Bonn1997 wrote:

MS wrote:Melo does have value, but he has managed to take away from everyone else's. Something for everyone that defends him to keep in mind. Shump is a big question mark with his injury, Fields unfortunately would be a great player with a good point guard and SF that doesn't insist on killing all offensive chemistry.

And what's crazy about starting stat at the five and smith at the four.

Josh Smith 18.8pts 9.6brs 3.9ass 1.4stls 1.7blks
Tyson Chandler 11.3pts 9.9rbs 0.9stls 1.4blks

Atlanta wouldn't do it, but it would allow Amare to play his best position and bring in a better scorer, shotblocker and not hurt the rebounding numbers.

The difference in scoring efficiency is gigantic. Smith gives you 7 more points but he takes ELEVEN more shots. You take 11 more shots, you should be scoring 14 more points.

Based on diminishing returns, it does not necessarily work that way.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

MS wrote:Melo does have value, but he has managed to take away from everyone else's. Something for everyone that defends him to keep in mind. Shump is a big question mark with his injury, Fields unfortunately would be a great player with a good point guard and SF that doesn't insist on killing all offensive chemistry.

And what's crazy about starting stat at the five and smith at the four.

Josh Smith 18.8pts 9.6brs 3.9ass 1.4stls 1.7blks
Tyson Chandler 11.3pts 9.9rbs 0.9stls 1.4blks

Atlanta wouldn't do it, but it would allow Amare to play his best position and bring in a better scorer, shotblocker and not hurt the rebounding numbers.

The difference in scoring efficiency is gigantic. Smith gives you 7 more points but he takes ELEVEN more shots. You take 11 more shots, you should be scoring 14 more points.

Based on diminishing returns, it does not necessarily work that way.

I have never seen any support for the diminishing returns theory but even if there were, the rate the returns diminish at could not possibly be large enough to justify only 7 more points off of eleven more shots. You could look up the ten worst players in the league who took at least 300 shots and I'm sure they all scored much better than 7 points per 11 shots.

I am not arguing for this specific player.

In general, you don't seem to take this into account and often infer that a player who is a low volume shot taker would remain at or near the same FG% and I don't think that is the case at all and believe that diminishing returns play a big roll here. Hey, lets give the ball to chandler so that he can dunk every time down the court does not really work.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

MS wrote:Melo does have value, but he has managed to take away from everyone else's. Something for everyone that defends him to keep in mind. Shump is a big question mark with his injury, Fields unfortunately would be a great player with a good point guard and SF that doesn't insist on killing all offensive chemistry.

And what's crazy about starting stat at the five and smith at the four.

Josh Smith 18.8pts 9.6brs 3.9ass 1.4stls 1.7blks
Tyson Chandler 11.3pts 9.9rbs 0.9stls 1.4blks

Atlanta wouldn't do it, but it would allow Amare to play his best position and bring in a better scorer, shotblocker and not hurt the rebounding numbers.

The difference in scoring efficiency is gigantic. Smith gives you 7 more points but he takes ELEVEN more shots. You take 11 more shots, you should be scoring 14 more points.

Based on diminishing returns, it does not necessarily work that way.

I have never seen any support for the diminishing returns theory but even if there were, the rate the returns diminish at could not possibly be large enough to justify only 7 more points off of eleven more shots. You could look up the ten worst players in the league who took at least 300 shots and I'm sure they all scored much better than 7 points per 11 shots.

I am not arguing for this specific player.

In general, you don't seem to take this into account and often infer that a player who is a low volume shot taker would remain at or near the same FG% and I don't think that is the case at all and believe that diminishing returns play a big roll here. Hey, lets give the ball to chandler so that he can dunk every time down the court does not really work.

You're correct; guilty as charged. I've never seen any evidence for your idea and have no reason to take it into account. Your idea, I believe, is based on the faulty belief that it's hard to get off a shot in the NBA and thus if you have a guy who can create a lot of shots it's OK if he hits a low percentage. All evidence I've seen is that a team will get about 80 shots a game regardless of whose playing for them. What matters is making as high a percentage as possible (meaning using those 80 shots as efficiently as possible). If one guy only takes 7 shots a game, other players will just take a few more. We saw in the 12 games Melo missed, the team didn't struggle to get good shots. With ease, every one else just took a couple more shots. That's just one example. You can look around the league. Whether a team has several, one, or no shot-creators, it will still find a way to create roughly 80 shots. In several regression analyses, the scoring efficiency of the individual players is more predictive of the team's total points than any other variable is.

