th/12th man.
|
On May 09 2018 21:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:The Rockets Are Either Fun to Watch
or Proof That Science Is Ruining the NBAForget about whether Houston’s brand of basketball can win a title.
It’s time to not-so-analytically answer the question that’s tearing this nation apart:
Are James Harden, Chris Paul, and the Rockets entertaining?![[image loading]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BVSNWCcN7d4IZ5B59kOLLIP6PM4=/0x0:3000x2000/920x613/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/59626355/AreRocketsFun_Getty_Ringer.0.jpg) Show nested quote +I mean, the logic behind the Rockets’ approach makes total sense. A bunch of nerds got together at MIT or something, sifted through countless data points, and ran millions of simulations. When the dust on their extensive, decades-long study settled, the algorithm they built calculated that 3-point shots are worth more than 2-point shots. I understand that. What hurts my brain is that the Rockets have taken this information and applied it to an extreme I didn’t realize was possible, averaging an absurd 42.3 3-point attempts per game during the 2017-18 regular season. Show nested quote +The downside to Houston’s offensive approach of hunting 3s, layups, and free throws is that “hunting free throws” is the most ridiculous three-word phrase in the NBA lexicon outside of “Evan Turner’s contract.” Show nested quote +FUN: Harden and Chris Paul iso-ball possessions, during which they size up opposing defenders and methodically determine the most humiliating ways to ruin their basketball lives, make for a delightful viewing experience. TheRinger
good stuff. story time.
last year we were made to produce some white paper on ncaa basketball. we looked into academic papers and theses and dissertations on the topic.
among the bunch there were 2 papers that discussed nba offense. one was on statistical point distribution and the other was on topology iirc.
teh signigicant conclusions from those paper are
1. superstars are a dying breed as we know them
2. draw fouls as much as possible.
3. shoot only 3s or layups
4. shoot w/n the first 10 sec
5. everybody must be a good shooter
there are a few relevant numbers but it argue that players like bryant westbrook wall are bad players. superstars will be defined as all range scorers who dribble only draw defense and pass. all shots are catch and shoot, no long iso plays.
too bad they didnt discuss lebron afair since lebron would be a good transition point to this. superstar scorer who creates for his teammates.
durant is another one but his role in the warriors is purely as a scorer.
harden is the perfect extreme example of this.
i seriously think nba in the next 10 years will be a quick 3 pass from inbound to either shoot 3s or multiple screens to open a man under the rim. curry like 3s will be the norm and team possessions will double. currently most of the play is spent on dribbling and calling out plays. this is a waste of time and scoring opportunity. this will work only if players have such high knowledge of ball that it becomes like an algorithm > 3 players outside the arc, 2meters btween players, screen to create initial chaos in defense, and read it from there. this also require players to be really good shooters.
|
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%.
|
On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%.
I would like to know how much of that is the corner 3. IMO that is the first thing on the chopping block. The 3 is a good thing for the NBA so long as it increases drives/dunks because it forces spacing. As a scoring option unto itself, I don't think its that great for the league. People would rather watch the physical stuff and the athletic stuff. To take it to an extreme, I think its obvious that more people would watch a 5v5 of 5 Jeff Greens vs. the same of Kyle Korvers, even though they score about the same per game.
|
On May 11 2018 01:34 SCNewb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 01:19 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not arguing that KD didn't have competitive team, I'm arguing that leavinga team with teammates that are not fun/good to play with for ones that are does not make him weak (plus other points I've made).
When George leaves and Carmelo also complains about "not being used right" beside Westbrook I think KD decision makes more sense. I don't disagree with you dude. He was a free agent and it was within his right. Was purely arguing from the standpoint of which was a more "uncompetitive" move. Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 01:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Universally proclaimed best player in the league, self-proclaimed goat candidate, calls two other superstars in a clear attempt to tip the balance significantly in their favor, and jumps ship to join the team of the aforementioned superstar as he plays second fiddle, whined and bolted when this didn't work as planned, and formed another superteam, and he does allt this in a conference that is already so weak that he is able to steamroll his way to the finals for about decade.
Tell me about how you're such a big LeBron fan again?
It's so ridiculous :D.
