H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:TKF,

43 is beyond amazing and if he had the opportunity to get more off I am sure that he would. Trust me, he does not pass up any open 3's.

And I still don't get why you assume that Love can get up 100 more shots. Who says they are available? Some come on the break, some on pick and rolls, some on guard penetration / breakdown etc ...

I think what you are suggesting maybe is that he should play in the post more and they should run more of these sets. That all depends on offensive design put in place by the coach. A more spread out offense are what teams are being successful with.

Minny's problem is not Love but overall, their outside shooting is terrible and you can't win with awful shooting/shooters. If their shooters were better then Love would have even a higher pct from 3 since he would be more open.

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

What we can probably agree for Love (and most players) is that the mid range is the worst and lowest efficient shot in the game. They still need to be taken sometimes if that is what the defense is giving you and you need to keep them honest but offenses are pretty much being designed to eliminate these so called "sh1t shots".

ARE you telling I should then assume he shoots more threes because he can't get more shots inside? I am saying he is already taking a good amount in the paint, why not take more.. look around the league at the PF's guys like Blake griffin are getting over 700 shots there, now i know blake gets a lot of dunks but come on... those shots or attempts can be had... I have hard time belving a player like love is being FORCED to the perimeter.. and even if the defense has to adjust, then even the better for his team..

now his team does lack good shooters..but this is the type of data you use to build a team.. they need to add shooters...

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

sure there are other variables.. just like I asked should he be shooting that many threes.. do you know he is top 6 in attempts in the league...the other 5 players are guards...

my point is when I asked that question,it wasn't to say love should not take threes, or for you guys to try to give me a lesson on addition.. trust me I clearly understand the statistics... but it was to see what would be a good breaking point for love.. so just like you say you can't look at a shot chart and assume a player an get more clean looks.. we should not assume that because a player who shoots 37% from three is as good as 50% from two, he should be taking that many threes... in the end, it is whats best for the team first... right?

a 3-point shooter should always shoot in even numbers. if love shoots 6.6 he needs to consider cutting back to 6 shots or perhaps even 4 shots a game... so far as this is possible.

the last time kevin love shot over 40% from three or the only time was when he took less attempts, i think a bit over 4... right now he shoots more threes than any NON-wing man in the league.. he is 6th in the league in attempts.. for him and his team, I don't think 4 is a bad number at all..

right-- so folks need to look at how well a player shoots the three and calibrate the number of shots accordingly. just for argument's sake, i will suggest:

34%+ to 36% 2 shots from 3
36%+ to 38% 4 shots from 3
38%+ to 40% 6 shots from 3
anything over 40% a shooter should have a green light since he is likely a specialist.

the risk/reward on a 40% shooter from 3 is worth having said shooter put up anywhere from 6 shots on up. 3 for 7 is 42% and 3 for 8 is 37% but with a 40% shooter he could just as easily make 4 of 8.

I don't get it. Is there any logic to this numbers in relation to eFg?

I think players should only dunk 3.5 times a game ... really?

if a player is taking shots and hitting them at a high eFg then he should take as many of them as he can without affecting his efficiency.

A player should shoot more 2's at 50% than 3's at 57%? That does not make any sense.

Any open 3 or any open look near the basket are good shots, minimize all mid range shots.

think about it in terms of diminishing returns when a player shoots less than 40% from 3.

There is no diminishing returns.

If a player shoots 37.6 from three then he is at 57% efg. Is that good? Would you rather he take "other" shots that lower his efg?

Also, please don't discount the fact that a big who can shoot the 3 opens up the floor.

this goes back to what I said earlier... How well did Bargnani's three point shooting open up for the floor for the knicks.. and he shot what some of you consider efficient from three..I think it was 35%..

what i do find is that unless you are really accurate from three, most teams won't chase bigs off the three point line with other bigs... I guess they figure, if you shoot 50+% from the field and you want to stand out there and launch threes at 37% then go ahead.. because any smart team will continue to take their high percentage shots vs your lower percentage shots.. and believe me, when you shoot less than 40% from three there are a lot of games you are not making any threes at all... go look at kevin loves game logs...