When Melo was out, they were playing awful teams so that is a horrible sample size. And they had Lin making excellent plays creating easy opportunities for his teammates.

Are you saying that having a creator such as a top PG or Lebron does not create more efficient opportunities? How efficient was the team with TD running it? How good was the efficient Steve Novak at getting off shots against Miami? What is Tyson Chandler gonna do when you give him the ball? Where will you give him the ball? Can he create? Did Miami not force all their opponents into bad shots? Were they all just inefficient and playing dumb basketball? How did Paul Pierce do? Harden? Granger? ...

Don't underestimate opponents defense and the need for high volume shot takers even at a lower pct.

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

MS wrote:Melo does have value, but he has managed to take away from everyone else's. Something for everyone that defends him to keep in mind. Shump is a big question mark with his injury, Fields unfortunately would be a great player with a good point guard and SF that doesn't insist on killing all offensive chemistry.

And what's crazy about starting stat at the five and smith at the four.

Josh Smith 18.8pts 9.6brs 3.9ass 1.4stls 1.7blks
Tyson Chandler 11.3pts 9.9rbs 0.9stls 1.4blks

Atlanta wouldn't do it, but it would allow Amare to play his best position and bring in a better scorer, shotblocker and not hurt the rebounding numbers.

The difference in scoring efficiency is gigantic. Smith gives you 7 more points but he takes ELEVEN more shots. You take 11 more shots, you should be scoring 14 more points.

Based on diminishing returns, it does not necessarily work that way.

I have never seen any support for the diminishing returns theory but even if there were, the rate the returns diminish at could not possibly be large enough to justify only 7 more points off of eleven more shots. You could look up the ten worst players in the league who took at least 300 shots and I'm sure they all scored much better than 7 points per 11 shots.

I am not arguing for this specific player.

In general, you don't seem to take this into account and often infer that a player who is a low volume shot taker would remain at or near the same FG% and I don't think that is the case at all and believe that diminishing returns play a big roll here. Hey, lets give the ball to chandler so that he can dunk every time down the court does not really work.

You're correct; guilty as charged. I've never seen any evidence for your idea and have no reason to take it into account. Your idea, I believe, is based on the faulty belief that it's hard to get off a shot in the NBA and thus if you have a guy who can create a lot of shots it's OK if he hits a low percentage. All evidence I've seen is that a team will get about 80 shots a game regardless of whose playing for them. What matters is making as high a percentage as possible (meaning using those 80 shots as efficiently as possible). If one guy only takes 7 shots a game, other players will just take a few more. We saw in the 12 games Melo missed, the team didn't struggle to get good shots. With ease, every one else just took a couple more shots. That's just one example. You can look around the league. Whether a team has several, one, or no shot-creators, it will still find a way to create roughly 80 shots. In several regression analyses, the scoring efficiency of the individual players is more predictive of the team's total points than any other variable is.

When Melo was out, they were playing awful teams so that is a horrible sample size. And they had Lin making excellent plays creating easy opportunities for his teammates.

Are you saying that having a creator such as a top PG or Lebron does not create more efficient opportunities? How efficient was the team with TD running it? How good was the efficient Steve Novak at getting off shots against Miami? What is Tyson Chandler gonna do when you give him the ball? Where will you give him the ball? Can he create? Did Miami not force all their opponents into bad shots? Were they all just inefficient and playing dumb basketball? How did Paul Pierce do? Harden? Granger? ...

Don't underestimate opponents defense and the need for high volume shot takers even at a lower pct.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

MS wrote:Melo does have value, but he has managed to take away from everyone else's. Something for everyone that defends him to keep in mind. Shump is a big question mark with his injury, Fields unfortunately would be a great player with a good point guard and SF that doesn't insist on killing all offensive chemistry.

And what's crazy about starting stat at the five and smith at the four.