I'm an actual Kobe fan (my favorite player growing up was Tmac, Kobe was close second). And while today I can actually accept all the arguments about Kobe being a less efficient Jordan and even him being outside the top 10, I would never have taken that side of the argument like Twinkle is constantly doing with Lebron hhaha. What kind of fan does that...
+ Show Spoiler +Kobe was an inefficient shot chucker that was labeled clutch when the stats didn't tell the same story. That was a complete myth. Also ran out a top 10 player of all time because he wanted to be the man. Threw teammates under the bus or tried to get them traded and is a bad teammate overall. It's a joke to call him a top 10 player of all time. Gasol was also the Finals MVP in the Boston series.
I'm a Kobe fan btw. Just being level-headed here. That made me smile.
Anyway Twinkle we'll just have to agree to disagree that both moves are identical, "competitiveness"-wise.
|
On May 11 2018 21:56 ZenithM wrote:
I'm an actual Kobe fan (my favorite player growing up was Tmac, Kobe was close second). And while today I can actually accept all the arguments about Kobe being a less efficient Jordan and even him being outside the top 10, I would never have taken that side of the argument like Twinkle is constantly doing with Lebron hhaha. What kind of fan does that...
Right? "As he plays second fiddle" (DWade was the best player on those Heat championship teams?) "whined and bolted" (He was discontent that management wasn't willing to put in the same effort into winning as he was when they cut salary during championship years - Kobe didn't whine when he had shitty teams? Jordan had Tim Duncan humility right? Dude punched a teammate ffs).
I can accept these narrative based attacks on players (i.e. a few of us are saying Durant made the biggest bitch move in the history of the league and I stick to that but I wouldn't defend that by saying I'm a fan of his), but when you get to near Skip Bayless "chosen one becomes frozen one" levels and then need to reiterate over and over that despite these consistent remarks you're actually a fan and level headed to absolve yourself of any bias it gets a bit ridiculous.
For the record I was a TMac fan myself growing up so I never liked Kobe because I always wanted TMac to be better haha but Kobe was always in the way. Got to appreciate Kobe unfortunately only late in his career seeing just how competitive he was and wishing TMac played with that same fire. I think Jeff Van Gundy famously said that TMac was a "1000 hours guy" (referring to how it takes 10,000 hours to master something)
|
On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%.
This topic is quite fascinating really. Basic math indeed brings us to the conclusion that "3s and layups" should be the name of the game (and Houston has embraced that). Yet there are surely other incentives for you to actually sometimes shoot some midrange shots (with the right personnel, volume, sets and actions). I think future analytics will help us understand when such and such midrange attempt is good for the team in a fine-grained way.
What's clearly understood now is that Kobe taking a 2 pointer one step inside the arch is actually worse than Evan Turner taking a semi-open corner 3.
That's still kinda mind-boggling to me as a fan of the game (not as a rational scientist fortunately :D). I'm sure it also puzzles a lot of players, when the coaching staff comes up with their gameplan. Sometimes coaches try to tell a guy to play a certain way, probably guided by analytics. Like Popovich I think originally wanted Aldridge to shoot more spot-up 3s and wayyy less long post fadeaways. But it turned out it might not be worth your player's motivation going down if they cannot play "their game". That's also something to consider. I think one of the keys as to why Houston works so well this year is that their role guys really accept the idea of standing still waiting for the ball to end up in their hands, for them to chuck up (sometimes deep) 3s. It doesn't work for everyone (looking at Melo mainly).
|
On May 11 2018 21:56 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 01:34 SCNewb wrote:On May 11 2018 01:19 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not arguing that KD didn't have competitive team, I'm arguing that leavinga team with teammates that are not fun/good to play with for ones that are does not make him weak (plus other points I've made).
When George leaves and Carmelo also complains about "not being used right" beside Westbrook I think KD decision makes more sense. I don't disagree with you dude. He was a free agent and it was within his right. Was purely arguing from the standpoint of which was a more "uncompetitive" move. On May 11 2018 01:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Universally proclaimed best player in the league, self-proclaimed goat candidate, calls two other superstars in a clear attempt to tip the balance significantly in their favor, and jumps ship to join the team of the aforementioned superstar as he plays second fiddle, whined and bolted when this didn't work as planned, and formed another superteam, and he does allt this in a conference that is already so weak that he is able to steamroll his way to the finals for about decade.