Bargs shot 27% from three this past season. Which is horrible. Just saying.

Bargs is such a bum he'd probably have trouble opening up a can of beans at this point. Gawd watching that dude is painful.

The sad thing was teams still chased him off the 3 pt line. Also, if teams are not chasing bigs who shoot 37% or better off the 3pt line and are conceding an open shot then that is a very efficient shot. That's probably why Love is so efficient.

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:TKF,

43 is beyond amazing and if he had the opportunity to get more off I am sure that he would. Trust me, he does not pass up any open 3's.

And I still don't get why you assume that Love can get up 100 more shots. Who says they are available? Some come on the break, some on pick and rolls, some on guard penetration / breakdown etc ...

I think what you are suggesting maybe is that he should play in the post more and they should run more of these sets. That all depends on offensive design put in place by the coach. A more spread out offense are what teams are being successful with.

Minny's problem is not Love but overall, their outside shooting is terrible and you can't win with awful shooting/shooters. If their shooters were better then Love would have even a higher pct from 3 since he would be more open.

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

What we can probably agree for Love (and most players) is that the mid range is the worst and lowest efficient shot in the game. They still need to be taken sometimes if that is what the defense is giving you and you need to keep them honest but offenses are pretty much being designed to eliminate these so called "sh1t shots".

ARE you telling I should then assume he shoots more threes because he can't get more shots inside? I am saying he is already taking a good amount in the paint, why not take more.. look around the league at the PF's guys like Blake griffin are getting over 700 shots there, now i know blake gets a lot of dunks but come on... those shots or attempts can be had... I have hard time belving a player like love is being FORCED to the perimeter.. and even if the defense has to adjust, then even the better for his team..

now his team does lack good shooters..but this is the type of data you use to build a team.. they need to add shooters...

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

sure there are other variables.. just like I asked should he be shooting that many threes.. do you know he is top 6 in attempts in the league...the other 5 players are guards...

my point is when I asked that question,it wasn't to say love should not take threes, or for you guys to try to give me a lesson on addition.. trust me I clearly understand the statistics... but it was to see what would be a good breaking point for love.. so just like you say you can't look at a shot chart and assume a player an get more clean looks.. we should not assume that because a player who shoots 37% from three is as good as 50% from two, he should be taking that many threes... in the end, it is whats best for the team first... right?

a 3-point shooter should always shoot in even numbers. if love shoots 6.6 he needs to consider cutting back to 6 shots or perhaps even 4 shots a game... so far as this is possible.

the last time kevin love shot over 40% from three or the only time was when he took less attempts, i think a bit over 4... right now he shoots more threes than any NON-wing man in the league.. he is 6th in the league in attempts.. for him and his team, I don't think 4 is a bad number at all..

right-- so folks need to look at how well a player shoots the three and calibrate the number of shots accordingly. just for argument's sake, i will suggest:

34%+ to 36% 2 shots from 3
36%+ to 38% 4 shots from 3
38%+ to 40% 6 shots from 3
anything over 40% a shooter should have a green light since he is likely a specialist.

the risk/reward on a 40% shooter from 3 is worth having said shooter put up anywhere from 6 shots on up. 3 for 7 is 42% and 3 for 8 is 37% but with a 40% shooter he could just as easily make 4 of 8.

I don't get it. Is there any logic to this numbers in relation to eFg?

I think players should only dunk 3.5 times a game ... really?

if a player is taking shots and hitting them at a high eFg then he should take as many of them as he can without affecting his efficiency.

A player should shoot more 2's at 50% than 3's at 57%? That does not make any sense.

Any open 3 or any open look near the basket are good shots, minimize all mid range shots.

think about it in terms of diminishing returns when a player shoots less than 40% from 3.

There is no diminishing returns.

If a player shoots 37.6 from three then he is at 57% efg. Is that good? Would you rather he take "other" shots that lower his efg?