Josh Smith 18.8pts 9.6brs 3.9ass 1.4stls 1.7blks
Tyson Chandler 11.3pts 9.9rbs 0.9stls 1.4blks

Atlanta wouldn't do it, but it would allow Amare to play his best position and bring in a better scorer, shotblocker and not hurt the rebounding numbers.

The difference in scoring efficiency is gigantic. Smith gives you 7 more points but he takes ELEVEN more shots. You take 11 more shots, you should be scoring 14 more points.

Based on diminishing returns, it does not necessarily work that way.

I have never seen any support for the diminishing returns theory but even if there were, the rate the returns diminish at could not possibly be large enough to justify only 7 more points off of eleven more shots. You could look up the ten worst players in the league who took at least 300 shots and I'm sure they all scored much better than 7 points per 11 shots.

I am not arguing for this specific player.

In general, you don't seem to take this into account and often infer that a player who is a low volume shot taker would remain at or near the same FG% and I don't think that is the case at all and believe that diminishing returns play a big roll here. Hey, lets give the ball to chandler so that he can dunk every time down the court does not really work.

You're correct; guilty as charged. I've never seen any evidence for your idea and have no reason to take it into account. Your idea, I believe, is based on the faulty belief that it's hard to get off a shot in the NBA and thus if you have a guy who can create a lot of shots it's OK if he hits a low percentage. All evidence I've seen is that a team will get about 80 shots a game regardless of whose playing for them. What matters is making as high a percentage as possible (meaning using those 80 shots as efficiently as possible). If one guy only takes 7 shots a game, other players will just take a few more. We saw in the 12 games Melo missed, the team didn't struggle to get good shots. With ease, every one else just took a couple more shots. That's just one example. You can look around the league. Whether a team has several, one, or no shot-creators, it will still find a way to create roughly 80 shots. In several regression analyses, the scoring efficiency of the individual players is more predictive of the team's total points than any other variable is.

Well, Tyson Chandler appears to have had the third highest single season FG% in NBA history.

That being said, there's a reason for that. Bonn, I think what you said has some truth, but it misses the point. There's a reason Tyson's percentage is high: He didn't take a difficult shot all season. He only took a shot when he was open, and when he made it, it was often a dunk. mrKnicksShot is simply saying that if the team dynamics stayed exactly the same, except you wanted him to have a higher PPG, he'd have to shoot more often, which inevitably means he'd take some lower percentage shots, thus reducing his FG%. That has to be a pretty obvious result, no? If you're saying that Tyson is getting more frequent easy shots because of better ball movement, is keeping the high FG% possible? Sure, theoretically, but it's not the case for this Knicks team right now. I think that was the whole argument. Carry on.

That is obvious but irrelevant as far as I understand it. Basically you're saying that if you force a player to take shots they're not good at their efficiency will decrease. That applies to everyone. The point is there is no reason to do that. Chandler takes 11 fewer shots a game and scores 7 fewer points than Smith. Other players on our team will take those 11 additional shots - getting shots off in the NBA is not difficult - and will score far more than 7 points from those shots. To be clear, getting shots off is not difficult, but get efficient scoring opportunities is. That's why it's critical that in those 11 extra shots, Smith is scoring only 7 more points. Shot creation is not important but the efficiency of the scoring opportunities you create is. Smith takes 17 shots a game, hits 48% of his 2s, 26% of his 3s, and 63% of his FTAs. He has a good 1.6:1 assist:to ratio. He is well above average at the unimportant skill of shot creation but overall is a little below average at the more important skill of creating efficient scoring opportunities.

Getting shots off in the NBA is not difficult? Okay, but what's the rest of the Knicks team average shooting percentage? Counting Chandler, the Knicks shoot at 44%. Without him, what's it at? 42%? So Smith shooting those other 7 shots at 48% is more efficient than the current Knicks players. That's another way to look at it. Not to mention, the negative impact Chandler has on Amare's game. I think you either need to have guys who create their own shots or a team oriented game which can help get people open. I would rather have the team-oriented game, but we're not built for it right now, regardless of having Smith or not having Smith.

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Solace wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

MS wrote:Melo does have value, but he has managed to take away from everyone else's. Something for everyone that defends him to keep in mind. Shump is a big question mark with his injury, Fields unfortunately would be a great player with a good point guard and SF that doesn't insist on killing all offensive chemistry.