Tell me about how you're such a big LeBron fan again? It's so ridiculous :D. I'm an actual Kobe fan (my favorite player growing up was Tmac, Kobe was close second). And while today I can actually accept all the arguments about Kobe being a less efficient Jordan and even him being outside the top 10, I would never have taken that side of the argument like Twinkle is constantly doing with Lebron hhaha. What kind of fan does that... + Show Spoiler +Kobe was an inefficient shot chucker that was labeled clutch when the stats didn't tell the same story. That was a complete myth. Also ran out a top 10 player of all time because he wanted to be the man. Threw teammates under the bus or tried to get them traded and is a bad teammate overall. It's a joke to call him a top 10 player of all time. Gasol was also the Finals MVP in the Boston series.
I'm a Kobe fan btw. Just being level-headed here. That made me smile. Anyway Twinkle we'll just have to agree to disagree that both moves are identical, "competitiveness"-wise.
Yap, agree to disagree. I mean we both look at the same facts, we just happen to interpret them differently. It is what it is. C'est la vie. Tout va bien. Live Laugh Love!
+ Show Spoiler +hehehe sorry I was just being impertinent. And for the record, Newb's post also made me smile. As an aside, we could go on with impassioned arguments like this, as long as we do it respectfully and rationally. I take exception when someone in a discussion deliberately lies and stokes negativity.
|
On May 11 2018 22:47 SCNewb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 21:56 ZenithM wrote:
I'm an actual Kobe fan (my favorite player growing up was Tmac, Kobe was close second). And while today I can actually accept all the arguments about Kobe being a less efficient Jordan and even him being outside the top 10, I would never have taken that side of the argument like Twinkle is constantly doing with Lebron hhaha. What kind of fan does that...
Right? "As he plays second fiddle" (DWade was the best player on those Heat championship teams?) "whined and bolted" (He was discontent that management wasn't willing to put in the same effort into winning as he was when they cut salary during championship years - Kobe didn't whine when he had shitty teams? Jordan had Tim Duncan humility right? Dude punched a teammate ffs). I can accept these narrative based attacks on players (i.e. a few of us are saying Durant made the biggest bitch move in the history of the league and I stick to that but I wouldn't defend that by saying I'm a fan of his), but when you get to near Skip Bayless "chosen one becomes frozen one" levels and then need to reiterate over and over that despite these consistent remarks you're actually a fan and level headed to absolve yourself of any bias it gets a bit ridiculous. For the record I was a TMac fan myself growing up so I never liked Kobe because I always wanted TMac to be better haha but Kobe was always in the way. Got to appreciate Kobe unfortunately only late in his career seeing just how competitive he was and wishing TMac played with that same fire. I think Jeff Van Gundy famously said that TMac was a "1000 hours guy" (referring to how it takes 10,000 hours to master something)
You are veering off topic with the humility thing Newb, no one even mentioned that. And believe it or not, I am a Lebron fan. I bash him when he flops and stirs drama. I don't bash him when he performs well, on the contrary, I celebrate him. I am a fan but not a stan that I will blindly adulate him no matter what.
Re second fiddle. Wade was a champion already then, and he was the Heat franchise player. Lebron was not yet the Lebron he is now. It was Wade's team.
I always found TMac a bit off. He was maybe a better player than Kobe, but, as he admitted, being so talented made him lazy. But a recent Jump episode made me feel bad about him. Someone (Grant Hill?) spoke about how close they were to getting Duncan if not for River's stupidity. TMac died inside upon hearing that. That team would have had TMac, Hill, TD, and Horace Grant and Ewing.