Also, please don't discount the fact that a big who can shoot the 3 opens up the floor.

this goes back to what I said earlier... How well did Bargnani's three point shooting open up for the floor for the knicks.. and he shot what some of you consider efficient from three..I think it was 35%..

what i do find is that unless you are really accurate from three, most teams won't chase bigs off the three point line with other bigs... I guess they figure, if you shoot 50+% from the field and you want to stand out there and launch threes at 37% then go ahead.. because any smart team will continue to take their high percentage shots vs your lower percentage shots.. and believe me, when you shoot less than 40% from three there are a lot of games you are not making any threes at all... go look at kevin loves game logs...

Bargs shot 27% from three this past season. Which is horrible. Just saying.

Bargs is such a bum he'd probably have trouble opening up a can of beans at this point. Gawd watching that dude is painful.

but we have to look at his career that is pretty much the fair way to do things.. and for his career he is a 36% 3 point shooter... but you are right he was 27% this year from three which is horrible, yet he almost attempted 3 threes a game.. yet he shot almost 50% from two point range.. makes you wonder why he even ventured behind the three point line...

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:TKF,

43 is beyond amazing and if he had the opportunity to get more off I am sure that he would. Trust me, he does not pass up any open 3's.

And I still don't get why you assume that Love can get up 100 more shots. Who says they are available? Some come on the break, some on pick and rolls, some on guard penetration / breakdown etc ...

I think what you are suggesting maybe is that he should play in the post more and they should run more of these sets. That all depends on offensive design put in place by the coach. A more spread out offense are what teams are being successful with.

Minny's problem is not Love but overall, their outside shooting is terrible and you can't win with awful shooting/shooters. If their shooters were better then Love would have even a higher pct from 3 since he would be more open.

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

What we can probably agree for Love (and most players) is that the mid range is the worst and lowest efficient shot in the game. They still need to be taken sometimes if that is what the defense is giving you and you need to keep them honest but offenses are pretty much being designed to eliminate these so called "sh1t shots".

ARE you telling I should then assume he shoots more threes because he can't get more shots inside? I am saying he is already taking a good amount in the paint, why not take more.. look around the league at the PF's guys like Blake griffin are getting over 700 shots there, now i know blake gets a lot of dunks but come on... those shots or attempts can be had... I have hard time belving a player like love is being FORCED to the perimeter.. and even if the defense has to adjust, then even the better for his team..

now his team does lack good shooters..but this is the type of data you use to build a team.. they need to add shooters...

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

sure there are other variables.. just like I asked should he be shooting that many threes.. do you know he is top 6 in attempts in the league...the other 5 players are guards...

my point is when I asked that question,it wasn't to say love should not take threes, or for you guys to try to give me a lesson on addition.. trust me I clearly understand the statistics... but it was to see what would be a good breaking point for love.. so just like you say you can't look at a shot chart and assume a player an get more clean looks.. we should not assume that because a player who shoots 37% from three is as good as 50% from two, he should be taking that many threes... in the end, it is whats best for the team first... right?

a 3-point shooter should always shoot in even numbers. if love shoots 6.6 he needs to consider cutting back to 6 shots or perhaps even 4 shots a game... so far as this is possible.

the last time kevin love shot over 40% from three or the only time was when he took less attempts, i think a bit over 4... right now he shoots more threes than any NON-wing man in the league.. he is 6th in the league in attempts.. for him and his team, I don't think 4 is a bad number at all..

right-- so folks need to look at how well a player shoots the three and calibrate the number of shots accordingly. just for argument's sake, i will suggest:

34%+ to 36% 2 shots from 3
36%+ to 38% 4 shots from 3
38%+ to 40% 6 shots from 3
anything over 40% a shooter should have a green light since he is likely a specialist.

the risk/reward on a 40% shooter from 3 is worth having said shooter put up anywhere from 6 shots on up. 3 for 7 is 42% and 3 for 8 is 37% but with a 40% shooter he could just as easily make 4 of 8.

I don't get it. Is there any logic to this numbers in relation to eFg?

I think players should only dunk 3.5 times a game ... really?

if a player is taking shots and hitting them at a high eFg then he should take as many of them as he can without affecting his efficiency.

A player should shoot more 2's at 50% than 3's at 57%? That does not make any sense.