And what's crazy about starting stat at the five and smith at the four.

Josh Smith 18.8pts 9.6brs 3.9ass 1.4stls 1.7blks
Tyson Chandler 11.3pts 9.9rbs 0.9stls 1.4blks

Atlanta wouldn't do it, but it would allow Amare to play his best position and bring in a better scorer, shotblocker and not hurt the rebounding numbers.

The difference in scoring efficiency is gigantic. Smith gives you 7 more points but he takes ELEVEN more shots. You take 11 more shots, you should be scoring 14 more points.

Based on diminishing returns, it does not necessarily work that way.

I have never seen any support for the diminishing returns theory but even if there were, the rate the returns diminish at could not possibly be large enough to justify only 7 more points off of eleven more shots. You could look up the ten worst players in the league who took at least 300 shots and I'm sure they all scored much better than 7 points per 11 shots.

I am not arguing for this specific player.

In general, you don't seem to take this into account and often infer that a player who is a low volume shot taker would remain at or near the same FG% and I don't think that is the case at all and believe that diminishing returns play a big roll here. Hey, lets give the ball to chandler so that he can dunk every time down the court does not really work.

You're correct; guilty as charged. I've never seen any evidence for your idea and have no reason to take it into account. Your idea, I believe, is based on the faulty belief that it's hard to get off a shot in the NBA and thus if you have a guy who can create a lot of shots it's OK if he hits a low percentage. All evidence I've seen is that a team will get about 80 shots a game regardless of whose playing for them. What matters is making as high a percentage as possible (meaning using those 80 shots as efficiently as possible). If one guy only takes 7 shots a game, other players will just take a few more. We saw in the 12 games Melo missed, the team didn't struggle to get good shots. With ease, every one else just took a couple more shots. That's just one example. You can look around the league. Whether a team has several, one, or no shot-creators, it will still find a way to create roughly 80 shots. In several regression analyses, the scoring efficiency of the individual players is more predictive of the team's total points than any other variable is.

Well, Tyson Chandler appears to have had the third highest single season FG% in NBA history.

That being said, there's a reason for that. Bonn, I think what you said has some truth, but it misses the point. There's a reason Tyson's percentage is high: He didn't take a difficult shot all season. He only took a shot when he was open, and when he made it, it was often a dunk. mrKnicksShot is simply saying that if the team dynamics stayed exactly the same, except you wanted him to have a higher PPG, he'd have to shoot more often, which inevitably means he'd take some lower percentage shots, thus reducing his FG%. That has to be a pretty obvious result, no? If you're saying that Tyson is getting more frequent easy shots because of better ball movement, is keeping the high FG% possible? Sure, theoretically, but it's not the case for this Knicks team right now. I think that was the whole argument. Carry on.

That is obvious but irrelevant as far as I understand it. Basically you're saying that if you force a player to take shots they're not good at their efficiency will decrease. That applies to everyone. The point is there is no reason to do that. Chandler takes 11 fewer shots a game and scores 7 fewer points than Smith. Other players on our team will take those 11 additional shots - getting shots off in the NBA is not difficult - and will score far more than 7 points from those shots. To be clear, getting shots off is not difficult, but get efficient scoring opportunities is. That's why it's critical that in those 11 extra shots, Smith is scoring only 7 more points. Shot creation is not important but the efficiency of the scoring opportunities you create is. Smith takes 17 shots a game, hits 48% of his 2s, 26% of his 3s, and 63% of his FTAs. He has a good 1.6:1 assist:to ratio. He is well above average at the unimportant skill of shot creation but overall is a little below average at the more important skill of creating efficient scoring opportunities.

Getting shots off in the NBA is not difficult? Okay, but what's the rest of the Knicks team average shooting percentage? Counting Chandler, the Knicks shoot at 44%. Without him, what's it at? 42%? So Smith shooting those other 7 shots at 48% is more efficient than the current Knicks players. That's another way to look at it. Not to mention, the negative impact Chandler has on Amare's game. I think you either need to have guys who create their own shots or a team oriented game which can help get people open. I would rather have the team-oriented game, but we're not built for it right now, regardless of having Smith or not having Smith.