And the 10,000 hour concept was first introduced by Malcolm Gladwell.
|
On May 11 2018 23:03 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. This topic is quite fascinating really. Basic math indeed brings us to the conclusion that "3s and layups" should be the name of the game (and Houston has embraced that). Yet there are surely other incentives for you to actually sometimes shoot some midrange shots (with the right personnel, volume, sets and actions). I think future analytics will help us understand when such and such midrange attempt is good for the team in a fine-grained way. What's clearly understood now is that Kobe taking a 2 pointer one step inside the arch is actually worse than Evan Turner taking a semi-open corner 3. That's still kinda mind-boggling to me as a fan of the game (not as a rational scientist fortunately :D). I'm sure it also puzzles a lot of players, when the coaching staff comes up with their gameplan. Sometimes coaches try to tell a guy to play a certain way, probably guided by analytics. Like Popovich I think originally wanted Aldridge to shoot more spot-up 3s and wayyy less long post fadeaways. But it turned out it might not be worth your player's motivation going down if they cannot play "their game". That's also something to consider. I think one of the keys as to why Houston works so well this year is that their role guys really accept the idea of standing still waiting for the ball to end up in their hands, for them to chuck up (sometimes deep) 3s. It doesn't work for everyone (looking at Melo mainly).
3s, layups, and drawing of fouls as an actual game plan.
you have to remember that this understanding of the value of 3 is a modern idea.
5-6 years ago 3 was still just a shot done by 3 point specialists. but even then 3pt players like miller, stoja, rice all didnt mid long 2s as long as they were open, it was a good shot within their makeable ranger.
and as you pointed out a big factor is a players game. but things are different about this now.
On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%.
like i said above, its different now.
its not anymore about having a roster for it.
now its developing your players to fit the model, for example dirk, ariza, embiid, cp3, and others.
we may like it or not, but we are not too far away from a basketball where the first 5 are kd like players who will only spend 10 second of the shotclock and rain 3s accurately form 25-35 or flair and misdirect for an open under the rim pass.
is it more fun to watch than the physical one we have now? maybe yes maybe no, but id love to see it played like this.
|
And believe it or not, I am a Lebron fan. I bash him when he flops and stirs drama. I don't bash him when he performs well, on the contrary, I celebrate him.
The guy is a top 3 player of all time. Obviously you're going to celebrate him when he performs well, it doesn't make you a fan, it just makes you able to objectively appreciate greatness. A fan supports the player no matter what and takes his side in about any debate.
You said: self-proclaimed goat candidate [...] jumps ship to join the team of the aforementioned superstar as he plays second fiddle, whined and bolted when this didn't work as planned
That's about as worse as criticism goes when anti-fans talk about Lebron xD. Next up you're going to hit us with "LeChoke" jokes. Come on now.
Being a fan doesn't really prevent you from acknowledging their weaknesses, but you're typically not going to be the one to point them out every occasion you get...
|
On May 12 2018 00:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 23:03 ZenithM wrote:On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. This topic is quite fascinating really. Basic math indeed brings us to the conclusion that "3s and layups" should be the name of the game (and Houston has embraced that). Yet there are surely other incentives for you to actually sometimes shoot some midrange shots (with the right personnel, volume, sets and actions). I think future analytics will help us understand when such and such midrange attempt is good for the team in a fine-grained way. What's clearly understood now is that Kobe taking a 2 pointer one step inside the arch is actually worse than Evan Turner taking a semi-open corner 3. That's still kinda mind-boggling to me as a fan of the game (not as a rational scientist fortunately :D). I'm sure it also puzzles a lot of players, when the coaching staff comes up with their gameplan. Sometimes coaches try to tell a guy to play a certain way, probably guided by analytics. Like Popovich I think originally wanted Aldridge to shoot more spot-up 3s and wayyy less long post fadeaways. But it turned out it might not be worth your player's motivation going down if they cannot play "their game". That's also something to consider. I think one of the keys as to why Houston works so well this year is that their role guys really accept the idea of standing still waiting for the ball to end up in their hands, for them to chuck up (sometimes deep) 3s. It doesn't work for everyone (looking at Melo mainly). 3s, layups, and drawing of fouls as an actual game plan. you have to remember that this understanding of the value of 3 is a modern idea. 5-6 years ago 3 was still just a shot done by 3 point specialists. but even then 3pt players like miller, stoja, rice all didnt mid long 2s as long as they were open, it was a good shot within their makeable ranger. and as you pointed out a big factor is a players game. but things are different about this now. Show nested quote +On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. like i said above, its different now. its not anymore about having a roster for it. now its developing your players to fit the model, for example dirk, ariza, embiid, cp3, and others. we may like it or not, but we are not too far away from a basketball where the first 5 are kd like players who will only spend 10 second of the shotclock and rain 3s accurately form 25-35 or flair and misdirect for an open under the rim pass. is it more fun to watch than the physical one we have now? maybe yes maybe no, but id love to see it played like this.