Any open 3 or any open look near the basket are good shots, minimize all mid range shots.

think about it in terms of diminishing returns when a player shoots less than 40% from 3.

There is no diminishing returns.

If a player shoots 37.6 from three then he is at 57% efg. Is that good? Would you rather he take "other" shots that lower his efg?

Also, please don't discount the fact that a big who can shoot the 3 opens up the floor.

this goes back to what I said earlier... How well did Bargnani's three point shooting open up for the floor for the knicks.. and he shot what some of you consider efficient from three..I think it was 35%..

what i do find is that unless you are really accurate from three, most teams won't chase bigs off the three point line with other bigs... I guess they figure, if you shoot 50+% from the field and you want to stand out there and launch threes at 37% then go ahead.. because any smart team will continue to take their high percentage shots vs your lower percentage shots.. and believe me, when you shoot less than 40% from three there are a lot of games you are not making any threes at all... go look at kevin loves game logs...

Bargs shot 27% from three this past season. Which is horrible. Just saying.

Bargs is such a bum he'd probably have trouble opening up a can of beans at this point. Gawd watching that dude is painful.

but we have to look at his career that is pretty much the fair way to do things.. and for his career he is a 36% 3 point shooter... but you are right he was 27% this year from three which is horrible, yet he almost attempted 3 threes a game.. yet he shot almost 50% from two point range.. makes you wonder why he even ventured behind the three point line...

Ok but if you want to look at his career numbers he hadn't shot over 31% from three in almost 3 seasons:
2006-07 21 TOR NBA .373
2007-08 22 TOR NBA .345
2008-09 23 TOR NBA .409
2009-10 24 TOR NBA .372
2010-11 25 TOR NBA .345
2011-12 26 TOR NBA .296
2012-13 27 TOR NBA .309
2013-14 28 NYK NBA .278

Any team that's paying attention knew he wasn't the player he once was. And yeah, it does make you wonder if he shot 50% from two.

tkf wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:TKF,

43 is beyond amazing and if he had the opportunity to get more off I am sure that he would. Trust me, he does not pass up any open 3's.

And I still don't get why you assume that Love can get up 100 more shots. Who says they are available? Some come on the break, some on pick and rolls, some on guard penetration / breakdown etc ...

I think what you are suggesting maybe is that he should play in the post more and they should run more of these sets. That all depends on offensive design put in place by the coach. A more spread out offense are what teams are being successful with.

Minny's problem is not Love but overall, their outside shooting is terrible and you can't win with awful shooting/shooters. If their shooters were better then Love would have even a higher pct from 3 since he would be more open.

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

What we can probably agree for Love (and most players) is that the mid range is the worst and lowest efficient shot in the game. They still need to be taken sometimes if that is what the defense is giving you and you need to keep them honest but offenses are pretty much being designed to eliminate these so called "sh1t shots".

ARE you telling I should then assume he shoots more threes because he can't get more shots inside? I am saying he is already taking a good amount in the paint, why not take more.. look around the league at the PF's guys like Blake griffin are getting over 700 shots there, now i know blake gets a lot of dunks but come on... those shots or attempts can be had... I have hard time belving a player like love is being FORCED to the perimeter.. and even if the defense has to adjust, then even the better for his team..

now his team does lack good shooters..but this is the type of data you use to build a team.. they need to add shooters...

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

sure there are other variables.. just like I asked should he be shooting that many threes.. do you know he is top 6 in attempts in the league...the other 5 players are guards...

my point is when I asked that question,it wasn't to say love should not take threes, or for you guys to try to give me a lesson on addition.. trust me I clearly understand the statistics... but it was to see what would be a good breaking point for love.. so just like you say you can't look at a shot chart and assume a player an get more clean looks.. we should not assume that because a player who shoots 37% from three is as good as 50% from two, he should be taking that many threes... in the end, it is whats best for the team first... right?

a 3-point shooter should always shoot in even numbers. if love shoots 6.6 he needs to consider cutting back to 6 shots or perhaps even 4 shots a game... so far as this is possible.

the last time kevin love shot over 40% from three or the only time was when he took less attempts, i think a bit over 4... right now he shoots more threes than any NON-wing man in the league.. he is 6th in the league in attempts.. for him and his team, I don't think 4 is a bad number at all..

right-- so folks need to look at how well a player shoots the three and calibrate the number of shots accordingly. just for argument's sake, i will suggest:

34%+ to 36% 2 shots from 3
36%+ to 38% 4 shots from 3
38%+ to 40% 6 shots from 3
anything over 40% a shooter should have a green light since he is likely a specialist.

the risk/reward on a 40% shooter from 3 is worth having said shooter put up anywhere from 6 shots on up. 3 for 7 is 42% and 3 for 8 is 37% but with a 40% shooter he could just as easily make 4 of 8.

I don't get it. Is there any logic to this numbers in relation to eFg?

I think players should only dunk 3.5 times a game ... really?

if a player is taking shots and hitting them at a high eFg then he should take as many of them as he can without affecting his efficiency.

A player should shoot more 2's at 50% than 3's at 57%? That does not make any sense.

Any open 3 or any open look near the basket are good shots, minimize all mid range shots.

think about it in terms of diminishing returns when a player shoots less than 40% from 3.

There is no diminishing returns.

If a player shoots 37.6 from three then he is at 57% efg. Is that good? Would you rather he take "other" shots that lower his efg?

Also, please don't discount the fact that a big who can shoot the 3 opens up the floor.

this goes back to what I said earlier... How well did Bargnani's three point shooting open up for the floor for the knicks.. and he shot what some of you consider efficient from three..I think it was 35%..

what i do find is that unless you are really accurate from three, most teams won't chase bigs off the three point line with other bigs... I guess they figure, if you shoot 50+% from the field and you want to stand out there and launch threes at 37% then go ahead.. because any smart team will continue to take their high percentage shots vs your lower percentage shots.. and believe me, when you shoot less than 40% from three there are a lot of games you are not making any threes at all... go look at kevin loves game logs...

Bargs shot 27% from three this past season. Which is horrible. Just saying.

Bargs is such a bum he'd probably have trouble opening up a can of beans at this point. Gawd watching that dude is painful.

The sad thing was teams still chased him off the 3 pt line. Also, if teams are not chasing bigs who shoot 37% or better off the 3pt line and are conceding an open shot then that is a very efficient shot. That's probably why Love is so efficient.

that is an absolute myth... teams were not chasing him off the three point line...

and you just don't get it.. love was not efficient from three 37% is not efficient.. teams don't care if you hit 3.7 threes out of 10, espcially when you shoot over 50% from within the arc..

the job is to guard a player no matter where he is on the floor, but trust me, ask any team. would they rather have kevin love shooting 10 threes or 10 shots from in the paint and guess what your answer would be?

37.6 is 57% eFg. I don't know why you keep ignoring this. Of course teams would rather him take 50% 2's rather than 57% eFg (if they would like to win).

The numbers will not change.

I feel like you are intentionally ignoring the numbers that everyone is stating and has attempt to correct you.

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:TKF,

43 is beyond amazing and if he had the opportunity to get more off I am sure that he would. Trust me, he does not pass up any open 3's.

And I still don't get why you assume that Love can get up 100 more shots. Who says they are available? Some come on the break, some on pick and rolls, some on guard penetration / breakdown etc ...

I think what you are suggesting maybe is that he should play in the post more and they should run more of these sets. That all depends on offensive design put in place by the coach. A more spread out offense are what teams are being successful with.

Minny's problem is not Love but overall, their outside shooting is terrible and you can't win with awful shooting/shooters. If their shooters were better then Love would have even a higher pct from 3 since he would be more open.

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

What we can probably agree for Love (and most players) is that the mid range is the worst and lowest efficient shot in the game. They still need to be taken sometimes if that is what the defense is giving you and you need to keep them honest but offenses are pretty much being designed to eliminate these so called "sh1t shots".