I disagree. That is basketball dystopia and will turn the sport into a circus freak road show.
By the way, do you work for any of the NBA teams?
|
On May 12 2018 00:18 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +And believe it or not, I am a Lebron fan. I bash him when he flops and stirs drama. I don't bash him when he performs well, on the contrary, I celebrate him. The guy is a top 3 player of all time. Obviously you're going to celebrate him when he performs well, it doesn't make you a fan, it just makes you able to objectively appreciate greatness. A fan supports the player no matter what and takes his side in about any debate. You said: Show nested quote +self-proclaimed goat candidate [...] jumps ship to join the team of the aforementioned superstar as he plays second fiddle, whined and bolted when this didn't work as planned That's about as worse as criticism goes when anti-fans talk about Lebron xD. Next up you're going to hit us with "LeChoke" jokes. Come on now. Being a fan doesn't really prevent you from acknowledging their weaknesses, but you're typically not going to be the one to point them out every occasion you get...
Can we agree to disagree on this one as well Z? I don't see point of having a prolonged discussion on you questioning me as a fan when I am actually a fan of Lebron. Maybe we have different categories or ideas of fanhood.
Edit, now that I reread your last paragraph. Maybe I am more critical of him because of the Heat and the 2nd Cavs episode. The amount of stanning in social media and real life then sickened me to death that I am now just naturally repulsed by any blind worship to him (or to any other player for that matter) as if he is the perfect basketball player immune to flaws. I hope you see where I'm coming from now.
|
On May 12 2018 00:21 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2018 00:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On May 11 2018 23:03 ZenithM wrote:On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. This topic is quite fascinating really. Basic math indeed brings us to the conclusion that "3s and layups" should be the name of the game (and Houston has embraced that). Yet there are surely other incentives for you to actually sometimes shoot some midrange shots (with the right personnel, volume, sets and actions). I think future analytics will help us understand when such and such midrange attempt is good for the team in a fine-grained way. What's clearly understood now is that Kobe taking a 2 pointer one step inside the arch is actually worse than Evan Turner taking a semi-open corner 3. That's still kinda mind-boggling to me as a fan of the game (not as a rational scientist fortunately :D). I'm sure it also puzzles a lot of players, when the coaching staff comes up with their gameplan. Sometimes coaches try to tell a guy to play a certain way, probably guided by analytics. Like Popovich I think originally wanted Aldridge to shoot more spot-up 3s and wayyy less long post fadeaways. But it turned out it might not be worth your player's motivation going down if they cannot play "their game". That's also something to consider. I think one of the keys as to why Houston works so well this year is that their role guys really accept the idea of standing still waiting for the ball to end up in their hands, for them to chuck up (sometimes deep) 3s. It doesn't work for everyone (looking at Melo mainly). 3s, layups, and drawing of fouls as an actual game plan. you have to remember that this understanding of the value of 3 is a modern idea. 5-6 years ago 3 was still just a shot done by 3 point specialists. but even then 3pt players like miller, stoja, rice all didnt mid long 2s as long as they were open, it was a good shot within their makeable ranger. and as you pointed out a big factor is a players game. but things are different about this now. On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. like i said above, its different now. its not anymore about having a roster for it. now its developing your players to fit the model, for example dirk, ariza, embiid, cp3, and others. we may like it or not, but we are not too far away from a basketball where the first 5 are kd like players who will only spend 10 second of the shotclock and rain 3s accurately form 25-35 or flair and misdirect for an open under the rim pass. is it more fun to watch than the physical one we have now? maybe yes maybe no, but id love to see it played like this. I disagree. That is basketball dystopia and will turn the sport into a circus freak road show. By the way, do you work for any of the NBA teams?
you can disagree all you want, but that is the best statistical model for a basketball game and teams are catching up on it.