ARE you telling I should then assume he shoots more threes because he can't get more shots inside? I am saying he is already taking a good amount in the paint, why not take more.. look around the league at the PF's guys like Blake griffin are getting over 700 shots there, now i know blake gets a lot of dunks but come on... those shots or attempts can be had... I have hard time belving a player like love is being FORCED to the perimeter.. and even if the defense has to adjust, then even the better for his team..

now his team does lack good shooters..but this is the type of data you use to build a team.. they need to add shooters...

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

sure there are other variables.. just like I asked should he be shooting that many threes.. do you know he is top 6 in attempts in the league...the other 5 players are guards...

my point is when I asked that question,it wasn't to say love should not take threes, or for you guys to try to give me a lesson on addition.. trust me I clearly understand the statistics... but it was to see what would be a good breaking point for love.. so just like you say you can't look at a shot chart and assume a player an get more clean looks.. we should not assume that because a player who shoots 37% from three is as good as 50% from two, he should be taking that many threes... in the end, it is whats best for the team first... right?

a 3-point shooter should always shoot in even numbers. if love shoots 6.6 he needs to consider cutting back to 6 shots or perhaps even 4 shots a game... so far as this is possible.

the last time kevin love shot over 40% from three or the only time was when he took less attempts, i think a bit over 4... right now he shoots more threes than any NON-wing man in the league.. he is 6th in the league in attempts.. for him and his team, I don't think 4 is a bad number at all..

right-- so folks need to look at how well a player shoots the three and calibrate the number of shots accordingly. just for argument's sake, i will suggest:

34%+ to 36% 2 shots from 3
36%+ to 38% 4 shots from 3
38%+ to 40% 6 shots from 3
anything over 40% a shooter should have a green light since he is likely a specialist.

the risk/reward on a 40% shooter from 3 is worth having said shooter put up anywhere from 6 shots on up. 3 for 7 is 42% and 3 for 8 is 37% but with a 40% shooter he could just as easily make 4 of 8.

I don't get it. Is there any logic to this numbers in relation to eFg?

I think players should only dunk 3.5 times a game ... really?

if a player is taking shots and hitting them at a high eFg then he should take as many of them as he can without affecting his efficiency.

A player should shoot more 2's at 50% than 3's at 57%? That does not make any sense.

Any open 3 or any open look near the basket are good shots, minimize all mid range shots.

think about it in terms of diminishing returns when a player shoots less than 40% from 3.

There is no diminishing returns.

If a player shoots 37.6 from three then he is at 57% efg. Is that good? Would you rather he take "other" shots that lower his efg?

Also, please don't discount the fact that a big who can shoot the 3 opens up the floor.

this goes back to what I said earlier... How well did Bargnani's three point shooting open up for the floor for the knicks.. and he shot what some of you consider efficient from three..I think it was 35%..

what i do find is that unless you are really accurate from three, most teams won't chase bigs off the three point line with other bigs... I guess they figure, if you shoot 50+% from the field and you want to stand out there and launch threes at 37% then go ahead.. because any smart team will continue to take their high percentage shots vs your lower percentage shots.. and believe me, when you shoot less than 40% from three there are a lot of games you are not making any threes at all... go look at kevin loves game logs...

Bargs shot 27% from three this past season. Which is horrible. Just saying.

Bargs is such a bum he'd probably have trouble opening up a can of beans at this point. Gawd watching that dude is painful.

The sad thing was teams still chased him off the 3 pt line. Also, if teams are not chasing bigs who shoot 37% or better off the 3pt line and are conceding an open shot then that is a very efficient shot. That's probably why Love is so efficient.

that is an absolute myth... teams were not chasing him off the three point line...

and you just don't get it.. love was not efficient from three 37% is not efficient.. teams don't care if you hit 3.7 threes out of 10, espcially when you shoot over 50% from within the arc..

the job is to guard a player no matter where he is on the floor, but trust me, ask any team. would they rather have kevin love shooting 10 threes or 10 shots from in the paint and guess what your answer would be?

37.6 is 57% eFg. I don't know why you keep ignoring this. Of course teams would rather him take 50% 2's rather than 57% eFg (if they would like to win).

The numbers will not change.

I feel like you are intentionally ignoring the numbers that everyone is stating and has attempt to correct you.

after all of the statistical evidence I have given you I don't know why you keep spurting the same lies.. 37% from three is not efficient.. compare apples to apples.. stop comparing threes to two's.. you do realize they have a stat for 3 point shots right? You do understand that?

Of course teams would rather him take 50% 2's rather than 57% eFg (if they would like to win).

how much winning have the wolves done because If I were the other team, for every three kevin love takes at 37% I will match that with someone else who shoots threes at 45%, tell me, who wins then?

your thinking is flawed.. compare apples to apples... there is a reason why defenses converged on guys when they get into the lane and not from behind the arc...

tkf wrote:

NYStateOfMind wrote:First, not sure why this is being so intensely debated.

Second, a math lesson, to those wondering why if he shots 50% from within the arc, why he would ever shoot 3s or defenses would care.

It is simple mathematics. If he shot 10 2 pt shots at 50%, that accounts for 10 pts. If he shot 37% from 3, as was pointed out by the main arguer, that would result in 11.1 pts. So, basically the same inside or outside the arc given those numbers in your arguments.

His numbers are probably down due to teams being more aware of him and his outside shot. Given other team scoring options, his % should improve back to his normal. Same happens to Melo when the Knicks are playing well.

Finally, go Rangers!

the problem here is we are not talking simple mathematics here.. basketball doesn't work that way.. sorry.. maybe in a skills challenge one on one contest that works.. otherwise why doesn't he take 10 threes a game,or 20 for that matter.. the question is should he be taking 7 threes a game.. a lot of evidence especially his % leads to maybe he should take less..

CrushAlot wrote:

tkf wrote:

NYStateOfMind wrote:First, not sure why this is being so intensely debated.

Second, a math lesson, to those wondering why if he shots 50% from within the arc, why he would ever shoot 3s or defenses would care.

It is simple mathematics. If he shot 10 2 pt shots at 50%, that accounts for 10 pts. If he shot 37% from 3, as was pointed out by the main arguer, that would result in 11.1 pts. So, basically the same inside or outside the arc given those numbers in your arguments.

His numbers are probably down due to teams being more aware of him and his outside shot. Given other team scoring options, his % should improve back to his normal. Same happens to Melo when the Knicks are playing well.

Finally, go Rangers!

the problem here is we are not talking simple mathematics here.. basketball doesn't work that way.. sorry.. maybe in a skills challenge one on one contest that works.. otherwise why doesn't he take 10 threes a game,or 20 for that matter.. the question is should he be taking 7 threes a game.. a lot of evidence especially his % leads to maybe he should take less..

Well three point shots are generally open shots versus contested shots. They also are usually a result of ball movement and the math NYSateofMind presents is solid. So at 37%, taking 7 threes isn't necessarily a bad strategy.

really? that depends on the player.. to me if you are generally wide open and only hit 37% that is not good at all, even worse..

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

mreinman wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

Great stuff! I will read this through.

Off the top of my head, I see that you are using 37 and 50 vs 37.6 and 50.2 as the latter will yield a larger point diff.

Also, opponents points per missed shots, how are you calculating that?

Points per missed shot is equal to Number of Rebounds off Missed Shots times the Opponents Defensive Rebounding Rate times the Opponents average points per possession. Basically for each team you might gameplan differently based in terms of three pointers and based on these data factors.

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

tkf wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

Free throw attempts per FGA is a valid data point that probably needs to be added to the equation. We would have to know what the breakdown of FTA for 2 point shots vs FTA for 3 point shots was to make the equation valid. If you ran the formula and made the assumption that K Love generates Free Throw attempts 35% of the time on 2 Point shots (his career FTA per Shot is around 45%) and generates FTA on 3 Point Shots around 5% of the time.....this would mean he would have to shoot 41% from Three in order to have the same net value as 50% from two. Of course once assumptions in data are made, the model becomes less reliable.

Type of Shot 3 Pt
Shooting %: 0.41
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.05
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 0.61
Points: 12.91
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.90
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.27
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.44
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

Type of Shot 2 Pt
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.35
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 2.85
Points: 12.85
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 9.09