|
On May 12 2018 00:28 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2018 00:21 Twinkle Toes wrote:On May 12 2018 00:15 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On May 11 2018 23:03 ZenithM wrote:On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. This topic is quite fascinating really. Basic math indeed brings us to the conclusion that "3s and layups" should be the name of the game (and Houston has embraced that). Yet there are surely other incentives for you to actually sometimes shoot some midrange shots (with the right personnel, volume, sets and actions). I think future analytics will help us understand when such and such midrange attempt is good for the team in a fine-grained way. What's clearly understood now is that Kobe taking a 2 pointer one step inside the arch is actually worse than Evan Turner taking a semi-open corner 3. That's still kinda mind-boggling to me as a fan of the game (not as a rational scientist fortunately :D). I'm sure it also puzzles a lot of players, when the coaching staff comes up with their gameplan. Sometimes coaches try to tell a guy to play a certain way, probably guided by analytics. Like Popovich I think originally wanted Aldridge to shoot more spot-up 3s and wayyy less long post fadeaways. But it turned out it might not be worth your player's motivation going down if they cannot play "their game". That's also something to consider. I think one of the keys as to why Houston works so well this year is that their role guys really accept the idea of standing still waiting for the ball to end up in their hands, for them to chuck up (sometimes deep) 3s. It doesn't work for everyone (looking at Melo mainly). 3s, layups, and drawing of fouls as an actual game plan. you have to remember that this understanding of the value of 3 is a modern idea. 5-6 years ago 3 was still just a shot done by 3 point specialists. but even then 3pt players like miller, stoja, rice all didnt mid long 2s as long as they were open, it was a good shot within their makeable ranger. and as you pointed out a big factor is a players game. but things are different about this now. On May 11 2018 15:59 BlackJack wrote:
Here's the league FG% averages by distance last season
0 - 3 ft 65.8%
3 - 10 ft 39.4%
10 - 16 ft 41.5%
16 - < 3p 40.0%
3pointer 36.2%
The 3-ball is giving teams 50% more points for a shot that they are only hitting 3-5% less than any other shot not under the rim. I'm honestly surprised more teams are not trying to emulate the "layups or 3s" strategy. Obviously not every team has a roster for it, some stars like LMA, Derozan, Kawhi, Butler, etc. seem more comfortable with the mid-range game. Also if you start taking more 3s that percentage is going to start dropping because it means you're taking more contested 3s. But just look at how much it can afford to drop. If you're shooting a 3 at 27% that's still giving your team more points than a mid-range jumper at 40%. like i said above, its different now. its not anymore about having a roster for it. now its developing your players to fit the model, for example dirk, ariza, embiid, cp3, and others. we may like it or not, but we are not too far away from a basketball where the first 5 are kd like players who will only spend 10 second of the shotclock and rain 3s accurately form 25-35 or flair and misdirect for an open under the rim pass. is it more fun to watch than the physical one we have now? maybe yes maybe no, but id love to see it played like this. I disagree. That is basketball dystopia and will turn the sport into a circus freak road show. By the way, do you work for any of the NBA teams? you can disagree all you want, but that is the best statistical model for a basketball game and teams are catching up on it.
Do you mind elaborating on this model?
|
1. 3pts, layup, freethrow
2. shooting range up to 25-35 ft
3. 4-1 spacing
4. stretch the 48min game
5. 10 sec possessions
6. draw foul as often as possible. milk the ft line like crazy
7. only real plays are oot and endgame. otherwise free flow with players spaced out maximally
8. if not 3, multiple screens and flairs to create chaos in d and free a man under the rim
|
It's a simplistic view to say that "3s and layups exclusively" is the best "statistical model" (that doesn't mean anything btw...) for a basketball game. You don't just look at the expected value of the variable "my team makes a 3" and call it a day.
What teams know is that generating 3s is better than generating long 2s, but you don't generate them by simply saying "shoot 3s and layups, guys!!!". If any team could magically instantly implement what Houston is doing they would.
The league as a whole will probably get quickly better at generating even more 3 point looks going forward, sure, but that doesn't mean everything else will be completely forgotten.
For one thing, "draw fouls like crazy" actually isn't a good gameplan. Only elite players are good at drawing fouls like you want them to (to the point of "milking the FT line"). And in the future if teams listen to you and choose to "milk the FT line" you can be sure that the league's refereeing will adjust to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
